Vegetation in Archaeological Areas: Risks, Opportunities, and Guidelines to Preserve or Remove: An Italian Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting and innovative.
It shows two approaches to the conservation of archaeological sites.
In the face of the strategy of removing vegetation that is considered harmful to the conservation of archaeological structures, the alternative is presented of considering vegetation as complementary to that heritage, since vegetation can contribute to the well-being of visitors.
The proposed methodology is novel and it could be interesting to implement it in other sites.
However, it is necessary to improve the wording of the article to facilitate its reading and understanding.
There are ideas that are repeated.
The explanation in the figure captions should be expanded.
It should be specified where the objectives section begins.
The redaction needs to be revised.
Some notes have been added to the writing
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The writing needs to be revised as it is not very easy to read.
Author Response
Answer: Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We amended the article in accordance with your recommendation.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for your work in this field.
You did a good job!
After extensive reading, I only have a few comments for the current version, which are not many but essential.
For revision details, please see the following:
[1] The article introduces the research background of vegetation management in archaeological areas, but can further clarify the role of vegetation in archaeological areas and its specific impact on cultural heritage protection. Further explanation of the urgency and background of vegetation protection or removal will make the research more in-depth.
[2] The article uses a case study method to explore vegetation management in archaeological areas in Italy, but the methodology section could be more detailed, especially regarding how to select cases, the specific methods of data collection, and the description of evaluation criteria.
[3] The article did not provide detailed information on the data sources and sample selection. Suggest further elaborating on the sources of data, selection criteria, and representativeness, especially how to ensure that research results can be widely applicable to other archaeological areas.
[4] The article mentions guidelines for protecting and removing vegetation, but does not specify the specific criteria for these decisions. Further refinement can be made on how to evaluate which vegetation should be preserved, which should be removed, and the impact assessment after removal.
[5] Although the article explores the impact of vegetation on archaeological sites, there is a lack of in-depth discussion on the relationship between archaeological protection and vegetation management. Suggest exploring how vegetation management can support or interfere with the conservation goals of archaeological sites, and providing specific case studies or empirical data support.
[6] The article mentions the risks and opportunities of vegetation management, but fails to fully explore how to balance these risks and opportunities. Further analysis can be conducted on the long-term benefits and potential risks that different management strategies may bring, helping decision-makers develop more effective management plans.
[7] When discussing vegetation protection or removal, it is recommended to further focus on the long-term impact of vegetation management on the surrounding environment, especially the potential impacts on ecosystems, climate change, and the surrounding environment. This will provide a more comprehensive basis for management decisions.
[8] Some of the strategies mentioned in the article may face challenges in practical applications. Suggest adding an analysis of these challenges, such as difficulties in funding, policy support, technological means, etc., and proposing feasible solutions.
[9] The article focuses on a case study of Italy, although this region is representative, it suggests discussing how to apply the conclusions of this study to archaeological areas in other countries or regions, especially vegetation management strategies under different cultural backgrounds or climatic conditions.
[10] Although the article provides some guidelines for vegetation management, future research directions can be further explored, such as long-term monitoring of vegetation management or how new technologies (such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence) can be utilized to optimize vegetation management and archaeological site protection.
If my comments are properly considered and followed, I have no further comments on this manuscript.
Again, I have a high comment on your current contribution.
All my upon-revision recommendations are intended to help this manuscript be more readable for readers.
Author Response
Answer: Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We amended the article in accordance with your recommendation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript explores the impact of vegetation management at archaeological sites on site protection and thermal comfort of tourists, and proposes a vegetation management method based on the VHI index, combined with outdoor microclimate modeling for evaluation. The research topic has certain academic value, and combined with the background of climate change, it provides a new perspective for heritage protection and tourist experience. However, there is still room for improvement in the theoretical framework, data analysis, methodological details and discussion of the paper. The following are some comments for the author's reference.
1. In the introduction, the author should add clear research questions and hypotheses, such as: "Vegetation management at archaeological sites not only affects site protection, but also has a significant impact on tourists' thermal comfort, and there are significant differences in the impact of different vegetation management strategies.
2. The literature review needs to be supplemented. The author can add relevant theoretical background, including but not limited to cultural heritage protection theory (such as UNESCO's cultural heritage management framework), microclimate regulation theory (the role of vegetation in thermal environment regulation), etc. It is recommended that the author can place part of the introduction content in the literature review.
