Urban Planning and Green Landscape Management Drive Plant Diversity in Five Tropical Cities in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     The abstract provides a concise summary of the manuscript's main elements, including the study's objectives, methodology, and key findings. However, it lacks specific results from the research. Incorporating some specific findings in the abstract would enhance its effectiveness in conveying the study's contributions and insights. By including key quantitative results, the abstract would better engage readers and provide a clearer indication of the study's outcomes.

2.     The provided keywords are indeed excessive and should be reduced to a maximum of two words each, as per standard journal requirements. I recommend revising the keywords to be more concise and representative of the study's main focus (Suggested revised keywords: Urban plant diversity; Functional units; Distribution patterns; Socioeconomic factors; Green space management).

3.     Line 78-84: The mentioned paragraph indeed contains elements that are more suitable for the discussion section rather than the introduction. The introduction should focus on providing a clear background, research gap, and the study's specific objectives. To enhance clarity and adherence to the conventional structure, it is advisable to move this paragraph to the discussion section.

4.     The introduction sets the context well but lacks a clear statement of the study's main aims and objectives. It is crucial to include a section specifically outlining the study's research questions or objectives. This will provide readers with a focused understanding of the research's purpose and what the authors aimed to achieve.

5.     Regarding the study area I would suggest to focus on why these cities have been selected (what was the criterion) for this study. As China have so many dense populated cities with good forest cover. The rationale behind the selection of these specific cities for the study is essential to provide in the manuscript. Justifying the choice of cities in terms of their relevance to the research topic and the presence of specific characteristics or challenges related to urban green spaces will strengthen the manuscript's basis and significance.  

6.     The authors stated that they have conducted field surveys of plants between June and October in 2021 and 2022 and survey 826 urban functional units, how they cover such a large area in a limited time of one year. Did the authors sampled these functional units in specific months (Spring etc) or throughout the year. In my view, the authors should provide clarification on the sampling strategy and timeframe for data collection to address the feasibility of conducting field surveys in such a large area over a limited time. If the survey occurred in specific months, the authors should justify their choice and discuss any potential implications for the study's findings.

7.     Line 111-114: The mentioned sentences indeed lack clarity and need to be rewritten to improve comprehension. Furthermore, it is crucial to explicitly state which specific approaches from Wang et al. (2020) and Zhang et al. (2022) the authors adopted in their own study. A clear explanation of the methodologies followed will enable readers to understand the research process better and assess the reliability of the findings.

8.     The manuscript should explain the reasons and criteria used for dividing the different cities into various grids. This information is essential for readers to understand the spatial sampling design and its implications for the study's overall results and conclusions.

9.     Line 117-119: it would be better to write this way: "We selected representative UFUs in each grid (Fig. 1) differing in land use type, green space coverage, maintenance strategies (i.e., greening strategies), and socioeconomic characteristics (Wang et al., 2013)." The suggested rephrasing improves the sentence's clarity and conciseness, making it easier for readers to understand the selection process of representative UFUs.

10.   Line 133-137: Splitting the sentence into two will enhance readability and prevent information overload for readers. Additionally, adding specific plot sizes, such as "20 × 20 m plots" and "5 × 5 m plots," clarifies the data collection methodology and provides a better understanding of the study's spatial scale.

11.   Line 137-142: For the purposes of this study (delete please). Directly start from trees was defined as wood perennials…… (The suggested removal of the phrase "For the purposes of this study" streamlines the sentence, and starting directly with the definition of trees improves clarity and efficiency in conveying information to readers.

12.   Line 141-142: The statement appears redundant and does not add significant value to the understanding of the subject. If the information about the same plant belonging to different categories is already evident, it can be deleted to avoid repetition.

13.   Line 152-157: The manuscript should clarify the intended meaning of "density of the plants from the respective numbers" to avoid confusion. Additionally, the use of the Aiplants application for plant identification should be addressed and justified. If there are concerns about its reliability, alternatives or supplementary methods should be considered and discussed.

14.   Line 165-168: Under the heading environment variables starting from the previous studies till the tropics would be better to move into introduction.

14.   Line 165-168: Under the heading environment variables starting from the previous studies till the tropics would be better to move into the introduction.

The section about environment variables, including references to previous studies and discussions about the tropics, would be more appropriately placed in the introduction. This content sets the context for understanding the study's approach and the significance of investigating plant diversity in urban environments. Moving this information to the introduction will help readers grasp the broader background and motivation behind the research.

15.   Line 241-248: Please accommodate the paragraph somewhere in the discussion. It would be better to focus here on results only. Additionally, the results section should be streamlined to present key findings succinctly. The authors should avoid excessive explanations and focus on presenting the data in a clear and concise manner. A more straightforward presentation of results will make the manuscript easier to follow and understand.

 

16.   Overall, the manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field, but it requires some improvements and clarifications. Addressing the specific points raised will enhance the manuscript's clarity, scientific rigor, and impact.

The manuscript is generally well-written but the text is too long, therefore I would recommend moderate editing of the English language by a native speaker.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions for my manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The research is very interesting and will be in the future more and more important because of the urban environment increase.

My general comments are:

- to use the term 'plants' as a 'plant species' where you are speaking about plant species. The term plant(s) is to general. Please read the text carefully and change it where necessary.

- instead of spontaneous plants please use spontaneously growing plant species

- description of plant species sampling in Methods should be improved

 

I find this article:

• interesting and with a popular theme
• some improvement can be done in the Methodology, because everything is not well explained (I added a comment into the manuscript)
• there can  be added some additional tables with sum of species number found in each of the research area

All other comments are already added in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: to use the term 'plants' as a 'plant species' where you are speaking about plant species. The term plant(s) is to general. Please read the text carefully and change it where necessary.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, we have checked the full text and changed "plant" to "plant species" where necessary.

 

Point 2: instead of spontaneous plants please use spontaneously growing plant species

 

Response 2: Thanks to your suggestion, we have changed "spontaneous plants" to "spontaneous growing plant species" throughout the text.

 

Point 3: description of plant species sampling in Methods should be improved

 

Response 3: We have revised and improved this section. And have added Annex 2 as a sampling schematic to help with better understanding.

 

Point 4: I find this article:

interesting and with a popular theme

some improvement can be done in the Methodology, because everything is not well explained (I added a comment into the manuscript)

there can be added some additional tables with sum of species number found in each of the research area

All other comments are already added in the manuscript.

 

Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions, we have revised and improved the methodology section and revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. The additional tables will be submitted as an attachment. Once again, thank you for your support and valuable suggestions on our manuscript. I have responded to your other comments on the manuscript in the attached PDF file. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The submitted manuscript titled „Urban planning and landscape greening management drive plant diversity in five tropical cities of China” contains interesting results and it might interst large international audience. Nevertheless I have found some imperfections-which in my opinion- should be corrected or clarified before an eventual publication. I have listed them below:

1.Chapter Introduction

lines 84-88- the general aims of investigations should be presented instead of presented brief description of methods.

2.Subchapter 2.2.1 Field survey

I encourage Authors to prepare Figure presenting design of sample collection to make easier the understanding the methodology.

3.In my opinion the Figures are a bit illegible. They should be enlarged. Figure 2- do the presented plants are most common in study sites? Figure 3 might be divided into separate graphs because in present form it is very difficult to read and understand.

4. Suchapter 3.2 Plant diversity Distribution Patterns

I suggest to add Table containing the full list of noticed plant species with data refereing to their origin (native, non-native, cultivated etc. ) and information about occurence in particular study sites. Such Table might be presented in supplementary material.

In my opinion, the information about species occuring most abundantly in particular study sites are worth adding. Do study sites are similar regarding to species composition?

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions for my manuscript.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf