Quality and Yield of Edible Vegetables from Landscape Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Why there was another type of soil in V3? This maybe the reason for differences, why not use the same substrate in the "low/ traditional" beds? I find it confusing... Is the V3 sort of control?

The Results and discussion secion should have improved discussion secion. It is not only to list in deifferent captions what the literature says about it. It sould be shown the relations and what does it mean for the study etc. The discussion cannot be driven this way. I recommand to separate the results secion from disussion section either in separate chapters or to lead discussion part after each results secion, but not by incorporating single sentance from literature. 

Also, We can read most of the results described from the tables, please indicate signifficant ones not insignifficant, or relevant, or surprising or what is very important. What is the implication of the results. Now it is very boring secion, hard to read. 

Those two secions as they are now are defiinately lowering readers level of interest and drives them away from the yet very interresting subject, generally well designed experiment with a lot of work done, a handful of results. 

In the Conclusion part I miss some recomendations, or general conclusion on what should be done with the results of experiments, are they satisfying or not? Was the goal of experiment achived? What about the decorative function? 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No coments

Author Response

 

Dear Editor,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to submit the revised form of the manuscript entitled “Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design”, authors Ana-Maria-Roxana Istrate, Mirela Cojocariu, Gabriel-Ciprian Teliban, Alexandru Cojocaru, and Vasile Stoleru.

We thank you again for your interest in our paper. We also thank the reviewer for the patience and careful examination of our manuscript and for providing ideas and corrections that will improve this manuscript.

 

We hope we have included everything the peer-reviewers commented on and recommended in their evaluation reports.

We are also responding to your comments in this letter.

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to mention what each colour means:

- green - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 1;

- blue - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 2;

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

Reviewer 1

Comment: Why there was another type of soil in V3? This maybe the reason for differences, why not use the same substrate in the "low/ traditional" beds? I find it confusing... Is the V3 sort of control?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, under section 2.2. Experimental design, it is mentioned that V3 is the control version. It is the version set up at ground level precisely to highlight the existence or not of differences between the management patterns and the suitability of species to different systems. It should be borne in mind that in most cases in urban and peri-urban areas, landscaping is established on unsuitable soils, which is not the best substrate for such a concept.

Comment: The Results and discussion section should have improved discussion section. It is not only to list in different captions what the literature says about it. It should be shown the relations and what does it mean for the study etc. The discussion cannot be driven this way. I recommend to separate the results section from discussion section either in separate chapters or to lead discussion part after each results section, but not by incorporating single sentence from literature.

We hope that the adaptations, modifications, and rephrasing will better emphasize these discussions regarding the obtained results in comparison with the relevant literature.

Comment: Also, We can read most of the results described from the tables, please indicate significant ones not insignificant, or relevant, or surprising or what is very important. What is the implication of the results? Now it is very boring section, hard to read.

Those two sections as they are now are definitely lowering readers level of interest and drives them away from the yet very interesting subject, generally well designed experiment with a lot of work done, a handful of results.

Answer: We have completely revised the results section and attempted to write more pleasantly and reader-friendly text. We have highlighted the significant results and provided interpretations and important implications. As a result, the text is more engaging and accessible to readers.

Comment: In the Conclusion part I miss some recommendations, or general conclusion on what should be done with the results of experiments, are they satisfying or not? Was the goal of experiment achieved? What about the decorative function?

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. However, in this article, we weren't able to focus extensively on the decorative function of the plants and the overall landscaping aspect, as it would require a more detailed study based on questionnaires. This aspect is considered for future scientific work.

 

Reviewer 2

Comment: The manuscript has focused on the study of Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design. The results were reasonable. I would like to recommend the publication of this study if the following improvements could be made:

1. The abstract should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results.

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract in order to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result.

Comment: 2. The explanation in the literature review section needs to have more depth. Besides showing the research trend in the related field, you need to critically review the previous related studies and reveal the knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in the literature. Then, you need to relate it to the objectives of the study. The authors need to emphasise the research novelty and research significance of the study.  I suggest the authors to remove from the introduction the information about the compounds found in plants/vegetables.

Answer: After carefully evaluating the information regarding the compounds found in plants and vegetables, we have made necessary adjustments to ensure that it aligns with the overall focus and objectives of our study. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, as they have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of our work.

Comment: 3. The authors have listed a number of factors that could be consider when is a garden is created. Please this information by bibliographic references.

Answer: We have included the bibliographic references from 40-43.

Comment: 4. The conclusions should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. Furthermore, we have inserted information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

 

Reviewer 3

Comment: 1. The abstract does not have the implication and recommendation of the study

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result and the implications and recommendations of the study.

Comment: 2. There are a lot of grammatical errors in the introduction.

Answer: We managed to correct the grammar of all the research paper.

Comment: 3. The experimental design does not have the following - the type of data collected, the number of replications of each treatment, the treatment combinations considering there were 2 sources of variation (type of vegetable and the height of the beds), the spacing of the vegetables,

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.2. - 2.3., are all the relevant information regarding the type of data collected, the number of replications, the combinations etc. The spacing of vegetables was done according to the plant habitus.

Comment: 4. What dictated the number and quantity of the vegetable species used?

Answer: The number and quantity of plants used were determined during a test vegetation season based on the available area, the plant species habitus, the plant association method, and the decorative characteristics of the plants.

Comment: 5. Was there management of pests and diseases on the crops?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.1. Raised Beds Design and Construction, it is noted that crop rotation was implemented as a strategy for improved management and ecological control of pests and diseases, following the principles of organic farming. Bibliographic reference 44, 45.

Comment: 6. The fertilizer rates used, quantity and frequency of irrigation not indicated.

Answer: We have inserted information about the irrigation method in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.2. Substrate and irrigation.

Comment: 7. What was the nutrient content of the poultry manures?

Answer: As per your request, we have provided you with details on poultry manure (Orgevit), along with the bibliographic source.

Comment: 8. what the stage of growth of each vegetable and frequency of harvesting?

Answer: Plants were harvested individually, taking into account the unique characteristics of each species. The timing and method of harvest varied based on specific requirements for each plant. The overall design was a landscape-style arrangement, with gradual harvesting based on the maturity of each species for consumption. The harvest season spanned from June to November.

Comment: 9. The heading of tables require editing to remove redundancies - no need to repeate words "results of .........." in every table.

Answer: We removed the repetitive words from table headings.

Comment: 10. The description of the results must be improved by ensuring that the text is presented in proper paragraphs and in continuous prose.

Answer: The description of the results has been improved. We have eliminated some of the non- significant results (as recommended by another reviewer) and focused more on results with significant differences. Additionally, we have incorporated transitional words to ensure a smooth and coherent presentation of the findings in a continuous prose style.

Comment: 11. A major weakness is that the results have not been discussed- The results have not been discussed at all - how do the results compare with others related studies, what is the explanation to the observed findings and what are their implications?

Answer: We have expanded upon the relevant literature findings and provided insightful discussions based on our results. This includes comparisons with related studies, explanations for the observed findings, and exploration of their implications.

Comment: 12. The recommendations of the study are missing

Answer: In the conclusions section we expanded and inserted some recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has focused on the study of Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design. The results were reasonable. I would like to recommend the publication of this study if the following improvements could be made:

 

1.            The abstract should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results.

2.            The explanation in the literature review section needs to have more depth. Besides showing the research trend in the related field, you need to critically review the previous related studies and reveal the knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in the literature. Then, you need to relate it to the objectives of the study. The authors need to emphasise the research novelty and research significance of the study.  I suggest the authors to remove from the introduction the information about the compounds found in plants/vegetables.

3.            The authors have listed a number of factors that could be consider when is a garden is created. Please these information by bibliographic references.

4.             The conclusions should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

Author Response

 

Dear Editor,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to submit the revised form of the manuscript entitled “Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design”, authors Ana-Maria-Roxana Istrate, Mirela Cojocariu, Gabriel-Ciprian Teliban, Alexandru Cojocaru, and Vasile Stoleru.

We thank you again for your interest in our paper. We also thank the reviewer for the patience and careful examination of our manuscript and for providing ideas and corrections that will improve this manuscript.

 

We hope we have included everything the peer-reviewers commented on and recommended in their evaluation reports.

We are also responding to your comments in this letter.

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to mention what each colour means:

- green - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 1;

- blue - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 2;

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

Reviewer 1

Comment: Why there was another type of soil in V3? This maybe the reason for differences, why not use the same substrate in the "low/ traditional" beds? I find it confusing... Is the V3 sort of control?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, under section 2.2. Experimental design, it is mentioned that V3 is the control version. It is the version set up at ground level precisely to highlight the existence or not of differences between the management patterns and the suitability of species to different systems. It should be borne in mind that in most cases in urban and peri-urban areas, landscaping is established on unsuitable soils, which is not the best substrate for such a concept.

