Biodiversity Enhancement for Improving the Sustainability of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea vr. italica Plenk) Organic Seed Production

Major flaw of this study is although split plot was used in this research, there was no ANOVA to show the output of split plot analysis. It is not sure not whether there was an interaction between two factors. This information is important for correct data presentation, interpretation and conclusion.

Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have welcomed and integrated the analyzes into the text.

In conclusion, the limitations and future developments of the research were added.

Thank you again, all these valuable suggestions have been very helpful in improving the writing of the paper. Very grateful

The article entitled “Biodiversity enhancement for sustainability organic seed production of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea vr. italica Plenk)” is well written. The work is within scope of journal.

Thank you very much for your appreciation of the article.

Below are few suggestions.

1. Line 72: what is RDP.

It is the EU's Rural Development Plan. It has been added to the text and resolved. Thanks

1. There is some unnecessary information in the introduction. It needs to be shortened.

The introduction was also revised in light of the observations made by the other reviewers. You will see that the old paragraph 2 has been eliminated and the parts of the methodology to integrate socio-economic and technical analyzes have been better clarified. Thanks for the observation.

1. Kindly provide coordinates of study site.

It has been specified that the territorial analysis part was carried out in eastern Sicily, while the farm analysis with the low use of inputs was carried out in the province of Catania

1. Please provide a separate Table for treatment details.

We inserted the nutrition protocols in an appropriate table

1. Section on statistical analysis needs to be enhanced

Thanks for the valuable suggestion. We have welcomed and integrated the analyzes into the text.

1. Line 232-234: Please rewrite with more clarity.

 We have integrated the news required

1. Line 276-280: Part of methodology

Yes you are right it is part of the methodology, but it seems more logical to insert it here for completeness of the information

1. What does the error bar show in figure 3 & 4?

We indicate in the tables the bars show the standard errors

1. Figure 5 is of very poor quality. Please make it again.

It is a figure (now renamed with 5) produced by the statistical procedure carried out with SPSS and unfortunately, we can only export it in pdf format. Now it has been changed, I hope it goes well (it was exported in ps format and then pasted as tiff)

1. At some places, sentences are too long. Try to break up these long sentences.

1. In discussion section, use the findings in this article to discuss, but not summarize the literature.

Thank you so much. The literature was integrated and comparisons with it in the discussion (see contributions with new numbering from 35 to 38).

1. Conclusions are just repetition of results. This is not the way to conclude. Please rewrite.

The considerations in conclusion are no longer repetitive in light of the elimination of the former paragraph 2. But they become in fact the indispensable considerations for the completeness of the analysis carried out with the research.

In conclusion, the limitations and future developments of the research were added.

Thank you again, all these valuable suggestions have been very helpful in improving the writing of the paper. Very grateful

I read the whole manuscript carefully. In general, I like the idea of the article (greater expansion of the use of some promising species of local varieties - in this case it was broccoli).

Thank you very much for your appreciation of the article.

I have the first reservation to the wording of the introductory part. The authors first deal with the issue of seed multiplication in organic farming, the potential of regional varieties, etc. The second part is emphasized as a separate chapter and deals with the issue of preserving the diversity of garden crops in Sicily. Both chapters logically belong to each other, however, in this sense they act more like two separate units.

Thanks for the valuable suggestion. He was fully satisfied. Now the former 1 and the former 2 are united in the new introduction. This also allowed us to better exploit the conclusions, because before there were repetitions. I very much appreciated the suggestion.

In conclusion, the limitations and future developments of the research were added.

In the methodology, the manuscript is further divided into two parts. "field experiments" and questionnaires. For example, it is not clear from the methodology how long the experiment lasted. From the context of the manuscript you look at the annual results. That is not enough for this type of experiment.

Following the suggestions of the other referees, the methodology has been integrated and its synthesis is in figure 1. The two parts socio-economic analysis and technical analysis have been linked. The surveys on seed production are repeated in 2 years 2020 and 2021.

The results chapter is divided into two parts - own experiments and questionnaires. In the case of experiments, I would have a reservation mainly about the absence of more experimental years. The questionnaire part is elaborated. But the two parts seem incoherent.

The connection between the two parts of the research and the integration of the statistical analysis on the variability of the data of the split plot experiment are added to the text. Thank you

In my opinion, the manuscript should be divided into two separate ones. When one will address the issue in a broader context (questionnaire part). The second should be devoted to the issue of seed multiplication, based on multiannual results of experiments, etc.

Yes thank you we did this. We are a highly motivated multidisciplinary group and, once these difficulties have been overcome, we are collaborating better.

Thank you again, all these valuable suggestions have been very helpful in improving the writing of the paper. Very grateful

The introduction is very confusing and does not explain the rationale of the research work.

The Chapter 2 is not necessary and could anyway be included in the introduction if made more concise.

As suggested the introduction and chapter 2 have been merged. Thank you for your suggestion

The section materials and methods contains introductory remarks and is unclear.

The methods have been clarified with Figure 1

In any case, the same section gives details of morpho-biometric tests, but no results of these tests are shown in the results chapter.

We inserted the requested details

The results of the fertilisation test do not add anything to what was logically expected: the more fertiliser is given to the crop the higher the yield.

The nutrition protocols indicated the interaction among the genotypes studied in addition to the increment of plant biomass

The conclusions are drawn on the results of small plots (14 plants each) but reported to whole Sicily. Most conclusions are anyway not related to the experiment described in the paper, but are political considerations. 

The research team is multidisciplinary and for this also found political considerations. But these are in line with the general objective of the research: favoring the spread of biodiversity through a low input of materials to make this production even more sustainable. By demonstrating this, we are also responding to the political demands called upon to invest even more in this sector.

In conclusion, the limitations and future developments of the research were added.

Thank you for your suggestion

Thank you again, all these valuable suggestions have been very helpful in improving the writing of the paper. Very grateful

After revision the manuscript is improved.

Thanks for the appreciation. It has been improved following the constructive suggestions of the referees

I have one comment to conclusion part. This part should be generalised statement of authors but I detect in this part some references (lines 453, 471, 476) but it is not correct. references should be removed and this part rewrited.

The conclusions have been revised in their entirety and the issues raised have been resolved. Thank you for the incentive for reflection to improve the paper.

I have to admit that the paper has been substantially improved as compared to the previous version, now the experimental data are clearly reported and not only mentioned.

Thanks for the appreciation. It has been improved following the constructive suggestions of the referees, please see the attachment