Plant Conservation in the Midst of Energy Transition: Can Regional Governments Rise to the Challenge?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is always a pleasure to see multi-taxonomic, objective and widely replicable assessments for the identification of priority conservation areas. The paper entitled "Plant Conservation in the Midst of the Energy Transition: Can Regional Governments Rise to the Challenge?" is therefore of great interest, especially to scientists and managers involved in plant conservation. The paper is generally clearly and scientifically written. I have only a few suggestions.
I suggest further emphasising the fact that the proposed method is based on objective and replicable measures and could be used in other territories and for other, broader landscape planning.
L 72: In Cuena-Lombraña et al. (2021), it was confirmed that non-vascular components are less well studied, especially with regard to conservation research, while ecological and taxonomic studies are less rare.
In the study area, I would suggest to deserve more details on the description of the different sectors, which have also different levels and type of protection and quite different floras as well.
L 226: check this sentence.
L 251 regional responsibility is a concept widely used also elsewhere, such as in France (e.g. Schatz et al. 2014) and Greece (e.g. Krigas et al. 2022).
In acknowledgments, I would use the term ‘Journal’ instead of ‘magazine’
Suggested References
Cuena-Lombraña, A., et al. (2021). Where we come from and where to go: six decades of botanical studies in the Mediterranean wetlands, with Sardinia (Italy) as a case study. Wetlands, 41(6), 69.
Krigas, N., et al. (2022). Prioritizing plants around the cross-border area of Greece and the Republic of North Macedonia: Integrated conservation actions and sustainable exploitation potential. Diversity, 14(7), 570.
Schatz, B., et al. (2014). A decision tool for listing species for protection on different geographic scales and administrative levels. Journal for Nature Conservation, 22(1), 75-83.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is fine
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
As per your recommendations, we have carefully revised the manuscript, focusing on enhancing the language and clarity of the content. Additionally, we have updated the graphics to reflect recent changes in the status of some of wind farms.
In response to your comments, we have also incorporated several modifications to address the specific points you raised, and have made additional adjustments to ensure a better overall comprehension of the text.
Thank you for your valuable contributions to our manuscript.
I suggest further emphasising the fact that the proposed method is based on objective and replicable measures and could be used in other territories and for other, broader landscape planning.
Done. Additional paragraphs and comments have been incorporated, including one in the abstract and another in the discussion and conclusion sections.
L 72: In Cuena-Lombraña et al. (2021), it was confirmed that non-vascular components are less well studied, especially with regard to conservation research, while ecological and taxonomic studies are less rare.
A bibliographic citation has been incorporated. The suggestion supports the text and improves it
In the study area, I would suggest to deserve more details on the description of the different sectors, which have also different levels and type of protection and quite different floras as well.
Done: A paragraph was added with the content suggested by the reviewer
L 226: check this sentence.
The sentence has been revised.:
We determined the geographic distribution of the studied taxa by filtering and reviewing data from the "Atlas of the Flora Iberica Database" (AFLIBER) [74] alongside our own dataset.
L 251 regional responsibility is a concept widely used also elsewhere, such as in France (e.g. Schatz et al. 2014) and Greece (e.g. Krigas et al. 2022).
The bibliographic citations have been included. The suggestions support the text and enhance it, so some of them were also used in the discusión.
Plants recognize no political boundaries, and some are confined to specific geographic regions within different countries, making conservation management necessitate a comprehensive strategy.
In acknowledgments, I would use the term ‘Journal’ instead of ‘magazine’
Done
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current investigation entitled “Plant conservation in the midst of energy transition: Can regional governments rise to the challenge?” authored by Alfaro-Saiz et al. introduces the concept of Very Important Plant Areas (VIPAs) as a crucial tool for identifying priority conservation areas. The finding of the current investigation highlight the urgent need for legislation that accommodates updates to protected species lists, ensuring the inclusion of high-risk taxa.
General comments
The abstract section is written well; however, I suggest authors to kindly add some quantitative data.
Keywords: kindly check the admissible limit on the number of keywords can be provided. Moreover, I think author should not provide the name of the country in the keywords. Instead, the authors can include the name of the country in the title of the manuscript.
The introduction section is well written along with extensive information covering all the aspect related to current investigation. However, I suggest some minor changes including reduction in the length of the introduction section by removing the too generalised statements. Second by adding some more information about the potential impact of the wind energy project on the biodiversity at the regional and global level in quantitative terms.
In the material method section, I suggest authors to make separate heading for the study area (line 179-188) and methodology adopted (189-201). Moreover figure 1 is missing from the manuscript and figure 2 provided should be with coordinate systems including latitude and longitude for better clarity to the readers.
The result section is well written, supported with tables and figures for better clarity to the readers. I have only one doubt, does this concept of VIPA can be used for other anthropogenic activities or not ?
Discussion section further need to be strengthened with recent literature. Moreover the conclusion section need to revised and generalised statement should be removed and only constructive finding from the investigation should be provided in one paragraph rather than scattered one line statements.
Specific comment
Line 296. Revise the statement.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
As per your recommendations, we have carefully revised the manuscript, focusing on enhancing the language and clarity of the content. Additionally, we have updated the graphics to reflect recent changes in the status of some of wind farms.
In response to your comments, we have also incorporated several modifications to address the specific points you raised, and have made additional adjustments to ensure a better overall comprehension of the text.
Thank you for your valuable contributions to our manuscript.
General comments
The abstract section is written well; however, I suggest authors to kindly add some quantitative data.
Done
Keywords: kindly check the admissible limit on the number of keywords can be provided. Moreover, I think author should not provide the name of the country in the keywords. Instead, the authors can include the name of the country in the title of the manuscript.
The number of keywords is 10. Spain has been removed from them.
The introduction section is well written along with extensive information covering all the aspect related to current investigation. However, I suggest some minor changes including reduction in the length of the introduction section by removing the too generalised statements. Second by adding some more information about the potential impact of the wind energy project on the biodiversity at the regional and global level in quantitative terms.
In the material method section, I suggest authors to make separate heading for the study area (line 179-188) and methodology adopted (189-201).
Done
Moreover figure 1 is missing from the manuscript and figure 2 provided should be with coordinate systems including latitude and longitude for better clarity to the readers.
Done
The result section is well written, supported with tables and figures for better clarity to the readers. I have only one doubt, does this concept of VIPA can be used for other anthropogenic activities or not ?
We have added a few sentences to clarify this point throughout the text
Discussion section further need to be strengthened with recent literature.
We have added some bibliographic citations in the discussion.
Moreover the conclusion section need to revised and generalised statement should be removed and only constructive finding from the investigation should be provided in one paragraph rather than scattered one line statements.
The introduction has been revised by removing some sentences and adding the paragraph suggested by the reviewer. We have not further reduced the introduction, because we believe that the context is important in order to justify the work.
Specific comment
Line 296. Revise the statement.
Done: For each habitat identified in the Habitat Directive that is found within the grid, we assigned 1 point (2 points if it is a priority habitat). Likewise, for each habitat on the red list within the grid, we assigned 1 point for the "Vulnerable" category and 2 points for the "Endangered" category.
