Investigation of the Nutrient Composition of Fluted Pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) under Herbicide Treatment
, Kigho Moses Oghenejoboh 2, Hassan Oriyomi Shoyiga 3, Sammy Lewis Kiambi 4 and Thembisile Patience Mahlangu 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The current manuscript entitled “Investigation of nutrient composition of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) under herbicide treatment” by Akpasi et al. deals with the quantification of nutritive value of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) leaves by measuring the levels of carbohydrate, protein, fat, ash, dietary fiber and moisture contents. After a careful reading, I found that the manuscript is written in poor English with several syntax errors which make it's reading hard. Also, I have observed that the results provided as not appropriately replicated. Similar kinds of studies have been conducted in Nigeria on the same pumpkin while considering more proximate and phytochemical parameters, so what is the novelty of this work, only under herbicide treatments? Also, the authors claimed that they used four treatments of herbicide (control, 100, 150, and 200 L ha-1, too high dose) but the data provided is only of two treatments. The question on the analysis of the leaf part only is unanswered. I would suggest a major revision to this manuscript before it is further considered by the Sustainability journal. My specific comments are:
1. Add the analyzed part (leaves) and botanical authority of Telfairia occidentalis and also make it italicized. This is not a global perspective study so mention region/country too.
2. Line 16-20: Too long sentence with several grammatical mistakes. Revise. Also, eliminated AOAC and spectrophotometer contexts from here.
3. Line 22: you said, “100, 150, and 200 L ha-1 were applied to the treated and control plots”. Really to the control plots too? Contradictory claim.
4. If experiments were repeated four times, then all results (values) should have mean and SD too.
5. The abstract lacks appropriate units of the mentioned values. g/?.
6. Line 31: you said “herbicides can affect the nutritional yield of T. occidentalis by eliminating weeds alongside” again you said “untreated T. occidentalis contains significant amounts of nutrients compared to the treated one” in line 33. Both statements are contradictory and unclear. If the non-treated (control) set has more nutrient value than the treated set then why someone is going to use herbicide, just to reduce its nutritional quality?
7. The introduction should be improved and rearranged with more focus on the problem associated with the cultivation of fluted pumpkin in Nigeria, and its need, followed by a hypothesis of how the herbicide can improve/decrease nutritional quality, and then objectives. The current version contains too much irrelevant information.
8. 2013-2014 is a too old period, it is a decade ago? The research community has developed more advanced methods for herbicide applications. I believe that the data is too old and regional soil/water/climatic conditions have changed a lot in the last 10 years.
9. Most of the adopted methods don’t have references.
10. In the results and discussion, the authors just compared the values obtained from different methods. No new information is provided.
11. More nutrition parameters such as basic elements: Cu, Fe, Zn, and Mn, with other phytochemical constituents using GC-MS are lacking. No one can make a decision on the medicinal use of samples just using Table 1 data.
12. Data presented must be at least mean followed by SD of three replicates.
13. An appropriate test of significance is a must to compare the control sets.
14. Interpretation and comparison of results with recent reports are weak.
15. Data starting from Table 3 and Fig.3-onward is like an excel sheet, no one wants to read how you performed calculations, it is the work of a simple laboratory exercise for bachelor students. You did not invent a new method of analysis so I believe this information should be removed and only mean SD values are enough to present.
16. I am not convinced about the quality and presentation of the data.
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
The current manuscript entitled “Investigation of nutrient composition of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) under herbicide treatment” by Akpasi et al. deals with the quantification of nutritive value of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) leaves by measuring the levels of carbohydrate, protein, fat, ash, dietary fiber and moisture contents. After a careful reading, I found that the manuscript is written in poor English with several syntax errors which make it's reading hard. Also, I have observed that the results provided as not appropriately replicated. Similar kinds of studies have been conducted in Nigeria on the same pumpkin while considering more proximate and phytochemical parameters, so what is the novelty of this work, only under herbicide treatments? Also, the authors claimed that they used four treatments of herbicide (control, 100, 150, and 200 L ha-1, too high dose) but the data provided is only of two treatments. The question on the analysis of the leaf part only is unanswered. I would suggest a major revision to this manuscript before it is further considered by the Sustainability journal. My specific comments are:
Point 1: Add the analyzed part (leaves) and botanical authority of Telfairia occidentalis and also make it italicized. This is not a global perspective study so mention region/country too.
Response 1: The botanical authority of Telfairia occidentalis has been italicized in all sections of the manuscript. The region where the work was carried out has also been included.
Kindly refer to Page 2, Line 254
Page 3, Line 466
Point 2. Line 16-20: Too long sentence with several grammatical mistakes. Revise. Also, eliminated AOAC and spectrophotometer contexts from here.
Response 2: This has been modified accordingly.
Please refer to abstract section, Line 16 - 20
Point 3. Line 22: you said, “100, 150, and 200 L ha-1 were applied to the treated and control plots”. Really to the control plots too? Contradictory claim.
