Foliar Spraying of Aqueous Lavender Extract: A Cost-Effective and Sustainable Way to Improve Lettuce Yield and Quality in Organic Farming

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is devoted to an actual topic of increasing the yield and improving the nutritional quality of food crops using aqueous extracts of lavender as an alternative to synthetic products. However, to improve it, I propose to make some adjustments.
1. There is a lot of information cited that needs reference, for example: lines 50-52, 61-63, 91-92. Lines 77-80: additional references should be added as the authors write about numerous studies. Review this throughout the text.
2. I believe that it is necessary to indicate the temperature conditions for growing plants.
3. I also suggest clearly indicating the number of treatments and the volume of lavender aqueous extract per treatment per plot. Does the volume of lavender aqueous extract vary depending on the plant's developmental stage?

Author Response

The manuscript is devoted to an actual topic of increasing the yield and improving the nutritional quality of food crops using aqueous extracts of lavender as an alternative to synthetic products. However, to improve it, I propose to make some adjustments.

1. 
   There is a lot of information cited that needs reference, for example: lines 50-52, 61-63, 91-92. Lines 77-80: additional references should be added as the authors write about numerous studies. Review this throughout the text.

Response: These changes have been made.

2. 
   I believe that it is necessary to indicate the temperature conditions for growing plants.

Response: The climatic conditions of the area have been described in the text.

3. 
   I also suggest clearly indicating the number of treatments and the volume of lavender aqueous extract per treatment per plot. Does the volume of lavender aqueous extract vary depending on the plant's developmental stage?

Response: A relative sentence has been added to the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a novel approach of using aqueous lavender extract as a foliar spray to enhance lettuce yield and quality, which is an innovative attempt in the field of organic agriculture. While the antimicrobial activity of lavender has been extensively studied, its application as a plant growth stimulant in agriculture is less reported, offering a new perspective for sustainable farming. The experimental design is rigorous, and the writing logic is clear. However, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. The introduction contains excessive segmentation. Typically, an introduction should be divided into three to four sections: the first paragraph providing background, the second and third paragraphs reviewing the current research status and highlighting key gaps, and the final paragraph stating the research objectives. Restructure this section to improve clarity.
2. Soil Properties and Environmental Data (Section 2.3, Line 196)

The description of soil properties is oversimplified. Please supplement the original soil parameters, such as bulk density, field water holding capacity, and baseline N, P, K content, as these are critical for interpreting experimental outcomes. Additionally, include meteorological data (e.g., rainfall, temperature, solar radiation) during the trial period, as these factors significantly influence the efficacy of foliar sprays.

3. The preparation of the lavender aqueous extract lacks specifics, such as the duration of freeze-drying and grinding.

In lines 212–213, clarify the timing of spray applications (e.g., morning/evening) and spray volume per plant/plot.

4. The analysis of nutrient concentrations and uptake in lettuce plants remains superficial. To better elucidate interactions and relative importance among elements, employ advanced statistical methods such as principal component analysis (PCA) loading plots or correlation matrices.
5. The current study only compares lavender extract with a water control. Future experiments should include positive control groups (e.g., treatment with other known biostimulants) to benchmark the efficacy of lavender extract.
6. Conclusion Section

The conclusion is overly verbose. Streamline this section to emphasize the core findings and their implications for organic farming, avoiding redundant details.

7. To strengthen practical relevance, include a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing the expense of lavender extract preparation (e.g., labor, energy, materials) with the economic gains from yield improvements.
8. While the authors discuss the potential of lavender extract in organic agriculture, further elaboration is needed on scalability challenges, such as:

Large-scale extract production costs;

Storage stability under varying conditions;

Optimal application frequency for field crops.

 

Author Response

This paper proposes a novel approach of using aqueous lavender extract as a foliar spray to enhance lettuce yield and quality, which is an innovative attempt in the field of organic agriculture. While the antimicrobial activity of lavender has been extensively studied, its application as a plant growth stimulant in agriculture is less reported, offering a new perspective for sustainable farming. The experimental design is rigorous, and the writing logic is clear. However, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. The introduction contains excessive segmentation. Typically, an introduction should be divided into three to four sections: the first paragraph providing background, the second and third paragraphs reviewing the current research status and highlighting key gaps, and the final paragraph stating the research objectives. Restructure this section to improve clarity.

