Enhancing Indoor Culture of Weather Loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) and Caipira Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in a Decoupled FLOCponics System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study has practical significance for the sustainable production of weather loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) and caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) in a decoupled FLOCponics system. The experimental design is ok, but the duration of the experiment is too short for the culture of loach. The background and characteristics of the three systems are not provided clearly in the introduction section. Especially, the authors could not be familiar with BFT technology aquaculture system. Statistical analysis should be improved, such as one-way ANOVA should be used for the difference of water quality parameters at each sampling time. Some data of the results are inconsistent and unconvincing. The discussions are always speculative, with no direct data to support them. Some specific comments are marked in the text of the MS.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The writing of the MS was poor, and needs careful editing.
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to their comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors compare a flow through, a biofloc and a FLOCponics system.
Lines 91-106 are very similar to lines 107-118. Please rewrite to reduce redundancy.
Based on table 1 the only significant differences between the biofloc and FLOCponics system is in WGR and FCR. Please check lines 234-238. You report other significant differences which are not reported in Table 1. You also mention "superior outcomes" for SGR but if there is no significant difference how can there be a "superior outcome"? Please edit this section to better align with the data in Table 1.
You had 100 pots of plants in the FLOCponics system but only sampled 5. Was this sample size based on a power analysis? Why did you choose 5 plants (5%) of the total plant population?
On line 371 you mention the BFT system had beneficial bacteria including Bacillus. Did you test this?
On line 352 you talk about sewage outfalls. Are you associating sewage outfalls with the potential effluent from hydroponics? Properly managed hydroponics systems barely produce any wastewater as nutrients are expensive so the rates are matched to plant utilization.
On line 353-360 you mention RAS. This section is unclear. If you put fish into a hydroponic system its aquaponics. Please clarify.
On line 340 you mention microbial composition. What is this in reference to?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish language is ok but there are numerous grammatical errors (run on sentences, punctuation, capitalization, etc).
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to their comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting, well-done, and carefully researched paper that provides product information, enhancing the method of indoor culture of weather loach co-cultivation with caipira lettuce.
The study's results are interesting and well-structured, and they provide some promising initial results for combining and managing decoupled Flocponics systems.
Below are presented in detail some more comments on the ms.
Regarding the methodology (lines 91-95), the authors should add to the text the volume of the system that was used in the experiment for all treatments.
In lines 127-133, should the authors give details about the initial biomass and initial height of the crop?
In line 171, the authors report that the TAN and nitrite ions reached below 1 mg/L. Is that value appropriate for the survival of the fish rearing in the experimental conditions, or is this value affected by ammonia and ion toxicity
In conclusion (Lines 395-402), it is not clear how the results from the present study are novel. The question that arises here is how these results translate into practice. Can the authors explain briefly?
Author Response
I thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. The responses to their comments have been prepared and attached herewith.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
My comments are indicated in the manuscript itself. Please revise the manuscript according to the comments.
Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Please see the attached file.
[REVIEWER # 1]
We revised the reviewer’s comment with red letters (All pages)
[General Comments]
Dear authors,
My comments are indicated in the manuscript itself. Please revise the manuscript according to the comments.
Thank you.
[RE: 1] flow through
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “flow through” to “flow-through”. (page 1, line 18).
[RE: 2] in both fish and crop
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “in both fish and crop” to “of both fish and crops” (page 1, line 28).
[RE: 3] have
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “have” to “has” (page 2, line 48).
[RE: 4] This
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “This” to “These” (page 2, line 53).
[RE: 5] method
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “methods” to “method” (page 2, line68).
[RE: 6] as a food
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “as a food” to “as food” (page 2, line 72).
[RE: 7] demands
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “demands” to “demand” (page 2, line 75).
[RE: 8] republic
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “republic” to “the Republic” (page 2, line 76).
[RE: 9] growth performance of fish and production of crop, water quality
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “growth performance of fish and production of crop, water quality” to “growth performance of fish, production of crop and water quality” (page 2, lines 84-85).
[RE:10] flow through
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “flow through” to “flow-through” (page 2, line 90).
[RE:11] experiment control
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “experiment control” to “Control” (page 2, line 90).
[RE:12] ∅ à clarify it??
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “∅” to “∅ (Diameter)” (page 2, line 95).
[RE:13] placed
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “placed” to “stocked” (page 2, line 98).
[RE:14] Lactuca sativa
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Lactuca sativa” to “L. sativa” (page 2, line 102).
[RE:15] ∅ à??
