Sustainable Growth of Medicinal and Aromatic Mediterranean Plants Growing as Communities in Shallow Substrate Urban Green Roof Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1-       Abstract: 28 a 34 por 163 a 167

 it is necessary to review the Abstract. Replacing the species lists with the characteristics of each community, for example, would be a good change. For example, replace lines 28 to 34 with text similar to lines 163 to 167 (The first plant community resembled the xerophytic vegetation of Chania region in Crete, which is characterized by rocky and stony sites, slits, rock crevices, cliffs, and canyons. The second plant community resembled the xerophytic vegetation of Attica, Crete, and the Cyclades, and the third the xerophytic coastal vegetation of Attica and Cyclades).

 2-       Tabla 2 sustituir Centranthus por Centrthus

 3-        Plant species selection, propagation, and planting

 More information on the field work is required. Normally field work are preceded by a search for sampling points with information from databases, herbarium information or a bibliographic search. Data collection prior to field work should be referenced, although they cannot be included in the text, in an apendix.

 4-       Figure 9: Irrigation regime:

 If the change in irrigation regime did not produce significantly different results, it is a very important fact. I think the graphs for all species should be presented (if the authors deem it necessary, it can be put in an annex, but I think it should be balanced with the other variables). This parameter should be more addressed in the discussion and in the conclusions, but above all, in the discussion.

 5-       A better justification of the selection of species for each of the communities is also required. If such selection responds to criteria of vegetation studies, landscape or otherwise, in addition to being useful species in gardening, as if it has been mentioned. In other words, it is necessary to answer why these 9 species and not others in each of the selected communities.

 6-       To improve the text, it is desirable to review the Discussion in order to compare the different communities and their origins and/or peculiarities, depending on the requirements of the species or their singularities. A revision of the conclusions is necessary for the improvement of the text, more oriented to the results and to bring part of the conclusions to the previous section (in relation to the requested improvement).

 7-       A revision of species names at a global use site is needed. If microendemisms are not accepted, a justification of the nomenclature used would be necessary, beyond the use of the web page used. A revision of the species and their status in the following database is recommended: https://wfoplantlist.org/plant-list

Author Response

letter for Sustainability 2155279

Authors would like to thank the Reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate all their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (reviewers’ comments in black, our replies in blue).

Reviewer 1

1-Abstract: 28 a 34 por 163 a 167

it is necessary to review the Abstract. Replacing the species lists with the characteristics of each community, for example, would be a good change. For example, replace lines 28 to 34 with text similar to lines 163 to 167 (The first plant community resembled the xerophytic vegetation of Chania region in Crete, which is characterized by rocky and stony sites, slits, rock crevices, cliffs, and canyons. The second plant community resembled the xerophytic vegetation of Attica, Crete, and the Cyclades, and the third the xerophytic coastal vegetation of Attica and Cyclades).

The Abstract was substantially shortened according to the recommendations of the two Reviewers. It is now counting 198 words.

2-Table 2 substitute Centranthus instead of Centrthus

It was corrected

3-Plant species selection, propagation, and planting

More information on the field work is required. Normally field work are preceded by a search for sampling points with information from databases, herbarium information or a bibliographic search. Data collection prior to field work should be referenced, although they cannot be included in the text, in an apendix.

The whole selection procedure and the exact criteria, based on which the literature review was conducted, were added in the text (L 150-176). Based on the literature review, 156 suitable plant species were selected and from them, 25 plant species that received the higher ratings  were used to formulate the 3 plant communities evaluated in the study. Authors are intending to write a separate manuscript concerning the selection procedure and thus the scoring systems is not provided.

4-Figure 9: Irrigation regime:

If the change in irrigation regime did not produce significantly different results, it is a very important fact. I think the graphs for all species should be presented (if the authors deem it necessary, it can be put in an annex, but I think it should be balanced with the other variables). This parameter should be more addressed in the discussion and in the conclusions, but above all, in the discussion.

The graphs regarding the irrigation regime effects on the growth and flowering of all plant species evaluated in the study are presented in a supplementary annex in an effort not to significantly increase the length of the manuscript. The irrigation effect is further discussed in the text.

5-A better justification of the selection of species for each of the communities is also required. If such selection responds to criteria of vegetation studies, landscape or otherwise, in addition to being useful species in gardening, as if it has been mentioned. In other words, it is necessary to answer why these 9 species and not others in each of the selected communities.

