Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of the “Leafy vegetables agronomic variables, nitrate and bioactive compounds have different responses to Bokashi, mineral fertilization and chicken boiled manure” paper is very well explained and organized, describing the effect of boiled chicken manure doses by fertigation. The paper is well organized, presenting the bioactive compounds and nitrate levels of two vars of lettuce.

I suggest to the authors an extensive English revision. Also, I recommend writing the unit measurements correctly (for example, lines 93-94: “cmolc dm³”?).

In my opinion, this article provides sufficient data to accept after minor revision, and I highly recommend it for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thanks a lot for the important suggestions. We thank the reviewer for your time and commitment.

 

Reviewer 1: I suggest to the authors an extensive English revision.

Response: We have had our manuscript checked for English language as requested.

Reviewer 1: Also, I recommend writing the unit measurements correctly (for example, lines 93-94: “cmolc dm³”?).

 Response: Thanks for the important observation. The writing of the units was revised.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some comments regarding the paper. Authors must use them to improve the paper further before acceptance.

1. The formula of coefficient of variation should be added.

2. Whether the BCM concentration is the higher，the better. Whether it performs better if the BCM concentration increases.

3. There are no pictures of the actual experiment, only the results.  

4. The conclusion section needs to be revised and important results should be mentioned.

5. In Results, this paper lacks of own in-depth data analysis, and fails to reveal the reason of study results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

We thank the reviewer for your time and commitment. Thanks a lot for your important suggestions.

Reviewer 2: 1. The formula of coefficient of variation should be added.

Response: Thanks for the important suggestion. The coefficient of variation (CV) value was calculated by using the following formula:CV=SD/x   Where SD is the standard deviation and x is the mean of the variable analysed.

 

Reviewer 2: 2. Whether the BCM concentration is the higher，the better. Whether it performs better if the BCM concentration increases.

Response: In the second paragraph of Discussion section we wrote: “For the BCM concentrations, in general, the agronomic variable means were lower than mineral or Bokashi and concentrations higher than 5% provided higher means than control.”

 

Reviewer 2: 3. There are no pictures of the actual experiment, only the results.  

Response: The following figure was added (in the revised version of th MS): Figure 1. Leafy vegetable cultivated in horizontal grow-bag submitted to different concen-trations of boiled chicken manure (BCM), Bokashi and mineral fertilization in a greenhouse. A. Romaine lettuce; B. Frisée lettuce; C: Radicchio chicory. Londrina, Paraná State, Brazil, 2020.

Reviewer 2: 4. The conclusion section needs to be revised and important results should be mentioned.

Response: Thanks for the important observation. We added the following sentences: “For the total phenolics in the lettuce cultivars, the highest means were observed in BCM concentrations. For Romaine lettuce, the highest means were observed in BCM 2.5 and 5% and for Frisée cultivar in BCM 7.5 and 10%. For Radicchio chicory, the highest mean was observed in Bokashi. For antioxidant activity evaluated by DPPH method, for Frisée lettuce and Radicchio, the highest means were observed on mineral fertilizer plants. The BCM 5 and 2.5% presented similar means to mineral fertilizer in Frisée lettuce and Radicchio, re-spectively. For antioxidant activity evaluated by FRAP method, for Romaine lettuce, the highest mean was observed in BCM 2.5%; for Frisée lettuce in BCM 7.5% and for Radicchio in Bokashi treatment.”

 

Reviewer 2: 5. In Results, this paper lacks of own in-depth data analysis, and fails to reveal the reason of study results.

We added a discussion in the discussion section:

“The selection of the dosages in the present study was according to previous technical recommendation. Higher BCM concentration (15 or 20%) or increase in fertigation periods can be matter of future studies. As the preparation of this low-cost organic fertilizer is rapid, this turns viable the increase of concentration. However, future studies must pay attention to a possible increase in salinity of the substrate as a result of higher concentration of nutrients.”

“The chlorophyll index did not correlate with nitrate in this experiment because the dominant form of nitrogen in the chicken manure is ammonium ion, mostly loss by evaporation during the boiling process and in the mineral fertilizer, the font of nitrogen was urea.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

- in introduction section clarify the originalty of this work.

- line 83- line 107: some new references were added

- please replace this references:

(a): (20) by DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2022.105327, journal of functional plant

(b): (21) by DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2836,  journal of food science nutrition

- To understand this work the authors must answer the following questions: 

(a): What is the main question addressed by the research?

(b): Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

we thank the reviewer for your time and commitment. Thanks for your important suggestions

 

Reviewer 3: - in introduction section clarify the originalty of this work.

Response: Thanks for the important suggestion. Before the objective, we stated: “As seen, the use of these organic inputs increased agronomic variables of the crops. However, these studies did not evaluate the effect on vegetable bioactive compounds and nitrate.”

There are few studies with these organic fertilizers effects on bioactive compounds.

 

Reviewer 3: - please replace this references:

(a): (20) by DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2022.105327, journal of functional plant

(b): (21) by DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.2836,  journal of food science nutrition

Response: Sorry, but these two references were the ones that we used as methodology. They cannot be replaced.

 

Reviewer 3: - To understand this work the authors must answer the following questions: 

(a): What is the main question addressed by the research?

(b): Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Response: Thanks for the important suggestion. The main question addressed by the research was to determine the bioactive compounds and nitrate content in leafy vegetables under the Bokashi and BCM treatments. Our research group has extensively studied these treatments focusing only on plant yield. Now, in the present study we also determined the “quality” attributes. To fill this gap, we study that topic. We found diverse results when testing these organic amendment and fertilizers. For the total phenolics in the lettuce cultivars, the highest means were observed in BCM concentrations. For Romaine lettuce, the highest means were observed in BCM 2.5 and 5% and for Frisée cultivar in BCM 7.5 and 10%. For Radicchio chicory, the highest mean was observed in Bokashi. For antioxidant activity evaluated by DPPH method, for Frisée lettuce and Radicchio, the highest means were observed on mineral fertilizer plants. The BCM 5 and 2.5% presented similar means to mineral fertilizer in Frisée lettuce and Radicchio, respectively.For antioxidant activity evaluated by FRAP method, for Romaine lettuce, the highest mean was observed in BCM 2.5%; for Frisée lettuce in BCM 7.5% and for Radicchio in Bokashi treatment. In our opinion, more studies are needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

no