3. In the methodology section, the author can consider adding the calculation method of the VHI index, indicating whether it is based on existing literature or measured data, and explore the applicability and limitations of the index in different environments and archaeological sites.
4. In the results analysis and discussion section, the author should combine existing research to analyze the role of different types of vegetation in thermal environment regulation, and explore how to find a balance between site protection and tourist thermal comfort.
5. In the conclusion section, the author can provide more practical suggestions, such as "For vegetation with high VHI values, it is necessary to consider gradually removing and introducing drought-resistant, non-invasive vegetation to achieve a balance between site protection and tourist comfort. ”
Author Response
Answer: Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We amended the article in accordance with your recommendation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to a methodology for assessing the impact of vegetation on the microclimate in the area of historical monuments that is important under climate changes. The authors provided an example of a methodology for assessing the impact of vegetation on the microclimate of a Roman theater using a modern 3D model, which may also be useful for other historical monuments. In my opinion, this is an interesting and useful article that deserves to be published. However, a number of shortcomings should be addressed.
1) List of references. There are obvious errors in the reference list: incomplete citations (e.g., 1-4; 12,13), duplicates (e.g., 2,3,12,13), and missing indication of the Italian language (e.g., 16, 19, 32).
2) In several cases, Italian or Latin terms are used, which should either be translated into English or, if they are commonly accepted, highlighted in italics or quotation marks, for example: firmitas (line 37); manufact (line 44); reptanti a sviluppo normale (Table 1); captions inside Figure 4.
3) Is it necessary to use capital letters so frequently when referring to various phenomena? For example: Climate Change (lines 43, 49), Thermal Comfort, Outdoor Microclimate, Outdoor Thermal Comfort (126-127)
4) Word repetitions: field (line 51); also (lines 159-160)
5) Phrase repetitions: lines 103-108 and 114-118; lines 146-156; 421-348
6) Lines 21-23: The term 'invasive' in this context may be misleading for biologists and ecologists. In modern ecological literature, invasive species are considered those that aggressively expand their range or have been introduced by humans into areas where they did not previously exist. Your study does not distinguish between invasive and native species. In your case, the focus is on plants that are considered as potentially harmful to historical sites, which may include both invasive and native species.
6) The use of the term 'symbiotic' is incorrect when referring to the interaction between living and non-living components (line 80)
7) The section Goals seems unusual, especially since you have already defined objectives in the last paragraph of the 'Introduction'. It might be worth moving this text along with the figure to the 'Introduction' section while removing repetitions from the last paragraph of the Introduction.
8) Lines 233-237: the point 1.b seems to be repeated as the following point 2. Moreover, such a point is missing in the description of Phase 1 later (lines 247-284).
9) Translate the captions inside Figure 4 into English.
10) Lines 259-261. It would be preferable to briefly describe how the ENVI-met model estimates the impact of vegetation on the microclimate (e.g., does it evaluate albedo, the cooling effect of evapotranspiration, the influence on wind, etc.).
11) What is UTCI (line 269)
12) Table 1:
- Does the last column in Table 1 show the VHI or some other specific index?
- It contains many unclear or incorrectly translated words: annual tree; biennial tree; newer-ending weed; crawling and not crawling (this does not define anything); reptanti a sviluppo normale.
- The last few rows, starting from "0-Annual tree", seem to repeat the beginning of the table.
13) Figure 10. The concave, convex, or linear shape of the curves is important for interpreting the processes. It would be advisable to justify the concave down dependence of VHI Index on the number of trees that you used.
14) The example with the Acropolis (lines 456-459) would be better placed in the Discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language is generally clear, but there are untranslated Latin or Italian words, word repetitions, and incorrectly translated or unclear terms in Table 1. See the main comments for details.
Author Response
Answer: Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We amended the article in accordance with your recommendation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the article is clearer.
I am attaching some suggestions and corrections
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I suggest that someone with more knowledge of English review it again.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript. We amended the article in accordance with your recommendation. We change figure 10 in order to explain it. We are very grateful for your punctual revision.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further comments.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks to the author for the revisions made to the manuscript, the overall quality has been significantly improved. The article has been improved in terms of theoretical background, methodological details, etc., making the research logic more rigorous and the conclusions more convincing. In addition, there are the following comments:
The abstract mainly describes the research objectives and findings. Please add the academic gaps filled by the research in this section.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript.