Response 3: That was an oversight. The authors are grateful for the reviewer’s observation.
This has been corrected.
Please refer to Abstract section - Line 21 - 22
Point 4: If experiments were repeated four times, then all results (values) should have mean and SD too.
Response 4: The mean and SD of all results have been done and included in the manuscript.
Point 5: The abstract lacks appropriate units of the mentioned values. g/?.
Response 5: The appropriate units have been included
The units were converted to a percentage (%), which is in line with similar reports by:
Carillo, P., Colla, G., Fusco, G.M., Dell’Aversana, E., El-Nakhel, C., Giordano, M., Pannico, A., Cozzolino, E., Mori, M., Reynaud, H. and Kyriacou, M.C., 2019. Morphological and physiological responses induced by protein hydrolysate-based biostimulant and nitrogen rates in greenhouse spinach. Agronomy, 9(8), p.450. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9080450
Point 6: Line 31: you said “herbicides can affect the nutritional yield of T. occidentalis by eliminating weeds alongside” again you said “untreated T. occidentalis contains significant amounts of nutrients compared to the treated one” in line 33. Both statements are contradictory and unclear. If the non-treated (control) set has more nutrient value than the treated set then why someone is going to use herbicide, just to reduce its nutritional quality?
Response 6: The statement has been modified
Refer to the abstract section, lines 31 – 33.
Point 7: The introduction should be improved and rearranged with more focus on the problem associated with the cultivation of fluted pumpkin in Nigeria, and its need, followed by a hypothesis of how the herbicide can improve/decrease nutritional quality, and then objectives. The current version contains too much irrelevant information.
Response 7: The authors are grateful for the constructive comments. The introduction has been improved in accordance with the reviewer's comments.
Kindly refer to the Introduction section.
Point 8: 2013-2014 is a too old period, it is a decade ago? The research community has developed more advanced methods for herbicide applications. I believe that the data is too old and regional soil/water/climatic conditions have changed a lot in the last 10 years.
Response 8: The references from 2013-2014 have been updated to current years throughout the manuscript.
Point 9: Most of the adopted methods don’t have references.
Response 9: The adopted methods have been referenced accordingly
Kindly refer to Section 2.3.1, Page 4, Line 523
Section 2.3.2, Page 5, Line 557
Section 2.3.3, Page 5, Line 578
Section 2.3.4, Page 6, Line 601
Section 2.3.5 Page 6, Line 613
Section 2.3.6 Page 6, Line 631
Point 10: In the results and discussion, the authors just compared the values obtained from different methods. No new information is provided.
Response 10: The results and discussion section have been improved.
Kindly refer to the section 3 of the manuscript.
Point 11: More nutrition parameters such as basic elements: Cu, Fe, Zn, and Mn, with other phytochemical constituents using GC-MS are lacking. No one can make a decision on the medicinal use of samples just using Table 1 data.
Response 11: Thanks for the comment, the authors recognize the fact that GC-MS is ideal for proper phytochemical analysis. However, the instrument was down as at the time, the study was carried out. Also, the author has modified the statement regarding the claim of attributing medicinal use of the sample based on Table 1 data.
Please refer to Page 7, Lines 668 – 674.
Point 12: Data presented must be at least mean followed by SD of three replicates.
Response 12: This has been addressed accordingly.
Point 13: An appropriate test of significance is a must to compare the control sets.
Response 13: This has been addressed accordingly.
Point 14: Interpretation and comparison of results with recent reports are weak.
Response 14: The results and discussions have been modified.
Point 15: Data starting from Table 3 and Fig.3-onward is like an excel sheet, no one wants to read how you performed calculations, it is the work of a simple laboratory exercise for bachelor students. You did not invent a new method of analysis so I believe this information should be removed and only mean SD values are enough to present.
Response 15: The mentioned tables and figures have been removed and replaced with mean SD values.
Point 16: I am not convinced about the quality and presentation of the data.
Response 16: With the current status of the manuscript, after careful revisions in accordance with the reviewer's comment. It is hoped that the quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments have been attached for rectification. Authors are advised to make the required changes before the final decision by the Editorial Team.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Cucurbitaceae family includes genus Cucurbita (pumpkin) Give its full botanical name??
Response 1: This has been modified
Please refer to the Introduction section, page 2, Line 213.
Point 2: Rephrase whether you used 1/10X or 1X rate?? Your statement is ambiguous?? Note that the herbicide drift is the escape of a herbicide to the non target area/crop(s).
Response 2: This has been rephrased
Kindly refer to section 2.2, page 4, lines 498 – 502.
Point 3: The study also included an untreated check.
Response 3: This has been revised accordingly
Kindly refer to section 2.2, Page 4, Line 502
Point 4: composition of T. occidentalis leaves is shown in Table 1,
Response 4: This has been rephrased.
Please refer to section 3.1, Page 7, Line 646.
Point 5: Greater the presence of protein, the darker is the colour (If American format adopted then spell as color)??
Response 5: This has been revised accordingly.
Kindly refer to section 3.4, Page 9, Lines 972 – 973.
Point 6: to quantify the amount
Response 6: Revised
Kindly refer to section 3.4, Page 9, Line 974.
Point 7: It was mainly required to be in Materials and Methods???
Response 7: This has been addressed accordingly
Point 8: Are sufficient to meet the daily human requirement
Response 8: This has been revised
Kindly refer to the conclusion section, Page 9, Line 989.
Point 9: The research goal/purpose has been achieved in the instant data recorded.
Response 9: Revised
Kindly refer to conclusion section, Page 10, Line 1062
Point 10: are highly nutrient-rich vegetables
Response 10: This has been revised.
Please refer to page 10, Line 1076.
Point 11: Pakistan J.Ntr, 2008. 7(1): p. 85-89. (Follow uniformity in all references as format of the target journal)??
Response 11: This has been revised, and uniformity has been consistent in all references.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Compared to the previous version, the manuscript was greatly improved increasing its quality.
Author Response
Reviewer 3 Comments
Reviewer's comment: Compared to the previous version, the manuscript was greatly improved, increasing its quality.
Response: Thank you for allowing us to improve the quality of our research manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
This version is much improved.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The current manuscript entitled “Effects of Herbicides on the Nutritional Composition of Fluted Pumpkin” by Akpasi et al. concluded that herbicides can improve the nutritional value of Fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis) in the agroecological zone of southeastern Nigeria. After a careful review, I found this manuscript of the below-quality but matching the scope of targeted section “Sustainable Agriculture” of Sustainability MDPI to some extent. However, I have noticed several unnecessary sections and modifications which needs to be rectified. These flaws makes the manuscript lengthy and going out of context of the main research problem. My specific comments are:
1. The structure and flow of the reading are too poor. I suggest renumbering all sections carefully and consistently.
2. Indicate the scientific name and botanical authority of Fluted Pumpkin in the title and abstract. Moreover, following the standard practice for writing botanical names, they should appear as Telfairia occidentalis at first mention but T. occidentalis (italics) for next use. Somewhere authors used Telfairia occidentalis and somewhere Fluted Pumpkin, so be consistent in this regard.
3. Avoid keywords that already appeared in the title.
4. Introduction: fine only several grammatical and syntax errors must be rectified.
5. The degree sign (°) is missing in geocoordinates.
6. 16 m by 9 m? I think the author should avoid the too general method of writing. Use proper signs (16 × 9 m).
7. Figure 1: Not acceptable from Wikipedia. I suggest redrawing an original map with more precise study points.
8. Figure 2: Commendable.
9. Reference for chemical/proximate methods is missing. I suspect this section is plagiarized.
10. Table data: At least three identical analyses must be performed and data should be presented as mean followed by SD. Conduct appropriate mean comparison tests to derive the significant difference between the control treatment and test treatment.
11. The readings of chemical determination (Table 2-5 and related figures) have no sense to the original research problem. Major parts like this must be removed. Instead, some data on the relevant problem must be given.
12. The method of result writing and discussion is fundamentally weak.
Reviewer 2 Report
The Design of the Experiment is questionable. The herbicide paraquat was used several several times higher rates thane recommended rates just to kill the crop which is deplorable alongwith lack of planning. There are only two treatments which have been studied in this Experiment viz. fluted pumpkin killed through spraying paraquat herbicide and natural senescence of the crop. Rate of paraquat has been mentioned as high as 300 kg ha-1 as against the single digit recommended application dose of paraquat. The Results and Discussion Component is also poor there are several Tables which are also not elaborate. Moreover, the Discussion is altogether lacking. Thus Suggestion on my part to Reject this ms. The Section wise comments are sent herewith for information please.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript sustainability-2033304 entitled "Effects of Herbicides on the Nutritional Composition of Fluted Pumpkin" submitted by Stephen Okiemute Akpasi et al. report a one year field study regarding the effect of paraquat use on Telfairia occidentalis quality.
In general, the experimental activity seems to be well performed, howewer the activities description in the manuscript is not well written and confuse the readers.
Abstract needs to be reorganized by presenting a state of the art, the methods applied, the main results and a final general consideration regarding the main finding of your study.
Keywords: avoid to repeat the same words that are present in the title.
Introduction: is vague and not well focused on the reseach question. In the last part it should be focused to present the importance of your study.
Materials and Methods: This part needs to be completely rewritten. Why for Fluted Pumpkin the farmers have to use a so important quantity of herbicide? Did you considered the impact on the enviroment? How did you choosed hte paraquat doses? Why did you repeat the treatment two times? Note that "paraquat" is a commercial name; a chemical name should be more appropriate.
The order of the analysis presentation should be reorganized.
The leaves preparation seems to be incorrect. Did you ashed them or dried at 60°?
Many references for the methods are missing.
Result presentation is not clear. Considering that the reseach question was not well presented is difficult to find the discussion.
Conclusions are not focused on the treatments effect of pumpkin.
My specific comments are noted in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
