Weed Flora Evolution in the Era of Climate Change: New Agronomic Issues as a Threat to Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of climate change on weed flora in the Mediterranean region, analyzing how climatic factors such as rising temperatures, increased CO₂ concentration, reduced rainfall, and more frequent extreme events drive the evolution of weed communities and thereby create new challenges for sustainable agriculture. It concludes by proposing agronomic strategies for managing future weed flora. The authors demonstrate a broad perspective and a clear problem orientation, offering strong practical relevance and policy implications. However, the following issues require attention:

1. Key conclusions need to be supported by quantitative evidence. For example, the statement “rising temperatures will promote C4 weed occurrence” could be substantiated with specific data (e.g., a X% increase in C4 weed biomass per 1°C of warming) or by citing long-term field observations from Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy.
2. Regarding the view that “elevated CO₂ may reduce the competitive advantage of C4 plants,” the competition thresholds between C3 and C4 plants under different CO₂ concentrations should be clarified to avoid logical inconsistency. Citing results from FACE (Free-Air CO₂ Enrichment) experiments would help illustrate shifts in photosynthetic advantage in C3 weeds such as Xanthium italicum.
3. Some sections (e.g., “Soil Salinization” and “UV-B Radiation”) lack logical transitions. It is recommended to add bridging sentences that explain the interactions among climatic factors—for instance, how drought exacerbates salinization, which in turn affects weed stress tolerance.
4. Specialized terms should be defined at their first appearance (e.g., “ruderal species,” “halotolerant species”) to avoid reader misinterpretation. For example, “ruderal species” could be defined as “pioneer species with high reproductive and dispersal capacity in disturbed environments.”
5. Include recent literature from the past five years (2020–2025), particularly studies on the effects of extreme events on the evolution of weed resistance.
6. While the current content extensively discusses the global relationship between climate change and weeds, it should more strongly emphasize the uniqueness of the Mediterranean context (e.g., the combined effect of summer drought and mild winters on weed phenology). Comparisons with studies from Northern Europe or tropical regions would be valuable.
7. The recommendation for “crop genetic improvement” in the conclusions needs to be more specific. For instance, it could suggest “utilizing drought-resistance genes from wild relatives (e.g., Triticum dicoccoides, a wild ancestor of wheat) to develop varieties that are more competitive against weeds,” and cite relevant breeding cases.
8. The language of the manuscript requires further polishing. It is recommended that the authors refine the text sentence by sentence, eliminating redundant modifiers. It is strongly advised to have the manuscript edited by a domain expert who is a native English speaker.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This paper examines the impact of climate change on weed flora in the Mediterranean region, analyzing how climatic factors such as rising temperatures, increased CO₂ concentration, reduced rainfall, and more frequent extreme events drive the evolution of weed communities and thereby create new challenges for sustainable agriculture. It concludes by proposing agronomic strategies for managing future weed flora. The authors demonstrate a broad perspective and a clear problem orientation, offering strong practical relevance and policy implications. However, the following issues require attention:

1. Key conclusions need to be supported by quantitative evidence. For example, the statement “rising temperatures will promote C4 weed occurrence” could be substantiated with specific data (e.g., a X% increase in C4 weed biomass per 1°C of warming) or by citing long-term field observations from Mediterranean countries such as Spain and Italy.

Ok, in the new version inserted this phrase: “Under warming scenarios, C4 weed species may increase aboveground biomass by ap-proximately 1–4% per 1°C rise in temperature within their optimal thermal range, with potentially higher gains under favourable water and nutrient availability.”

2. Regarding the view that “elevated CO₂ may reduce the competitive advantage of C4 plants,” the competition thresholds between C3 and C4 plants under different CO₂ concentrations should be clarified to avoid logical inconsistency. Citing results from FACE (Free-Air CO₂ Enrichment) experiments would help illustrate shifts in photosynthetic advantage in C3 weeds such as Xanthium italicum.

