Echium vulgare and Echium plantagineum: A Comparative Study to Evaluate Their Inclusion in Mediterranean Urban Green Roofs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript requires a revision. The research is interesting, and the results are essential for green roof application. My comments are as follows

The abstract is well written and contains all elements for its good understanding

The materials and methods section is well written and explained

The caption of the figures is very long, in some figures, the authors discuss information that should be in the body of the manuscript

Some lines at the end of page 7 and the beginning of page 8 resemble a table.

How come did the authors analyze the seeds? If the authors are evaluating the inclusion of two types of plants in the Mediterranean climate, why is it necessary to study the seeds in such detail?

 

The results obtained by the study should be compared to the available data noted in the literature review to highlight any new contribution of the work presented in the paper.    

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see in attachment authors' replies to your valuable comments.

Thank for your work!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I served as one of the original reviewers for this article. I carefully inspected the responses to my initial comments. I believe the authors were successful in making the necessary required revisions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,   Thank you for your positive feedback!   We are very pleased to know that we were able to address all your raised comments in the appropriate way. Your significant work has been very worthwhile for the general improvement of our manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors propose a manuscript titled “Echium vulgare and Echium plantagineum: a comparative study to evaluate their inclusion in Mediterranean urban green roofs”

The review is original, well structured and written. In particular, this study takes into consideration and highlights an interisting topic on on Green roofs that represent a crucial solution among those based on nature conservation solutions and to offset against numerous environmental and socio-economic concerns associated to climate changes and urban sprawl. In Mediterranean urban areas, to protect and conserve biodiversity through GRs, the use of native plant species from arid environments and with shallow roots is generally recommended, infact in many case the municipilaty have a laws with list of native local species, useful to prepare a green project as garden... The authors declare that further research is required to select well-performing native plants under extensive GR conditions and to analyse the urban ecosystem services (UESs) they could provide. I am disappointed about this comment because the native plants are they already exist and you have to choose between these and not alien species that come from other countries. In the manuscript the authors discuss on Echium vulgare and Echium plantagineum in North Europe, on their tolerance to abiotic stresses and their attractiveness for bees. To compare the adaptability of both Echium evaluated have been grown and studied on the Casaccia Research Center, in the North of Rome, in Italy. I suggest to modify and complete some concepts, after which the work may be published.

 

Abstract

·        Is too long, please summarize

1.   Introduction

Please add a reference for these statements and correct in the suggested way (in bold).

·        Lines 42-51. “Recently, one of the greatest threats to humanity has been identified as the collapse of the global ecosystem caused by the loss of pollinators [1-3], and public and scientific awareness of the connection between food security and pollination has increased considerably [4]. Different strategies have been proposed to reduce the pressures on pollinators, as a comprehensive evaluation of pesticide risk to the environment, and the assessment of effective habitat networks for different species [Cornara et al. 2020, please add 2/3 references]. At this regard, Europe has already endorsed different policies focusing on the natural capital and the urban ecosystem services (UESs) [choose reference]…”;

·        Linse 66-68. Thus, it is advisable to include drought tolerant species able to survive and thrive in the GR challenging environment [16,17], selecting them from the local autochthonous ones.

·        Line 70. Sedum and other genera of the Crassulaceae family….;

·        Line 88. Boraginaceae instead Borage;

·        Please two words about natural habitat in which grow these two species. In Italy are taxa that grow in ruderal habitat....;

·        Lines 110-111. Please move in material and methods “a three-year experimentation has been carried out on the ENEA GR…”

 

2.   Material and methods

Well done, few observations

·        Lines 132-133. biological form not cycle;

·        Line 134. …and other phenological characteristics;

3. Results

·        Lines 240-241. Conceptual mistake because the mediterranean clime change in relation to latitude. the climate we find in Rome is different from the Sicilian one, right?. instead the authors statement: "a native Mediterranean plant species was identified and selected for their potential adaptability in extensive green roofs";

·        Lines 248-250. Furthermore, from the same genus, Echium plantagineum L. was selected as an ornamental species adapt for borders of flower beds and gardens [34], also found in Lazio [37], and very common in many other italian regions [Bartolucci et al. 2018, Perrino et al. 2018], and in many ruderal habitats [Perrino et al. 2013];

·        Line 484. E. plantagineum is not endemic but only native. Please cut the term endemic that have other mean;

·        Lines 501-505. Further research is required to establish how and how much the green roof stress conditions may alter the relationships between the flowers and the pollinators, and the presence of green corridors and networks through the urban space to provide opportunities for pollinators to move along and across has to be considered at the same time [60], evaluating the regional geographic distribution of native species compared to non-native ones [Stinca et al. 2021].

References to be added:

ü Cornara, D.; Marra, M.; Tedone, B.; Cavalieri, V.; Porcelli, F.; Fereres, A.; Purcell, A.; Saponari, M. No evidence for cicadas’ implication in Xylella fastidiosa epidemiology. Entomologia Generalis 2020, 40, 125–132. doi: 10.1127/entomologia/2020/0912

ü Perrino, E.V.; Calabrese G. Endangered segetal species in southern Italy: distribution, conservation status, trends, actions and ethnobotanical notes. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution 2018, 65, 2107–2134. doi: 10.1007/s10722-018-0678-6.

ü Perrino, E.V.; Signorile, G.; Marvulli, M. A first checklist of the vascular flora of the “Polignano a Mare” coast (Apulia, southern Italy). Natura Croatica 2013, 22, 295-318.

ü Stinca, A.; Musarella, C.M.; Rosati, L.; Laface, V.L.A.; Licht, W.; Fanfarillo, E. et al. Italian Vascular Flora: New Findings, Updates and Exploration of Floristic Similarities between Regions. Diversity 2021, 13, 600. doi: 10.3390/d13110600

9. Conclusions

Please two much words on future research prospectives in this topic.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see in attachment authors' replies to your valuable comments.

Thank for your work!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate the work done in this last version of the manuscript. 
In my opinion the work is ready to be published.

Congratulation,

reviewer

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The umbrella objectives of this work are valuable and essential to ecological conservation in ever-expanding urban environments. However, the reported work has some very significant problems:

1. Syntax and grammar associated with the English language is weak;  in some cases poor enough to create uncertainty or confusion relative to intended meaning.
2. The paper contains reports of a broad range of morphological and phenoypic comparisons that have little to do with the stated objectives, which are to make a comparative assessment of two species for application on green roofs.
3. The authors indicate that collected data was statistically analyzed but provide no information associated with statistical design or structure.
4. I have serious concern about the recommendations that were derived from the study. Use of annual or biennial plants on a green roof requires that the plants can self-propagate over the extended period of roof function. The short period of data collect in this study does not allow proper assessment of this critical factor. In fact, one of the study species had to be replanted after the first growing season. A longer term study is needed to validate the efficacy of these species as green roof candidates.
5. Given that a single (or in one case two) accessions of the subject species was used to make morphological comparisons, the inferred assumptions that the every population of these species will produce plants that will conform to these findings in invalid. Species variability is likely to overwhelm the differences documented.

I cannot recommend this paper for publication given the significant deficiencies I have outlined. I am not sure if all of the problems can be resolved, but the importance of the topic and the intriguing nature of the work makes me hope it can be accomplished.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments on the manuscript: Echium vulgare and Echium plantagineum: a comparative study to evaluate their inclusion in urban green roofs in Mediterranean areas. In my opinion, the manuscript needs a major revision, there are several issues. My comments are as follows:

No quantitative results are shown in the abstract and in the introduction

The abstract is very long, Although the English language of the abstract is good, it resembles more to the first paragraph of an introduction. A good abstract just cover the following; a) Background: What is known and why is this study needed?, b) Methods: What did you do?, c) Results: What did you find? d) Discussion: What does it mean?

The contribution of the research developed by the authors is not highlighted

The introduction must be rewritten. The authors did not present a good literature review on the topic. The introduction must have a funnel shape with clear sections on

- general background (what is this all about?);

- what is known and what is unknown about this specific subject (why was this study needed, and why is it important?);

- primary research question (what did we want to know?); and

- study aim and design (what did we do to answer the researchquestion?).

The size of Fig. 1 is very big, it occupies the half of a page,  authors should reduce it size

Section 2.4 does not show any result, it is just a test mentioning what the authors did. Because the name of the section included the word "analysis"

It is not clear why the seed has to be analyzed, please explain

The authors failed to provide uncertainty analyses and to discuss how that can potentially affect their findings. There are no error bars in the plots. An uncertainty analysis is recommended to evaluate the sensitivity of the results found and the significance of the discrepancy between theoretical and experimental data reported.

About section 3.3.1, Again how come did the authors make a seed comparison?

The caption of Fig 4 is very long, please the text used to describe Fig 4.

Justify why it is needed to develop a root comparison

The conclusions of the manuscript must be improved