Comment: The Results and discussion section should have improved discussion section. It is not only to list in different captions what the literature says about it. It should be shown the relations and what does it mean for the study etc. The discussion cannot be driven this way. I recommend to separate the results section from discussion section either in separate chapters or to lead discussion part after each results section, but not by incorporating single sentence from literature.

We hope that the adaptations, modifications, and rephrasing will better emphasize these discussions regarding the obtained results in comparison with the relevant literature.

Comment: Also, We can read most of the results described from the tables, please indicate significant ones not insignificant, or relevant, or surprising or what is very important. What is the implication of the results? Now it is very boring section, hard to read.

Those two sections as they are now are definitely lowering readers level of interest and drives them away from the yet very interesting subject, generally well designed experiment with a lot of work done, a handful of results.

Answer: We have completely revised the results section and attempted to write more pleasantly and reader-friendly text. We have highlighted the significant results and provided interpretations and important implications. As a result, the text is more engaging and accessible to readers.

Comment: In the Conclusion part I miss some recommendations, or general conclusion on what should be done with the results of experiments, are they satisfying or not? Was the goal of experiment achieved? What about the decorative function?

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. However, in this article, we weren't able to focus extensively on the decorative function of the plants and the overall landscaping aspect, as it would require a more detailed study based on questionnaires. This aspect is considered for future scientific work.

 

Reviewer 2

Comment: The manuscript has focused on the study of Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design. The results were reasonable. I would like to recommend the publication of this study if the following improvements could be made:

1. The abstract should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results.

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract in order to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result.

Comment: 2. The explanation in the literature review section needs to have more depth. Besides showing the research trend in the related field, you need to critically review the previous related studies and reveal the knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in the literature. Then, you need to relate it to the objectives of the study. The authors need to emphasise the research novelty and research significance of the study.  I suggest the authors to remove from the introduction the information about the compounds found in plants/vegetables.

Answer: After carefully evaluating the information regarding the compounds found in plants and vegetables, we have made necessary adjustments to ensure that it aligns with the overall focus and objectives of our study. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, as they have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of our work.

Comment: 3. The authors have listed a number of factors that could be consider when is a garden is created. Please this information by bibliographic references.

Answer: We have included the bibliographic references from 40-43.

Comment: 4. The conclusions should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. Furthermore, we have inserted information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

 

Reviewer 3

Comment: 1. The abstract does not have the implication and recommendation of the study

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result and the implications and recommendations of the study.

Comment: 2. There are a lot of grammatical errors in the introduction.

Answer: We managed to correct the grammar of all the research paper.

Comment: 3. The experimental design does not have the following - the type of data collected, the number of replications of each treatment, the treatment combinations considering there were 2 sources of variation (type of vegetable and the height of the beds), the spacing of the vegetables,

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.2. - 2.3., are all the relevant information regarding the type of data collected, the number of replications, the combinations etc. The spacing of vegetables was done according to the plant habitus.

Comment: 4. What dictated the number and quantity of the vegetable species used?

Answer: The number and quantity of plants used were determined during a test vegetation season based on the available area, the plant species habitus, the plant association method, and the decorative characteristics of the plants.

Comment: 5. Was there management of pests and diseases on the crops?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.1. Raised Beds Design and Construction, it is noted that crop rotation was implemented as a strategy for improved management and ecological control of pests and diseases, following the principles of organic farming. Bibliographic reference 44, 45.

Comment: 6. The fertilizer rates used, quantity and frequency of irrigation not indicated.

Answer: We have inserted information about the irrigation method in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.2. Substrate and irrigation.

Comment: 7. What was the nutrient content of the poultry manures?

Answer: As per your request, we have provided you with details on poultry manure (Orgevit), along with the bibliographic source.

Comment: 8. what the stage of growth of each vegetable and frequency of harvesting?

Answer: Plants were harvested individually, taking into account the unique characteristics of each species. The timing and method of harvest varied based on specific requirements for each plant. The overall design was a landscape-style arrangement, with gradual harvesting based on the maturity of each species for consumption. The harvest season spanned from June to November.

Comment: 9. The heading of tables require editing to remove redundancies - no need to repeate words "results of .........." in every table.

