Compatibility and Possibility of New Ornamental Geophytes for Their Utilization in Landscape Architecture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The flowering time, optimal planting time, flower longevity on the plants, speed of underground bulb sprouting time, and visual quality of bulbous flowers were studied systematically in this research. According to the growth characteristics of bulbous flowers, the author put forward the scheme of optimizing urban landscape with different bulbous flowers flowers. The results have good reference value for urban greening. The research content and level of the paper are suitable for publication in Horticulturae. The comments and suggestions for revision of each part are as follows.

Abstract: The background and purpose of the research should be briefly introduced in Abstract part. Flower names do not have to list all, which can be listed briefly according to plant classification. The growth characteristics of various flowers should be emphatically introduced in t Abstract part and the application scheme should be put forward accordingly.

Introduction: Please add the origin of these bulbous flowers.

Material and Methods:

1.  Figure 1 is not standard, please draw the vertical and horizontal coordinates and scale lines.

2.  Tables 1-5 should be submitted as supplementary materials.

3.  The measurement method is not clearly introduced in “2.3. Measurements”, such as the measurement method of visual quality.

Results:

1.  All tables should be three-wire tables.

2.  Range and standard error don't need to be listed in the Table 6-7. Sample size should be listed in the tables.

3.  Standard deviation and sample size are not given in the table.

4.  Some growth parameters differ significantly between two years, but the reason is not explained. The flowers need to be classified and evaluated according to the growth results.

Discussion: There is no discussion section in the text.

Author Response

The revisions/additions have been highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Reviewer:

The flowering time, optimal planting time, flower longevity on the plants, speed of underground bulb sprouting time, and visual quality of bulbous flowers were studied systematically in this research. According to the growth characteristics of bulbous flowers, the author put forward the scheme of optimizing urban landscape with different bulbous flowers flowers. The results have good reference value for urban greening. The research content and level of the paper are suitable for publication in Horticulturae. The comments and suggestions for revision of each part are as follows.

Authors:

We are thankful to the reviewer for the positive comments.

 

Reviewer:

Abstract: The background and purpose of the research should be briefly introduced in Abstract part. Flower names do not have to list all, which can be listed briefly according to plant classification. The growth characteristics of various flowers should be emphatically introduced in t Abstract part and the application scheme should be put forward accordingly.

Authors:

Done.

 

Reviewer:

Introduction: Please add the origin of these bulbous flowers.

Authors:

We mentioned in the introduction the cosmopolitan diffusion of the geophytes, including the places of origin of the individual species, while in the M&M we cited the origin of the experimented species.

M&M: All the underground organs of the ornamental geophytes were obtained from a specialized producer named Zanbag, in the city of Mahalat, located in the central province of Iran.2. 

 

Reviewer:

Material and Methods:

1. Figure 1 is not standard, please draw the vertical and horizontal coordinates and scale lines.

Authors:

Done

 

Reviewer:

2. Tables 1-5 should be submitted as supplementary materials.

Authors:

Thank you for the suggestion. We moved tables 2 to 5 to the supplementary material and make the referral in the manuscript accordingly. We removed table 1.

 

Reviewer:

3. The measurement method is not clearly introduced in “2.3. Measurements”, such as the measurement method of visual quality.

Authors:

We added the method and the details.

 

Reviewer:

Results:

1. All tables should be three-wire tables.
2. Range and standard error don't need to be listed in the Table 6-7. Sample size should be listed in the tables.

Authors:

Done.

 

Reviewer:

3. Standard deviation and sample size are not given in the table.

Authors:

The standard deviation is shown in Tables 1. Tables 3, 4, 5 report the post-hoc mean comparisons according to the Duncan’s test, more robust than the SD. Sample sizes are added in Tables 3, 4, 5.

No. of geophytes/m2 is shown in Table S2.

 

Reviewer:

4. Some growth parameters differ significantly between two years, but the reason is not explained. The flowers need to be classified and evaluated according to the growth results.

Authors:

The absence of flowering in the first year for the Hedychium coronarium plant can be attributed to improper planting timing. However, even in the second year when planting was done in late winter under cool weather conditions, the lack of flowering persisted. This could be influenced by various factors, including the use of soil with inadequate electrical conductivity. According to Table 7, the number of days from planting to flowering in the second year showed variations for many of the plants studied compared to the first year. Some of these changes can be attributed to the adjusted planting time in the second year. For example, Alstroemeria and Crocosmia aurea plants exhibited significant reductions in the number of days from planting to flowering in the second year. On the other hand, certain plants like Dahlia and Canna had longer flowering times in the second year compared to the first year. This could be due to the need for sufficient root and aboveground organ growth to support flowering.

 

Reviewer:

Discussion: There is no discussion section in the text.

Authors:

Thank you verry much for pointing out this not-covered part. We extended the manuscript by writing a full discussion of the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Compatibility and Possibility of New Ornamental Geophytes for Their Use in Landscape Architecture”. The objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility of cultivating genotypes resistant to decay, determine suitable locations for each plant, produce underground organs from the plants after a period of one to three years (depending on the species), create added value, and explore the potential for sustainable development in resistant to decay bulbous ornamental species regions of Gorgan city's urban landscape. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

- Check the objective of the work. There is no main “goal”. It's just a goal.

- The Summary is very long. I don't think you need to mention the names of all the species in the study.

- Replace keywords present in the Title.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

- There are some important information that need references. To review.

- The objective must be the same as the Summary.

- Reduce the objective, it is very long and makes it difficult for those reading it to understand.

- I suggest creating some hypotheses before describing the objective.

 

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 

- Mention the geographic coordinates of the study location.

- How were the climate data obtained? Was it from a meteorological station located in the study area? To quote.

- Place all climate data within the same Figure.

- Was a physical-chemical analysis of the substrate used performed? If yes, add.

 

RESULTS

 

- Why is this cost information important for this work? Has this been evaluated? The cost may vary between regions. Review whether this information is necessary for the job.

- Add the values of the correlation coefficients in the Figures.

- Text color of black figures.

- Add significance to the coefficients within the regression equations.

- Add X axis title to all Figures with regression.

DISCUSSION

 

- Was the Discussion topic not mentioned?

 

CONCLUSION

 

- Reduce, it's too long.

Author Response

The revisions/additions have been highlighted in green.

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Compatibility and Possibility of New Ornamental Geophytes for Their Use in Landscape Architecture”. The objective of the present study was to assess the feasibility of cultivating genotypes resistant to decay, determine suitable locations for each plant, produce underground organs from the plants after a period of one to three years (depending on the species), create added value, and explore the potential for sustainable development in resistant to decay bulbous ornamental species regions of Gorgan city's urban landscape. The subject of the article is important and has great relevance for the scientific environment of the study area. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in this journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:

Authors: We are thankful to the reviewer for the positive comments.

 

Reviewer:

ABSTRACT

- Check the objective of the work. There is no main “goal”. It's just a goal.

Authors: Thank you for pointing this out, the main objective of the work, added.

 

Reviewer:

- The Summary is very long. I don't think you need to mention the names of all the species in the study.

Authors: We shortened the abstracts and removed the list of names of all the species. We kept the names when mentioning the results.

 

Reviewer:

- Replace keywords present in the Title.

Authors: We substituted the keywords present in the title.

 

Reviewer:

INTRODUCTION

- There are some important information that need references. To review.

Authors:

It was added. We remain available to add more references if the reviewer indicates for which statement they are needed.

 

Reviewer:

- The objective must be the same as the Summary.

Authors:

We made the objective consistent.

 

Reviewer:

- Reduce the objective, it is very long and makes it difficult for those reading it to understand.

Authors:

We emphasized the main objective at the end of the introduction.

 

Reviewer:

- I suggest creating some hypotheses before describing the objective.

Authors:

It was added.

 

Reviewer:

MATERIAL AND METHODS

- Mention the geographic coordinates of the study location.

Authors:

Coordinates are now included at the beginning of the M&M.

 

Reviewer:

- How were the climate data obtained? Was it from a meteorological station located in the study area? To quote.

Authors:

Climatic data was obtained from the meteorological station located in the experimental area. Coordinates added.

 

Reviewer:

- Place all climate data within the same Figure.

Authors:

According to the opinion of other reviewers, it was done in three forms with some changes.

 

Reviewer:

- Was a physical-chemical analysis of the substrate used performed? If yes, add.

 Authors:

A Physical-chemical analysis was in Table 5, now in the supplementary material.

 

Reviewer:

RESULTS

- Why is this cost information important for this work? Has this been evaluated? The cost may vary between regions. Review whether this information is necessary for the job.

Authors:

The reason for the economic evaluation of planting ornamental geophytes in this research is to determine the price for each square meter so that when a designer intends to choose them for a common purpose, they have the ability to choose several possible plants at the same time. Because in all green space projects, one of the main criteria is to calculate the cost per square meter.

 

Reviewer:

- Add the values of the correlation coefficients in the Figures.

Authors:

It was added.

 

Reviewer:

- Text color of black figures.

Authors:

It was added.

 

Reviewer:

- Add significance to the coefficients within the regression equations.

Authors:

Thank you for the reminder. We added the significance to each Figure description in the text.

 

Reviewer:

- Add X axis title to all Figures with regression.

Authors:

It was added.

 

Reviewer:

DISCUSSION

 - Was the Discussion topic not mentioned?

Authors:

 Discussion added.

 

Reviewer:

 CONCLUSION

 - Reduce, it's too long.

Authors:

Conclusion was reduced.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: the abstract is too long. authors may avoid to report all the species and cv adopted reporting only the number. Authors can report species and cultivars names that emerged for one or more parameters studied. Moreover, use geophytes since the beginning so to include all the species studied and not bulbous. 

line 73: plant families should be written in italic

figure 1: plot quality should be improved. Are those the mean values? If there are also max and min values authors should report them. Provides letters for the different pictures and for the third pictures change the title: Rain or precipitation instead of rian. Provides additional information in figure 1 caption

line 122: Captan fungicide, provides for active ingredient, mode of distribution, and factory informations

line 127: explain what diligently means in terms frequency. Moreover were the plot hand weeded? Add informations.

line 128 to 133: add informations about fertilizer product used and/or the precise amount of NPK given (kg ha^-1 or g m^-2)

is not clear if authors water plots during the experiment or not. 

line 164: please descrive precisely  what were the parameters assessed. Is not clear at all.

line 173: Polianthes in italic, correct these type of errors throughout the manuscript 

In my opinion table 1, 2 and table 3 can be joined in just one table resuming all the species properties. Also what is the reason of table 1?

Table 4: is there a specific reason to write months in that format? only Sep, Oct, Nov and so on is not enough?

Table 5: correct title (Soli should be soil), also in my opinion this table should be moved around line 124 where authors describe the soil.

In materials and methods section there is no informations about plants number, plots sizes and experimental design and repetitions. Provide additional informations. Also additional information on assessments conduction is missing. 

line 195: explain what is vase life.

also, call the measurements in the same way throughout the whole manuscript. visual quality, flower longevity on the plant, flowering time, and 164 germination of underground organs in section 2.3 became Bulb sprouting  time, Appearance quality (score) Flowering time and  Vase life in result section. 

Table 8: please change the price unit from dollar tu USD if the price refers to United states dollars. Also authors should introduce in the previous sections all the assessments conducted. In results  section there is table 8 with bulb price with no previous explanation on why this assessment is  being conducted.

In the other tables parameters are analyzed separately for 2019 and 2020 right? So letters should be read in the same column and express differences among entries within the same year right? Please add these informations in the manuscript.

Also i think that authors should perform different analysis (i.e. repeated measures anova) instead of a Duncan Multiple Range Test.

