The Contribution of Ornamental Plants to Urban Ecosystem Services
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. It is recommended that the author substantially revise the first part of the paper. The introduction should have better articulated the need for the study and should have attempted to fill the knowledge gap. However, as it stands, the contribution and objectives of the article are not clear.
2. It is suggested that a framework diagram be added to synthesise several dimensions of how ornamental plants affect urban ecosystem services.
3. The relationship between several key concepts in the introduction section, such as GI, ornamental plants and ES, needs more justification.
4. This paper makes several references to recommendations for ornamental plant selection, planting and layout. if the authors are concerned about how to better provide ecosystem services value alongside their contribution, it is recommended that a separate section is devoted to this in more detail.
5. The language of this paper needs to be improved.
6. The writing and content of the article could be referenced. On the urban compactness to ecosystem services in a rapidly urbanising metropolitan area: Highlighting scale effects and spatial non-stationary.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like to thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been accordingly revised. Corrections and suggestions have been implemented in the current version of the manuscript. Further modifications are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. We hereby provide a point-by-point answer.
The authors
- It is recommended that the author substantially revise the first part of the paper. The introduction should have better articulated the need for the study and should have attempted to fill the knowledge gap. However, as it stands, the contribution and objectives of the article are not clear.
Authors’ answer (A.A.): the introduction has been revised as suggested by the reviewer and a better organization and integration have been reported. The objective of the work has been included.
- It is suggested that a framework diagram be added to synthesise several dimensions of how ornamental plants affect urban ecosystem services.
A.A.: a framework has been added in the manuscript focusing on the benefits of ornamental plants related to their benefits.
- The relationship between several key concepts in the introduction section, such as GI, ornamental plants and ES, needs more justification.
A.A.: key concepts have been revised and more justifications have been reported.
- This paper makes several references to recommendations for ornamental plant selection, planting and layout. if the authors are concerned about how to better provide ecosystem services value alongside their contribution, it is recommended that a separate section is devoted to this in more detail.
A.A.: references related to ecosystem services has been improved and additional references have been added.
- The language of this paper needs to be improved.
A.A.: English has been revised.
- The writing and content of the article could be referenced. On the urban compactness to ecosystem services in a rapidly urbanising metropolitan area: Highlighting scale effects and spatial non-stationary.
A.A.: these concepts have been reported and appropriate references have been included.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Comment 1: In the introduction, the authors briefly introduced the background and significance of the research. I consider it necessary to highlight the research objectives and the research gaps. The study's novelty and the highlighting of the main conclusions should also be emphasized. Besides, a description of the structure of the paper should be added.
Comment 2: This article has only three chapters, lacks methodological support, and only has a literature review.
Comment 3: Lack of discussion on the research results. The author discusses the theoretical contribution and practical application of the research in this chapter.
Comment 4: The conclusion should increase this paper's limitations and prospects for the future.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like to thank you for your comments. The manuscript has been accordingly revised. Corrections and suggestions have been implemented in the current version of the manuscript. Further modifications are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. According your suggestion, English has been revised. We hereby provide a point-by-point answer.
The authors
Comment 1: In the introduction, the authors briefly introduced the background and significance of the research. I consider it necessary to highlight the research objectives and the research gaps. The study's novelty and the highlighting of the main conclusions should also be emphasized. Besides, a description of the structure of the paper should be added.
Authors’ answer (A.A.): the introduction has been modified considered the reviewers’ comments. The organization has been improved and the objective of the work has been included.
Comment 2: This article has only three chapters, lacks methodological support, and only has a literature review. Daniela
A.A.: A methodology and literature research section has been added, even if the manuscript is a review work.
Comment 3: Lack of discussion on the research results. The author discusses the theoretical contribution and practical application of the research in this chapter.
A.A.: discussion has been improved and specific practical applications have been highlighted.
Comment 4: The conclusion should increase this paper's limitations and prospects for the future.
A.A.: the limits and further investigation have been included.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study is very well carried out and structured. This work is very useful in the field of urban ecosystem services.
However, it should point out some of the conclusions, implications and research gaps. Perhaps it deserved more bibliographic references related to international studies. Please, add the following articles related to the environment and the strategies to respond to climate change problems, particularly in urban areas, in your analysis:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115161
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.001
I am not the best person to assess the English writing but I was able to read the article in a very comprehensive and understandable way what makes me think that the written is good.
Congratulations. Good Work!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like to thank you for your suggestions and for your appreciation of our manuscript. Suggested articles have been added to the current version of the manuscript. Further modifications, suggested by reviewers, are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- All my comments have been well addressed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article can be accepted for publication.
