Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper conducts a relatively comprehensive study on turfgrass, integrating historical analysis with agronomic and ecological research to explore its evolution process, evaluate its ecological functions, and discuss sustainable management strategies. The research has certain significance and value. However, there are still some issues in the research content, research methods, language expression, and format specifications, as detailed below:

1. When elaborating on the historical evolution of turfgrass, the exploration of cultural and social backgrounds in different periods is unbalanced. For example, during the Middle Ages, little mention is made of the development of turfgrass in regions other than Europe. 

2. Please provide references for the materials mentioned at line 84. If possible, present a summarized table of the materials used. 

3. It is recommended to move the paragraph at lines 101 - 104 to the discussion section.

4.The paper mainly relies on secondary data and literature analysis and lacks empirical research, which affects the innovation of the research to some extent. Meanwhile, when comparing turfgrass systems in different historical periods and modern times, there is a lack of quantitative indicators. 

5. There are repetitive and verbose parts in some paragraphs of the article. When introducing Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, the recreational function of turfgrass is elaborated multiple times. The descriptions of the integration of turfgrass into the landscape and its openness in different stages of the 18th century are also repetitive. It is suggested to streamline the language.

6. The content before Section 3.1 is long but lacks subheadings, which is not conducive to readers quickly grasping the core content. It is recommended to add subheadings, such as "3.1 The Development of Turfgrass from Ancient Civilizations to the Middle Ages". In addition, the article lacks Section 3.3, which undermines the integrity of the overall structure. 

7.The figure captions in the article are not standardized. The descriptions related to the figures should be integrated into the figure captions, and "Figure 1" is not marked in the figure caption of Figure 1. At the same time, the formats of the figure captions are not uniform, with some indented and some not. 

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for your attentive reading and valuable comments on our manuscript titled “The Evolution and Sustainable Management of Turfgrass: Historical Insights and Future Challenges”. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and revised the manuscript accordingly to improve its scholarly rigor, clarity, and structural consistency. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. 

Comment 1. When elaborating on the historical evolution of turfgrass, the exploration of cultural and social backgrounds in different periods is unbalanced. For example, during the Middle Ages, little mention is made of the development of turfgrass in regions other than Europe. 

Response1. We appreciate this observation. We have added a dedicated paragraph discussing turfgrass practices in Islamic gardens during the Middle Ages, especially within the Persian and Andalusian contexts. These traditions played a significant role in preserving horticultural knowledge and ornamental lawn design. Relevant literature has been cited to support these additions.

Comment 2. Please provide references for the materials mentioned at line 84. If possible, present a summarized table of the materials used. 

Response 2. References for the materials listed at line 84 have now been inserted directly into the text. Additionally, we have included a new Table 1 in the Materials and Methods section, summarizing the types of primary and secondary sources consulted (classical texts, peer-reviewed articles, case studies, etc.).

Comment 3. It is recommended to move the paragraph at lines 101 - 104 to the discussion section.

Response 3. Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a statement at the end of Chapter 5 acknowledging the study’s reliance on historical and literature-based sources, and we suggest directions for future empirical research involving biodiversity assessments, carbon sequestration metrics, and in-situ turfgrass performance.

Comment 4. The paper mainly relies on secondary data and literature analysis and lacks empirical research, which affects the innovation of the research to some extent. Meanwhile, when comparing turfgrass systems in different historical periods and modern times, there is a lack of quantitative indicators.

Response 4. Thank you for highlighting this important aspect. We have addressed your comment in two ways. First, we explicitly acknowledged the methodological limitations of the study at the end of Chapter 5. Second, to strengthen the empirical basis of our historical–ecological comparison, we have added a new comparative paragraph in Chapter 5, which integrates relevant quantitative indicators related to turfgrass systems—such as carbon sequestration potential, surface temperature regulation, and water consumption rates. These data highlight the functional evolution of turfgrass from a symbolic design element in historical contexts to a performance-based component of sustainable urban landscapes.

Comment 5. There are repetitive and verbose parts in some paragraphs of the article. When introducing Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, the recreational function of turfgrass is elaborated multiple times. The descriptions of the integration of turfgrass into the landscape and its openness in different stages of the 18th century are also repetitive. It is suggested to streamline the language.

Response 5. Thank you for your detailed observation. We have carefully revised the sections introducing Greek, Roman, and medieval garden cultures to streamline the language and eliminate repetitive references to the recreational and symbolic functions of turfgrass. The content has been condensed to improve clarity and readability while preserving all historically and thematically relevant points. We carefully reviewed also the section on 18th-century landscape design and revised the language to avoid conceptual and stylistic repetition. The descriptions of turfgrass integration and spatial openness have been streamlined, with clearer distinctions made between the contributions of Bridgeman, Kent, and Brown. These changes improve the clarity and flow of the narrative while preserving the historical depth of analysis.

Comment 6. The content before Section 3.1 is long but lacks subheadings, which is not conducive to readers quickly grasping the core content. It is recommended to add subheadings, such as "3.1 The Development of Turfgrass from Ancient Civilizations to the Middle Ages". In addition, the article lacks Section 3.3, which undermines the integrity of the overall structure. 

Response 6. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. To improve readability and structural clarity, we have reorganized Section 3 by introducing distinct subsections (3.1 to 3.7) that trace the development of turfgrass from ancient civilizations to the present day. We have also revised the section heading to:
“The Evolution and Legacy of Turfgrass: From Ancient Civilizations to the Contemporary Era” to better reflect the full temporal scope of the analysis and ensure consistency with later parts of the manuscript.

Comment 7.The figure captions in the article are not standardized. The descriptions related to the figures should be integrated into the figure captions, and "Figure 1" is not marked in the figure caption of Figure 1. At the same time, the formats of the figure captions are not uniform, with some indented and some not. 

Response 7. Thank you for your helpful feedback. We have carefully reviewed and revised all figure captions in the manuscript to ensure consistency in formatting, structure, and content. Each caption now clearly includes the figure number, a descriptive title, and a concise explanation that integrates key contextual information previously located in the body of the text. Additionally, we standardized layout and indentation across all captions to align with academic formatting standards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1) The title does not accurately describe the paper. The majority of the paper is focused on how turfgrass has been used in the landscape and is not focused on the management during the historical aspect.

Response1) Thank you for the helpful observation. We have revised the title to better reflect the actual scope and focus of the paper. The new title is:

“Turfgrass Across Time: Historical Uses, Cultural Values, and Sustainability Transitions”

This title emphasizes both the historical-cultural dimension and the more recent sustainable management discourse, bridging the two core aspects of the review.

Comment 2) There seems to be a disconnect or a gap in the paper. It goes from describing how turfgrass has been used into sustainable management. Something needs to be added to bridge this gap. Also, it would be beneficial to include more information about the turfgrass itself during the historical aspect of the paper and prior management techniques since it later talks about new sustainable management.

Response 2) Thank you for this insightful comment. To address the narrative gap, we have inserted a new bridging paragraph between the historical and management sections, outlining the functional evolution of turfgrass and its early maintenance practices. This addition provides a conceptual transition from cultural and symbolic uses to ecological and practical considerations. Furthermore, we have expanded the historical sections to include more information about turfgrass care in different eras, such as the use of grazing animals, early irrigation systems, and basic mowing tools, to better contextualize the modern shift toward sustainable management.

Comment 3) To me this review’s main focus is describing how turfgrass is used in the landscape and the management is an afterthought. Include more information about the management throughout history and the grasses that were used.

Response 3) Thank you for your thoughtful comment. To address your concern, we have expanded the manuscript to include a detailed paragraph (subheading 3.4) on historical turfgrass management practices and likely species composition in ancient, Islamic, and medieval contexts. This addition provides insight into how early societies selected and maintained grasses using regionally adapted, low-input methods. By examining these ecological and cultural approaches, we aim to create a more coherent narrative linking historical turf use to contemporary sustainability practices.

Comment 4) There also needs to be more information in the materials and methods portion of the paper. How was the literature review conducted, what keywords were used and databases searched, and how was the analysis conducted.

Response 4) Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have expanded the Materials and Methods section to clarify the literature review process. We now detail the databases consulted, the keyword combinations and Boolean operators used, the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the languages covered. Additionally, we have added a description of the thematic and diachronic analysis employed to compare turfgrass practices across historical and contemporary contexts. These additions improve methodological transparency and strengthen the paper's interdisciplinary rigor.

Line 110 – Suggest adding sub-heading for this section.

We have added a subheading at line 110 to improve readability and thematic organization. The section now appears as “3.3 Turfgrass in the Age of Enlightenment: Landscape Theory and Visual Continuity”.

Line 136 – Move figure heading below the figure.

The figure heading at line 136 has been repositioned below the image, following formatting conventions.

Line 249 – Either change ideal or idealized to different word since they are used next to each other.