Ok, in the new version I inserted this additional phrase: ). “Indeed, elevated CO₂ concentrations (550–700 ppm) disproportionately stimulate C3 photosynthesis by reducing photorespiration and alleviating CO₂ limitation, thereby shifting the C3–C4 competitive threshold toward higher temperature ranges and potentially reducing the relative advantage of C4 species under moderate thermal conditions, as demonstrated by FACE experiments showing significant biomass and photosynthetic en-hancement in C3 weeds such as Xanthium italicum".

3. Some sections (e.g., “Soil Salinization” and “UV-B Radiation”) lack logical transitions. It is recommended to add bridging sentences that explain the interactions among climatic factors—for instance, how drought exacerbates salinization, which in turn affects weed stress tolerance.

Ok, in this new version of the manuscript I have summarized the required concept in this way: “Climatic stressors rarely act in isolation; for instance, prolonged drought can intensify soil salinization through reduced leaching and increased evaporative salt accumulation, thereby compounding osmotic stress and altering weed physiological tolerance and competitive dynamics under concurrent UV-B radiation and heat stress”.

4. Specialized terms should be defined at their first appearance (e.g., “ruderal species,” “halotolerant species”) to avoid reader misinterpretation. For example, “ruderal species” could be defined as “pioneer species with high reproductive and dispersal capacity in disturbed environments.”

Ok, in this new version of the manuscript I have summarized the required concept in this way: “Ruderal species, defined as pioneer species characterized by rapid growth and high reproductive and dispersal capacity in disturbed environments, are often favoured under climate-driven disturbance regimes. Likewise, halotolerant species—species capable of surviving and maintaining physiological function under elevated soil salinity conditions—may become increasingly prevalent in areas affected by drought-induced salinization”.

5. Include recent literature from the past five years (2020–2025), particularly studies on the effects of extreme events on the evolution of weed resistance.

I have tried to use recent publications and prefer to avoid weighing down the "paper" with additional citations.

6. While the current content extensively discusses the global relationship between climate change and weeds, it should more strongly emphasize the uniqueness of the Mediterranean context (e.g., the combined effect of summer drought and mild winters on weed phenology). Comparisons with studies from Northern Europe or tropical regions would be valuable.

Even in this case, I would like to avoid further burdening this already very long review. I will eventually develop this interesting suggestion in a further study in a future paper.

7. The recommendation for “crop genetic improvement” in the conclusions needs to be more specific. For instance, it could suggest “utilizing drought-resistance genes from wild relatives (e.g., Triticum dicoccoides, a wild ancestor of wheat) to develop varieties that are more competitive against weeds,” and cite relevant breeding cases.

Ok, in this new version of the manuscript I have summarized the required concept in this way: “Future crop genetic improvement strategies should prioritize the introgression of drought-resistance traits from wild relatives—such as Triticum dicoccoides, a wild progenitor of wheat—into elite cultivars to enhance stress tolerance and competitive ability against weeds under climate change scenarios, as demonstrated by recent breeding programs exploiting wild germplasm for improved resilience and yield stability”.

8. The language of the manuscript requires further polishing. It is recommended that the authors refine the text sentence by sentence, eliminating redundant modifiers. It is strongly advised to have the manuscript edited by a domain expert who is a native.

