Review Reports - Allelopathic Interactions in Vegetable Production Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I made some general comments and some suggestions to improve the quality of your manuscript.

General comments: the review is intitled “Allelopathic interactions in vegetable production systems: current knowledge and future perspectives”. It addresses the topic in an updated manner, incorporating both classical references and future perspectives. The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of the search for more sustainable solutions with reduced reliance on conventional chemical inputs. In vegetable production systems, knowledge has advanced beyond the simple release/exudation of allelochemicals, also considering the role of plant residues from cover crops and their associated effects.

Introduction: it is clear, introducing the main topic of the review. There is a mention about the definition of allelopathy and its application.

One important aspect considered by authors is compare competition by resources when discussing allelopathy; one remove something from the environment and the other brings something that can affect another plant (allelopathy).

Page 4, Line 133 – types of allelochemicals are presented – very good!

Allelopathy is a highly relevant topic. However, its practical application still faces important bottlenecks, as mentioned by the authors, particularly regarding the difficulty in reproducing results obtained under controlled conditions in field environments. In my view, a key issue lies in the role of soil and its microbial communities, which interact with and contribute to the transformation of compounds exuded by plant roots or, especially, those released during the decomposition of crop residues. Studies conducted under controlled conditions should perhaps place greater emphasis on this aspect. Although the review addresses this point, it could be further emphasized.

Page 9, Line 262-276 – aqueous extracts can be interesting for investigating initially, but once they are the sum of so many things, without a deep look, it is not possible to say which compound is really causing the allelochemical effect. Also consider an chemical identification of the compound.

One point that could be explored better (maybe at the conclusions) is how biotechnology can help us to use allelopathy in the future? Could CRISPR help to breed crops for high allelochemicals production aiming to suppress weeds? Any opinion about that?

The tables and figures are clear and provide consistent information that supports the review.

Conclusions – it is to long; should be more emphatic and direct. For example, page 21, line 620: “Allelopathy is the ecological interaction….” This was already explained before, not needed to write again.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to present to you the revised version of the manuscript titled „Allelopathic Interactions in Crop Production Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives,” authored by Tanase Beatrice Elena, Ana-Maria-Roxana Istrate, and Vasile Stoleru, with ID horticulturae-4175161.

Thank you once again for your interest in our work. We also thank you for your patience and careful review of our manuscript, as well as for the ideas and corrections provided, which will improve this manuscript. We hope we have addressed all of the comments and review recommendations. We are also responding to your comments in this letter.

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: General comments: the review is intitled “Allelopathic interactions in vegetable production systems: current knowledge and future perspectives”. It addresses the topic in an updated manner, incorporating both classical references and future perspectives. The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of the search for more sustainable solutions with reduced reliance on conventional chemical inputs. In vegetable production systems, knowledge has advanced beyond the simple release/exudation of allelochemicals, also considering the role of plant residues from cover crops and their associated effects.

Introduction: it is clear, introducing the main topic of the review. There is a mention about the definition of allelopathy and its application.

Page 4, Line 133 – types of allelochemicals are presented – very good!

Answer: I would like to thank the reviewer for his comments and for his appreciation of the details provided in the paper by my co-authors and me.

Comment: Allelopathy is a highly relevant topic. However, its practical application still faces important bottlenecks, as mentioned by the authors, particularly regarding the difficulty in reproducing results obtained under controlled conditions in field environments. In my view, a key issue lies in the role of soil and its microbial communities, which interact with and contribute to the transformation of compounds exuded by plant roots or, especially, those released during the decomposition of crop residues. Studies conducted under controlled conditions should perhaps place greater emphasis on this aspect. Although the review addresses this point, it could be further emphasized.

Answer: We understand your comment and appreciate your objection; however, the paragraph in question lists several compounds and substances that could affect weeds, and according to the research reviewed in the article on aqueous extracts, no single compound was mentioned.

Regarding your question, I prefer to answer it here. I believe that biotechnology could play an important role in harnessing the phenomenon of allelopathy. Modern gene-editing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas, could enable modification of genes involved in the synthesis of secondary metabolites that confer allelopathic effects. Thus, we could obtain plant varieties capable of producing larger quantities of allelochemicals or releasing them more efficiently into the rhizosphere, contributing to the natural suppression of weeds. However, the application of these strategies requires careful evaluation and a deeper understanding of soil–plant–microorganism interactions.

Comment: The tables and figures are clear and provide consistent information that supports the review.

Conclusions – it is to long; should be more emphatic and direct. For example, page 21, line 620: “Allelopathy is the ecological interaction….” This was already explained before, not needed to write again.

Answer: Thank you for your feedback on the figures and tables. As for the conclusions, I tried to highlight all the key points in the paper. However, you’re right—the conclusions were quite lengthy, so I’ve made some improvements. I’ve rewritten them to be more concise.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Allelopathic Interactions in Vegetable Production Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives" reviews allelopathy for sustainable weed control in vegetable crops, covering mechanisms, experimental approaches, and challenges.

The manuscript is generally well-written but needs some revisions:

The objective is not well clarified and the novelty compared to existing literature reviews is not adequately defined.
Some grammatical errors need correction (e.g., sorgoleon).
Add references to tables and format according to journal guideline.
Include and discuss recent relevant studies on bioherbicides, including optimization via formulation and encapsulation methods, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12668-025-02102-2, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026121942400070X, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669020302648, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-10405-y.
Minor English language revision is needed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor revision

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: 1. The objective is not well clarified and the novelty compared to existing literature reviews is not adequately defined.

Answer: I understand your comment, but the topic of the paper was defined in the introduction, on page 3, lines 92 – 96. To emphasize this point, I have also revised the abstract and included a more concise summary of the paper’s content on page 1, lines 19 – 26.

Comment: 2. Some grammatical errors need correction (e.g., sorgoleon).

Answer: Indeed, there was a grammatical error regarding the word “sorgoleonă.” I’ve corrected it by changing the word on page 11, line 364.

Comment: 3. Add references to tables and format according to journal guideline.

Answer: I would like to thank you for your comment. Indeed, there were some errors in the table formatting; I have corrected them in accordance with the journal’s template. For the references, each table lists its references in the table title. Table 7 lacked references; I have added them. Thank you very much for your observation.

Comment: 4. Include and discuss recent relevant studies on bioherbicides, including optimization via formulation and encapsulation methods, e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12668-025-02102-2, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026121942400070X, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0926669020302648, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-10405-y.

Answer: To address your suggestion, I have the option of choosing whether or not to include the studies you suggested. I quote: “(IV) If the reviewer(s) has (have) recommended specific references, critically evaluate them to ensure that their inclusion would improve the quality of your manuscript. If you consider these references unnecessary, you should not include them.” I have chosen to include one study in the references of the paper, from those you mentioned, namely “The Green Herbicide Revolution: Development and Characterization of a Nanoemulsion Loaded with Eucalyptus globulus Essential Oil for Sustainable Weed Control” on page 9, line 311, in the paragraph about essential oils. I should mention that the other studies are also very interesting, but I do not believe they are suitable for my paper.

Comment: 5. Minor English language revision is needed.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. I have reviewed the document and made some minor improvements to the wording throughout.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

he manuscript entitled: ‘Allelopathic Interactions in Vegetable Production Systems: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives’ is a comprehensive review on allelopathy of Vegetable Systems. In my opinion, such a detailed review will certainly be of great interest to researchers around the world as the paper addresses the highly important topic of the sustainable agriculture. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal after minor revision.

My comments:

Keywords, allelopathic substances change to “allelochemical”

The quality of Figure 1 needs to be improved.

Table 1and others, place the reference numbers in the corresponding parts of the table content.

