Production, Leaf Quality and Antioxidants of Perennial Wall Rocket as Affected by Crop Cycle and Mulching Type
, Stefania De Pascale 1, Eugenio Cozzolino 3,*, Antonio Pannico 1, Maria Giordano 1, Gabriel Teliban 2, Antonio Cuciniello 3 and Youssef Rouphael 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion the work is quiet interesting and contributes to the integrated management of a new crop.
You must improve the summary, add some information as introduction of the theme and adjust the lenght to 200 words as it is required.
You must justify why the three mulches have different thicknesses because some variables may be influenced by this. Is quite important because is the base of the study.
If the study is in greenhouse, please, specify this in the mat&met because this is implied in the discussion but not clear.
There are some comments in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Discussion sheet for the reviewer #1
In my opinion the work is quiet interesting and contributes to the integrated management of a new crop.
We wish to thank the Reviewer 1 for finding the topic of our current manuscript of interest and of practical importance regarding innovative agricultural practices and their effects on an important leafy vegetable species in terms of yield, nutritional and functional quality. Moreover, we wish to thank the Reviewer 1 for evaluating our manuscript as of high quality, deserving publication in the Agronomy. The minor issues raised have been addressed in detail below.
You must improve the summary, add some information as introduction of the theme and adjust the lenght to 200 words as it is required.
As suggested by the Reviewer 1 the whole abstract section has been re-written in the revised version of the manuscript in order to be more concise (200 words) and clearer for the readers of Agronomy. Please refer to lines 15-29.
You must justify why the three mulches have different thicknesses because some variables may be influenced by this. Is quite important because is the base of the study.
Dear Reviewer 1, please let us draw your attention that the thicknesses of the three mulch films are different because they are referred to diverse materials, and each of them entails a specific goal: the 45 µm standard LDPE is the commonly used type in Italian vegetable systems, because smaller thickness may result in the material break down; the biodegradable film cannot be as thick as the standard LDPE, because it would show difficulties to be degraded in that case; the photoselective LDPE is aimed to transmit near IR radiations and, therefore, it is thinner than the standard LDPE. All these information have been inserted in the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript (lines 89-95).
If the study is in greenhouse, please, specify this in the mat&met because this is implied in the discussion but not clear.
We totally agree with the Reviewer 1, in fact the experiments were carried out under greenhouse conditions. This had been mentioned in the abstract and now also highlighted in red colour in the Materials and methods section of the revised manuscript (lines 78-81).
There are some comments in the attached pdf.
We addressed all the comments reported inside each section of the text, as well as in the tables and figures, highlighting them in red color. Please refer to the following lines: 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 35, 36, 78, 79, 80, 81, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 103, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 128, 174, 186, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 217, 218, 219, 220, 223, 236, 237, 271, 309, 314, 319, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 356.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Production, Leaf Quality and Antioxidants of Perennial Wall Rocket as Affected by Crop Cycle and Mulching Type” regards the experimental investigation of the effects of biodegradable mulching film on yield, quality and antioxidant properties of perennial wall rocket changing the crop growing season. It is an interesting topic and the paper deserves publication. Few points need to be improved.
ln 53-54: I strongly suggest to add references concerning the huge problem of disposal of agricultural plastic waste. The author should add and comments the following references:
• Lanorte, A., De Santis, F., Nolè, G., Blanco, I., Loisi, R.V., Schettini, E., Vox, G. Agricultural plastic waste spatial estimation by Landsat 8 satellite images. (2017) Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 141, pp. 35-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2017.07.00
• Blanco, I., Loisi, R.V., Sica, C., Schettini, E., Vox, G. Agricultural plastic waste mapping using GIS. A case study in Italy. (2018) Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, pp. 229-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.008
• Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Sica, C., Picuno, P. The optimisation of the management of agricultural plastic waste in Italy using a geographical information system. (2008) Acta Horticulturae, 801 PART 1, pp. 219-226. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.801.20
ln 56-57: I suggest to add references concerning biodegradable mulching films, such as:
• Briassoulis, D., Giannoulis, A. Evaluation of the functionality of bio-based plastic mulching films. (2018) Polymer Testing, 67, pp. 99-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.02.019
• Briassoulis, D., Mistriotis, A. Key parameters in testing biodegradation of bio-based materials in soil. (2018) Chemosphere, 207, pp. 18-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.024
Ln 71: change “they are incorporated into soil, and” in “they are incorporated into soil after their use, and”
Ln 82-83: “brown photoselective light density polyethylene film (Photoselective LDPE), 25 μm thick Al-Or C-889 by PolyEur S.p.A.,”. Please check if it is correct the word “LIGHT” or if it is better to change this word with the word “LOW”. LDPE means LOW Density PolyEthylene.
Ln 82-84: I suggest to add more details on the radiometric properties of the photoselective LDPE film instead of writing “which is transparent to the near infrared radiations (NIR) and absorbs the photosynthetically active radiations (PAR);”. This sentence is too vague! It is better to add information as “the transmissivity coefficient in the near infrared range (from 780 nm to 2500 nm ???) is equal to…”
Ln 85: “black light density polyethylene film (Standard LDPE.),”. Please check the word “LIGHT”
Ln 93: “The transplant was performed on 18 November”. Please add the year: 2016? 2017?
Ln 106-107: “Harvests of commercially ripe leaves (12 to 15 cm length) were performed on 30 January, 15 March and 19 April for the first, second and third crop cycle respectively”. Please add the year: 30/11/2016? 15/03/2017? 15/03/2018?
Ln 90-112: this part should be re-written. The authors should first describe the agronomic practices, and then the parameters as soil temperature and maximum leaf area and the instruments used to measure these parameters. Please explain better the record of the data. Were the measurements averaged? how many minutes are you considering for the average data? Are the data stored?
Ln 167: which crop cycle does the term "the latter" refer to?
Ln 172-175: “Schiattone et al. [16] reported a marketable yield range between 5 and 18 t·ha-1 per cycle. The highest yield performance of the spring crops is associated to the most favourable trend of air temperature inside the greenhouse, which in our research was always over 20°C in the second half of the cycle and just twice below 5°C in the first half.” Please re-write this part; it is not clear what the authors wanted to say. The authors wrote that the air temperature inside the greenhouse was always over 20°C in the second half of the cycle and just twice below 5°C in the first half. Is it correct? I understand in this point that the cultivation was inside a greenhouse. At the beginning of the paragraph 2.1, where the authors describe the experimental test no reference to a greenhouse has been made! Figure 1 shows the trend of air temperature: is it external air temperature? Is it greenhouse air temperature? Please specify better if the test was carried out inside a greenhouse.
Ln 85 and ln 190: is the thickness of LDPE mulching film equal to 45 μm or 50 μm?
Author Response
Discussion sheet for the reviewer #2
The paper “Production, Leaf Quality and Antioxidants of Perennial Wall Rocket as Affected by Crop Cycle and Mulching Type” regards the experimental investigation of the effects of biodegradable mulching film on yield, quality and antioxidant properties of perennial wall rocket changing the crop growing season. It is an interesting topic and the paper deserves publication. Few points need to be improved.
Thank you for appreciating our manuscript as well written, interesting, with high originality and significance to the field, that may constitute an important contribution to the leafy vegetables sector. We are honoured that you have judged our work suitable for publication in Agronomy.
ln 53-54: I strongly suggest to add references concerning the huge problem of disposal of agricultural plastic waste. The author should add and comments the following references:
• Lanorte, A., De Santis, F., Nolè, G., Blanco, I., Loisi, R.V., Schettini, E., Vox, G. Agricultural plastic waste spatial estimation by Landsat 8 satellite images. (2017) Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 141, pp. 35-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2017.07.00
• Blanco, I., Loisi, R.V., Sica, C., Schettini, E., Vox, G. Agricultural plastic waste mapping using GIS. A case study in Italy. (2018) Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 137, pp. 229-242. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.06.008
• Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Sica, C., Picuno, P. The optimisation of the management of agricultural plastic waste in Italy using a geographical information system. (2008) Acta Horticulturae, 801 PART 1, pp. 219-226. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.801.20
ln 56-57: I suggest to add references concerning biodegradable mulching films, such as:
• Briassoulis, D., Giannoulis, A. Evaluation of the functionality of bio-based plastic mulching films. (2018) Polymer Testing, 67, pp. 99-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.02.019
• Briassoulis, D., Mistriotis, A. Key parameters in testing biodegradation of bio-based materials in soil. (2018) Chemosphere, 207, pp. 18-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.024
As suggested by the Reviewer 2, all the above mentioned references have been added and commented in the revised version of the manuscript. Please refer to the following lines: 53, 55, 58, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420.
Ln 71: change “they are incorporated into soil, and” in “they are incorporated into soil after their use, and”
We changed the above sentence as recommended (line 72).
Ln 82-83: “brown photoselective light density polyethylene film (Photoselective LDPE), 25 μm thick Al-Or C-889 by PolyEur S.p.A.,”. Please check if it is correct the word “LIGHT” or if it is better to change this word with the word “LOW”. LDPE means LOW Density PolyEthylene.
We replaced “light” with “low” (line 88).
Ln 82-84: I suggest to add more details on the radiometric properties of the photoselective LDPE film instead of writing “which is transparent to the near infrared radiations (NIR) and absorbs the photosynthetically active radiations (PAR);”. This sentence is too vague! It is better to add information as “the transmissivity coefficient in the near infrared range (from 780 nm to 2500 nm ???) is equal to…”
As suggested by the Reviewer 2, additional information has been inserted in the revised version of the manuscript in order to be clearer for the readers (lines 87-88).
Ln 85: “black light density polyethylene film (Standard LDPE.),”. Please check the word “LIGHT”
As we said previously we replaced “light” with “low”.
Ln 93: “The transplant was performed on 18 November”. Please add the year: 2016? 2017?
The transplant was performed on 16 and 20 November in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Please refer to line 103.
Ln 106-107: “Harvests of commercially ripe leaves (12 to 15 cm length) were performed on 30 January, 15 March and 19 April for the first, second and third crop cycle respectively”. Please add the year: 30/11/2016? 15/03/2017? 15/03/2018?
Harvests of commercially ripe leaves (12 to 15 cm length) were performed, practicing the cut at 3 to 5 cm above the cotyledons in order to allow for efficient vegetative apex regrowth [21], in the following dates: 28 and 31 January in 2017 and 2018, respectively, for the first crop cycle; on 14 and 16 March in 2017 and 2018, respectively, for the second crop cycle; on 19 April both in 2017 and 2018, for the third crop cycle. All these information has been inserted in the revised manuscript (lines 111-115).
Ln 90-112: this part should be re-written. The authors should first describe the agronomic practices, and then the parameters as soil temperature and maximum leaf area and the instruments used to measure these parameters. Please explain better the record of the data. Were the measurements averaged? how many minutes are you considering for the average data? Are the data stored?
The soil temperature (Figure 2) at 10 cm depth, which is the average depth of perennial wall rocket plant roots in this research crop system, was measured every hour in each plot during the three crop cycles, using PT100 sensors connected to the Console Wireless Vantage Pro2, equipped with a data logger (Davis Instruments, Illinois, USA). All these information have been inserted in the revised manuscript (lines 116-119).
Ln 167: which crop cycle does the term "the latter" refer to?
The above mentioned statement has been re-written and clarified.
Ln 172-175: “Schiattone et al. [16] reported a marketable yield range between 5 and 18 t·ha-1 per cycle. The highest yield performance of the spring crops is associated to the most favourable trend of air temperature inside the greenhouse, which in our research was always over 20°C in the second half of the cycle and just twice below 5°C in the first half.” Please re-write this part; it is not clear what the authors wanted to say. The authors wrote that the air temperature inside the greenhouse was always over 20°C in the second half of the cycle and just twice below 5°C in the first half. Is it correct? I understand in this point that the cultivation was inside a greenhouse. At the beginning of the paragraph 2.1, where the authors describe the experimental test no reference to a greenhouse has been made! Figure 1 shows the trend of air temperature: is it external air temperature? Is it greenhouse air temperature? Please specify better if the test was carried out inside a greenhouse.
We re-wrote the mentioned paragraph, also adding the details suggested (lines 192-197).
Ln 85 and ln 190: is the thickness of LDPE mulching film equal to 45 μm or 50 μm?
Dear Reviewer 2, please let me draw your attention on the fact that the thickness is 45 µm, which is the one commonly used.
