Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Cultivation Using Vermicompost-Amended Soil as an Aspect of Sustainable Plant Production
, Anna Mazur-Pączka 1, Mariola Garczyńska 1, Joanna Kostecka 1 and Kevin R. Butt 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract should be clear in terms of your results obtained. I would suggest to revise it. What are treatments like V10-V25……… etc. should be clear to readers.
Line 18 please use the full scientific name of garlic instead of A. sativum since it is used first time
Keywords should be written alphabetically
Line 45-46 is garlic considered under vegetables or spice/medicinal crop
Line 59- A sativum should be in italics please check throughout the manuscript
Line 69 please check the spelling of fertilsation should be fertilization same in line 70
Line 71-72 what positive effects please mention
Line 73 what positive effects were observed in tomato mention it
Line 77 what positive effects were observed in ornamental plants and what kind of ornamental plants
Line 81-83 revise your paragraph by giving clear understanding what is 10-50% vermicompost how was it procured
Line 83-85 please mention clearly the parameters your studies, it seems it is written just in a hurry.
Line 93- E fetida write full form and should be in italics
Did you check the pH and temperature and aeration of prepared vermicompost if yes please mention it methodology section
Please mention the size, dimension of raised bed used for cultivation of garlic, what was the type of soil used and what was the environmental conditions during production time it should be mentioned in experimental design section
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments on Ref.: Ms. No. sustainability-1443705
Garlic (Allium sativum L.) cultivation using vermicompost-amended soil as an aspect of sustainable plant production
Please see our responses to the points raised by the reviewer below.
Abstract should be clear in terms of your results obtained. I would suggest to revise it. What are treatments like V10-V25……… etc. should be clear to readers.
This has now been clarified by revision.
Line 18 please use the full scientific name of garlic instead of A. sativum since it is used first time
Thank you. Corrected
Keywords should be written alphabetically
Done
Line 45-46 is garlic considered under vegetables or spice/medicinal crop
Garlic is considered to be a vegetable. It is in the onion family.
Line 59- A sativum should be in italics please check throughout the manuscript
This now done.
Line 69 please check the spelling of fertilsation should be fertilization same in line 70
Corrected.
Line 71-72 what positive effects please mention
Have been added.
Line 73 what positive effects were observed in tomato mention it
Have been added.
Line 77 what positive effects were observed in ornamental plants and what kind of ornamental plants
Have been added.
Line 81-83 revise your paragraph by giving clear understanding what is 10-50% vermicompost how was it procured
This is now revised and hopefully clearer.
Line 83-85 please mention clearly the parameters your studies, it seems it is written just in a hurry.
Again, this has been expanded and clarity added.
Line 93- E fetida write full form and should be in italics
Corrected.
Did you check the pH and temperature and aeration of prepared vermicompost if yes please mention it methodology section
The pH of the obtained vermicompost and the growth media used in the experiment are given in Table 1. However, the temperature and aeration of the vermicompost were not checked. But the authors thank the reviewer for significant attention (in subsequent studies of this type, these parameters will be investigated)
Please mention the size, dimension of raised bed used for cultivation of garlic, what was the type of soil used and what was the environmental conditions during production time it should be mentioned in experimental design section
The raised bed dimensions are listed in 2.2. Experimental design (from line 130), the type of soil used is shown (line 122-123 and Table 1.) and environmental conditions such as temperature and precipitation are shown in Figure 1. The authors hope that this information will satisfy the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
To be corrected:
line 46: ”A. sativum” with italics. Same: ”Alium” to the lines 56, 59, 83. Also italics at ”Iris pseudacorus, Ceratophyllum demersum” l. 91; ”E. fetida” l. 93; ”A. sativum” l. 100; l.190-191, 196, 200, 205, 240, 260, 306, 315, 324.
- 93, ”E. fetida” should be the full name.
- 323: wrong ”treastments”
Author Response
Response to Reviewer Comments on Ref.: Ms. No. sustainability-1443705
Garlic (Allium sativum L.) cultivation using vermicompost-amended soil as an aspect of sustainable plant production
Please see our responses to the points raised by the reviewer below.
To be corrected:
line 46: ”A. sativum” with italics. Same: ”Alium” to the lines 56, 59, 83. Also italics at ”Iris pseudacorus, Ceratophyllum demersum” l. 91; ”E. fetida” l. 93; ”A. sativum” l. 100; l.190-191, 196, 200, 205, 240, 260, 306, 315, 324.
The authors thank the reviewer for a thorough analysis of the manuscript and for pointing out the errors that have been corrected.
- 93, ”E. fetida” should be the full name. (Corrected)
- 323: wrong ”treastments” (Corrected)
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The quality and clarity of the manuscript is low. Also, my comments have not been responded well. I do not recommend it for publication
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The authors thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our article and for the important and insightful comments that have led to improvements in the current version of the manuscript. The authors carefully considered the comments and endeavored to respond to each of them.
However, we would like to point out that we tried to comply with all comments from Reviewer after the first review. The suggested changes (including the use of italics in the names of species, the full species name Eisenia fetida and others) were included in the text of the manuscript sent to the editor after the first review. We checked the version of the manuscript sent to the Editorial Office after the first review in the Reply to Reviewers section and the Download manuscrypt tab. and that's where the corrections are made.
I greet you warmly,
Grzegorz Pączka
We also responded to the comments of the Academic Editor.
Please see our responses to the points raised by the Academic Editor below.
Academic Editor’s comments
The authors have not corrected all, what the reviewer 1 asked.
Superscripts etc are often needed in these notes. Please check if they could be possible.
The results in this work are useful.
Line 20 SL, please explain!
SL denotes “Soil” – the control substrate – as used in all of the results. “SL” is used rather than “S” – as Sulphur is referred to later and “S” is later used as its chemical symbol.
Sorry in this text the italic, subscripts, superscript, and bold are not visible.
The reviewer 1 asked you to use italic for scientific names. It is necessary in text, but almost all these italics between lines 46 and 324 are lacking. Do this correction yourself in really many places!
This was corrected in the manuscript text sent to the Editor after the first review. Now, however, we have corrected the Latin names in References. We apologize for these editorial errors. Now that is corrected.
When you mention the first time an organism with its scientific name, as in 93, use both genus and species name as asked by the reviewer!
This was also corrected in the text after the first review - We checked the manuscript version sent to the Editor after the first review in the Reply to Reviewers section and the Download manuscrypt tab. In the revised version the name of the species Eisenia fetida is in line 120, while in line 93 the species E. fetida was in the originally sent version for review.
If you have a chemical name with subscript as nitric acid, HNO3, you must use subscript. Correct it in many places. There is also a need to use superscripts as in line 94 dm-3. Check this in all places and correct it!.
Thank you for your important comment. This now done.
Line 131: did you use the same beds in both years or did you make different beds for both years? How recently the composting had ended when you started to use the compost?
After the 2018/2019 experiment was completed, the raised beds were emptied. However, before the start of the 2019/2020 experiment, the raised bed was filled with newly prepared soils with the same characteristics as in the previous experiment. In summary, in both years, plants grew in newly prepared media (added; line 159). This treatment was aimed at maintaining the most similar conditions for crops in two research seasons (which is difficult in field crops, e.g. temperature or precipitation differences in given periods of plant growth). This procedure was used to check whether the obtained results were reproducible in individual years, or the lack of them (in individual research groups).
After completion of the vermicomposting process, when an appropriate (<20) vermicompost C/N ratio was found (the C/N ratio is the most commonly used indicator of vermicompost maturity and indicates the degree of mineralization and stabilization of the waste mass), the vermicompost was separated biomass of earthworms and cocoons and it was left (in a shaded place) for a period of 1 month (added; line 125-127). Then, the growing media was prepared (according to the scheme presented in the methodology).
Table 2: Turn as in Table 1 so that SL, V10, V25, and V50 are the columns and rows are from the plant survivability to yield. Then you do not need any a, b, and c parts. Count if there are statistically significant differences in rows! I guess that there are f. i. in bulb sizes both in 2019 and 2020. There might be also other statistically significant differences. If your table is better, please, reduce highly the text in lines 173-185 and don’t repeat anymore the contents in rows between 204 and 211! Trust that the readers can read the tables if you show there the possible significances!
The authors thank the editor for the valuable remark regarding the rearrangement of the results in table 2. However, we would like to stick to our version of the table as it is in line with our manuscript concept. The experimental system used in the conducted research was to verify whether the applied substrates (with various additional vermicomposts) would have an impact on selected garlic features and which addition of vermicompost to mineral soil would most favorably affect the analyzed features (especially yield). The experiment was carried out in two seasons to check whether the obtained results in individual research groups would be repeatable or not. We were most interested in the average results obtained in each group. Our assumption was not to compare e.g. the value of the analyzed feature in the SL group (in 2019) with the value of this feature in the V50 group (in 2020). However, we would like to thank the Editor again for a valuable and interesting suggestion. The authors made the suggested changes, eliminating the repetition between the table and the text. – [This has been done -krb]
Table 3. Omit the column unit and present that in caption text! Consider the superscripts!
Corrected.
See the See from the homepage of the journal the instructions for authors and correct as the name of journal and volume are italic and bold for the year.
Thank you. Corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