We revised the sentence at line 249 to avoid redundancy by rephrasing “ideal/idealized” with more precise language.

Line 255 – Remove ) after [41].

Thank you for noting this oversight. The extraneous parenthesis after reference [41] has been removed.

Lines 334-372 – Add sources to this whole section.

We have inserted multiple references throughout lines 334–372 to support claims related to turfgrass input intensity, water use, and ecological trade-offs.

Line 415-421 – How does turf or turf selection relate to this section?

Thank you for your insightful observation. In response, we have integrated a sentence that explicitly connects the ornamental role of turfgrass in Renaissance garden design with its contemporary relevance in urban landscape planning. While turfgrass historically served primarily aesthetic and compositional purposes, we now highlight how, in modern contexts, turf selection plays a critical role in mediating aesthetic expectations with ecological performance—particularly under conditions of climate stress and soil limitations.

Line 494 – The reference Bacon, Of Gardens, 1625 seems out of place.

Thank you for your observation. We have addressed this by removing the in-text reference and ensuring that Bacon’s Of Gardens (1625) is appropriately cited in the reference list, where it is more contextually relevant. This allows the citation to remain part of the scholarly framework without interrupting the flow of the main text.

Lines 597-672 – Break up section into paragraphs.

We restructured the long section between lines 597–672 into four smaller, thematic paragraphs to improve readability and coherence.

Line 677 – Reword Figure 8 caption.Figure 8 – Reference figure in text.

We rewrote the caption for clarity and added a reference to Figure 8 in the main body of the text at the appropriate location.

Lines 683-689 – Add source. Lines 695-705 – Add source. Lines 717-725 – Add source.

We added proper references to support claims made in these sections, including studies on turfgrass water usage, climate resilience, and species selection. 

Line 747 – Suggest including additional benefits of turfgrass.

Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have expanded the section to include a broader range of ecological and social benefits associated with turfgrass. 

Line 755 – Suggest changing hybrid to improved.

The term “hybrid” has been replaced with “improved” to better reflect the genetic selection and performance optimization of modern turfgrass cultivars.

Line 812 – There is also research that shows turfgrass can be carbon sink even under high-input management.

We added recent findings that demonstrate turfgrass systems can serve as carbon sinks even under high-input conditions, depending on species and management practices

Line 828 – Change offset to reduce.

The wording has been revised from “offset” to “reduce” to more accurately describe the role of turf management in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Line 830 – Add and cultivars after species

We added “and cultivars” after “species” to emphasize the importance of varietal selection in sustainable turfgrass practices.

We included a citation supporting the ecological benefits of organic fertilizer use in turf systems

Line 878 – Add source.

A supporting reference has been added regarding turfgrass adaptation under drought and salinity conditions

Line 959-959 – Suggest adding something about reduced fertilizer and improved turfgrass performance, and then the associated sources.

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have revised the section to clarify that reduced fertilizer inputs—when properly managed—can maintain or even enhance turfgrass performance by improving nutrient use efficiency and root health. We also added references to support these claims, emphasizing the compatibility of sustainable practices with high-quality turf outcomes.

Table 1 – Add sources to the table.

We revised Table 1 (now Table 2)to include sources for all listed turfgrass practices and ecological metrics, ensuring transparency and traceability.

Line 984 – Add perceived before high water demands.

We adjusted the phrasing to:

“...due to the perceived high water demands of traditional turfgrass systems".

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

The study entitled "The Evolution and Sustainable Management of Turfgrass: Historical Insights and Future Challenges" is within the scope and aims of the Journal as it brings unique insights about Turf grass and its role in soil conservation, carbon sequestration, water management, ecosystem services, climate change mitigation, sustainable land use and biodiversity management. The manuscript is written well and the findings of this review study will be beneficial to Agronomists, Soil Conservation scientists, Farmers, Policymakers, Researchers, Town Planners, Extension and Advisory Services, Students and other Readers. However, there are some shortcomings in the manuscript that need to be addressed by the Authors as indicated under Specific Comments.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Under Materials and Methods, Authors must  include the range of publication dates as part of narrowing the scope for their Literature Review especially for Peer-reviewed  literatures.
2. Title of the Figure in Line 136 to Line 137 must be at the bottom of the Figure.
3. It will be beneficial for the Authors under Conclusion to make recommendation statement(s) to Policymakers for utilization of Turfgrass as it plays a pivotal role in soil erosion reduction, combating land degradation, soil management, environmental sustainability, etc. The Conclusion section can be written as "Conclusion, Considerations and Recommendation"
4. It is important to specify the contributions of each Author in this Paper.
5. The title of manuscript must be modified to: 

   The Evolution, Agronomic Role, and Sustainable Management of Turfgrass: Historical Insights and Future Challenges

Author Response

Comment 1. Under Materials and Methods, Authors must  include the range of publication dates as part of narrowing the scope for their Literature Review especially for Peer-reviewed  literatures.

Response 1. Thank you for your observation. We have updated the Materials and Methods section to specify that peer-reviewed literature considered in the study primarily spans the years 2000 to 2023, with a focus on the most recent two decades of research in turfgrass science, urban ecology, and sustainable landscape management. Earlier publications were included only when foundational or historically significant.

Comment 2. Title of the Figure in Line 136 to Line 137 must be at the bottom of the Figure.

Response 2. Thank you for your attention to formatting details. We have repositioned the caption of Figure 1 to appear below the image, in line with standard academic conventions. In addition, we took this opportunity to review and standardize all figure captions throughout the manuscript.

Comment 3. It will be beneficial for the Authors under Conclusion to make recommendation statement(s) to Policymakers for utilization of Turfgrass as it plays a pivotal role in soil erosion reduction, combating land degradation, soil management, environmental sustainability, etc. The Conclusion section can be written as "Conclusion, Considerations and Recommendation"

Response 3. We appreciate this excellent suggestion. We have revised the final section of the manuscript, renaming it “Conclusion, Considerations, and Recommendations”. We have also added specific policy-oriented recommendations addressing the role of turfgrass in sustainable soil management, erosion control, and climate adaptation, especially in urban planning and land restoration strategies.

Comment 4. It is important to specify the contributions of each Author in this Paper.

Thank you for this important reminder. We have added an Author Contributions section at the end of the manuscript, detailing the specific roles of each author according to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system, including conceptualization, writing, methodology, data curation, and review/editing.

Comment 5. The title of manuscript must be modified to: 

The Evolution, Agronomic Role, and Sustainable Management of Turfgrass: Historical Insights and Future Challenges

Response 5. Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion regarding the manuscript title. Based on your recommendation and further insights received during the revision process, we carefully reconsidered the scope and thematic focus of the paper. While your proposed title captures many of the manuscript’s core aspects, we opted for a revised version that better reflects the interdisciplinary structure, historical depth, and transition-oriented narrative of the study:

“Turfgrass Across Time: Historical Uses, Cultural Values, and Sustainability Transitions”

This new title emphasizes three key dimensions explored in the paper:
(1) the diachronic evolution of turfgrass across civilizations,
(2) the cultural and symbolic meanings attributed to turfgrass in various historical contexts, and
(3) the contemporary shift toward sustainability in turfgrass science and management.

We believe this title more accurately reflects the expanded and restructured content of the revised manuscript, aligning with the broader environmental and cultural narrative developed throughout the paper. Nonetheless, we are grateful for your suggestion, which helped us refine the framing of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After this revision, the quality of the paper has been improved and basically meets the publication requirements. However, for further refinement, I suggest that you appropriately add some critical analyses of the cited materials in the supplementary content to demonstrate your deeper thinking about the research content. 

Author Response

Comment 1. After this revision, the quality of the paper has been improved and basically meets the publication requirements. However, for further refinement, I suggest that you appropriately add some critical analyses of the cited materials in the supplementary content to demonstrate your deeper thinking about the research content.

Response 1:We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestion regarding the need to incorporate a more critical analysis of the cited materials within the supplementary content. We fully agree that such a refinement strengthens the scientific rigor and depth of the review. In response to this comment, we have prepared and added a new supplementary section titled "Supplementary Material: Critical Analysis of Selected References." In this section, we critically evaluate several key historical, agronomic, and ecological sources cited in the main text. Specifically, we discuss:

• The interpretive challenges associated with classical literary sources (e.g., Pliny the Younger, Alberti) and their limitations in reconstructing historical turfgrass practices.

• Methodological caveats in contemporary scientific research regarding turfgrass functions (e.g., variability in carbon sequestration data, biodiversity impacts, water management issues).

• Reflections on the integration of heterogeneous source types and suggestions for future interdisciplinary research directions.

This supplementary critical analysis aims to demonstrate deeper engagement with the existing literature and to highlight potential areas of uncertainty, bias, or future exploration. We believe that this addition meaningfully addresses the reviewer’s insightful recommendation and enhances the overall scholarly contribution of the manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has allowed us to improve the quality and analytical depth of our work.