Lettuce in Monoculture or in Intercropping with Tomato Changes the Antioxidant Enzyme Activities, Nutrients and Growth of Lettuce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article devoted to the growing 2 types of cultures, such as tomato and letucce. The idea is interesting, besides than it should be provided few points:

first of all there is no information from the article why authors making this kind of experiment. It must be provided in conclusions and proved the ideology of the research gave some conclusions.

Materials and methods are poor and must be videned. Also in introduction authors must show why did they used current methods and for what purpose this methods are using in this study.

Results - presentaion quality is low, no description of methemayical statistics used. 

Also, the experimental design in my opinion is not high quality.

English must be improved.

Author Response

- "first of all there is no information from the article why authors making this kind of experiment. It must be provided in conclusions and proved the ideology of the research gave some conclusions."

This comment was atended in the new version

Materials and methods are poor and must be videned. Also in introduction authors must show why did they used current methods and for what purpose this methods are using in this study.

These comments were done in the new version

-Results - presentaion quality is low, no description of methemayical statistics used. 

Also, the experimental design in my opinion is not high quality.

We try to clarify some of these comments in the new edition.

English must be improved

The English language was improved

SECOND ROUND

The article devoted to the growing 2 types of cultures, such as tomato and letucce. The idea is interesting, besides than it should be provided few points:

first of all there is no information from the article why authors making this kind of experiment. It must be provided in conclusions and proved the ideology of the research gave some conclusions.

This comment was atended in the new version. We doubt if it received the first version, it is also considered in the second version. Please check the new version

Materials and methods are poor and must be videned. Also in introduction authors must show why did they used current methods and for what purpose this methods are using in this study.

we have considered an extension of the work on soilless culture systems in previous authors' work under similar conditions. And we believe that we have justified in the introduction the novelties of the present work with respect to the works cited above.

Results - presentaion quality is low, no description of methemayical statistics used.

This comment have the same consideration above described. And we clarify and enhance all statistic method. View new version

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a manuscript, which evaluated lettuce in monoculture or in intercropping with tomato changes the antioxidant enzyme activities, nutrients and growth of lettuce. Minor revisions. The manuscript presents interesting data concerning the possibilities of new methods explored for culture the tomato and lettuce, but the document need to be improved. Following, I have included some comments aimed to enhance the paper:

1.      I suggest to the authors to add a new section detailing the state of the art. In this section, authors have to describe the relevant related work in which explain.  

2.      Can the authors include at the end of the introduction, more details of the objectives of their study.

3.      This work presents very interesting results and practice to increase the crop of vegetables. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.

Consider extending the conclusions and adding a Future works paragraph.

Author Response

1. I suggest to the authors to add a new section detailing the state of the art. In this section, authors have to describe the relevant related work in which explain.  

We are agree, and we accept and partially comply with this suggestion

2. Can the authors include at the end of the introduction, more details of the objectives of their study.

We agree, for that reasons we think that write the new objetive, in relatio to: There is not many information about the use of stress indicator under intercropping system, and 2. few information about  intercropping under soilless culture

3.      This work presents very interesting results and practice to increase the crop of vegetables. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.

We agree, and parcially considered 

4.      Line 386:  Conclusions

Consider extending the conclusions and adding a Future works paragraph.

We agree, and thank this suggestion

Finally, the topic of this manuscript is interesting, but authors must improve the presentation of their results and discussion.

We attend this suggestions. See new version

SECOND ROUND

Second correction #2

… have included some comments aimed to enhance the paper:

1. I suggest to the authors to add a new section detailing the state of the art. In this section, authors have to describe the relevant related work in which explain.  

We are agree, and we accept and partially comply with this suggestion. We

2. Can the authors include at the end of the introduction, more details of the objectives of their study.

We believe that this proofreader may not have received the first correction. However, we believe that this suggestion is also taken care of in version 2.

3. This work presents very interesting results and practice to increase the crop of vegetables. I think that the authors can improve the format of results demonstration. The authors can highlight better the importance of the results obtained.

4. Line 386:  Conclusions

Consider extending the conclusions and adding a Future works paragraph.

All the conclusion appart was changed and improved

Finally, the topic of this manuscript is interesting, but authors must improve the presentation of their results and discussion.

The results and conclusions were fully revised and expanded. See second revision

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your work as a reviewer. This study deals with the effect of intercropping on involved plant species, here tomato and lettuce, in terms of stress levels, yield and economic viability. The design of the experiment is well planned, and the analysis of the results is very thoroughly done. However, the presentation of the results and the reasoning must be further refined.

General comments:

1.       It is somewhat strange, that the authors set an intercropping system in a so-called artificial environment, where the growing media is coconut fiber, and the same nutrient solution is provided to both systems. Intercropping rather fits into natural environments, as this system has much more benefits, than what can be explored or exploited in such a simplified system. For example, the main aim of intercropping is to break monoculture, and hence the disadvantages of it, such as soil compaction, nutrient imbalances, or depletion; these effects extend over a single cultivation period and has a complex effect on soil life and so on. This issue must be discussed by the authors in the introduction part and other relevant parts. This “artificial” approach has something to do with the results as well.

2.       The authors might want to include novel technologies for reducing light stress in closed facilities, such as intra-canopy lighting with LEDs in the intro part.

3.       Materials and methods: Temperature data seems irrelevant due to the fact, that the experiment was set in a closed facility. Time of sowing and details of seedling production is missing. Also, it is unclear, whether both species were planted at the same time or not. Clarify.

4.       The significance letterings of figures 3-5 are quite chaotic. It is unclear, which differs from which. Maybe among M and I the asterisk is enough, then you can apply different letterings (capital, lowercase, abc, xyz, so on.) The captions require further revisions as well.

Detailed comments:

Abstract: please start with a general introductory sentence instead; not with the objectives.

line 36-38: reword

line 53 and so on: please reword and shorten the sentences as these are hard to understand.

line 68, 147, 149: define MDA and the other abbreviations at the first time they are mentioned.

line 99: both instead of either

line 212: cost of plants?

line 220, 232: use significant, where a statistical analysis was done. Here, to my understanding, there was no such calculation done.

line 225: How do you mean bigger average? It is lower, than the previous number. Revise.

figure 2: caption must be revised. there are no such results which shows the light conditions of tomato intercropping.

line 244: than in monoculture

line 319: translate of delete.

There are several long sentences whih have to be revised.

Author Response

   It is somewhat strange, that the authors set an intercropping system in a so-called artificial environment, where the growing media is coconut fiber, and the same nutrient solution is provided to both systems. Intercropping rather fits into natural environments, as this system has much more benefits, than what can be explored or exploited in such a simplified system. For example, the main aim of intercropping is to break monoculture, and hence the disadvantages of it, such as soil compaction, nutrient imbalances, or depletion; these effects extend over a single cultivation period and has a complex effect on soil life and so on. This issue must be discussed by the authors in the introduction part and other relevant parts. This “artificial” approach has something to do with the results as well

We totally agree, for that reason some comment to clarify this cuestion was enclose in the "introduction" and the "results and discussion" of the new versión

 The authors might want to include novel technologies for reducing light stress in closed facilities, such as intra-canopy lighting with LEDs in the intro part.

We absolutely agree, and it would be a clear improvement of the system, in fact this group that writes the article has some articles that represents the benefits of LEDs in agriculture. But in this paper we have discussed the incorporation of benefits for the small or medium sized greenhouse or open field farmer without an expense that is borne by the farmer.

 Materials and methods: Temperature data seems irrelevant due to the fact, that the experiment was set in a closed facility. Time of sowing and details of seedling production is missing. Also, it is unclear, whether both species were planted at the same time or not. Clarify.

All this was clarify.

  The significance letterings of figures 3-5 are quite chaotic. It is unclear, which differs from which. Maybe among M and I the asterisk is enough, then you can apply different letterings (capital, lowercase, abc, xyz, so on.) The captions require further revisions as well.

We agree that it can be "chaotic", or rather complex for the observer. But there is no other simple way to separate treatments from "grow by treatment". It seems that adding "*" could be a solution, but in reality it is just as difficult as "upper and lower case".

Detailed comments:

Abstract: please start with a general introductory sentence instead; not with the objectives.

Done

line 36-38: reword

Done

line 53 and so on: please reword and shorten the sentences as these are hard to understand.

Done

line 68, 147, 149: define MDA and the other abbreviations at the first time they are mentioned.

Done

line 99: both instead of either

line 212: cost of plants?

The cost of plant was considered, it is a commercial cost, enclosed in the parameter net revenue in paragraph "2.7. Economic Characteristic"

line 220, 232: use significant, where a statistical analysis was done. Here, to my understanding, there was no such calculation done.

We know that in this section the statistical treatment is more complex and debatable. In order to be consistent, the numbers were necessarily made with average data. Since the prices of individual plants, commercial value of each caliber, and the rest of the inputs are the same. Consequently, it would be the mean for each of the treatments considered. 

line 225: How do you mean bigger average? It is lower, than the previous number. Revise.

This was rewrittenn and clarify in the new versión

figure 2: caption must be revised. there are no such results which shows the light conditions of tomato intercropping.

We actually agree that the graphs are complex. The clarification of the radiation sampling at points one and two. They allow to know the light reception always for tomato whether it is in monoculture or intercropping, while for lettuce the light intercepted (the same as tomato - with and without lettuce present-) and the loss that occurs when it is with tomato must be shown.

line 244: than in monoculture

Done

line 319: translate of delete.

Reviewer 4 Report

The theme of the manuscript is appropriate and original. It fits into the theme of the journal Horticulturae. The article has a practical dimension especially for small farms due to the experiment conducted. However, the entire work still needs additions and corrections.

Abstract:
It is proposed to supplement it with information on in what years the experiment was performed and more results of the conducted research should be given.
Introduction:
The introduction should be expanded to include the problems of the topic: why?, for what purpose? and whether there is a demand for such results. Please complete this.
Materials and methods:
This chapter well chosen, however, each subsection lacks the characteristics of the equipment that was used for the study (subsections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.5). Line 158 should be completed (city, country). I suggest in that the authors of the manuscript should consider in this section to add information on what years the experiment was conducted.

Results and Discussion:
Results of the study correctly described. The discussion should be more elaborate and supported by more recent literature.  
Conclusions:
The conclusions are very poorly described. Please supplement this.
Reference:

Please supplement the literature with more recent items.

The paper after additions can be published in the journal Horticulturae.

Author Response

Abstract:
It is proposed to supplement it with information on in what years the experiment was performed and more results of the conducted research should be given.

This comment and suggestion was considered in the new version.

Introduction:
The introduction should be expanded to include the problems of the topic: why?, for what purpose? and whether there is a demand for such results. Please complete this.

Done

Materials and methods:
This chapter well chosen, however, each subsection lacks the characteristics of the equipment that was used for the study (subsections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.5).

Line 158 should be completed (city, country).

Done, this was a mistake

I suggest in that the authors of the manuscript should consider in this section to add information on what years the experiment was conducted.

We agree, and was considered in the new version

Results and Discussion:
Results of the study correctly described. The discussion should be more elaborate and supported by more recent literature.

We also agree with these comments, based on very little recent information in the discussion. Although there are many "close" references not specifically on intercropping for tomato and lettuce considering stress indicators and using soilless cropping systems. 

Conclusions:
The conclusions are very poorly described. Please supplement this.

We fully agree and rewrite this entire section.

Reference:
Please supplement the literature with more recent items.

We also attend this suggestions

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, thank you for considering my suggestions, although I cannot see that these were really incorporated into the article. I can only repeat myself, which seems to be very ineffective in terms of time management.

1.      Keeping it simple: what is the relevance of an intercropping system in a greenhouse, when intercropping is an open-field method, as all of the advantages of it can take effect only in a natural system? Again, please deal with it in the introduction.

2.       I think the figures are not complex; rather contradictory. A figure with four columns is not complex; the problem is that the letterings can be interpreted in several ways. Change it. I already suggested to indicate the within-variety difference with an asterisk. For the Lucy Brown-Vanda monoculture comparison you can use A and B, while for LB-V intercropping comparison you have to use a different lettering, for example X and Y.

Author Response

- Keeping it simple: what is the relevance of an intercropping system in a greenhouse.

We do not fully agree. Below you will find some articles that justify the importance of the intercropping system in a greenhouse.

• Cecílio Filho, A.B.; Rezende, B.L.A.; Barbosa, J.C.; Feltrim, A.L.; Silva, G.S.; Grangeiro, L.C. Interaction between lettuce and tomato plants, in intercropping cultivation, established at different times, under protected cultivation. Bras. 2008, 26, 158-164.
• Cunha-Chiamolera, T.P.L.; Urrestarazu, M.; Cecílio-Filho, A.B.; Morales, I. Agronomic and economic feasibility of tomato and lettuce intercropping in a soilless system as a function of the electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution. HortScience 2017, 52, 1195–1200. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI12170-17
• Wang, M.; Wu, C.; Cheng, Z.; Meng, H. Growth and physiological changes in continuously cropped eggplant (Solanum melongena) upon relay intercropping with garlic (Allium sativum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 262. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00262
• Cecílio Filho, A.B.; Rezende, B.L.A.; Barbosa, J.C.; Grangeiro, L.C. Agronomic efficiency of intercropping tomato and lettuce. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2011, 83, 1109-1119. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0001-37652011000300029

- When intercropping is an open-field method, as all of the advantages of it can take effect only in a natural system?

Traditionally, the advantages that are achieved in the soilless cultivation system can be obtained perfectly well in soil cultivation. It is well known that a large part of the benefits recorded in soilless cultivation can be extrapolated to soil cultivation, both in greenhouses and in the open air.

- Again, please deal with it in the introduction.

We have considered in the new version

-  I think the figures are not complex; rather contradictory. A figure with four columns is not complex; the problem is that the letterings can be interpreted in several ways. Change it. I already suggested to indicate the within-variety difference with an asterisk. For the Lucy Brown-Vanda monoculture comparison you can use A and B, while for LB-V intercropping comparison you have to use a different lettering, for example X and Y.

We agree that it can be interpreted differently, but the problem arises that it could be in contrast to the comments of other reviewers. 

Reviewer 4 Report

The reviewer's comments have been taken into account. The paper may be published. Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you.