Plant Community Restoration Efforts in Degraded Blufftop Parkland in Southeastern Minnesota, USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has no clear research question and objectives. It has no methods. The whole paper is a background that could serve well for a well-designed project. What are the methods? Any sampling? what is the main question? Many ideas were introduced but they were not shown as connected ; 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is fine 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors conducted a study which simply describes the decades of effort spent managing woody invasive encroachment in a city park in the Driftless Area of southeastern Minnesota. The manuscript matched with the interest of the journal, but it's not really a scientific work. Describing is not research. No working hypothesis is proposed, something fundamental and necessary in a scientific research. In addition, the described study is a local or regional case study, and lacks international relevance. The text is very narrative and sometimes lacks scientific focus. Particularly, the authors describe various management processes and activities very well: initially, "The Early Years Before and After Park Establishment," then "Beginnings of Contemporary Management – ​​1990s and Early 2000s," and finally "Recent Management – ​​2015 Through 2025." But that is a simple description.

In my opinion, there are some critical issues that authors need to carefully consider to improve the scientific outlook and proficiency level of the paper. For example, it would be much more scientific to indicate the reasons why, as stated in Line 338, "Seeds were mixed with vermiculite and spread by hand over the snow, covering all portions of the cleared portion of the savanna." Why vermiculite and not smectite, for example?

Line 403: Forest habitats have not received any type of vegetation management. This is very good, but is it meant as a conclusion?

Line 407. The local community has noticed the change in the park landscape and many area residents have joined in the continuing restoration efforts: cutting woody invasives, clearing firebreaks, burning prairies and savannas, and re-seeding areas as needed. The same, this is very good, but is it meant as a conclusion?

A more comprehensive description of the study area is required to give readers a clear context. For example geology, what types of soils are in the park, what is the climate…

Kindly integrate the relevance or importance of study findings, not only from the point of view of the local authority and inhabitants of the place, but to the international scientific community.

Finally, it is unacceptable an article without a conclusions section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The article's abstract does not clearly and directly explain the main objective of the study. Therefore, the reader cannot accurately anticipate the scope or the main scientific contributions. It is strongly recommended that the authors include the main purpose of the research in this section in an objective manner. The last paragraph of the Introduction presents the objective in a vague and excessively narrative manner, maintaining a descriptive and historical tone. It is suggested that the authors rewrite this section in a more direct manner, clearly formulating the general objective of the study and, if possible, including a working hypothesis.

Comment 2: Figure 1, since it deals with the location of the study area, should include georeferencing elements, such as geographic coordinates, cartographic scale and appropriate legend. It is recommended to keep the aerial images, but complement them with auxiliary maps that facilitate spatial understanding. Furthermore, it is not clear where points A, B, C and D of Figures 2 and 3 are located in relation to Figure 1. It is recommended that the authors review the layout to include these markings in a clear and integrated manner.

Comment 3: The structure of the manuscript is confusing. Section 4 appears abruptly, without a clear transition, making it difficult to read and understand. It is recommended that the text be restructured into conventional sections: Methodology, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion, or at least that the historical description of the actions, the methods used, and the results obtained be clearly separated. In its current format, the manuscript resembles an activity report, with too many operational details and little analytical depth on the ecological and scientific implications of the interventions.

Comment 4: There are important methodological limitations. The study does not provide control or comparison areas, which makes it difficult to isolate the specific effects of each restoration practice (such as prescribed burning, goat grazing, and replanting). Nor are standardized metrics or statistical analyses provided to validate the qualitative observations. It would be desirable to include analyses of floristic composition over time (e.g., diversity indices, rarefaction curves, multivariate analyses) to better support the results. Some of the historical data used (such as aerial photographs and herbarium records) are fragmented or qualitative, which may limit the robustness of the baseline adopted.

Comment 5: Although the study points to an increase in plant diversity and a growth in the Arnoglossum reniform population, these statements are presented without statistical or comparative context. Furthermore, important aspects such as sustainability and the cost-benefit of the techniques used (especially the use of goats for grazing) are not discussed. It is recommended that the “Results” section be rewritten with clear subdivisions by type of intervention, facilitating the reading and understanding of the impact of each action.

Comment 6: Finally, the manuscript addresses a relevant issue by addressing the restoration of plant communities in threatened habitats, such as grasslands and savannas — a matter of great ecological and conservation urgency. By reporting concrete management actions in an urban park, the study offers contributions with potential practical value for public policies, urban management, and environmental education. This approach is consistent with current literature, which emphasizes the use of integrated methods in ecological restoration. In view of this, it is recommended that the manuscript undergo the revisions highlighted in this review, including structural and conceptual adjustments, in addition to a readjustment of the scope, in order to incorporate broader discussions on land use, territorial policies and landscape scales. It is also suggested that the text be restructured as a research manuscript, with improvements in the formulation of objectives, methodology and presentation of results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciate the effort of the authors to answer my queries and to modify the ms. All the modifications are accepted, except the consideration of the conclusion section; Please improve it.

Author Response

We have added more details to the Conclusion section to improve it.  This was done to address the only comment from this reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Considering the originality of the methodology proposed in the manuscript and the improvements implemented by the authors, which satisfactorily addressed the review suggestions, I recommend approval of the article.

Author Response

This reviewer had no further comments or suggestions on the manuscript for us to address.