Answer: We removed the repetitive words from table headings.

Comment: 10. The description of the results must be improved by ensuring that the text is presented in proper paragraphs and in continuous prose.

Answer: The description of the results has been improved. We have eliminated some of the non- significant results (as recommended by another reviewer) and focused more on results with significant differences. Additionally, we have incorporated transitional words to ensure a smooth and coherent presentation of the findings in a continuous prose style.

Comment: 11. A major weakness is that the results have not been discussed- The results have not been discussed at all - how do the results compare with others related studies, what is the explanation to the observed findings and what are their implications?

Answer: We have expanded upon the relevant literature findings and provided insightful discussions based on our results. This includes comparisons with related studies, explanations for the observed findings, and exploration of their implications.

Comment: 12. The recommendations of the study are missing

Answer: In the conclusions section we expanded and inserted some recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The abstract does not have the implication and recommendation of the study

2. There are a lot of grammatical errors in the introduction.

3. The experimental design does not have the follwing - the type of data collected, the number of replications of each treatment, the treatment combinations considering there were 2 sources of variation (type of vegetable and the height of the beds), the spacing of the vegetables,

4. What dictated the number and quantity of the vegetable species used?

5. Was there management of pests and diseases on the crops?

6. The ferilizer rates used, quantity and frequency of irrigation not indicated.

7. What was the nutrient content of the poultry manures?

8. what the stage of growth of each vegetable and frequency of harvesting?

9. The heading of tables require editing to remove redundancies - no need to repeate words "results of .........." in every table.

10. The description of the results must be improved by ensuring that the text is presented in proper paragraphs and in continuous prose.

11. A major weaknes is that the results have not been descussed- The results have not been discussed at all - how do the results compare with others related studies, what is the explanation to the observed findings and what are their implications? 

12. The recommendations of the study are missing

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

1. There are numerous sentence constructionerrors in the introduction

2. Remove redundancies in table headings.

3. most text in methodology, results and conclusions is  written in fragmented manner and must be presented in continuous prose and in proper paragraphs.

 

Author Response

 

Dear Editor,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to submit the revised form of the manuscript entitled “Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design”, authors Ana-Maria-Roxana Istrate, Mirela Cojocariu, Gabriel-Ciprian Teliban, Alexandru Cojocaru, and Vasile Stoleru.

We thank you again for your interest in our paper. We also thank the reviewer for the patience and careful examination of our manuscript and for providing ideas and corrections that will improve this manuscript.

 

We hope we have included everything the peer-reviewers commented on and recommended in their evaluation reports.

We are also responding to your comments in this letter.

Before responding in detail to your recommendations, I would like to mention what each colour means:

- green - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 1;

- blue - modifications and adaptations according to the recommendations of reviewer 2;

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

Reviewer 1

Comment: Why there was another type of soil in V3? This maybe the reason for differences, why not use the same substrate in the "low/ traditional" beds? I find it confusing... Is the V3 sort of control?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, under section 2.2. Experimental design, it is mentioned that V3 is the control version. It is the version set up at ground level precisely to highlight the existence or not of differences between the management patterns and the suitability of species to different systems. It should be borne in mind that in most cases in urban and peri-urban areas, landscaping is established on unsuitable soils, which is not the best substrate for such a concept.

Comment: The Results and discussion section should have improved discussion section. It is not only to list in different captions what the literature says about it. It should be shown the relations and what does it mean for the study etc. The discussion cannot be driven this way. I recommend to separate the results section from discussion section either in separate chapters or to lead discussion part after each results section, but not by incorporating single sentence from literature.

We hope that the adaptations, modifications, and rephrasing will better emphasize these discussions regarding the obtained results in comparison with the relevant literature.

Comment: Also, We can read most of the results described from the tables, please indicate significant ones not insignificant, or relevant, or surprising or what is very important. What is the implication of the results? Now it is very boring section, hard to read.

Those two sections as they are now are definitely lowering readers level of interest and drives them away from the yet very interesting subject, generally well designed experiment with a lot of work done, a handful of results.

Answer: We have completely revised the results section and attempted to write more pleasantly and reader-friendly text. We have highlighted the significant results and provided interpretations and important implications. As a result, the text is more engaging and accessible to readers.

Comment: In the Conclusion part I miss some recommendations, or general conclusion on what should be done with the results of experiments, are they satisfying or not? Was the goal of experiment achieved? What about the decorative function?

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. However, in this article, we weren't able to focus extensively on the decorative function of the plants and the overall landscaping aspect, as it would require a more detailed study based on questionnaires. This aspect is considered for future scientific work.

 

Reviewer 2

Comment: The manuscript has focused on the study of Quality and yield of edible vegetables from landscape design. The results were reasonable. I would like to recommend the publication of this study if the following improvements could be made:

1. The abstract should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results.

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract in order to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result.

Comment: 2. The explanation in the literature review section needs to have more depth. Besides showing the research trend in the related field, you need to critically review the previous related studies and reveal the knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in the literature. Then, you need to relate it to the objectives of the study. The authors need to emphasise the research novelty and research significance of the study.  I suggest the authors to remove from the introduction the information about the compounds found in plants/vegetables.

Answer: After carefully evaluating the information regarding the compounds found in plants and vegetables, we have made necessary adjustments to ensure that it aligns with the overall focus and objectives of our study. We greatly appreciate your suggestions, as they have significantly enhanced the quality and impact of our work.

Comment: 3. The authors have listed a number of factors that could be consider when is a garden is created. Please this information by bibliographic references.

Answer: We have included the bibliographic references from 40-43.

Comment: 4. The conclusions should contain information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

Answer: We have expanded upon the conclusions and provided recommendations. Furthermore, we have inserted information about the numerical values of the obtained main results

 

Reviewer 3

Comment: 1. The abstract does not have the implication and recommendation of the study

Answer: We have changed and improved the abstract to include some information regarding the numerical values of the obtained main result and the implications and recommendations of the study.

Comment: 2. There are a lot of grammatical errors in the introduction.

Answer: We managed to correct the grammar of all the research paper.

Comment: 3. The experimental design does not have the following - the type of data collected, the number of replications of each treatment, the treatment combinations considering there were 2 sources of variation (type of vegetable and the height of the beds), the spacing of the vegetables,

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.2. - 2.3., are all the relevant information regarding the type of data collected, the number of replications, the combinations etc. The spacing of vegetables was done according to the plant habitus.

Comment: 4. What dictated the number and quantity of the vegetable species used?

Answer: The number and quantity of plants used were determined during a test vegetation season based on the available area, the plant species habitus, the plant association method, and the decorative characteristics of the plants.

Comment: 5. Was there management of pests and diseases on the crops?

Answer: In Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.1. Raised Beds Design and Construction, it is noted that crop rotation was implemented as a strategy for improved management and ecological control of pests and diseases, following the principles of organic farming. Bibliographic reference 44, 45.

Comment: 6. The fertilizer rates used, quantity and frequency of irrigation not indicated.

Answer: We have inserted information about the irrigation method in Chapter 2. Materials and Methods, subsection 2.3. Biotechnical Materials, and sub-subsection 2.3.2. Substrate and irrigation.

Comment: 7. What was the nutrient content of the poultry manures?

Answer: As per your request, we have provided you with details on poultry manure (Orgevit), along with the bibliographic source.

Comment: 8. what the stage of growth of each vegetable and frequency of harvesting?

Answer: Plants were harvested individually, taking into account the unique characteristics of each species. The timing and method of harvest varied based on specific requirements for each plant. The overall design was a landscape-style arrangement, with gradual harvesting based on the maturity of each species for consumption. The harvest season spanned from June to November.

Comment: 9. The heading of tables require editing to remove redundancies - no need to repeate words "results of .........." in every table.

Answer: We removed the repetitive words from table headings.

Comment: 10. The description of the results must be improved by ensuring that the text is presented in proper paragraphs and in continuous prose.

Answer: The description of the results has been improved. We have eliminated some of the non- significant results (as recommended by another reviewer) and focused more on results with significant differences. Additionally, we have incorporated transitional words to ensure a smooth and coherent presentation of the findings in a continuous prose style.

Comment: 11. A major weakness is that the results have not been discussed- The results have not been discussed at all - how do the results compare with others related studies, what is the explanation to the observed findings and what are their implications?

Answer: We have expanded upon the relevant literature findings and provided insightful discussions based on our results. This includes comparisons with related studies, explanations for the observed findings, and exploration of their implications.

Comment: 12. The recommendations of the study are missing

Answer: In the conclusions section we expanded and inserted some recommendations.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx