Impacts of Alexandrian Clover Living Mulch on the Yield, Phenolic Content, and Antioxidant Capacity of Leek and Shallot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting paper with clear practical applications. Experiments appear to have been done carefully and thoroughly. Results are clearly presented and easy to follow. My suggestions relate mostly to items that I found a bit unclear.
Line 49. I scanned reference 7 and found no mention of living mulch in a word search. Should this be reference 8?
Line 56. Reference 18 has only one use of the word “weed” and doesn’t appear to be about weed suppression—just about flavonoid composition. Was this the reference you wanted to use?
Line 59. Do you mean that a negative effect of LM may be reduced growth of the primary crop plants?
Lines 76-77. T. alexandrinum is referred to in the USDA Plants database (plants.usda.gov) as “Egyptian clover,” and the Wikipedia entry lists “Egyptian clover” and “berseem clover” as common names. You may wish check the common names and include several in the Introduction.
Line 91. Instead of “assumed,” it may be preferable to say “hypothesized.”
Lines 95-121. Were there replicates of the plots planted, or were the results based only on the weight of the harvested bulbs? This information may be present in the somewhere else in the paper, but it would be helpful to have it in this section.
Line 121. I would say “or” instead of “and.”
Line 144. I wouldn’t say “the second decade of February.” I would use weeks to indicate time, because decades usually refer to years.
Lines 189-190. I do not usually think of a rotary evaporator as an extraction tool. Would it be possible to give a bit more detail here?
Line 197. I would recommend putting the dilution factor for Folin-Ciocalteu reagent here, even if it is in the citation given on line 196.
Line 198. It would be helpful to put the incubation time here.
Lines 276-278. Was caffeic acid higher at the sowing date of three weeks post-leek planting? The means are a and ab.
Line 299. What is meant by “of the risk affected”? I think that needs to be reworded.
Line 351. Should that be “after three months in July”?
Line 380. Should that Latin name be T. alexandrinum?
Line 396. Because common names are used in the rest of the sentence, Allium cepa seems out of place.
Lines 399-400. Total phenolics in shallot were lower in cultivation with live mulch? Do you mean lower than in leek? Also, I think that when listing the TP in the presence and absence of clover, it might be best to mention that those numbers do not differ statistically. That is evident from the table, but readers sometimes do not go back to the table.
Line 403. That 14 mg GAE/g DW is 1400 mg/100 g DW? So about twice the amount measured in this study? It would be helpful to state the fold difference between the current study and the cited one so that readers do not have to calculate it.
Line 413. I did not see a reference to TP in citation 54. Should that be #53?
Line 421. Would light be the only factor for which the LM is competing?
Lines 437-439. I think that this sentence would be clearer if reworded something like this: “In this context, the results of our research allowed us to establish that applied living mulch had a positive effect on increases in TP, ferulic acid, and chlorogenic acid in leek.”
Lines 439-441. I think that it would be best to say that “Living mulch may have limited the heating of the soil…” Soil temperatures were not measured.
Line 445. Why the mention of garlic?
Lines 467-468. The differences in results of the AA assays with DPPH and FRAP are also due to differences in what each test measures.
Line 474. Reference 5 seems a bit out of place here.
Lines 489-490. Was there higher AA of leek without clover using the DPPH test? Table 4 suggests the contrary.
Lines 492-494. Should that read that the most advantageous planting date for clover was three weeks after planting the leek and shallot? And for shallot, did it make a difference whether clover was planted at the time of shallot planting or 3 weeks after shallot planting?
Table 7. Do you want to say “shallot planting” instead of “leek planting” in the table?
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Reviewer 1.
Thank you for your valuable comments and kind consideration on our manuscript.
Q: Line 49. I scanned reference 7 and found no mention of living mulch in a word search. Should this be reference 8?
Response: It has been added references 10 instead 7.
Q: Line 56. Reference 18 has only one use of the word “weed” and doesn’t appear to be about weed suppression—just about flavonoid composition. Was this the reference you wanted to use?
Response: A new item has been added in place of item 18. Pfeiffer, A.; Silva, E.; Colquhoun, J. Living mulch cover crops for weed control in small-scale application. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 31(4), 309-317.
Q: Line 59. Do you mean that a negative effect of LM may be reduced growth of the primary crop plants?
Response: The sentence have been revised. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Q: Lines 76-77. T. alexandrinum is referred to in the USDA Plants database (plants.usda.gov) as “Egyptian clover,” and the Wikipedia entry lists “Egyptian clover” and “berseem clover” as common names. You may wish check the common names and include several in the Introduction.
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Q: Line 91. Instead of “assumed,” it may be preferable to say “hypothesized.”
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Q: Lines 95-121. Were there replicates of the plots planted, or were the results based only on the weight of the harvested bulbs? This information may be present in the somewhere else in the paper, but it would be helpful to have it in this section.
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Line 121. I would say “or” instead of “and.”
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Line 144. I wouldn’t say “the second decade of February.” I would use weeks to indicate time, because decades usually refer to years.
Response: Dane. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Lines 189-190. I do not usually think of a rotary evaporator as an extraction tool. Would it be possible to give a bit more detail here?
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Line 197. I would recommend putting the dilution factor for Folin-Ciocalteu reagent here, even if it is in the citation given on line 196.
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Line 198. It would be helpful to put the incubation time here.
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Lines 276-278. Was caffeic acid higher at the sowing date of three weeks post-leek planting? The means are a and ab.
Response: The sentence have been revised.
Line 299. What is meant by “of the risk affected”? I think that needs to be reworded.
Response: Done. It has been corected.
Line 351. Should that be “after three months in July”?
Response: The sentence have been revised.
Line 380. Should that Latin name be T. alexandrinum?
Response: It has been corrected
Line 396. Because common names are used in the rest of the sentence, Allium cepa seems out of place.
Response: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Lines 399-400. Total phenolics in shallot were lower in cultivation with live mulch? Do you mean lower than in leek? Also, I think that when listing the TP in the presence and absence of clover, it might be best to mention that those numbers do not differ statistically. That is evident from the table, but readers sometimes do not go back to the table.
Response: The sentences have been revised.
Line 403. That 14 mg GAE/g DW is 1400 mg/100 g DW? So about twice the amount measured in this study? It would be helpful to state the fold difference between the current study and the cited one so that readers do not have to calculate it.
Response: The sentences have been revised.
Line 413. I did not see a reference to TP in citation 54. Should that be #53?
Response: Should that be 53 reference. Item 54 has been deleted
Line 421. Would light be the only factor for which the LM is competing?
References: The sentence have been revised.
Lines 437-439. I think that this sentence would be clearer if reworded something like this: “In this context, the results of our research allowed us to establish that applied living mulch had a positive effect on increases in TP, ferulic acid, and chlorogenic acid in leek.”
References: Done. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Lines 439-441. I think that it would be best to say that “Living mulch may have limited the heating of the soil…” Soil temperatures were not measured.
References: The sentence have been revised.
Line 445. Why the mention of garlic?
References: The sentence have been revised.
Lines 467-468. The differences in results of the AA assays with DPPH and FRAP are also due to differences in what each test measures.
References: The sentence have been revised.
Line 474. Reference 5 seems a bit out of place here.
References: It has been deleted.
Lines 489-490. Was there higher AA of leek without clover using the DPPH test? Table 4 suggests the contrary.
References: it has been corrected.
Lines 492-494. Should that read that the most advantageous planting date for clover was three weeks after planting the leek and shallot? And for shallot, did it make a difference whether clover was planted at the time of shallot planting or 3 weeks after shallot planting?
References: The sentence have been revised.
Table 7. Do you want to say “shallot planting” instead of “leek planting” in the table?
Reference: It has been corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Impact of Alexandrian clover living mulch on the yield, phenolics content, the antioxidant capacity of leek and shallot” seems to be an interesting topic. Using living mulch with field crops that increase yield and bioactive compounds is an important finding. However, some queries need to address to improve the manuscript. Some technical information was not clear, and it must be fixed to avoid methodological error. I strongly suggest revising and checking the entire manuscript carefully, for which I recommend major revision.
Abstract: The information in the line “Cultivating living mulch (LM) with another species treated as the main crop is the basis for efficient and ecological production systems” is unclear to me. Could you please explain the information broadly here?
Line 186: It seems the authors used too high temperature to dry the sample, and the duration is missing.
Section 2.7: The authors mentioned that “All samples were stored at a temperature of 22 °C until further analysis. All extractions were performed in duplicate.”
I think it’s a serious flaw of the sample preservation technique because at 22 °C there may always be a risk of deterioration of the extracted sample. Moreover, all extractions were performed double. Then how did you carry out the chemical analysis with three repetitions? There should be a proper explanation.
Author Response
Response to reviewer’s comments
Reviewer 2
Thank you for your valuable comments and kind consideration on our manuscript.
Q: Abstract: The information in the line “Cultivating living mulch (LM) with another species treated as the main crop is the basis for efficient and ecological production systems” is unclear to me. Could you please explain the information broadly here?
Response: The sentence have been revised. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript). A new version: ‘Living mulches (LM) grown in-season together with the cash crop are generally represent a potentially important method in organic vegetable production.’
Q: Line 186: It seems the authors used too high temperature to dry the sample, and the duration is missing.
Response: The leek (pseudo-stem) and shallot samples were lyophilised. The method applied only to dry weight, the applied temperature was in line with the adopted procedure. PN-90/A-75101/03. Przetwory Owocowe i Warzywne. Oznaczanie zawartości suchej masy [Determine the content of dry matter using the weight method]; PKN: Warszawa; Poland; 1990 [In Polish]
Q: Section 2.7: The authors mentioned that “All samples were stored at a temperature of 22 °C until further analysis. All extractions were performed in duplicate.” I think it’s a serious flaw of the sample preservation technique because at 22 °C there may always be a risk of deterioration of the extracted sample. Moreover, all extractions were performed double. Then how did you carry out the chemical analysis with three repetitions? There should be a proper explanation.
Response: I should be minus 22 (T = -22 oC). All extractions were performed in duplicate but in three replication. The sentences have been revised. Please see the attachment (revised manuscript).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be accepted now
