Moringa oleifera L.: A Potential Plant for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Temperate Agriculture Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study the authors evaluated the mitigation ability of Moringa oleifera  L. for greenhouse gas emissions in temperate agriculture system. The paper is well stated, results are concluding, but authors need to revise the M&M section as to make more clear and eliminate confusing statements. Here below I provide a list of comments to be considered when revising the present MS. I also encourage authors to go throughout the MS with care as to improve much more an so more for English editing.

Comments

1.     Most of the abstract belongs to the Materials and Methods portion. Add 4-5 important results and add one liner conclusion at the end.

2.     The Objectives of the study should be well clear and organized.

3.     L35, what is C02? Write full of this first.

4.     Add recent statistics of NZ methane if possible

5.      L134-135, germinated where and when? Climate conditions, water conditions, culture practice and fertilizer information should be added.

6.     L185,

7.     How the rumen fluid was collected?

8.     Write details of statistical analysis

9.     L264, Why 12h and 24h sampling timings were decided?

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Page 3, Line 111 to 112 ‘The use of M. oleifera is expanding in third world countries and its use will increase as population grows’ Please provide reference, data or delete the sentence. Moringa is one of several forages which could improve efficiency for production and environment of livestock systems in tropics but not the only one. Thus the sentence is not substantiated for a) current expansion or b) future potential – which depends on many factors   

Page 3, line 125.  ‘They were seven provenances used in this experiment….’ should read ‘There were seven provenances used in this experiment….’

Page 4, line 150 ‘Nevertheless, all the leaves harvested were at the same stage of development’. Comment Can the authors explain why 3 and 7 months old fresh material is at the same stage of development…. This is a bit surprising.

Page 4, line 166. ‘Dried grounded ryegrass and 167 white clover were supplied by AgResearch Grasslands. These were harvested in spring 2010 from Aorangi Experimental Station, 315 Lockwood Road, Palmerston North and 169 stored at -20 °C for long-term use. Comment. Where these plants harvested at the same stage as Moringa? Not sure if that information was available after 10 years of storage?

 Discussion: Would have been interesting to speculate/assess if there may be a point on plant genera having ryegrass a grass, white clover a legume and Moringa neither one. The benefit of Moringa seems to be more compared to the grass than with the legume. And considering that grasses and legumes dominate among planted forages, one could argue that in general it may be worthwhile to look into legumes of high digestibility – there are a few with digestibility similar to Moringa - than just focusing on one species. More so digestibility is given as one of the reasons for the difference. Some is explained in 401 – 423, however it could have been raised in the conclusion i.e. the option of using high quality materials such as legumes and Moringa rather than focusing on Moringa only. Suggest to revise conclusions accordingly which will make it applicable to a wider range of conditions

The revision of the discussion and conclusions as suggested in my opinion would increase merit and interest. 

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper shows very interesting research in this important topic.

In material and methode the test set up could be better explained. A draft or pictures of the measuring equipment and the plant material could help the reader.

The differences in methane production of the different variants are shown in the tables. It is not clear which variants are significantly different to each other? They should be marked by groups (a, b, c) ?

In vitro test with similar plant material will be very interesting for future investigation.

Author Response

see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept publication of revised version of the manuscript

Author Response

We have changed C02 to CO2.