Response: This change has been made.

 

1. Soil Properties and Environmental Data (Section 2.3, Line 196)

The description of soil properties is oversimplified. Please supplement the original soil parameters, such as bulk density, field water holding capacity, and baseline N, P, K content, as these are critical for interpreting experimental outcomes. Additionally, include meteorological data (e.g., rainfall, temperature, solar radiation) during the trial period, as these factors significantly influence the efficacy of foliar sprays.

Response: Soil properties and environmental data have been added and discussed.

 

1. The preparation of the lavender aqueous extract lacks specifics, such as the duration of freeze-drying and grinding.

Response: These informations has been added to the text

In lines 212–213, clarify the timing of spray applications (e.g., morning/evening) and spray volume per plant/plot.

Response: These informations has been added to the text

 

1. The analysis of nutrient concentrations and uptake in lettuce plants remains superficial. To better elucidate interactions and relative importance among elements, employ advanced statistical methods such as principal component analysis (PCA) loading plots or correlation matrices.

Response: The statistical analysis requested has been made and the results reported and discussed.

 

1. The current study only compares lavender extract with a water control. Future experiments should include positive control groups (e.g., treatment with other known biostimulants) to benchmark the efficacy of lavender extract.

Response: As described in the manuscript, the authors have already carried out a comparison test between 12 plant extracts for foliar applications in 2014 [20]. In this work, aspects related to the fine chemical characterization, the on-farm preparation procedures and the use of lavender extract, which was found to be among the most effective (garlic, thyme, tansy and lavender) [19, 34], are explored.

1. Conclusion Section

The conclusion is overly verbose. Streamline this section to emphasize the core findings and their implications for organic farming, avoiding redundant details.

Response: The conclusion section has been summarized and changed following the reviewer’s suggestion.

1. To strengthen practical relevance, include a preliminary cost-benefit analysis comparing the expense of lavender extract preparation (e.g., labor, energy, materials) with the economic gains from yield improvements.

Response: The test was contextualized in a farm producing medicinal species and vegetables, therefore the costs of the production process are negligible being limited to labor (60-90 minutes) and the possible use of the freeze dryer which involves an operating cost related to the energy demand of 105 Wh, as an alternative to air drying to reduce the preparation times of the extract as reported in section 2.1. The economic gain is equivalent only to the increased gross saleable production, depending on the local market price.

1. While the authors discuss the potential of lavender extract in organic agriculture, further elaboration is needed on scalability challenges, such as:

Large-scale extract production costs;

Response: The cost-benefit analysis was not among the objectives of the work as it is difficult to transfer the results of this case study to other production contexts, because it needs other preliminary studies about extraction procedures, additives use, storage types, etc.

Storage stability under varying conditions;

Response: In our work we used an extract for immediate use by the farmer. Future studies on a longer shelf life of the extract should be carried out considering different conservation techniques, addition of stabilizing substances and commercial formulation, if aspects on the phytostimulant efficacy of the extract have been clarified to justify industrial processes.

Optimal application frequency for field crops.

Response: The weekly frequency of treatments that we have adopted has been developed based on our previous work [19, 20,34] and agreed with the farmers according to their organizational needs and operating costs. As stated in the conclusions, the work aims to be a knowledge base for specific studies on the chosen timing and dosage of the extract.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall

In this manuscript, the authors proposed an alternative use of lavender, that is aqueous extract from farm self-produced lavender flowering tops, and it was tested for its phytostimulant activity on lettuce cultivated under organic farming management. Furthermore, the fresh edible production, dry biomass, leaf area index, photosynthetic efficiency and minerals content were examined in lettuce plants. The results revealed a useful product for obtaining higher yield and better nutritional quality of lettuce.

Comments:

1. In this manuscript, the background occupied about 1/5 the whole abstract, it should be revised carefully and more focused on the importance of the study. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary to show how this study was conducted detailly in the abstract, it can be revised more concisely.
2. The introduction was arranged with 18 paragraphs, it made the readers a little tired to get the home message of the study. In contrast, the similar paragraphs could be integrated so as to attract the attention of the potential readers for this manuscript.
3. In the results of 3.3, the authors used about 30 paragraphs to reveal the vegetative data and the concentration of nutrients in lettuce plants. In fact, this section just included a figure and a table, the results should be revised more concisely. If necessary, this part can be divided into two subtitles.
4. In the conclusion, it also made the readers also a little hard to get the key messages of this study, the conclusion should be made more focused and concisely.
5. In the references, Ref 53 (lines 669-671) lacked the title of the reference, and the Latin names of species (Ref 13, line 573; Ref 26, line 606; Ref 46, line 651) should be revised in italics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript should be re-checked carefully for typological errors and English language for more readability to the scientific groups.

Author Response

In this manuscript, the authors proposed an alternative use of lavender, that is aqueous extract from farm self-produced lavender flowering tops, and it was tested for its phytostimulant activity on lettuce cultivated under organic farming management. Furthermore, the fresh edible production, dry biomass, leaf area index, photosynthetic efficiency and minerals content were examined in lettuce plants. The results revealed a useful product for obtaining higher yield and better nutritional quality of lettuce.

 

Comments:

1. In this manuscript, the background occupied about 1/5 the whole abstract, it should be revised carefully and more focused on the importance of the study. Furthermore, it’s unnecessary to show how this study was conducted detailly in the abstract, it can be revised more concisely.

Response: the abstract has been summarized and rearranged following the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

1. The introduction was arranged with 18 paragraphs, it made the readers a little tired to get the home message of the study. In contrast, the similar paragraphs could be integrated so as to attract the attention of the potential readers for this manuscript.

Response: This change has been made.

1. In the results of 3.3, the authors used about 30 paragraphs to reveal the vegetative data and the concentration of nutrients in lettuce plants. In fact, this section just included a figure and a table, the results should be revised more concisely. If necessary, this part can be divided into two subtitles.

Response: this change has been made. The section has been divided into three sub-headings. It was not possible to summarize more the text, because every sentence is associated to a single comment or reference.

1. In the conclusion, it also made the readers also a little hard to get the key messages of this study, the conclusion should be made more focused and concisely.

Response: this change has been made.

1. In the references, Ref 53 (lines 669-671) lacked the title of the reference, and the Latin names of species (Ref 13, line 573; Ref 26, line 606; Ref 46, line 651) should be revised in italics.

Response: These changes have been made.

The manuscript should be re-checked carefully for typological errors and English language for more readability to the scientific groups.

Response: the manuscript has been checked for typos and English grammar and ortography.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the research explores a potentially valuable application of lavender extract in organic agriculture, significant revisions are needed. The structure and presentation require substantial improvement, including simplifying paragraphs, adjusting the overall structure, and ensuring a stronger connection with existing literature. Given these issues, I believe the paper does not currently meet the necessary standards for publication. The specific suggestions are as follows:

The paper contains many short paragraphs of two to three lines, which appear fragmented and lack coherence. I suggest that the author merge related content to form more fluid paragraphs, enhancing the overall flow and cohesion of the paper.

The use of full names and abbreviations for "nutritive elements" (Phosphorous, Potassium, Nitrogen, Calcium, Magnesium, etc.) is very inconsistent throughout the paper. It is recommended to adopt the standard abbreviations for these elements uniformly.

Line 23: The issue of cost and reproducibility is not addressed in the study, and this background information is not closely related to the core argument of the paper.

Line 107- 114：This section suddenly introduces extracts from other crops, which is inconsistent with the context of lavender extract. This shift seems abrupt and out of place.

Line 252- 257, 259- 263, 265- 267, 269- 271: These paragraphs primarily discuss the functions of nutritive elements, but they are not directly related to the conclusions of this study. It is suggested to either shorten or reorganize these sections, removing irrelevant content and keeping only what directly supports the results.

