The manuscript by Zhang and Nepf provides an overview of the results of laboratory experiments on the effect of the vegetation typical of salt marshes on the attenuation of waves and currents. The results reported are from several experiments conducted in recent years and already published in the recent 2021 and 2022 papers, but results of new, never before published experiments are also reported.

I believe that the data produced and the experiments conducted are of excellent quality and that the importance of this dataset is of absolute value to the international scientific community. The impact of vegetation on coastal dynamics is a key issue from both engineering and ecological perspective. However, I believe that the manuscript needs to be revised, especially with regard to some technical aspects of both the paper and the dataset. These changes are necessary to bring the work more in line with the ESSD policy and to make it more usable for the international scientific community.

Specifically, I propose the following changes:

In the introduction, in line 97, the authors mention Spartina alterniflora, which is used as a model plant because it is a typical species of salt marshes. I think it is necessary to add to this by emphasising the distribution and importance of this species in global salt marshes. In this way, the experiments can clearly take on global significance.

From line 100 to the end of the introduction, the details of the experiments are given, but I think that in this section it is necessary to talk only about the general aspects (only the total number of experiments and the two main categories of experiments - IE and ME, living plants and models) and move the rest of the description to the first section on the method (2).

In sections 2.1 and 2.2, the detailed description of the experiments is too difficult to follow in this way. I think it would be better to create a table (similar to the tables in the readme.pdf document in the web repository) describing each test case to make the text clearer, more concise and easier to follow.

In line 135, the quote refers to Zhang and Nepf, 2021 a or b?

Line 157 better specifies which are the six tested wave amplitudes

In line 159 the authors mention 28 new, unreported cases. In my opinion, the authors should emphasise in the paper what these cases are and what new and never before published results they have obtained. Indeed, it is difficult to understand in the paper whether there are differences between the results of these new cases compared to the already published cases, or otherwise specify their contribution to the results.

A key issue is the accessibility, reusability and interoperability of the dataset in its current format.

Apart from the videos of the Flume experiments, which I think are perfect in this form, the data results in *,mat cannot be made accessible without Matlab, and this is an important limitation for three key points of the FAIR principle.

The accessibility, reusability and interoperability of the dataset as currently not guaranteed.

In my opinion, the NetCDF file with metadata is the best format for organising and distributing data, as it ensures accessibility and interoperability and is an internationally recognised format. In addition, the accompanying metadata enables the best understanding of the data contained, which ensures reusability. Authors can follow a generic file structure categorised into General Attributes, Dimensions, Variables and Attribute Variables.

This format is particularly used in oceanographic data archives, for which there are known standards (Es Oceansite and SeaDataNet) to standardise data archives worldwide.

Even though it is laboratory data, it is data that provides important information related to oceanography and coastal dynamics. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to refer to a common format along the lines of the formats mentioned above, where variables and datasets are accompanied by appropriate metadata in which we specify for each variable: where, when, how (sampling method, instrument types, type of experiment, test case), who, what (details of processing applied, algorithms used to calculate derived parameters).

I have not found any reference examples for this type of data, but authors can generally follow one of the most common reference formats for the creation of NETCDF files and adapt them to this data by providing the necessary information useful for a better conformity of the data with the FAIR principles.

An example of the structure of a NETCDF file can be found in the attached file

General comments:

This paper presents a valuable dataset comprising forces, plant motions, free surface elevation, velocity profiles, and kinetic energy measured during laboratory experiments involving waves, following currents, and flexible vegetation. This dataset serves as a valuable resource for validating numerical plant dynamic models and gaining insights into the mutual effects between vegetation reconfiguration and wave / flow dynamics.

Specific comments:

1.  This study emphasizes the significant contribution of leaves to the plant resistance and, consequently, the wave energy dissipation. It is crucial to note, however, that this assertion holds true when the leaves exhibit a certain level of rigidity, as indicated by the Young’s modulus in Figure 2. Zhu et al. (2023) highlighted that the contribution of leaves to wave damping is influenced by leaf-related parameters, including the population density and leaf rigidity. Given the considerable spatial variability in leaf rigidity, even within the same species (i.e., Spartina alterniflora), it is necessary for the authors to acknowledge the potential restrictions associated with this statement.

(Reference: Ling Zhu, Qin Chen, Yan Ding, Navid Jafari, Hongqing Wang, Bradley D. Johnson, 2023. Towards a unified drag coefficient formula for quantifying wave energy reduction by salt marshes, Coastal Engineering, 180, 104256.)

2.  The vegetation motion videos are valuable. What is the size of red box in the background of videos? Knowing the size of red boxes can help readers to understand the magnitude of deflection.

3.  Line 310-311: it is not straightforward to draw the conclusion of “sheltering and interaction among the leaves and stem decreased the force exerted on the full plant compared to the leaves and stem” from Fig. 6a.

4.  Fig. 6a: model and stem use very similar symbols, making them hard to distinguish.