Advancing Knowledge of Wetland Vegetation for Plant Diversity Conservation: The Case of Small Lakes, Ponds, and Pools in Maremma (Southern Tuscany, Central Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Lastrucci et. al carried out a phytosociological survey campaign in southern Tuscany. This study identified 26 plant communities in study area and described a new sub-association, which provides a basis for plant and habitat conservation. However, I have a few substantial concerns about the manuscript in its present form and also some more minor comments and suggestions.

 

Major comments

1.     While the introduction outlines the broader context of current crisis global wetlands and Mediterranean basin face, it provides limited information of previous studies on the wetland plant communities specific to the study area. It is recommended to include a more detailed description of previous studies about plant communities in this area. Such information would help clarify the study’s ecological context and strengthen its relevance to the broader research questions.

 

2.     The methods section provides a thorough description of the geographic location, climatic and geological information of the study area, which is highly valuable for understanding the aquatic plant communities in this region. However, the "Data set and data analysis" section requires further clarification to improve the logical flow and overall transparency of the methods:

1)     clarification of relationships: the relationship between the 88 original releves, the 26 plant communities, and the 7 classes is unclear. It is essential to explain how the 88 releves relate to the 26 plant communities and 7 classes. In addition, based on my understanding, "original releves" likely refer to sampling plots, but this should be explicitly stated. If "releves" indeed correspond to sampling plots, the authors should provide a clear explanation of how these plots were established, including sampling strategy, plot size, and their distribution across 19 study sites.

2)     sampling methodology: the supplementary table lists the area for each releve, but these areas are not consistent. The authors should explain the reason for this variation in plot size. Was it due to differences in habitat heterogeneity, practical constraints, or a methodological decision? If the plot size was variable due to ecological considerations, this rationale should be clearly stated.

3)     cluster analysis: the cluster analysis process requires a more detailed explanation. The purpose of the cluster analysis should be clearly defined. For instance, was the objective to classify the 88 releves into 26 distinct plant communities? If so, the authors should specify the clustering method (e.g., hierarchical, k-means) and the criteria used to determine the number of clusters (e.g., silhouette scores, dendrogram cuts, etc.). If the authors used a hierarchical method, it is crucial to explain at which level the 26 plant communities were defined and provide justification for this choice.

4)     classification of aquatic vs. palustrine communities: the criteria for distinguishing aquatic plant communities from palustrine plant communities are not clearly articulated though you mentioned the growth form was used to separate these two types of communities. And it is still unclear the meaning of the transformation of the Braun–Blanquet cover-abundance scale into an ordinal scale, is it linked to the distinguishment between aquatic plant communities and palustrine plant communities? This relationship needs to be clarified too. In addition, it is essential to clearly distinguish between the aquatic coenoses (communities) and palustrine coenoses in the results section.

5)     logical flow and clarity: overall, the methods related to data collection, classification, and analysis require a more logical and transparent presentation. Addressing these points will improve the transparency, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study.

 

3.     The results section also needs to be improved:

1)     to strengthen the ecological relevance and conservation implications of the study, it is recommended to present plant diversity metrics for each study site in the results section. If the authors aim to assess the potential inclusion of these sites in the Natura 2000 network, it is essential to provide evidence of the biodiversity present at each location. Site-specific diversity information, such as species richness, species lists, would offer valuable insights into the conservation value of each site. Including this information will not only enhance the transparency of the results but also provide a stronger basis for site prioritization and conservation planning.

2)     it is recommended that the authors consolidate Tables S1-S7 into a single Word document for better readability and organization. This will make it easier for readers to follow and compare data across the different tables. Additionally, each table should include a clear and comprehensive legend explaining all the numbers, symbols, and abbreviations used in the table. In particular, the numbers and symbols used throughout the tables need more detailed explanations. Some of the tables present results with abbreviations or symbols that are not defined within the table or in the figure legends. These need to be clarified for full understanding.

3)     It would significantly enhance the ecological context of the study to provide specific water environmental indicators for each study site. These indicators could include parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), and other relevant metrics that could influence plant community composition. These data are essential for understanding the ecological conditions at each site and how they relate to plant diversity and community structure.

