Ex Situ Conservation and Ornamental Evaluation of the Endangered Amberboa moschata (Asteraceae) in Armenia

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Can be improved

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]

1.      The manuscript entitled “Ex situ Conservation and Ornamental Evaluation of the Endangered Amberboa moschata (Asteraceae) in Armenia” presents valuable research on the morpho-phenological, karyological, palynological, eco-physiological, and ornamental traits of the endangered species Amberboa moschata. The study provides useful insights into the species’ adaptive potential under ex situ conditions in the Yerevan Botanical Garden. However, the manuscript has several areas that require improvement. The introduction lacks a clear problem statement and does not sufficiently highlight the ecological and conservation significance of A. moschata. The methodology, while detailed, is sometimes disorganized, with unclear replication details and inconsistent statistical analysis across different sections. The results and discussion section is overly descriptive, with repetitive information and limited integration of findings into broader ecological and conservation contexts. Additionally, the conclusion does not adequately summarize the study’s significance, lacks discussion on in situ conservation, and does not outline future research directions. Refining the manuscript to improve clarity, logical flow, and depth of analysis will enhance its overall impact and readability.

2.      Abstract:

·        The abstract does not introduce the species' importance or conservation status.

·        The research aim is unclear.

·        It presents results without explaining how data was collected.

·        The study suggests conservation but does not explain its significance.

3.      Keywords:

Do not repeat the words already present in the title. Replace with other important keywords.

4.      Introduction:

The introduction provides extensive background information but fails to highlight the significance of Amberboa moschata or the need for this study. Long and complex sentences make it difficult to read, while repetitive mentions of ex situ conservation and botanical gardens do not add new insights. The ecological importance of A. moschata is not clearly explained, nor is its absence from ornamental gardening justified. Additionally, the introduction does not specify the knowledge gaps this research aims to address or how it contributes to Armenia’s conservation policies and global plant conservation efforts. Although habitat degradation is mentioned as a threat, its specific impact on A. moschata remains unclear. The introduction also spends too much time on general information about Armenia’s flora and botanical gardens before introducing the study’s main focus. Furthermore, the study’s objective is buried at the end instead of being clearly stated at the beginning.

I would suggest tostart with a concise problem statement about A. moschata's endangered status and importance. Reduce the species listing and general botanical background. Clearly state the knowledge gap this study aims to fill.  Explain the ecological role and conservation significance of A. moschata. Strengthen the study justification by linking findings to practical conservation applications.

5.      Materials and methods section

The Methodology section lacks clarity, organization, and consistency. Background details on the Yerevan Botanical Garden’s climate and soil conditions are overly detailed and repetitive, while crucial experimental details are insufficiently explained. The study lacks clear subsections, making it difficult to follow. The seed collection process does not specify sample sizes or replication, and there is no mention of soil properties beyond basic composition. Cultivation techniques are vaguely described, lacking details on watering frequency, growth conditions, and monitoring. The assessment of ornamental traits is unclear, as the criteria for evaluating decorativeness are not defined. Pollen fertility testing lacks statistical rigor, with no justification for sample sizes or variability control. Eco-physiological trait analysis does not include comparisons with wild populations or environmental monitoring. Statistical methods are inconsistently applied across different analyses, and sample sizes are not justified. Additionally, the formatting includes inconsistencies in unit notation and figure referencing. To improve, the methodology should be structured into clear subsections, provide detailed experimental and statistical methods, and eliminate redundant background information.

6.      Results and Discussion section

The Results and Discussion section is overly descriptive, fragmented, and lacks a clear distinction between results and interpretation. It provides excessive morphological details while failing to integrate findings into broader ecological and conservation contexts. The discussion is repetitive, particularly in the ornamental assessment of A. moschata, and lacks statistical analysis to support germination and viability data. Additionally, there is minimal comparison with previous studies, limiting the depth of discussion. The karyological analysis is superficial, mentioning chromosome asymmetry without exploring its evolutionary significance. The section also does not adequately address the ecological adaptations of A. moschata to arid environments or its conservation implications. Formatting inconsistencies, such as unclear figure references and redundant botanical descriptions, further weaken the presentation. To improve, the section should be structured with distinct result and discussion components, supported by statistical analysis, comparative literature, and a stronger focus on ecological significance and conservation strategies.

7.      Conclusion

The Conclusion section lacks a strong closing statement, clear organization, and discussion of study limitations. Findings are listed without logical flow, making it difficult to connect key results. The section is repetitive, with details on pollen fertility and ornamental assessment already covered in previous sections. Additionally, the ecological significance of A. moschata's adaptive traits is not well explained, and the discussion on chromosome asymmetry remains vague. The conclusion focuses solely on ex situ conservation, failing to address potential applications for in situ conservation or habitat restoration. Furthermore, it does not propose future research directions, such as genetic adaptability or ecological interactions. The readability is hindered by long, complex sentences and inconsistent terminology. To improve, the section should concisely summarize key findings, emphasize ecological and conservation relevance, acknowledge study limitations, and suggest directions for future research.

8.      References

The manuscript includes relevant citations, but there are inconsistencies in their usage and formatting. Some statements, particularly in the introduction and discussion, lack proper references to support claims. Additionally, certain sections, such as the discussion on A. moschata's ecological significance, ornamental value, and karyological findings, would benefit from more comparative references to previous studies. The citation style should be checked for consistency, ensuring uniform formatting in both in-text citations and the reference list. Properly integrating more recent references (as the references cited are very old) and relevant literature will strengthen the manuscript’s scientific foundation and improve its overall credibility.

9.      Manuscript Language We appreciate your feedback on improving the language and readability.

The manuscript requires significant improvements in English language usage, clarity, and readability. Many sentences are overly long and complex, making the text difficult to follow. There are instances of awkward phrasing, redundancy, and inconsistent terminology, particularly in the descriptions of ornamental traits and conservation relevance. Additionally, grammatical errors, improper word choices, and inconsistent verb tenses affect readability. The manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading and language refinement to ensure clarity, conciseness, and coherence. Engaging a professional language editor or using academic writing tools could greatly enhance the manuscript’s readability and overall impact.

Response 1:

The abstract does not introduce the species' importance or conservation status.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made an addition regarding the conservation status of A. moschata. Тhis change can be found – Abstract, page 1, line 8-10.

The research aim is unclear.

We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made an addition. Тhis change can be found - Abstract, page 1, line 11-13.

It presents results without explaining how data was collected.

Information on data collection is provided in the Materials and Methods section.

The study suggests conservation but does not explain its significance. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made an addition. Тhis change can be found - Abstract, page 1, line 9-11.

Keywords:

Do not repeat the words already present in the title. Replace with other important keywords.

Repeated words are excluded.

Introduction

We agree with your comments and have made corrections to the introduction (pp. 32-92). We have tried to emphasize the need for this study, reduce references to ex situ conservation in botanical gardens in general and in the Yerevan Botanical Garden. Gaps in the comprehensive study of this species in relation to ex situ conservation are briefly noted. Habitat degradation and range reduction have led to a direct reduction in population numbers. The list of species associated with Amberboa moschata has been shortened. The aim of the study after corrections is noted both at the beginning of the study (pp. 54-56) and summarized at the end of the introduction. Ex situ conservation and use in landscaping are proposed as practical measures in the work.

Materials and methods section

We agree with your comments and have tried to make corrections. The background information on the climate and soil conditions of the Yerevan Botanical Garden has been reduced. Regarding the seeds, it is indicated that 3 samples of 50 seeds were collected, respectively, after 1 and 2 years of storage, in triplicate. It is noted that during the growing season, biometric measurements, observations on plant growth and development, features of seed germination, flowering and fruiting were carried out. The frequency of watering is indicated as 1-2 times a week. The assessment of ornamental traits and the criteria for assessing ornamental quality are given in the Results and Discussion section.  Pollen grain size statistics have been added to the new Table 3. A detailed comparison of eco-physiological traits with wild populations or environmental monitoring was not part of the objectives of this study, but we will continue to do so in future studies. Regarding the inconsistent application of statistical methods across analyses and sample sizes, we have no substantiated answer. Nor do we have any answer on the notation, that the formatting includes inconsistencies in unit notation and figure referencing.

Results and Discussion section

We agree with your comments and have made some corrections. Repetitions in the ornamental evaluation of Amberboa moschata have been reduced, comparative literature has been added, and the section has been expanded to include a discussion of the importance of wild xerophytic flora in xerogardening and xerolandscaping and in green building of the urban environment.

