Tree Species Drive the Diversity of Epiphytic Bryophytes in the Alpine Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in Tibet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
forests-2039492
Dear Editor,
A very interesting study that investigate about “Precipitation and DBH drive the diversity of epiphytic bryophytes in the alpine forest ecosystem in Tibet, China”. The research topic fits well to the scope of the journal, because it is one of the few studies investigating epiphytic bryophytes in this area. The study is generally important to determine effects of environmental and tree traits on diversity of epiphytic bryophytes. Apart from some comments below, the main problen is because the authors do not used nested statistical analysis, althought your dates had nested desing with tree nested in aspect and aspect nested in altitude?, also the authors can include diversity indices (Shannon index and Simpon index) as response variables?. On the other hand the authors used ANOVA (normal distribution) and GLM (no-normal distribution) for same response variables (richeness) it is correct?. Also, the environmetal variables (e.g. Precipitation, Temperature etc. ) had spatial resolution ca. 1km, fo this reason several trees had similar precipitation values and thus caused problems in statisticals models. The authors can organize the data analysis, results and disscusion following logical structure for example:
Alpha diversity
ANOVA, GLM or LLM
Modelo (Richenss~Altitude+Aspect+Tree specie+DBH etc.. randon=
Beta diversity
Cluster
NMDS
ANOSIM
PERMANOVA or CCA
Finally, the authors can include cites and references in journal format
Söderström, L., Hagborg, A., von Konrat, M., Bartholomew-Began, S., Bell, D., Briscoe, L., Brown, E., Cargill, D.C., Costa, 442
D.P., & Crandall-Stotler, B.J. (2016). World checklist of hornworts and liverworts. PhytoKeys, 1. 443
Song, L., Lu, H., Xu, X., Li, S., Shi, X., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Huang, J., Chen, Q., & Liu, S. (2016). Organic nitrogen uptake is a 444
significant contributor to nitrogen economy of subtropical epiphytic bryophytes. Scientific Reports, 6, 1-9.
__________________________________________________________________________
Title
Precipitation and DBH drive the diversity of epiphytic bryophytes in the alpine forest ecosystem in Tibet, China
I think, that authors should delete in Tibet, China.
Abstract
Line 18-19: Sygera Mountain is the transitional zone between semi-arid and semi-humid areas in Tibet, where many bryophytes live in a special heterogeneous environment.
In my opinion, the authors can delete this paragraph
Introduction
In my opinion, the authors can include a paragraph related with effects of altitude in bryophyte diversity
On the other hand the authors can include follow importants researches related with bryophyte diversity
Zhang, Y., He, N., & Liu, Y. (2023). Temperature factors are a primary driver of the forest bryophyte diversity and distribution in the southeast Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Forest Ecology and Management, 527, 120610.
In my opinion, this highlights could be deleted, because this highlights have not relation with main results of mansucript (general information)
Line 53-54: Different type of bryophytes (like mosses and liverworts) responds differently to temperature and precipitation.
The authors can include cites in the text for this paragraph.
Line 78-79: Tree species change rapidly along the environmental gradient, shaping the rich forest types, making Tibet an ideal zone for studying the response of epiphytic bryophytes to the climate.
The authors can include cites in the text for this paragraph.
Material and methods
Line 100-106: This region features steep mountains and a mean elevation of 3540 m. Affected by the Indian Ocean monsoon, rainfall is abundant in the summer half of the year but is much less abundant in the winter half of the year, leading to a humid and semi-humid subalpine cool climate with distinct wet and dry seasons. The moist air mass infiltrates the east aspect with a steep canyon zone. The light and heat conditions of the west aspect aremore than the east aspect, but the precipitation, relative humidity and frost-free period of the east aspect are more than the west aspect.
The authors can include cites in the text for this paragraph.
Data analysis
In my opinion, the authors do not used nested statistical analysis althought your dates had nested desing with tree nested in aspect and aspect nested in altitude?, also the authors can include diversity indices (Shannon index and Simpon index) as response variables?. On the other hand the authors used ANOVA (normal distribution) and GLM (no normal distribution) for same response variables (richeness) it is correct?. Also, the environmetal variables (e.g. Precipitation, Temperature etc. ) had spatial resolution ca. 1km, fo this reason several trees had similar precipitation values and thus caused problems in statisticals models.
On the other hand, the authors can organize the data analysis, results and disscusion following logical structure for example:
Alpha diversity
ANOVA, GLM or LMM
Model (Richenss~Altitude+Aspect+Tree specie+DBH etc.. randon=
Beta diversity
Cluster
NMDS
ANOSIM
PCA or PERMANOVA and CCA
Model (Composition~Altitude+Aspect+Tree specie+DBH etc
3. Results
In my opinion, this section should be rewritten due to my revisions related with statistical analysis
4. Discussion
Line 257-265: Floristic richness in mountain springs can be attributed to a complex interaction of environmental variables. The epiphytic bryophytes richness in the Sygera Mountains tended to increase, then decrease, and then increase along the elevation
which was related to the heterogeneity of the mountains. Temperature and vegetation
type remarkably differ along elevation gradients. The vegetation type is at the junction of
deciduous coniferous forest and broad-leaved deciduous forest at the elevation of 3500 m,
while the tree type in 4100 m is at the junction of shrub and deciduous coniferous forest.
The richness of epiphytic bryophytes in transition zones is higher than in other places.
Meanwhile, many liverworts can tolerate the low temperature with snow on 4100 m in 265
our field survey
In my opinion, this paragraph is redundant with results because do not inlcude comapration with othe studies. Thus, this section should be rewritten due to my revisions related with statistical analysis and results
5. Conclusion
In my opinion, this section should be rewritten due to my revisions in methods and results.
6. References
Finally, the authors should include all journals on similar format following authors guide??. This section is very important before submit article???.
Söderström, L., Hagborg, A., von Konrat, M., Bartholomew-Began, S., Bell, D., Briscoe, L., Brown, E., Cargill, D.C., Costa, 442
D.P., & Crandall-Stotler, B.J. (2016). World checklist of hornworts and liverworts. PhytoKeys, 1. 443
Song, L., Lu, H., Xu, X., Li, S., Shi, X., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Huang, J., Chen, Q., & Liu, S. (2016). Organic nitrogen uptake is a 444
significant contributor to nitrogen economy of subtropical epiphytic bryophytes. Scientific Reports, 6, 1-9.
Yours sincerely,
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On behalf of all co-authors, we appreciate you very much for the positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. So, we did reprocessed the relevant data and discussed each comments and suggestions, and revised the manuscript, including figures, tables, paragraphs, and sentences, etc.. Please see the attachment. We hope you find the revised manuscript satisfactory. To convenience you, we marked in red for the modified of the manuscript. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I think it would be useful to add a map of the research locality. Also, I would appreciate a list of the bryophytes that were found. I know they are in the spreadsheet, but it would be helpful to have them in a more accessible table. Do you have any guesses as to why you have no epiphytic anthocerotes?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On behalf of all co-authors, we appreciate you very much for the positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. So, we did reprocessed the relevant data and discussed each comments and suggestions, and revised the manuscript, including figures, tables, paragraphs, and sentences, etc.. Please see the attachment. We hope you find the revised manuscript satisfactory. To convenience you, we marked in red for the modified of the manuscript. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is a properly prepared research report. However, it discusses quite obvious problems, and its originality is evidenced mainly by the unique features of the area covered by the research. A very diverse, mosaic-like area of research provides very interesting results, but it is very difficult to obtain universal conclusions on that basis, which may have a direct impact on other areas. In addition, the authors focused primarily on the quantitative rather than qualitative aspect. In this sense, it limits the application significance of the obtained results. However, the overall assessment of the work is positive. Below are some comments and questions that come to mind after reading the text. It seems that supplementing the text with these suggestions may improve the final version of the work.
Detailed notes:
1. From the point of view of the potential reader, a map of the area with marked research plots would be a good supplement to the work.
2. The authors analyzed several environmental variables, including bark roughness. The range of possible known environmental variables is, of course, much larger than the ones analyzed, so arguments for the choice of specific variables should be provided.
3. Lines 144-145. Were the described chemical analyzes carried out exactly with the original procedure, or did the authors use some modifications?
4. Lines 142-144. It is not clear how the content of phosphorus and potassium was determined (?)
5. The figures, and especially their descriptions, are very blurry and unreadable. I assume that they will be corrected at the stage of further editorial procedure.
6. Lines 193-194. The authors write “extensive sampling efforts were conducted in this study, and the species accumulation curve approached a plateau, whitch means we have enough samples. (FIGURE S1)”. - However, the figure cited by the authors is not convincing. Please also note the highlighted errors.
7. Line 201. The authors write “richness of epiphytic bryophytes on Picea likiangensis was the highest (FIGURE 2G)”. - The figure does not show it (?).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On behalf of all co-authors, we appreciate you very much for the positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. So, we did reprocessed the relevant data and discussed each comments and suggestions, and revised the manuscript, including figures, tables, paragraphs, and sentences, etc.. Please see the attachment. We hope you find the revised manuscript satisfactory. To convenience you, we marked in red for the modified of the manuscript. Thank you again for your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
forests-2039492
Dear Editor,
The manuscript entitled “Tree species drive the diversity of epiphytic bryophytes in the alpine forest ecosystem in Tibet”. has been considerable improvement. Generally I support the publication of the mansucript after following changes:
The authors used “The Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)” in methods, however in results included The canonical axes of RDA (Redundancy analysis)?? explained 53.59% of the total variance.
Changed “terretrial” by “epiphytic”, in following paragraph: Our investigations show the rich epiphytic bryophyte diversity in Sygera Mountain
On the other hand, the authors can include references in journal format (see year)
Yours sincerely,
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