4)     the authors should provide a clear description of the specific sites where each plant community occurs. While some plant communities are annotated with specific sites, others do not have clearly site associations.

 

4.     The manuscript presents important and valuable information about wetland plant communities in Tuscany; however, the quality of the language requires significant improvement. There are numerous grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures, and unclear expressions throughout the text. These issues may hinder the reader's ability to fully understand the key points and interpretations of the study.

 

 

Minor comments

1.     Figure 1: since the "Study area" section emphasizes that all study sites are located within the Grosseto province, it is recommended that this area be clearly marked on the map in Figure 1; it is also recommended that the authors provide a clear explanation of any abbreviations used in Figure 1 directly within the figure title or its legend. Although some of these abbreviations are defined in the supplementary table, readers should not be required to cross-reference multiple sections of the manuscript to understand the figure.

2.     Lines 67-68: specify which two sites belong to the southern hill-planitial sector.

3.     Line 67: what the meaning of “Selvi in Giovacchini et al.”?

4.     Line 90: "120km2" should be properly formatted as "120 km²". It is recommended to review and correct the formatting of units throughout the manuscript to ensure proper use of superscripts and subscript notations where applicable.

5.     Line 121: detail classical phytosociological method and its update.

6.     Line 142: what the meaning of “in the sites”? which sites?

7.     Line 216: revise “e.g. [63]” into “[e.g., 63]”. Meanwhile, the manuscript should ensure correctness in the citation format for all references throughout the text.

8.     It is essential to ensure the correct use of Latin names (scientific names) of species throughout the manuscript. For example, the use of abbreviations and italics.

9.     L307: are these two communities? Why were they put together instead of separating them into two parts in the results section?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Lastrucci et. al carried out a phytosociological survey campaign in southern Tuscany. This study identified 26 plant communities in study area and described a new sub-association, which provides a basis for plant and habitat conservation. However, I have a few substantial concerns about the manuscript in its present form and also some more minor comments and suggestions.

 

Major comments

1. While the introduction outlines the broader context of current crisis global wetlands and Mediterranean basin face, it provides limited information of previous studies on the wetland plant communities specific to the study area. It is recommended to include a more detailed description of previous studies about plant communities in this area. Such information would help clarify the study’s ecological context and strengthen its relevance to the broader research questions.

R.: Information about previous studies is limited because they are very few, and all have been cited (…particularly in Maremma (Figure 1), an area where the vegetation information regarding aquatic and palustrine communities is scarce and, if present, mostly concerning large wetlands [29,30,31]…). Anyway, in the revised text we specified better and added some more references.

 

2. The methods section provides a thorough description of the geographic location, climatic and geological information of the study area, which is highly valuable for understanding the aquatic plant communities in this region. However, the "Data set and data analysis" section requires further clarification to improve the logical flow and overall transparency of the methods:

1)     clarification of relationships: the relationship between the 88 original releves, the 26 plant communities, and the 7 classes is unclear. It is essential to explain how the 88 releves relate to the 26 plant communities and 7 classes. In addition, based on my understanding, "original releves" likely refer to sampling plots, but this should be explicitly stated. If "releves" indeed correspond to sampling plots, the authors should provide a clear explanation of how these plots were established, including sampling strategy, plot size, and their distribution across 19 study sites.

R.: the word “relevé” is the right term to indicate the sampling plot unit used in the phytosociological method. According to this approach, all main vegetation types in each site have been visited, and one or more relevés have been carried out. The total 88 relevés have been analysed and some of them could be attributed to the same plant community type (it is a typology, as if to say that two plant individuals are the same species), so the final result was 28 (in the revised text) plant community types, which were hierarchically attributed to 7 classes. This method is more similar to a census rather than sampling. The basic bibliography is widely cited in M&M.

2)     sampling methodology: the supplementary table lists the area for each releve, but these areas are not consistent. The authors should explain the reason for this variation in plot size. Was it due to differences in habitat heterogeneity, practical constraints, or a methodological decision? If the plot size was variable due to ecological considerations, this rationale should be clearly stated.