In my opinion the aim of this study is not clear and as a consequence the experimental design and the statistical analysis reported does not provides enough evidence tu support the study hypothesis. Authors should make an effort to improve the clarity of the manuscript and provide an appropriate analysis to demonstrate or highlight which is the most suitable species to introduce in urban landscape in a. sustainable way.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript present several errors. Authors should carefully check and correct them. Also they should make an effort in improving the clarity of methodologies used. 

Author Response

The revisions/additions have been highlighted in blue.

Reviewer 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: the abstract is too long. authors may avoid to report all the species and cv adopted reporting only the number. Authors can report species and cultivars names that emerged for one or more parameters studied. Moreover, use geophytes since the beginning so to include all the species studied and not bulbous. 

Authors:

The abstract was shortened, we removed the list of the species unless necessary for the results presented, we removed the word “bulbous” to use geophytes instead.

 

Reviewer:

line 73: plant families should be written in italic

Authors:

Thank you for correcting this mistake. We changed the family names to italic font

 

Reviewer:

figure 1: plot quality should be improved. Are those the mean values? If there are also max and min values authors should report them. Provides letters for the different pictures and for the third pictures change the title: Rain or precipitation instead of rian. Provides additional information in figure 1 caption

Authors:

 Yes, they are mean values. We added the information.

The word “rian” was changed to “rain”. Thank you for pointing out this error.

 

Reviewer:

line 122: Captan fungicide, provides for active ingredient, mode of distribution, and factory informations

Authors:

We added the information in the text:

Before planting, the soil underwent disinfection using Captan (Orthocid, Aria Chemical Company, Tehran, Iran) fungicide (2g L^-1) for a duration of 20 minutes. The Captan fungicide, belonging to the phthalimide class, possesses both protective and therapeutic effects, suitable for foliar spraying, seed disinfection, and sterilizing ornamental geophytes and soil.

 

Reviewer:

line 127: explain what diligently means in terms frequency. Moreover were the plot hand weeded? Add informations.

Authors:

We intended to say “regularly, according to needs”. Weeding was done by hand. We clarified it in the text.

 

Reviewer:

line 128 to 133: add informations about fertilizer product used and/or the precise amount of NPK given (kg ha^-1 or g m^-2)

Authors:

The dosage was added

 

Reviewer:

is not clear if authors water plots during the experiment or not. 

Authors:

We mentioned irrigation but now we clarified adding: “When the soil was completely dry, the cultivated plants were watered during the growing and testing period”.

 

Reviewer:

line 164: please descrive precisely  what were the parameters assessed. Is not clear at all.

Authors:

We clarified the method and the details.

 

Reviewer:

line 173: Polianthes in italic, correct these type of errors throughout the manuscript 

Authors:

Apologies for missing some italic font in the manuscript. It was corrected.

 

Reviewer:

In my opinion table 1, 2 and table 3 can be joined in just one table resuming all the species properties. Also what is the reason of table 1?

Authors:

Thank you for the comments. As another reviewer noted the overwhelming presence of tables and suggested to move them to the supplementary materials, we moved Table 2 to 5 to the supplementary material and removed table 1.

 

Reviewer:

Table 4: is there a specific reason to write months in that format? only Sep, Oct, Nov and so on is not enough?

Authors:

We removed the hyphens.

 

Reviewer:

Table 5: correct title (Soli should be soil), also in my opinion this table should be moved around line 124 where authors describe the soil.

Authors:

We corrected the misspelling and moved the table to the supplementary material as per the request of another reviewer.

 

Reviewer:

In materials and methods section there is no informations about plants number, plots sizes and experimental design and repetitions. Provide additional informations. Also additional information on assessments conduction is missing. 

Authors: Plants number, plots sizes and experimental design and repetitions added. (in table S2, in table 4, in table 5, in table 6 and in the M&M).

 

Reviewer:

line 195: explain what is vase life.

Authors:

We changed the word “vase life” in line 195 to flower longevity, as the latter is the most accurate term.

 

Reviewer:

also, call the measurements in the same way throughout the whole manuscript. visual quality, flower longevity on the plant, flowering time, and 164 germination of underground organs in section 2.3 became Bulb sprouting  time, Appearance quality (score) Flowering time and  Vase life in result section. 

Authors:

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. We replaced the inconsistent terms.

 

Reviewer:

Table 8: please change the price unit from dollar tu USD if the price refers to United states dollars. Also authors should introduce in the previous sections all the assessments conducted. In results  section there is table 8 with bulb price with no previous explanation on why this assessment is  being conducted.

Authors:

It was added. Explanations were added to the text of the article.

 

Reviewer:

In the other tables parameters are analyzed separately for 2019 and 2020 right? So letters should be read in the same column and express differences among entries within the same year right? Please add these informations in the manuscript.

Authors:

The analyses were conducted considered the years separated. We merged the two tables of the descriptive statistics, so the results are more clear now (Table 1).

 

Reviewer:

Also i think that authors should perform different analysis (i.e. repeated measures anova) instead of a Duncan Multiple Range Test.

Authors:

As we considered the results separated by years, we did not consider the repeated measure analysis necessary. We considered that relevant and appropriate analyses were used. Statistical analyses such as descriptive statistics (for basic description), mean comparisons (significance), correlation coefficients (variable correlation), cluster analyses (grouping of ornamental zoophytes based on variable value), and linear regressions (linear correlation in two years of the experiment) were performed.

 

Reviewer:

In my opinion the aim of this study is not clear and as a consequence the experimental design and the statistical analysis reported does not provides enough evidence tu support the study hypothesis. Authors should make an effort to improve the clarity of the manuscript and provide an appropriate analysis to demonstrate or highlight which is the most suitable species to introduce in urban landscape in a. sustainable way.

Authors:

We have made the effort to increase the clarity of the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewers, we readjusted the tables, and extended the materials and methods to clarify our approach. We used more consistent terminology to avoid confusion.

We are convinced that relevant and appropriate analyses were used. Statistical analyzes such as descriptive statistics (for basic description), mean comparisons (significance), correlation coefficients  (variable correlation), cluster analyses (grouping of ornamental zoophytes based on variable value), and linear regressions (linear correlation in two years of the experiment) were performed. These statistical analyses make us confident in the results obtained.

 

Reviewer:

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript present several errors. Authors should carefully check and correct them. Also they should make an effort in improving the clarity of methodologies used.

Authors:

We completely revised the manuscript for the English language and made the best effort to improve the clarity of the methodology used.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The problem I pointed out has been modified by the author, and it is recommended to accept it after minor modification.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The problem I pointed out has been modified by the author, and it is recommended to accept it after minor modification.

 

Authors

We are thankful to the reviewer for recommending the paper for publication. Minor modifications have been applied to improve the clarity of the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear,

 

The authors largely carried out the previous suggestions. The work has potential for publication.

The only suggestion is to remove the borders on the inside of the Tables.

 

The significance in regression analysis must be added within the equations. See this too.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear,

The authors largely carried out the previous suggestions. The work has potential for publication.

The only suggestion is to remove the borders on the inside of the Tables.

The significance in regression analysis must be added within the equations. See this too.

 

Authors

We are thankful to the reviewer for appreciating our modifications and recommending the paper for publication.

We removed the borders on the inside of the Tables and added the significance in the regression analyses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Materials and methods still lack a section were authors accurately describe experimental design.

table 2: keep the unit USD instead of cent and change the value.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has been improved but efforts are still required to improve manuscript clarity.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Materials and methods still lack a section were authors accurately describe experimental design.

table 2: keep the unit USD instead of cent and change the value.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English has been improved but efforts are still required to improve manuscript clarity.

 

Authors

We are thankful to the reviewer for the comments.

We added the section “Experimental Design” in item 2.4.

We changed to USD in Table 2 the values of the price of each single geophyte.

 

English has been revised again throughout the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf