Comparative Evaluation of Crithmum maritimum and Origanum dictamnus Cultivation on an Extensive Urban Green Roof

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the topic is very current and the paper very interesting.

I write some comments/suggestions below, consider those that seem useful:

- lines 29 and some followings (ex: [1,3-4], [1,3-4,8-10]...): I suggest to verify if the reference is correct, I mean the use of ",", "-" and the spaces;

- line 32-33: I would ask to better define the presumed benefit "reduction of management pressure". I would suggest to use a wide performance as example "reduction of run-off" which implies a chain-benefits;

- lines 119-120: the statement is correct; I suggest that, considering the importance of the substrate for green roofs, it would be useful to cite some sources (including technical standards), because the literature on substrates is consolidated;

- line 142: what do you mean with "infrastructure"? A system? A layering?

- lines 141-146: a section of the technology would be greatly appreciated by the reader;

- lines 150-155: as above, a drawing would help very much;

- section 2.2: I would suggest a table filled with physical characteristics of the 2 substrate (clearly divided, titled and with unit measures). Moreover, considering that the substrate is an important topic of this paper, I suggest to add some useful/key information from the previous quoted study [17] (if any): this would qualify the paper, in addition to help the reader;

- section 2.3: as for the section 2.2, I believe that a table would make easier to understand and to compare the two types of irrigation (according to substrate depth);

- figure 1: colours of the graphs would help;

- figures 5 and followings: what does it mean the nomenclature "ab", "bc", "bcd"... in the column graphs? I am not sure it is clear to the reader;

- in general, try to make the graphic and the figures more intuitive with supportive legends;

- the discussion section is wide and very interesting;

- conclusion section: I would suggest to breafly provide interesting research directions, according to your experience, which other researches could consider in other Mediterranean (and non-Mediterranean) areas.

 

Author Response

Our response to comments of the Reviewer 1 is attached as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors evaluated and compared two plants that were commonly used in extensive green roof systems: Crithmum Maritimum and Origanum Dictamnus, from effects of substrate type and substrate depth. The topic is interesting and I appreciate the efforts made on the research design and experiment.

The manuscript can further improve in the Introduction part. The innovation is still not so obvious, unless not clearly stated by the authors. In the Introduction, there should be some paragraphs describing other works in the same field, as well as the research gaps. Each research that is highly related should be described in two sentences or three. After summarizing the existing studies, the authors need to explain what the special contributions of their study are. The innovation can be either from the application or technical.

In the Discussion part, the authors can discuss the seasonal effects on the experiment a little bit.   

Author Response

Our response to the comments of Reviewer 2 is attached as a PDF file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made great efforts to further improve the manuscript and address all the comments I made. The paper looks well-written and ready for publish.