Review Reports - BiodiverseCity St. Louis—An Initiative of the Missouri Botanical Garden

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Keywords: Two of the chosen words are in the title. It’s better to substitute them

Acronyms: There are so much acronyms that I think it is better to put all of them after Keywords.

Line 24, 482 - K-12 schools – What is it?

Line 162 – 168 - use punctuation

Introduction – The fist text before 1. it is the introduction. Why don’t give it the due name, with the number 1.?

Reeding all the text some times it seems me a report of activities, with the goals but without the results. For example, at point 3:

You need Explore

“Case studies of land transformation” – how many? What is the more frequent land transformation? This transformation permits a better biodiversity?

“Biodiversity policy models and examples of adoption” – Examples?

I think you must make a book with this theme with all the 13 points presented as goals, but also with the results and the conclusions.

Author Response

Hello - thank you for your review of this article.

Keywords: Two of the chosen words are in the title. It’s better to substitute them.

Appreciate this suggestion. Have added "biodiversity" to keyword list. Given the content and focus of this piece, we choose to keep in Keywords inclusion of names of the Garden and our community engagement initiative BiodiverseCity St. Louis.

Acronyms: There are so much acronyms that I think it is better to put all of them after Keywords. With the exception of our abbreviation "BDV-STL" for our community engagement initiative (a primary focus of this article), abbreviations used are confined to the narrative sections where they appear, and are defined after initial statement of the Garden division or project or partner name that they connote, e.g. Shaw Nature Reserve (SNR), Center for Conservation and Sustainable Development (CCSD) in Sections 10 and 7, respectively. The exception in our text is citation of the Living Earth Collaborative in Section 7 (Line 355) with an abbreviation following initiative name statement, and then use of the full name when this collaborative is mentioned again in Section 8 (Line 388). Could have reiterated the abbreviation in Section 8, but chose to use full name here for clarity. Other terms that may seem to be abbreviations, e.g. OneSTL, BiomeSTL in Section 3, are names of specific initiatives. If acronymic-seeming abbreviations were not almost entirely confined to the narrative sections in which they appear, but rather were referring to elements used throughout the article, it would make sense to us to list abbreviations as a separate appendix to this piece.

Line 24, 482 - K-12 schools – What is it? - Defined in Line 24, with abbreviation included to cover usage in Line 482. In the U.S., K-12 refers to the grade levels of elementary and secondary schools, short for Kindergarten (pre-primary) to grade 12 (High School Senior). Appreciate realizing, in responding to this reviewer question, that our article may well reach a global audience.

Line 162 – 168 - use punctuation - Changed, thanks for this catch.

Introduction – The first text before 1. it is the introduction. Why don’t give it the due name, with the number 1.? This formatting was journal editor's modification of section headings we defined, which we appreciate. While we could literally call the first section "Introduction," intent of the piece is to start the story with the "Initial Challenge," a narrative choice that concludes the piece as "Challenges Persist." May not be 100% aligned with academic journal conventions, but this structure honors our story.

Reeding all the text some times it seems me a report of activities, with the goals but without the results. For example, at point 3: You need to Explore

“Case studies of land transformation” – how many? What is the more frequent land transformation? This transformation permits a better biodiversity?

“Biodiversity policy models and examples of adoption” – Examples?

I think you must make a book with this theme with all the 13 points presented as goals, but also with the results and the conclusions.

Appreciate your interest, as a reader, in learning more about our work, including a presentation of goals, objectives and outcomes. This piece, however, is intended to be a broad (and, we hope, engaging) report of biodiversity-related activities at and from the Missouri Botanical Garden, with a specific, central focus on our community engagement initiative, BiodiverseCity St. Louis. Space limitations, given the scope of activity to convey in this article, precluded citation of specifics such as policies and case studies. Thank you for your kind observation that there is a book's worth of material summarized and previewed in this article. An exciting outcome of this publication would be interest within the Garden, or from our circles of partnership, in extrapolating on the work to the extent that you would like to read.

Jean Ponzi

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reviews a remarkable series of programs undertaken by Missouri Botanic Garden to work with partners to improve biodiversity conservation in St Louis. Writing such a paper requires balance and flair. The work was strong on the positives and does not adequately deal with problems encountered. Surely it wasn't all a bed of roses?

Two ares that could be improved to me are, firstly, a place for First Nations people? I didn't see any attempt to do this. In today's world, it would be almost unthinkable to continuing colonial thinking and exclude first Nations participation unless there were compelling reasons to do so.

Secondly, the paper falls into the familiar trap of self/organisational promotion, extolling the virtues of partners, but ignoring the literature where other organisations have done a significant job with no MBG input. For example, in Madagascar, the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has had a long participation, some programs complementary to MBG, others a little competitive. How do big northern hemisphere gardens work effectively together to achieve common goals deserve addressing in this manuscript.

Lastly, the paper is rather tedious towards the end. Could the text be enlivened with a few figures and some data presented in the form of tables rather than the entire document devoted to free form prose?

Author Response

Thanks very much for your investment in our submittal, as a reviewer. Responses to your comments are below. Jean Ponzi - Missouri Botanical Garden Lead Author

You raise an excellent point. Certainly this work is not a full body of success, but the intent of the article is to communicate the spectrum of biodiversity-focused efforts at Missouri Botanical Garden, with the specific focus on our community engagement initiative, BiodiverseCity St. Louis. I have added a note about the obstacles, with appreciation for your suggestion.

Two areas that could be improved to me are, firstly, a place for First Nations people? I didn't see any attempt to do this. In today's world, it would be almost unthinkable to continuing colonial thinking and exclude first Nations participation unless there were compelling reasons to do so.

THANK YOU. Outreach to and inclusion of First Nations culture, history, influences are, frankly, a very recent element of DEI engagement at Missouri Botanical Garden, with staff interest serving as a strong driver, extending outreach from ongoing work of our ethnobotany professionals. Your comment will be relayed in the article team's internal communications. I will join you in anticipating this kind of content in near-future Garden publications.

Again, a point well taken. In responding to the invitation, from Guest Editor Don Krakow, for inclusion of a piece from Missouri Botanical Garden in this special edition of JZBG, we determined that focus of this article would intentionally center on BiodiverseCity St. Louis, the Garden's community engagement biodiversity initiative, that is led by our sustainability division, the EarthWays Center, and would include brief summaries of recent biodiversity work in other divisions. Scope of the piece for this publication is not intended to compare and contrast with other institutions; authors are confident that such content is compellingly shared through Garden staff contributions to multiple academic and popular publications.

I'm sorry that you found the narrative nature of this article tedious, especially after having invested your time and care in reading it through. This article is shared by Garden professionals who I believe the academic sector would define as Practitioners, and our community-facing work does not typically generate the kinds of data-based visuals we know are valuable conventions in academic communication. In deciding, with the Guest Editor, to center focus of this piece on the Garden's initiative BiodiverseCity STL, while also summarizing biodiversity work at the Garden overall, we accepted the potential for criticism of the initiative's communication style that aims to affirm, inspire and motivate - as well as inform - the range of audiences we serve.

Again, sincere thanks for your interest and review.