Amaranth Microgreen Cultivation: Seeding Density, Substrate Type, Electrical Conductivity, and Application Interval of Nutrient Solutions
, Hans Raj Gheyi 2,*, Izaiana dos Santos Barros 1, Edna de Souza Souza 1, Andressa dos Santos Rodrigues 1, Toshik Iarley da Silva 1, Luan Silva Sacramento 1 and Glaucia Silva de Jesus Pereira 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a systematic investigation into amaranth microgreen cultivation, evaluating the effects of seeding density, substrate type, electrical conductivity (EC), and nutrient solution application intervals on yield and water use efficiency. The study is well-structured, the experimental design is sound, and the results are clearly presented. The analysis of nutrient solution application intervals and multi-factor interactions is particularly innovative and holds strong practical relevance. However, several areas can be improved to enhance the clarity and impact of the paper. Detailed suggestions are as follows:
(1) Introduction
The introduction would benefit from a clearer structure based on “limitations of previous studies” followed by “objectives of this study.” The application interval of nutrient solution—one of the study’s most innovative aspects—should be emphasized more prominently. When introducing other variables (e.g., substrate, EC, and seeding density), the novelty of evaluating their interactive effects should be clearly stated.
Moreover, the rationale for selecting amaranth as a model crop should be elaborated. Please explain how it differs from other microgreens and why it warrants special attention in terms of cultivation or market potential.
(2) Environmental Description and Experimental Design
Key environmental parameters are missing. Please include essential details such as photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), photoperiod, temperature, and relative humidity, as they are critical to replicating and interpreting the results.
The description of the split-plot design is unclear. Clarify how main plots (EC levels) and subplots (substrate × seeding density) were arranged. A schematic diagram or a more detailed textual explanation would be helpful. Additionally, indicate whether treatment independence was ensured—for example, through the use of buffer zones or separate irrigation systems.
(3) Data Presentation
-
Figure 1: Add a scale bar and more specific labels indicating treatment combinations (e.g., “CF + 1.0 dS/m + 75 g/m²”). This will improve interpretability.
-
Figure 2: The legend is overly detailed. Simplify it and streamline the use of significance indicators (e.g., use letters consistently and avoid redundancy).
-
Table 1: Significant EC × ST × SD interactions are noted for traits like SFM and SFMY, but not discussed. Interpret these interactions in terms of practical relevance (e.g., identifying optimal combinations for yield and water use).
-
Tables 2 and 3: Include a brief explanation for interpreting R² values (e.g., “R² > 0.75 indicates a good model fit”) to help readers assess model performance.
(4) Substrate Discussion
The discussion on substrate effects should be expanded. For instance, the observation that phenolic foam may restrict root growth could be contextualized by comparing it to the high porosity (>90%) of coconut fiber. Consider also whether coconut fiber may harbor beneficial microbes or growth-promoting compounds, which could further enhance plant performance. These discussions would help clarify the mechanisms underlying substrate-related differences.
(5) Conclusion
The conclusion could be more impactful by explicitly stating the practical implications. For example, highlight findings such as “the combination of coconut fiber and a 1.0 dS/m nutrient solution reduced water use by 50% compared to phenolic foam.”
Consider also suggesting directions for future research, such as testing alternative substrates (e.g., vermiculite, peat) or applying the findings to other microgreen species. It would be helpful to discuss how these results may support commercial microgreen production and contribute to sustainable urban agriculture.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. In this new version, all changes are highlighted in yellow.
|
Comments 1: [The introduction would benefit from a clearer structure based on “limitations of previous studies” followed by “objectives of this study.” The application interval of nutrient solution—one of the study’s most innovative aspects—should be emphasized more prominently. When introducing other variables (e.g., substrate, EC, and seeding density), the novelty of evaluating their interactive effects should be clearly stated. Moreover, the rationale for selecting amaranth as a model crop should be elaborated. Please explain how it differs from other microgreens and why it warrants special attention in terms of cultivation or market potential].
|
|
Response 1: [All items mentioned were promptly added in the Introduction]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 39 and 141].
|
|
Comments 2: [Materials and Methods – Environmental Description and Experimental Design Key environmental parameters are missing. Please include essential details such as photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), photoperiod, temperature, and relative humidity, as they are critical to replicating and interpreting the results].
|
|
Response 2: [The photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) was not measured during the experiment. Other parameters such as temperature and relative humidity data are presented]. Thank you for pointing this out. [These modifications are documented between lines 160 and 162].
|
|
Comments 3: [Materials and Methods – Environmental Description and Experimental Design The description of the split-plot design is unclear. Clarify how main plots (EC levels) and subplots (substrate × seeding density) were arranged. A schematic diagram or a more detailed textual explanation would be helpful. Additionally, indicate whether treatment independence was ensured—for example, through the use of buffer zones or separate irrigation systems].
|
|
Response 3: [A schematic representation of the experimental design has been included]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 169 and 172 and shown in Figure 1, and between lines 223 and 229].
Comments 4: [Figure 1: Add a scale bar and more specific labels indicating treatment combinations (e.g., “CF + 1.0 dS/m + 75 g/m²”). This will improve interpretability].
Response 4: [The authors acknowledge that incorporating the combination of all three evaluated factors in the figure is indeed possible. However, doing so would risk overcrowding the image with excessive text. To enhance the figure's clarity and overall quality, we have opted to increase its size instead]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 5: [Figure 2: The legend is overly detailed. Simplify it and streamline the use of significance indicators (e.g., use letters consistently and avoid redundancy)].
Response 5: [The authors acknowledge that the figure title along with its caption is indeed quite lengthy. However, we believe maintaining this level of detail is necessary to ensure proper interpretation of the figures.]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 6: [Table 1: Significant EC × ST × SD interactions are noted for traits like SFM and SFMY, but not discussed. Interpret these interactions in terms of practical relevance (e.g., identifying optimal combinations for yield and water use)].
Response 6: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented in the Discussion section].
Comments 7: [Tables 2 and 3: Include a brief explanation for interpreting R² values (e.g., “R² > 0.75 indicates a good model fit”) to help readers assess model performance].
Response 7: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented in lines 358 and 400].
Comments 8: [Substrate Discussion The discussion on substrate effects should be expanded. For instance, the observation that phenolic foam may restrict root growth could be contextualized by comparing it to the high porosity (>90%) of coconut fiber. Consider also whether coconut fiber may harbor beneficial microbes or growth-promoting compounds, which could further enhance plant performance. These discussions would help clarify the mechanisms underlying substrate-related differences].
Response 8: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 507 and 513].
Comments 9: [Conclusion The conclusion could be more impactful by explicitly stating the practical implications. For example, highlight findings such as “the combination of coconut fiber and a 1.0 dS/m nutrient solution reduced water use by 50% compared to phenolic foam.”].
Response 9: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 587 and 595].
Comments 10: [Conclusion Consider also suggesting directions for future research, such as testing alternative substrates (e.g., vermiculite, peat) or applying the findings to other microgreen species. It would be helpful to discuss how these results may support commercial microgreen production and contribute to sustainable urban agriculture].
Response 10: [While the results obtained in this study may be applicable to other research contexts, the authors do not consider generalizability to be a primary conclusion of this work]. Thank you for pointing this out.
|
|
|
|
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: (x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. |
|
Response: The manuscript underwent professional editing by a specialized language service in Brazil. Additionally, it was carefully reviewed by the corresponding author, Hans Raj Gheyi. |
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "hortícolae-3710480" must be revised for publication due to significant errors. This study analyzes the impact of different conditions, such as seeding density, substrate type, electrical conductivity, and nutrient solution application intervals, on the cultivation of amaranth microgreens. Important observations include a lack of information in the introduction, a description of methodologies, and references in the materials and methods section, and a rewrite of the conclusions, among others, which the authors should correct before publication. Specific comments follow:
MODIFICATIONS MADE
Abstract
-L15. Enter the acronyms for seeding density (SD), substrate type (ST), electrical conductivity (EC)
-L17. If possible, please indicate how you will modify the EC for each treatment, since it is derived from the addition of nutrients. I consider it important.
-L23. Use the acronym Seedling height (SH) to harmonize with the rest of the text
-L25-27. It explains the results regarding the nutrient solution and the substrate, but says nothing about the seeding density and the application interval of the nutrient solution. Since the study focuses on these four treatments, they should be treated equally, add information from these results.
-L25. (Results obtained reveal that to optimize production nutrient solution should be used) This sentence needs to be more specific, as it is logical in some ways to come to that conclusion.
- L26. Please indicate the degree of significance
- L28 The acronym SD has not been defined. Do it on the Line 15
Introduction
The introduction lacks references regarding electrical conductivity, and since it is something relevant, studies regarding this should be addressed. The use of phenolic foam is not mentioned throughout the introduction. If there are no studies with this material, highlight why it is being used in the present study.
- L38. Enter the acronym for substrate type (ST) and seeding density (SD)
- L43-44. Use the acronym for substrate type (ST)
- L45, 46, 53, 56,62, 65, 69. Use the acronym for seeding density (SD).
- L39-41. You should reference this statement or place it as a hypothesis.
- L48-50. References for this statement.
- L53. Enter the acronym for electrical conductivity (EC)
- L50-55. I consider that this as an objective of the study should be in the final part of the introduction, and it is already mentioned in the line 68-70.
- L60. Set the degree of significance
- L70, 141Use the acronym for electrical conductivity (EC)
Materials and methods
I consider it appropriate to include the methodology for determining the pH and EC of coconut fiber and phenolic foam in the materials and methods.
Section 2.2 lacks references for the different determinations; please include them. Indicate which statistical software was used to perform the analyses and graphs.
- L79. Enter DHT11 sensor information (provider, city, and country).
- L83-85. I consider it appropriate to place the minimum and maximum values
- L93-100. I consider that you should include the procedure to ensure that the nutrient solutions had that electrical conductivity. What equipment did you use?
- L101. I consider it appropriate to change densities to SD
- L102. Correct superscript 2 (201.25 cm2)
- L117. Enter the pump details (company, city and country)
- L128-129. Explain in more detail how these two measurements were made, what equipment was used, what actions were taken, etc.
- L130-132. Please indicate the reference of this methodology.
- L142. Enter the acronym for seeding density (SD)
Results and Discussion
I believe a further literature review is needed to compare the treatments used in this experiment and the assumed variables, since the studies mentioned are few and do not address all the indicators used in the present study. If there are no similar studies for a parameter, it is good to mention it in the text.
- L147-148. There are treatments where the visual appearance of the amaranth microgreens produced in the 100 g m-2 treatment is greater, so the statement must be more specific or include this treatment.
- L147. Only use the acronym for seeding density (SD).
Figure 1. I consider that the figure caption should be modified, including the acronyms SD, ST and EC. I do not think it is necessary to include the treatment levels, as in Table 1, or in any case, include all the levels of all the treatments.
- L145-273. This section of the results and discussion lacks similar studies where a comparison can be made.
- L154-156. Use the acronyms that already exist
- L191, 243. Set the degree of significance
Figure 2. In line 214 use de acronyms SH.
Table 2. Indicate the meaning of acronyms CF and PF. Why were the same parameters not included in Table 2 as in Table 3?
Table 3. Indicate the meaning of acronyms CF and PF
- L335-336. Set the degree of significance
Conclusions
The conclusions are very general and are recommendations. You should try to conclude why you arrived at these recommendations based on the results obtained in the experiment. In addition, you should include a future perspective based on this experiment.
NEW COMMENTS
Authors have to put in the text the answer they put in the cover letter.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. In this new version, all changes are highlighted in yellow.
|
Comments 1: [Abstract: -L15. Enter the acronyms for seeding density (SD), substrate type (ST), electrical conductivity (EC) -L23. Use the acronym Seedling height (SH) to harmonize with the rest of the text
Response 1: [All acronyms mentioned were promptly added in the Abstract]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
Comments 2: [Abstract: L17. If possible, please indicate how you will modify the EC for each treatment, since it is derived from the addition of nutrients. I consider it important].
Response 2: [Regarding EC levels, the abstract cannot provide further detail. The EC of nutrient solutions and/or water represents the main treatment factor. Meanwhile, seeding densities and substrate types were maintained on the same cultivation bench under identical EC conditions]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 3: [Abstract: -L25. (Results obtained reveal that to optimize production nutrient solution should be used) This sentence needs to be more specific, as it is logical in some ways to come to that conclusion].
Response 3: [The item mentioned was promptly modified]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [This modification is documented between lines 25 and 26].
Comments 4: [Abstract: -L25-27. It explains the results regarding the nutrient solution and the substrate, but says nothing about the seeding density and the application interval of the nutrient solution. Since the study focuses on these four treatments, they should be treated equally, add information from these results].
Response 4: [Regarding the results presented in the abstract, the authors chose to highlight only the substrate types and nutrient solution responses. This decision was based on the superior performance of coconut fiber substrate compared to phenolic foam, as well as amaranth's enhanced growth with nutrient solutions in relation to cultivation only with water. Since most variables showed triple interactions, the optimal seeding densities varied depending on both EC levels and substrate type. Regarding nutrient solution/water application intervals, all three factors were analyzed separately within each interval. Consequently, we concluded the abstract with general cultivation recommendations for amaranth based on the most favorable combinations of the analyzed factors]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 5: [The introduction lacks references regarding electrical conductivity, and since it is something relevant, studies regarding this should be addressed. The use of phenolic foam is not mentioned throughout the introduction. If there are no studies with this material, highlight why it is being used in the present study. - L38. Enter the acronym for substrate type (ST) and seeding density (SD) - L43-44. Use the acronym for substrate type (ST) - L45, 46, 53, 56,62, 65, 69. Use the acronym for seeding density (SD). - L39-41. You should reference this statement or place it as a hypothesis. - L48-50. References for this statement. - L53. Enter the acronym for electrical conductivity (EC) - L50-55. I consider that this as an objective of the study should be in the final part of the introduction, and it is already mentioned in the line 68-70. - L60. Set the degree of significance
|
|
Response 5: [All items mentioned were promptly added in the Introduction]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 38 and 144].
|
|
Comments 6: [Materials and Methods I consider it appropriate to include the methodology for determining the pH and EC of coconut fiber and phenolic foam in the materials and methods]
|
|
Response 6: [The EC and pH values were obtained from the manufacturers' product specifications]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 7: [Materials and Methods - L79. Enter DHT11 sensor information (provider, city, and country - L83-85. I consider it appropriate to place the minimum and maximum values]
Response 7: [Such items mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 157 and 162].
Comments 8: [Materials and Methods - L93-100. I consider that you should include the procedure to ensure that the nutrient solutions had that electrical conductivity. What equipment did you use?]
|
|
Response 8: [Such item mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 181 and 182].
|
|
Comments 9: [Materials and Methods - L101. I consider it appropriate to change densities to SD - L102. Correct superscript 2 (201.25 cm2) - L117. Enter the pump details (company, city and country)]
|
|
Response 9: [Such items mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented in lines 193, 194, and 213].
|
|
Comments 10: [Materials and Methods L128-129. Explain in more detail how these two measurements were made, what equipment was used, what actions were taken, etc.].
|
|
Response 10: [Such items mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 234 and 236].
|
|
Comments 11: [Materials and Methods Section 2.2 lacks references for the different determinations; please include them. Indicate which statistical software was used to perform the analyses and graphs].
|
|
Response 11: [Such items mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 254 and 255].
Comments 12: [Results and Discussion I believe a further literature review is needed to compare the treatments used in this experiment and the assumed variables, since the studies mentioned are few and do not address all the indicators used in the present study. If there are no similar studies for a parameter, it is good to mention it in the text - L145-273. This section of the results and discussion lacks similar studies where a comparison can be made].
Response 12: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [To facilitate discussion of the results, we divided the original combined 'Results and Discussion' section into two separate sections: 3. Results and 4. Discussion].
Comments 13: [Results and Discussion - L147-148. There are treatments where the visual appearance of the amaranth microgreens produced in the 100 g m-2 treatment is greater, so the statement must be more specific or include this treatment. - L147. Only use the acronym for seeding density (SD)].
|
|
Response 13: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 257 and 261].
Comments 14: [Results and Discussion Figure 1. I consider that the figure caption should be modified, including the acronyms SD, ST and EC. I do not think it is necessary to include the treatment levels, as in Table 1, or in any case, include all the levels of all the treatments].
Response 14: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 264 and 267].
Comments 15: [Results and Discussion - L154-156. Use the acronyms that already exist - L191, 243. Set the degree of significance Figure 2. In line 214 use de acronyms SH Table 2. Indicate the meaning of acronyms CF and PF Table 3. Indicate the meaning of acronyms CF and PF - L335-336. Set the degree of significance].
Response 15: [Thes suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
Comments 16: [Results and Discussion Why were the same parameters not included in Table 2 as in Table 3?].
Response 16: [The data in Tables 2 and 3 specifically highlight variables demonstrating triple interactions for experiments with 2-h and 4-h solution application intervals, respectively. Table 2 (2-h interval) reveals triple interactions only for SFM and SFMY, while Table 3 (4-h interval) shows significant triple interaction effects on SFM, SFMY, SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP.]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 17: [Conclusions The conclusions are very general and are recommendations. You should try to conclude why you arrived at these recommendations based on the results obtained in the experiment. In addition, you should include a future perspective based on this experiment].
Response 17: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 587 and 595].
|
|
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: (x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. |
|
Response: Thank you for the comments. The manuscript underwent professional editing by a specialized language service in Brazil. Additionally, it was carefully reviewed by the corresponding author, Hans Raj Gheyi. |
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsoverall
- Well-structured, clearly indicating the purpose of the study, experimental design and main findings.
- Clearly reveals the optimal production recommendations (80 g m?2 seeding density, coconut fiber substrate, 1.0 dS m?1 EC, 2-hour interval)..
Abstract
- It is recommended to simplify the first half of the description to avoid too many technical details (such as partition design details) that affect readability.
- Specific data on the "main result improvement" (such as the percentage of SFM or SFMY improvement) can be added to highlight the research contribution.
Introduction
- In lines 43-46, there are a lot of references, but the sentences are a bit lengthy. You can try to merge and organize them.
- The last paragraph mentions that this study tested "Asteca amaranth" and suggests adding its characteristics (such as commonality or commercial potential) to strengthen the rationality of the selection of research species.
- Add some more references after 2023.
Materials and Methods
- The water consumption records and control mechanisms (such as time calibration or flow uniformity) of each fertilization frequency test can be further strengthened to increase reproducibility.
- It is recommended to clearly state whether the two tests are conducted independently or repeated observations of the same batch..
Results& Discussion
- The paragraph structure is a bit dense. It is recommended to divide the main results (such as the impact of each factor on SFM and SDMY) into sections and add subheadings to strengthen the reading orientation.
- Some paragraphs are too long, and the data presentation and discussion are mixed (such as lines 289-310). It is recommended to distinguish the data and explanation parts.
- Although water productivity is mentioned, the economic benefits are not further discussed. If the potential output value per liter of nutrient solution is supplemented, it will be more valuable for application.
Conclusion
- It is possible to add "the extension of this result to other micro-vegetables" and "suggestions for subsequent experiments", such as the resilience mechanism under different climates or other feasible substrate types (such as the application of biochar substrate).
- If the optimal production conditions can be summarized in a chart (such as SH, SFM, SDM corresponding to fertilization and substrate scenarios), it will help readers quickly grasp the application inform
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. In this new version, all changes are highlighted in yellow.
|
Comments 1: [Abstract: It is recommended to simplify the first half of the description to avoid too many technical details (such as partition design details) that affect readability].
Response 1: [The authors consider the presentation of the experimental design to be both simplified and essential for proper understanding of the study]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 2: [Abstract: Specific data on the "main result improvement" (such as the percentage of SFM or SFMY improvement) can be added to highlight the research contribution].
Response 2: [Since most variables showed triple interactions, quantifying precise percentages of gain/loss for SFM or SFMY in the abstract is impractical. Optimal seeding densities demonstrated context-dependent responses, varying significantly with both EC levels and substrate type. Consequently, we concluded the abstract with general cultivation recommendations for amaranth based on the most favorable combinations of the analyzed factors]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 3: [In lines 43-46, there are a lot of references, but the sentences are a bit lengthy. You can try to merge and organize them. The last paragraph mentions that this study tested "Asteca amaranth" and suggests adding its characteristics (such as commonality or commercial potential) to strengthen the rationality of the selection of research species. Add some more references after 2023] |
|
|
|
Response 3: [All items mentioned were promptly added in the Introduction]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 38 and 141].
|
|
Comments 4: [Materials and Methods It is recommended to clearly state whether the two tests are conducted independently or repeated observations of the same batch].
|
|
Response 4: [A schematic representation of the experimental design has been included]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 169 and 172 and shown in Figure 1].
|
|
Comments 5: [Materials and Methods Control mechanisms (such as time calibration or flow uniformity) of each fertilization frequency test can be further strengthened to increase reproducibility].
|
|
Response 5: [The item mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 220 and 229].
|
|
Comments 6: [Materials and Methods The water consumption records].
|
|
Response 6: [The item mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 246 and 248].
Comments 7: [Results & Discussion The paragraph structure is a bit dense. It is recommended to divide the main results (such as the impact of each factor on SFM and SDMY) into sections and add subheadings to strengthen the reading orientation].
Response 7: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 378 and 390 and between 407 and 419].
Comments 8: [Results & Discussion 11. Some paragraphs are too long, and the data presentation and discussion are mixed (such as lines 289-310). It is recommended to distinguish the data and explanation parts].
Response 8: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [To facilitate discussion of the results, we divided the original combined 'Results and Discussion' section into two separate sections: 3. Results and 4. Discussion].
Comments 9: [Results & Discussion Although water productivity is mentioned, the economic benefits are not further discussed. If the potential output value per liter of nutrient solution is supplemented, it will be more valuable for application].
Response 9: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. [These modifications are documented between lines 569 and 585].
Comments 10: [Conclusion It is possible to add "the extension of this result to other micro-vegetables" and "suggestions for subsequent experiments", such as the resilience mechanism under different climates or other feasible substrate types (such as the application of biochar substrate).
Response 10: [While the results obtained in this study may be applicable to other research contexts, the authors do not consider generalizability to be a primary conclusion of this work]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 11: [Conclusion If the optimal production conditions can be summarized in a chart (such as SH, SFM, SDM corresponding to fertilization and substrate scenarios), it will help readers quickly grasp the application inform].
Response 11: [We made this chart summary]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
|
|
|
|
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
|
Point 1: (x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. |
|
Response: The manuscript underwent professional editing by a specialized language service in Brazil. Additionally, it was carefully reviewed by the corresponding author, Hans Raj Gheyi. |
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article "hortoculturae-3710480" must be revised for publication due to minor errors. This study analyzes the impact of different conditions, such as seeding density, substrate type, electrical conductivity, and nutrient solution application intervals, on the cultivation of amaranth microgreens. Observations include a lack of references in the materials and methods section, and a rewrite of the conclusions, among others, which the authors should correct before publication. Specific comments follow:
MODIFICATIONS MADE
Abstract
Consider that the summary meets the requirements since it gives an overview of the study and the results obtained.
Introduction
-L51-53 Place the reference of this statement
Please try to respond to each comment with the changes made, line by line, for example, what's what about this:
- L39-41. You should reference this statement or use it as a hypothesis.
- L48-50. References for this statement.
- L50-55. I consider that this as an objective of the study should be in the final part of the introduction, and it is already mentioned in the line 68-70.
Please mention on which lines these changes were addressed.
Materials and methods
L164, 181. Use the acronym for electrical conductivity (EC)
L166, 167. Use only the acronyms ST and SD
This comment was not answered adequately, please review:
Section 2.2 lacks references for the different determinations; please include them.
This comment was not answered adequately, please review:
Figure 1. I consider that the figure caption should be modified, including the acronyms SD, ST and EC.
Results
L268-270. Use only the acronyms already entered
L364, 365, 457, 459, 519, 540, 592. mentions the level of significance
According to their responses: Table 2 (2-hour interval) reveals triple interactions only for SFM and SFMY, while Table 3 (4-hour interval) shows significant triple interaction effects for SFM, SFMY, SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP. Does this mean that there were no triple interactions in the 4-hour interval for SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP? Although there was no triple interaction, I consider it appropriate to place the results in the table.
Discussion
I believe that adequate information has been added to improve the discussion of the results, as well as appropriate references.
Conclusions
I think the conclusions are still very general. It's good to address the best results for each variable—that is, EC, substrate, density, and irrigation interval—but, for example, how did it come to the conclusion that a density of 80 g m-2 is the most appropriate? I recommend explaining the reason for this result, as well as the others. It's important to relate what is said in the summary to the conclusion.
-L587. I recommend removing “electrical conductivity”
NEW COMMENTS
Authors have to put in the text the answer they put in the cover letter.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
|
|
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments 1: [Introduction: -L51-53 Place the reference of this statement]
Response 1: [As suggested, citations were inserted on line 54]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
Comments 2: [Introduction: L39-41. You should reference this statement or use it as a hypothesis - L48-50. References for this statement]
Response 2: [The referenced lines relate to the manuscript's original version. As suggested, citations were inserted on line 54]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
Comments 3: [Introduction: - L50-55. I consider that this as an objective of the study should be in the final part of the introduction, and it is already mentioned in the line 68-70]
Response 3: [The referenced lines relate to the manuscript's original version. In the current version, the text is located between lines 124 and 127. This paragraph already mentions that the species used in the study was amaranth. Here, we aimed to present existing research on amaranth microgreens, covering different aspects such as substrate type, seeding density, etc. Finally, we present the objectives of study in lines 143 and 145]. Thank you for pointing this out.
|
|
Comments 4: [Materials and Methods L164, 181. Use the acronym for electrical conductivity (EC) L166, 167. Use only the acronyms ST and SD].
|
|
Response 4: [Since this is a new section, in the first citation we kept the full names along with their respective abbreviations]. Thank you for pointing this out.
|
|
Comments 5: [Materials and Methods This comment was not answered adequately, please review: Section 2.2 lacks references for the different determinations; please include them].
|
|
Response 5: [The suggestions mentioned were promptly added in lines 242 and 243]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment.
Comments 6: [Materials and Methods This comment was not answered adequately, please review: Figure 1. I consider that the figure caption should be modified, including the acronyms SD, ST and EC].
|
|
Response 6: [In the current version, this appears as Figure 2. We authors believe it is pertinent to maintain the full names of variation sources along with their respective abbreviations to facilitate reader. This way Figure become auto explicative]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 7: [Results L268-270. Use only the acronyms already entered].
Response 7: [Since this is a new section, in the first citation we kept the full names along with their respective abbreviations]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 8: [Results L364, 365, 457, 459, 519, 540, 592. mentions the level of significance]
Response 8: [For lines 364, 365, 457, and 459, this refers to the data presented in Table 3, which shows the mean comparisons. The footnote describes the statistical method used for these comparisons. Throughout the text discussion, we authors consider it unnecessary to reiterate the significance levels, as this information is already provided in the Materials and Methods section in the line 252. For lines 519 and 540, this concerns citation data from other authors. Therefore, we emphasize that including significance levels is unnecessary. Finally, line 592 corresponds to the Conclusions section, which confirms that including significance levels at this stage would not be appropriate.]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 9: [Results According to their responses: Table 2 (2-hour interval) reveals triple interactions only for SFM and SFMY, while Table 3 (4-hour interval) shows significant triple interaction effects for SFM, SFMY, SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP. Does this mean that there were no triple interactions in the 4-hour interval for SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP? Although there was no triple interaction, I consider it appropriate to place the results in the table].
Response 9: [The data in Tables 2 and 3 specifically highlight variables demonstrating triple interactions for experiments with 2-h and 4-h solution application intervals, respectively. Table 2 (2-h interval) reveals triple interactions only for SFM and SFMY, while Table 3 (4-h interval) shows significant triple interaction effects on SFM, SFMY, SDM, SDMY, WCS, and WP. Including means for variables without triple interactions we think is unnecessary, as the double interactions and isolated effects are already presented in Figure 3]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 10: [Conclusions -L587. I recommend removing electrical conductivity
Response 10: [Since this is a new section, in the first citation we kept the full name along with their respective abbreviation]. Thank you for pointing this out.
Comments 11: [Conclusions I think the conclusions are still very general. It's good to address the best results for each variable that is, EC, substrate, density, and irrigation interval but, for example, how did it come to the conclusion that a density of 80 g m-2 is the most appropriate? I recommend explaining the reason for this result, as well as the others. It's important to relate what is said in the summary to the conclusion].
Response 11: [The suggestion mentioned was promptly added in lines 586 and 590]. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. |