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “∅” to “∅ (Diameter)” (page 3, line 112).
[RE:16] supplied
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “supplied” to “fed” (page 3, line 114).
[RE:17] controled
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “controled” to “controlled at” (page 3, line 117).
[RE:18] Lactuca sativa
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Lactuca sativa” to “L. sativa” (page 3, line 119).
[RE:19] Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Misgurnus anguillicaudatus” to “M. anguillicaudatus” (page 4, line 133).
[RE:20] Lactuca sativa
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Lactuca sativa” to “L. sativa” (page 4, line 133).
[RE:21] crop
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “crop” to “crops” (page 5, line 177).
[RE:22] weeks experiment
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “weeks experiment” to “week of the experiment” (page 5, line 177).
[RE:23] tatal
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “tatal” to “total” (page 5, line 179).
[RE:24] scale
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “scale” to “scales” (page 5, line 180).
[RE:25] calculated using equation
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “calculated using equation” to “were calculated using the equation” (page 5, line 184).
[RE:26] electronic
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “electronic” to “an electronic” (page 5, lines 191-192).
[RE:27] were
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “were” to “was” (page 5, line 192).
[RE:28] using
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “using” to “using a” (page 6, line 201).
[RE:29] fourth weeks according to
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “fourth weeks according to” to “four weeks in” (page 6, line 204).
[RE:30] BF à from where BF came??
☞ It was our mistake, we have changed “BF” to “FP system and FTS” (page 7, line 246).
[RE:31] BP à what is BP???
☞ It was our mistake, we have changed “BP” to “FP” (page 8, line 258).
[RE:32] rearing properties of
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “rearing properties of” to “rearing of” (page 8, line 266).
[RE:33] through
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “through” to “in” (page 8, line 267).
[RE:34] to grow crop
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “to grow crop” to “to grow the crop” (page 8, line 269).
[RE:33] The results of present study
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “The results of” to “The results of the” (page 8, line 269-270).
[RE:34] compared to it in BFT
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “compared to it in BFT” to “compared to BFT” (page 8, line 278).
[RE:35] reduce of toxic
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “reduce of toxic” to “reduce the toxic” (page 8, line 282).
[RE:36] with
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “with” to “with the” (page 9, line 287)
[RE:37] did not requires
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “did not requires” to “does not require” (page 9, line 314).
[RE:38] for fourth weeks
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “for fourth weeks” to “for the fourth week” (page 9, line 319).
[RE:39] flow through systems were
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “flow through systems were” to “flow-through systems was” (page 9, line 332).
[RE:40] Litopenaeus vannamei
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Litopenaeus vannamei” to “Litopenaeus vannamei” (page 10, line 390).
[RE:41] Ocimum basilicum
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Ocimum basilicum” to “Ocimum basilicum” (page 10, line 399).
[RE:42] Hortscience
☞ As per your suggestion, we have changed “Hortscience” to “HortScience” (page 10, line 404).
The manuscript has been rechecked by a professional editor, who is also a native English speaker (MDPI).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe draft entitled "Fish Growth Performance of Weather Loach (Misgurnus 2 anguillicaudatus) in Three Aquaculture Systems and Its Effect 3 on Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Production" by Kim et al., addressed a very interesting subject regarding the optimization of aquaponic systems to integrate the production of fish and lettuce. The current version of the manuscript needs mayor revision, particularly redaction and some methodology issues that need to be addressed. The discussion section only includes a very brief and light comparison with available literature hence it needs to be improved. Several other comments are provided in the file attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Please see the attached files.
[REVIEWER # 2]
We revised the reviewer’s comment with blue letters (All pages)
[General Comments]
The draft entitled "Fish Growth Performance of Weather Loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) in Three Aquaculture Systems and Its Effect 3 on Caipira lettuce (Lactuca sativa) Production" by Kim et al., addressed a very interesting subject regarding the optimization of aquaponic systems to integrate the production of fish and lettuce. The current version of the manuscript needs mayor revision, particularly redaction and some methodology issues that need to be addressed. The discussion section only includes a very brief and light comparison with available literature hence it needs to be improved. Several other comments are provided in the file attached
[RE: 1] However, owing to the limit for intensive culturing and natural production of nutrients, AP requires artificial nutrients. Therefore, novel methods are required to develop intensive culturing methods for AP. à the ideas on these lines are not clear, please be clear on what the actual problem is?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity. (page 1, line 14).
[RE: 2] Here, the productivity of weather loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) in the FP, BFT, and flow through systems (FTS). à what is the objective of this comparison?
☞ The following comparison represents a common methods of loach culturing. We mentioned the reason to perform three aquaculture systems. (page 1, line 18 and page 2, lines 89-92 ).
[RE: 3] Its survival rates were better in the FP (91.1 ± 2.64%) than BFT (82.1 ± 10.98%) and FTS (66.8 ± 2.75%). à Were these difference significant?
☞ We added the p value in the sentence for clarity (page 1, line 20).
[RE: 4] Total ammonia nitrogen and NO2−-N concentrations were stabilized in each plot. However, NO3−-N concentration continuously increased in the BFT but decreased under FP and stabilized. The shoot weight of Caipira lettuce was 163.6 ± 8.65 g in the FP and 149.6 ± 9.05 g under HP. In conclusion, BFT provides a large amount of nutrients to the AP system and can improve the growth performance of both fish and crops under the FP. à Please review redaction is very confusing, focus on the main finding of the study
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page1, line 23-28).
[RE: 5] eruptions à is this right word?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. we have changed “eruptions” to “destructions” (page 1, line 38).
[RE: 6] In total, 4.3 billion people depend on fish, accounting for 15% of the total animal protein intake [4], the method trends are turn catch and capture into culturing methods [5]. However, culture farms cause pollution and environmental destruction because of the sewage and waste generated [6]. à Very confusing redaction. Please it is difficult to get the idea the authors are presenting
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page 1, line 39-41).
[RE: 7] Eco-friendly à this term should be define first and then contextualized in order to be use in the present work
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page 1, line 44-45).
[RE: 8] pollutant decomposition ability à what pollutants? In what capacity?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page 2, line 46-47).
[RE: 9] Although BFT systems have a low installment price, they need more complicated management skills, such as maintaining the carbon (C) : nitrogen (N) ratio, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, and farming species [11,12]. à how is this different form other RAS systems??
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information of literature (page 2, line 52).
[RE: 10] Heterotrophic bacteria form flocs containing enriched nutrients produced through ammonification à a reference is needed here
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We put the reference on the end of the sentence (page 2, line 53).
[RE: 11] over-addition of bioflocs à Is this a common problem?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We emphasize the head of the sentence (page 2, line 55).
[RE: 12] However, there is a limit to intensive culturing and natural production of nutrients in the system; thus, AP requires artificial nutrients [19]. à This idea need to be better defined is too vague
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page 2, line 64-65).
[RE: 13] novel methods are required to develop intensive culturing methods for AP. à Please do check for redaction
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (page 2, line 66).
[RE: 14] AP based on BFT has been recommended, whose application requires many species to be studied for their adaptation to this system. à References are needed here
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We put the reference on the end of the sentence (page 2, line 68).
[RE: 15] and the fish growth à please specify fish species
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We put the reference on the end of the sentence (page 2, line 69-70).
[RE: 16] other pets à is a pet too?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Not only the pet fish market, loaches are good feed for monster fish like Arowana, Perch, but also Cats and Birds feed
[RE: 17] However, M. anguillicaudatus capture has been decreasing because of urban developments and the use of pesticides, and the demand for fish depends on their import [23].
à How these factors are able to negatively impact M. anguillicaudatus availability? Please explain at least briefly
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Weather loach eats bugs and other small shrimps in their habitat. But urban developments and the pesticides decreasing the habitats and their prey (page 2, line 74-76).
[RE: 18] However, it is difficult to recapture and gets easily infected by unwanted organisms and pathogens in an open environment, prompting farmers to attempt indoor culture. However, the lack of relevant studies on indoor aquaculture and indoor tanks has caused unidentified mass mortality in these fish. à Any literature or official reports for this?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We put the reference on the end of the sentence (page 2, line 81).
[RE: 19] its adaptation to FP for its high productivity and sustainable food production à This need to be better explain as so why is a plausible option for this species
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The weather loach could not culture in indoor system. So we tried any methods to improve the survival rates. In former days, BFT adoption is nearly complete for weather loach, but we need more stabilized conditions. So FP adoption was made in this system and procedure the culturing experiments. (page 2, lines 83 and 89-90)
[RE: 20] AP based on BFT (FP), only BFT, and flow-through system (Control, 2 rotations/day; FTS). The FP system is shown in Fig. 1. à Please be sure that in text and figures the systems are referred the same way.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. we have changed ”AP based on BFT (FP), only BFT, and flow-through system (Control, 2 rotations/day; FTS)” to “the FTS (control), which is based on flow-through with, 2 rotations/day; the BFT systems, which utilize biofloc action; and the FP system, which utilizes BFT and aquaponics” (page 2, line 90-92)
[RE: 21] had strong aeration à Any way to quantify this?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added the airflow rate (page 2, lines 92-93).
[RE: 22] The experiments were performed indoors; nine fish tanks (three each for FP, BFT, and FTS, ∅ (Diameter) 1.2 m × Height 1.0 m, fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)) were set using deep water culture (DWC) for crop cultivation with crop bed (2 m × 2 m) decoupled system. A total of 3 kg of fish (M. anguillicaudatus) was stocked in each tank.à A scheme for this would be useful, if figure one respond for this it ma need some work in terms of the proportions, are current proportions representative?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added this information in Fig. 1 (page 3, Figure 1).
[RE: 23] total of 3 kg of fish à please state biomass in terms of density, and if possible stating initial fish size.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added the density and fish initial size was mentioned in 2.2. Fish and Crop (page 2, line 107).
[RE: 24] to two cycles per day à What do the authors means by this? please be specific
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added the information of cycles. It’s the input volume from the fish tank (page 2, line 100-101).
[RE: 25] The feed à please do add a complete composition of the diet
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added a complete composition of the diet (page 3, line 112-114)..
[RE: 26] was supplied at the dose of 3% of the total weight/day during the experiment. à Any measurements or estimations on feed intake?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. For the C/N ratio, the Feed intake was fixed in 3% until the experiments.
[RE: 27] The water temperature was maintained at 24 ± 1.0°C using a 1 kW heater (OKE-HE-100, Sewon OKE, South Korea), and dissolved oxygen (DO) was controlled at approximately 10 mg/L using an oxygen supply system (KMOS-40R, Kumho-marine, South Korea). à This was for all experimental tanks?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We give the same conditions for each experimental tanks.
[RE: 28] feasibility à What do the authors mean by this?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This line means the feasibility of increasing productivity in the loach culture industry in Korea.
[RE: 29] Hydroponic (HP) cultivation was added and carried out as control tool for crops, and artificial nutrient solution (Mulfuresiriz, Daeyu Business Limited, Seoul, South Korea) was used for growing crop. à Please do state the composition of the mixture.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added a complete composition of the mixture (page 3, line 124-125).
[RE: 30] Electric conductivity (EC) was kept for a value was more than 0.5 mS/cm. à Please do check redaction and state a range in which EC was maintained?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the redaction of this sentence. In fig. 5. E.C was maintained over 0.5 mS/cm. each tanks (page 3, line 126-127).
[RE: 31] previous study à Please do describe at least briefly
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We put the reference on the end of the sentence (page 3, line 136-137)
[RE: 32] [1] Formula for adding molasses à Please provide literature to back this up and reconsider the presentation of this information. The formula must be presented in full an calculations can be offered in supplementary material.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information of literature (page 4, line 145).
[RE: 33] The digestion rates of fish feed = approximately 80% (20% discharged) à please do state how this was assessed? Or at least provide a reference to back this up
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information of literature (page 4, line 158).
[RE: 34] The water quality of the water temperature, DO, pH, electric conductivity (EC), and total dissolved solid (TDS) were measured for intervals of three days using a multi-item water quality device (YSI-650 Inc., Yellow Spring Ins., Yellow Springs, Ohio, USA). The total ammonia nitrogen (TAN), nitrite nitrogen (NO2--N), and nitrate nitrogen (NO3--N) were sampled before feeding, and analyzed (intervals of three days) using an absorbance photometer (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and an analytical reagent kit (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) using a colorimetric method. Each measuremental group of water quality were triplicated. à Please do indicate at what times or as well as at what times the fish were fed.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information (page 5, line 173-174).
[RE: 35] with 100 ppm MS-222 (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) to measure the body weight and total length à please indicate the volume of water used to anesthetized the fish.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information (page 5, line 178-179).
[RE: 36] with 0.1 g à This s not enough accuracy for 1 gram fish
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the unit from “0.1 g” to “0.01 g” (all pages).
[RE: 37] [2], [3], [4], [5] à Please reconsider redaction
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We changed form based on reference “Growth performance, Feed Utilization, Gut Integrity, and Economic Revenue of Grey Mullet, Mugil cephalus, Fed on Increasing Level of Dried Zoo plankton Biomass Meal as Fishmeal Substitutions (Abo-Taleb et al., 2021, Fishes, https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes6030038” (page 4, line 145-157 and page 5, line 186-189).
