Water Use Efficiency and Economic Evaluation of the Hydroponic versus Conventional Cultivation Systems for Green Fodder Production in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. All the tables and figures must be greatly improved.

2. All results have no significant difference analysis, which reduces the reliability of the results

3. There are only one year's experimental results, and the number of samples is insufficient

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current interesting manuscript (sustainability-1428013) title: (Water use efficiency and economic evaluation of the Hydroponic versus Conventional cultivation Systems for green fodder production in Saudi Arabia) is fit the scope of Sustainability. However, some corrections and explanations are needed before the approval for publication.  

1.    The authors requested to explain and point out the novelty of this work.

2.    English grammar and style should be revised by a native speaker. Many sentences need to be scientifically re-written (such as Lines 115-120).

3.    The economic evaluation (2.6) should be changed from KSA Riyals to US Dollar as an international currency.  As well, in the introduction Lines 48 - 51, change Riyals to US$.

4.    In all the manuscript, authors should revise and correct the superscript, subscript, and symbols, for ex:

                            -      “kg/m2, kg/m², or kg/m³” should be “kg m²”,

                            -      “grams/m²/day” should be “g m² Day^-1”,

                            -      “3x3 m” should be “3 × 3 m”,

                            -      “liters” should be “Liters or L”

                            -      “oC” should be “°C “

                            -      Line 88 “Using”

5.    Replace Fig. 4 with another one of high resolution.

6.    The Conclusion is general information and needs to improve and support with some results and recommendations.

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is about hydroponic vs conventional barley production. The authors determined that although hydroponic systems produced more biomass, they resulted in an economic loss compared to the lower yielding conventional production method.

I wonder if the economics would balance out when you included animals into the production system. The animals would have higher gains and you could feed more animals on the hydroponically grown barley.

Abstract

·       None

Introduction

·       Line 37 – please change scared to scarce

·       Line 48- please rewrite as “The economic evaluation indicated ₄₈ that the ban on fodder cultivation, in groundwater savings, amounted to 6.15 billion riyals, ₄₉ while the production cost was 5.03 billion riyals.”

·       Line 53 to 63 – please rewrite as “Growing challenges to water and food security in Saudi Arabia is the increase in per capita demand for water, resulting in high values of the water scarcity index m [7]. For example, production and area under wheat cultivation in Saudi Arabia showed negative trends explained by risks associated with water scarcity [7]. Insufficient availability of fresh water is one of the major impediments to attaining a viable agricultural progress in Saudi Arabia [8].   Addressing the problem of water scarcity in Saudi Arabia, unconventional freshwater sources including desalination and wastewater recycling are the alternate sources of water for social and economic development [6].”

·       Line 79 – please change “studies” to “studied”

·       Line 88 – please remove “tested” from the beginning of the sentence.

Materials and Methods

·       Figure 2 – please add the word “grown” between “conventionally“ and “barley”

·       Line 162 – please change “profits” to “profit”

Results and Discussion

·       Subtitle – Please change “hydroponically” to hydroponic and “conventionally” to “conventional”

·       Line 204 – please change “seed” to “seedling”

·       Line 243 – please change “harevesting” to “harvesting”

·       Table 6 and throughout the text – please ensure that your 2s and 3s for squared and cubed are superscript.

·       Line 315 – please remove “Sethi et al., 2016”, because you have [17].

Conclusion and Recommendations

·       None

Author Response

please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Agree. Good job.

Author Response

Thank you for your review.