Conclusion

We agree with your comments and have tried to make corrections. The Conclusion section presents the main findings. The significance of the results on karyology and fertility is briefly described, as well as the importance of creating a scale of ornamental plants for their inclusion in culture and use in ornamental horticulture and landscaping.

References

Inconsistencies in the use and formatting of references have been corrected. Some comparative references to previous studies have been added, and more recent references have been included.

Manuscript Language

We appreciate your feedback on improving the language and readability.

Type your response here and mark your revisions in red].[Explain what change you have made. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript– page number, paragraph, and line.]

“[updated text in the manuscript if necessary]”

Comments 2: [Paste the full comment here.]

This manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the ex situ conservation and ornamental evaluation of Amberboa moschata (Asteraceae) in Armenia. The research is timely and relevant, given the increasing importance of conserving endangered plant species and promoting native flora for ornamental horticulture. The study is well-structured, methodologically sound, and data-rich, making a valuable contribution to both plant conservation science and landscape horticulture. However, certain areas require revision to improve clarity, organization, and critical analysis before final acceptance.

Abstract

The abstract provides a clear and structured summary of the study, outlining its objectives, methodology, key findings, and practical applications. It effectively communicates the significance of the research, particularly concerning the ex situ conservation and ornamental evaluation of Amberboa moschata. However, several aspects could be improved to enhance clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor.

1. The abstract states that the study presents data on several parameters but does not explicitly define the main hypothesis or research questions at the beginning.

The first sentence is too dense and should be restructured to improve readability.

1. The results section would benefit from a more logical sequence:

Adaptive traits (growth cycle, seed formation, water balance)

Cytogenetics (karyotype, chromosome number)

Pollen fertility

Ornamental properties

Suggestion: Organizing the findings in a more structured sequence rather than listing multiple results in a single sentence would enhance clarity.

1. The abstract includes details about study location (Yerevan Botanical Garden), sampling, and cultivation conditions, which are better suited for the Methods section.

Suggestion: Keep only essential methodological points, such as "Plants cultivated under ex situ conditions exhibited superior adaptive traits compared to wild populations."

1. The abstract states that a decorative properties scale was compiled but does not mention its significance or key results.
2. Some phrases could be reworded for clarity.

Example:

Current: "The article presents data on morpho-phenological, karyological, palynological, some eco-physiological and ornamental features of the Armenian flora endangered species Amberboa moschata (L.) DC. (Asteraceae)."

Suggested: "This study examines the morpho-phenological, karyological, palynological, eco-physiological, and ornamental characteristics of the endangered Armenian flora species Amberboa moschata (L.) DC. (Asteraceae)."

Introduction

The Introduction presents a well-structured background on the conservation and ornamental potential of Amberboa moschata, emphasizing its ecological significance and threats. The rationale for ex situ conservation in botanical gardens is well justified, and the literature references add depth to the discussion. However, several aspects require refinement to improve clarity, logical flow, and engagement.

1. Clarify the Research Gap and Hypothesis More Explicitly Issue: The introduction provides a general rationale for the study but lacks a precise research hypothesis.

Suggestion:

Include a clear research question or hypothesis statement at the end.

Example: "This study aims to assess the feasibility of cultivating A. moschata under ex situ conditions, focusing on its adaptive traits, reproductive success, and ornamental potential."

1. Improve Logical Flow of Background Information Issue: Some information is presented in a scattered manner, making it difficult to follow the progression of ideas.

Suggestion:

Restructure the introduction into the following logical order:

Conservation concern & endangered status (A. moschata in Armenia).

Ex situ conservation as a solution (role of botanical gardens, success cases).

Challenges in ornamental horticulture (why wild plants are underutilized).

Research gap (lack of data on adaptation & reproduction).

Study objectives (clearly stated at the end).

1. Reduce Redundant Details on Plant Community Composition Issue: The introduction lists too many associated species (e.g., Carthamnus oxyacanthus, Scabiosa rotata, Zygophyllum atriplicoides), which distracts from the main focus.

1. Strengthen the Justification for Ornamental Use Issue: While the conservation angle is well developed, the ornamental value aspect is underexplored.

Provide more background on why Asteraceae species are important in landscaping. Cite examples of successful ornamental cultivation of related species in other regions.

1. Minor Language & Style Improvements

Some long, complex sentences should be simplified for clarity.

Example:

Current: "Among the ornamental plants of the Ararat valley, there is a significant number of threatened species, some of which have survived in rare fragments with natural vegetation and are represented by populations with low numbers of individuals in halophytic, psammophytic, gypsophytic, ephemeral and wormwood plant communities."

Suggested: "The Ararat Valley hosts many threatened ornamental plants, often surviving in fragmented populations within halophytic, psammophytic, and gypsophytic habitats."

Results and Discussion

The Results and Discussion section presents a thorough analysis of the study’s findings, effectively linking morpho-phenological, karyological, palynological, eco-physiological, and ornamental traits of Amberboa moschata to its adaptability and conservation potential. The data are well-structured, supported by statistical analyses, and effectively contextualized with previous research. However, certain areas require improvement, including better organization, clarity in result interpretation, reduction of redundancy, and a more balanced discussion.

1. Improve Organization and Logical Flow Issue: The results are presented in a somewhat scattered manner, making it difficult to follow a clear progression from one trait category to another.

Suggestion: Restructure the Results and Discussion in the following order:

1.1. Morpho-Phenological Traits (growth cycle, flowering, germination).

1.2. Cytogenetics & Pollen Fertility (chromosome number, karyotype asymmetry, pollen viability).

1.3. Eco-Physiological Traits (water content, transpiration, photosynthesis, drought tolerance).

1.4. Ornamental Traits & Practical Application (scoring system, landscaping potential).

1.5. Broader Implications for Conservation (linking findings to conservation strategies).

This reorganization will improve coherence and ensure that the reader follows the logical progression of findings.

1. Reduce Redundancy in Data Reporting Issue: Some data points are repeated in multiple sections, making the text longer than necessary.

Examples:

Pollen fertility percentages are stated multiple times (e.g., once in text, once in a table, and again in the discussion).

The ornamental traits assessment is explained in detail in the results, then re-explained in the discussion.

1. Improve Critical Discussion and Comparative Context Issue: The discussion mostly restates the results but lacks deeper comparison with previous studies and a critical perspective on limitations.

Examples:

While pollen fertility is high, does this compare well with other species of Asteraceae under similar conditions?

How does the karyotype of A. moschata compare with related genera in terms of adaptive significance?

The ornamental ranking (131 points) is promising, but how does this compare to other drought-tolerant ornamentals?

Suggestion:

Incorporate more comparisons with literature findings (e.g., how do these results align with previous reports on Amberboa species or similar genera like Centaurea?).

Discuss any unexpected findings (e.g., were there differences between wild and cultivated plants that contradict previous studies?).

Add a limitations paragraph, acknowledging factors such as sample size, seasonal variation, or long-term viability of cultivated plants.

1. Strengthen the Link Between Eco-Physiology and Practical Applications Issue: The eco-physiological findings (water use, transpiration, photosynthesis) are scientifically strong but lack a direct link to their application in conservation and horticulture.

Explain why these traits make A. moschata a good candidate for xeriscaping (low-water landscaping).

Discuss how these traits compare to other drought-tolerant species used in botanical gardens.

Provide recommendations for future breeding or selection to enhance ornamental traits or stress tolerance.

1. Minor Technical Refinements Some statements should be more precise to avoid ambiguity.

Example:

Current: "The species showed satisfactory adaptive potential and the ability for mass reproduction by seeds under ex situ conditions."

Suggested: "The species exhibited strong adaptive potential, with high seed viability (96.5%) and successful self-renewal in ex situ cultivation."

Ensure consistent terminology: Sometimes "ornamental potential" is used, other times "decorative properties"—standardizing would improve readability.

Conclusions

The Conclusions section provides a clear summary of the study's key findings, emphasizing the adaptive potential, reproductive success, and ornamental value of Amberboa moschata in ex situ conditions. The implications for conservation and horticulture are well-stated, reinforcing the study’s significance. However, certain areas need refinement to improve clarity, depth, and practical impact.

1. Strengthen the Discussion of Conservation Impact

Issue: The conservation implications are stated but not deeply explored.

1. Clarify the Ornamental Horticulture Significance Issue: The conclusions highlight the ornamental scoring but lack direct comparison with existing cultivated species.
2. Include Limitations and Future Research Directions Issue: The conclusion does not acknowledge limitations or propose future studies.
3. Improve Precision and Avoid Redundancy Issue: Some sentences repeat points already stated in the Results and Discussion section.

Example:

"The plants demonstrated high adaptive ability, full development cycle, and self-renewal capacity, making them suitable for cultivation."

Suggested: "The species’ ability to complete its life cycle and regenerate from seeds under controlled conditions supports its viability for long-term cultivation."

Response 2: Agree. I/We have, accordingly, done/revised/changed/modified…..to emphasize this point. Discuss the changes made, providing the necessary explanation/clarification. Mention exactly where in the revised manuscript this change can be found – page number, paragraph, and line.]

“[updated text in the manuscript if necessary]”

Abstract

1.      The abstract states that the study presents data on several parameters but does not explicitly define the main hypothesis or research questions at the beginning.

Thank you very much for your comments. We tried to put the main research questions at the beginning of the abstract. Abstract, page 1, line 8-13.

2.      The results section would benefit from a more logical sequence

We agree with your comments and have tried to make corrections. We tried to present the results section in the abstract in a more correct order as suggested by you.  Abstract, page 1, line 13-27.

3.      The abstract includes details about study location (Yerevan Botanical Garden), sampling, and cultivation conditions, which are better suited for the Methods section.

We agree with your comments and have made corrections.

4.      The abstract states that a decorative properties scale was compiled but does not mention its significance or key results.

We agree with your comments and have made corrections. Abstract, page 1, line 17-20.

5.      Some phrases could be reworded for clarity.

We try to do it.

Introduction

1.      Clarify the Research Gap and Hypothesis More Explicitly Issue: The introduction provides a general rationale for the study but lacks a precise research hypothesis.

We agree with your comments, Introduction, line 84-86.

2.      Improve Logical Flow of Background Information Issue: Some information is presented in a scattered manner, making it difficult to follow the progression of ideas.

Thank you, we followed the sequence of presentation you suggested.

3.      Reduce Redundant Details on Plant Community Composition Issue: The introduction lists too many associated species (e.g., Carthamnus oxyacanthus, Scabiosa rotata, Zygophyllum atriplicoides), which distracts from the main focus.

Information on associated species in the plant community is abbreviated.

4.      Provide more background on why Asteraceae species are important in landscaping. Cite examples of successful ornamental cultivation of related species in other regions.

We added some information about the importance of Asteraceae in landscape design.

5.      Minor Language & Style Improvements. Some long, complex sentences should be simplified for clarity.

We agree with your comment. Introduction, line 31, 32, 33.

Results and Discussion

1.      Improve Organization and Logical Flow Issue: The results are presented in a somewhat scattered manner, making it difficult to follow a clear progression from one trait category to another.

The results and discussion have been rearranged in the order you suggested.

2.      Reduce Redundancy in Data Reporting Issue: Some data points are repeated in multiple sections, making the text longer than necessary.

We have tried to remove the repetitions.

3.      Improve Critical Discussion and Comparative Context Issue: The discussion mostly restates the results but lacks deeper comparison with previous studies and a critical perspective on limitations.

We agree with your comment. We have added some critical discussions and comparisons with previous similar studies.

4.      Strengthen the Link Between Eco-Physiology and Practical Applications Issue: The eco-physiological findings (water use, transpiration, photosynthesis) are scientifically strong but lack a direct link to their application in conservation and horticulture.

In the eco-physiology section, the importance of the species for xeriscaping is noted. And a little more is written about this in the section Ornamental Traits & Practical Application.

5.       Minor Technical Refinements Some statements should be more precise to avoid ambiguity. Ensure consistent terminology: Sometimes "ornamental potential" is used, other times "decorative properties"—standardizing would improve readability.

We agree with your comment.

Conclusions

We have tried to improve the conclusions according to your suggestions. Some repetitions have been removed. The suggested sentence has been used, lines 486-488. However, the conclusions require our further revision.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Response 1:    (in red)

5. Additional clarifications

[Here, mention any other clarifications you would like to provide to the journal editor/reviewer.]