OK, I have thoroughly revised the manuscript by implementing it with a native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This manuscript covers a timely and important issue: how climate change is affecting weed species and their roles in ecological processes. However, the current draft would benefit greatly from revisions to improve its clarity, logical flow, and scientific accuracy. The abstract needs significant improvement. Its first sentence oversimplifies by stating that climate change is the main reason for seeking better weed control, so it should be removed. Overall, the abstract feels disjointed and lacks a clear, logical storyline. I recommend rewriting it completely to clearly explain the study's goals, methods, main findings, and why they matter. The Introduction overlooks a key issue: how herbicide use and the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds are major contributors to the loss of weed biodiversity, along with simpler crop rotations. It's also important to discuss how economic pressures and the need for profitable farming interact with climate-related factors. Between lines 66–69, I disagree with the claims made. Carbon dioxide levels are shaped by both human activities and natural forces, especially processes in the oceans. Methane, too, comes from more than just human sources. The way these gases are regulated worldwide is complicated and can't be explained by just local or human factors. These sections need to be revised and supported with more scientific references, as relying on a single source isn't enough for such strong statements. For Figures 1 and 2, please include where the photos were taken and who took them. Proper credit is important for transparency. In Chapter 2.1, I agree with the discussion concerning thermoperiod, yet I cannot agree with the description of photoperiod, which represents the ratio of day to night and does not change over time. Earlier flowering under higher temperatures is expected in warm seasons and does not necessarily indicate a long-term phenological shift. Moreover, synchronization between pollinator activity and plant flowering is a highly plastic process — both plants and insects adapt to environmental changes. Some statements in lines 113–114 are phrased too strongly and require supporting citations. In Chapter 2.2, the assertion that cold temperatures commonly break dormancy in cold and cool climates is incorrect. Quite the opposite — they typically induce or maintain dormancy. The claim is again supported by only one publication, which is insufficient. Cold exposure primarily induces the generative growth phase (vernalization), as outlined in Chapter 2.3. However, that chapter oversimplifies the process — vernalization requirements can often be fulfilled after only 2–3 days of low temperatures, which may occur at different times of the year. These explanations should be more precise. For Figure 3, please also provide the photo’s source and who took it. The section on how C3 and C4 plants respond to rising CO₂ isn’t very convincing. If CO₂ levels were to double, both types of plants might adapt in different ways, so the discussion needs to be more balanced and backed up with better data. I fully agree with the chapter on parasitic weeds, whose expansion into northern Europe is well documented. This section is informative and relevant. My biggest concern is that the manuscript mostly blames climate change for shifts in weed species, without giving enough attention to other important farming factors like less crop variety, different herbicide use and resistance, changes in soil management, fertilizer practices, acidification, and more nitrogen. From what I’ve seen in northern Europe, these farming practices actually play a bigger role than climate change alone. Also, the idea that biodiversity will definitely go down isn’t certain—when niches open up, new species often move in and keep the ecosystem diverse. In summary, the manuscript needs a thorough revision in both its structure and arguments. The writing should be more balanced, avoiding broad statements in favor of specific, well-supported points. Adding more references and interpreting data more carefully will help make the research stronger and more reliable.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript covers a timely and important issue: how climate change is affecting weed species and their roles in ecological processes. However, the current draft would benefit greatly from revisions to improve its clarity, logical flow, and scientific accuracy. The abstract needs significant improvement.

Ok, I implemented the abstract

 Its first sentence oversimplifies by stating that climate change is the main reason for seeking better weed control, so it should be removed. Overall, the abstract feels disjointed and lacks a clear, logical storyline. I recommend rewriting it completely to clearly explain the study's goals, methods, main findings, and why they matter.

OK, I agree. I've modified this concept to make it more consistent with the content of the review.

 The Introduction overlooks a key issue: how herbicide use and the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds are major contributors to the loss of weed biodiversity, along with simpler crop rotations. It's also important to discuss how economic pressures and the need for profitable farming interact with climate-related factors.

Ok, I mentioned the additional issue of "herbicide resistance" using this additional phrase: “The challenge of managing the evolution of herbicide resistance in weed populations is likely to be further intensified by climate change, whose inherent variability and unpredictability may alter selection pressures and complicate the development of effective control strategies.”

 Between lines 66–69, I disagree with the claims made. Carbon dioxide levels are shaped by both human activities and natural forces, especially processes in the oceans. Methane, too, comes from more than just human sources. The way these gases are regulated worldwide is complicated and can't be explained by just local or human factors. These sections need to be revised and supported with more scientific references, as relying on a single source isn't enough for such strong statements.

Ok, I changed this sentence in this way: “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas (GHG), although its atmospheric concentration is highly variable and primarily regulated by temperature-dependent processes. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations are influenced by both anthropogenic emissions and natural processes, particularly ocean–atmosphere exchanges and terrestrial biosphere dynamics. Similarly, methane (CH₄) originates from a combination of human activities and natural sources. The global regulation of these gases results from complex interactions among anthropogenic drivers, biogeochemical cycles, and large-scale Earth system processes. Among the major long-lived GHGs, nitrous oxide (N₂O) exhibits a particularly high global warming potential [16,17].”

For Figures 1 and 2, please include where the photos were taken and who took them. Proper credit is important for transparency.

Ok, I specified the places and the author of the photographs

In Chapter 2.1, I agree with the discussion concerning thermoperiod, yet I cannot agree with the description of photoperiod, which represents the ratio of day to night and does not change over time. Earlier flowering under higher temperatures is expected in warm seasons and does not necessarily indicate a long-term phenological shift. Moreover, synchronization between pollinator activity and plant flowering is a highly plastic process — both plants and insects adapt to environmental changes. Some statements in lines 113–114 are phrased too strongly and require supporting citations.

OK, I agree! I changed in this way: “Indeed, the duration of the photoperiod was kept constant, but it was temporally uncoupled from the thermoperiod”

In Chapter 2.2, the assertion that cold temperatures commonly break dormancy in cold and cool climates is incorrect. Quite the opposite — they typically induce or maintain dormancy. The claim is again supported by only one publication, which is insufficient. Cold exposure primarily induces the generative growth phase (vernalization), as outlined in Chapter 2.3. However, that chapter oversimplifies the process — vernalization requirements can often be fulfilled after only 2–3 days of low temperatures, which may occur at different times of the year. These explanations should be more precise.

Ok, I have better highlighted the concept of the effect of cold this way: “In temperate and cold environments, exposure to several consecutive days of low winter temperatures progressively reduces dormancy, thereby enabling germination during subsequent spring periods”.

 

For Figure 3, please also provide the photo’s source and who took it.

OK, I have entered the requested information in all the photographs entered.

The section on how C3 and C4 plants respond to rising CO₂ isn’t very convincing. If CO₂ levels were to double, both types of plants might adapt in different ways, so the discussion needs to be more balanced and backed up with better data.

Ok, I have highlighted the high level of uncertainty in floristic evolution following the increase in CO2.

 I fully agree with the chapter on parasitic weeds, whose expansion into northern Europe is well documented. This section is informative and relevant. My biggest concern is that the manuscript mostly blames climate change for shifts in weed species, without giving enough attention to other important farming factors like less crop variety, different herbicide use and resistance, changes in soil management, fertilizer practices, acidification, and more nitrogen. From what I’ve seen in northern Europe, these farming practices actually play a bigger role than climate change alone. Also, the idea that biodiversity will definitely go down isn’t certain—when niches open up, new species often move in and keep the ecosystem diverse. In summary, the manuscript needs a thorough revision in both its structure and arguments. The writing should be more balanced, avoiding broad statements in favor of specific, well-supported points.

OK, I agree! I clarified in the conclusion this sentence: “On the other hand, future floristic evolution is expected to remain highly uncertain, not only because of the intrinsic complexity of climate change, but also due to its unpredictable interactions with herbicide resistance, crop system simplification, and the impact of emerging agroecosystem management strategies”.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines how weed flora is likely to respond to climate change. However, the impact of climate change (changes in temperature, CO₂, precipitation, salinity, etc.) on weeds has already been discussed in numerous review articles, many of which (4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 48, 55, 61, 124, 125 and 157) are also cited in this manuscript.

A scientific review article should be more detailed and critically analyze existing research on the chosen topic. This manuscript is more like a lecture, where sources are cited only as illustrations. In addition, numerous sources are cited incorrectly when they do not contain the indicated information (e.g. 9, 40, 42, 57, 59, 62, 69, 94, 128, 130, 140 ect.). The authors simply skim through the publications without analyzing them, citing them only once.

According to the Author Contributions, methodology was developed by S.B. and G.B. However, the methods (used databases, keywords, selection criteria) are not described.

Although the title of the manuscript refers to the Mediterranean region, there is repeated discussion of Northern Europe, temperate and cold environments, temperate, cold climate. Furthermore, it is unclear in what sense, geographical or climatic, the authors understand the Mediterranean region and what they consider to be weeds.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This article examines how weed flora is likely to respond to climate change. However, the impact of climate change (changes in temperature, CO₂, precipitation, salinity, etc.) on weeds has already been discussed in numerous review articles, many of which (4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 48, 55, 61, 124, 125 and 157) are also cited in this manuscript.

I agree that this review is not unique, but it is a highly debated topic from an agronomic perspective. However, I believe there is room for all points of view and it is useful to express all perspectives on this complex agro-environmental topic.

A scientific review article should be more detailed and critically analyze existing research on the chosen topic. This manuscript is more like a lecture, where sources are cited only as illustrations. In addition, numerous sources are cited incorrectly when they do not contain the indicated information (e.g. 9, 40, 42, 57, 59, 62, 69, 94, 128, 130, 140 ect.). The authors simply skim through the publications without analyzing them, citing them only once.

This review perhaps resembles a lecture in that it attempts to analyze the various aspects involved in the climatic and agronomic sectors. It is certainly a complex topic, but I believe it provides agronomic insights that could probably be implemented by other authors.

According to the Author Contributions, methodology was developed by S.B. and G.B. However, the methods (used databases, keywords, selection criteria) are not described.

I've never described the methods in a review. I've simply included the contributions required by the "format" of this scientific journal.

Although the title of the manuscript refers to the Mediterranean region, there is repeated discussion of Northern Europe, temperate and cold environments, temperate, cold climate. Furthermore, it is unclear in what sense, geographical or climatic, the authors understand the Mediterranean region and what they consider to be weeds.

Yes, it's true! I originally wanted to describe the floristic dynamics in a Mediterranean context, and later extended the examples to more northern latitudes. Now, I removed "Mediterranean Environment" from the title.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider this paper to be very important for understanding the evolution of the weed spectrum in the context of climate change. 
I recommend a few improvements for better understanding and international comparison:
- In the introduction, you only mention the factors, without saying anything about the importance of such studies. At the end of the introduction, before the purpose and objectives of your work, specify whether such research has been done before, summarize its advantages, and highlight the novelty and importance of your work.
- Lines 152-153, in the current context of climate change and progressive habitat degradation, it is relevant for the paper to address the adaptability of plant species capable of rapidly colonizing disturbed environments, such as Xanthium italicum. The species that will have a competitive advantage are those with a short life cycle and a high capacity for adaptation and spread. These conditions have also favored the invasion of weed species such as Xanthium sp., whose seeds germinate at high temperatures (20–30°C) and at depths between 2 and 10 cm. The seeds in the lower achenes germinate first, while the seeds in the upper achenes germinate only when the former have been destroyed. Staggered germination, which depends on temperature, soil moisture, and incorporation depth, is an important adaptive mechanism that makes it difficult to control this species.
- The paper requires corrections and refinement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

I consider this paper to be very important for understanding the evolution of the weed spectrum in the context of climate change. 

Thanks for the nice comment!

I recommend a few improvements for better understanding and international comparison:
- In the introduction, you only mention the factors, without saying anything about the importance of such studies. At the end of the introduction, before the purpose and objectives of your work, specify whether such research has been done before, summarize its advantages, and highlight the novelty and importance of your work.

Ok, I have summarized, at the end of the introduction, the objectives of the review

- Lines 152-153, in the current context of climate change and progressive habitat degradation, it is relevant for the paper to address the adaptability of plant species capable of rapidly colonizing disturbed environments, such as Xanthium italicum. The species that will have a competitive advantage are those with a short life cycle and a high capacity for adaptation and spread. These conditions have also favored the invasion of weed species such as Xanthium sp., whose seeds germinate at high temperatures (20–30°C) and at depths between 2 and 10 cm. The seeds in the lower achenes germinate first, while the seeds in the upper achenes germinate only when the former have been destroyed. Staggered germination, which depends on temperature, soil moisture, and incorporation depth, is an important adaptive mechanism that makes it difficult to control this species.

Ok, I have inserted this interesting suggestion in the text (212-217).

- The paper requires corrections and refinement.

OK, I have thoroughly revised the manuscript by implementing it with a native speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author responded well to the comments and improved the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the corrections, and the manuscript can be published.

Author Response

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the manuscript did not change after the correction. The list of references is very long (168), but this is because the works are cited very casually, without delving into their essence, and all of them are cited only once. It seems that the authors, who are very knowledgeable on the subject, wrote the text and only then supplemented it with references. The fact that numerous sources (e.g. 7, 9, 13, 42, 57, 59, 62, 69, 94, 108, 110, 115, 127, 128, 130, 140) are cited incorrectly when they do not contain the information indicates the authors' negligent approach to the analysis of literary sources.

Several examples of careless citation:

‘It (segetal plants weeds) derives from survival strategies, i.e., fast and enhanced reproduction capacity, marked dormancy and longevity of seeds, that give the species a wide plasticity to various soils, climates and farming systems [7]‘. However, the aforementioned source does not provide any information about the reproduction capacity, dormancy, and longevity of seeds. Meanwhile, no attention is paid to the key results of the source.

‘An increase of water-stress tolerant species has already been observed in the weed flora of both summer [57] and winter [58] crops. However, [57] does not mention either water-stress-tolerant species or summer crops. Furthermore, acording [58], greater abundance of drought-sensitive species was found in mature pasture. However, the authors of the cited article do not link this fact to climate change, but rather to the natural succession of grassland communities.

A very comprehensive review article, ‘Impact of climate change on weeds in agriculture: a review‘, is cited as follows: ‘but today climate change is becoming an additional factor [9]‘.

The review article ‘Impact of climate change factors on weeds and ferbicide efficacy‘ [13] is cited: ‘weed control in the future will likely become more difficult [12] also because of greater number of weed generations per year [13]‘. However, there is no information about greater number of weed generations per year in the article.

And so on.

Author Response

REFEREE 3
(The updated responses are highlighted in red.)

This article examines how weed flora is likely to respond to climate change. However, the impact of climate change (changes in temperature, CO₂, precipitation, salinity, etc.) on weeds has already been discussed in numerous review articles, many of which (4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 48, 55, 61, 124, 125 and 157) are also cited in this manuscript.

I agree that this review is not unique, but it is a highly debated topic from an agronomic perspective. However, I believe there is room for all points of view and it is useful to express all perspectives on this complex agro-environmental topic. My idea was simply to offer one of the many agronomic perspectives on a topic considered very important in the international scientific landscape. In other words, I believe that this topic is so diverse across its various agro-environmental aspects that it allows for a kind of “biodiversity of opinions.”

A scientific review article should be more detailed and critically analyze existing research on the chosen topic. This manuscript is more like a lecture, where sources are cited only as illustrations. In addition, numerous sources are cited incorrectly when they do not contain the indicated information (e.g. 9, 40, 42, 57, 59, 62, 69, 94, 128, 130, 140 ect.). The authors simply skim through the publications without analyzing them, citing them only once.

This review perhaps resembles a lecture in that it attempts to analyze the various aspects involved in the climatic and agronomic sectors. It is certainly a complex topic, but I believe it provides agronomic insights that could probably be implemented by other authors. I carefully reviewed the cited references and replaced them with others that express concepts more closely aligned with the statements in the text.

According to the Author Contributions, methodology was developed by S.B. and G.B. However, the methods (used databases, keywords, selection criteria) are not described.

I've never described the methods in a review. I've simply included the contributions required by the "format" of this scientific journal. I used the search engines typically available for this kind of research.

Although the title of the manuscript refers to the Mediterranean region, there is repeated discussion of Northern Europe, temperate and cold environments, temperate, cold climate. Furthermore, it is unclear in what sense, geographical or climatic, the authors understand the Mediterranean region and what they consider to be weeds.

Yes, it's true! I originally wanted to describe the floristic dynamics in a Mediterranean context, and later extended the examples to more northern latitudes. Now, I removed "Mediterranean Environment" from the title.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

L80–83, 137, 375, 472–474, 509, 600 Correction needed.

Author Response

REFEREE 3
(The updated responses are highlighted in bule.)

Dear Referee 3,

I must honestly admit that I struggle to understand what more I can add to this seemingly endless “odyssey” regarding my review on the relationships between climate change and weed dynamics. I do not claim to be either the first or the last to express my perspective on this important topic. I fully agree that this review represents only a point of view rather than a definitive report in the field of agroecology. Below, I provide both the previous and the new comments in response to the questions that were raised.

Point-by-point responses

This article examines how weed flora is likely to respond to climate change. However, the impact of climate change (changes in temperature, CO₂, precipitation, salinity, etc.) on weeds has already been discussed in numerous review articles, many of which (4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18, 19, 48, 55, 61, 124, 125 and 157) are also cited in this manuscript.

I agree that this review is not unique, but it is a highly debated topic from an agronomic perspective. However, I believe there is room for all points of view and it is useful to express all perspectives on this complex agro-environmental topic. My idea was simply to offer one of the many agronomic perspectives on a topic considered very important in the international scientific landscape. In other words, I believe that this topic is so diverse across its various agro-environmental aspects that it allows for a kind of “biodiversity of opinions.”

In summary, this topic deserves to be examined from multiple perspectives, and I have attempted to address it both analytically and synthetically.

A scientific review article should be more detailed and critically analyze existing research on the chosen topic. This manuscript is more like a lecture, where sources are cited only as illustrations. In addition, numerous sources are cited incorrectly when they do not contain the indicated information (e.g. 9, 40, 42, 57, 59, 62, 69, 94, 128, 130, 140 ect.). The authors simply skim through the publications without analyzing them, citing them only once.

This review perhaps resembles a lecture in that it attempts to analyze the various aspects involved in the climatic and agronomic sectors. It is certainly a complex topic, but I believe it provides agronomic insights that could probably be implemented by other authors. I carefully reviewed the cited references and replaced them with others that express concepts more closely aligned with the statements in the text. In summary, I have carefully checked the consistency between the statements made and the corresponding citations.

According to the Author Contributions, methodology was developed by S.B. and G.B. However, the methods (used databases, keywords, selection criteria) are not described.

I've never described the methods in a review. I've simply included the contributions required by the "format" of this scientific journal. I used the search engines typically available for this kind of research. In summary, I have conducted a thorough review of the literature and “extrapolated” my perspective on this topic.

Although the title of the manuscript refers to the Mediterranean region, there is repeated discussion of Northern Europe, temperate and cold environments, temperate, cold climate. Furthermore, it is unclear in what sense, geographical or climatic, the authors understand the Mediterranean region and what they consider to be weeds.

Yes, it's true! I originally wanted to describe the floristic dynamics in a Mediterranean context, and later extended the examples to more northern latitudes. Now, I removed "Mediterranean Environment" from the title. Indeed, climate change increases “floristic vulnerability,” and although I initially intended to focus on the Mediterranean environment, I subsequently extended the discussion to other latitudes.

 

 

 

L80–83, 137, 375, 472–474, 509, 600 Correction needed.

I have revised most of the citations, using publications that more precisely highlight what is described in the text.