Effect of Flowering Strips in Associated Broccoli and Lettuce Crops on Increasing Land Use Efficiency
, Carlos Alberto Marcillo-Paguay 1, Eliana Gisela Revelo-Gomez 1, Mónica Cuervo 2 and Erika Paola Igua-Urbano 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
None
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The provision of raw data from the trial were absent, particularly the outcomes derived from data collected within the sample plots.
2.The software employed and the statistical methodologies applied for result analysis lack detailed elucidation.
3.The tables depicting the results lack clear labeling concerning the significance of the observed differences between the two treatments.
4.Consistency in the presence or absence of auxiliary lines within box plots, particularly illustrated in Figure 4, needs to be ensured.
5.Economic analyses necessitate the inclusion of recent local market price data for pertinent crops.
6.Certain conclusive statements in the discussion lack empirical support, such as the reference to "L 447-451."
7.The statistical analysis of pests and diseases across different cropping patterns solely addresses the incidence or infestation rates, neglecting the severity levels of pests and diseases. The latter represents a crucial indicator in comprehensively studying the manifestation of pests and diseases.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe articles are written in English with a good level of fluency in expressing the author's ideas.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBrief summary
Dear Authors:
Following the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, I am pleased to submit the review report of the paper:
Flower strips increase land efficiency use in associated crops: broccoli.
I have read it carefully in its entirety, thanking the authors for their effort and dedication in its elaboration and consider the journal Sustentabilidad for its review and possible publication.
The Manuscript's objective was:
Evaluated the effects of intercropping and the introduction of flowering (aromatic) plant strips on the ratio of land use efficiency and crop damage for broccoli and lettuce association.
The research has a practical and social contribution that is an important aspect of the research, the polyculture of sustainable agricultural products for farmers in a country, demonstrating with empirical evidence alternatives for improving the efficiency of land use in their fields, involved the study of two crop cycles which makes it robust, study aspects such as productive efficiency and its comparison, incidence of pests and diseases, economic analysis, crop yields and interspecific competition.
Specific comments
Title:
The title is appropriate, it contains the object, the subject, but it lacks the method, this from the epistemology, therefore, I leave to your consideration its incorporation so that the title contains all the epistemological elements of an investigation.
The object of study: the variables
The subject of study: who lives the problem.
The method: it can be: Effect but it can be Relate, Evaluate, Impact, influence, correlation, relation etc. It depends on the type of research.
The variable is included in the title "increase land efficiency", it is very appropriate.
In my opinion, the title could be clearer for the readers as follows:
Effect of flowering strips in associated broccoli and lettuce crops on increasing land use efficiency. (15 words) Clear and consistent.
In this way a title is supported:
The object of study: increase in land use efficiency.
The subject of study: Associated broccoli-leaf lettuce crops.
The method: Effect
I hope you take this as a constructive idea, the freedom of naming the work is only of the authors.
This title is in accordance with the general objective.
The summary:
Is the most read section of an article, so it is important that it is orderly, trying to separate the sections.
The introductory paragraph is appropriate, however, I suggest that they indicate:
Therefore, the objective of the research was ............................
Methodologically......................................
the results indicated......................
It is concluded ...........................................
Within an abstract it is not appropriate to write "our results", nor "in summary", you must be precise in your findings and contributions to knowledge in your field with quantitative data.
Your work has a methodological support that gives it validity, therefore writing: The empirical evidence indicated that .....................................................................is an alternative for its writing at the end of the summary.
this is based on the study variables
Note 1.-I suggest you try to rewrite the abstract.
Note.
“Our results support the idea that farmers can introduce floral strips in their horticultural fields to improve the eco-productive efficiency of their farms and reduce dependence on external polluting inputs”.
I agree with this, however in the text the variable does not show data, they should include what the land use efficiency was trying to explain it in comparison to monoculture.
The term eco-productive is another variable, do not confuse the readers, always use in your article the term that you determined as the study variable, which was land use efficiency.
I consider that line 22 is not necessary because it is not clear, in a section of future lines of research you can include it, but which mechanisms underlie these results?
Keywords:
Lettuce-Broccoli intercropping; organic agriculture; diversification practices; agroecology.
Note 2.-Keywords are important for the editorials for indexing purposes, a proposed idea is that the words included in the title are not repeated in the keywords, it would be interesting to place a keyword that is related to ODS addressed. And eliminate the first keyword
If the agricultural field where the study was conducted has the characteristics to comply with the organic certification, it can be left, otherwise it would not be appropriate.
