Collaborative Monitoring of Plant Biodiversity and Research on Sweet Acorn Oaks within Paths of Knowledge and Sustainability Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deal with something important in plant biodiversity and local knowledge, but I cannot understand original date in the Tables of Figures.  Statistical analyses are not well explained. Duncan' s test are very old and better to change Tukey's. Chemical analyses are also not written well. I recommend the authors to revise this paper that reader who have interest can retry. 

I added my comments in the PDF file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

To Reviewer 1,

            Thank you for your work which is very useful for us. I am responding while maintaining anonymity. Please feel free to write if further action/revision is needed.

Fig. 1, line 101.  In the caption, we have chosen to provide the source of the image and the reference. I have redrawn the picture to better suit the collaborative purposes of this work.

lines 136 and 137. We are referring to the 5-year work report as described in section 2.3. We intend to provide it as supplementary material upon request (if that is fine with the Editor). The contents of the report are summarized graphically in Figure 2.

line 183. True and we agree on that.

line 192. Right, thanks! Consistent also with the classes in statistical analysis during my PhD.

lines 199 to 203. We have discarded the lines as, although the chemical analyses were performed, they were not found to be useful for the present research.

Lines 204 to 210 – 2.7. Analysis of weather and climate data

We have added these lines and references to the text:

line 231. We have welcomed the suggestion to describe the statistical analysis.

line 238. I have discarded the reference to the supplementary file mentioned and I have edited this sentence with a reference to the chart summarizing the results of the collaborative monitoring.

line 260, 263, 307, 308. That’s right, thanks! I have discarded the reference to the supplementary file mentioned. Section 3.3 summarizes the contents of monitoring of the wild edible plants used in nutrition and medicine.

line 326, 368. All data in detail can be found in a file named: Table S1 – Ecosystem biodiversity and socioeconomic and well-being benefits report.  the supplementary material is summarized in the manuscript and could be available. In case the supplementary file is not published, this sentence is unnecessary, and it could be cut off. I think the content of the research remains clear in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Keywords: please do not use as key words those already mentioned in the title.

Line 53: Forests of Quercus ilex and Q. rotundifolia ....

Line 207: meteorological stations

Please all species names in latin should be written in italics. 

Line 241: when you say endemic species are these Sardinian endemics?

Lines 294-296: I can't understand what sp.pl.  means. In one species you mention the author. You should do that in all species names throughout your text.

I'm not sure from what I've read how the information provided links together. I think you should be more clear about the purpose of this publication in your introduction.

Control by an English native speaker is necessary.

Author Response

To Reviewer 2,

               Thank you for your work which is very useful for us. I am responding while maintaining anonymity. Please feel free to write if further action/revision is needed.

lines 53, 207. That’s right, thanks!

Line 241. Yes

line 294-296. That’s right, thanks! I have edited in Spp.

I used Sp. pl. to indicate multiple botanical species belonging to the same Genus in words from ancient Latin, often used in Italy: (Sp. pl. = species plures = specie plurime = Spp.) 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well written and gives an original view on the topic of the multiple benefits of plant biodiversity and the role of resident’s awareness in conservation and landscape management. However, I suggest that the authors could improve the discussion chapter by making some comparisons with similar cases in the Mediterranean basin and above all to strengthen the bibliography in the introduction and discussion. Many references can be found that reinforce or confirm the observations and deductions made by the authors of this manuscript. In the attached file I have given some examples and highlighted some typos.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

good quality of English

Author Response

To Reviewer 3

            Thank you for your work which is very useful for us. I am responding while maintaining anonymity. Please feel free to write if further action/revision is needed.

line 64, 148, 153, 158, 270, 310, 335, 336. That’s right, thanks!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised according to my previous suggestions, I agree this paper will be accepted. 

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no further comments

I think that the linguistic part is ok. However control by a native speaker is always needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript following the suggestions of the reviewers and therefore it can be published in this form on Plants