Figure 2, This image takes up too much page space; please optimize it or convert it into a table.

Figure 3, 4 and 5, these images might be presented in a better way.

Conclusions, this section can be condensed to list the most important viewpoints of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: 1. Keywords, allelopathic substances change to “allelochemical”

Answer: I have replaced the term “allelopathic substances” with “allelochemicals.” It is highlighted in the text in the reference color (line 27).

Comment: 2. The quality of Figure 1 needs to be improved.

Answer: Thank you for your feedback. We have improved the image quality. The details in the image are now clearer, and the text is easier to read. The image in the text is highlighted in the reference color (line 104).

Comment: 3. Table 1and others, place the reference numbers in the corresponding parts of the table content.

Answer: The author chose to include the references for each table in this manner because the data presented are of a general nature for each of the studies reviewed; specific data were not provided for each reference. More specifically, the information in the table is taken from general studies and synthesized in the author’s table, where the data were extracted from specific references; for example, in Table 6, line 441, the references were cited for each row in the table.

Comment: 4. Figure 2, This image takes up too much page space; please optimize it or convert it into a table.

Answer: I have modified the diagram and converted it into an image, improving its quality to ensure there are no issues with the content. The details in the image are clear, and the text is easy to read. The image is highlighted in the reference color (line 265).

Comment: 5. Figure 3, 4 and 5, these images might be presented in a better way.

Answer: I have revised the diagrams and added color to improve their visual appeal. I have also improved the quality to ensure there are no issues with the content. The details in the image are clear, and the text is easy to read. The images are highlighted in the reference color (lines 463, 476, 488).

Comment: 6. Conclusions, this section can be condensed to list the most important viewpoints of this paper.

Answer: Thank you for your comment. I brought this point to the attention of the other reviewers as well, so I revised the conclusions accordingly and condensed the information.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To the authors
The review "Allelopathic Interactions in Vegetable Production Systems: 2 Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives" is a good contribution to the field of allelopathy, with a broad approach to the subject. It addresses the benefits and contradictions of using plant extracts and the modes of action of allelochemicals. The review is organized and easy to read, and also presents different figures and tables with essential information on the subject. The item "Challenges, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Research Directions" is very interesting, as it highlights knowledge gaps and research opportunities in allelopathy.

I suggest some changes, as follows:
In the paragraph between lines 54 and 56, complete the sentence, explaining why these species are considered problematic.
In the text and table captions, replace the word "substances" with "compounds" or "allelochemicals".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: The review "Allelopathic Interactions in Vegetable Production Systems: 2 Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives" is a good contribution to the field of allelopathy, with a broad approach to the subject. It addresses the benefits and contradictions of using plant extracts and the modes of action of allelochemicals. The review is organized and easy to read, and also presents different figures and tables with essential information on the subject. The item "Challenges, Knowledge Gaps, and Future Research Directions" is very interesting, as it highlights knowledge gaps and research opportunities in allelopathy.

Answer: Thank you for your kind words about the paper; I’m glad it has sparked your interest in the field of allopathy.

Comment: In the paragraph between lines 54 and 56, complete the sentence, explaining why these species are considered problematic.

Answer: I have added information about these plants that supports the claim that they are problematic (lines 55–60, page 2).

Comment: In the text and table captions, replace the word "substances" with "compounds" or "allelochemicals".

Answer: I have replaced the word "substance" with "compounds" where I thought it was appropriate based on the description in the text (lines 305, 341, 353, 389, 401, 422, 502). In some cases, the term "substances" is more appropriate.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The topic chosen for this article is undeniably important.

However, in addition to some observations I make about the manuscript, I would like to clarify a few points:

1 - Although the authors have mentioned several bioactive compounds, it seems to me that some basic components for a review are missing: e.g.

Methodology: explaining how the search was conducted, databases consulted, and period covered by the review
Discussion Section

Introduction

2 - Lines 43 - 47: I suggest providing supporting evidence with reference(s).

3 - Line 101: The year of the cited reference, "Rice," is missing...

4 - Lines 200 - 217: I suggest adding a reference(s).

5 - Lines 295 – 302: I suggest adding a reference(s).

6 - Line 438: correction of the word "methyl".

Figures

7 - I suggest improving the quality of figures 3, 4, and 5.

Conclusion

8 - I suggest this section be more concise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5,

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: Dear Authors, the topic chosen for this article is undeniably important. However, in addition to some observations I make about the manuscript, I would like to clarify a few points:

1 - Although the authors have mentioned several bioactive compounds, it seems to me that some basic components for a review are missing: e.g.

Methodology: explaining how the search was conducted, databases consulted, and period covered by the review
Discussion Section

Answer: Regarding the discussion section, I did not find it relevant to this paper; however, Chapter 7 (line 537) is structured to serve as a substitute for this discussion section on the paper’s topic, as it includes an analysis of aspects such as gaps, future research directions, the limitations of allopathy, etc. The research method was conducted over one year, and this paper forms part of my current doctoral research.

Comment: 2 - Lines 43 - 47: I suggest providing supporting evidence with reference(s).

Answer: I would like to thank you for your comment. I have added a bibliographic reference that addresses the same topic and explains this competition in vegetable crops (line 46). However, the topic and reasons are stated quite clearly in the paragraph you mentioned, and helpful references are also cited earlier on.

Comment: 3 - Line 101: The year of the cited reference, "Rice," is missing...

Answer: Regarding the paragraph you mentioned, the bibliographic reference is included at the end of the paragraph, and that is where the publication year for the book I cited can be found; that is why I chose not to include the publication year in the text (line 110).

Comment: 4 - Lines 200 - 217: I suggest adding a reference(s).

Answer: I would like to thank you for your observation. Regarding the paragraphs you mentioned, I have included several relevant bibliographic references for those paragraphs (lines 205–222).

Comment: 5 - Lines 295 – 302: I suggest adding a reference(s).

Answer: Regarding the paragraph you mentioned, the bibliographic reference is included at the end of the paragraph; that reference contains information about the aromatic plants mentioned in the text (line 311).

Comment: 6 - Line 438: correction of the word "methyl".

Answer: As for the word “methyl,” it does not appear in the line you mentioned, and earlier in the text, where it is mentioned—specifically in lines 411, 415, and 424—it is spelled correctly. I don’t see the mistake.

Comment: 7 - I suggest improving the quality of figures 3, 4, and 5.

Answer: The image quality has been corrected, a point also noted by Reviewer 3. But I would also like to thank you for this observation, which helps improve the paper.

Comment: 8 - I suggest this section be more concise.

Answer: The conclusions section has been improved, a point that the other reviewers also noted. But I would also like to thank you for this comment, which helps improve the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering my suggestions. The new version of the manuscript seems adequate.

*Related to the response to comment 7: the word "methyl" appears in the first version, in the sequence of table 6, in the following context: "*(JA/MeJA) – Jasmonic acid/Methtl-Jasmonates;", corrected in the new version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5 (Round 2),

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to explain what each color signifies:

- red - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 1’s recommendations;

- cyan - changes and adaptations according to Reviewer 2’s recommendations;

- purple - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 3.

- orange - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 4.

- yellow - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 5.

- green - changes and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewers 1, 3, and 5, for the conclusions.

Comment: *Related to the response to comment 7: the word "methyl" appears in the first version, in the sequence of table 6, in the following context: "*(JA/MeJA) – Jasmonic acid/Methtl-Jasmonates;", corrected in the new version.

Answer: I now understand your comment; it concerns the footnote in Table 6. We apologize for this oversight. Indeed, that is correct, as you also pointed out in your first review. Thank you for your attention and for the time you have devoted to our paper. We have highlighted the relevant section of the text in yellow.