Introducción
The authors start very well with the field of knowledge and the situation in Colombia, they cover some concepts related to the research,
Note 3. I suggest the authors answer the following questions and analyze the introduction section:
1 Is it focused on the problem clearly from macro to micro?
2. Is it enjoyable and fruitful to read, does it condense the letters and is it prolific in ideas?
3. Does it clearly state the reasons for conducting the study?
4. Does it state the premises on which the study is based?
5. Does it clearly define the objectives of the study?
6. Does it state the hypotheses that the study intends to demonstrate?
Note 3. The objective
Regarding the objective, there is no consistency between the objective stated in the abstract, nor in the title of the paper.
In the introduction:
"Quantify the effects of establishing flower strips in broccoli and lettuce crops, both in association and as monocultures, under organic and conventional management schemes, with a focus on their production and economic aspects".
In brief:
This study evaluated the effects of intercropping and the introduction of flowering (aromatic) plant strips on the ratio of land use efficiency and crop damage for broccoli and lettuce association
Title: Flower strips increase land efficiency use in associated crops: broccoli-lettuce
The title as a variable is land use efficiency, so I suggest to the authors to analyze: Is the title correct with the written objectives?
I suggest aligning it and defining it clearly, so that the structure is adequate.
A more appropriate objective is the one written in the abstract.
Evaluated the effects of intercropping and the introduction of flowering plant strips on the ratio of land use efficiency and crop damage for broccoli and lettuce association
Note 4. The hypothesis
"Our hypothesis is that the introduction of aromatic strips together with intercropping will en hance crop yields and pest and disease regulation in diversified crops compared to conventional monoculture production."
The hypothesis is stated in terms of other variables: crop yields and pest and disease regulation.
And it states that it will improve these variables (very ambiguous), so where is the efficiency of land use?
On the other hand, since they are making a comparison, the hypotheses could be left depending on the following aspects:
The hypothesis put forward for the present research is that the planting of aromatic strips together with intercropping the crop yield will be higher than conventional monocultures.
Pest regulation will be lower in diversified crops compared to conventional monoculture production.
The efficiency of land use by planting aromatic strips in conjunction with intercropping will be higher compared to conventional monoculture production.
These are simple and valid hypotheses, but it would be much better to indicate quantitative values if possible.
This is what I can understand up to the introduction section, I suggest you analyze it because there are contradictions that should be clarified.
Finally: do not use the word "our results", simply: the results indicated that .......................................... do not forget to add the other study variables, they only mention crop yield.
"Our results indicate that the combination of productive diversification strategies improves crop performance, as the introduction of flower strips at the crop edges positively impacts the LER of the intercropping between broccoli and lettuce. No effects of diversification strategies on crop damage were observed, suggesting that the observed effect may be attributed to factors such as microclimate and soil water retention, aspects that should be further investigated in future research."
Note that one of the hypothesis that I wrote as an example is related to this paragraph with the variable crop yield.
I hope my comments in this section will be useful.
Recommendations for the methodology
Did you provide all the necessary information about the variables studied and the products used (doses, origin, etc.)?
Did you include all the methods used in the study?
Did you describe them in detail?
Did you correctly cite the methods?
Are the statistical procedures rigorous?
Is the use of data description and statistical treatment consistent?
These are reflection questions that support your work.
Note 5.
In the section it is advisable to have an adequate structure as the following: it is a suggestion.
As it is written in my opinion it should be improved.
2.1. Study site
2.2. Edaphic characterization of the soil of the plots.
2.3. Plant species and agronomic management
2.3.1 First cycle (period and date)
2.3.2 Second cycle (period and date)
2.3. Variables of analysis and their operationalization
2.3.1 First cycle
2.3.2 Second cycle
2.4. Experimental design
2.4.1. First cycle (period and date) 2.4.2.
2.4.2 Second cycle (period and date)
In this section you can write and place in a clear table the treatments, the factors and why you chose this design with references.
Are the field plots very homogeneous, or are the field blocks as homogeneous as possible and the blocks are heterogeneous to each other?
2.4. Financial analysis :Indicate references for calculations, report costs in Euros or US dollars.
2.5 Statistical analysis and software used
Additional notes
the variance analysis and p-value was not stated in the methodology.
Tables or diagrams that are useful to readers may be used.
