Factors Shaping Biodiversity in Urban Voids: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe theme of this article is very relevant. There is a gap in understanding of plant diversity of urban vacant lands where plants are left to develop following the forces of the nature-succession process.
The article follows the framework and methodology of classical contemporary systematic reviews. The authors have done good work of finding and analysing references in Chinese and English.
However, I noticed some issues that need to be addressed.
This review analysed the publications from 2005 to 2022. The beginning of the search is corresponded with the Google Scholar introduction (2004) which is a very convenient tool for the search of relevant publications. However, the research of plant diversity of vacant lands/wastelands started much earlier in Europe after the Second World War and first of all in Germany, Central European countries, and the UK. Surprisingly, authors have not included the words “wastelands” or “urban wastelands” in their search terms since specifically these terms are often used to describe these particularly abandoned urban biotopes. The authors of this article also used these terms and found some publications on the wastelands.
The existence of a wide range of research and thus publications prior to the Google Scholar era should be at least acknowledged by authors. There were articles, book chapters, and books based on studies of spontaneous plants and plant communities widely published in Europe. There was also the definition of wastelands. Please refer to the essential book of O. Gilbert “The Ecology of Urban Habitats (1991) where at least 3 chapters were dedicated to wastelands and related types of habitats and the book “Urban Ecology Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments” ( H. Sukopp, S.Hejny and I. Kowarik Editors 1990) where at least three chapters concern spontaneous (spontaneous urban vegetation, wastelands).
German authors were also the first who acknowledge the role of spontaneous plants in landscape design and urban planning. Please refer to the works of N. Kuhn (Norbert Kuhn, Intentions for the Unintentional Spontaneous Vegetation as the Basis for Innovative Planting Design in Urban Areas, Journal of Landscape Architecture). I. Kowarik’s most essential conceptual publication is on four nature concepts where the fourth nature is the spontaneous nature (vegetation) (Cities and Wilderness A New Perspective. International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2013). German and UK authors were also the first who acknowledge the role of spontaneous plants in landscape design and urban planning.
If earlier sources (prior to 2005) were included in the analysis the picture would be different and European research would be dominated. This important fact should be included by the authors in the “Limitations of this research”.
I recommend that authors include this acknowledgment about the numerous publications on vacant/wasteland vegetation prior to 2005. And in the methodology part write a paragraph explaining the reason for choosing publications from 2005 to 2022. In the Introduction, the authors should also reinforce the explanation of the situation with vacant lands in China (the distribution of wastelands and what kinds of urban voids/vacant lands exist there) and the importance of including Chinese references in this review.
Page 1, Line 51: Please note that the domination of native species or non-native species and the provision of significant habitats for rare species depends on the geography and the character of the local vegetation. In Europe, the vacant lands have the majority of spontaneously grown native plants and in New Zealand and Australia, it would be an opposite picture (almost complete domination of non-native species). Please see works of C. Meurk in New Zealand (Urban biotopes: the typical and unique habitats of city environments and their natural analogues. Ignatieva, Maria, Meurk, Colin D., Newell, Claire, 2000).
In the discussion, the authors should reinforce one of the main outcomes of this review that was indicated on page 3 (lines 102-106): “aiming to provide guidelines for planning and management strategies regarding UVs”. Unfortunately, there was no strategy discussion.
Page 4. Line 151. What are the methods and approaches suggested by Rupprecht that the authors followed?
Line 366: “Furthermore, two studies (4%) applied literature review as a method and only one article (2%) used an interview method”.
Do the authors mean social interviews?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very relevant literature review. However, the title needs to be revised to accurately reflect the entirety of the content and the various aspects presented in the manuscript. The introduction lacks sufficient factual examples to support the claims, which weakens the overall argument. It is essential to incorporate concrete examples to bolster the assertions and provide a stronger foundation for the review.
The methodology section requires further elaboration. It should detail the steps taken and include studies written in French to ensure a comprehensive review of the literature. Additionally, the explanation of Figure 1 needs to be more thorough, clarifying its significance and how it contributes to the overall analysis.
Section 3.2 has a discrepancy as it mentions three parts, yet only one part is presented. This inconsistency needs to be addressed by either including the missing parts or revising the section to accurately reflect its content.
The discussion section should be expanded to include a thorough examination of the methodological limitations of the study. This will provide a balanced perspective and highlight areas for improvement. Furthermore, the discussion should address the implications of these limitations for future research, offering clear recommendations for how subsequent studies can build upon these findings.
Lastly, the conclusion needs to be concise and to the point, summarizing the key findings and their implications without unnecessary repetition. A well-crafted conclusion will leave a strong impression on the reader and underscore the significance of the review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found your manuscript inspiring and well-written. What I mostly missed was the systematic clearness and congruency in your analysis, especially the soundness and adequacy in classifying the attributes (factors) throughout the review. Methodological details should be determined right from the beginning, thus providing a consistent framework for evaluating the relevance and carving out the foci of the selected references.
I had to address a couple of detailed insufficiencies, made directly in the annotated PDF attached. In case of revising your manuscript, please take a close look into this file.
Besides my criticism, I'd distinctively agree your Discussion and Conclusions, as well as want to acknowledge your really painstaking research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are but a few smaller errors and typos.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments have been taken into account and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer Comments 1: All comments have been taken into account and incorporated into the revised version of the manuscript.
Rejoinder 1: Thank you for acknowledging our careful revisions. We value your help in improving this manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter fundamentally improving your presentation by rearranging and substantially augmenting, you succeeded in providing a nearly publishable revised version. Especially the synoptic comparison between Western and the modern Chinese studies poses a commendable contribution to valuating the state-of-the-art in those different realms. Also the new structure of your supplementary material is appreciated. - Checking the text, I found a few very last minor details to be treated. They are marked in the annotated PDF attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: After fundamentally improving your presentation by rearranging and substantially augmenting, you succeeded in providing a nearly publishable revised version. Especially the synoptic comparison between Western and the modern Chinese studies poses a commendable contribution to valuating the state-of-the-art in those different realms. Also the new structure of your supplementary material is appreciated. - Checking the text, I found a few very last minor details to be treated. They are marked in the annotated PDF attached.
Rejoinder 1: Thank you for your helpful contribution to our paper. We have noted the seven corrections recommended in the pdf and have made them all, including the update to the figure. We have attached the marked-up version with corrections marked in blue at the end of this rejoinder.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
