Sustainable and Low-Input Techniques in Mediterranean Greenhouse Vegetable Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-It is necessary to add scientific names to each fruit or vegetable.

-The paragraphs are very long. It is necessary to shorten them.

-The theme contains very simple language. It lacks scientific language.

-Sometimes each text loses context.

-It is necessary to end the article with future perspectives.

-Fix issues in reference section. There are problems with reference managers.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed all your comments and believe they have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our work. Additionally, we are grateful for the PDF version of the manuscript you provided, and we have carefully considered each of your valuable suggestions.

-It is necessary to add scientific names to each fruit or vegetable.

R: Dear Respected Reviewer, as suggested we have added the correct scientific name for each fruit and vegetable discussed in the present review. This significantly improved the scientific rigor of our work.

-The paragraphs are very long. It is necessary to shorten them.

R: We sincerely appreciate for highlighting this aspect. We have split the paragraph for avoiding redundancy and for improving flow and readability. We express our gratitude for highlighting the paragraphs to be split in the manuscript.

-The theme contains very simple language. It lacks scientific language.

R: We have made efforts to address the gap related to the scientific language in our manuscript.

-Sometimes each text loses context.

R: As also outlined by Your valuable comments within the text, we have significantly rearranged various paragraphs for avoiding losing context.

-It is necessary to end the article with future perspectives.

R: We express our gratitude for this comment. We have incorporated the conclusion section in the manuscript. Whitin this specific section, we have discussed about the importance of the Mediterranean greenhouse horticulture focusing on the low input strategies. Additionally, as high recommended, we have included the future perspectives.

-Fix issues in reference section. There are problems with reference managers.

R: Thank you for emphasizing this important aspect. We have now managed the references more effectively by utilizing dedicated software (Mendeley).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authers review highlight the various challenges associated with modern greenhouse production, with a focus on low-input strategies to maintain high production standards while ensuring environmental sustainability，which has important implications for greenhouse development in the Mediterranean region.

I have carefully studied this review and have a few questions I would like to discuss with the authors.

1. For different planting objects, is it more cost-effective to adopt differentiated greenhouse structures or unified greenhouse structures and develop corresponding control systems for different planting objects?

2. China's greenhouse planting area is also among the highest in the world, especially the heat storage greenhouse in northern China, which is also one of the energy-saving greenhouses. I hope the authors will pay attention to research reports in this area.

3. How to achieve energy-saving production through greenhouses in high temperature and high humidity climate environments.

4. Fish-vegetable symbiosis and livestock-vegetable symbiosis technologies are also important production models for greenhouse development. They can effectively recycle fertilizers, water resources, etc., and are also one of the effective ways to reduce production costs and achieve green circulation.

Author Response

Authers review highlight the various challenges associated with modern greenhouse production, with a focus on low-input strategies to maintain high production standards while ensuring environmental sustainability，which has important implications for greenhouse development in the Mediterranean region.

I have carefully studied this review and have a few questions I would like to discuss with the authors.

R: Dear Respected Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate Your careful consideration related to our manuscript. We are sure that addressing to all Your valuable feedbacks significantly improved our manuscript.

1. For different planting objects, is it more cost-effective to adopt differentiated greenhouse structures or unified greenhouse structures and develop corresponding control systems for different planting objects?

R: Thank you for highlighting this important aspect. We have incorporated your comment into the manuscript, specifically in the section titled "2. Different Set-ups of Modern Greenhouses," as it is a crucial consideration for Mediterranean horticulture. We addressed your comment in the following way:

In the Mediterranean region, utilizing a unified greenhouse structure for various crops is both cost-effective and practical, given the region's consistent environmental conditions. This approach offers flexibility in crop rotation and scalability, significantly reducing construction and maintenance costs. While the physical structure remains the same, it's essential to tailor control systems and agricultural practices to meet each crop's specific requirements, including irrigation, pruning, fertilization, and phytosanitary treatments. By integrating smart technologies, these customized systems can efficiently address the diverse needs of different crops within the same greenhouse, promoting sustainable and productive farming.

2. China's greenhouse planting area is also among the highest in the world, especially the heat storage greenhouse in northern China, which is also one of the energy-saving greenhouses. I hope the authors will pay attention to research reports in this area.

R: We agree with your comment that the Chinese greenhouse, particularly the solar type, represents an interesting and innovative model with significant energy-saving potential. To address this valuable feedback, we have included a brief paragraph in the manuscript that provides a comprehensive overview of this specific agricultural technology. However, we would like to emphasize that the primary aim of our manuscript is to offer a detailed review of low-input strategies relevant to Mediterranean greenhouses. In line with this focus, we have provided only a concise description of the Chinese solar greenhouse technology, highlighting its differences from the Mediterranean environment.

“Greenhouse designs encompass various production systems, including low-tech Mediterranean greenhouses—originally low-input but now enhanced with modern technologies—high-tech greenhouses, and the innovative Chinese solar greenhouse (CSG).

[….].

While Mediterranean greenhouses leverage mild winters and high solar radiation for year-round production, the CSG is a major advancement in energy efficiency, de-signed to retain heat and reduce the need for artificial heating adopting renewable source of energy. With a south-facing transparent wall and insulated back wall, it captures solar energy effectively. Recent innovations, such as photovoltaic (PV) greenhouses and improved thermal storage, have further enhanced energy efficiency, positioning China as a leader in sustainable greenhouse technology. While the CSG is a promising model, this review focuses on the Mediterranean greenhouse, which remains a crucial solution for horticultural production in the Mediterranean region.”

3. How to achieve energy-saving production through greenhouses in high temperature and high humidity climate environments.

R: In response to the valuable feedback, we have revised the manuscript to address the gap in optimizing Mediterranean greenhouse technology for managing high-temperature and high-humidity environments. The updated paragraph now highlights key strategies, including the use of heat pumps for dehumidification, natural ventilation, and the role of computational models in fine-tuning these approaches. These additions aim to provide a comprehensive overview of how Mediterranean greenhouses can achieve effective climate control and energy efficiency. Accordingly, we have incorporated the text below.

To achieve energy-saving production in high-temperature and high-humidity climates, particularly in Mediterranean greenhouses, several strategies can be employed. In fact, in high-temperature and high-humidity climates, Mediterranean greenhouses can achieve energy-saving production by leveraging natural heat to re-duce winter heating needs and integrating solar panels to power greenhouse systems. Effective humidity management through optimized ventilation and passive cooling techniques can further enhance efficiency, minimizing the reliance on external energy sources while maintaining optimal growing conditions. A practical example of such efficiency is the use of heat pumps for dehumidification in closed tunnel greenhouses, which are widely employed in Mediterranean protected horticulture. These systems manage high relative humidity by cooling the air to condense moisture and then reheating it before returning it to the greenhouse. Monitoring parameters such as the coefficient of performance (COP) and specific energy consumption (SEC) demonstrates how Mediterranean greenhouses can maintain optimal conditions while improving energy efficiency. Additionally, natural ventilation can significantly enhance climate control and reduce energy consumption. By optimizing the placement and number of vents using a combination of roof and side vents—greenhouses can take advantage of prevailing winds and temperature differ-entials to promote efficient air exchange. Computational models are crucial in devel-oping the best natural ventilation solutions, as they enable precise simulations and adjustments to achieve optimal airflow and climate conditions. This approach not only helps maintain ideal temperature and humidity levels but also reduces reliance on mechanical cooling and ventilation systems, contributing to a more sustainable and cost-effective greenhouse environment. Together, these methods make Mediterranean greenhouses a viable solution for energy-efficient horticulture in challenging climates.

4. Fish-vegetable symbiosis and livestock-vegetable symbiosis technologies are also important production models for greenhouse development. They can effectively recycle fertilizers, water resources, etc., and are also one of the effective ways to reduce production costs and achieve green circulation.

R: We agree that the fish-vegetable symbiosis in aquaponics represents a promising innovation for sustainable production and reducing carbon footprints. We have incorporated this perspective into the Section 3, addressing your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.     Abstract: The description is rather vague, for example, it does not specify which particular methods or techniques are involved in the “low-input strategy”.

2.     Abstract: The sentences like “the aim of the present/this review...” appear twice in the abstract, leading to repetitive expression and making the contribution of the paper unclear. The aim of the present/this review…”.

3.     Introduction: The content is too lengthy and repetitively describes the importance and challenges of greenhouse production.

4.     Line 77-78: Professional terms such as “LCA” lack a brief definition or background explanation.

5.     Line 100-106: Figure 1 does not present the intricate relationship between greenhouse environments and agronomic technologies, which contradicts the statement “agriculture practice”. What is the association of this relationship with these terminologies: greenhouse structures, precision agriculture, automated climate control, innovative irrigation systems, crop simulation models, LCA?

6.     Section 2: When discussing the various modern greenhouse setups, the manuscript primarily describes different types of greenhouses and technologies but lacks a comparative analysis of these technologies, such as their advantages and disadvantages, applicability, economic feasibility, and sustainability.

7.     Section 3: Although the negative economic and environmental impacts of traditional greenhouses are mentioned, there is a lack of in-depth quantitative analysis and support from recent research data.

8.     Lines 216-224: When discussing the role of greenhouses in modern agriculture, the manuscript mentions several different management strategies but does not delve into the actual effects, challenges, and future improvements of these strategies.

9.     Structure: The manuscript lacks a conclusion, fails to provide a comprehensive summary, and does not offer clear recommendations for future research directions.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback. We have carefully addressed all your comments and believe they have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our work.

1. Abstract: The description is rather vague, for example, it does not specify which particular methods or techniques are involved in the “low-input strategy”.

R: Dear Respected Reviewer, we sincerely appreciate you highlighting this aspect. We have now specified the various strategies discussed in the review. This important modification will enhance clarity and help readers engage more directly with the manuscript.

2. Abstract: The sentences like “the aim of the present/this review...” appear twice in the abstract, leading to repetitive expression and making the contribution of the paper unclear. The aim of the present/this review…”.

R: Thank You for noting this issue. We have carefully revised the content to improve the presentation and ensure clarity in our work.

3. Introduction: The content is too lengthy and repetitively describes the importance and challenges of greenhouse production.

R: We agree with Your comment. We have synthesized several paragraphs, accordingly. Furthermore, some sentences have been removed for avoiding redundancy and improving the flow and readability of the section.

4. Line 77-78: Professional terms such as “LCA” lack a brief definition or background explanation.

R: Following your insightful suggestion, we have refined the definition of the LCA term.

5. Line 100-106: Figure 1 does not present the intricate relationship between greenhouse environments and agronomic technologies, which contradicts the statement “agriculture practice”.

R: We agree that the placement of the figure was misleading. Based on your valuable feedback, we have clarified that the purpose of Figure 1 is to summarize the organization of our review more accurately.

What is the association of this relationship with these terminologies: greenhouse structures, precision agriculture, automated climate control, innovative irrigation systems, crop simulation models, LCA?

R: Additionally, in response to your insightful comment, we have added the following paragraph to establish a logical connection between the terms mentioned, as they previously appeared disjointed.

“We underscore that in the realm of low-input strategies and the future of agriculture, greenhouse structures, precision agriculture, automated climate control, and innovative irrigation systems work together to boost resource efficiency and sustainability. Precision agriculture and automated climate control fine-tune environmental conditions and resource use, while advanced irrigation systems reduce water waste. Crop simulation models offer valuable insights for optimizing these practices, and LCA measures their overall environmental impact. Combined, these technologies pave the way for more efficient, sustainable, and resilient agricultural systems.”

6. Section 2: When discussing the various modern greenhouse setups, the manuscript primarily describes different types of greenhouses and technologies but lacks a comparative analysis of these technologies, such as their advantages and disadvantages, applicability, economic feasibility, and sustainability.

R: Thank You for highlighting this aspect. In align with Your comment, we have discussed different drawbacks of the various greenhouse’s setups.

7. Section 3: Although the negative economic and environmental impacts of traditional greenhouses are mentioned, there is a lack of in-depth quantitative analysis and support from recent research data.

R: Dear Respected Reviewer, Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response, we have updated Section 3 to include quantitative data on greenhouse energy consumption and production from agrivoltaics systems. Additionally, we have added details on the extent of greenhouse areas in the EU at the beginning of the section.

8. Lines 216-224: When discussing the role of greenhouses in modern agriculture, the manuscript mentions several different management strategies but does not delve into the actual effects, challenges, and future improvements of these strategies.

R: In response to your insightful feedback, we have thoroughly addressed the effects, challenges, and future improvements of the mentioned strategies in Section 3 and throughout the manuscript.

9. Structure: The manuscript lacks a conclusion, fails to provide a comprehensive summary, and does not offer clear recommendations for future research directions.

R: We sincerely appreciate your feedback on this aspect. In response, we have added a Conclusion section to the manuscript to clearly summarize the overall objectives of our work and outline future perspectives. This section also addresses the current challenges facing modern agriculture.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors listened to the reviewers' comments and made sufficient revisions to the paper, and the current version meets the journal's publication requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision has addressed all the issues.