Biofortification and Quality of Collard Greens as a Function of Iron Concentration in Nutrient Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting research, but not a new topic.  Research design is appropriate, but some methods descriptions can be improved. I would suggest changing order in the chapter Material and methods, to be more logical. Maybe connect 2.2. and 2.3. The discussion is interesting, much more interesting than the description of the results achieved. Some results in tables are not clearly presented.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank you for your thoughtful review, very pertinent.

Point 1: Abstract:

We have modified the beginning of the abstract as requested by the Reviewer.

Point 2: page 3, table 1

We understand the point raised by the Reviewer. However, going into too much detail on this information will not be relevant to the results obtained. With this information, we tried to situate the reader as to the type of climate, environmental condition, for other works that may be performed in subtropical climates, for example, with very different conditions. Respectfully, we understand that presenting the climatic data on a weekly basis will greatly increase the size of the table and in graphic form will not significantly increase the understanding of the climate. However, if the Reviewer understands and ratifies your request, we will change the table to a figure.

 Point 3: page 3, item 2.2

We understand the reviewer's concern, since we first cited Phase 3 and have not yet said anything about Phases 1 and 2. Thus, as noted in your general comments, we have reversed the order of items 2.2 and 2.3. We think we have resolved this issue. Thank you for your observation.

Point 4: page 4, last paragraph

The Reviewer ask if is "fresh or dry weight". The answer to this question is in the very description of how this characteristic was evaluated. Please see that we say that the macro- and micronutrient content was obtained according to the Fe content and in that characteristic it is said to be in dry matter (previous paragraph).

Point 5: page 5, end of the first paragraph

Thank you for drawing our attention to different font in the text. It has been corrected.

Point 6: Results and table 2

The Reviewer have did some comments about the result and discussion. In fact, the discussion is better presented than the presentation of results, which we understood as a compliment to the writing. We tried to highlight the main results in an objective and concise way. Respectfully, we kept the presentation of the results because there were no specific notes for us to make changes. We do not understand what the reviewer did not understand about the presentation of results in the table 2. Why is unusual presentation of results? We think that the table brings a new look to biofortification studies, because it considers the quality of the food under the effect of Fe in other nutrients that the collard green offers and not only in the focus element of biofortification (Fe). Under this aspect, yes, it is unusual, but, we understand that it is the great novelty of the study and line of research. The criteria used for assigning grades are presented in the M & M item and in the footer of the table. Perhaps, if the Reviewer is more explicit in what he did not understand, we can clarify, but, it seems to us that there was not this kind of doubt in the other Reviewers.

Point 7: page 10, second paragraph

Thank you for your observation. We have already corrected.

Point 8: page 11, conclusion

Thank you for your observation. We increase the conclusion.

Dear Reviewer #1, we thank you very much for your attention and submitted contribuitions. The new version of the manuscript according to requests of the three Reviewers (we accept all them) is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The problem of hidden hunger is very common in the modern world. The food provided is not always rich in nutritional value. Contemporary horticulture uses various agrotechnical methods to provide people with as much nutritious food of plant origin as possible. The presented work on the biofortification of cruciferous vegetables in Fe is very up-to-date. Written in a correct language and based on the latest literature, it meets all the requirements of a scientific article. Charts are easy to read. The only doubt that arouses the fact that the experience is one year. Please edit any conclusions that are too short and laconic.  

 

Author Response

We thank you very much for your attenttion and comments presented.

We agree with the Reviewer and have increased the conclusion. We believe that it now gives a better picture of what we have achieved in our study. The new version of the manuscript according to requests of the three Reviewers (we accept all them) is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) what is reported in lines 95-96 is reported in lines 126 and 127;

2) what is reported in lines 130-131 is in contradiction with what is reported in lines 111 and 112;

3) it is not specified whether the concentrations of macronutrients and micronutrients found in the leaves refer to a kilo of substance or fresh;

4) what reported in table 2 does not have the support of statistical analysis and contains some errors and omissions (the second data to be reported in row "Qual.5" is not "+6"; the meaning of note 6 is missing);

5) most of the bibliographic references are in national journals;

6) all the results refer to leaves and not to the whole product that is obtained or could be obtained from a crop (after all, the experiment is based on just three plants per experimental unit).

Author Response

We thank you for your thoughtful review.

 

Point 1: "what is reported in lines 95-96 is reported in lines 126 and 127"

You are right. We modified the setence in line 95-96, just to characterize the experimental unit. But, since we reordered the items 2.2 and 2.3, as requested by Reviewer #1, the new version of the sentence is in the item 2.3 (end of the first paragraph of the item).

 Point 2: "what is reported in lines 130-131 is in contradiction with what is reported in lines 111 and 112"

Thank you for your comment, it was very pertinent. Actually, there is no contradiction about the information presented. However, there is an improper position of the information, which caused an error in understanding. In the lines 111-112, the information is correct and it refers to phase 2 of the cultivation. For better understanding, the penultimate paragraph of item 2.3 (in the new version of the manuscript it is item 2.2) has been placed after the sentence in line 115. Also, we have corrected the information about the water used in the experiment. Actually, the water was the same in the phases 1, 2 and 3. 

 Point 3: "it is not specified whether the concentrations of macronutrients and micronutrients found in the leaves refer to a kilo of substance or fresh"

About this question, the answer is in the very description of how this characteristic was evaluated. Please see that we say that the macro- and micronutrient content was obtained according to the Fe content and in that characteristic it is said to be in dry matter (previous paragraph).

 Point 4: "what reported in table 2 does not have the support of statistical analysis and contains some errors and omissions (the second data to be reported in row "Qual.5" is not "+6"; the meaning of note 6 is missing)"

Thank you for checking the sum of the scores. You are correct and we have corrected the second value of Qual⁵. Instead of +6, it is actually +3. Because of this, we have corrected the value of the treatment 6 mg L^-1 Fe to 8.0 instead of 8.8 as previously presented. Regarding the design of Table 2, we think that the table brings a new look to biofortification studies, because it considers the quality of the food under the effect of Fe on other nutrients that the green collar offers and not only on the focus element of biofortification (Fe). So, we understand that it is the great novelty of the study, it is additional to the results discussed from the standpoint of statistical analysis. The table, therefore, is structured, based on statistically evaluated results. This is not a simple observation. We would like the Reviewer to take into consideration this look that contemplates quality of the collard greens as a whole, which, with all due respect, was praised by the other Reviewers.

Point 5: "most of the bibliographic references are in national journals"

Sorry to differ from the Reviewer. No, most of the references are in the English language and some of the national references are also in the English language (75%). Part of what is in Portuguese was necessary to justify the nutrient solution used and also to characterize the collard greens, a vegetable rarely studied in the world. Also, there is a reference about the software used in the statistical analysis. So, please excuse us, but the great majority of the theoretical background and discussion was done in English language magazines.

Point 6: "all the results refer to leaves and not to the whole product that is obtained or could be obtained from a crop (after all, the experiment is based on just three plants per experimental unit)."

Again, we apologize for disagreeing with the Reviewer. Respectfully, it is not because the data was obtained from only three plants per experimental unit that we should disqualify the methodology and the results obtained. Please, the results speak for themselves. How many international scientific articles have their results coming from one plant per experimental unit? What matters is that we have the experimental control, not the number of plants to obtain the data. If we put 10 plants or 20, we can have lack of experimental control and prejudice the results. Please look at the R2 coefficient of the equations. Could we get such a good fit with a poor conduct of the experiment, or if three plants per experimental unit did not allow for a good source of data? Sorry, again, but to assume that the results are not adequate because they taken from three plants per experimental unit does not seem fair and correct to me.

Dear Reviewer #3, despite the last two observations, we thank you very much for your attention and submitted contribuitions. The new version of the manuscript according to requests of the three Reviewers (we accept all them) is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx