Indoor Farming Marjoram Production—Quality, Resource Efficiency, and Potential of Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment:
This work presents very interesting results on indoor farming and its land use efficiency, under the title “Indoor Farming Marjoram Production - Quality, Resource Efficiency and Potential of Application”. The paper is well organized; results are innovative and explained in an acceptable form. Some minor comments are following below.
Abstract
L 12-14: The abstract is a bit short and weak. It should be able to stand alone, clearly introducing the purpose of the study and present the main materials and methods, key results, and conclusions of your work. Please try to add basic information regarding advantages of indoor vertical farming, apart from sustainable and consistent production.
Introduction
L 26: “…limited availability of water, accessible land and fertile soil…”. Here it should be added a phrase referring also to “luck of proper micro-climatic conditions affected by extreme ambient weather conditions due to climate change”, which is a key parameter for growing indoors.
L 42-43: Not clear, please revise the sentence.
Materials and Methods
L 92: Please check the references in the whole manuscript, as they appear not to be imported correct.
L 100: Delete “…was left…”.
L 108: In Fig. 1 (C), I can see only 4 trays instead of 5 stated and presented in Fig. 1 (B), please check and revise Fig. 1 (C) if needed.
L 114: “…59.4 ± 8.0 % RH”.
L 124: Did the authors increase the air humidity also and how, or there was only dehumidification necessary? Which was the air velocity/air exchange inside the chamber while the vents were operating? Did the authors measure the air velocity at the plants level?
L 143: In line 143 you write there was no duplication of LED lamps within one self but in Fig. 1 (C) there are 4 lines representing 4 lamps, or not? Please clarify.
L 145: Replace (,) with (.) in 25.5 value and check the rest of the manuscript (also, Figs 5, 7 and 8).
L 156: Please define what initiative flowering stands for. Is it the first flower, a 10% flowering or something else? Also, define which LED treatment you are referring to.
L 158: Please define which LED treatment you are referring to.
L 175: Do you mean “for 38 or 45 days”?
L 211: What do you mean by “…were not statistically assessed”?
Results
L 216: What do you mean by “…was not further quantified”?
L 250: “…in both LED treatments…” probably you mean B/R and W, right? Please revise to “…in B/R and W LED treatments…” to be clear.
L 252: “…the LED treatments with…”
L 255: “…under longer cultivation period”.
L 256: “…any of the above…”
L 274: Please define “ETRmax” the first time you use it in the manuscript.
L 293: “…both treatments…”. The letters are not shown in Fig. 7. Is there a statistical difference in W+FR between the two cultivation periods with a 29% decrease or no?
L 313: “…save…”
L 313-323: Since annual yield is presented here did the authors also calculate the annual energy consumption to maintain temperature and humidity at 25.9 ± 0.9 °C and 59.4 ± 8.0 % RH? If it is possible, it would be very interesting to see the annual energy efficiency of the indoor farm along with annual water use efficiency.
Discussion
L 357: “…a fresh weight…”.
L 358-361: Repetition of the previous sentence. Please check and delete.
Author Response
Thanks for your comments. Below you will find a detailed description of the changes we have made.
|
Reviewer 1 comment |
Authors response |
|
L 12-14: The abstract is a bit short and weak. It should be able to stand alone, clearly introducing the purpose of the study and present the main materials and methods, key results, and conclusions of your work. Please try to add basic information regarding advantages of indoor vertical farming, apart from sustainable and consistent production. |
We added further information about materials and methods, key results as well as basic advantages of indoor farming. |
|
L 26: “…limited availability of water, accessible land and fertile soil…”. Here it should be added a phrase referring also to “luck of proper micro-climatic conditions affected by extreme ambient weather conditions due to climate change”, which is a key parameter for growing indoors. |
We changed the corresponding text passage according to your suggestion. Thank you. |
|
L 42-43: Not clear, please revise the sentence |
We included the examples of the next sentence to make the meaning of both more clear. |
|
L 92: Please check the references in the whole manuscript, as they appear not to be imported correct. |
|
|
L 100: Delete “…was left…”. |
Changed |
|
L 108: In Fig. 1 (C), I can see only 4 trays instead of 5 stated and presented in Fig. 1 (B), please check and revise Fig. 1 (C) if needed. |
We added a lettering. Does it become more clear this way that the grey colored areas of Fig. 1(B) represent the five trays used? |
|
L 114: “…59.4 ± 8.0 % RH”. |
Changed according to your suggestion |
|
L 124: Did the authors increase the air humidity also and how, or there was only dehumidification necessary? Which was the air velocity/air exchange inside the chamber while the vents were operating? Did the authors measure the air velocity at the plants level? |
We included an explanation on the air velocity monitoring in the Line 133-135. |
|
L 143: In line 143 you write there was no duplication of LED lamps within oneself but in Fig. 1 (C) there are 4 lines representing 4 lamps, or not? Please clarify. |
Thank you. In fact, the sentence was supposed to explain that none of the variants were used twice within one shelf. In this way we tried to achieve the best possible randomization. 4-6 LED modules were used within one level, as it is now explained in lines 163-165. We have also increased the number of LEDs to six in Figure 1 (C). |
|
L 145: Replace (,) with (.) in 25.5 value and check the rest of the manuscript (also, Figs 5, 7 and 8). |
Changed according to your suggestion |
|
L 156: Please define what initiative flowering stands for. Is it the first flower, a 10% flowering or something else? Also, define which LED treatment you are referring to. L 158: Please define which LED treatment you are referring to. |
We defined the flowering states as followed in the marked text: Budding stage = no flower open, First flowers open = < 1 % of flowers open, Full-flowering stage = more than 2/3 of flowers open. The LED treatment was not decisive for the beginning of the harvest, we tried to make that more clear in the description. |
|
L 175: Do you mean “for 38 or 45 days”? |
Yes, thank you. |
|
L 211: What do you mean by “…were not statistically assessed”? |
We concentrated on the statistical evaluation of the parameters within one harvest phase. Differences between the harvest phases were therefore not examined statistically. |
|
L 216: What do you mean by “…was not further quantified”? |
We did not take any further measurements of the color, for example using a colorimeter, but carried out a visual assessment. |
|
L 250: “…in both LED treatments…” probably you mean B/R and W, right? Please revise to “…in B/R and W LED treatments…” to be clear. |
Yes, thank you. |
|
L 250: “…in both LED treatments…” probably you mean B/R and W, right? Please revise to “…in B/R and W LED treatments…” to be clear. |
Changed according to your suggestion |
|
L 252: “…the LED treatments with…” |
Changed |
|
L 255: “…under longer cultivation period”. |
Changed |
|
L 256: “…any of the above…” |
Changed |
|
L 274: Please define “ETRmax” the first time you use it in the manuscript. |
We added an explanation of how the parameters are calculated and very shortly their meaning in Line 218-221. |
|
L 293: “…both treatments…”. The letters are not shown in Fig. 7. Is there a statistical difference in W+FR between the two cultivation periods with a 29% decrease or no? |
There was no statistical difference which we mentioned in the text and below the figure. The mean values however indicated differences which could be focused on in a further experimental setup. |
|
L 313: “…save…” |
Changed |
|
L 313-323: Since annual yield is presented here did the authors also calculate the annual energy consumption to maintain temperature and humidity at 25.9 ± 0.9 °C and 59.4 ± 8.0 % RH? If it is possible, it would be very interesting to see the annual energy efficiency of the indoor farm along with annual water use efficiency. |
We appreciate your comment. According to our measurements over the last year as well as a previous modelling of the electical energy consumption of the indoor farm used, the energy consumption varies strongly depending on outside conditions during the year. Since you mentioned great interest in energy and water efficiency we included a rather rough annual calculation, presenting the results in the Line 364-369. It has to be noted though, that the results have not been modelled and therefore do not represent real consumptions, since the modeling - which has not been published yet - would have had to be also included in the publication. We hope this meets your expectations. We also introduced both parameters in Line 210-212 and integrated the results briefly in the discussion in Line 498-499 and 520-523. |
|
L 357: “…a fresh weight…”. |
Changed |
|
L 358-361: Repetition of the previous sentence. Please check and delete. |
We deleted the corresponding text passage according to your suggestion. |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Conclusion are quit short.
What is the best LED treatment for plant growth and indoor growing?
References should be checked. (Error. Reference source not found.)
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Below you will find a description of the changes we have made.
|
Reviewer 2 comment |
Authors response |
|
Conclusion are quit short. What is the best LED treatment for plant growth and indoor growing? |
The conclusion is more detailed now, thank you. Furthermore, we added a statement regarding the best LED treatment according to our experimental setup in the line 560-568. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
