Current Impediments for New England DOTs to Transition to Sustainable Roadside Practices for Strengthening Pollinator Habitats and Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like for the editor to share my comments with the authors.
There is agreement that roadsides should use native plants in order to strengthen habitats. The authors identify the impediments that some states in the New England face in trying to use native plants on roadsides. This is relevant and important and sheds light on the barriers to using native plants for roadside vegetation

- The section needs to be rewritten in a narrative, it is choppy and does not flow. 

- Did they conduct focus groups of DOT managers and FWS managers together or separately? 

- Were the focus groups of key individuals conducted separately from the DOT and FWS managers?   

- Also, who were the key individuals and how were they identified?  Page 7 the authors mention "roundtable discussions" 

- Were this separate data gathering exercises or were they part of the focus groups? 

- On page 8 the authors present the findings and refer to New Hampshire and Rhode Island cited....I would definitely change that to indicate that representatives from these states who work in DOT, etc. stated this and that. The results are difficult to follow and they should be more pythe and succinct. Maybe they should only focus on a few of the findings. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review Report for the Manuscript # Sustainability ID 20195161

 

Article Summary

The current article tackles important issue related sustainable roadside practices and the use of native plants for revegetation. The article is interesting and provided valuable information related to native plants materials and it’s the benefits to the habitat and ecosystem. However, the authors need to focus on sustainability issues related to native plants and its use for revegetation.

 

Objectives of the manuscript are not clear. The authors can improve the manuscript as follows:

1.     Introduction:

·       Well written and very informative. However, the introduction section is very long; authors need to make it shorter.

·       Focus on sustainability and native plants for revegetation.

·       Include objectives of the manuscript at the end of the introduction section.

2.     The Materials and Methods

Materials and methods section clearly presented.

3.     Results and discussion

Well Written. However, the authors need to add small paragraph at the end of each sub-section to include the major finding of each section.

4.     Conclusions

·       It is better if the authors present the conclusion section in bullet form.

·       Add recommendations for policy makers.

 

 

 

Recommendation

Accept for publication after modification

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

In general, this is a well-written paper and novel research report that documents an intriguing need and opportunity. I find the scope and thesis of this qualitative review paper appropriate to the journal and useful to its readers. I appreciate the perspective and potential that the author team provides to meet a practical need and their intention of examining current grower concerns. For these reasons, I recommend acceptance of the paper, pending some minor editorial changes. Additional explanation / elaboration is needed, particularly to provide greater context and explanation to the Introductory background. Although the results shared with variability across states and agencies are disappointing and challenging to overcome, the findings discussed are great documentation of real-world problems that will need to be managed/addressed/overcome to carry this and similar efforts forward. An opportunity exists to included discussion about push/pull strategies to engage the public in ways that builds consumer/end-user demand to achieve a biologically desirable outcome toward sustainable practices.  Unfortunately, ready availability via internet and shipping of internationally sourced NPM seed, including my own recent insight shared to me that native plant (e.g., Cercis canadensis) seed lots can be purchased from China, without any efforts for provenance introduces many concerns about long-term impacts on regionally-relevant ecological adaptations in NPM that also are grown and sold commercially for landscape use.

 

The intro and explanation for “ecotypic native seed” sourcing starting Line 119 comes late and needs stronger definitions and support prior to this paragraph. In support of the authors finding of need to better explain/define the broad concept and rationale for need of this type of resource [to growers…and manuscript readers] It would be very helpful to define what the authors intend as “local” provenance (versus ecotype) sourcing for acceptable plant material. Regarding ecoregionality, I would expect some suitable plant species that occur in ecoregion 59 might also occur in 58, 82, 60, 64 and other ecoregions (potentially occurring in very close proximity (ne PA, seNY), thus be appropriately “local” and perhaps similarly adapted. I imagine that without strong science and good case study rationale (not thoroughly presented in this ms), that the exclusion of some seed source provenance relationships would potentially be difficult to interpret [accept] and explain to growers and the public. The red maple case study provided (lines 126-129) is not cited. Which authorit(ies) work was used to validate this information?

 

Other jargon, like “specific seed transfer zones” (line 123) are not well explained/described. Is there a citable resource that could provide guidance about how specific seed transfer zones are identified? By implication, each plant species could be inferred to have its own unique “seed transfer zone” and I have not seen these well-articulated (nor tabulated, with specific categories and plant examples) in research papers about plant species’ biological descriptions. To increase probability of concept adoption, it would be helpful if key NPMs-of-interest could be grouped biologically/practically from a grower’s and sustainable use perspective. If that has been done elsewhere in the literature, these resources should be cited.

 

I did not understand (did not agree with what I inferred about) “introduced ecotypes are more resistant to disease and local herbivores” Line 134. This statement needs to be fact-checked and perhaps elaborated upon with specific example(s) from the research literature to be informative to readers.

 

Nor did I understand how “local genotypes” …could result in “species” [presumably of plants] interbreeding. Biologically valid species should not interbreed. Multiple genotypes may exist within a taxonomically valid plant species. I would request the latter half of this paragraph be reviewed. It would be helpful if the authors could use specific (and citable) examples/case studies to illustrate the examples that are intended as support for creation/adoption of an ecotypic seed resource-based endeavor.

 

Is there more to be explained about decisions (or lack of consideration for) NPM within discussion of NRCNP (line 387-88)?

 

Missing information or missing discussion?

·      Address this missed opportunity: there was a concern expressed that public would complain about unmowed/unkempt roadside edges. When VT reduced mowing to 1/3 roads annually, was that a commensurate logged increase in complaints from the public? (does agent’s perception of [potential] problem translate to actual problem?). 

·      Similarly, did CT or VT actually see/document an increase in invasive species (a concern expressed by MA participant] subsequent to the reduced mowing regimens that were implemented?

·      Was more garbage “actually” dumped in the higher grass verges?

 

Minor issues:

“round table” or ‘roundtable” (latter preferred; but be consistent)

Header format for, Roundtable [D]discussions (ln 173) and Focus Groups (ln 249) etc. difficult to find within paper. Is this consistent with style guide?

 

Format for content in Lines 259 – 288 would benefit from different formatting. Very difficult to read as provided.

 

Verb tense check on “hardscape[d] centered” at line 344

 

Confounding use of similar acronyms:

·      I would retain NRM, but spell out “NRC”, which is only used twice

·      ICSTs vs ICSG – jargon: are these represent [meaningfully] different grass species lists?

o   or was T transposed for G? [line 443 vs line 72]

 

Missing words/information at line 472?

 

Font size C&P issue with paragraph addition at Lines 631-644

 

What was the number assigned to the Approved IRB project? Line 677-679

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx