Integrating Aquaponics with Macrobrachium amazonicum (Palaemonidae: Decapoda) Cultivation for the Production of Microgreens: A Sustainable Approach
, João Francisco Garcez Cabral Júnior 1, Bruno J. C. F. Eiras 1, Bruna dos Santos Miranda 1, Priscila Caroline Alves Lopes 1, Nuno Filipe Alves Correia de Melo 1, Ronald Kennedy Luz 2, Fábio Carneiro Sterzelecki 1 and Glauber David Almeida Palheta 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors aimed to evaluate the production of microgreens (beet, amaranth, arugula, and red cabbage) integrated with Macrobrachium amazonicum (Amazon river prawns) in aquaponic systems. The authors monitored water quality, prawn growth performance, and microgreen productivity to assess the potential benefits of integrating prawn effluent in aquaponic systems. Overall, the subject itself is surely worthy of investigation. However, several concerns need to be addressed including the statistical analysis procedure.
Specific comments to improve the manuscript:
1. Throughout the manuscript, the writing style should be formal from the third-person perspective. Do not use “we” (e.g. line 98, 102, 105, 151,… etc) or “our” (e.g. lines 202, 267, 271 .… etc ).
2. The introduction should clearly state the research hypothesis and the specific knowledge gap that the study aims to address.
3. Line 126: it should be (temperature: 28.89±1.15ºC, relative humidity: 84.29±4.04%).
4. Lines 146-148; How were the water quality parameters sampled and estimated?
5. The materials and methods section does not mention the statistical procedure. It is essential to mention the statistical model, post-hoc test, the level of significance, and tests used to detect normality and homogeneity assumptions.
6. From the tables presented, it is evident that the statistical analysis is incorrect. The statistical analysis should be two-way ANOVA (2 ×4) as the study contains two factors which are two different water types and in 4 densities of seeds/cell.
7. In all tables, it is recommended to provide the exact p-values for each factor (water type seed density and interaction).
8. Results and discussion need to be rewritten after the reanalysis of the data and clarifying the effect of each factor in detail.
9. In all Tables, describe the experimental groups and all abbreviations used in the tables' footnotes. The units are missed for all parameters.
10. The discussion section should be strengthened by providing potential explanations or attributions for all the parameters that have been discussed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language--
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors finds that the potential of integrating prawn effluent in aquaponic systems to improve microgreen，which has certain research significance, but there are the following issues.
1. What software was used to create the box-plot in Figure 2? Please provide an explanation.
2. Is there no unit in Tables 1 to 4? How were the data in Tables 1 to 4 calculated? What is the calculation formula used or what software is used for calculation?
3. Please provide a detailed explanation of the value and prospects of promoting this research in the final section of the paper.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I consider that it is necessary to make appropriate modifications to the English
language of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Autors,
The work contains originality in the matter of the connection part of microgreen production. It is statistically well handled and the discussion is well done. I think it is necessary to publish the work with certain additions to the experimental work.
1. The part of the experimental work does not fully describe the routine methods used for the analysis of water and environmental conditions. You need to write a little more completely about the methods, and if they are standard number and list the instruments that are used, for example pH meter, conductometer, HPLC for nitrite determination.
2. Also, in some parts of the material and method, the address with we is used. Please change with the imperative or our investigation. Also in the discussion.
3. Also, dechlorinated water is used in the experiment. Explain origin and security.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made extensive revisions to the manuscript, addressing several concerns raised during the previous review. The manuscript has significantly improved in terms of clarity and presentation. However, there are still a few remaining comments that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be considered suitable for publication. The following points outline these concerns:
1. The introduction section is too long and not focused. Please summarize the introduction section as too many details are given and focus on the study's problem.
2. Throughout the manuscript, the writing style should be formal from the third-person perspective. Do not use “we” (e.g. lines 128, 132, 135, and 136).
Comments on the Quality of English Language--
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper can be published after being revised.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
