Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Apr 30;16(4):e0250879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250879

Demographic analysis of an Israeli Carpobrotus population

Ana Bogdan 1,*, Sam C Levin 2,3, Roberto Salguero-Gómez 4, Tiffany M Knight 2,3,5
Editor: Mirko Di Febbraro6
PMCID: PMC8087044  PMID: 33930061

Abstract

Carpobrotus species are harmful invaders to coastal areas throughout the world, particularly in Mediterranean habitats. Demographic models are ideally suited to identify and understand population processes and stages in the life cycle of the species that could be most effectively targeted with management. However, parameterizing these models has been limited by the difficulty in accessing the cliff-side locations where its populations are typically found, as well as accurately measuring the growth and spread of individuals, which form large, dense mats. This study uses small unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to collect demographic data and parameterize an Integral Projection Model of an Israeli Carpobrotus population. We validated our data set with ground targets of known size. Through the analysis of asymptotic growth rates and population sensitivities and elasticities, we demonstrate that the population at the study site is demographically stable, and that reducing the survival and growth of the largest individuals would have the greatest effect on reducing overall population growth rate. Our results provide a first evaluation of the demography of Carpobrotus, a species of conservation and economic concern, and provide the first structured population model of a representative of the Aizoaceae family, thus contributing to our global knowledge on plant population dynamics. In addition, we demonstrate the advantages of using drones for collecting demographic data in understudied habitats such as coastal ecosystems.

Introduction

Non-native invasive species are widely recognized as a major threat to native biodiversity, ecosystem function, and economic interests at a global scale [1,2]. Coastal ecosystems in particular provide vital ecosystem services and are threatened by biological invasions. Ecosystem services of coastal ecosystems include acting as a buffer against coastal hazards (wind erosion, tidal inundation during storm or hurricanes and wave overtopping), providing habitat for endemic plants and animals [3,4], and enabling recovery after a storm through succession processes [5]. Coastal ecosystems are prone to biological invasions, most notably by Carpobrotus spp., Lampranthus spp., Opuntia spp., Malephora crocea and Mesembrianthemum cristallinum [6,7].

The succulent/subshrub species of the Carpobrotus N. Br. (Aizoaceae) genus are particularly problematic as they are “transformers” of sensitive coastal habitats. Most Carpobrotus species are native to the Cape region of South Africa, and some notorious species (e.g., Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br., Carpobrotus acinaciformis (L.) L.Bolus) are now naturalized in Mediterranean climate regions on all continents except Antarctica [8]. Carpobrotus species decrease native plant and animal diversity in the places they invade [813]. Carpobrotus individuals compete directly with native plants for space, water, and nutrients [14,15], and indirectly by changing the soil pH [9], salt content, moisture level, nutrient content and microbial activity [8]. Carpobrotus litter disrupts natural soil nutrient cycles, increasing nitrogen and organic matter content and releasing allelochemicals that hinder seed germination, seedling emergence and root growth of some native plants [1618]. Carpobrotus populations form mats that prevent sand movement and disrupt normal dune processes of disturbance and succession [9,19,20].

Carpobrotus disruptions to biotic and abiotic processes can hinder management efforts as they can persist for years after the invasion has been eradicated [21,22]. However, several restoration projects have successfully eradicated or reduced Carpobrutus populations and restored native plant and animal communities using either manual or chemical removal methods [13,2325]. In Europe, conservation areas have dedicated ~1,000,000 EUR/year to controlling Carpobrotus invasions [8,2628].

Structured population models (e.g., matrix population models [29], integral projection models [30]) of invasive plants provide a tool for generating comprehensive fitness estimates and identifying sensitive vital rates (e.g. survival, growth) to target with management [29,3135]. Most research on Carpobrotus has focused on a determining its effects on other species in their ecological communities and on quantifying individual vital rates and their vulnerability to various management strategies [17,3638]. To date, no studies have conducted a comprehensive demographic analysis of any species in the Carpobrotus genus. In addition, to our knowledge, stage-structured demographic studies on any member of the Aizoaceae family are non-existent, and most of the information we have on the population dynamics of succulents comes from the Cactaceae family [39].

While demography is a data-hungry and time-consuming enterprise in any habitat [40], demographic data are particularly challenging to collect in coastal populations, which can occur on inaccessible terrain, such as coastal bluffs [41]. Only a few prior studies have managed to quantify demographic variables safely and precisely in such challenging environments (e.g., by freehand climbing or by targeting individual plants that can be reached without climbing equipment [4244]). The challenge of difficult terrain can be overcome by using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), a rather recent technological advance in ecological monitoring studies [4550]. UAVs allow sampling of coastal bluffs, which can otherwise be difficult and dangerous to reach [49,51]. UAVs provide high resolution imaging [46,48,49,52], and require little space for landing/take-off and minimal piloting expertise [46,47,51]. In addition, data collected from UAVs have been shown to be less error-prone than those collected directly by humans [53].

Here, we quantify the demography of a Carpobrotus population using small UAVs to collect data and construct IPMs. We project the asymptotic population growth rate (λ) and calculate sensitivities and elasticities of λ to determine which vital rates (survival, growth, and reproductive success as both flowering probability and number of flowers) have the greatest effect on population growth rate if altered by management. We found that the size of Carpobrotus individuals predict its vital rates and that its demography is typical of a long-lived polycarpic plant. We demonstrate that drones allow for collection of demographic data in previously inaccessible locations, thus showing their great promise for filling global research gaps. We discuss the consequences of our results for future Carpobrotus control actions and emphasize the need to target survival and growth of large plants.

Methods

Study site and genus

The study was conducted between April 2018 and April 2019 on a cliff top and cliff side overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, just north of Havatselet Ha’Sharon in Israel (32.364030 N, 34.857800 E, approx. elevation 25 m a.s.l., Fig 1). The area (hereby termed Havatselet) is characterized by heavy recreational use and is occasionally subject to small landslides from the cliff top down to the beach at the bottom. Carpobrotus is widespread in gardens in the surrounding area, and it is likely that this population escaped cultivation and established itself. We could not find any information on the age of invasion, but the size and consistent spatial distribution of the individuals suggests that it is a mature population.

Fig 1. Study site and Carpobrotus spp. ramets.

Fig 1

A close-up picture of the Carpobrotus spp. present at the Havatselet field site (a), a wider angle shot of part of the field site (b), polygons overlaid on a Carpobrotus spp. individual after orthomosaicing, as well as a point layer used to count flowers (c), and a single nadir image from the drone–generating the orthomosiac required calibrating 1695 and 1021 nadir images for 2018 and 2019, respectively (d).

Without genetic analysis, we were unable to determine exactly which species we worked with at Havatselet, but based on reports of species presence in Israel [20,54] it is safe to assume that most probably the species were Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br., Carpobrotus acinaciformis (L.) L.Bolus, and Carpobrotus chilensis (Molina) N.E.Br., together with their hybrids, these being also the most problematic Carpobrotus species [16,55,56]. Hybrid Carpobrotus spp. can have unique behaviors in their invaded range, as hybridization can contribute to evolutionary changes in the dynamics of invasion [57]. Thus, our results may not apply to hybrids on other continents.

Data collection

We developed a flight plan to map the population using DJI Ground Station Pro v2 (SZ DJI Technology Co.) for iPad (Apple Inc). This application allows users to generate polygons over areas of interest and computes optimal flight paths for surveying given a desired set of photo overlap, map resolution, and cameras on the drone itself. We selected a flight path that generated a resolution of ~0.35cm/pixel with ~85% side and front photo overlap, with the camera pointed 90 degrees downward (i.e. nadir imagery). The average width of open flowers is 7.22 cm (standard error: 0.042 cm) and unripe fruits was 2.2 cm (standard error: 0.014 cm) at the Havatselet population (SC Levin, unpublished data), so this resolution is sufficient to allow us to mark the majority of both in the resulting maps (orthomosaics, see below for more details). DJI Ground Station Pro only offers an option to fly at a specific altitude above the takeoff point, rather than keeping a fixed altitude over the terrain. Thus, the flight was conducted by hand so that we could maintain a consistent altitude over the variable terrain. Transects were flown with a DJI Phantom 4 Pro v1 (SZ DJI Technology Co.) along the lines of the flight plan generated by DJI GSP and images were recorded at 1.8 – 2m intervals. When batteries reached a critical level of power (i.e. 20%), we landed the drone, switched the batteries out, and the flight was resumed from the last stopping point. The estimated area covered was 2.063 hectares. The mission took approximately 1 h 40 min from 12:50 PM to 2.30 PM and five battery charges were necessary.

Image processing and data extraction

Once all images were captured in 2018, individual photos were processed into a single composite, georeferenced orthomosaic map using Pix4Dmapper (Pix4D S.A., Switzerland). We drew individual polygons around contiguous sections of Carpobrotus plants (hereafter referred to as ramets), assigned each a unique ID number, and counted flowers using a point layer in QGIS 3.4.1 [58]. We repeated the process in 2019 by overlaying the 2019 map on the 2018 map and marking polygons for all surviving ramets as well as new recruits also in QGIS. Individual ramets that were not found again in 2019 were assumed dead. Maps were aligned between April 2018 and 2019 using the Georeferencer GDAL plugin (GDAL/OGR contributors 2020) in QGIS because the georeferencing of the orthomosaics was only accurate to ~5m. This plugin allows users to manually find and mark common points on both images and set them as reference points for transformation between the old coordinate system (map coordinates in 2019) and the new coordinate system (map coordinates in 2018). Pix4D generated multiple blocks of images during the orthomosaic optimization step in 2018, but not 2019, resulting in slight warping of the final image in 2018. We used the thin plate splines transformation for the coordinate systems and nearest neighbor resampling method. The reference points are available in the supplementary materials. In addition to drawing polygons around the individual ramets, we drew polygons around targets of known sizes and computed the ratio of calculated areas under the polygon vs the known sizes. We then re-scaled all computed ramet sizes using this ratio. Based on the ground truthing procedure, ramet sizes were underestimated by ~12% using the polygons from QGIS. Thus, all measures of size were re-computed before log transformation. The technique of overlaying maps from subsequent years adequately captured populations at resolutions high enough to identify ramets and flowers (data in S1 File). We identified 276 distinct ramets in 2018, re-found 233 in 2019, and were able to mark 10 new ramets in 2019. Georeferencing accuracy varied throughout the orthomosaic due to the blocks generated in 2018, but was never off by more than 4 m, and we are confident that we correctly identified each ramet in 2019 as either existing or new.

Demographic modelling

To model vital rates, we considered how an individual’s size (z) influences its survival, growth, and reproduction. We constructed a series of progressively more complicated generalized linear models for survival (s(z)) and growth to size z’ conditional on survival (g(z’,z)) using an intercept only, log-transformed surface area, and a 2nd-order polynomial of log-transformed surface area as an explanatory variable. Additionally, we fit generalized additive models with 8 knots and 6 knots for survival and growth, respectively, to determine graphically how well each model captured the mean trend [59]. The probability of reproducing (pr(z)), and flower production (rs(z)) had two competing models–the intercept-only, and the log-transformed surface area as fixed effects. The most parsimonious models for each vital rate were selected using AIC. Analysis of the residuals of the growth model showed a gradually declining variance as size increased, and so we fit a model where variance decreased exponentially with increasing size. As this model had a substantially lower AIC score than any other candidate model, we used it to predict both the mean and variance of the growth distribution. The growth model assumed errors followed a Gaussian distribution. Survival and probability of reproduction models were fit using binomial error distributions. The flower production model was first fit with a Poisson family, but analysis of the deviance showed overdispersion. Thus, we re-fit it with a quasi-Poisson to avoid underestimating standard errors for each coefficient. Results for the model fitting are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Estimated regression coefficients of vital rates and their 95% confidence intervals.

Vital rate Parameter Estimated Lower CIa Upper CIb Sample Size
Pr (Survival) β0,s 2.790 2.285 3.521 276
β1,s 0.731 0.512 1.018
Growth β0,g 0.016 -0.063 0.089 233
β1,g 0.898 0.848 0.948
βσg -0.175 -0.250 -0.095
Pr (Flowering) β0,pr 1.021 0.644 1.461 276
β1,pr 1.103 0.840 1.443
# of flowers β0,rs 1.664 1.496 1.808 134
β1,rs 0.753 0.640 0.859
Recruit Size Distribution μrd -3.103 -3.690 -2.521 10
σrd 1.064 0.515 1.387 10
Per-capita growth rate λ 0.98 0.938 1

a,bConfidence intervals were obtained by bootstrapping the data set 1000 times and re-fitting the model. Sample size indicates the number of ramets used in parameter estimation.

In addition to the regression models, we used our data to determine the size distribution of new recruits (rd(z’)) and the number of new recruits in 2019 per flower produced in 2018 (rr). The recruit size distribution was modelled using a truncated normal distribution, and the rate at which flowers produced new ramets was modeled by dividing the number of new recruits in 2019 by the total number of flowers produced in 2018. Carpobrotus flowers take over a year to become mature fruits, and thus new recruits found in 2019 are the result of flowers produced prior to 2018. The most parsimonious model for rr with our data considers flower production to be time invariant (i.e. the total number of flowers produced by the population is similar from year to year). We performed a regression parameter-based perturbation analysis to investigate how flower number variation affected our results [35]. We treated each parameter value in the flower number regression model as a Gaussian random variable and drew 1000 estimates from the distributions for each implied by the model estimation procedure. We then used parameter draw values for each parameter to rebuild the model 1000 times and computed the per-capita growth rate again. The per-capita growth rate for the population is not very sensitive to these perturbations (S1 Fig), and so we feel comfortable that the underlying assumption did not substantially affect our results.

Integral projection modelling and analysis

We combined the vital rate functions using an IPM [30,35] to estimate the population’s asymptotic behavior. IPMs are similar to matrix projection models (MPMs; [29]) but allow for ramets to be classified by a mixture of discrete and continuous state variables, rather than discrete variables only as in MPMs. These models take the following general form:

n(z,t+1)=LUK(z,z)n(z,t)dz

In this equation, n(z’, t + 1) is a function describing the size structure of the population at time t + 1, z’ is the state variable used to describe the population, and the integral of the expression over the domain of z’ is the total population size. L is the lower limit of this domain, and U is the upper limit. K(z’,z) is a bivariate kernel function that describes transitions to state z’ given an individual’s initial state, z, at time t. For this model, log-transformed surface area of ramets is the state variable z. K(z’,z) is typically comprised of two or three sub-kernels that describe growth of existing ramets conditional on survival (P), sexual reproduction (F), and asexual reproduction (C). These sub-kernels are themselves comprised of functions describing the vital rates that contribute to them, and the functions are parameterized by the regression models described above. Because of Caprobrotus’s sprawling growth habit, we were unable to distinguish between growth of surviving ramets, and clone production when clones were contiguously part of the existing ramet (See Discussion). Thus, our model contained only two sub-kernels: P and F. Substituting these into Eq 1, our model took the form:

n(z,t+1)=LU[P(z,z)+F(z,z)]n(z,t)dz

Analytical solutions to these integrals are not available, and so a numerical solution is necessary [35,60]. We solved the equation numerically using the midpoint rule of integration with 100 meshpoints along the domain [L, U] to generate a 100 by 100 iteration matrix, K. We checked whether using different numbers of meshpoints affected our results by rebuilding the model from 100 to 500 meshpoints at increments of 50 meshpoints each time. The change in per-capita growth rate was on the order of 10−5, so we retained the model with 100 meshpoints and continued with the analysis. A complete description of the model functions is in the data of the S1 File.

Once the IPM was implemented, we then calculated the per-capita growth rate as the single time step growth rate after iterating the model to reach asymptotic dynamics (λ) [35]. We also computed the sensitivity and elasticity functions of λ at the kernel and sub-kernel level to understand the relative contributions of survival/growth transitions and reproductive transitions to the population growth rate [35]. To quantify uncertainty in our data, we resampled our demographic data with replacement 1,000 times and refit all vital rates using the same functional forms. We constructed IPMs for each iteration and computed per-capita growth rates, sensitivities, and elasticities. Thus, all estimates reported here include our point estimate and the 95% confidence intervals from the bootstrapping procedure.

Results

Ramets ranged in size from -6.04 to 3.31 m2 (natural log scale), and flower counts were heavily skewed towards smaller values with a few very large, highly reproductive ramets (Fig 2). Vital rate regression using log-transformed surface area of ramets of Carpobrotus spp. as a fixed effect yielded good fits for all of our vital rates and generally lower AIC scores than intercept-only, quadratic fits, or GAMS (Fig 3, Table 1, data in S1 File). GAMs and polynomial fits did not substantially improve the overall model fit or substantially lower the AIC score for each vital rate, even with the increased complexity of the model itself. Thus, our IPM only includes models with a single fixed effect–log-transformed surface area–as explanatory variables (data in S1 File).

Fig 2. Frequency distributions for flowers and ramets.

Fig 2

Top row: Frequency distributions of the number of flowers at time t and t+1. Bottom row: Frequency distributions of ramet size at t and t+1. Red dashed vertical lines denote the mean ramet size for each sampling time, and minimum and maximum sizes are indicated in the top left corner.

Fig 3. Vital rates models.

Fig 3

Results for ramet growth (a), survival (b), probability of flowering (c), flower production (d), and recruit size distribution (e), and per-capita population growth rate with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals (f). The dotted black lines in a-c, e and the solid black line in d are fitted relationships from the models described in Methods. In (a), the solid grey lines show a 1:1 relationship (i.e. no change in ramet size), and the dotted grey line in f denotes a per-capita population growth rate of 1 (e.g. population level stasis).

Our estimate of the population growth rate was λ = 0.98 (Fig 3, Lower 95% CI = 0.938, Upper 95% CI = 1). These estimates indicate that the population would not significantly depart from demographic stability on the long-term under a constant environment and density independence (Fig 3). The IPM’s sensitivity surface indicates population growth rates are most sensitive to small ramets growing large rapidly, and the elasticity analysis indicates that survival/growth transitions are far more important to λ than reproduction (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Sensitivity and elasticity functions of λ.

Fig 4

Left: Sensitivity and elasticity kernels for the complete model. Right: Elasticities for each sub-kernel, indicating relative contributions of each to the per-capita growth rate. The range line for each point estimate of the sub-kernel level elasticity shows the 95% confidence interval derived from the boot strapping procedure.

Discussion

Our results show a Carpobrotus population with a stable growth rate (Table 1, Fig 3), indicating that this population is neither declining nor expanding if the environmental conditions under which it was examined do not change. There are a few reasons that might explain why Carpobrotus, which is known to be highly invasive in other places [8,3638], might not be expanding at our site in Israel. First, our Havatselet population might be an old population that has reached an ‘equilibrium’ and is now limited by space [34,61,62]. The population grows on a cliff side and may be difficult for it to spread to unoccupied locations. Second, the Israeli climate might not be ideal for Carpobrotus. The Cape Region, where these plants are native, has a cold semi-arid climate [63], with average monthly temperatures reaching 21.60°C [8]. Our Havatselet site has a warm Mediterranean climate [63] with higher temperatures, reaching a mean of 27.0°C. Summers in Israel are much drier, often with no precipitation, compared to the minimum of 30 mm of rain the summer months of Cape Region receives [64]. Third, it is possible that stable population growth rates are typical for older, less disturbed Carpobrotus populations. Rapid ramet and population growth rates may characterize earlier stages of invasion, and slow down occurs once a site becomes more saturated. Thus, newer or more recently disturbed populations are likely to exhibit different behavior from the Havatselet population. Finally, we note that our study is one year long, and that environmental conditions across time, especially in the context of climate change, which might increase or decrease the population growth rate.

We find that the growth rate of our Carpobrotus population is highly sensitive to changes in survival and growth of ramets and less sensitive to reproduction (Fig 4). Specifically, the sensitivity analysis indicates that rapid growth of ramets that are already at a moderate size would have dramatic effects on λ. We did not observe any ramets in our study having such dramatic changes in size and it might not be biologically possible for Carpobrotus. Our result that elasticity of λ is high for survival and low for sexual reproduction is expected. Across the plant and animal kingdoms, elasticity of λ to survival is known to increase with life span [34,6568], suggesting that persistence of healthy adults is critical to maintaining populations of long-lived perennial plants.

Eradication of Carpobrotus is the objective of many coastal management programs. Our elasticity analysis shows the importance of targeting large ramets for removal and our methods show the possibility of using drones to rapidly monitor populations and allow for adaptive management [69]. A variety of tactics have successfully killed Carpobrotus and allowed for native biodiversity recovery. Manual removal is feasible for accessible populations, and it may or may not be optimal to follow this up with the removal of dead shoots and litter. Leaving litter increases the risk Carpobrotus germination from seed and slows recovery of native plants, but decreases the problem of erosion, which is an important issue in sites with steep slopes [13,23,25]. Effective mortality of Carpobrotus and rapid recovery of native vegetation has also been demonstrated with chemical control using Glyphosate [18,24]. At our Havatselet site, both of these methods would be challenging due to the presence of large ramets on the face of the cliff. Biological control agents that reduce survivorship are under consideration, such as the soft-scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi and the generalist pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [8]. Regardless of the control method used, rapid evaluation of the population size and structure would help any management program, as it would provide the information needed for the learning process in adaptive management [69]. If the post-data processing procedures could be better optimized, the drone technology has great potential to allow for rapid monitoring of Carpobrotus populations.

We suggest, as other researchers have [8,54,7072], that prevention is critical to curb regional scale invasion (i.e. landscape or political entity level) of Carpobrotus. To our knowledge, Israeli legislation does not include rules for the introduction and control of C. edulis and C. acinaciformis, and as such these are still allowed to be planted in urban gardens. This greatly hinders efforts for invasion prevention. Further demography studies could contribute to the identification of high-risk areas for which regulations could be put in place [8,54,73].

We were successful in using the drone for creating the maps of the Carpobrotus population and later use those maps for evaluating vital rates and parameterizing an IPM. This is another potential ecological use case for a rapidly developing technology used in both animal [53,74,75] and plant population studies [49,76,77]. While in our case, the drone successfully generated maps and subsequent estimates of ramet size, we acknowledge that they have their limitations. Georeferencing can prove challenging in environments without many permanent features to mark across multiple samples. If maps are not well aligned, re-identifying individuals from the previous year can be quite challenging. Advances in RTK and PPK GPS technology have greatly reduced this challenge, though these can still be quite pricey relative to typical conservation budgets. Furthermore, size estimates can vary greatly when the absolute distance between the ground and the camera varies across the orthomosaic scene, necessitating the placement of ground truth targets in areas that may be difficult to physically reach. Additionally, dense vegetation mats can confound the orthomosaic generating procedure. Even when it is successful, it may be difficult to identify individual plants. Therefore, we recommend that vegetation density and height be considered when choosing the mapping method.

In conclusion, we confirm that the size of different Carpobrotus ramets is a reliable predictor for vital rates, and that the demography of Carpobrotus is typical of a long-lived polycarpic plant. We demonstrated that drones can successfully allow for demographic data collection for plant species that were previously inaccessible to researchers. Thus, using this technology in future demography research shows great promise for filling global data gaps. Our results emphasize the need to target survival and growth of large ramets in control programs.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Results for the flower number regression parameter perturbation analysis.

The red point is the per-capita growth rate estimated from the regression parameters. The black line shows the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals derived from the draws that perturbed each flower number regression parameter. The range of values is quite small, and our qualitative results are not affected by the assumption of little temporal variation in flower production.

(TIF)

S1 File. IPM functions, drone results and model fitting results.

S1.1 Table. Statistical values for the vital rates parameters. Coefficients, standard errors, test statistics, and p-values for each of the vital rate regression used in the IPM to generate point estimates of lambda, sensitivity, and elasticity functions. S1.2 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate growth models. S1.3 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate survival models. S1.4 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate probability of flowering models. S1.5 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate flower production models.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their insightful suggestions which improved the previous version of this work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The complete R code can be found at the following link https://github.com/levisc8/carpobrotus_IPMs/tree/master/Ana_Israel_IPM.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation under the framework of the Humboldt Professorship, by the Helmholtz Recruitment Initiative of the Helmholtz Association (both to TMK). SCL and TMK gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (FZT 118 – 202548816). AB acknowledges the support of the Erasmus+ programme of the European Union to AB. RS-G was supported by a NERC Independent Research Fellowship (NE/M018458/1).

References

  • 1.Gallardo B, Clavero M, Sánchez MI, Vilà M. Global ecological impacts of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Glob Chang Biol. 2016;22(1):151–63. 10.1111/gcb.13004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Liu Y, Oduor AMO, Zhang Z, Manea A, Tooth IM, Leishman MR, et al. Do invasive alien plants benefit more from global environmental change than native plants? Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(8):3363–70. 10.1111/gcb.13579 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Atwood TB, Hammill E. The importance of marine predators in the provisioning of ecosystem services by coastal plant communities. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1–7. 10.3389/fpls.2018.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Parra-Tabla V, Albor-Pinto C, Tun-Garrido J, Angulo-Pérez D, Barajas C, Silveira R, et al. Spatial patterns of species diversity in sand dune plant communities in Yucatan, Mexico: importance of invasive species for species dominance patterns. Plant Ecol Divers. 2018;11(2):157–72. Available from: 10.1080/17550874.2018.1455232. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gracia A, Rangel-Buitrago N, Oakley JA, Williams AT. Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean Coast Manag. 2018;156:277–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Males J. Secrets of succulence. J Exp Bot. 2017;68(9):2121–34. 10.1093/jxb/erx096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Battisti C, Fanelli G. Alien-dominated plant communities’ syntopic with seabird’s nests: evidence and possible implication from a Mediterranean insular ecosystem. Ethol Ecol Evol. 2021;1–10. Available from: 10.1080/03949370.2020.1870568. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Campoy JG, Acosta ATR, Affre L, Barreiro R, Brundu G, Buisson E, et al. Monographs of invasive plants in Europe: Carpobrotus. Bot Lett. 2018;165(3–4):440–75. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vilà M, Tessier M, Suehs CM, Brundu G, Carta L, Galanidis A, et al. Local and regional assessments of the impacts of plant invaders on vegetation structure and soil properties of Mediterranean islands. J Biogeogr. 2006;33(5):853–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Santoro R, Jucker T, Carboni M, Acosta ATR. Patterns of plant community assembly in invaded and non-invaded communities along a natural environmental gradient. J Veg Sci. 2012;23(3):483–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jucker T, Carboni M, Acosta ATR. Going beyond taxonomic diversity: Deconstructing biodiversity patterns reveals the true cost of iceplant invasion. Divers Distrib. 2013;19(12):1566–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fried G, Laitung B, Pierre C, Chagué N, Panetta FD. Impact of invasive plants in Mediterranean habitats: Disentangling the effects of characteristics of invaders and recipient communities. Biol Invasions. 2014;16(8):1639–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Braschi J, Hélard O, Mazzia C, Oger P, Ponel P, Buisson E. Impacts of the removal of invasive Carpobrotus on spider assemblage dynamics. Biodivers Conserv. 2021;30(2):497–518. Available from: 10.1007/s10531-020-02102-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Molinari N, D’Antonio C, Thomson G. 7 –Carpobrotus as a case study of the complexities of species impacts. In: Theoretical Ecology Series. Elsevier Inc.; 2007. pp. 139–62, 162A. Available from: 10.1016/S1875-306X(07)80009-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Conser C, Connor EF. Assessing the residual effects of Carpobrotus edulis invasion, implications for restoration. Biol Invasions. 2009;11(2):349–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Novoa A, González L, Moravcová L, Pyšek P. Effects of Soil Characteristics, Allelopathy and Frugivory on Establishment of the Invasive Plant Carpobrotus edulis and a Co-Occuring Native, Malcolmia littorea. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(12):e53166. Available from: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Novoa A, Gonzalez L. Impacts of Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br. on the germination, establishment and survival of native plants: A clue for assessing its competitive strength. PLOS ONE. 2014. 9(9):e107557. Available from 10.1371/journal.pone.0107557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fos M, Sanz B, Sanchis E. The use of glyphosate for Carpobrotus eradication in sand dune ecosystems: evaluation of the potential effects on the reintroduction of native plants. Plant Biosyst—An Int J Deal with all Asp Plant Biol. 2021;1–10. Available from: 10.1080/11263504.2021.1884621. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pyšek P, Richardson DM, Williamson M. Predicting and explaining plant invasions through analysis of source area floras: Some critical considerations. Divers Distrib. 2004;10(3):179–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dufour-Dror J-M. Alien Invasive Plants in Israel. 1st ed. Jerusalem: The Middle East Nature Conservation Promotion Association; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Novoa A, González L, Moravcová L, Pyšek P. Constraints to native plant species establishment in coastal dune communities invaded by Carpobrotus edulis: Implications for restoration. Biol Conserv. 2013; 164:1–9. Available from: 10.1016/j. biocon.2013.04.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Crandall R, Knight TM. Positive frequency dependence undermines the success of restoration using historical disturbance regimes. Ecol Lett. 2015;18(9):883–91. 10.1111/ele.12473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chenot J, Affre L, Gros R, Dubois L, Malecki S, Passetti A, et al. Eradication of invasive Carpobrotus spp.: effects on soil and vegetation. Restor Ecol. 2018;26(1):106–13. Available from: 10.1111/rec.12538. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lazzaro L, Tondini E, Lombardi L, Giunti M. The eradication of Carpobrotus spp. in the sand-dune ecosystem at Sterpaia (Italy, Tuscany): indications from a successful experience. Biologia (Bratislava). 2020;75(2):199–208. Available from: 10.2478/s11756-019-00391-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Buisson E, Braschi J, Chenot-Lescure J, Hess MCM, Vidaller C, Pavon D, et al. Native plant community recovery after Carpobrotus (ice plant) removal on an island—results of a 10-year project. Appl Veg Sci. 2021;24(1):e12524. Available from: 10.1111/avsc.12524. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Scalera R, Cozzi A, Caccamo C, Rossi I. A catalogue of LIFE projects contributing to the management of alien species in the European Union. Platform meeting on Invasive Alien Species (IAS). 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kettunen M, Genovesi P, Gollasch S, Pagad S, Starfinger U, ten Brink P, et al. Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS)—Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Andreu J, Vilà M, Hulme PE. An assessment of stakeholder perceptions and management of noxious alien plants in Spain. Environ Manage. 2009;43(6):1244–55. 10.1007/s00267-009-9280-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Caswell H. Matrix Population Models: construction, analysis, and interpretation. 2nd ed. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Easterling Michael R., Stephen P. Ellner PMD. Size-specific sensitivity: applying a new structured population model. Ecology. 2000;81(3):694–708. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kerr NZ, Baxter PWJ, Salguero-Gómez R, Wardle GM, Buckley YM. Prioritizing management actions for invasive populations using cost, efficacy, demography and expert opinion for 14 plant species world-wide. J Appl Ecol. 2016;53(2):305–16. 10.1111/1365-2664.12592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Baxter PWJ, McCarthy MA, Possingham HP, Menkhorst PW, McLean N. Accounting for management costs in sensitivity analyses of matrix population models. Conserv Biol. 2006. June;20(3):893–905. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00378.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Silvertown J, Franco M, Menges E. Interpretation of elasticity matrices as an aid to the management of plant populations for conservation. Conserv Biol. 1996;10(2):591–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ramula S, Knight TM, Burns JH, Buckley YM. General guidelines for invasive plant management based on comparative demography of invasive and native plant populations. J Appl Ecol. 2008;45(4):1124–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ellner SP, Childs DZ, Rees M. Lecture Notes on Mathematical Modelling in the Life Sciences Data-driven Modelling of Structured Populations A Practical Guide to the Integral Projection Model. 2016. Available from: http://www.springer.com/series/10049. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.D’Antonio C. Mechanisms controlling invasion of coastal plant communities by the alien succulent Carpobrotus edulis. Ecology. 1993;74(1):83–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Roiloa SR, Retuerto R, Campoy JG, Novoa A, Barreiro R. Division of labor brings greater benefits to clones of Carpobrotus edulis in the non-native range: Evidence for rapid adaptive evolution. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1–13. 10.3389/fpls.2016.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Vieites-Blanco C, González-Prieto SJ. Effects of Carpobrotus edulis invasion on main litter and soil characteristics in backdune and rocky coastal habitats with oceanic climate. Plant Soil. 2018;425(1–2):363–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Salguero-Gómez R, Jones OR, Archer CR, Buckley YM, Che-Castaldo J, Caswell H, et al. The compadre Plant Matrix Database: An open online repository for plant demography. J Ecol. 2015;103(1):202–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Solbrig OT. Demography and Evolution in Plant Populations. Botanical Monographs. Volume 15. 1st ed. Berkley, California: University of California Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Clark DA. Plant Demography. In: McDade LA, Bawa KS, Hespenheide HA, Harts-Horn GS. La Selva: Ecology and Natural History of a Neotropical Rain Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Putz FE. The Natural History of Lianas on Barro Colorado Island, Panama. 1984;65(6):1713–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Colas B, Kirchner F, Riba M, Olivieri I, Mignot A, Imbert E, et al. Restoration demography: A 10-year demographic comparison between introduced and natural populations of endemic Centaurea corymbosa (Asteraceae). J Appl Ecol. 2008;45(5):1468–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Garzia M, Iacobelli L, Scalici M, Fanelli G, D’Angeli A, Gregori G et al. Aliens come from the edge: a distribution pattern of focal alien plants in a small coastal reserve. Quad del Mus Civ di Stor Nat di Ferrara. 2019;7:113–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Getzin S, Wiegand K, Schöning I. Assessing biodiversity in forests using very high-resolution images and unmanned aerial vehicles. Methods Ecol Evol. 2012. April;3(2):397–404. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Anderson K, Gaston KJ. Lightweight unmanned aerial vehicles will revolutionize spatial ecology. Vol. 11, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2013. p. 138–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dvořák P, Müllerová J, Bartaloš T, Brůna J. Unmanned aerial vehicles for alien plant species detection and monitoring. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens Spat Inf Sci—ISPRS Arch. 2015;40:83–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.de Sá NC, Castro P, Carvalho S, Marchante E, López-Núñez FA, Marchante H. Mapping the flowering of an invasive plant using unmanned aerial vehicles: Is there potential for biocontrol monitoring? Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1–13. 10.3389/fpls.2018.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dash JP, Watt MS, Paul TSH, Morgenroth J, Hartley R. Taking a closer look at invasive alien plant research: A review of the current state, opportunities, and future directions for UAVs. Vol. 10, Methods in Ecology and Evolution. British Ecological Society; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ioni S, Battisti C, Fanelli G. Mapping vegetation dynamics on embryonic sand dunes: a fine-grained atlas for periodic plant monitoring in a Mediterranean protected area. Quad del Mus Civ di Stor Nat di Ferrara. 2020;8:37–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cruzan MB, Weinstein BG, Grasty MR, Kohrn BF, Hendrickson EC, Arredondo TM, et al. Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Micro-Uavs, Drones) in Plant Ecology. Appl Plant Sci. 2016;4(9):apps.1600041. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27672518. 10.3732/apps.1600041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hill DJ, Tarasoff C, Whitworth GE, Baron J, Bradshaw JL, Church JS. Utility of unmanned aerial vehicles for mapping invasive plant species: a case study on yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus L.). Int J Remote Sens. 2017;38(8–10):2083–105. Available from: 10.1080/01431161.2016.1264030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Hodgson JC, Mott R, Baylis SM, Pham TT, Wotherspoon S, Kilpatrick AD, et al. Drones count wildlife more accurately and precisely than humans. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(5):1160–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Dufour-Dror J-M. Israel’s Least Wanted Alien Ornamental Plant Species. 2013;1–21. Available from http://www.sviva.gov.il/English/Documents/InvasiveSpecies-July2013.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Suehs CM, Affre L, Médail F. Invasion dynamics of two alien Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae) taxa on a Mediterranean island: I. Genetic diversity and introgression. Heredity (Edinb). 2004;92(1):31–40. 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sarmati S, Conti L, Acosta ATR. Carpobrotus acinaciformis vs Carpobrotus edulis: Are there any differences in their impact on coastal dune plant biodiversity? Flora Morphol Distrib Funct Ecol Plants. 2019;257:151422. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0367253019300799. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Suehs CM, Charpentier S, Affre L, Médail F. The evolutionary potential of invasive Carpobrotus (Aizoaceae) taxa: Are pollen-mediated gene flow potential and hybrid vigor levels connected? Evol Ecol. 2006;20(5):447–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.QGIS Development Team QGIS Geographic Information System. Open-Source Geospatial Foundation Project. 2019. Available: http://qgis.osgeo.org. Accessed 2 July 2019. 10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.12.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wood SN. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zuidema PA, Jongejans E, Chien PD, During HJ, Schieving F. Integral projection models for trees: A new parameterization method and a validation of model output. J Ecol. 2010;98(2):345–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Meiners SJ. Apparent competition: An impact of exotic shrub invasion on tree regeneration. Biol Invasions. 2007;9(7):849–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Parker IM. Invasion Dynamics of Cytisus scoparius: A Matrix Model Approach. Ecol Appl. 2000;10(3):726–743. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F. World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Zeitschrift. 2006;15(3):259–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Mostert E, Gaertner M, Holmes PM, Rebelo AG, Richardson DM. Impacts of invasive alien trees on threatened lowland vegetation types in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. South African J Bot. 2017;108:209–22. Available from: 10.1016/j.sajb.2016.10.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Vélez-Espino LA, Koops MA. Recovery Potential Assessment for Lake Sturgeon in Canadian Designatable Units. North Am J Fish Manag. 2009;29(4):1065–90. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Crawford BA, Maerz JC, Nibbelink NP, Buhlmann KA, Norton TM. Estimating the consequences of multiple threats and management strategies for semi-aquatic turtles. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51(2):359–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chevallier C, Hernández-Matías A, Real J, Vincent-Martin N, Ravayrol A, Besnard A. Retrofitting of power lines effectively reduces mortality by electrocution in large birds: An example with the endangered Bonelli’s eagle. J Appl Ecol. 2015;52(6):1465–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Salguero-Gómez R, Jones OR, Jongejans E, Blomberg SP, Hodgson DJ, Mbeau-Ache C, et al. Fast–slow continuum and reproductive strategies structure plant life-history variation worldwide. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113(1):230–235. Available from: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/230.abstract. 10.1073/pnas.1506215112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J. Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1508):2407–13. Available from: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2179 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.de Sá NC, Marchante H, Marchante E, Cabral JA, Honrado JP, Vicente JR. Can citizen science data guide the surveillance of invasive plants? A model-based test with Acacia trees in Portugal. Biol Invasions. 2019;21(6):2127–41. Available from: 10.1007/s10530-019-01962-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Hulme PE. Plant invasions in New Zealand: global lessons in prevention, eradication and control. Biol Invasions.2020;22(5):1539–62. Available from: 10.1007/s10530-020-02224-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Gabbay S. The Environment in Israel. 1st ed. State of Israel—Ministry of the Environment. Jerusalem: Publications and Public Relations Unit; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hollings T, Burgman M, van Andel M, Gilbert M, Robinson T, Robinson A. How do you find the green sheep? A critical review of the use of remotely sensed imagery to detect and count animals. Methods Ecol Evol. 2018;9(4):881–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Eikelboom JAJ, Wind J, van de Ven E, Kenana LM, Schroder B, de Knegt HJ, et al. Improving the precision and accuracy of animal population estimates with aerial image object detection. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10(11):1875–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chabot D, Bird DM. Small unmanned aircraft: precise and convenient new tools for surveying wetlands. J Unmanned Veh Syst. 2013;1:15–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wallace L, Lucieer A, Malenovskỳ Z, Turner D, Vopěnka P. Assessment of forest structure using two UAV techniques: A comparison of airborne laser scanning and structure from motion (SfM) point clouds. Forests. 2016;7(3):1–16. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Sergio R Roiloa

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-29490

Demographic analysis of Israeli Carpobrotus populations: management strategies and future directions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bogdan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sergio R. Roiloa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

We have received the reports of two reviewers. Both consider that the document includes interesting and novel information with potential for publication in PLOSONE, and I agree. Please, incorporate/respond the changes/comments raised by the reviewers.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting paper about an invasive plant secies (Carpobrotus sp. plur.) in a Mediterranean site. This topic still poor investigated, at least in Western Mediterranean. Analyses are interesting performing a strong statistic. Text is well written. I would like to read some things about control and management of these populations, also adopting conservation project cycle (see Hockings et al., 2006, IUCN). A sentence usful to managers could be useful (see below in suggestions). However, I think the this ms could deserves to be published on PlosONE after MINOR REVISIONS. I have only minor suggestions and comments. I reported them below, hoping that could improve a bit the first draft of the manuscript.

In the next number of Folia Geobotanica there will be a paper of Battisti & Fanelli on the dispersal of Carpobrotus is a Mediterranean island. I suggest to read it and cite both this paper and the references therein (a large review of this topic has been reported).

r. 62. I think that also Malephora crocea and Mesembrianthemum cristallinum should be added as invasive plants along rocky Mediterranean coasts. See Ecology, Ethology and Evolution Battisti & Fanelli n press.

r. 85 For population analysis of dunal plants see also Garzia et al., 2019. Aliens come from the edge: a distribution pattern of focal alien plants in a small coastal reserve. Quaderni del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Ferrara, 7: 113-119, ISSN 2283-6918. Available on: https://storianaturale.comune.fe.it/modules/core/lib/d.php?c=BESU4

r. 107, 117 and everywhere: ‘spp.’ should be written not in italic.

r. 235. Why only edulis has been reported?

row 330. ‘as other researchers have’ Who? Add references.

I am a wildlife manager and in nature reserve who I manage there are a large number of nuclei of this plant. I noted as literature about problem-solving and project management techniques aimed to control these populations is very scanty. There are a lage number of research about phenology, ecology, dispersal, competition but very few papers about operational and pragmatic techniques useful to managers. This is a sort of ‘paralys by analysis’ (i.e focus only on data sampling and not on operational control of this species), a problem yet reported in conservation biology. I would read some sentences in thsi regard (as ‘suggestions for managers’).

References 51, 52, 54: These websites should be cited in this way?

Check further for references and citations in the text.

Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in the acknowledgments.

Have a nice work.

Reviewer #2: General comments

I revised the manuscript entitled "Demographic analysis of Israeli Carpobrotus populations: management strategies and future directions".

I found some merits in the manuscript which deals an interesting topic, providing demographic data using drones. Nevertheless, the whole paper should be extensively revised and rewritten.

Title:

The title should be revised and focused on the type of research, the use of images obtained by drone. The study has only been conducted in one population. “Management strategies and future directions” do not seem justified to include it in the title.

Abstract:

Line 22 (L22) delete (UAVs).

L29 – Aizoaceae italics.

L31 – confirm by demonstrate.

Introduction

The introduction should be restructured. Information is there but is pretty messy.

Invasive species and the importance of coastal ecosystems (L66-72) could be reduced and could join with the problem of invasive species (L35-36).

The description of Carpobrotus (L37-43), its impacts (L44-51) and the investigations (L56-59) should be rewritten and joined in a paragraph. Research on eradication and the effects of control actions should be mentioned. See below recent papers:

Chenot et al. (2018) Restor Ecol 26:106-113.

Lazzaro et al. (2020) Biologia 75:199-208.

Buisson et al. (2020), Applied Vegetation ScienceVolume 24, Issue 1.

Braschi et al. (2021) Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:497–518.

Fos et al. (2021) Plant Biosystems.

The part dedicated to "Structured population models" in Carpobrotus (L 52-59, L 62- 65) and "Structured population models" in dune ecosystems (L72-79) should be shortened and joined in one paragraph.

L37 - Carpobrotus N. Br. (Aizoaceae).

L38 – sensitive by frail.

L40 – Correct botanic names C. edulis and C acinaciformis.

L50 – Allelopathic properties of the Carpobrotus litter also inhibit emergence (Fos et al., 2021.

L55 – can be rewritten: “management, managers, management” in the same sentence.

L59-62 – “Succulents are an …. and Opuntia spp (29)” delete the paragraph, the information is not relevant.

L86-87 delete “unmanned aerial vehicles” and “Integral Projection Models”.

L92 – confirm by demonstrate.

Methods

The methods are written in a single section and they must organize in specific sections.

Fig. 1 - include scale.

L112-119 reduce paragraph, relevant information is only L115-116.

The use of the terms “plant” and “ramet” is confusing.

L160 4 m instead of 4m.

L190 delete “Integral Projection Model”.

Results

The results should include descriptive information from the experimental data, for example: total area occupied by Carpobrotus, mean plant area, maximum and minimum plant area, frequency by size of plant area, number of flowers and fruits per plant, etc. and variations from 2018 to 2019.

L 235 why C. edulis ???.

Discussion

The discussion should be revised, shortened and rewritten.

Include table and figure references in the discussion.

L273 – Aizoaceae italics.

L279 - delete “Integral Projection Models”.

L269-275 - This paragraph is better included in the introduction.

L282-284 - Delete “Individual …… vertical cliff”.

L289-291 “Third, it is … for Carpobrotus” - this sentence is contradictory with the references on invasive behavior and growth of Carpobrotus, (see Campoy et al 2018),

L297-298 - No data is presented regarding it, see Result comments.

L303-329 - This part should be rewritten by joining the 2 paragraphs. Recent eradication works and the effects of control actions should be included and discussed. See papers in introduction comments. It would be interesting to discuss the contributions of this work and the potential of the use of drones at least in the monitoring of regenerated areas.

L305-306 – “It is … growth” too speculative.

L310-311 - In the case of Carpobroptus, the actions should be aimed at the complete eradication and not at the reduction of the population.

L330-338 - This part is very general and it has nothing to do with the work they present.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 21 02 17 Revision Mfos.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 30;16(4):e0250879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250879.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Apr 2021

Reviewer #1:

This is a very interesting paper about an invasive plant secies (Carpobrotus sp. plur.) in a Mediterranean site. This topic still poor investigated, at least in Western Mediterranean. Analyses are interesting performing a strong statistic. Text is well written. I would like to read some things about control and management of these populations, also adopting conservation project cycle (see Hockings et al., 2006, IUCN). A sentence usful to managers could be useful (see below in suggestions). However, I think the this ms could deserves to be published on PlosONE after MINOR REVISIONS. I have only minor suggestions and comments. I reported them below, hoping that could improve a bit the first draft of the manuscript.

We thank Reviewer#1 for his/her nice evaluation. In addition to expanding our Discussion section to include more about the control and management of Carpobrotus spp. populations, we also incorporate the Hockings et al. 2006 paper into our cited literature. See lines 292-308, which now read:

Eradication of Carpobrotus is the objective of many coastal management programs. Our elasticity analysis shows the importance of targeting large ramets for removal and our methods show the possibility of using drones to rapidly monitor populations and allow for adaptive management [69]. A variety of tactics have successfully killed Carpobrotus and allowed for native biodiversity recovery. Manual removal is feasible for accessible populations, and it may or may not be optimal to follow this up with the removal of dead shoots and litter. Leaving litter increases the risk Carpobrotus germination from seed and slows recovery of native plants, but decreases the problem of erosion, which is an important issue in sites with steep slopes [13,23,25]. Effective mortality of Carpobrotus and rapid recovery of native vegetation has also been demonstrated with chemical control using Glyphosate [18,24]. At our Havatselet site, both of these methods would be challenging due to the presence of large ramets on the face of the cliff. Biological control agents that reduce survivorship are under consideration, such as the soft-scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi and the generalist pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [8]. Regardless of the control method used, rapid evaluation of the population size and structure would help any management program, as it would provide the information needed for the learning process in adaptive management [69]. If the post-data processing procedures could be better optimized, the drone technology has great potential to allow for rapid monitoring of Carpobrotus populations.

In the next number of Folia Geobotanica there will be a paper of Battisti & Fanelli on the dispersal of Carpobrotus is a Mediterranean island. I suggest reading it and cite both this paper and the references therein (a large review of this topic has been reported).

At the time in which we completed this revision, the next issue of Folia Geobotanica was still not available, and we have not been able to find this work available in some online archive, such as bioRxiv or similar.

r. 62. I think that also Malephora crocea and Mesembrianthemum cristallinum should be added as invasive plants along rocky Mediterranean coasts. See Ecology, Ethology and Evolution Battisti & Fanelli n press.

We have included the suggested invasive species and cited the relevant paper in the Introduction section. See lines 43-44, which now read: Coastal ecosystems are prone to biological invasions, most notably by Carpobrotus spp., Lampranthus spp., Opuntia spp., Malephora crocea and Mesembrianthemum cristallinum [6,7].

r. 85 For population analysis of dunal plants see also Garzia et al., 2019. Aliens come from the edge: a distribution pattern of focal alien plants in a small coastal reserve. Quaderni del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Ferrara, 7: 113-119, ISSN 2283-6918. Available on: https://storianaturale.comune.fe.it/modules/core/lib/d.php?c=BESU4

We thank Reviewer #1 for letting us know about these recent and upcoming papers. We have added the information from these papers and their citations. See lines 75-78 which now read:

Only a few prior studies have managed to quantify demographic variables safely and precisely in such challenging environments (e.g., by freehand climbing or by targeting individual plants that can be reached without climbing equipment [42-44]).

r. 107, 117 and everywhere: ‘spp.’ should be written not in italic.

We have made the suggested change throughout the manuscript.

r. 235. Why only edulis has been reported?

We have revised the phrase, and changed that particular portion of the Results section to Carpobrotus spp., as all the listed species (Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br., Carpobrotus acinaciformis (L.) L.Bolus and Carpobrotus chilensis (Molina) N.E.Br.) were included in our analysis.

row 330. ‘as other researchers have’ Who? Add references.

We have added the following references:

6. Campoy JG, Acosta ATR, Affre L, Barreiro R, Brundu G, Buisson E, et al. Monographs of invasive plants in Europe: Carpobrotus. Bot Lett. 2018;165(3–4):440–75.

48. Dufour-Dror J-M. Israel’s Least Wanted Alien Ornamental Plant Species. 2013;1-21.

76. Leung B, Lodge DM, Finnoff D, Shogren JF, Lewis MA, Lamberti G. An ounce of prevention or a pound of cure: bioeconomic risk analysis of invasive species. Proc R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci. 2002;269(1508):2407–13.

77. César de Sá N, Marchante H, Marchante E, Cabral JA, Honrado JP, Vicente JR. Can citizen science data guide the surveillance of invasive plants? A model-based test with Acacia trees in Portugal. Biol Invasions. 2019;21(6):2127–41.

78. Hulme PE. Plant invasions in New Zealand: global lessons in prevention, eradication and control. Biol Invasions. 2020;22(5):1539–62.

I am a wildlife manager and in nature reserve who I manage there are a large number of nuclei of this plant. I noted as literature about problem-solving and project management techniques aimed to control these populations is very scanty. There are a lage number of research about phenology, ecology, dispersal, competition but very few papers about operational and pragmatic techniques useful to managers. This is a sort of ‘paralys by analysis’ (i.e focus only on data sampling and not on operational control of this species), a problem yet reported in conservation biology. I would read some sentences in thsi regard (as ‘suggestions for managers’).

We have expanded our discussion to add more of the relevant literature on suggestions for managers, and how this also relates to our findings. See lines 292-308, which now read:

Eradication of Carpobrotus is the objective of many coastal management programs. Our elasticity analysis shows the importance of targeting large ramets for removal and our methods show the possibility of using drones to rapidly monitor populations and allow for adaptive management [69]. A variety of tactics have successfully killed Carpobrotus and allowed for native biodiversity recovery. Manual removal is feasible for accessible populations, and it may or may not be optimal to follow this up with the removal of dead shoots and litter. Leaving litter increases the risk Carpobrotus germination from seed and slows recovery of native plants, but decreases the problem of erosion, which is an important issue in sites with steep slopes [13,23,25]. Effective mortality of Carpobrotus and rapid recovery of native vegetation has also been demonstrated with chemical control using Glyphosate [18,24]. At our Havatselet site, both of these methods would be challenging due to the presence of large ramets on the face of the cliff. Biological control agents that reduce survivorship are under consideration, such as the soft-scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi and the generalist pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [8]. Regardless of the control method used, rapid evaluation of the population size and structure would help any management program, as it would provide the information needed for the learning process in adaptive management [69]. If the post-data processing procedures could be better optimized, the drone technology has great potential to allow for rapid monitoring of Carpobrotus populations.

References 51, 52, 54: These websites should be cited in this way?

Check further for references and citations in the text.

We have re-checked the requirements for PLOS ONE and made the needed adjustments to the References section.

Add the role of anonymous reviewers and Editors in the acknowledgments.

Have a nice work.

We now acknowledge our anonymous reviewers and editor in the Acknowledgements section of our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2:

General comments: I revised the manuscript entitled "Demographic analysis of Israeli Carpobrotus populations: management strategies and future directions". I found some merits in the manuscript which deals an interesting topic, providing demographic data using drones. Nevertheless, the whole paper should be extensively revised and rewritten.

We thank Reviewer #2 for his/her detailed suggestions. We have revised the manuscript text significantly to address these comments and believe it has improved the manuscript. Please see our detailed responses below.

Title:

The title should be revised and focused on the type of research: the use of images obtained by drone. The study has only been conducted in one population. “Management strategies and future directions” do not seem justified to include it in the title.

We have revised our title to: “Demographic analysis of an Israeli Carpobrotus population”.

Abstract:

Line 22 (L22) – delete (UAVs). L29 – Aizoaceae italics. L31 – confirm by demonstrate.

We have made the suggested adjustments to the text of the manuscript.

Introduction:

The introduction should be restructured. Information is there but is pretty messy.

Invasive species and the importance of coastal ecosystems (L66-72) could be reduced and could join with the problem of invasive species (L35-36). The description of Carpobrotus (L37-43), its impacts (L44-51) and the investigations (L56-59) should be rewritten and joined in a paragraph. Research on eradication and the effects of control actions should be mentioned. See below recent papers:

Chenot et al. (2018) Restor Ecol 26:106-113. Lazzaro et al. (2020) Biologia 75:199-208. Buisson et al. (2020), Applied Vegetation ScienceVolume 24, Issue 1. Braschi et al. (2021) Biodiversity and Conservation (2021) 30:497–518. Fos et al. (2021) Plant Biosystems. The part dedicated to "Structured population models" in Carpobrotus (L 52-59, L 62- 65) and "Structured population models" in dune ecosystems (L72-79) should be shortened and joined in one paragraph.

We have substantially revised our introduction to address all of these comments. Our new structure is:

Paragraph 1 – Coastal ecosystems in particular provide vital ecosystem services and are threatened by biological invasions

Paragraph 2 – Introduction to Carpobrotus and the harm it causes to coastal communities and ecosystems

Paragraph 3 – Research on eradication and control actions (including all the citations suggested by this reviewer)

Paragraph 4 – Structured population models (now shortened, as suggested by this reviewer)

Paragraph 5 – The use of drones to study the demography of difficult-to-access populations on coastal ecosystems.

Paragraph 6 – The particular questions we will address in this study.

L37 – Carpobrotus N. Br. (Aizoaceae); L38 – sensitive by frail; L40 – Correct botanic names C. edulis and C. acinaciformis.

We have made the suggested adjustments to the text of the manuscript.

L50 – Allelopathic properties of the Carpobrotus litter also inhibit emergence (Fos et al., 2021).

We have added this mechanistic information, together with its appropriate reference. See lines 54-55, which now read: […] matter content and releasing allelochemicals that hinder seed germination, seedling emergence and root growth of some native plants [16-18].

L55 – can be rewritten: “management, managers, management” in the same sentence.

We have re-written this sentence and combined it with the previous sentence. See lines 63-65, which now read: Structured population models (e.g., matrix population models [29], integral projection models [30]) of invasive plants provide a tool for generating comprehensive fitness estimates and identifying sensitive vital rates (e.g. survival, growth) to target with management [29,31-35].

L59-62 – “Succulents are an …. and Opuntia spp (29)” delete the paragraph, the information is not relevant.

As a result of our revision of the Introduction section, this paragraph has been reformulated and shortened, and it now also includes Reviewer #1’s request of citing another relevant paper to the matter (Ecology, Ethology and Evolution Battisti & Fanelli in press). See lines 43-44, which now read: Coastal ecosystems are prone to biological invasions, most notably by Carpobrotus spp., Lampranthus spp., Opuntia spp., Malephora crocea and Mesembrianthemum cristallinum [6,7].

L86-87 delete “unmanned aerial vehicles” and “Integral Projection Models”.

L92 – confirm by demonstrate.

We have made the suggested adjustments to the text of the manuscript.

Methods:

The methods are written in a single section and they must organize in specific sections.

We have reorganized the Methods section and now it includes the following subsections: Study site and genus, Data collection, Image processing and data extraction, Demographic modelling and Integral Projection Modelling analysis.

Fig. 1 – Include scale.

We now include the figure scale.

L112-119 reduce paragraph, relevant information is only L115-116.

The use of the terms “plant” and “ramet” is confusing.

We have shortened this paragraph. We are now consistent throughout the manuscript, using the term ramet instead of ‘plant’ or ‘individual’.

L160 4 m instead of 4m; L190 delete “Integral Projection Model”.

We have made the suggested adjustments to the text of the manuscript.

Results:

The results should include descriptive information from the experimental data, for example: total area occupied by Carpobrotus, mean plant area, maximum and minimum plant area, frequency by size of plant area, number of flowers and fruits per plant, etc. and variations from 2018 to 2019.

We have added a new figure giving population summary statistics (Figure 2), and text summary to the beginning of the Results section. See lines 231-232, which now read: Ramets ranged in size from -6.04 to 3.31 m2 (natural log scale), and flower counts were heavily skewed towards smaller values with a few very large, highly reproductive ramets (Fig 2).

L 235 why C. edulis ???

We have revised the phrase, and changed that particular portion of the Results to Carpobrotus spp., as all the listed species (Carpobrotus edulis (L.) N.E.Br., Carpobrotus acinaciformis (L.) L.Bolus, and Carpobrotus chilensis (Molina) N.E.Br.) were included in our analysis.

Discussion:

The discussion should be revised, shortened and rewritten.

We have extensively revised the Discussion section to address the comments of both reviewers, and in the process, we have also shortened it.

Include table and figure references in the discussion.

We now include table and figure references in the Discussion section.

L273 – Aizoaceae italics.

We have made this suggested change across the entire manuscript.

L279 – delete “Integral Projection Models”.

We have restructured our Discussion section and, in the process, removed this phrase.

L269-275 – This paragraph is better included in the introduction.

As there was some repetitiveness in this text within the Introduction section, we have deleted it.

L282-284 – Delete “Individual …… vertical cliff”.

We made this suggested deletion.

L289-291 – “Third, it is … for Carpobrotus” - this sentence is contradictory with the references on invasive behavior and growth of Carpobrotus (see Campoy et al 2018).

We have clarified our Discussion section here. Specifically, we state that stable population growth is likely typical for older and/or less disturbed populations, while younger/more recently disturbed populations, or those at lower densities, are likely to exhibit positive population growth. Furthermore, we distinguish between growth of ramets and population growth rates. See lines 276-282, which now read:

Third, it is possible that stable population growth rates are typical for older, less disturbed Carpobrotus populations. Rapid ramet and population growth rates may characterize earlier stages of invasion, and slow down occurs once a site becomes more saturated. Thus, newer or more recently disturbed populations are likely to exhibit different behavior from the Havatselet population. Finally, we note that our study is one year long, and that environmental conditions across time, especially in the context of climate change, which might increase or decrease the population growth rate.

L297-298 – No data is presented regarding it, see Result comments.

We now reference Figure 4, which supports this conclusion.

L303-329 – This part should be rewritten by joining the 2 paragraphs. Recent eradication works and the effects of control actions should be included and discussed. See papers in introduction comments. It would be interesting to discuss the contributions of this work and the potential of the use of drones at least in the monitoring of regenerated areas.

We have extensively re-written this part, and we added the suggested references, which we found very helpful. We discuss the potential use of drones for monitoring to allow for adaptive management and cite the Hockings et al 2006 paper, suggested by Reviewer #1.

For control actions, see lines 292-308, which now read:

Eradication of Carpobrotus is the objective of many coastal management programs. Our elasticity analysis shows the importance of targeting large ramets for removal and our methods show the possibility of using drones to rapidly monitor populations and allow for adaptive management [69]. A variety of tactics have successfully killed Carpobrotus and allowed for native biodiversity recovery. Manual removal is feasible for accessible populations, and it may or may not be optimal to follow this up with the removal of dead shoots and litter. Leaving litter increases the risk Carpobrotus germination from seed and slows recovery of native plants, but decreases the problem of erosion, which is an important issue in sites with steep slopes [13,23,25]. Effective mortality of Carpobrotus and rapid recovery of native vegetation has also been demonstrated with chemical control using Glyphosate [18,24]. At our Havatselet site, both of these methods would be challenging due to the presence of large ramets on the face of the cliff. Biological control agents that reduce survivorship are under consideration, such as the soft-scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi and the generalist pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [8]. Regardless of the control method used, rapid evaluation of the population size and structure would help any management program, as it would provide the information needed for the learning process in adaptive management [69]. If the post-data processing procedures could be better optimized, the drone technology has great potential to allow for rapid monitoring of Carpobrotus populations.

For the potential of the use of drones, see lines 315-329, which now read:

We were successful in using the drone for creating the maps of the Carpobrotus population and later use those maps for evaluating vital rates and parameterizing an IPM. This is another potential ecological use case for a rapidly developing technology used in both animal [53,74,75] and plant population studies [49,76,77]. While in our case, the drone successfully generated maps and subsequent estimates of ramet size, we acknowledge that they have their limitations. Georeferencing can prove challenging in environments without many permanent features to mark across multiple samples. If maps are not well aligned, re-identifying individuals from the previous year can be quite challenging. Advances in RTK and PPK GPS technology have greatly reduced this challenge, though these can still be quite pricey relative to typical conservation budgets. Furthermore, size estimates can vary greatly when the absolute distance between the ground and the camera varies across the orthomosaic scene, necessitating the placement of ground truth targets in areas that may be difficult to physically reach. Additionally, dense vegetation mats can confound the orthomosaic generating procedure. Even when it is successful, it may be difficult to identify individual plants. Therefore, we recommend that vegetation density and height be considered when choosing the mapping method.

L305-306 – “It is … growth” too speculative.

We removed the speculative sentence.

L310-311 – In the case of Carpobrotus, the actions should be aimed at the complete eradication and not at the reduction of the population.

We agree. We have revised this part of the Discussion section substantially in response to this and the other comments about Carpobrotus management. See lines 292-308, which now read:

Eradication of Carpobrotus is the objective of many coastal management programs. Our elasticity analysis shows the importance of targeting large ramets for removal and our methods show the possibility of using drones to rapidly monitor populations and allow for adaptive management [69]. A variety of tactics have successfully killed Carpobrotus and allowed for native biodiversity recovery. Manual removal is feasible for accessible populations, and it may or may not be optimal to follow this up with the removal of dead shoots and litter. Leaving litter increases the risk Carpobrotus germination from seed and slows recovery of native plants, but decreases the problem of erosion, which is an important issue in sites with steep slopes [13,23,25]. Effective mortality of Carpobrotus and rapid recovery of native vegetation has also been demonstrated with chemical control using Glyphosate [18,24]. At our Havatselet site, both of these methods would be challenging due to the presence of large ramets on the face of the cliff. Biological control agents that reduce survivorship are under consideration, such as the soft-scale insect Pulvinariella mesembryanthemi and the generalist pathogenic fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [8]. Regardless of the control method used, rapid evaluation of the population size and structure would help any management program, as it would provide the information needed for the learning process in adaptive management [69]. If the post-data processing procedures could be better optimized, the drone technology has great potential to allow for rapid monitoring of Carpobrotus populations.

L330-338 – This part is very general, and it has nothing to do with the work they present.

We reduced this part of the Discussion section. See lines 310-314, which now read:

To our knowledge, Israeli legislation does not include rules for the introduction and control of C. edulis and C. acinaciformis, and as such these are still allowed to be planted in urban gardens. This greatly hinders efforts for invasion prevention. Further demography studies could contribute to the identification of high-risk areas for which regulations could be put in place [8,54,73].

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mirko Di Febbraro

16 Apr 2021

Demographic analysis of an Israeli Carpobrotus population

PONE-D-20-29490R1

Dear Dr. Bogdan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mirko Di Febbraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors followed all the reviewer's suggestions. Good. Check in references if the names of Jornlas are correctly reported (e.g. in row 407 I think that the appropriate name is Biologia (Bratislava), etc.). Good paper.

Reviewer #2: General comments

I revised the second version of the manuscript entitled “Demographic analysis of an Israeli Carpobrotus population”. I found the manuscript deeply ameliorated and the aspects and comments indicated in the first review have been considered and included.

I think it is worthy of being published in its current form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Mirko Di Febbraro

20 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-29490R1

Demographic analysis of an Israeli Carpobrotus population

Dear Dr. Bogdan:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mirko Di Febbraro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Results for the flower number regression parameter perturbation analysis.

    The red point is the per-capita growth rate estimated from the regression parameters. The black line shows the upper and lower 95% confidence intervals derived from the draws that perturbed each flower number regression parameter. The range of values is quite small, and our qualitative results are not affected by the assumption of little temporal variation in flower production.

    (TIF)

    S1 File. IPM functions, drone results and model fitting results.

    S1.1 Table. Statistical values for the vital rates parameters. Coefficients, standard errors, test statistics, and p-values for each of the vital rate regression used in the IPM to generate point estimates of lambda, sensitivity, and elasticity functions. S1.2 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate growth models. S1.3 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate survival models. S1.4 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate probability of flowering models. S1.5 Table. AIC model selection tables for candidate flower production models.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 21 02 17 Revision Mfos.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. The complete R code can be found at the following link https://github.com/levisc8/carpobrotus_IPMs/tree/master/Ana_Israel_IPM.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES