Silaum silaus (L.) Schinz and Thell.—Habitat Conditions and Variation in Selected Characteristics of Populations at Different Densities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Review of the manuscript number sustainability-2868425, entitled: “A comparison of habitat conditions, population and variation of selected characteristics of Silaum silaus (L.) Schinz & Thell. within a dense range and on a dispersed site”
General comments
The reviewed article is an important study of naturally occurring meadows with rare and interesting plant species and their active protection and conservation.
The authors of this paper carried out extensive field surveys to analyse selected habitat characteristics and biometric traits of the studied species, Silaum silaus. The analyses carried out, together with information on the history and management of the study meadows, provided an insight into the conditions of the study sites and the status of the Silaum population. I lack information on the fecundity of the studied species, i.e. the number of seeds and/or fruits produced, which is a key issue for maintaining the genetic diversity of the population, the possibility of its dispersal and the creation of a soil seed bank. I think this is a subject for further studies on the selected plant.
I propose to modify the title of the work. Here is my proposal: „Silaum silaus (L.) Schinz & Thell. habitat conditions v.s. variation of selected characteristics of population at different densities of them”
The majority of annotations to be made in the manuscript relate to the presentation of the study results. Detailed annotations have been marked and included as comments in the manuscript of the paper. In my opinion, this will improve the reception and analysis of the presented research results.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I have no comments on the linguistic quality of the work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The present paper describes the plant communities of two meadows which are under environment protection of Natura 2000 and located in the different parts of Poland. As an indicator the authors characterize the endangered species Silaum silaus. The need to protect grasslands and restore them is beyond doubt for the conservation of plant biodiversity and other social aspects. The problem is well highlighted in the Introduction section.
In the section Materials and Methods the author describe two sites of south-eastern and south-western Poland, methods for study of habitat conditions, soil fertility, vegetation survey as well as methods of statistical analyses.
The Results obtained are clearly presented in the graphs and tables, the data are statistically processed. The authors have done a lot of work studying the plant communities of meadows, which is presented in the supplementary table.
The Discussion section is very detailed and shows that the authors are well informed about the research in this area
The authors compared two populations of Silaum silaus in different habitats and came to the conclusion that the most favorable conditions for this species are in the eastern Poland.
There are a few comments to the manuscript:
1) The authors gave detailed botanical characteristics of species Silaum silaus, its distribution over the world. But they did not write about its significance, perhaps for livestock, medicine, ecology.
2) The authors have concluded that “…management practices at Jaćmierz had a strong influence on the condition of specimens and the population size of Silaum silaus, which was much better preserved at this site”. But as the authors themselves have repeatedly pointed out, that two survived sites “were considerably distant from each other and characterised by different habitat conditions” So there are at least two factors influencing the population of the species, these are the management and the habitat conditions, which in this case are difficult to separate. May be the authors are right that the further research is required.
3) Line 122 – possibly it should be “eastern Poland” instead of “western”
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a very good investigation and in which case the study of an endangered species is carried out in two different habitats. It is a well-developed and well-planned work. However, it has some mistakes and others that the authors will be able to solve without problem. For example, in some figures they sometimes separate the decimals with a comma and sometimes with a period, this should be done with periods.
An error that could be serious is to confuse plasticity with elasticity as the authors establish in line 442. Plasticity is the ability of some organisms to develop into several possible phenotypes depending on the environment they face. Elasticity is another thing. In biology it is very different from what happens with a spring in physics.
​Please pay special attention to the figures. The figure 3, I can see NOT these symbols in the figure that represent the significant differences. Write (A) in the figure for height standing... and (B) for soil... instead of the name on the head of the figure. The names of the coordinate axes should be from bottom to top so it is easier to read them that way.
Line 522: obliczona, in italics?
A question: Why, being a very plastic species, is it in danger?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
No comments
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please refer to the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
L 44-51: This section is important as it has the justifications of this study, please add more information and cite more studies to have a compelling argument.
L 52-58: This section is vague, please provide specific examples.
L 178: Why only one location of 10x10 was selected. The area seems heterogeneous, more number of smaller areas would have been better and would capture more variation.
L 213: How was the variation of such a huge natural ecosystem captured with one location of 10x10. The 30 specimens could have been located far apart instead of within 10x10 m.
Figure 3: Please consider combining the x-axes of the figures, as they are common.
L 387: Please specify what you mean by ‘manner of use’
L 590-592: Is there any source that confirms better management of meadows in the south-eastern part? Also is there any study or other physiological reason to support the ‘length of basal leaf claim’?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