The authors are strongly recommended to restructure the methodology, as it is confusing and not very replicable; therefore, it is important to review the empirical evidence of similar works and structure it in a better order.
It is important to indicate the equipment used in the measurements.
The equations should be numbered.
Indicate the cycles of how many days of duration they were.
They talk about agroecological practices and fungicides, clarify this in the corresponding section, they also used supplementary foliar fertilization that do not report the source. They add commercial products that do not indicate their characteristics. Each element added should be very specific in all aspects, brand, nutritional composition, etc. All the elements for this experiment are replicable.
The soil type of the plots is also not clearly observed, they show its composition, but do not characterize it.
I exhort to adapt this section as this research is useful for agricultural producers.
Results
Recommendation for the conclusion and for its support.
Is the parallelism between the presentation of results in text and the presentation of data in tables and figures perfect?
Does the order of presentation of the different types of results follow a logical order?
Have you highlighted the star results?
Is it clear in all comparisons which values are compared and which test is used for comparison?
Is the use of descriptive parameters and tests consistent with the sample sizes and type of data distribution?
Do you provide the p value in the text or illustrations when the test is significant?
Can you present the data in a more concise way?
The order of the results should be structured in the study variables according to the methodology.
Start with productive efficiency, a variable that is not described that way in the previous sections.
Remember that its variables are:
Land efficiency which is included in the title of the paper.
Crop yields and pest and disease regulation, efficiency of land use and production and economic aspects. In the specific objectives described in the manuscript.
Therefore, the results should be presented in order.
At the beginning of the results section you present a comparison, that is good but not written in the objective of the work, I consider that you should present them individually and in the discussion section you can compare them. If this is so, the title should be changed.
Because you are missing variables and add during two growing cycles.
Analyze it, the variable Competitive rate and Crop yield and interspecific competition were never described anywhere in the manuscript previously.
Note 6. An option to organize the paper as proposed, and with the consensus of the authors could be:
3.Results
3.1 First cycle
3.1.1 Efficiency of land use
3.1.2 Crop yields and pest and disease regulation
3.1.3 Production and economic aspects
3.2 Second cycle
3.2.1 Eefficiency of land use
3.2.2 Crop yields and pest and disease regulation 3.2.3 Production and economic aspects
3.2.3 Production and economic aspects
This is in accordance with the variables they wrote.
The tables they present are clear, but I consider that the order is not adequate.
This section should also be restructured.
The supplementary material is very adequate, but they do not emphasize it.
Discussion
Recommendations for discussion of the results:
Begin by presenting the answer to the main question stated in the introduction?
Does it deduce applications or implications of your answer?
Does it highlight the novelty of the work by explaining what the conclusions reached add to existing knowledge?
Do you claim priority if appropriate?
Do you explain why the answer follows from the results, why it is reasonable, and how it fits within existing knowledge?
Do you use scientific hypotheses rigorously?
Do you not reiterate the results?
Is the manuscript clear, relevant to the field, and presented in a well-structured manner?
These are questions for your reflection and support.
Note 7. The discussion section does not provide critical elements, only four references are presented, in this section you should make a comparative analysis of all the variables, looking for elements in the empirical evidence to deduce and contrast your own results and versus the evidence within this field of knowledge.
The structure of the discussion section would be similar to the previous one, only comparing the cycles.
Conclusions
Recommendation for conclusions: Is the original contribution?
Degree of linkage to the objectives.
Degree of integration of the theoretical and application framework.
Discussion raised regarding the results obtained.
Derivation of normative or explanatory processes on reality.
Clarification of the limits of the study and proposals for new studies.
These are questions for reflection and support.
Note 8 The conclusions that the authors propose do not contain sufficient and conclusive elements of their research objectives in terms of the variables of the research, they only mention some of them. These should be reconsidered; note that they have many study variables, which should be considered in the conclusion in addition to the working hypotheses that were proposed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your valuable and insightful comments led to possible improvements in the current version. We have considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them:
- The significance of differences in data comparison in Figure 8(a), 9(a) and (c) are not labeled.
Answer: When differences were found, they were specified in the graphs and when they were not, they were not included in the graphs.
In the statistical analysis of pest and diseases under different cropping patterns, only the incidence or infestation rates were described, ignoring the severity of the pests and diseases. These different levels of severity are important indicators for studying the occurrence of pests and diseases.
Answer: Our findings indicate that the incidence and infestation rates of pests and diseases are extremely low. Therefore, we have decided not to include the severity levels of pests and diseases in our statistical analysis.
- English should be minor improved.
Answer: We have conducted a thorough style review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments
-This manuscript, by authors, studied “
“Flower strips increase land efficiency use in associated crops: broccoli-lettuce”.
Overall, the topic is of interest to Sustainability, readers. However, the following are the specific comments on the article concerns, before publication as major revision.
Specific Comments and Suggestions
-Abstract
-“However, in the presence of flowering plant strips, the land use equivalent ratio (LER) is >1 in the two years of study,” Significant or non-significant?
-How do you do your statistical analysis?
-Biomass yield? Quantitative results, please.
-Introduction
-Mention your significance of study worldwide, then can be regional.
-Add more recent references and more significant studies to strengthen your research gap.
-Your objectives?
Materials and methods
- Improve your methodology section with details. Separate your two experimental designs. It’s confusing. Duration and parameters should be included and can be presented in tables.
-Add reference about your fertilization.
-What is the baseline for comparison? Reason?
-Economic analysis? Another experiment? Any questioner? Why separate? Seems suitable for the introduction section and then the discussion in your results
-Results
-Check formatting errors in figures and tables. Statistical analysis?
-Revise Figure 1 as you separated in Figs 2 and 3.
-What about statistical analysis in figures and results?
-Again Figure 4, needs to be revised.
-Second experimental cycle? Why separate heading? Explained in methodology? Please improve your methodology and then your results accordingly. Don't make it confusing.
-Can number your headings and sub-headings to show your results.
Discussion
- Must add recent references for discussion.
-Too weak without references
Conclusions
-Be specific
-“especially in organic production schemes and at planting densities of 50,000 plants.ha-1 ” Your results?
References
-Be consistent
-Must add recent references
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: Comments.pdf
None
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your valuable and insightful comments led to possible improvements in the current version. We have considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them:
- The author has made many modifications to the article (even the main author has been changed), but the logic is still quite chaotic and lacks academic logic! And the language needs polishing and avoiding some obvious errors. Especially the content in the "Discussion" section needs to be refined into valuable commentary, rather than lengthy and plain descriptions
Answer: We improved the logical flow of the introduction and discussion sections and refined the language.
- The "1. Introduction" section lacks academic logic and is more of a simple description and listing.
Answer: We improved the logical flow of the introduction.
- Line 51: There is an additional space between the quotation and period in the sentence "by supporting agroecological transition processes [7] ." There are many similar errors in the text. In addition, there are errors in punctuation, such as the comma used after "Figure 9" in Line 540. Careful inspection is required!
Answer: We removed the spaces between the quotation marks and periods, and reviewed the punctuation throughout the manuscript.
- What is the meaning of"Figure 1" in the text? It seems optional. And it's "adapted from Paut et al. [35]"?
Answer: We delete Figure 1 of the manuscript.
- Lines 234-236, 244-245: The descriptions in "2.4.1. First cycle" and "2.4.2. Second cycle" are "During the first cycle, which last 95 days (from April 19th 2023 to July 14th 2023)" and "During the second cycle, which last 86 days from April 19th to July 14th 2023" respectively. Both time periods are the same (eg. from April 19th 2023 to July 14th 2023), but the duration and days are different. This is a very obvious big mistake! Is it a problem with the expression, or is the experimental time indeed repeated? How can you support the reliability of your research results.
Answer: We have made corrections to the dates for the first and second cycle. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
- Lines 299-300: The expression "last year (2022)" in "last year (2022) in two local markets in Nariño [36]" is not very professional. Isn't it more concise to write directly about 2022?
Answer: We removed the phrase 'last year' to prevent any misunderstandings.
- The presentation of unit "ha-1" in multiple parts of the article is not standardized, which is an attitude issue! For example, Lines 549-550.
Answer: We have ensured that the format for the expression 'plants.ha-1' is consistent throughout the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The significance of differences in data comparisons in Figures 8(a), 9(b) and (c) are not labeled.
2. In the statistical analysis of pests and diseases under different cropping patterns, only the incidence or infestation rates were described, ignoring the severity of the pests and diseases. These different levels of severity are important indicators for studying the occurrence of pests and diseases.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish should be minor improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your valuable and insightful comments led to possible improvements in the current version. We have considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them:
Materials and methods
- Improve your methodology section with details. Separate your two experimental designs. It´s confusing. Duration and parameters should included and can be presented in tables.
Answer: We have reorganized and separated the first and second cycles in our methodology section, and included two new figures to specify our experimental design and avoid confusion.
- Add reference about fertilization.
Answer: We added references regarding our fertilization process.
What is the baseline for comparison? Reason?
Answer: Our baseline for comparison was the need to suggest better agroecological strategies for Colombian crops compared to conventional crops
- Economic analyses? Another experiment? Any questioner?, Why separate? Seems suitable for the introduction section and then the discussion in your results.
Answer: We included references to economic analyses in our introduction and discussion. This could help farmers earn better income and provide consumers with higher quality products.
Results
- Check formatting errors in figures and tables, statistical analysis?
Answer: We have reviewed the formatting of both figures and tables, as well as conducted a statistical analysis to ensure accuracy.
- Revise Figure 1 as you separated in Figs 3 and 3-
Answer: We delete Figure 1.
- What about statistical analysis in figures and results?
Answer: We included the p-value in the text, tables, and figures to highlight significant differences between treatments and factors.
- Again Figure 4, needs to be revised
Answer: We corrected Figure 4.
- Can number your headings and sub-headings to show results
Answer: We use numbering for the headings and sub-headings to demonstrate our findings clearly.
Discussion
- Must add recent references for discussion
- Two week without references
Answer: We have included additional recent and relevant references to further elaborate on our findings.
Conclusions
- Be specific
- Especially in organic production schemes and at planting densities of 50.000 plants ha-1 Your results
Answer: We specify more our results.
References
- Be consistent
- Must add recent references
Answer: We have added more recent and relevant references throughout the text to ensure consistency in format.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors:
Following the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, I am pleased to submit the review report of the paper:
Effect of flowering strips in associated broccoli and lettuce crops on increasing land use efficiency
I have read it carefully in its entirety, thanking the authors for their effort and dedication in its elaboration and consider the journal Sustentabilidad for its review and possible publication.
I note an improvement with respect to the previous manuscript, for which I thank the authors for the effort they devoted to correcting some organizational and methodological aspects, which in my opinion, were important to address.
1.-Revise the font size, size and resolution of the graphs.
2.- Review the tables in the same way, correct them according to the authors' guide and the temperate.
3.- Some sections are unnumbered. For example in the Discussion of results.
In the conclusion I suggest that you do not lose the objective of the work and the three planted hypotheses that should be answered. Remember the suggestions of the conclusion.
In my opinion the manuscript can be accepted with these minor modifications.
The editorial office will send you indications to improve some aspects of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We are very grateful for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your valuable and insightful comments led to possible improvements in the current version. We have considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them:
- The significance of differences in data comparison in Figure 8(a), 9(a) and (c) are not labeled.
Answer: When differences were found, they were specified in the graphs and when they were not, they were not included in the graphs.
In the statistical analysis of pest and diseases under different cropping patterns, only the incidence or infestation rates were described, ignoring the severity of the pests and diseases. These different levels of severity are important indicators for studying the occurrence of pests and diseases.
Answer: Our findings indicate that the incidence and infestation rates of pests and diseases are extremely low. Therefore, we have decided not to include the severity levels of pests and diseases in our statistical analysis.
- English should be minor improved.
Answer: We have conducted a thorough style review.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Table 5 lacks the bottom horizontal line.
2. The presentation of "* = P≤ 0.05; ** = P≤ 0.01; *** = P≤ 0.001; ns = not significant" with both "=" and "≤" symbols may not be standardized.
3. Measurement units, citations, etc. need to be carefully checked and verified to avoid errors. The manuscript text also needs to be rechecked and polished.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript text also needs to be rechecked and polished.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We greatly appreciate your time in reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable feedback. Your insightful comments have significantly contributed to enhancing the current version. We have thoroughly considered and addressed each of the comments to the best of our ability.
1.-Table 5 lacks the bottom horizontal line.
Answer: We included the bottom horizontal line of Table 5.
2.- The presentation of ** = p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01; p ≤ 0.001; ns = not significant” with both “=”and “≤” may not be standarized.
Answer: We standardized the presentation of * = P < 0.05; ** = P < 0.01; *** = P < 0.001; and ns = not significant, along the manuscript.
3.- Measurement units, citations, etc. need to be carefully checked and verified to avoid errors. The manuscript text need to be rechecked and polished.
Answer: We carefully reviewed, verified and uniformize the format of measurement units and citations along the text to avoid errors and follow the authors guide. Also we have conducted a thorough style review.
