Urban Agriculture as an Alternative for the Sustainable Production of Maize and Peanut

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear

 

After reading the article, I come across an interesting work. However, the work lacks a good review of English.

Also, some points like lack of originality. The theme is quite common, not bringing anything new. In addition, I was very worried about the design point, because from the photos, it was clear that there were no repetitions of the plots, but the plant, which was in the same box, was considered with repetition.

Furthermore, the size of the box may have totally limited plant development, so the results are unreliable.

|This point made me decide not to accept the article for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1

In the next section, find the replies.

After reading the article, I come across an interesting work. However, the work lacks a good review of English.

Reply: The manuscript was rewritten and reviewed of language.

Also, some points like lack of originality. The theme is quite common, not bringing anything new. In addition, I was very worried about the design point because, from the photos, it was clear that there were no repetitions of the plots, but the plant, which was in the same box, was considered with repetition.

Reply: Thanks for this comment, the manuscript was rewritten in all sections, and the new version we considered highlights aspects such as urban agriculture, exploitation of organic waste, and your application in a system in the city. In addition, added correlation analyses complemented the understanding of results and allowed relate the morphology characteristics and properties of soil were evaluated. In the case of repetition, in the design experiment, a box is considered an experimental unit, which was used three by condition.

Furthermore, the box size may have limited plant development, so the results are unreliable.

Reply: Thanks for the comments; we found a job the Wenshun Jiang et al. 2013 described the analyses of space described as “narrow” the authors tested it and demonstrated that the space narrow affected the development of plants maize, but also used as a control the normal space recommended which was 0.54m X 0.27m X 1.00m; however, our dimensions were 0.5m x .30m x .50m, obtained plants of >2.90 m. In addition, I added a supplementary figure that showed the root formed in our system proposal.

|This point made me decide not to accept the article for publication.

 

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript had studied the effects of the biofertilization of a new backyard system using compost on the sustainable native maize and peanut production. The theme of this manuscript makes sense to some extent. However, there are more problems in the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.

1. The abstract is not corresponding to the conclusion.

2. The introduction of this manuscript does not highlight the main purpose of the study and has poor logic. The line 93-103 of this section is redundant for the introduction.

3. The experimental design, the methods of the analysis index are all not described clearly and not easy to understand. So, the materials and methods are strongly recommended to be rewritten.

4. All figures and tables in the results section are not clear and not easy to understand. It should be suggested to modify deeply.

5. The discussion section should discuss the research results, but many of them do not focus on the research results. Please revise this section deeply.

6. The conclusion section is not focused on the purpose of the manuscript. It should be coincided with the goal of the manuscript.

7. There are still many typing errors in this manuscript, such as upper and lower index, Kg, N-NO3- and etc. please check and revise carefully.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2.

Thank you for the comments; we analyzed all suggestions and performed each of them was added to the manuscript.

The next section found the reply to each comment highlighted in yellow color.

Reviewer 2

This manuscript studied the effects of the biofertilization of a new backyard system using compost on sustainable native maize and peanut production. The theme of this manuscript makes sense to some extent. However, there are more problems in the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.

1. The abstract is not corresponding to the conclusion.

Reply: Thanks for the comment; we have rewritten this section and improved the visualization of the aims and importance of the study.

2. The introduction of this manuscript does not highlight the study's main purpose and has poor logic. Line 93-103 of this section is redundant for the introduction.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; the introduction was rewritten and considered concepts important for the focus on job, such as urban agriculture, sustainability, and exploitation of organic waste and backyard system production.

3. The experimental design and the methods of the analysis index are all not described clearly and are not easy to understand. So, the materials and methods are strongly recommended to be rewritten.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; this section was rewritten. The calculated formulas were presented in the equation graphic, and we rewrote the description method; we added three supplementary figures to illustrate the processed compost, the design backyard system, and the root maize obtained, peanut plants obtained, and cob obtained.

4. All figures and tables in the results section are not clear and not easy to understand. It should be suggested to modify deeply.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; the results section was rewritten, the figures were edited and improved, and were added three supplementary figures that illustrated the compost, root maize, and peanut plants obtained from experiments; in addition, was added a correlation analysis an its figures for relating the morphological characteristics and properties soil.

5. The discussion section should discuss the research results, but many do not focus on the research results. Please revise this section deeply.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; the discussion section was rewritten and edited and improved, considering the order presented of results.

6. The conclusion section is not focused on the manuscript's purpose. It should coincide with the goal of the manuscript.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; the conclusion section was rewritten, considering the abstract and other sections.

7. There are still many typing errors in this manuscript, such as upper and lower index, Kg, N-NO3- etc. please check and revise carefully.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; the manuscript's nomenclature was revised and corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

1.Five months was quite long to prepare the compost, and it could be shorter by introducing aeration and turing.

2. There was a mistake for the concentration of Fe(Table 1), it should be ppm.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3

In the next section, found the replies to your comments.

1.Five months was quite long to prepare the compost, and it could be shorter by introducing aeration and turing.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion, in the manuscript, we added a figure S1 which shows the evidence of the process used and pile method used, and organic waste added, and principally, FigureS1B illustrates how compost has an ash color which is a consequence of the temperature and the composting process in progress.

2. There was a mistake in the concentration of Fe (Table 1); it should be ppm.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion; in the case of Fe, the company fertilab, send us of result in percentage because we reported like this. We could send the report delivered by fertilab as evidence.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear,

After the requests for corrections, all were carried out. ??

In this way the article can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this revision, my concerns have been successfully addressed, and now I recommend its acceptance.