The criteria and the methodology for selecting 25 plant species, native or endemic to Greece, from which the 3 plant communities were created, consisting of 9 plant species each, are described in Lines 159-176.

6-To improve the text, it is desirable to review the Discussion in order to compare the different communities and their origins and/or peculiarities, depending on the requirements of the species or their singularities.

The discussion was revised to compare the three plan communities

7. A revision of the conclusions is necessary for the improvement of the text, more oriented to the results and to bring part of the conclusions to the previous section (in relation to the requested improvement).

The Conclusion was revised according to the recommendations of reviewers 1 and 2.

8. A revision of species names at a global use site is needed. If microendemisms are not accepted, a justification of the nomenclature used would be necessary, beyond the use of the web page used. A revision of the species and their status in the following database is recommended: https://wfoplantlist.org/plant-list

We revised the plant species following the online database  Euro+Med PlantBase (https://europlusmed.org/).  It includes the acceptable scientific names of plants in Europe and the Mediterranean region. Accordingly, Origanum vulgare L. subsp. hirtum (Link) A.Terracc. was corrected to Origanum vulgare subsp. hirtum (Link) Ietsw. In Table 2. We also checked the scientific names in WFO Plant List and gave the same results.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the current study, the authors examine the sustainable growth of medicinal and aromatic Mediterranean plants growing in communities on urban green roof systems with shallow substrates. The novelty of the study, according to the authors, lies in the fact that only monoculture studies have previously been conducted until their research. The majority of the plants in all the investigated plant communities appear to have benefited significantly from the deeper substrate they tested in terms of growth, flowering, survival, and water stress tolerance.

Although the research findings are well presented, I kindly request the authors to consider the following suggestions for improving the manuscript before it is considered for publication:

The Abstract is overly detailed and lengthy. Please rewrite it so that it is presented succinctly (the authors' guide states that it should not be longer than 200 words).

Introduction section should briefly introduce the reader in the context without too many arguments. The entire section should be shortened and rephrased, and the discussion section can be used for all extra information (the material between the lines 86-133).

No observations on materials and methods and results sections.

The discussion section is explained in detail, however it is not sufficiently anchored of previous studies. The authors can successfully add the extra details from the introduction in this section.

The conclusions are too long and the information is redundant. In this section, it is not necessary to repeat the information already presented in other parts of the manuscript, but to formulate the conclusions that emerge from the presented research and that meet the established objectives. It is mandatory to reformulate the entire section and eliminate extra information.

Author Response

letter for Sustainability 2155279

Authors would like to thank the two Reviewers for taking the necessary time and effort to review the manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate all their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (reviewers’ comments in black, our replies in blue).

Reviewer 2

In the current study, the authors examine the sustainable growth of medicinal and aromatic Mediterranean plants growing in communities on urban green roof systems with shallow substrates. The novelty of the study, according to the authors, lies in the fact that only monoculture studies have previously been conducted until their research. The majority of the plants in all the investigated plant communities appear to have benefited significantly from the deeper substrate they tested in terms of growth, flowering, survival, and water stress tolerance.

Although the research findings are well presented, I kindly request the authors to consider the following suggestions for improving the manuscript before it is considered for publication:

1. The Abstract is overly detailed and lengthy. Please rewrite it so that it is presented succinctly (the authors' guide states that it should not be longer than 200 words).

The Abstract was substantially shortened according to the recommendation of the two Reviewers. It is now counting 198 words.

2. Introduction section should briefly introduce the reader in the context without too many arguments. The entire section should be shortened and rephrased, and the discussion section can be used for all extra information (the material between the lines 86-133).

The Introduction was reduced and the proposed text was transferred to the Discussion section

3. No observations on materials and methods and results sections.
4. The discussion section is explained in detail, however it is not sufficiently anchored of previous studies. The authors can successfully add the extra details from the introduction in this section.

Authors revised the Discussion Section so the results can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies.

5. The conclusions are too long and the information is redundant. In this section, it is not necessary to repeat the information already presented in other parts of the manuscript, but to formulate the conclusions that emerge from the presented research and that meet the established objectives. It is mandatory to reformulate the entire section and eliminate extra information.

Conclusions were revised according to the recommendations of the Reviewers.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the team of the present research, the quality of the manuscript was raised by the changes the authors made in response to the reviewers' suggestions.