Line 244 and 275: These sections discuss the characteristics of the experimental materials but do not provide direct significance in the results. It is recommended to place the description of the materials back in the Methods section.

Line 309: Section 3.3 is too long and covers multiple indicators. It should be broken down into different sections for clarity, enabling a more focused discussion of each experimental result.

Line 329- 342, Line 346- 365, Line 413- 418: The author extensively cites results from other studies and discusses the reasons behind their conclusions, but does not explicitly connect these findings to the current study. It is suggested that the author clarify the differences between their research and previous studies or use the conclusions of other studies to explain their own results, thereby adding depth and innovation to the paper.

Line 393：In the " Materials and Methods " section, it is recommended to provide clear definitions and explanations for the terms "concentration" and "uptake" to ensure the readers understand their specific meanings and differences.

Line 399：The sentence “All the elements present in the lavender extract were increased in the treated plants in a highly significant statistically way, except for Zn, which decreased significantly” needs clarification. The focus of the study is on "concentration," not "uptake." Additionally, the increases in Cu and B are not statistically significant.

Line 431: The use of "contrary" needs to be accurate. Based on Table 2, this statement seems to be incorrect.

Line 466- 469, line 472- 475: These sections again discuss the functions of nutritive elements, which are not closely tied to the conclusions of this study.

Author Response

While the research explores a potentially valuable application of lavender extract in organic agriculture, significant revisions are needed. The structure and presentation require substantial improvement, including simplifying paragraphs, adjusting the overall structure, and ensuring a stronger connection with existing literature. Given these issues, I believe the paper does not currently meet the necessary standards for publication. The specific suggestions are as follows:

The paper contains many short paragraphs of two to three lines, which appear fragmented and lack coherence. I suggest that the author merge related content to form more fluid paragraphs, enhancing the overall flow and cohesion of the paper.

Response: This change has been made.

The use of full names and abbreviations for "nutritive elements" (Phosphorous, Potassium, Nitrogen, Calcium, Magnesium, etc.) is very inconsistent throughout the paper. It is recommended to adopt the standard abbreviations for these elements uniformly.

Response: This change has been made.

Line 23: The issue of cost and reproducibility is not addressed in the study, and this background information is not closely related to the core argument of the paper.

Response: As suggested by other reviewers, we have added a sentence regarding the cost of this case study in sub-heading 2.1. As regards reproducibility of the test, the authors have already carried out the experiment in other habitat, as indicated in the literature [20]

Line 107- 114：This section suddenly introduces extracts from other crops, which is inconsistent with the context of lavender extract. This shift seems abrupt and out of place.

Response: This sentence regards the project in which this case study falls, to deepen the reproducibility of the tests carried out by the authors.

Line 252- 257, 259- 263, 265- 267, 269- 271: These paragraphs primarily discuss the functions of nutritive elements, but they are not directly related to the conclusions of this study. It is suggested to either shorten or reorganize these sections, removing irrelevant content and keeping only what directly supports the results.

Response: the elemental concentrations of the extract are related to the treatment effect, as confirmed by ANOVA e PCA. It was not possible to summarize more the text, because every sentence is associated to a single comment or reference.

Line 244 and 275: These sections discuss the characteristics of the experimental materials but do not provide direct significance in the results. It is recommended to place the description of the materials back in the Methods section.

Response: One of the aims of the study was the chemical characterization of the aqueous extract, given the lack of information in literature, so the authors considered the significance of these results.

Line 309: Section 3.3 is too long and covers multiple indicators. It should be broken down into different sections for clarity, enabling a more focused discussion of each experimental result.

Response: This change has been made, adding sections 3.4 and 3.5 and deepening the discussion with the PCA results.

Line 329- 342, Line 346- 365, Line 413- 418: The author extensively cites results from other studies and discusses the reasons behind their conclusions, but does not explicitly connect these findings to the current study. It is suggested that the author clarify the differences between their research and previous studies or use the conclusions of other studies to explain their own results, thereby adding depth and innovation to the paper.

Response: All the sentences indicated regard the discussion of the results and the connection with the results of other studies. Depth and innovation of the paper are widely discussed in Discussion and Conclusions Sections.

Line 393：In the " Materials and Methods " section, it is recommended to provide clear definitions and explanations for the terms "concentration" and "uptake" to ensure the readers understand their specific meanings and differences.

Response: This change has been added to Section 2.4.

Line 399：The sentence “All the elements present in the lavender extract were increased in the treated plants in a highly significant statistically way, except for Zn, which decreased significantly” needs clarification. The focus of the study is on "concentration," not "uptake." Additionally, the increases in Cu and B are not statistically significant.

Response: the authors added the results of PCA to clarify the behavior of the concentration of every single element, highlighting synergy or competition among them.

Line 431: The use of "contrary" needs to be accurate. Based on Table 2, this statement seems to be incorrect.

Response: This sentence has been modified.

Line 466- 469, line 472- 475: These sections again discuss the functions of nutritive elements, which are not closely tied to the conclusions of this study.

Response: the elemental concentrations of the extract and the relative element function are related to the treatment effect, as confirmed by ANOVA e PCA.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The authors wrote a research article entitled "Foliar spraying of aqueous lavender extract: A cost-effective and sustainable way to improve lettuce yield and quality in organic farming". The study is well-conducted and addresses an important topic in sustainable agriculture. The manuscript presents an interesting and timely study on the use of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill., var. Hidcote) aqueous extract as a phytostimulant in organic lettuce farming. The research is well-structured and addresses a relevant topic in the context of sustainable agriculture, particularly in reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The study demonstrates that lavender extract can enhance lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., var. Bionda d’estate) yield, improve nutritional quality, and extend shelf life, which are significant findings for organic farming practices. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to strengthen its scientific rigor and clarity. Research themes and quality fit journals Sustainability. I recommend can be accept with minor revision.

 

Some detailed comments.

1. Keywords, they should be arranged in alphabetical order.
2. 2. Introduction, The authors should also clarify the distinction between lavender essential oils and aqueous extracts, as the introduction primarily discusses the antimicrobial properties of essential oils, which may confuse readers about the focus of the study.
3. 3. Materials and Methods, The experimental design is generally sound, but the authors should provide more information on the environmental conditions during the trial (e.g., temperature, rainfall, soil moisture). These factors could significantly influence the results, and their omission limits the reproducibility of the study. Extract Preparation: The manuscript states that the lavender extract was prepared at a concentration of 1% w/v (10 g/L). However, it is unclear why this specific concentration was chosen. The authors should provide a rationale for this concentration, especially since different concentrations could potentially yield different results.
4. 4. Results and Discussion, The manuscript reports significant increases in the uptake of several nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe) in treated plants. However, the discussion does not fully explore the mechanisms behind these increases. For example, how might the lavender extract enhance nutrient uptake? Is it through improved root growth, increased nutrient solubility, or some other mechanism? The authors should also discuss the potential implications of these findings for soil health and long-term sustainability.
5. 5. Conclusions, The Conclusion section is too lengthy and should be refined in moderation.
6. 6. References, A large number of formatting errors, such as journal abbreviations and DOI. Sustainability, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality journals, and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Author Response

The authors wrote a research article entitled "Foliar spraying of aqueous lavender extract: A cost-effective and sustainable way to improve lettuce yield and quality in organic farming". The study is well-conducted and addresses an important topic in sustainable agriculture. The manuscript presents an interesting and timely study on the use of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill., var. Hidcote) aqueous extract as a phytostimulant in organic lettuce farming. The research is well-structured and addresses a relevant topic in the context of sustainable agriculture, particularly in reducing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The study demonstrates that lavender extract can enhance lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., var. Bionda d’estate) yield, improve nutritional quality, and extend shelf life, which are significant findings for organic farming practices. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to strengthen its scientific rigor and clarity. Research themes and quality fit journals Sustainability. I recommend can be accept with minor revision.

 

Some detailed comments.

1. Keywords, they should be arranged in alphabetical order.

Response: This change has been made.

2. Introduction, The authors should also clarify the distinction between lavender essential oils and aqueous extracts, as the introduction primarily discusses the antimicrobial properties of essential oils, which may confuse readers about the focus of the study.

Response: A sentence in the Introduction section has been modified to clarify the difference between them.

3. Materials and Methods, The experimental design is generally sound, but the authors should provide more information on the environmental conditions during the trial (e.g., temperature, rainfall, soil moisture). These factors could significantly influence the results, and their omission limits the reproducibility of the study.

Response: This information has been added to the text.

Extract Preparation: The manuscript states that the lavender extract was prepared at a concentration of 1% w/v (10 g/L). However, it is unclear why this specific concentration was chosen. The authors should provide a rationale for this concentration, especially since different concentrations could potentially yield different results.

Response: The concentration of 1% of treatments that we have adopted has been developed based on our previous work [19,20,34], that demonstrated the saturation of the extract a little over 1% concentration, and agreed with the farmers according to their organizational needs and operating costs, as specified in Section 2.1.

4. Results and Discussion, The manuscript reports significant increases in the uptake of several nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe) in treated plants. However, the discussion does not fully explore the mechanisms behind these increases. For example, how might the lavender extract enhance nutrient uptake? Is it through improved root growth, increased nutrient solubility, or some other mechanism? The authors should also discuss the potential implications of these findings for soil health and long-term sustainability.

Response: The authors added the results of PCA and the relative discussion to clarify the impact of the foliar treatment on lettuce composition and growth. The implications on soil health and root behavior should be investigated in future specific research, even if the lavender aqueous extract is not phytotoxic and degrades in a few days [20].

5. Conclusions, The Conclusion section is too lengthy and should be refined in moderation.

Response: The Conclusion section has been summarized and rearranged.

6. References, A large number of formatting errors, such as journal abbreviations and DOI. Sustainability, as an international academic journal, should cite more references from international high-quality journals, and should appropriately reduce citations to national non-international journals

Response: The reference list has been checked for typos and corrected, following the reviewer’s suggestion. All the references are taken from international journals or books. The only reference in Italian, regarding a Proceeding, is referred to the first results of the Project carried out by the authors, in which this case study figures.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript "Foliar spraying of aquatic lavender extract: A cost-effective and sustainable way to improve yield and quality in organic farming" by Mena Ritota et al. presents a report on the use of an aqueous extract to stimulate lettuce growth. The article as a whole is systematized and valuable, but there are a number of comments on it.     1. The experiment was performed on a private farm in Lazio (Italy) without checking in other territories or in different climatic conditions. This reduces the versatility and reproducibility of the conclusions. 2. The article proves that the method is "cost-effective", but there are no specific calculations of the cost of producing lavender extract, the cost of processing plants and the economic benefits for farmers. 3. The potential risks or side effects of using lavender extract were not studied in the work, both for plants (phytotoxicity with prolonged exposure) and for the habitat (soil, microorganisms). Why did the authors use a concentration of 25% and an aqueous extract rather than an ethanol extract? 4. The experiment is compared with a control group sprayed with water. There is also a disadvantage in the fact that no control has been carried out with traditional fertilizers or other well-known biostimulants, which makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the method in comparison with other technologies. 5. The study reports that lavender extract plays the role of a phytostimulator. As a result of its use, the concentration of amino acids and minerals in the products increases. However, there is no assessment of the mechanism of action and a detailed analysis of this phenomenon in relation to the effect on the physiological or biochemical processes of plants. What is the reason for the increase in the content of substances and yields? 6. Lavender is known for its antimicrobial properties against phytopathogens. How did the treatment affect the parameters of phytopathogens in the field? 7. In Figure 2, it is necessary to clearly indicate whether there is a statistical difference between the options.     Correcting these inaccuracies would improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

The manuscript "Foliar spraying of aquatic lavender extract: A cost-effective and sustainable way to improve yield and quality in organic farming" by Mena Ritota et al. presents a report on the use of an aqueous extract to stimulate lettuce growth. The article as a whole is systematized and valuable, but there are a number of comments on it.  

 

1. The experiment was performed on a private farm in Lazio (Italy) without checking in other territories or in different climatic conditions. This reduces the versatility and reproducibility of the conclusions.

Response: The authors have already carried out tests in another climatic environment, as described in the text [20]. Currently, they are investigating the aspects related to the phytostimulant efficacy of the most promising extracts, such as the lavender aqueous extract.

2. The article proves that the method is "cost-effective", but there are no specific calculations of the cost of producing lavender extract, the cost of processing plants and the economic benefits for farmers.

Response: Information on the costs of extract preparation has been added to the text in Section 2.1, even if the economic balance is not an aim of the research.

3. The potential risks or side effects of using lavender extract were not studied in the work, both for plants (phytotoxicity with prolonged exposure) and for the habitat (soil, microorganisms). Why did the authors use a concentration of 25% and an aqueous extract rather than an ethanol extract?

Response: The concentration of the extract was 1%. Phytotoxicity has already been evaluated in the previous work [20], moreover lavender extract is classified as a basic substance, also used in the food sector, therefore it does not require further investigation. Finally, the extract degrades in a few days. Ethanol is phytotoxic, flammable and expensive for on-farm use.

4. The experiment is compared with a control group sprayed with water. There is also a disadvantage in the fact that no control has been carried out with traditional fertilizers or other well-known biostimulants, which makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the method in comparison with other technologies.

Response: The authors have already carried out tests with 12 vegetal aqueous extracts, as described in the text [20].

5. The study reports that lavender extract plays the role of a phytostimulator. As a result of its use, the concentration of amino acids and minerals in the products increases. However, there is no assessment of the mechanism of action and a detailed analysis of this phenomenon in relation to the effect on the physiological or biochemical processes of plants. What is the reason for the increase in the content of substances and yields?

Response: A large part of the effect observed is due to foliar fertilization with the lavender aqueous extract, as demonstrated by ANOVA and PCA. Other effects should be investigated with specific future research aimed at outlining the metabolic profile of treated and untreated plants, given that the aim of this research is to deepen the impact of the extract on growth and quality of lettuce.

6. Lavender is known for its antimicrobial properties against phytopathogens. How did the treatment affect the parameters of phytopathogens in the field?

Response: To evaluate the phytotherapic efficacy, it would be necessary to carried out specific tests, inoculating pathogens to verify the efficacy of the extract, in comparison to a non-treated control. This type of activity is beyond the aim of this study. Furthermore, no pathogen attack was detected both on treated and untreated plot.

7. In Figure 2, it is necessary to clearly indicate whether there is a statistical difference between the options.    

Response: The p-values of ANOVA F-test and the confidence interval are reported in all the graphs (a, b, c, d) in Figure 2. Being only two treatments, it is not necessary to add other indicators.

Correcting these inaccuracies would improve the quality of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed all the issues I raised, bringing the manuscript up to the standards required for publication. However, I noticed that the resolution of Figures 2 and 4 is not high enough. I recommend adjusting these figures and increasing the font size appropriately.

Author Response

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

The author has addressed all the issues I raised, bringing the manuscript up to the standards required for publication. However, I noticed that the resolution of Figures 2 and 4 is not high enough. I recommend adjusting these figures and increasing the font size appropriately.

Response:

Figures 2 and 4 have been changed.

The authors thank the reviewer for the contribution to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No

Author Response

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Other comments: No comment

Response: The manuscript has been checked for English grammar and orthography.

The authors thank the reviewer for the contribution to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made substantial revisions and enhancements in response to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. I have no further remarks regarding the manuscript.

Author Response

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

The authors have made substantial revisions and enhancements in response to the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. I have no further remarks regarding the manuscript.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for the contribution to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for working on improving the article!

Author Response

The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Thank you for working on improving the article!

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for the contribution to improve the manuscript.