R.: the phytosociological method implies that a homogeneous (physiognomically and floristically) phytocoenosis must be sampled, and this homogeneity can be found in different (small) surface areas, so they have not to be of the same size.

3)     cluster analysis: the cluster analysis process requires a more detailed explanation. The purpose of the cluster analysis should be clearly defined. For instance, was the objective to classify the 88 releves into 26 distinct plant communities? If so, the authors should specify the clustering method (e.g., hierarchical, k-means) and the criteria used to determine the number of clusters (e.g., silhouette scores, dendrogram cuts, etc.). If the authors used a hierarchical method, it is crucial to explain at which level the 26 plant communities were defined and provide justification for this choice.

R.: in the phytosociological approach, cluster analysis is an exploratory method to determine what relevés are more similar, but the authors have to decide on the right classification and inclusion in the syntaxonomic hierarchical system, as species dominance and bioindication are more relevant. We added in the text some more sentences to better explain the classificatory method.

4)     classification of aquatic vs. palustrine communities: the criteria for distinguishing aquatic plant communities from palustrine plant communities are not clearly articulated though you mentioned the growth form was used to separate these two types of communities. And it is still unclear the meaning of the transformation of the Braun–Blanquet cover-abundance scale into an ordinal scale, is it linked to the distinguishment between aquatic plant communities and palustrine plant communities? This relationship needs to be clarified too. In addition, it is essential to clearly distinguish between the aquatic coenoses (communities) and palustrine coenoses in the results section.

R.: the criteria is, in our opinion, is simple and well explicated: “we separated aquatic coenoses from palustrine ones, based on the growth forms [50] of the dominant species” which means that a plant community dominated by hydrophytes is aquatic, another one dominated by non-hydrophytes (e.g. helophytes) is palustrine. The transformation of the Braun–Blanquet cover-abundance scale, used in the field, is necessary because it is made of numbers and symbols, while for the analysis only numbers are needed. So this transformation allows to transform the Braun-Blanquet values in a linear scale, suitable for statistical elaboration. As you suggest, we added a subtitle to distinguish aquatic and palustrine coenoses in the results section.

5)     logical flow and clarity: overall, the methods related to data collection, classification, and analysis require a more logical and transparent presentation. Addressing these points will improve the transparency, reproducibility, and scientific rigor of the study.

R.: generally the indication of the phytosociological approach is sufficient “per se” to clarify the logical flow of data collections, classification and analysis, anyway we added further explications about the method in the text.

 

3. The results section also needs to be improved:

1)     to strengthen the ecological relevance and conservation implications of the study, it is recommended to present plant diversity metrics for each study site in the results section. If the authors aim to assess the potential inclusion of these sites in the Natura 2000 network, it is essential to provide evidence of the biodiversity present at each location. Site-specific diversity information, such as species richness, species lists, would offer valuable insights into the conservation value of each site. Including this information will not only enhance the transparency of the results but also provide a stronger basis for site prioritization and conservation planning.

R.: the evidence of the biodiversity present at each location is already provided: in the tables the complete list of species present at each site is available. As stated (with several references) in the text, it is the correspondence between a plant community type and a Natura 2000 habitat type which is essential.

2)     it is recommended that the authors consolidate Tables S1-S7 into a single Word document for better readability and organization. This will make it easier for readers to follow and compare data across the different tables. Additionally, each table should include a clear and comprehensive legend explaining all the numbers, symbols, and abbreviations used in the table. In particular, the numbers and symbols used throughout the tables need more detailed explanations. Some of the tables present results with abbreviations or symbols that are not defined within the table or in the figure legends. These need to be clarified for full understanding.

R.: ok, we transformed tables S1-S7 in a single pdf file. The numbers and symbols used are an essential part of the phytosociological method, so in our opinion they do not need to be explained, the references already cited are enough. Anyway, we added an explanatory legend to the beginning of the tables file.

3)     It would significantly enhance the ecological context of the study to provide specific water environmental indicators for each study site. These indicators could include parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, nutrient concentrations (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), and other relevant metrics that could influence plant community composition. These data are essential for understanding the ecological conditions at each site and how they relate to plant diversity and community structure.

R.: we agree with the reviewer, but unfortunately, we do not have these data

4)     the authors should provide a clear description of the specific sites where each plant community occurs. While some plant communities are annotated with specific sites, others do not have clearly site associations.

R.: the specific wetland sites where each relevé was made is given in the table header with an abbreviation (the same of Appendix S1). One or more relevés are attributed to a syntaxon, (association or subassociation), so a plant community in this sense can be present in one or several sites.

 

4. The manuscript presents important and valuable information about wetland plant communities in Tuscany; however, the quality of the language requires significant improvement. There are numerous grammatical errors, awkward sentence structures, and unclear expressions throughout the text. These issues may hinder the reader's ability to fully understand the key points and interpretations of the study.

 R.: the language has been revised

 

Minor comments

1. Figure 1: since the "Study area" section emphasizes that all study sites are located within the Grosseto province, it is recommended that this area be clearly marked on the map in Figure 1; it is also recommended that the authors provide a clear explanation of any abbreviations used in Figure 1 directly within the figure title or its legend. Although some of these abbreviations are defined in the supplementary table, readers should not be required to cross-reference multiple sections of the manuscript to understand the figure.

R.: ok for marking the limits of Grosseto province on the map, we added a new figure, but displaying the Grosseto province limits causes that the points are smaller and less spaced. We therefore let to the editor the final choice on the basis of the graphical format of the journal. Moreover, in our opinion it is not advisable to provide all the details about the sites in the legend to Figure 1, it would be too long. We have added an explanation that refers to further information in Appendix S1.

2. Lines 67-68: specify which two sites belong to the southern hill-planitial sector. R.: ok specified
3. Line 67: what the meaning of “Selvi in Giovacchini et al.”? R.: ok corrected
4. Line 90: "120km2" should be properly formatted as "120 km²". It is recommended to review and correct the formatting of units throughout the manuscript to ensure proper use of superscripts and subscript notations where applicable. R.: ok corrected
5. Line 121: detail classical phytosociological method and its update. R.: it is not possible to detail, as in all scientific papers the references are enough
6. Line 142: what the meaning of “in the sites”? which sites? R.: ok rephrased
7. Line 216: revise “e.g. [63]” into “[e.g., 63]”. Meanwhile, the manuscript should ensure correctness in the citation format for all references throughout the text. R.: ok corrected
8. It is essential to ensure the correct use of Latin names (scientific names) of species throughout the manuscript. For example, the use of abbreviations and italics. R.: ok verified. Plant names are provided with author(s) when appear in the manuscript for the first time, in the following without author(s). The same for syntaxon names.
9. L307: are these two communities? Why were they put together instead of separating them into two parts in the results section? R.: ok corrected, we separated them in two parts

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

R.: the language has been revised

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

all in the MS

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER‘s suggestions given in an attached PDF.

Abstract and key words

line 23 R.: ok we rephrased and clearly indicated the aim

line 29 R.: even if in the common language they can have similar meanings, flora and vegetation are very different from a botanical view point: flora is a list of the plant species of an area, vegetation is the complex of the different plant community types of an area.

line 3 R.: ok modified, now in the abstract there is the word “syntaxonomic”

Introduction

Line 55 R.: ok we added southern Tuscany also in the title

M&M

Line 65 R.: ok, added

Line 93 R.: The meaning of the abbreviations with references is given in the sub-section “2.1 Study area: … (lines 67,…) Their names (of the sites), abbreviations, geographical details and information about inclusion in protected areas are given in Appendix S1.” Each point on the map has its abbreviations, but more information is given in the Appendix S1. See also the new legend of Figure 1

Results and discussion

Line 132 R.: not relevant, no problems of ethic aspects

Conclusion (now conservation notes in Results and discussion)

Line 578 R.: ok specified

Line 580 R.: ok we better specified and added a reference

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ms 'Advancing knowledge of wetland vegetation for plant diversity conservation: the case of small lakes, ponds and pools in Maremma (central Italy)' is interesting to read. Overall, the manuscript is well written.

My remarks are more about the organization of the sections. 

Introduction: add more details in this section. Also, the aims of this study should be emphasized.

Materials and Methods: 2.2. Climate and bioclimate & 2.3. Geological outline-these sub-sections are too detailed. They can be merged into one sub-section.

Explain the abbreviations: LDP, LMU, LTC, LPM, POM, SDP and LVN  LE, LCE, PE, AUN and so on. Also indicate the significance of each point on the map.

Conversely, the next, Data set and data analysis, needs additional detail.

. Results: Rather Results and Discussions

Figures S1 and S2 are too important to be supplementary. A map of the vegetation studied can be added.

136 - add reference 

The description of the associations identified is concise and integrated with those documented by other authors. This is the most developed but also the most important part of the ms.

Discussion and Conclusion: The first part of this section can be a subsection called Conservation in the Discussion.

Conclusions: this section can stand on its own.

 

Author Response

Overall, the manuscript is well written.

My remarks are more about the organization of the sections. 

Introduction: add more details in this section. Also, the aims of this study should be emphasized. R.: ok, we rephrased, also following similar suggestions by another reviewer

Materials and Methods: 2.2. Climate and bioclimate & 2.3. Geological outline-these sub-sections are too detailed. They can be merged into one sub-section. R.: in our opinion, leaving these sub-sections separate is more appropriate and informative, but we leave the decision to the editor

Explain the abbreviations: LDP, LMU, LTC, LPM, POM, SDP and LVN  LE, LCE, PE, AUN and so on. Also indicate the significance of each point on the map. R.: References are given in the sub-section “2.1 Study area: … Their names (of the sites), abbreviations, geographical details and information about inclusion in protected areas are given in Appendix S1.” Each point on the map has its abbreviations, but more information is given in the Appendix S1. See also the new legend of Figure 1.

Conversely, the next, Data set and data analysis, needs additional detail.

Results: Rather Results and Discussions R.: ok, done, we changed it according to your suggestion (another reviewer suggested the same thing)

Figures S1 and S2 are too important to be supplementary. A map of the vegetation studied can be added. R.: ok, done, we moved them to the main text (now they are Figures 2 and 3), it according to your suggestion (another reviewer suggested the same thing)

136 - add reference R.: ok we rephrased

The description of the associations identified is concise and integrated with those documented by other authors. This is the most developed but also the most important part of the ms. R.: we agree, many thanks

Discussion and Conclusion: The first part of this section can be a subsection called Conservation in the Discussion. R.: ok, done, we changed it according to your suggestion (another reviewer suggested the same thing)

Conclusions: this section can stand on its own. R.: ok, done

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript of a classical syntaxonomic study on the wetland vegetation of a province in Italy. The data and classification presented are significant for the conservation of biodiversity in the surveyed region. The language is, for the most part, well-constructed.

Given the advancement of mathematical methods over the past few decades, a number of clustering and ordering techniques are now available for the quantitative analysis of plant communities. I note that the authors have conducted a cluster analysis using the R package vegan, which is an commendable effort. I recommend that the authors enhance the clarity of the figures and consider relocating them from the supplementary material to the main body of the manuscript. The inclusion of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is also strongly advised. The traditional classification system (comprising seven classes) should be clearly represented in the figures, such as in the clustering trees and PCA plots.

The details of the survey design need to be elucidated. Specifically, how many communities were sampled across the 19 sites? The manuscript mentions 88 in line 119, 26 in line 135, and 38 in Table S1, which is confusing.

Minor points for consideration:

Could the authors please color the seven classes in Figure 1?

Line 64 is missing the degree symbol.

Line 90 requires the subscript for the number 2 to be formatted correctly.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript of a classical syntaxonomic study on the wetland vegetation of a province in Italy. The data and classification presented are significant for the conservation of biodiversity in the surveyed region. The language is, for the most part, well-constructed.

Given the advancement of mathematical methods over the past few decades, a number of clustering and ordering techniques are now available for the quantitative analysis of plant communities. I note that the authors have conducted a cluster analysis using the R package vegan, which is an commendable effort. I recommend that the authors enhance the clarity of the figures and consider relocating them from the supplementary material to the main body of the manuscript. The inclusion of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is also strongly advised. The traditional classification system (comprising seven classes) should be clearly represented in the figures, such as in the clustering trees and PCA plots

R.: ok, we moved figures S1 and S2 from supplementary material to main body of the manuscript (now Fig. 2 and 3) and we have re-drawn them with further specifications and links to the text. To perform a PCA is not useful in this case, because this ordination method is good if there are measured variables, so that the variables can be related to the relevés (plots). In our case, we could analyze and ordinate only the different floristic composition between relevés, which is already done by the cluster analysis.

The details of the survey design need to be elucidated. Specifically, how many communities were sampled across the 19 sites? The manuscript mentions 88 in line 119, 26 in line 135, and 38 in Table S1, which is confusing.

R.: across the 19 sites, we carried out 88 relevés (sampled plots, if you are not familiar with the phytosociological method). Each relevé is a plant community growing and detected in the field, but after the analysis some of them could be attributed to the same plant community type (it is a typology, as if to say that two plant individuals are the same species), so the final result was 26 (28 in the revised manuscript) plant community types, which were hierarchically attributed to 7 classes. The relevés present in table S1 are 38, as you say, 6 in table S2, 5 in table S3 and so on, for a total of 88 in tables S1 – S6.

Minor points for consideration:

Could the authors please color the seven classes in Figure 1? R.: ok (we think you refer to Figure S1, S2), we modified the figures and highlighted the plant community types

Line 64 is missing the degree symbol. R.: ok corrected

Line 90 requires the subscript for the number 2 to be formatted correctly. R.: ok corrected

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal: Land (ISSN 2073-445X)

Manuscript ID: land-3391782

Manuscript Title: "Advancing knowledge of wetland vegetation for plant diver-2 sity conservation: the case of small lakes, ponds, and pools in 3 Maremma (central Italy) "

After carefully reviewing the current work, I feel that this manuscript is a well-designed, well-referenced, and well-written article. Manuscript findings may add to the existing knowledge. However, the following comments and suggestions may further enhance its quality.

·       L23-24: “Numerous previously unknown water bodies were localized and surveyed in this work” Has the diversity of these areas really not been studied, please confirm.

·       The abstract should give the manuscript findings, results and conclusions in the manuscript concisely and clearly, and reduce the use of general words and sentences.

·       A brief of methodology should be written in the abstract section.

·       Plz write (What kind of promotion effect does it have on the current relevant research?) as a conclusion and recommendation in the end of the abstract part.

·       L29, L119, L356, L573,……….: “our”, L123, L124, 128, …………., “we”: Avoid using the personal enclosure throughout the manuscript.

·       At the end of the abstract, the author must write the recommendation of the study based on the results achieved.

·       Plz provide significant words which are more relevant to the work in a logical sequence as "keywords". Plz write the keywords in alphabetical order.

·       In lines 37, 44 and 50, ………..: , plz reduce the number of citations at the same place, especially the oldest ones.

·       L73: Figure 1. The location of the study area and the distribution of the 19 study sites are shown. The study locations on the map (blue dots) are not clear. Please change the map to something clearer.

·       L131: “4th” superscript.

·       Materials and methods; well written but the statistical analyses of the results need more explanation and the methods for testing the significance of average results must be written

·       L148: “According to Bazzichelli & Abdelahad [58]” The discussion part should focus on discussing the results, explaining them, and delving into them, and not listing the results and citing previous scholars only. Plz review the entire results part accordingly.

·       L154: “[59]” same previous comment

·       L156: “[60]” same

·       L156: “Viciani et al. [26]” same

·       L204: “streams [62]” same

·       Same in lines 216, 2019, 227, 235, 239, 256, 266, 267, 291, 347, …………..etc.

·       L226: “Hueck 1931”????

·       L286: “(Philippi 1978)”??

·       L246-247: “Pietsch 1973”???

·       L376: “Sphagnum sp. pl.”??

·       L441: “Biondi & Bagella 2005”??

·       L451: “Gigante, Maneli & Venanzoni 2013”??

·       L460: “Maneli & Venanzoni, 2013”??

·       Results should be presented as interactions for the parameters for which interactions are significant. Now, judging the results based on figures only is hard.

·       To enhance readability, the results and discussion sections should be combined. They are giving a clear picture in the joint form.

·       L572: “4. Discussion and Conclusion” The discussion part must be separated from the content part because part of them is separate.

·       Indeed, there are an impressive number of results. However, the conclusions section must improve with the selected and highlighted main findings.

·       Conclusions; (Paraphrase the whole conclusion) do not repeat the above sentences in the conclusion part. In conclusion, you should summarize your work in short

·       sentences so that I, as a reader of this article, can understand what the article ended up being. The environmental implications also need more attention in the conclusion.

·       I recommend including briefly the future challenges in the conclusion.

·       Fig S1 idro_chord_aver_maremma, and Fig S2 palu_chord_aver_maremma, they do not read the results of the study clearly.

 

·       Study results are not included in appropriate locations within the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

After carefully reviewing the current work, I feel that this manuscript is a well-designed, well-referenced, and well-written article. Manuscript findings may add to the existing knowledge. However, the following comments and suggestions may further enhance its quality.

• L23-24: “Numerous previously unknown water bodies were localized and surveyed in this work” Has the diversity of these areas really not been studied, please confirm. R.: we confirm; we added some more specifications in the paragraph
• The abstract should give the manuscript findings, results and conclusions in the manuscript concisely and clearly, and reduce the use of general words and sentences. R.: a brief introduction to the topic is essential and the parts you mention are all already briefly provided in the abstract. No further additions are possible because there is a limit of 200 words for the abstract
• A brief of methodology should be written in the abstract section. R.: the method has been already briefly mentioned (we carried out a phytosociological survey campaign)
• Plz write (What kind of promotion effect does it have on the current relevant research?) as a conclusion and recommendation in the end of the abstract part. R.: these parts are already present in the end of the abstract
• L29, L119, L356, L573,……….: “our”, L123, L124, 128, …………., “we”: Avoid using the personal enclosure throughout the manuscript. R.: ok, corrected the highlighted lines and throughout the manuscript
• At the end of the abstract, the author must write the recommendation of the study based on the results achieved. R.: ok, already present
• Plz provide significant words which are more relevant to the work in a logical sequence as "keywords". Plz write the keywords in alphabetical order. R.: ok
• In lines 37, 44 and 50, ………..: , plz reduce the number of citations at the same place, especially the oldest ones. R.: in our opinion, all the citations we provided are essential, but we tried to modify the number of references in the same place
• L73: Figure 1. The location of the study area and the distribution of the 19 study sites are shown. The study locations on the map (blue dots) are not clear. Please change the map to something clearer. R.: at the scale at which the figure must be published, it is not possible to have a clearer map. Anyway, we added to the legend the reference to the table where more precise georeferencig and information on the sites can be available
• L131: “4th” superscript. R.: ok corrected
• Materials and methods; well written but the statistical analyses of the results need more explanation and the methods for testing the significance of average results must be written R.: ok, we added in the text some more sentences to better explain the classification method.
• L148: “According to Bazzichelli & Abdelahad [58]” The discussion part should focus on discussing the results, explaining them, and delving into them, and not listing the results and citing previous scholars only. Plz review the entire results part accordingly. R.: this comment is not relevant: the results of our survey consist essentially in ascertaining the presence of some plant species forming particular plant communities, and describe them. To comment and attribute these plant communities to new or existing syntaxa, it is necessary to compare them with previous similar works, which must be cited.
• L154: “[59]” same previous comment R.: see previous response
• L156: “[60]” same R.: see previous response
• L156: “Viciani et al. [26]” same R.: see previous response
• L204: “streams [62]” same R.: see previous response
• Same in lines 216, 2019, 227, 235, 239, 256, 266, 267, 291, 347, …………..etc. R.: see previous response
• L226: “Hueck 1931”???? R.: this is the author of the association name (Potamogetonetum lucentis), which must be cited with author and year of description if you want to report it correctly
• L286: “(Philippi 1978)”?? R.: see previous response, sometimes the author(s) can be so expressed, as in the case of Lemno-Callitrichetum obtusangulae (Philippi 1978) Passarge 1992
• L346-347: “Pietsch 1973”??? R.: see previous response
• L376: “Sphagnum sp. pl.”?? R.: in botany, and in zoology too, sp. pl. means “species plurimae”, so Sphagnum sp. pl. means “several species of the genus Sphagnum”
• L441: “Biondi & Bagella 2005”?? R.: see previous response to L226
• L451: “Gigante, Maneli & Venanzoni 2013”?? R.: see previous response
• L460: “Maneli & Venanzoni, 2013”?? R.: see previous response
• Results should be presented as interactions for the parameters for which interactions are significant. Now, judging the results based on figures only is hard. R.: you are right, we modified the figure S1 and S2 (another reviewer asked to move them to the main text, so now they are Figure 2 and 3) and added some explications
• To enhance readability, the results and discussion sections should be combined. They are giving a clear picture in the joint form. R.: ok done
• L572: “4. Discussion and Conclusion” The discussion part must be separated from the content part because part of them is separate. R.: ok done
• Indeed, there are an impressive number of results. However, the conclusions section must improve with the selected and highlighted main findings. R.: ok done
• Conclusions; (Paraphrase the whole conclusion) do not repeat the above sentences in the conclusion part. In conclusion, you should summarize your work in short R.: ok done
• sentences so that I, as a reader of this article, can understand what the article ended up being. The environmental implications also need more attention in the conclusion. R.: ok done
• I recommend including briefly the future challenges in the conclusion. R.: ok done
• Fig S1 idro_chord_aver_maremma, and Fig S2 palu_chord_aver_maremma, they do not read the results of the study clearly. R.: you are right, we modified the figure S1 and S2 (another reviewer asked to move them to the main text, so now they are Figure 2 and 3) and added some explications
• Study results are not included in appropriate locations within the manuscript. R.: ok done, as you suggested we combined Results and Discussion and moved the part of discussion from Conclusions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

R.: the language has been revised

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been corrected and resubmitted. I have noticed changes that improve its quality. At the same time, however, I note that some changes are still needed: The introduction is still very succinct. At least split the paragraphs. It is very confusing how it is written.

Material and methods: this section still contains many irrelevant details.

Abbreviations LDP, LMU, LTC, LPM, POM, SDP and LVN  LE, LCE, PE, AUN and so on. are not explained the first time terms are used.

It is a regret about these errors because the other sections of the manuscript are well presented.

Author Response

The manuscript has been corrected and resubmitted. I have noticed changes that improve its quality. At the same time, however, I note that some changes are still needed: The introduction is still very succinct. At least split the paragraphs. It is very confusing how it is written. R.: ok, rephrased, we split into more paragraphs and added a few more sentences

Material and methods: this section still contains many irrelevant details. R.: We believe that you are referring to climatic and geological data. In our opinion, for a correct phytogeographical and environmental classification of the study area, it is very important to provide this information in the study of flora and vegetation, as they are closely linked to these parameters. However, we leave it to the editor to decide whether to keep, reduce or remove this part.

Abbreviations LDP, LMU, LTC, LPM, POM, SDP and LVN  LE, LCE, PE, AUN and so on. are not explained the first time terms are used. R.: We introduce Appendix S1, which explains abbreviations (lines 76-78) and some of these abbreviations appear for the first time in lines 103-104. However, for greater clarity, we have also added a reference to Appendix S1 here (lines 103-104)

It is a regret about these errors because the other sections of the manuscript are well presented. R.: many thanks for appreciating other sections

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank the authors for their clarification on the phytosociological method and for their new efforts in the quantitative analysis. The paper could now be accepted. Meanwhile, the authors should note that PCA (not RDA) does not require any environmental variables.

Author Response

Thank the authors for their clarification on the phytosociological method and for their new efforts in the quantitative analysis. The paper could now be accepted.  R.: many thanks

Meanwhile, the authors should note that PCA (not RDA) does not require any environmental variables. R: ok, we agree, but in this case, a PCA could only be based on the different floristic composition of the relevés, as the cluster analysis already does.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Well revised and accepted. Comments on the Quality of English Language

none 

Author Response

Well revised and accepted. R.: many thanks