Tree Species as Metabolic Indicators: A Comparative Simulation in Amman, Jordan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is consistent with the journal’s objectives and scope.

The authors’ thesis concerns the need to improve indicators characterizing urban metabolism, including consideration of tree species selection. The authors’ operational implications are to inform green infrastructure planning processes to ensure long-term improvements in ecological functions in urban areas, for example by countering monocultural greening strategies, which are especially important in contexts subject to climate stress.

From a general perspective, the following strengths of the paper are highlighted:

• The application of the analytical assessment of urban metabolism at the neighbourhood level identifies road axes as metabolic conduits, unlike other traditional urban planning studies that consider cities at the macroscale.
• The comparison between the application of the same analytical method to different neighbourhoods with different urban and environmental characteristics.

However, there are some weakness areas that the authors could address to improve the quality of the paper. In particular, in its current form, the paper lacks an introductory paragraph that presents the authors’ general research topic, highlights the knowledge gaps it intends to fill, and then explicitly states the paper’s objective, including a description of the proposed methodology and the results obtained for the chosen experimental case.

In the methodology section, the authors should more clearly explain the procedural elements underlying data sampling and the calculation of the adopted reference parameters, including using the ENVI-met software, possibly including some information in the appendix. This integration is useful to ensure maximum replicability of the proposed methodological framework.

Sections 4.1 and 4.2 both open with a table. Instead, it would be more appropriate to first describe the contents and then present them in tabular form.

By reshaping the contents already proposed in sections 5 and 6, and partially those relating to section 4.3, the authors could propose a single section entitled "Discussions and Conclusions." In this regard, from a general point of view, remembering that:

• the discussions should allow for critical analysis and interpretation of results and explanation of methodological and operational limitations of research;
• conclusions should summarise in a concise manner the assumptions and results presented in the paper, avoiding the introduction of new information and including possible suggestions for future research that may overcome any limitations and criticalities found.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed feedback and suggestions. I have followed your comments point by point and truly appreciate the effort and thoughtfulness you put into your review. The encouraging remarks regarding the strengths of the paper were very motivating and greatly appreciated.

In response to the areas you suggested for improvement:

• An introductory paragraph mentioned as a weakness area was added before the aims, providing a clearer explanation of the knowledge gaps and a sharper articulation of the paper’s objectives.

• The proposed methodology and the results related to the experimental case were expanded to include more specific details.

• Appendix A was added to ensure full replicability of the study. It now includes the relevant tree species parameters, such as LAI, albedo, transmittance, emissivity, and canopy structure, which can be directly used for simulation with ENVI-met. This appendix also includes important domain parameters such as grid size and edge-to-wall distances for each project.

• Additional details regarding the datasets used in the ENVI-met simulations were added to the methodology section and further elaborated in the appendix, to ensure replicability.

• Sections 4.1 and 4.2 were revised to include introductory descriptions before the presentation of tables, as suggested.

• Sections 5 and 6 were merged into a single section titled Discussion and Conclusion, and were restructured accordingly to improve coherence and flow in addition to your points mentioned.

• All grammatical and typographical issues were reviewed and corrected. To ensure accuracy, the revised manuscript was also proofread by a fluent English speaker.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments and support. I remain open to any further suggestions you may have.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this paper argue that ‘trees function as metabolic agents: they absorb, store, and release water, carbon, and nutrients; they affect thermal comfort, biodiversity, and pollution dynamics’.  The research applies spatial metabolic metrics to predict the long-term metabolic performance of urban tree species. As a ‘metabolic reframing of green infrastructure planning’ this research provides a potential new approach which may support urban planning and design; however, additional detail is required in relation to the ENVI-met modelling and simulation to allow replication of the research. It is noted that in this paper ‘urban metabolism’ is equated with ecosystem services. More detailed commends follow.

Line 124: To what does ‘vice versa’ refer?

Lines 165-166: M. azedarach should be italicised.

Line 175: Insert ‘and’ before ‘spatial’.

Line 186: Italicise ‘Melia azedarach’.

3.2 ENVI-met microclimatic simulation framework: What was the extent of the buffer zone between the edge of the domain and the areas of interest for the simulations?  Figure 4 suggests the buffer zones were insufficient. Also, what were the vegetation parameters used in the simulations? (LAI, albedo, transmittance, emissivity, canopy structure, leaf dimensions stomatal conductance)? This information needs to be provided to enable replication of the study.

Lines 215-216: ‘The simulation will Assess the metabolic performance of Melia azedarach vs native species at multiple urban scales and Simulate species impacts…’ This should be replaced by: ‘The simulation assessed the metabolic performance of Melia azedarach vs native species at multiple urban scales and simulated species impacts…’

Line 284 onwards: species names must be italicised.

Author Response

would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive comments, which have greatly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I appreciate the time taken to review the paper in detail.

• Regarding the comment on line 124 about the term "vice versa," the text has been revised for clarity to avoid any ambiguity.

• The formatting issue concerning italicized text—especially related to tree species—has been carefully addressed and corrected throughout the manuscript (approximately 20 occurrences).

• The grammatical errors highlighted have been corrected, including those mentioned by other reviewers. To ensure precision, the full manuscript was also reviewed by fluent English speakers ( such as inserting "and" before spatial, removing capitalization in incorrect positions, mentioned by the reviewer )

• The concern about buffer zones, domain edges, and the area of interest has been resolved by including a detailed appendix. This appendix now contains information about LAI, albedo, transmittance, emissivity, and canopy structure—all of which are essential for replicating vegetation tree-type parameters in NVMIT simulations. 

• The appendix also outlines the three main simulation scenarios, including domain size, grid size, and related model configurations.

• In the methodology section, we have clarified and updated the list of parameters and datasets used in the simulations to support replicability.

• Comments on lines 215–216 have been addressed and revised as recommended.

• Additionally, improvements were made to the methodology, introduction, and conclusion sections. The discussion and conclusion sections were merged for coherence, and the conclusion was made more concise and focused as recommended by another reviewer.

Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback. I remain open to any further suggestions or clarifications that may be needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting application of the concept of urban metabolism as an diagnostic tool for informing and critiquing green infrastructure planning processes. On the whole it is well written, but it would benefit from being revised by a native English speaker to improve legibility.

Abstract (and elsewhere) – Latin names must be in italics

In-text citations do not conform to the journal guidelines e.g. lines 48-49

The species name must always be lower case e.g. line 75

Line 75 - However, Melia Azedarach’s limited biodiversity support, potential allelopathic behavior [7] emphasizes on the questions asked – this sentence makes no sense

Line 92 – the reference for Kennedy is missing

Line 108 – reference for Schoonship is missing

Line 108 – full stop after buildings

Line 108 - Building on this evolution [12] – what does this mean?

Line 134 - In the latest studies, smaller scale projects which could be zoomed in to small structures like Schoonship [15] introducing architectural metabolic models within residences and offices – doesn’t make sense. There is a verb missing

Line 158 – reference is missing for the statement about habitat value

Line 161 – references needed for the first two sentences

Line 193 - No trees – this allows us to experiment and the results without any grown species – this makes no sense

Line 206 - The conditions used were simulating the metabolic performance of the species on the first of July 2024, was spun up at 12:00 Midday then simulated on July 1 to ensure extreme temperature [25] , - this is unclear

Line 215 - The simulation will Assess the metabolic performance – the use of the future tense is incorrect

Line 225 – platform?

Line 341 – you cannot start the conclusions with ‘In contrast’

Line 348 - combine

The reference list does not conform to the journal guidelines

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript would benefit from being revised by a native English speaker as there are grammatical errors and sentences that do not make sense

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your detailed, point-by-point review and your valuable suggestions and feedback.

In response to your comments:

• The entire manuscript was thoroughly reviewed by a native English speaker to address all grammatical and spelling issues, then eddited by us to fix them.

• All Latin names for species have been corrected and consistently formatted in italics.

• Citations throughout the manuscript were revised to conform to the journal’s guidelines—both in-text as mentioned by you like

  Line 158 – reference is missing for the statement about habitat value

  Line 161 – references needed for the first two sentences)

  and in the reference list:

  All previously missing references were added and integrated into the text according to the journal standards.

• The simulation conditions were rewritten for clarity and completeness. In addition, Appendix A was added to enhance replicability. It includes detailed information on building parameters, tree species parameters, and climatic conditions used in the simulations.

• The methodology section and appendix were both updated to reflect these changes and to ensure alignment between the main text and supporting material.

• The conclusion section was rewritten to better reflect your suggestions and provide a clearer summary of the work and its contributions.

• Beyond your comments, the manuscript was also revised in light of feedback from other reviewers and editors, particularly regarding both scientific clarity and literary quality. This collective input contributed to a more refined and cohesive version of the paper.
  
  Each sentence mentioned to not make sense by you, such as line 75,134,193,206 and beginning with in contrast have been rephrased and fixed.

Thank you once again for your detailed and constructive literary and grammatical review. Your comments were essential to improving the clarity and professionalism of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the reviewer's comments and the manuscript is recommended for publication.