Dear Editor-in-Chief
Subodh Bhatnagar,
Vegetos
Please find our revised manuscript entitled “Diversity indices of lichen species along the
elevation gradient from District Tehri Garhwal of Uttarakhand” (now revised title as
indicated by reviewer “Species Richness and community dynamics of lichens across
elevational gradients in district Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand”) with submission ID VTOS-D-
24-00625. We appreciate the opportunity you gave us to revise the manuscript. We are grateful
for the insightful and constructive feedback of the editorial team and reviewers, which has
significantly enhanced the quality of our work. We have sincerely addressed all the comments
and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Each comment has been considered and effectively
incorporated into the revised manuscript. To facilitate the review process, we have highlighted
the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments in red in the original text. We believe
that the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and addressed all the reviewers'
concerns. We hope that the revised version meets the standards of the “Vegetos”. We are looking
forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Nitesh Kumar
Reviewer #1.
Comment 1: The study addresses an interesting and underexplored aspect of lichen community
research in the Himalayas. However, significant revisions are needed. The introduction does not
effectively set up the research background, and key lichen-elevational distribution studies by
native lichenologists should be cited to strengthen the context.
Response: We thank the author for addressing the issue. Significant revisions have been made as
suggested by the reviewers. We have addressed the issue in the revised manuscript, setting the
research background of the study. We have changed the introduction (Line no. 30-54) of the
revised manuscript and also have added key lichen-elevational distribution studies by native
lichenologists (Rai et al., 2015; Nanda et al., 2021).
Comment 2. The rationale for the study design needs to be clearer. The methodology contradicts
the cited protocol, with discrepancies in sampling size compared to the standards set by Nimis
and Wolseley (2002). The authors should ensure familiarity with the species-area curve concept,
as a 10x10 meter quadrat is not suitable for lichens. Resampling using the narrow frequency
grid from the Nimis and Wolseley protocol is recommended.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback. We have updated the material and
methods section to include detailed information on how the collection was done. We have
followed the the standards set by Nimis and Wolseley (2002) as metioned in lines (77-92; 101-
105).
Comment 3. The RTU approach should be used for taxonomic identification, given the colonial
nature of lichens. The data presented do not show typical growth-form distribution patterns,
indicating potential issues with collection or analysis methods. A more exhaustive collection and
adherence to a rationalized protocol are needed.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their valuable insight. We have addressed this issue in the
revised manuscript. The revised methodology incorporates the RTU approach for taxonomic
identification, effectively addressing the colonial nature of lichens. The refined collection
strategy ensures adherence to a rationalized protocol, including comprehensive sampling across
habitats and elevational gradients, as well as the use of a narrow frequency grid to capture
growth-form distribution patterns accurately. Preliminary data now demonstrate clearer and more
consistent growth-form distribution trends, highlighting the ecological responses of lichen
communities. These improvements not only validate the robustness of the updated protocol but
also provide a solid foundation for further ecological analysis and interpretation (Lines 77-92).
Comment 4. Diversity indices may not be suitable for this type of study; instead, a simple
percentage quadrat frequency of RTUs is recommended. Generalized Additive Modeling (GAM)
using growth forms and habitat subsets would provide more ecological insight.
Response: We thank you for your detailed review and constructive feedback regarding the
statistical analysis in our manuscript. In the revised manuscript we have added Generalized
Additive Modeling (GAM) using growth form and habitat subsets. These changes are mentioned
in (Fig. 2, line number: 127-129; Table 4, line number 131-138).We have also added Species
richness curve with elevation (Fig. 3, line number: 145, 144-146, 148-162) as we think that this
data is important in these studies. Due to the suggested change in methodology and data analysis
their have also been changes in Title (Line 1-2) abstract (line number 10, 11-23), results (Fig 4,
line 166; table 6, line 167; Fig 5, line 170; Table 7, line 171; line number: 173-180, 182-185,
187-189; Fig 6, line 191) and discussion parts(line number: 195-212;218-229).
Comment 5. The manuscript should be revised with these points in mind, ensuring a clearer
scientific rationale and robust methodology before resubmission.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the insightful feedback of the reviewer, which has been
crucial in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have undertaken a comprehensive
revision of the manuscript. We have revised the entire manuscript to improve clarity, consistency,
and accuracy. This includes using correct methodology, changing the language of the manuscript
throughout. We have also analysed the data with new approach which will improve the
applicability of the study. The statistical analysis results have been verified and revised where
necessary to provide clear and reliable information. These extensive revisions have been made to
enhance the manuscript's suitability for publication. All changes have been highlighted in red for
your review.
Comment #10. The manuscript would benefit from a clearer scientific rationale for the research
hypothesis, along with more detailed descriptions of the materials, methods, and data analysis.
Revisiting the study with these improvements will enhance the quality of the work. Addressing
these points and refining the manuscript will strengthen its contribution to the field, making it
suitable for resubmission.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and constructive
suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to include a clearer and more robust scientific
rationale for the research hypothesis, providing greater context for the study. Additionally, we
have enhanced the descriptions of the materials, methods, and data analysis, ensuring that all
aspects of the study are presented in sufficient detail. These refinements aim to improve the
clarity and quality of the manuscript, aligning it with the standards required for meaningful
contribution to the field. We believe the updated version addresses the reviewer's concerns and
strengthens the manuscript for resubmission. Thank you for your insights.
Following are our responses to the observations by Reviewer 1
Observation 1# The manuscript addresses an important aspect of lichen community distribution
in the Himalayas.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback.
Observation 2# The lichen samples were identified and authenticated by a prominent research
centre for lichen studies in Southeast Asia, as evidenced by the taxa list. The authors have
successfully identified some challenging microlichen taxa from the region.
Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's recognition of the effort put into identifying
and authenticating the lichen samples. The samples were meticulously identified and verified in
the Lichenology Lab, CSIR NBRI This process enabled us to successfully classify several
challenging microlichen taxa from the region, ensuring the scientific robustness and accuracy of
our findings.
Observation 3# The sampling protocol described is misleading, as the authors did not use the
standardized quadrat size (five 10 x 10 cm quadrats laid in a row on the substrate, forming a 10
x 50 cm narrow frequency grid) as cited by the referenced authors.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. In
response, we have revised the materials and methods section to provide detailed information on
the collection process. Additionally, we have ensured that the methodology aligns with the
standards outlined by Nimis and Wolseley (2002), as described in lines 82-97, to enhance the
rigor and replicability of our study.
Observation 4# The data does not accurately represent the elevation gradient, as the lichen
community does not exhibit the typical growth-form distribution. This distribution is generally
characterized by a significant increase in fruticose and dimorphic forms and a higher prevalence
of cyanolichens at moderate to higher elevations. This suggests that the collection was
superficial and requires a more thorough collection approach.
Response: We thank the reviewers for their insightful and valuable comment. We recognize the
importance of accurately representing elevation gradients and lichen community dynamics. We
would like to clarify that the initial data presented in this paper was not exhaustive and did not
fully capture the diversity across all elevational zones. Since then, we have completed a more
comprehensive field survey, expanded our collection efforts, and thoroughly identified additional
lichen samples, particularly from higher altitudinal areas. As a result, the revised data, as
presented in Table 3, now provides a more accurate representation of lichen diversity and
growth-form distribution. Following the reviewers’ suggestion, the updated results indicate a
significant increase in cyanolichens at moderate to higher elevations, reflecting the rigorous
collection approach adopted for the newly surveyed sites. We sincerely thank the reviewers for
bringing this important issue to our attention, which has substantially improved the robustness
and ecological validity of our findings.
Observation 5# Additionally, the use of diversity indices for colony-forming gregarious
organisms, such as fungi, lichens, and bryophytes, is not appropriate. The authors should use the
Recognizable Taxonomic Unit (RTU) approach to better establish the taxonomic distinctiveness
within the study.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable insight and have addressed this concern in the
revised manuscript. The updated methodology now incorporates the RTU approach for
taxonomic identification, which effectively accounts for the colonial nature of lichens.
Additionally, the revised collection strategy ensures adherence to a systematic protocol, featuring
comprehensive sampling across various habitats and elevational gradients. The implementation
of a narrow frequency grid further enhances the accuracy of capturing growth-form distribution
patterns.
Observation 6# In light of the above points, the manuscript requires major revisions in both
sampling and data analysis to be considered for acceptance.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their detailed feedback and acknowledge the need for
significant improvements in sampling and data analysis. We have thoroughly revised the
manuscript, addressing the issues raised by updating the sampling methodology to ensure
comprehensive coverage of habitats and elevational gradients. Additionally, we have refined the
data analysis by incorporating the RTU approach and implementing rigorous statistical
techniques such as GAM to better capture the ecological patterns and trends. These revisions
have strengthened the scientific validity and robustness of the study, and we believe the
manuscript now meets the standards for consideration. Thank you for your constructive insights,
which have greatly improved the quality of our work.
Reviewer #3:
Comment 1#: This paper is well-written and sheds light on an often-overlooked group, lichens.
While the study is commendable, I encourage the authors to further refine the manuscript for
enhanced clarity, coherence, and overall impact.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback and appreciation of our study. We
hope that our findings contribute valuable insights to the field. As suggested, we have made
major revisions throughout our manuscript for enhanced clarity, coherence, and overall impact.
Comment 2# P2, L28: Briefly explain why it is necessary to assess diversity indices.
Response: We thank the author for their for the valuable suggestions. Due to change in use of
RTU approach and its necessity we have now defined importance of RTU (line number 45-47)
instead of diversity indices.
Comment 3# P2, L59: Avoid using the term "Recently."
Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment, we have removed the term as mentioned.
Comment 4# P3, L17: Specify what the three biomes are.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their valuable comment. We understand that not
mentioning the three biomes may cause confusion and thus mentioned them in (line number 49).
The text has been highlighted in yellow and written in red in the introduction.
Comment 5# P3, L43-47: This section is unclear; consider rephrasing for clarity.
Response: In response to the reviewer’s comment we have rechecked the data, rephrased and
added the correct data (Line 64).
Comment 6# P6, L23-27: Rewrite this section to improve clarity and flow.
Response: We thank the author for their insightful comment. We have rewritten the section and
added rephrased the section (lines 81-92).
Comment 7# P6, L27: Justify the use of a 10x10 m quadrat and provide an appropriate
reference.
Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To address your concern, we have revised the
methodology to provide a more comprehensive explanation for the use of a 10x10 m quadrat.
This scale was chosen to ensure sufficient representation of lichen diversity across the various
habitats present in each elevational gradient. Additionally, the 10x10 m quadrat was further
subdivided into smaller subplots to facilitate detailed sampling, aligning with the narrow grid
protocol outlined by Nimis et al. (2002). These updates, along with detailed collection
procedures, have been incorporated into the materials and methods section line number (77-92).
Comment 8# P6, L44: Cite the software PAST 4.03 appropriately.
Response: In response to the reviewer’s comment we would like to mention that all the data
analysis has been done with RStudio (Version 2024.09.1 Build 394) as mentioned in line 106.
Comment 9# P10: It would be better to assign 1 for presence and 0 for absence in the data.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. We have assigned the values as
mentioned in the comment(line 122-123).
Comment 10# P10, L56-58: Avoid unnecessary italics.
Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out these grammatical errors and mistakes. We
have changed the lines as mentioned (Line 181).
Comment 11# Table 2: Double-check the lichen names for accuracy and ensure proper citation
of their authors.
Response: We thank the authors for their insightful comment. We have double checked the
lichen species name, replaced them with updated species name, from lichen database
indexfungorum (https://indexfungorum.org) and added them in Table 3. We have also added
around 19 lichen species names in the same table which have also been highlighted in red.
Comment 12# P13, L7-16: Move this section from the Discussion to the Results section.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have made the change as suggested by
the reviewer. We think that the addition of this part to results section would help in better
readability of the results section (line numbers 172-177).
Comment 13# P13, Fig. 3: The figure is not compelling; consider presenting it with horizontal
bars for better visualization.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. As the figure represented all the species
of lichens mentioned in the study, and the species have now increased to 88 the figure seemed
quite cluttered. We have removed the figure from the revised manuscript as we feel that
mentioning all the species names in the Table 3 better aligns with the content of the manuscript.
Comment 14# P14, L14-32: Rewrite this paragraph and incorporate relevant references to
strengthen it.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. The mentioned lines needed references to
strengthen their basis. As we have found the suitable data for such tree species as mentioned in
our data, we have added the relevant reference to it as shown in line (lines 224-227).
Comment 15# P14, L46-49: Provide possible reasons for the observations described.
Response: We thank the reviewer for their comment. As we have changed the methodology
used, we have removed the mentioned lines as they are not relevant to our manuscript now.
Comment 16# Fig. 6: Label each image with the respective numbers or alphabets for clarity.
Response: In response to the reviewers' comments, we have labeled the images using lowercase
alphabets for clarity and consistency. (Lines 270-274).
Comment 17# Conclusion: Completely rewrite the conclusion, focusing on your scientific and
ecological findings. Avoid making it sound like a social commentary.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. In response, we have
carefully revised the conclusion to align with the reviewer’s suggestion. The new conclusion
highlights the core scientific and ecological findings derived from our study, ensuring that it
remains focused on the research outcomes and their implications. The revised conclusion, now
presented in lines 277-284, eliminates any social commentary and emphasizes the key
contributions of our work to understanding lichen diversity and species richness across
elevational gradients. We believe this refinement strengthens the overall impact and clarity of our
manuscript.
