Greening up the City with Native Species: Challenges and Solutions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The manuscript entitled “Greening up the city with native species: challenges and solutions”, presents an interesting review on the benefits of using native species in public and private UGSs, including benefits for local biodiversity, ecosystem integrity and sustainable use of water resources. The manuscript is well written and structured and reads well through out. A few minor linguistic mistakes, such as in line 55 where the word “species” needs to be replaced with the word “animals”, since plants are also species, and in line 156 where “evidence some prefer" needs to be replaced by "evidence suggest that some prefer", will be corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.
In the introduction the authors provide a first justification on the benefits of using native species, primarily for preventing invasion of non-native species, promoting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, without jeopardizing food and other goods supply. Perhaps the authors could emphasize in the introduction the need of presenting such an article and what is the gap in the literature that it will fill. In my view the first sentence of the conclusions section could be moved in the introduction as a problem statement, perhaps with some further elaboration.
The benefits of using native vs non-native species are further described in the second chapter of the manuscript along with some concerns, which are related to climate change and the fact that native species may no longer be as adapted as one would expect, especially in an urban environment where the ecological conditions differ substantially to those of natural ecosystems. Despite these concerns the authors provide convincing evidence that the use of native species can be beneficial in several aspects.
The authors also provide the current limitation in promoting the use of native species, including perceptions of urban dwellers, which currently seem to aesthetically favour non native species, and problems in the supply chain for native species. However, they also provide a number of potential solutions, including the improvement of human awareness on the benefits of using native species in urban greening, the provision of economic and other incentives, and the implementation of regulations that will favour the use of the less water demanding native species, or will reduce the use of lawns, which are perhaps the most water consuming land cover type in an urban environment. The later, and the need to restrict the establishment of hard turf is of particular importance in arid and semi-arid areas, such as the one which is presented as a case study, as well as in other places including the Mediterranean region where water scarcity is evident during the summer period.
I could elaborate further describing all the strengths of the manuscript but I see no point in that. There are only a few minor changes that need to be made, as I mentioned above. In my view this manuscript will be an interesting addition in the international literature and it will enrich the ongoing debate over the need of promoting the use of native species against the demand of more exotic elements in the urban landscapes, that has influenced and significantly affected the urban environments in recent decades.
Well done
Author Response
Comment 1: A few minor linguistic mistakes, such as in line 55 where the word “species” needs to be replaced with the word “animals”, since plants are also species, and in line 156 where “evidence some prefer" needs to be replaced by "evidence suggest that some prefer", will be corrected in the revised version of the manuscript.
Response1: For line 55, we edited the text to read, “…leading to further declines of the original native species and other species that rely upon them…” For line 156, we edited the text as you suggest.
Comment 2: In the introduction the authors provide a first justification on the benefits of using native species, primarily for preventing invasion of non-native species, promoting biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, without jeopardizing food and other goods supply. Perhaps the authors could emphasize in the introduction the need of presenting such an article and what is the gap in the literature that it will fill. In my view the first sentence of the conclusions section could be moved in the introduction as a problem statement, perhaps with some further elaboration.
Response 2: We added the following statement to the end to the introduction: “Unfortunately, biologists tend to be comfortable with the former but are often less familiar with the latter [19,20], in part because. the biological and human health benefits of access to UGSs are well-studied, but the policy process required to increase the use of native species in landscaping, especially valuable in drier locations that are already or will soon be water-limited, is less well understood.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs a review paper this is a useful contribution to the debate around native and non-native. It has a particular US focus with of course a finer focus on Texas but this region is typcal of the kind of landscape and cimate where some aspects, such as drought resistance or reduction in irrigation are particuarly important. While most aspects are covered which are relevant, I suggest that a few improvements could be made. Firstly, a limited international overview could be added - as the issue of native vs non-native also applies elsewhere. The UK, Norway and other European countries face similar issues of invasive species and changing urban microclimate as well as pressure from very well-developed horticulture industries leading to plant movements from country to country with associated bio-security concerns (not mentioned as a factor in the paper). Secondly, more emphasis could be made of the fact that the urban ecosystem is rather different from the original non-urban one - soil conditions, microclimate, etc - and provides a context for the discussions which I felt was not emphasised sufficiently. A third aspect concerns management or urban green spaces. There is increasing use in some countries of more extensive management of urban parks and woodlands, with grass lawns being converted to wild-flower rich meadows, much less mowing, no irrigation and minimal manaement of trees, leaving deadwood on the ground and so on. I did not really see this mentioned in the paper - perhaps it is not yet discussed in the US or at least not Texas? It certainly has aesthetic impacts when residents wish to see more manicured green areas but there are ways of dealing with that. So, these are a few aspects I feel are missing from the paper and could be included for completeness's sake.
Author Response
Comment 1: Firstly, a limited international overview could be added - as the issue of native vs non-native also applies elsewhere. The UK, Norway and other European countries face similar issues of invasive species and changing urban microclimate as well as pressure from very well-developed horticulture industries leading to plant movements from country to country with associated bio-security concerns (not mentioned as a factor in the paper).
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. For this manuscript, the laws and regulations from country to country are different enough that it does not seem productive to review them all. Instead, we use the U.S. as an example of how to approach these general types of issues. To clarify this, we’ve added a statement to the introduction that “We do this using the U.S. as an example since specific laws and regulations change de-pending on the country, but , first providing focusing on generally available applicable legal principles and then using Lubbock, Texas, USA, as a case study showing how local rules and community standards affect implementation in the real world.” (lines 85-89). We also added a statement to the conclusions section: “Because specific laws and regulations change from place to place even within a country such as the U.S., we could not be truly comprehensive in this review, but by focusing on broad issues such as counter-productive regulations, lack of regulations, and increasing lack of water, the lessons identified can be used to model approaches that have to be tailored to local legal and cultural settings.”(lines 438-442).
Comment 2: Secondly, more emphasis could be made of the fact that the urban ecosystem is rather different from the original non-urban one - soil conditions, microclimate, etc - and provides a context for the discussions which I felt was not emphasised sufficiently.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added this phrase to the 2nd paragraph of the introduction (lines 43-44): “ These urban ecosystems are very different in terms of soil conditions, microclimates, spe-cies compositions, and species interactions from the native ecosystems that they replaced.”
Comment 3: A third aspect concerns management of urban green spaces. There is increasing use in some countries of more extensive management of urban parks and woodlands, with grass lawns being converted to wild-flower rich meadows, much less mowing, no irrigation and minimal management of trees, leaving deadwood on the ground and so on. I did not really see this mentioned in the paper - perhaps it is not yet discussed in the US or at least not Texas? It certainly has aesthetic impacts when residents wish to see more manicured green areas but there are ways of dealing with that.
Response 3: These can be productive strategies, but as our manuscript focuses on increasing native species in urbanized areas, we didn’t address management per se. We agree that this is valuable, however, and could be the focus of another paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction needs a more explicit statement of the research objectives to guide the reader through the paper's purpose.
There is a need for better integration of cited literature to support claims, particularly in sections discussing public perceptions and ecological benefits i.e., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02977-9
The manuscript should provide more detailed descriptions of case studies, including methodologies and criteria for selection, to enhance reproducibility.
Incorporating visual aids such as charts or graphs to illustrate key data points would improve comprehension and engagement with the material.
Author Response
Comment 1: The introduction needs a more explicit statement of the research objectives to guide the reader through the paper's purpose.
Response 1: Thank you- the final sentence of the introduction states our objectives: “Our goal in this paper is to further flesh out how greening UER with native plants might be achieved, first providing generally available legal principles and then using Lubbock, Texas, USA, as a case study showing how local rules and community standards affect implementation in the real world” (lines 81-84).
Comment 2: There is a need for better integration of cited literature to support claims, particularly in sections discussing public perceptions and ecological benefits i.e., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02977-9
Response 2: The section on public perceptions already includes 15 citations, and the article suggested, though interesting, isn’t closely related to our subject.
Comment 3: The manuscript should provide more detailed descriptions of case studies, including methodologies and criteria for selection, to enhance reproducibility.
Response 3: Section 8 of the paper “Lubbock as a Case Study for Implementation” (beginning on line 378) already describes why Lubbock was selected as the case study, and why it is suitable for drawing conclusions that are valid for other areas: it “…is a medium-sized city with a rapidly growing population and limited water supply. This combination creates important opportunities to increase native plant capacity.”
Comment 4: Incorporating visual aids such as charts or graphs to illustrate key data points would improve comprehension and engagement with the material.
Response 4: We agree that charts and graphs can be effective communication tools. However, the concepts we discuss in this manuscript aren’t visualized with graphs.