[RE: 38] from each experimental group à Please specify what was the experimental groups (Units?) for fish ad lettuce
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the “experimental group” to “plants bed” (page 5, line 191).
[RE: 39] Statistic analysis à please provide a bioethics certificate number for the experiment
☞ We suggested the bioethics certificate number for the experiment in Institubional Review Board Statement (2022-NIFS-IACUC-5) (page 10, lines 364-365).
[RE: 40] The growth performance of fish was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in SPSS (version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Tukey’s test was used to determine the differences between the treatment groups. The production of caipira lettuce was analyzed using a t-test between BF and HP. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. à Normality and homoscedasticity were not assessecd?
☞ We added and revised the sentence as your suggestion. (page 6, line 198-200).
[RE: 41] m2 à cubic
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We calculated by weight per area.
[RE: 42] Water quality analysis in FP, BFT, and FTS à This is in fish tanks or lettuce tables? Are these parameters and the ranges observed, good? Optimal? Either for the fish or lettuce?
If the parameters were “maintained” how this a result of the experiment?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Water quality was analysis by flowing from the fish tank to plants bed and showed that the breeding environment is maintained as similar as possible to each tanks. We mentioned this process in the materials and methods.
[RE: 43] Lettuce growth results revealed that the BP provided sufficient nutrients for plant growth à This phrase seems to be isolated? What is BP?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. we have changed “BP” to “FP system and FTS” (page 7, line 246).
[RE: 44] The asterisk (*) denoted with different letters were statically different (p < 0.05).à please check redaction, letter or asterisk are indicative of difference?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the Figure 7. .
[RE: 45] aiming to improve the sustainable à how this was assessed? Or done in the present study? What was the base line to compare?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We revised the sentence. (8 page, line 266-267)
[RE: 46] improved productivity à what are regular growth rates observed for fish an lettuce in non-RAS systems at a comparable time frame?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Fish growth rate cannot compared to other system because of hard to adopt in indoor aquaculture system. and the general growth of lettuce weighs 100 to 160 g based on the weight of the shoot weight in 3 to 4 weeks. The reference “Productivity of Fish and Crop Growth and Characteristics of Bacterial Communities in the FLOCponics System (Hwang et al., 2023, Fishes, https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8080422” and “Effect of Bacillus spp. On Lettuce Growth and Root Associate Bacterial Community in a Small-Scale Aquaponics System (Kasozi et al., 2021, Agronomy, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050947” can back up this study.
[RE: 47] The growth and survival rates of M. anguillicaudatus with FP system improved compared with those with BFT and FTS, and crop productivity (Caipira lettuce production) was comparatively higher in FP than in HP. Especially, the lower value of FCR in FP system compared to BFT suggested the higher efficiency of the FP system by combination of crop cultivation à No comparison with available literature.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added range of in this study. This sentence is about the results from this experiment (page 8, line 277-278).
[RE: 48] This suggested that FP is sustainable method for aquaculture with the advantage of both fish and crop production. à What are the main limiting nutrient in aquaponics systems?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Nitrogen components is the main limiting nutrient in aquaponics system and other small amount of minerals but the E.C value of over 0.5 mS/cm was mentioned in “Small-Scale Aquaponics Food Production Integrated Fish and Plant Farming (FAO, 2014)”. (page 9, line 317-318)
[RE: 49] FTS (Control) à Please develop the idea of why in the experimental control there is more mortality than in the other treatments.
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention We based on reference “Fish Farm Mornitoring and Growth Performance of Chinese Muddy Loach (Misgurnus mizolepis) under Indoor or Outdoor Aquaculture Conditions, Korea. (Choi et al., 2020, Korean Journal of Ichthyology, 2020. http://doi.org/10.35399/ISK.32.4.4” but cannot found out why there were more mortality in indoor culturing methods than outdoors. So the further research will have to be conducted to find out. (9 page, lines 298-300)
[RE: 50] dark conditions à How this may impact on feed intake on other species?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In dark condition of BFT, some literature have shown results showing reduced cannibalism and higher growth rates. We based on reference “Production performance and nitrogen and phosphorus mass balance in biofloc-based African catfish intensive culture at different densities (Sumitro et al., 2021) http://doi.10.19027/jai.20.1.82-92” and we have changed “conditions” to “colors”. (9 page, lines 300-301)
[RE: 51] demonstrated à Please do explain how? And on what aspect specifically comparing to current production systems. / literature
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Other country has huge lands to culturing the loaches in outdoor condition, but in south korea, we cannot do huge forms to culturing loaches. but, rely on imports has the limit way like country to country FTA to provide the loaches for demands. we need to develop farming methods to suited to our own country. We based on reference “Fish Farm Mornitoring and Growth Performance of Chinese Muddy Loach (Misgurnus mizolepis) under Indoor or Outdoor Aquaculture Conditions, Korea. (Choi et al., 2020, Korean Journal of Ichthyology, 2020. http://doi.org/10.35399/ISK.32.4.4” (9 page, lines 303-305)
[RE: 52] HP makes it difficult to achieve sustainable productivity. à Please provide literature for this
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information of literature (page 9, line 313).
[RE: 53] However, the rearing water of biofloc is reported to possess adequate nutrients for plant growth [27]. à All needed nutrients?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. There are different ingredients depending on the fish species and feed to consisting BFT water. However, rearing water of BFT offer the needed nutrients for crop.
[RE: 54] and BFT produces less wastewater with less expensive cost to construct than RAS [38,40]. à Please do provide some numbers or these comparisons.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added more information of literature (page 9, line 316).
[RE: 55] EC and TDS levels in BFT water with M. anguillicaudatus increased for the fourth week. High EC and TDS in rearing water can produce conditions suitable for plant growth [41]. HP systems require EC levels over 0.5 μs/cm [33]. The EC and TDS levels of FP were lower than those of BFT and this gap contributes to plant growth and is sufficient for its growth à What are the ideal rages described for each species? This is not in the same order as in M and M.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We design the experimental period because lettuce grows to commercial size in fourth week. We revised the sentence (page 9, line 320-321)
[RE: 56] unadjusted à what are the regular acclimation periods for this fish?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We revised the sentence (page 9, line 328)
[RE: 57] After the early stage of the experiment, the TAN level stabilized in the FP and BFT groups. à How other aquaponic or RAS systems deal with this?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. And other research, “Water quality, Survival, and Growth of Red tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus Cultured in Aquaponics System (Setiadi, et al., 2018, E3S Web of conferences 47, 02006 (2018)) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184702006” and “The use of nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) cultivation wastewater for the production of romain lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia) in water recirculation system (Effendi et al., 2016, Appl Water Sci) http://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0418-z” showed RAS-like aquaponics system makes low nitrogen components than without aquaponics system. Although it cannot be considered as definite representative of this fish species, but we think it can be representative of its density
[RE: 58] needs old water à please do explain as plain as possible what the authors mean by old water?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed “needs old water” to “constant rearing water with little change in water quality” (page 9, line 333-334)
[RE: 59] The effect of biofloc on growth and economic efficiency has been studied for many years [8,32,33]. Additional research is needed for biofloc functions with changes in the life cycle and immune system of the cultured species. Therefore, the functions of biofloc will determine the effect of microorganisms and the environment in the breeding water on fish. To find out the problem with the application of indoor farming of M. anguillicaudatus, safer and more sustainable production will be possible. à How this relate to the present study?
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We based on reference “Fish Farm Mornitoring and Growth Performance of Chinese Muddy Loach (Misgurnus mizolepis) under Indoor or Outdoor Aquaculture Conditions, Korea. (Choi et al., 2020, Korean Journal of Ichthyology, 2020. http://doi.org/10.35399/ISK.32.4.4” and the results showed the possibility of sustainable aquaculture and cultivation methods as well as improved survival rates of loaches.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferee report
1. Title and the objectives in Introduction did not correspond well with the experimental design. In the title, ‘… “Its” effect (Its, of a single, effect? Or their (of three systems?) effects? on Caipira lettuce’ is confusing; overall effects of loach aquaculture? Or just simply aquaponics effects. It took me a very long time until I found out that there was a particular aquaculture system among the three, employing biofloc technology not only to produce fish but also vegetable, or an innovative aquaponics system. A title suggested here: Comparisons among Three Weather Loach Aquaculture Systems and between Two Aquatic Production Systems of Caipira Lettuce.
2. From Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Tables and Figures, I am not clear and sure enough on the commons and differences among FP, BFT, FTS, and HP. Former 3 systems all culture fish (from Table 1, Figure 4 and Figure 5), but not HP? Only FP and HP culture vegetable (Figure 7)? HP culture only vegetable? Only FP is an aquaponics system, culture both fish and vegetable? I would suggest construct a two-way table, treatments (4 systems) vs. parameters (2 major crops, fish and vegetable, and parameters measured under each crop) in the M&M to clarify the overall objectives and their corresponding design. For example, for water treatment, FTS: none, flow-through, BFT: by biofloc action, and FP: by BFT and aquaponics.
3. Besides the 2-way table required in the M&M, other improvements are as the following:
3.1. Line 86: Should read: 2mL x 2mW x ?mD, for Length, Width, Depth.
3.2. It should be noted somewhere in 2.1 that in FP a separate crop bed was connected with fish rearing unit to produce lettuce using the waste water from its associated fish rearing unit. No crop bed was set to produce vegetable for BFT and FTS. In FTS, fish culture waste water was discharged without recovery and recycle. In BFT, was it zero-water discharged
3.3. Line 110: What was the composition of the artificial nutrient solution, Nulfuresiriz. and how was the solution applied?
3.4. Switch over (A) and (B) in Figure 2 to correspond to the (A) and (B) in Figure 1.
3.5. TAN is the abbreviation of total ammonium ‘nitrogen’, not ‘nitrite’ (Line 124, 151). Same error in the left legend of Figure 3 (between line 142-3).
3.6. Correct statement to differentiate the significant difference between any two treatments should be as the following: Any two treatments denoted without a common alphabet are significantly different (p =< 0.05). By this way, in Figure 4 (B) and (D), significant difference exists only between FP and FTS since this comparison results no single common alphabet. By your way, the comparisons between FP and BFT and between BFT and FTS are significantly different since their respective notations ‘a vs. ab’ and ‘ab vs. b’ are with different letters. In Figure 7, in the legend, where are the letters?
3.7. In Line 181, should BF be read FP? And some other places.
4. Discussion
4.1. In general, the discussion was more general than specific to discuss specific results from the study. It appears the discussion here can do without the study. In other words, qualitative results happened as ‘no surprise’, or little variation deviated from past studies, experience, or theory. A well written discussion can enhance the results and augment the value of experimental results. For example, I would expect the authors can rationally speculate several merits of aquaponics over hydroponics in several aspects. Moreover, in this study BFT based aquaponics should have brought further benefits than the regular aquaponics without BFT involved in fish rearing. Discussion along what I recommend here could bring in bonus value to this study.
4.2. Line 255: nitrite should be read nitrate. Nitrite is hardly used by crop.
4.3. Line 302: Incomplete sentence. Notice 5W1H.
4.4. Line 303-4: Additional… species. Irrelevant to this study. delete.
4.5. Line 304-6: Therefore,…fish. Needless to say.
5. Why not make it Conclusions ‘and Suggestions’ as it has been done. How about a proposal to make all three aquaculture systems aquaponics so that you can make a comparison on three aquaponic systems focused on vegetable production and one hydroponic production system.
6. Conclusion on manuscript evaluation:
6.1 Can be considered for publication after major revision and
6.2 Great improvement on English writing through professional proof-reading is definitely required.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Great improvement on English writing through professional proof-reading is definitely required.
Author Response
I thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Please see the attached files.
[REVIEWER # 3]
We revised the reviewer’s comment with green letters (All pages)
[General Comments]
Referee report. Great improvement on English writing through professional proof-reading is definitely required.
[RE: 1] Title and the objectives in Introduction did not correspond well with the experimental design. In the title, ‘… “Its” effect (Its, of a single, effect? Or their (of three systems?) effects? on Caipira lettuce’ is confusing; overall effects of loach aquaculture? Or just simply aquaponics effects. It took me a very long time until I found out that there was a particular aquaculture system among the three, employing biofloc technology not only to produce fish but also vegetable, or an innovative aquaponics system. A title suggested here: Comparisons among Three Weather Loach Aquaculture Systems and between Two Aquatic Production Systems of Caipira Lettuce.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the title “Comparisons among Three Weather Loach (Misgurnus anguillicaudatus) Aquaculture Systems and between Two Aquatic Production Systems of Caipira Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)” (page 1, lines 1-3).
[RE: 2] From Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Tables and Figures, I am not clear and sure enough on the commons and differences among FP, BFT, FTS, and HP. Former 3 systems all culture fish (from Table 1, Figure 4 and Figure 5), but not HP? Only FP and HP culture vegetable (Figure 7)? HP culture only vegetable? Only FP is an aquaponics system, culture both fish and vegetable? I would suggest construct a two-way table, treatments (4 systems) vs. parameters (2 major crops, fish and vegetable, and parameters measured under each crop) in the M&M to clarify the overall objectives and their corresponding design. For example, for water treatment, FTS: none, flow-through, BFT: by biofloc action, and FP: by BFT and aquaponics.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed “FTS, BFT, FP” to “the FTS (control), which is based on flow-through with, 2 rotations/day; the BFT systems, which utilize biofloc action; and the FP system, which utilizes BFT and aquaponics” (page 2, lines 90-92).
