Floristic Inventory of Ethnobotanically Important Halophytes of North-Western Mediterranean Coastal Brackish Areas, Tuscany, Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Floristic Inventory of Ethnobotanically Important Halophytes of NW Mediterranean coastal Brackish Areas (Tuscany–Italy)” is interesting and under the scope of the journal ‘AGRONOMY.’ However, the MS needs major revisions before possible acceptance in the ‘AGRONOMY’ journal.
Comments and suggestions about MS
Title
1- Line 2-3: The title needs to be modified to “Floristic Inventory of Ethnobotanically Important Halophytes of North-western Mediterranean coastal Brackish Areas, Tuscany–Italy”.
Abstract
1- Line 12-13: Please replace ‘The aim of this research is to identify, in these areas, the halophyte species of ethnobotanical interest and create a relative map database.’ with ‘This research aims to identify the halophyte species of ethnobotanical interest and create a relative map database of the study area.’
2- Line 22: Please remove the word ‘halophytes; ethnobotany; Italy’ from the keywords because you have already used these words in the title, and add a more suitable word to enhance the visibility of your Article. In addition, keywords must be rewritten and arranged alphabetically.
Introduction
3- An introduction should have what is known about that topic in existing literature, what is missing, what this study is going to bring, and why it is important to study. However, the introduction of the present study only mentions why this study is important and the need for that specific region. What about scientific merit?
4- What scientific questions have you addressed?
5- The authors are encouraged to consult and cite recent literature in the introduction.
https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2020.6.0166, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2022.153828, Journal of Plant Physiology.
Materials and Methods
1- Line 89-177: Basic information regarding the number of plant Species, their Families, and Genera is missed. Please add this basic and necessary information.
2- Line 135: You claimed you initially conducted ‘bibliographic research’. Can you explain how you did this? What keywords did you use to search relevant literature? What were the criteria for selecting or rejecting a study/paper?
3- Please add a schematic diagram about the ‘bibliographic research’ to enhance your Article's visibility and easy understanding.
4- Line 140-141: You said, ‘two salt marshes surveys were carried out at regular intervals from April 2021 to April 2022.’ Do you want to say you visited twice, and every visit was after six months? Please explain this sentence and mention the month/period you visited the sites.
5- Line 161: Please cite the references of authors or add the name of authors instead of saying, ‘According to the two previously mentioned authors’
Results
1- Line 182-189: This should be moved to Materials and Methods.
2- Line 201-202, 203-204, 391-392: Please mention the number of species (n=?) in the title of each table.
3- Please add a Figure showing the percentage of used Plant parts for different diseases.
4- Please add another Figure which shows the diseases that can be cured by the Plant Species you studied.
5- Line 391-392: Please move ‘Appendix A. Table A1.’ to the Materials and Methods/Results section.
Discussion
Discussion is fine.
Conclusions
Line 366-383: Conclusions must be written the basis of your study's key findings and need to rewrite.
References
1. Line 513-742: There are too many references (232). Only review papers can have so many references. Usually, a research article is good ~50 references. However, the study related to Ethnobotany may use ~70 references. Therefore, please reduce the number of references.
Hopefully, these suggestions will help you to improve your Article.
Good luck!
Author Response
ANSWERS TO Reviewer 1
Authors are grateful for the helpful and accurate review suggestions
1 TITLE - DONE
ABSTRACT
1 - DONE
2 - DONE
INTRODUCTION
- PARTIALLY DONE. The introduction was revised considering also the comments of the other 3 reviewers. We believe that the scientific merit of the research has been addressed in the discussion.
- We believe that the scientific questions are sufficiently motivated.
- PARTIALLY DONE. One of the two proposed studies has been cited.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- The request is not entirely clear to us. In any case, the taxa surveyed are the result of the work and for this reason we have included them in the Results section
- DONE
- it is not considered necessary to add what was proposed considering what was requested by the other reviewers.
- DONE
- DONE
RESULTS
- We are sorry but these, in agreement with the other reviews are to be considered results
- DONE
3- 4. We consider that what is suggested would be a repetition of what is shown in Table 2, where all the data on this subject are included
- Table A1 has been included in the appendix because it concerns all the species present in the areas analyzed and does not concern only the halophytes which are the main object of the work.
CONCLUSIONS
- The conclusions were partially reviewed also on the basis of the other reviewers
REFERENCES
- In this type of research, multiple uses of the different species emerge and therefore the bibliographic references are necessarily numerous. The other reviewers made no objection to this point
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Tiziana et al. described the results on the ethnobotanically of halophytes in two brackish areas of NW Mediterranean coastal Brackish Areas. Although the study was well performed, but the results were incomplete, especially, the manuscript failed to address the goals of these studies and discussed their findings in an explicit context.
1. What is the unit of salinity in table 1?
2. I think lines 205 - 212 are the content about the method, and should be placed in the Materials and Methods section.
3. The figure 4 and figure 5 are important results of the study, and should be described in the result section.
4. The most important conclusions should be clearly shown in the Conclusions section and the implication and applying practice of this study should be stated too.
More detail could be found in the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
ANSWERS TO Reviewer 2
Authors are grateful for the helpful and accurate review suggestions
- DONE
- DONE
- DONE
- DONE
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript entitled “Floristic Inventory of Ethnobotanically Important Halophytes of NW Mediterranean coastal Brackish Areas (Tuscany - Italy) ” is very well written and has an interesting point studying the halophytic vegetation of two different brackish areas to evaluate their potential in the context of ethnobotany. I recommend to be accepted in Agronomy after minor revision. I am enclosing some suggestions for authors to check and consider that I believe would help clarify some parts, and that can improve the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
ANSWERS TO Reviewer 3
The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for his valuable suggestions and hope to have responded to the request as fully as possible.
ABSTRACT
Line 8: DONE
Keywords: DONE
INTRODUCTION
L 45-49 DONE
L 31 DONE
L 35 Having amended the previous parts, it was considered appropriate not to move paragraph
L 41 DONE
L 44 DONE
L 56: DONE
L 66: DONE
L66-70 doesn't seem necessary
L 66-70 DONE
L 76 DONE
L 71-L88 DONE. Rewritten as suggested.
L 82-88 in our opinion this paragraph is to be considered an important aim of the study and therefore to leave in the introduction.
L 97 DONE
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data collection and processing: The text states that halophile species were selected by comparing the eHaloph resource.
L 140 DONE
L 140-143 DONE. The text has been re-written in part.
L 151 The text has been rewritten and clarified in the point requested by the auditor.
L152-155 It has been specified in the text and Table 1 that the reported salinity values for each halophilic species are only informative. They correspond to the maximum concentrations used in laboratory experimental studies and not to the environmental values where the species live. The searches have been included as references in Table 1. As for true halophyte it is a synonym of euhalophyte. This has been added in the text at line 173-177.
L 154 removed
RESULTS
L 185. Corrected
L 189: Corrected
L 191 DONE
L 193 SEE comment to L152-155
L 194 Please substitute 41 starting the line by Forty-one
DONE
Also, please double check numbers (i.e. in L 182 appears a figure of 78 species and in this paragraph 79?)
78 refers to the total species found in the study areas (halophyte and non-halophyte) and reported in Table A1. The number 79 in this paragraph is the sum of the only halophilic species present in the individual areas and which can therefore be repeated.
L 201 Table 1 caption CORRECTED
As specified above, the salinity values given in Table 1 are derived from the experimental work and do not always correspond to the natural situation. Sometimes some species not halophytes obliged are tested under controlled conditions with very high salinity and vice versa the halophytes notoriously obliged as e.g. Soda inermis or Puccinellia festucaeformis are tested at very low salinity to understand their behavior in saline or poorly saline conditions.
The salinity values of an environment can also vary greatly depending on climatic and geomorphological conditions and therefore it is not easy to establish exactly a correspondence between the values of the table and the natural ones that can sometimes even exceed those seawater.
L 203 CORRECTED
DISCUSSION
L 236 changed specifying the number of species euhalophyte and myohalophyte for Galanchio and that of Lame where, however, only myohalophytes are present.
L 248 Imperata cylindrica does NOT appear to be included in the 100 of the most dangerous exotic and invasive species by IUCN. On the contrary it would seem to be among the most threatened https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/164433/5865076. In any case, for the Italian flora, it is considered an indigenous species (for some authors, archaeophyte of Asian origin), and non-invasive. In some regions of the peninsula even protected. https://www.actaplantarum.org/flora/flora_info.php?id=507815
https://www.florae.it/?id=1696
Pignatti S (1982) Flora of Italy. Edagricole, Bologna. Vol 3
L 256 Figure 5 refers only to what is found only for Lame area with regard to the zoning of communities which is not present at Galanchio.
L 275 DONE
L 316 DONE but the figure has been added to line 362 of the revised text
L 323 We believe we have highlighted in the section Study area of Materials and Methods, the peculiarity of Lame area from an environmental and naturalistic point of view.
L 360 DONE
CONCLUSIONS
L 367 DONE
APPENDIX
L 392 CORRECTED
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors, dear Editor,
I've completed my review of the manuscript entitled Floristic Inventory of Ethnobotanically Important Halophytes of NW Mediterranean coastal Brackish Areas (Tuscany – Italy), Authors
Tiziana Lombardi * , Irene Ventura , Andrea Bertacchi.
The authors present original results of their field and laboratory work; in focus are 78 halophyte and non-halophyte species, most of them of ethnobotanical interest.
They showed the floristic list of the two areas, including periodic field sampling, localization of the species by GPS and taxonomic identification. Furthermore, they showed literature ethnobotanical data about, which is an interesting way to combine botany and ethnobotany. Supplementary material is very interesting and useful.
Research on halophytes is still very little. Although the use of halophytes as cash crops such as food, feed, biofuels, oils is no longer completely unknown very few species are still used and even more limited is their use in other sectors. The global climate change is increasing at an alarming rate and that soil salinization will be an increasingly widespread phenomenon in every part of the earth, that's why this topic is very important top-topic.
The results are presented concisely, accurately and according to the botanical nomenclature rules. Researched are all relevant sources, and considered all available botanical methods.
The figures/tables/images/schemes are appropriate and properly show the data, they are easy to interpret and understand.
Discussion is very well done, with a lot references. Despite numerous references and mentions of north-western countries, the authors did not include the north-eastern and southern Mediterranean countries near the researched area, so here is place to improve your paper. I suggest to read the following ones that you did not look at, and there are noted the uses of the particular species of halophytes that are mentioned in your article:
Insular Pharmacopoeias: Ethnobotanical Characteristics of Medicinal Plants Used on the Adriatic Islands (Portulaca oleracea, Elymus repens)
Divergence of Ethnobotanical Knowledge of Slovenians on the Edge of the Mediterranean as a Result of Historical, Geographical and Cultural Drivers (Arundo donax, Salicornia perrenans, Portulaca oleracea, Rumex acetosa)
Traditional Ethnobotanical Knowledge of the Central Lika Region (Continental Croatia)—First Record of Edible Use of Fungus Taphrina pruni (Rumex acetosa, and other non-halophytic species like Crataegus monogyna, Prunus spinosa)
The ethnobotany and biogeography of wild vegetables in the Adriatic islands (Lotus edulis, Posidonia oceanica...ecc.)
I'm interested about Posidonia oceanica, endemic seagrass to the Mediterranean Sea, did you found it there in your investigated area?
It's an important part of the ecosystem underwater meadows. The fruit is free floating and known in Italy as "the olive of the sea" (l'oliva di mare). The Posidonia has a very high carbon absorption capacity, being able to soak up 15 times more carbon dioxide every year than a similar sized piece of the Amazon rainforest.
On the Adriatic islands it's noted that has edible use (The ethnobotany and biogeography of wild vegetables in the Adriatic islands)
So maybe you can put this species in your paper too? Or just have information for some other time.
I wonder if you have found edible Crithmum maritimum somewhere nearby?
I find the presented results here important, because provide the essential information required for further potential germplasm banks to be used in various application contexts of ethnobotany. Therefore, such background information should be published to become accessible for broader audience.
The paper is written very clear and concise; results are suitable for the publication in MDPI Agronomy. I herewith recommend the reviewed manuscript for publication in the Agronomy MDPI.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Specific comments are listed in the attached word file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
ANSWER TO REVIEWER 4
The authors thank you for the positive opinion on the work and the suggestions provided.
In any case, it is with pleasure that we respond to some issues raised in the judgment.
1- "......Despite numerous references and mentions of north-western countries, the authors did not include the north-eastern and southern Mediterranean countries near the researched area...."
In fact, there are cited many articles related to ethnobotanical research in the northeastern and southern Mediterranean. Probably, they are not very evident because most of them are included in the two tables and not in the text (references to the uses of the species we found)
- in any case we have inserted the first work that you suggested, about Portulaca oleracea.
- I'm interested about Posidonia oceanica, endemic seagrass to the Mediterranean Sea, did you found it there in your investigated area?" and "I wonder if you have found edible Crithmum maritimum somewhere nearby?"
The answer to both questions is: no/yes.
Posidonia oceanica is a species that interests very much one of the authors having started his career as a researcher studying marine Phanerogams like also Cymodocea, but is not a species present in the habitats examined in this research. Posidonia is present in vast marine prairies a few miles off the Pisan coast.
Crithmum maritimum is distributed along the entire Tuscan coast, largely on the rocky sectors. In any case in environments completely different from the one we investigated.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks to the authors for critically addressing my concerns and I am satisfied with the current version.
Reviewer 2 Report
None.
