Study on Behavior of Some Perennial Flowering Species Used in Vertical Systems for Green Facades in Eastern European Climate
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Major points
- In the whole text, careful checking is needed for typist's errors and amending English phrases.
Materials and Methods
- It is necessary to report and add more detailed chemical and physical substrate analyses, besides acidity. Substrate acidity is not clear whether pH measurements were done in H2O, KCl, or CaCl2?
- Species (cultivars) preferences to certain pH values should be presented, to ensure that pH=6 is an optimal value for all species, to be sure that influence of the substrate acidity factor is excluded and that none of the species is given that preference for the outcome of the experiment.
- Criteria of plant species/cultivars selection are not clearly explained. It should be more detailed explained. Line 93: Most of the species are not significant as decorative species due to their flowers (as stated) but rather plant form, leaf colors, and shapes. The selection of species/cultivars is unclear.
- General specifications of planting material/perennial seedlings shall include both, plant
size and container size according to standards, as well as propagation methods of seedlings.
Minor points
Figure 2, Image/drawing should be prepared in better resolution
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Research gap and goal of the paper were not mentioned in the abstract.
There weren't also defined used parameters: wall coverage, survival coefficient, and others.
I understand that you didn't investigate germination capacity and viability of seeds because you planted flowering species. Am I right?
Introduction/Discussion - there is a lack of comparison with other studies (or such studies simply not exist?).
Detailed comments:
line 8: "overpopulation" ? Hpw do you define "overpopulation"? Mayba "high population density" will be more suyitabel?
l. 52-53: contributing to energy saving in the summer, by reducing the need for air conditioning and in the winter, by reducing heat loss [5]. - contributing to energy saving in the summer by reducing the need for air conditioning, and by reducing heat loss in the winter [5]. - It seems a little better, i suppose. Please consider it.
68: are tested in advanced in the - in advance
77, 100, 126, 127, etc.: figure - Figure
87 bentoyp - ?
What was the thickness of soil?
105: In the first year of the experiment - what was/is duration of the experiment? When it started?
141: The observations made will be summarised - are summarised,
277-281 (Barthélémy and Caraglio, 2007). - wrong refence format
"Symbols and abbreviations" should be added.
References - doi numbers?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
An interesting and useful study from a botanical point of view. If the article is to be published in a special issue dedicated to New Frontiers in Buildings and Construction, I recommend to also focus on the physical properties and parameters of the experiment and the plants studied in relation to the design of the green facade.
From the point of view of scientific contribution and the possibility of generalizing the results, I recommend to complete and modify the following parts of the paper:
- Formulate more clearly the hypothesis and the objectives of the experiment;
- to indicate the course of the boundary conditions of the experiment - i.e. outdoor air temperature, humidity, rainfall, sunshine, and, if necessary, wind speed and direction;
- give the results of the measurement of the temperature of the structure - if it was measured on a structure without a green facade and on structures with a green facade oriented to the different cardinal directions. It is known from experience that green facades are very sensitive to climatic conditions and the amount of watering, and I consider it very important to correlate the valuable knowledge gained about plant growth with climatic data;
- describe in more detail the method of measurements carried out within the exeprimet - type of instrument, accuracy, location of sensors, protection of temperature sensors against direct sunlight;
- in the conclusions, define the validity of the conclusions in geographical terms, if possible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The answers to comments are formal, generalized, and do not provide the necessary explanations that are important for the acceptance of the experiment and the results obtained at the scientific level.
For example
Author Answer: pH value = 6, is the one indicated by the producer of the utilized universal substrate.
Comment: It is not the same if substrate pH is pH (KCl) = 6 or pH (H20) = 6, this might affect the favoring of certain species drastically.
Author Answer: The plants used were purchased as standard planting material and delivered in pots of appropriate size to each species.
The answer does not provide information on whether all species were equally developed and in good condition. Many researchers have confirmed that rooting ability and biomass production is affected by the choice of pot size for certain species.
Both questions/comments posted revision report was aimed at clarifying that none of the species were favored by any other factor such as substrate properties or plant size at the beginning of the experiment.
Key elements are missing during the setup of the experiment so the drawn conclusions can not be considered scientifically based, as stated in the first report.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution of this article to the green buildings is very interesting. The article is well structured and understandable. Congratulations.
Author Response
Thanks for the helpful comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for update of the paper. My questions are answered.
Author Response
Thanks for the helpful comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The answer to the second and fifth comments from the first review is still general. It does not prove that all other factors that could affect the final outcome of the experiment have really been eliminated. In this regard, it is questionable whether the behavior of favored perennials are really the results of their resistance and suitability to climatic conditions in green walls, or they might be favored on another way during the experiment (pH of the substrate was near their optimum, or they were in better condition/bigger pots at the start of the experiment).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
