Intercropping Perennial Fruit Trees and Annual Field Crops with Aromatic and Medicinal Plants (MAPs) in the Mediterranean Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript written by Marotti et al. presented review of published literature from 2003 to 2023 on medicinal and aromatic plants intercropping with perennial nut/fruit crops and annual field crops in the Mediterranean basin. The authors have framed the manuscript in a systematic flow. All the sections were compiled in a sequential order. Their work effectively focussed on problem statements and provided an overview of benefits from the intercropping of various selected crops and medicinal and aromatic plants in land use efficiency, soil health, bio-control and product quality

I admire the authors for their rigorous literature survey and designing of the manuscript.

The MS is of interest to the researchers focusing on intercropping system. 

Nevertheless, from the content aspect, in my view some corrections are required.
1). The English language of the MS needs minor checks.
2). Rephrase the title for each Table in brief.

3). Authors should add at least two figures.

Minor English Language checks required.

Author Response

Please find our responses to the Reviewer’s comments in blue (see attachment). Major adjustments made to the article have been made in blue in order to be seen more easily.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: Intercropping Perennial Fruit Trees and Annual Field Crops with Aromatic and Medicinal Plants (MAPs) in The Mediterra nean Basin

Comments:

1.      Authors should include one separate section related to past and present environmental changes in the Mediterra nean Basin and also include the details of geographical nature too (precipitation, soil type, elevation, slope, orientation, etc.).

2.      I feel that the authors simply present the past works in this review article. Authors must include their thoughts, opinions, and suggestions in each section.

3.      Authors should be including the details of agriculture practices and productivity of cropping systems.

4.      Lane no 254: Authors should italicize the scientific name “Cydia pomonella”

5.      Lane no 266, 343, 437, 453, 487, 493, 502, 504, 518, 523 etc..: Authors should thoroughly check the manuscript and ensure all scientific names are italicized. Vitis vinifera??, Olea europaea??, Triticum turgidum??, Zea mays?? Gossypium barbadense?? ETC…

6.      Lane no 296: Kindly remove this “(Seleem, 2009)”

7.      In my opinion, this manuscript is very lengthy and descriptive type. Readers will not like this. Authors should need to write critically and shorten the section.

 

8.      Authors should include the “conclusion and future prospectus” in separate sub-heading.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find our responses to the Reviewer’s comments  in blue (see attachment). Major adjustments made to the article have been made in blue in order to be seen more easily.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing the compilation of paper and having analyzed them, I recommend, integrate or review the economic impact (losses or profits) obtained by the producers when it is integrated to the production system.    For example: In Latin America the system has been implemented in plots smaller than 2 ha and the economic impact (purchasing power) to producers (small producers) has been significant. In addition to conserving the soil resource (production system), thus avoiding the degradation of the resource.

 

Author Response

Please find our responses to the Reviewer’s comments  in blue (see attachment) Major adjustments made to the article have been made in blue in order to be seen more easily.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

^{See attached} 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find our responses to the Reviewer’s comments in blue (see attachment). Major adjustments made to the article have been made in blue in order to be seen more easily.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have extensively revised the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions. The current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication. Kindly incorporate the below comments in the manuscript. 

1.       Lane no 280 and 282: Remove the word “(FAOSTAT, 2022)”. Already this reference was cited in a proper manner.

2. Kindly check the English language throughout the manuscript and do changes if needed.   

 

 

The current version of the manuscript is acceptable for publication. But the authors needed to check the English language throughout the manuscript and do changes if needed.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

All my concerns have been well adressed by authors. The Paper could be accepted. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx