Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt
, Laila M. Bidak 1, Amal M. Fakhry 1, Sania K. Hamouda 1, Marwa W. A. Halmy 3, Sulaiman A. Alrumman 4, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre 5, Ebrahem M. Eid 2,4,* and Soliman M. Toto 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The novelty of this research lies in considering the role of cultural heritage sites as a shelter for plant diversity. I think the manuscript represents an overlooked topic that crosses multiple disciplines: on one side plant conservation and on the other side cultural heritage conservation. However, I have two major concerns: why did the authors only consider alpha diversity? In addition, the authors have considered the potential of archaeological sites as a shelter for plant diversity without considering the downside of vegetation proliferation on ancient cultural heritages. In fact, vascular plants can inflict severe damage on buildings and structures, largely due to their roots, which induce both chemical and mechanical forms of deterioration that could be damaged. As highlighted by the authors you cited (Caneva et al. 2008; Celesti-Grapow and Ricotta 2021) and others (Cutler DF, Richardson IBK (1989) Tree roots and buildings, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow; Cicinelli E, Benelli F, Bartoli F et al (2020) Trends of plant communities growing on the Etruscan tombs (Cerveteri, Italy) related to different management practices. Plant Biosyst 154:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2019.1578286).
In addition, I found some other issues that I would ask you to consider for improving the article.
LL 122-123 What was the size of the plot? Moreover, it is not clear how the stands were randomly selected.
Figure 1 Remove the dashed lines (going from figure b to c). Do not overlap labels in Figure 1c. Are sampling sites independent? It seems they are clustered in 7 groups.
Table 1: How can the reader understand which numbers in Figure 1 correspond to the sites shown in the table?
LL 166-167 “Diversity is a function of species richness and the evenness of individual distribution amongst the species.” This is the definition of alpha diversity not the definition of diversity in general.
LL 182-184 Were differences in community characteristics assessed only through alpha diversity indices? Why were not some beta diversity indices considered? Which, in my opinion, are more capable of detecting differences between plant communities.
LL 195-196 Weeds are native? If so, I would say: "In total 173 species were native flora, of which 82 were recorded as weeds".
LL 207-210 Where do these habitat types come from? I think a description of the habitat types considered within the sampling sites is missing.
Figure 3 Numbers on dotted gray are difficult to read. In Swamp are impossible to read.
LL 255-256 How could you name a community on the basis of a single species? Why do you not considered phytosociological associations to compare with your groups?
Figure 7 Do not overlap labels otherwise the figure is unreadable.
LL 375-379 The plants, lichens, and mosses that grow on monuments can also have negative consequences on them. Maybe you should consider the pros and cons of plants growing on monuments.
LL 436 The word “native” is repeated.
LL 441-442 Original native species? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that weed (generalist) species have replaced specialist native species.
LL 459-460 Usually swamps have lower species richness but contain more rare and endemic species. See, for example “Liccari, F., Sigura, M., Tordoni, E., Boscutti, F., & Bacaro, G. (2021). Determining Plant Diversity within Interconnected Natural Habitat Remnants (Ecological Network) in an Agricultural Landscape: A Matter of Sampling Design? Diversity, 14(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14010012” where fens and wetland habitat types were found to be richer in protected and endemic species but lower in species richness than other habitat types.
Author Response
- January 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 1:
- The novelty of this research lies in considering the role of cultural heritage sites as a shelter for plant diversity. I think the manuscript represents an overlooked topic that crosses multiple disciplines: on one side plant conservation and on the other side cultural heritage conservation. However, I have two major concerns: why did the authors only consider alpha diversity? In addition, the authors have considered the potential of archaeological sites as a shelter for plant diversity without considering the downside of vegetation proliferation on ancient cultural heritages. In fact, vascular plants can inflict severe damage on buildings and structures, largely due to their roots, which induce both chemical and mechanical forms of deterioration that could be damaged. As highlighted by the authors you cited (Caneva et al. 2008; Celesti-Grapow and Ricotta 2021) and others (Cutler DF, Richardson IBK (1989) Tree roots and buildings, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow; Cicinelli E, Benelli F, Bartoli F et al (2020) Trends of plant communities growing on the Etruscan tombs (Cerveteri, Italy) related to different management practices. Plant Biosyst 154:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2019.1578286).
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for constructive comments and suggestions. First, we use alpha diversity because as beta diversity indices usually measure species turnover along spatial or environmental gradients, so beta diversity was not considered here because there was no environmental gradient to evaluate species turnover along it. Secondly, about the negative effect of vegetation on archaeological sites, we surveyed the natural vegetation growing inside these sites and most of them are annual species (about 54%) which has small root system with little or no damage on buildings and structures, Also, we add in a recommendation a caution for cultivation of ornamental trees inside them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 122-123 What was the size of the plot? Moreover, it is not clear how the stands were randomly selected.
Response: Stands were selected randomly, based on random stratification that considered the area, the variability in habitats, the physiographic variations, and the levels of disturbance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Figure 1 Remove the dashed lines (going from figure b to c). Do not overlap labels in Figure 1c. Are sampling sites independent? It seems they are clustered in 7 groups.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The dashed lines were removed according to your suggestion. The overlap in Figure 1c was removed as possible. The sampled plots within the studied archaeological sites are independent, please note that the studied archaeological sites are placed in urban area and the selection of the sampled plots was conducted considering representation the variability of habitats within each archeological site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Table 1: How can the reader understand which numbers in Figure 1 correspond to the sites shown in the table?
Response: Thank you for your comment. In Table 1, we have added in the column titled No. of Stands, the IDs of the stands in each archaeological site. This way the reader can link the stands in the maps with the archeological sites in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 166-167 “Diversity is a function of species richness and the evenness of individual distribution amongst the species.” This is the definition of alpha diversity not the definition of diversity in general.
Response: Yes, we changed to alpha diversity as a reviewer advised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 182-184 Were differences in community characteristics assessed only through alpha diversity indices? Why were not some beta diversity indices considered? Which, in my opinion, are more capable of detecting differences between plant communities.
Response: As beta diversity indices usually measure species turnover along spatial or environmental gradients, so beta diversity was not considered here because there was no environmental gradient to evaluate species turnover along it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 195-196 Weeds are native? If so, I would say: "In total 173 species were native flora, of which 82 were recorded as weeds".
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have considered your suggestion and modified the sentence accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 207-210 Where do these habitat types come from? I think a description of the habitat types considered within the sampling sites is missing.
Response: Habitat types were categorized based on field observations and information about the different habitat types can be found in the supplementary material.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Figure 3 Numbers on dotted gray are difficult to read. In Swamp are impossible to read.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The figure was modified in order to make the number readable as recommended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 255-256 How could you name a community on the basis of a single species? Why do you not considered phytosociological associations to compare with your groups?
Response: The plant communities can be named according to the first dominant species and also, we can add the second dominant if the first one is repeated in other community. Also, we add the associated species in each group (in results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Figure 7 Do not overlap labels otherwise the figure is unreadable.
Response: We modify the title of this figure to delete the overlapping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 375-379 The plants, lichens, and mosses that grow on monuments can also have negative consequences on them. Maybe you should consider the pros and cons of plants growing on monuments.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that in some cases the growth of some species particularly invasive shrubby and woody species might cause detrimental effect on some of the structures, buildings, and wall. However, studying the effect of growth of these species on the long-term maintenance of archeological sites is out of the scope of the current study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 436 The word “native” is repeated.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The repeated word was removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 441-442 Original native species? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that weed (generalist) species have replaced specialist native species.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been modified in consideration with your suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- LL 459-460 Usually swamps have lower species richness but contain more rare and endemic species. See, for example “Liccari, F., Sigura, M., Tordoni, E., Boscutti, F., & Bacaro, G. (2021). Determining Plant Diversity within Interconnected Natural Habitat Remnants (Ecological Network) in an Agricultural Landscape: A Matter of Sampling Design? Diversity, 14(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14010012” where fens and wetland habitat types were found to be richer in protected and endemic species but lower in species richness than other habitat types.
Response: We agree with you that swamps have lower species richness but contain more rare and endemic species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript intend to present the pattern of species diversity in an historic Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes of Alexandria City, Egypt. The manuscript is well structured in its content and analysis. The study looks promising, however, it tremendously fails to connect with the concept of sustainability and in the larger domain of the journal "forum for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development".
Author Response
- January 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 2:
The current manuscript intend to present the pattern of species diversity in an historic Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes of Alexandria City, Egypt. The manuscript is well structured in its content and analysis. The study looks promising, however, it tremendously fails to connect with the concept of sustainability and in the larger domain of the journal "forum for studies related to sustainability and sustainable development".
Response: Thank you for your comment. The presented research emphasizes the role of cultural heritage sites as a shelter for plant diversity. It highlights an overlooked topic that crosses multiple disciplines integrating plant diversity conservation and the cultural heritage conservation. One of the pillars of the sustainability of natural resources is the promotion of conservation of biodiversity and the adoption of mechanisms that integrate biodiversity and cultural diversity. The study highlights the urgent need for measures to maintain cultural landscapes while considering the conservation of biodiversity within the archeological sites. It is hoped that the outcomes of the current study can provide guidance on the potential integration of biodiversity conservation in planning the management of archeological sites. Therefore, the presented research work falls within the domain of the journal, as it addresses one of the main topics that Sustainability focus on, which is the maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity conservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The idea of this work is appealing; understanding the factors that control which plant species inhabit historical monuments and landscapes to guide the proper management of these monuments and contribute to combine the conservation of biodiversity and the preservation of cultural heritage (archeological sites).
The study attempts to assess and to value the archeological sites in Alexandria City, with the potential for using such information for the integration of biodiversity conservation into planning the management of the investigated sites, but such plan is not presented.
The soil data or the method of choosing the sampling areas is unclear. According to the authors, “the selection of the stands in each site was based on random stratification that considered the area, the variability in habitats, the physiographic variations, and the levels of disturbance. The size of the stands varied depending on the habitat type and plant”, but what is the representativeness of these sampling areas? The analysis of the % of species found in the study in relation to the flora of Egypt is made, but the relative floristic importance of the areas remains to be understood. And what is the is the representativeness of the sampling areas compared to the classic conservation spots/areas?
The major flaw of this work and which is unacceptable relates to the lack of a control that makes the study conclusive. A control for each typology or stand sampled. It would also be important to make this comparative analysis against protected areas that have purpose of biodiversity conservation to be able to propose combined management strategies aimed at cultural heritage and biodiversity.
Author Response
4. February 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 3:
The idea of this work is appealing; understanding the factors that control which plant species inhabit historical monuments and landscapes to guide the proper management of these monuments and contribute to combine the conservation of biodiversity and the preservation of cultural heritage (archeological sites).
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for positive feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The study attempts to assess and to value the archeological sites in Alexandria City, with the potential for using such information for the integration of biodiversity conservation into planning the management of the investigated sites, but such plan is not presented.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The objective of this study is to highlight the role thee archaeological sites as shelter for some of the important plant species within the urban areas. The information provided in the current study can help future planning that will combine conservation of both natural and cultural heritage. Hover providing detailed plan for the management of the archaeological sites to fulfill this objective is beyond the scope of the study and could be sought in another study that would focus more on the elements of the management plans for similar archaeological sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The soil data or the method of choosing the sampling areas is unclear. According to the authors, “the selection of the stands in each site was based on random stratification that considered the area, the variability in habitats, the physiographic variations, and the levels of disturbance. The size of the stands varied depending on the habitat type and plant”, but what is the representativeness of these sampling areas? The analysis of the % of species found in the study in relation to the flora of Egypt is made, but the relative floristic importance of the areas remains to be understood. And what is the is the representativeness of the sampling areas compared to the classic conservation spots/areas?
Response: Thank you for your comment. First the soil samples collected from each stand (not from each site) and we correct this in the methods. Second, we explain the selection of the stands to represent the main habitats and prevailing plant communities in the study sites. The relative floristic importance of these area are shown in Discussion section (page 18: highlights). On the other hand, these sites present inside the urban area of Alexandria as archaeological sites some of them are not protected, others are semi-protected and a little of them are completely protected, but they are not declared as a protectorate. So in the present study we are looking for unexpected protectorates area particularly in urbanized region and not with classical protectorates in Egypt, so it is not justness to compare. On the other hand, this study is just to discover unusual ways for Conservation of native plant community, beside that is not our task for this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-The major flaw of this work and which is unacceptable relates to the lack of a control that makes the study conclusive. A control for each typology or stand sampled. It would also be important to make this comparative analysis against protected areas that have purpose of biodiversity conservation to be able to propose combined management strategies aimed at cultural heritage and biodiversity.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The current study attempts to assess the plant diversity within the archeological sites in Alexandria City, with the potential for using such information for the integration of biodiversity conservation into planning the management of the investigated sites. Comparing the floristic composition of the investigated archeological sites with other urban habitats within Alexandria City and other protected areas will be conducted in detail by the authors in another future study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Good job
- Line 151. correct e.g. Ca2 +, .... and the same for anions ... (atoms can be converted to ions by eliminating or absorbing one or more electrons)
- In general, high EC values ​​were observed in this study, while high variability was observed in soil samples in the same sampling area (eg Anfoshy). Higher mean EC value ​​(11.04 ± 24.08) was observed in Anfoshy (Atta Fortress area) compared to other areas (Table S2). However, according to the photos in the supplementary file, soil samples were probably taken from different locations (different soil samples in the same area) such as: Coastal ridge - Rocky ridge - Coastal dunes with different characteristics (saline and calcareous soils). ..). The above could be explain this variability in EC values (eg Anfoshy). As a result, the average EC value is higher at the Anfoshy site than elsewhere, but according to the CCA analysis the soil EC and therefore the SAR index do not appear to be a significant factor for biodiversity. This is due to the high variations in EC values (this should be reported). According to recent literature, soil EC as well as Na concentration are important factors for plant species diversity (e.g. see Triantafyllidis et al., 2020; Bünemann et al., 2018). Thus, in line 534, it is better to mention that EC values, soil Na concentration or SAR and secondarily the Mn concentration are the main factors affecting the number of species. The above does not invalidate your observation that Mn concentration has a significant effect on the plant species diversity but I consider that Mn concentrations is secondarily importance (Richness in Anfoshy was 12.33 ± 6.66; recorded the lowest number of species because it had the highest EC, Na, SAR and Mn...)
- It is important to mentioned that heterogeneous soils in the same sampling area (soils with different soil characteristics) cannot adequately explain the diversity of plant species. In this case and specifically when soil heterogeneity occurs (as usual), smaller homogeneous sub-areas should be selected.
Author Response
- January 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 3:
- Line 151. correct e.g. Ca2 +, .... and the same for anions ... (atoms can be converted to ions by eliminating or absorbing one or more electrons).
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for constructive comments and suggestions. The sentence has been modified in consideration with your suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- In general, high EC values ​​were observed in this study, while high variability was observed in soil samples in the same sampling area (eg Anfoshy). Higher mean EC value ​​(11.04 ± 24.08) was observed in Anfoshy (Atta Fortress area) compared to other areas (Table S2). However, according to the photos in the supplementary file, soil samples were probably taken from different locations (different soil samples in the same area) such as: Coastal ridge - Rocky ridge - Coastal dunes with different characteristics (saline and calcareous soils). The above could be explain this variability in EC values (eg Anfoshy). As a result, the average EC value is higher at the Anfoshy site than elsewhere, but according to the CCA analysis the soil EC and therefore the SAR index do not appear to be a significant factor for biodiversity. This is due to the high variations in EC values (this should be reported). According to recent literature, soil EC as well as Na concentration are important factors for plant species diversity (e.g. see Triantafyllidis et al., 2020; Bünemann et al., 2018). Thus, in line 534, it is better to mention that EC values, soil Na concentration or SAR and secondarily the Mn concentration are the main factors affecting the number of species. The above does not invalidate your observation that Mn concentration has a significant effect on the plant species diversity but I consider that Mn concentrations is secondarily importance (Richness in Anfoshy was 12.33 ± 6.66; recorded the lowest number of species because it had the highest EC, Na, SAR and Mn...)
Response: We added the sentence explain this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- It is important to mentioned that heterogeneous soils in the same sampling area (soils with different soil characteristics) cannot adequately explain the diversity of plant species. In this case and specifically when soil heterogeneity occurs (as usual), smaller homogeneous sub-areas should be selected.
Response: Stands were selected randomly, based on random stratification that considered the area, the variability in habitats, the physiographic variations, and the levels of disturbance. Also, each site cannot be classified into a sub-areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I believe that the quality of the manuscript has greatly improved and can now be published.
Author Response
- 2. February 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 1:
Dear Authors,
I believe that the quality of the manuscript has greatly improved and can now be published.
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for positive feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the major concerns.
Author Response
2. February 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 3:
The authors have addressed the major concerns.
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for positive feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Α small suggestion to the authors: where necessary, check and add bibliographic sources to the sentences you have corrected.
Accept in present form.
Author Response
4. February 2022
Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen
Editor-in-Chief
Sustainability,
Dear Prof. Dr. Marc A. Rosen,
Please find attached the revised manuscript titled ‘Archeological Sites and Relict Landscapes as Refuge for Biodiversity: Case Study of Alexandria City, Egypt’. Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-1548379, authored by Selim Z. Heneidy, Yassin M. Al-Sodany, Laila M. Bidak, Amal M. Fakhry, Sania K. Hamouda, Marwa W. A. Halmy, Sulaiman A. Alrumman, Dhafer A. Al-Bakre, Ebrahem M. Eid, and Soliman M. Toto.
On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We have carefully studied the reviewers’ comments and have made revisions that are yellow highlighted in the revised version of the manuscript. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. Once again, we would like to express our great appreciation to you and the reviewers for the comments on our manuscript.
Please find below our detailed responses to each of the points raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of Reviewer # 4:
Α small suggestion to the authors: where necessary, check and add bibliographic sources to the sentences you have corrected.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have checked and added the sources for the sentences that have been corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept in present form.
Response: Thanks so much Sir for your time and for positive feedback.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would appreciate if the revised version of our manuscript would be considered for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely,
Ebrahem M. Eid
Kafrelsheikh University, Kafr El-Sheikh, Egypt
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