[RE: 3] Besides the 2-way table required in the M&M, other improvements are as the following:??
[RE: 3.1] Line 86: Should read: 2mL x 2mW x ?mD, for Length, Width, Depth.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have chaged “2 m × 2 m” to “Length 2 m × Width 2 m × Depth 0.6 m” (page 2, line 97).
[RE: 3.2] It should be noted somewhere in 2.1 that in FP a separate crop bed was connected with fish rearing unit to produce lettuce using the waste water from its associated fish rearing unit. No crop bed was set to produce vegetable for BFT and FTS. In FTS, fish culture waste water was discharged without recovery and recycle. In BFT, was it zero-water discharged
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added FP connected with crop bed and zero water discharged part (page 3, lines 104-105).
[RE: 3.3] Line 110: What was the composition of the artificial nutrient solution, Nulfuresiriz. and how was the solution applied?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We added a complete composition of the mixture and concentrations (page 3, line 126).
[RE: 3.4] Switch over (A) and (B) in Figure 2 to correspond to the (A) and (B) in Figure 1.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have switched over Figure 1.
[RE: 3.5] TAN is the abbreviation of total ammonium ‘nitrogen’, not ‘nitrite’ (Line 124, 151). Same error in the left legend of Figure 3 (between line 142-3).
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed “nitrite” to “nitrogen”(page 4, line 140; page 5, Figure 3 and page 5, line 169).
[RE: 3.6] Correct statement to differentiate the significant difference between any two treatments should be as the following: Any two treatments denoted without a common alphabet are significantly different (p =< 0.05). By this way, in Figure 4 (B) and (D), significant difference exists only between FP and FTS since this comparison results no single common alphabet. By your way, the comparisons between FP and BFT and between BFT and FTS are significantly different since their respective notations ‘a vs. ab’ and ‘ab vs. b’ are with different letters. In Figure 7, in the legend, where are the letters?
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the Figure 7. (page 8, Figure 7)
[RE: 3.7] In Line 181, should BF be read FP? And some other places.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed “BF” to “FP” (page 8, line 258)
[RE: 4] Discussion
[RE: 4.1] In general, the discussion was more general than specific to discuss specific results from the study. It appears the discussion here can do without the study. In other words, qualitative results happened as ‘no surprise’, or little variation deviated from past studies, experience, or theory. A well written discussion can enhance the results and augment the value of experimental results. For example, I would expect the authors can rationally speculate several merits of aquaponics over hydroponics in several aspects. Moreover, in this study BFT based aquaponics should have brought further benefits than the regular aquaponics without BFT involved in fish rearing. Discussion along what I recommend here could bring in bonus value to this study.
☞ Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We added and revised the sentence and reference (all page in Discussion).
[RE: 4.2] Line 255: nitrite should be read nitrate. Nitrite is hardly used by crop.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed “Nitrite” to “Nitrate” (page 8, line 280).
[RE: 4.3] Line 302: Incomplete sentence. Notice 5W1H.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence for clarity (Page 10, line 336-341).
[RE: 4.4] Line 303-4: Additional… species. Irrelevant to this study. delete.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We delete the irrelevant line.
[RE: 4.5] Line 304-6: Therefore,…fish. Needless to say.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We delete the line.
[RE: 5] Why not make it Conclusions ‘and Suggestions’ as it has been done. How about a proposal to make all three aquaculture systems aquaponics so that you can make a comparison on three aquaponic systems focused on vegetable production and one hydroponic production system.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. We also want to make all three aquaculture systems aquaponics. But, we want to improve loach’s survival rate, and BFT adaptation to loach first in present study. We have revised the sentence (page 10, line 350-355).
[RE: 6] Conclusion on manuscript evaluation:
[RE: 6.1] Can be considered for publication after major revision
☞ We revised and added the sentence (all page)
[RE: 6.2] Great improvement on English writing through professional proof-reading is definitely required.
☞ Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has been rechecked by a professional editor, who is also a native English speaker (by MDPI, purple colored letters were revised)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on attached file
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I thank you for your thoughtful suggestions and insights, which have enriched the manuscript and helped us produce a more balanced account of the research. The manuscript has been carefully rechecked and appropriate changes have been made in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
