A Comparative Study on the Nutrients, Mineral Elements, and Antioxidant Compounds in Different Types of Cruciferous Vegetables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

 Dear Editors and Reviewers:

    Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #1:

Point 1: I think that more detailed description and determination of the first two principal components of PCA- PC1 and PC2 is needed.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, the main components of PC1 and PC2 have been added. Soluble sugars, soluble proteins, nitrates, glucosinolates, polyphenols, flavonoids, and Cu are positively correlated with PC1 and have loading values greater than 0.2, indicating that these substances are major components of PC1. Soluble sugars, soluble proteins, nitrates, VC, polyphenols, flavonoids, glucosinolates, K, P, Zn, Mn, and Mg are positively correlated with PC2, with VC, polyphenols glucosinolates, Mg, P, and Zn loading values greater than 0.2, indicating that these substances can be used as the primary basis for evaluating PC2. Added in lines 247 to 253.

Point 2: The high values of the range for SP and NI for cauliflower are missing in Table 3.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, the missing values in Table 4(Changed to Table 4 due to adding new table) have been added. Specifically SP:639.55 and NI:146.45.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I suggest that the design of this experiment should be changed. Although the three crops belong to the brassica family, cabbage (Brassica oleracea subsp. capitata) and califlower (Brassica oleracea subsp. botrytis) are included in brassica oleracea, while chinese chabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis) is included in brassica rapa.

The growing seasons of crops are similar, but not the same. In addition, although the growing season of crops is important, date information from the planting date to the harvesting date must be added. Also,  weather information including temperature and  fall during the growing season should be included.

Although the genetic characteristics of the germplasms contribute to the result of the composition analysis of crops, it is affected by the environment in which the crop was grown, and in particular, sampling stage is absolutely dependent on the contribution of specific components.

 

 

The major ingredient in brassica is glucosinolate. I do not think that the three crops in this experiment are suitable for analyzing glucosinolates together. Brassica should be analyzed for glucosinolates grouped by subsp, since individual major GSLs are different.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

    Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #2:

Point 1: I suggest that the design of this experiment should be changed. Although the three crops belong to the brassica family, cabbage (Brassica oleracea subsp. capitata) and califlower (Brassica oleracea subsp. botrytis) are included in brassica oleracea, while chinese chabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis) is included in brassica rapa.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Our research was done for the main crops of the cruciferous family (Chinese cabbage, cauliflower and cabbage), because Chinese cabbage also belongs to the cruciferous family, that's why we made this design.

Point 2: The growing seasons of crops are similar, but not the same. In addition, although the growing season of crops is important, date information from the planting date to the harvesting date must be added. Also, weather information including temperature and fall during the growing season should be included.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have added information about the planting date and harvest date of the material, as well as detailed weather information of the test site and also the physicochemical properties of the soil (Table 1). The details are in lines 89 to 101.

Point 3: Although the genetic characteristics of the germplasms contribute to the result of the composition analysis of crops, it is affected by the environment in which the crop was grown, and in particular, sampling stage is absolutely dependent on the contribution of specific components

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice, we are sampling at the same time to try to minimize the environmental impact so that subsequent tests can be conducted.

Point 4: The major ingredient in brassica is glucosinolate. I do not think that the three crops in this experiment are suitable for analyzing glucosinolates together. Brassica should be analyzed for glucosinolates grouped by subsp, since individual major GSLs are different.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, but we measured the total glucosinolate content in the three crops, not the glucosinolate fraction content, so we performed the analysis of antioxidant properties in terms of total glucosinolate content.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The current study entitled “Comparative study on nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds of different types of cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower” is good. For a better understanding in-depth, it is a need for time to work on this topic. Furthermore, achieving potential benefits by using current technology depends on extensive research work for more exploration. Although the experiment is well organized, I suggest a major revision due to the following deficiencies.

Major Concerns

Title

• The title doesn't indicate anything new about the present study. To grab the reader's attention, the title must accurately reflect the value addition that the writers created in their prior work. If the authors discovered any new findings in the present study that were not previously disclosed, please update them accordingly.

Abstract

• There is no systematic abstract. i.e., Please incorporate a subject introduction, issue description, justification for choosing the technology employed in the study at hand, knowledge gap to be filled, methodology in a few sentences, standout findings, and a conclusion.
• Please provide the need of study in the abstract in 1-2 lines.
• Please give a clear-cut point problem source as a problem statement that is tackled in the current study.
• Give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy, i.e., nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds. What are the potential benefits associated with the current study?
• There is no quantitative data provided. Please provide some quantitative data while describing the results.
• I am unable to find any conclusive conclusion in the current study. Please elaborate on what the authors have concluded.
• In the statement that follows, please highlight the knowledge gap that was filled, the prospective beneficiaries, and the suggestions. This statement These findings provide a data reference for the evaluation of nutritional properties, germplasm utilization, and new 19 cultivar selection in cruciferous vegetables is very general. It is not a conclusion.
• Give future perspective in a single line. At least declare one best result.
• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords.

 

Introduction

• Also, provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things have authors done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?
• Where is a hypothesis which is tested in the current study? I did not find any hypothesis in the current study introduction.
• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-specific) hypothesis statement?
• No aims of the study are provided at the end of the study. Please provide that.

Material and methods

• No details of statistical analysis are present in the material and method section. Please provide that in detail.
• Which ANOVA was applied.
• Which test was used at which probability level for the comparison of treatment?
• What about the software used? Give details of the manufacturer and a reference for it.
• Give the reference for standard statistical procedures used for the statistical analysis of data.
• The authors did not describe PCA which was component 1 and which was 2. Give details about that.
•  

Results

• It's very astonishing to me “Among them, the contents of soluble protein in cauliflower were all 1.41-fold higher than the other two species, while the contents of nitrate were 0.45-fold and 0.57-fold higher than those of cabbage and Chinese cabbage, respectively”. Please compute your data once again. The change is very high.
• It's very confusing for me. Authors have used P for phosphorus and probability. I suggest using p for probability so that the reading of results may become clear.
• In each table give the details of abbreviations i.e., SP, NI, SS, etc.
• When all the nutrients’ traits were assessed then why Nitrogen was not measured? Give its analysis also.

Discussion

• Why results are explained in the discussion. Please remove the results part.
• Most of the explained mechanisms were correlated by saying might be. I am not sure, but I believed the authors have doubts about their findings. No definite mechanism is declared that played important role in the establishment of such data which is collected in the current study.
• Please provide a definite mechanism associated with the results. The discussion part is fragile.
• Please incorporate at least 3-4 paragraphs showing the principal mechanism for which authors got such results.
• Please delete descriptive lines.

Conclusion

 

• The conclusion is absent. Please provide a conclusive conclusion.
• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefit from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations
• Give future perspective regarding this research.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #3:

Point 1: The title doesn't indicate anything new about the present study. To grab the reader's attention, the title must accurately reflect the value addition that the writers created in their prior work. If the authors discovered any new findings in the present study that were not previously disclosed, please update them accordingly.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have revised the title. Modified to “A comparative study on the nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds in different types of cruciferous vegetable”

Point 2: There is no systematic abstract. i.e., Please incorporate a subject introduction, issue description, justification for choosing the technology employed in the study at hand, knowledge gap to be filled, methodology in a few sentences, standout findings, and a conclusion.

Response: Thanks to the valuable suggestions you have provided, I have added the above issues to the abstract by refining the topic introduction, problem description, rationale for choosing the current approach, the problem to be addressed, and the salient findings and conclusions. Studies on the diversity within and among cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis), and Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis) variants are essential for the development of healthy diets. However, most studies on them have been limited to a single species, with little integrated analysis between them. In summary, cauliflower has the highest nutritional value and antioxidant activity, Chinese cabbage is the richest in minerals, and cabbage has the highest variability. These findings provide a reference for selecting varieties with higher nutritional value and antioxidant properties as well as breeding new varieties. In lines 7 to 15 and 24 to 27, respectively.

Point 3: Please provide the need of study in the abstract in 1-2 lines.

Response: Thanks to the valuable suggestions provided, the need for the study has been added to the abstract. Studies on the diversity within and among cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis), and Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis) variants are essential for the development of healthy diets. However, most studies on them have been limited to a single species, with little integrated analysis between them. In lines 7 to 15

Point 4: Please give a clear-cut point problem source as a problem statement that is tackled in the current study.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, which have been described in the abstract for the problems to be addressed in this study. Studies on the diversity within and among cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis), and Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis) variants are essential for the development of healthy diets. In lines 7 to 9.

Point 5: Give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy, i.e., nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds. What are the potential benefits associated with the current study?

Response: Thank you for your valuable questions. However, most studies on them have been limited to a single species, with little integrated analysis between them. These findings provide a reference for selecting varieties with higher nutritional value and an-tioxidant properties as well as breeding new varieties. In lines 9 to 10 and 25 to 27.

Point 6: There is no quantitative data provided. Please provide some quantitative data while describing the results.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added some quantitative data to some of the results. The results showed that there are significant differences in the compositional distributions of cabbage, cauliflower, and Chinese cabbage. Cabbage has the highest contents of soluble sugars (27.73 mg·kg-1 FW), flavonoids (5.90 mg·g-1 FW), and Fe (46.90 mg·kg-1 DW). Cauliflower is an ideal source of soluble protein (603.04 mg·kg-1 FW), polyphenols (1.53 mg·g-1 FW), glucosinolates (25.27 μmol·g-1 FW), and Cu (4.25 mg·kg-1 DW). Chinese cabbage is rich in vitamin C (0.45 mg·g-1 FW) and minerals (K, Ca, Mg, P, Mn, and Zn, at 9206.67 mg·kg-1 DW, 3297.00 mg·kg-1 DW, 3322.79 mg·kg-1 DW, 5614.78 mg·kg-1 DW, 15.36 mg·kg-1 DW and 21.87 mg·kg-1 DW, respectively). There is a correlation between the quality, antioxidant properties, and minerals for the three species. In principal component analysis, a wide distribution of cabbage varieties and a high degree of overlap with the confidence ellipse of cauliflower were observed, indicating that certain cabbage varieties share compositional characteristics with cauliflower. In lines 13 to 24.

Point 7: I am unable to find any conclusive conclusion in the current study. Please elaborate on what the authors have concluded.

Response: Thank you very much for your question. In summary, cauliflower has the highest nutritional value and antioxidant activity, Chinese cabbage is the richest in minerals, and cabbage has the highest variability. In lines 24 to 25.

Point 8: In the statement that follows, please highlight the knowledge gap that was filled, the prospective beneficiaries, and the suggestions. This statement These findings provide a data reference for the evaluation of nutritional properties, germplasm utilization, and new 19 cultivar selection in cruciferous vegetables is very general. It is not a conclusion.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have refined the conclusions. In summary, cauliflower has the highest nutritional value and antioxidant activity, Chinese cabbage is the richest in minerals, and cabbage has the highest variability. These findings provide a reference for selecting varieties with higher nutritional value and antioxidant properties as well as breeding new varieties. In lines 24 to 27.

Point 9: Give future perspective in a single line. At least declare one best result.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have revised our views for the future. These findings provide a reference for selecting varieties with higher nutritional value and antioxidant properties as well as breeding new varieties. In lines 25 to 27.

Point 10: As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments, we have made changes to the keywords. cruciferous; component characteristic; species assessment; dietary reference; diversity analysis. In lines 28 to 29.

Point 11: Also, provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things have authors done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, and we have made changes at the end. We identified the dominant nutrients in each species. In summary, cauliflower has the highest nutritional value and antioxidant activity, Chinese cabbage is the richest in minerals, and cabbage has the highest variability. These findings provide a reference for selecting varieties with higher nutritional value and antioxidant properties as well as breeding new varieties. In lines 24 to 27.

Point 12:     Where is a hypothesis which is tested in the current study? I did not find any hypothesis in the current study introduction.

Response: Thank you very much for your question, our trial was a comparative trial between species and no treatment or stress was done to the test material, our aim was to compare the differences in the test material itself, so no assumptions were made.

Point 13:     Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap your research has covered along with the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-specific) hypothesis statement?

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The reason we did not make assumptions in our study is that we cannot determine or predict which crop is superior in which area until the constituent content of the species is measured, which we believe is unpredictable, and we will only be able to evaluate and analyze them when the actual content is measured.

Point 14: No aims of the study are provided at the end of the study. Please provide that.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have added the purpose of the experiment. The aim was to assess the contribution of 15 substances from the three crops to dietary balance and to identify the dominant components of each crop. Furthermore, we intended to provide a reference for the future selection of cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower varieties and to provide a basis for further research on the nutritional op-timization of cruciferous crops. In lines 79 to 83.

Point 15: No details of statistical analysis are present in the material and method section. Please provide that in detail.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have refined the details of statistical analysis. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 to calculate the mean (Mean) and coefficient of variation (CV) for each component. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) was used to perform a one-way ANOVA test (assuming an equal variance of LSD and a Duncan significance level of p ≤ 0.05), and standard errors (SE) were calculated [33]. Principal component analysis (PCA), correlation analysis, and cluster analysis (heat maps with dendrograms) were per-formed and visualized using Origin 2022b (Originlab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA) [24]. In lines 180 to 186.

Point 16:     Which ANOVA was applied.

Response: Thank you very much for your question, and we have added the details of the ANOVA in the previous recommendation. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) was used to perform a one-way ANOVA test (assuming an equal variance of LSD and a Duncan significance level of p ≤ 0.05), and standard errors (SE) were calculated [33]. In lines 181 to 184.

Point 17:     Which test was used at which probability level for the comparison of treatment?

Response: Thank you very much for your question, which we have added in the first suggestion of materials and methods. We performed a one-way ANOVA test (assuming equal variance of LSD and Duncan,significance level of p ≤ 0.05). In line 183.

Point 18: What about the software used? Give details of the manufacturer and a reference for it.

Response: Thanks to your valuable questions, we have added detailed information about the use of the software to the data analysis. Microsoft Excel 2010, IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0(IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) and Origin 2022b（Originlab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA）. In lines 181 to 186.

Point 19:     Give the reference for standard statistical procedures used for the statistical analysis of data.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, and we have added the relevant references in the text. In lines 184 and 186.

Point 20: The authors did not describe PCA which was component 1 and which was 2. Give details about that.

Response: Thank you for your valuable questions. The first two principal components of the PCA explain 57.5% of the observed var-iance contribution, with principal component 1 (PC1) and principal component 2 (PC2) accounting for 33.8% and 23.7% of the total variance, respectively (Figure 3A, 3B). Sol-uble sugars, soluble proteins, nitrates, glucosinolates, polyphenols, flavonoids, and Cu are positively correlated with PC1 and have loading values greater than 0.2, indicating that these substances are major components of PC1. Soluble sugars, soluble proteins, nitrates, VC, polyphenols, flavonoids, glucosinolates, K, P, Zn, Mn, and Mg are posi-tively correlated with PC2, with VC, polyphenols glucosinolates, Mg, P, and Zn loading values greater than 0.2, indicating that these substances can be used as the primary basis for evaluating PC2. In lines 245 to 253.

Point 21:     It's very astonishing to me “Among them, the contents of soluble protein in cauliflower were all 1.41-fold higher than the other two species, while the contents of nitrate were 0.45-fold and 0.57-fold higher than those of cabbage and Chinese cabbage, respectively”. Please compute your data once again. The change is very high.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rechecked the calculations and found that they were misrepresented in the writing process, we are sorry and have made changes. The soluble protein content of cauliflower is 1.41-fold those of the other two species, while its nitrate content is 0.45-fold and 0.57-fold that of Chinese cabbage and cabbage, respectively. In lines 192 to 194.

Point 22:     It's very confusing for me. Authors have used P for phosphorus and probability. I suggest using p for probability so that the reading of results may become clear.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have changed the P indicating the probability to p.

Point 23:     In each table give the details of abbreviations i.e., SP, NI, SS, etc.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added to all the abbreviations in the table

Point 24: When all the nutrients’ traits were assessed then why Nitrogen was not measured? Give its analysis also.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we are sorry, because we have not measured this kind of element, so there is no way to provide it.

Point 25:     Why results are explained in the discussion. Please remove the results part.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have removed and modified the results section of the discussion.

Point 26:     Most of the explained mechanisms were correlated by saying might be. I am not sure, but I believed the authors have doubts about their findings. No definite mechanism is declared that played important role in the establishment of such data which is collected in the current study.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have revised the problem of using "possible" to associate mechanisms in the paper and added some new mechanisms by searching the literature.

Point 27: Please provide a definite mechanism associated with the results. The discussion part is fragile.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. This is due to the contents of antioxidant substances as associated with species and variety. Radish sprouts have a higher polyphenol content and antioxidant activity com-pared to broccoli and kale. Because plants have different genetic backgrounds, they show differences in health-promoting properties.In lines 319 to 322.

Point 28:     Please incorporate at least 3-4 paragraphs showing the principal mechanism for which authors got such results.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, significant differences in the nutritional contents of different species were detected, and the nutritional value of cauliflower is better than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage, having only had higher soluble protein content than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage, but also a lower nitrate content than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage. The main compounds that contribute to the antioxidant activity of the crop itself and in humans varies considerably among the three species. This is due to the contents of antioxidant substances as associated with species and variety. Radish sprouts have a higher polyphenol content and antioxidant activity compared to broccoli and kale [40]. Because plants have different genetic backgrounds, they show differences in health-promoting properties [41]. Compared to cabbage and cauliflower, Chinese cabbage is rich in VC, and the selection of Chinese cabbage varieties high in VC means that it not only promotes consumer health, it also has superior sensory qualities. Cauliflower has been shown to be rich in total polyphenols and glucosinolates, which is consistent with our findings [42, 43]. There are differences in the dynamic uptake of elements in the soil by different vegetables and crops [48]. This is due to the different adaptation of different species to their environments during growth [49, 50]. In lines 307 to 311, 317 to 326 and 337 to 341.

Point 29:     The reasons for getting this mechanism are also discussed.Please delete descriptive lines.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have removed the descriptive statements.

Point 30: The conclusion is absent. Please provide a conclusive conclusion.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have reworked and revised the conclusions. Based on our results, it was determined that combined and integrated consumption patterns for cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower would be favorable for a balanced diet because of their complementary nutritional values and functional properties. In this way, it was determined that cauliflower is superior to cabbage and Chinese cabbage in terms of nutritional value and antioxidant activity, as it has significantly higher soluble protein, polyphenol, and glucosinolate contents than those of the other two species, and the lowest nitrate content. Cabbage is an ideal source of soluble sugars, flavonoids and Fe. In addition, Chinese cabbage is an excellent source of VC and min-erals. There is an intrinsic correlation between the contents of the components. Cabbage shows higher variability than the other two species, and some varieties are more similar to cauliflower in terms of compositional characteristics. In lines 372 to 382.

Point 31: Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefit from this research.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have added the beneficiary audience at the end of the conclusion. The results of this diversity study provide a theoretical basis for consumers to select varieties with better nutritional and antioxidant properties, as well as guidance for re-searchers to improve the nutritional quality and antioxidant properties of varieties. In lines 383 to 385.

Point 32: Also, give clear-cut recommendations

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added a clear recommendation in the conclusion. Based on our results, it was determined that combined and integrated consumption patterns for cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower would be favorable for a bal-anced diet because of their complementary nutritional values and functional properties. In lines 372 to 375.

Point 33: Give future perspective regarding this research.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, and we conclude by adding future views of the study. The results of this diversity study provide a theoretical basis for consumers to select varieties with better nutritional and antioxidant properties, as well as guidance for re-searchers to improve the nutritional quality and antioxidant properties of varieties. In lines 383 to 385.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The ms agronomy-2030689 with the title of Comparative study on nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds of different types of cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower investigates an important topic but the authors have to improve it before it can be accepted in such high quality journal.

Title should be revised and present the most important words. Now, it is long.

Add the Lain names for plants in first mention along with the English names, check this issue in whole ms.

L9 and  Chinese cabbage

Please add some values in the abstract.

L25-35  this is not good to write 10 lines in the introduction without citations! Thus, please add suitable citations.

L32 use M ha instead of  million hectares

All abbreviations should be defined in the first mention, then the authors should use the abbreviations within the ms.

Did all 33 cultivars of the three plant species receive the same fertilization amount of NPK? Where the soil analysis was same in all fields of those plants? I do not think so!

The authors should NOT start a sentence or paragraph with a number such weight of samples in the measurements section.

L172 add the details of SPSS 26.0 such as company owner, cite of company and country. Also, the authors have to explain this section in detail.

L200 and other lines within the ms, the authors should correct P<0.05 to be P≤0.05.

The authors have to define all abbreviations in Tables or Figures in the title of Tables or Figures.

Tables: What was the units of the elements or other traits mg per kg or g per kg or … or ….?????????? Authors have to add all this information.

Table 5: authors should rearaange the order of the elements to be K, P, Ca, Mg etc…

Discussion section is weak, the authors should link their findings with other studies and findings. I do not find a link for this, only the authors

In conclusion, authors should add some important values and present the most important findings.

 

Regards, reviewer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Reviewer #4:

Point 1: Title should be revised and present the most important words. Now, it is long.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, the title has been changed to “A comparative study on the nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds in different types of cruciferous vegetable”.

Point 2: Add the Lain names for plants in first mention along with the English names, check this issue in whole ms.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, we have added the Latin name in the text. Studies on the diversity within and among cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata L.), cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis), and Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. ssp. pekinensis) variants are essential for the development of healthy diets. In lines 7 to 9.

Point 3: L9 and Chinese cabbage

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have made changes to this issue.

Point 4: Please add some values in the abstract.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion and we have cited the literature for the location you indicated. Cabbage has the highest contents of soluble sugars (27.73 mg·kg-1 FW), flavonoids (5.90 mg·g-1 FW), and Fe (46.90 mg·kg-1 DW). Cauliflower is an ideal source of soluble protein (603.04 mg·kg-1 FW), polyphenols (1.53 mg·g-1 FW), glucosinolates (25.27 μmol·g-1 FW), and Cu (4.25 mg·kg-1 DW). Chinese cabbage is rich in vitamin C (0.45 mg·g-1 FW) and minerals (K, Ca, Mg, P, Mn, and Zn, at 9206.67 mg·kg-1 DW, 3297.00 mg·kg-1 DW, 3322.79 mg·kg-1 DW, 5614.78 mg·kg-1 DW, 15.36 mg·kg-1 DW and 21.87 mg·kg-1 DW, respectively). In lines 15 to 20.

Point 5: L25-35 this is not good to write 10 lines in the introduction without citations! Thus, please add suitable citations.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion and we have cited the literature for the location you indicated. In lines 34 to 35.

Point 6: L32 use M ha instead of million hectares

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, we have replaced million hectares with M ha. In line 38.

Point 7: All abbreviations should be defined in the first mention, then the authors should use the abbreviations within the ms.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We have refined the full names of the abbreviations in the table, but the reason we do not use abbreviations when describing them in the article is to facilitate the reader's understanding, which we hope you can understand.

Point 8: Did all 33 cultivars of the three plant species receive the same fertilization amount of NPK? Where the soil analysis was same in all fields of those plants? I do not think so!

Response: Thank you very much for your question. Our trial material was cultivated at our trial site in Yuzhong County, Gansu Province, China, and was grown in a trial field, and we made sure that the material was given the same cultivation conditions and the same management practices. The region belongs to the temperate semi-arid continental climate; the average altitude is 1790 m, the average annual temperature is 6.6 °C; the average annual precipitation is 300 mm ~ 400 mm, the evaporation is 1343 mm, and the frost-free period is about 150 d. The test field has a gentle topography and a basically uniform fertility level, the soil type is yellow cotton soil, and the basic physical and chemical properties of the soil are shown in Table 1. The test material (Table 2) was planted at 30 days of seedling age, on July 25, 2021, at a spacing of 40 cm between plants and 25 cm between rows and was harvested on October 1. A randomized zonal design was used with three replications of 10 plants each for a total of 30 plants of each variety. Three plants of the same size, similar maturity, and free of diseases and pests were selected from each variety for subsequent trials. In lines 89 to 99. For the physicochemical properties of the soil, we have added Table I in the text. In line 101.

Point 9: The authors should NOT start a sentence or paragraph with a number such weight of samples in the measurements section.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have made changes to the beginning of the measurement section.

Point 10: L172 add the details of SPSS 26.0 such as company owner, cite of company and country. Also, the authors have to explain this section in detail.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, we have made improvements to the data analysis section. Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 to calculate the mean (Mean) and coefficient of variation (CV) for each component. IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, United States) was used to perform a one-way ANOVA test (assuming an equal variance of LSD and a Duncan significance level of p ≤ 0.05), and standard errors (SE) were calculated [33]. Principal component analysis (PCA), correlation analysis, and cluster analysis (heat maps with dendrograms) were performed and visualized using Origin 2022b (Originlab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA) [24]. In lines 180 to 186.

Point 11: L200 and other lines within the ms, the authors should correct P<0.05 to be P≤0.05.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion, we have changed the P<0.05 to p ≤ 0.05 for both in the manuscript.

Point 12: The authors have to define all abbreviations in Tables or Figures in the title of Tables or Figures.Tables: What was the units of the elements or other traits mg per kg or g per kg or … or ….?????????? Authors have to add all this information.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions about the full name and unit issues in the chart, we have refined them.

Point 13: Table 5: authors should rearaange the order of the elements to be K, P, Ca, Mg etc…

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions, and we have adjusted the order of the elements in Table 6(Original Table 5) accordingly.

Point 14: Discussion section is weak; the authors should link their findings with other studies and findings. I do not find a link for this, only the authors

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, significant differences in the nutritional contents of different species were detected, and the nutritional value of cauliflower is better than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage, having only had higher soluble protein content than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage, but also a lower nitrate content than those of Chinese cabbage and cabbage. The main compounds that contribute to the antioxidant activity of the crop itself and in humans varies considerably among the three species. This is due to the contents of an-tioxidant substances as associated with species and variety. Radish sprouts have a higher polyphenol content and antioxidant activity compared to broccoli and kale [40]. Because plants have different genetic backgrounds, they show differences in health-promoting properties [41]. Compared to cabbage and cauliflower, Chinese cab-bage is rich in VC, and the selection of Chinese cabbage varieties high in VC means that it not only promotes consumer health, it also has superior sensory qualities. Cauliflower has been shown to be rich in total polyphenols and glucosinolates, which is consistent with our findings [42, 43]. There are differences in the dynamic uptake of elements in the soil by different vege-tables and crops [48]. This is due to the different adaptation of different species to their environments during growth [49, 50]. In lines 307 to 311, 317 to 326 and 337 to 341. In each part of our discussion, we have referred to and cited the corresponding literature.

Point 15: In conclusion, authors should add some important values and present the most important findings.

Response: Thanks to your valuable suggestions, we have added important values about the study to the conclusion section and presented important findings. The comprehensive study of edible organ components conducted in this paper provides insights into the accumulation of substances in cabbage, cauliflower, and Chinese cabbage grown under the same cultivation conditions. The results indicate the existence of quality diversity within and among the three species. Based on our results, it was determined that combined and integrated consumption patterns for cabbage, Chinese cabbage, and cauliflower would be favorable for a balanced diet because of their complementary nutritional values and functional properties. In this way, it was determined that cauliflower is superior to cabbage and Chinese cabbage in terms of nutritional value and antioxidant activity, as it has significantly higher soluble protein, polyphenol, and glucosinolate contents than those of the other two species, and the lowest nitrate content. Cabbage is an ideal source of soluble sugars, flavonoids and Fe. In addition, Chinese cabbage is an excellent source of VC and minerals. There is an intrinsic correlation between the contents of the components. Cabbage shows higher variability than the other two species, and some varieties are more similar to cauliflower in terms of compositional characteristics. The results of this diversity study provide a theoretical basis for consumers to select varieties with better nutritional and antioxidant properties, as well as guidance for researchers to improve the nutritional quality and antioxidant properties of varieties. In lines 369 to 385.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors modified and supplemented a wide range of the paper, making it easier for the reader to understand.
There is a limit to the fact that the crops of this experiment are grown together and harvested on the same day to analyze the ingredients. Also, the soil  alkali (pH8, mentioned paper) where the crops are grown is not the best environment for brassica crops to be grown with acidity (pH 5.5~5.8).

Crops cannot be sampled on the same day. This is because each crop must be sampled just before the flower stalk is raised or under optimal growth conditions. This is even different for each accession within the same crop.

The flow of revised paper systematic and logical.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you very much for reviewing our article again, your suggestions and comments are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions again, and the parts of the manuscript marked in yellow are the changes we made.

Reviewer #2:

Point 1: There is a limit to the fact that the crops of this experiment are grown together and harvested on the same day to analyze the ingredients. Also, the soil alkali (pH8, mentioned paper) where the crops are grown is not the best environment for brassica crops to be grown with acidity (pH 5.5~5.8).

Response: Thank you very much for the valuable advice you have given us. As you have commented, the PH 8 of the soil in our experiment site is indeed higher than the optimal PH for cruciferous vegetables. The use of soil PH suitable for cruciferous vegetables can better reflect the differences in the relevant indicators of the Chinese cabbage, cabbage and cauliflower themselves. However, I hope you can understand that the reason for this result is that the location our university and the experimental site Yuzhong both located in northwest China, the Loess Plateau, and the soil is mostly alkaline. The purpose of this experiment is to compare the differences in the relevant indicators among these three types of vegetables and provide a theoretical basis for local production. As a matter of fact, Yuzhong, where our experiment was conducted, is one of the major producing areas of Chinese cabbage, cabbage and broccoli in China due to the local climatic conditions. The Chinese cabbage, cabbage and cauliflower have high yield and good quality in Yuzhong, which is also one of the reasons why we choose to plant in Yuzhong. Due to the reasonable control of other factors during our experiment, we believe that our results are feasible and credible. We would like to thank you again for your comments and hope that you can understand the reason why the PH of our experiment site is high. According to your suggestion, we will consider choosing soil with suitable PH for planting in the follow-up experiment.

Point 2: Crops cannot be sampled on the same day. This is because each crop must be sampled just before the flower stalk is raised or under optimal growth conditions. This is even different for each accession within the same crop.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised this part (line 96). This was indeed an oversight on our part, and we followed your suggestion to check with the sampling staff again and determined that it was indeed not harvested on the same day, but rather the optimal harvesting period for each crop. Again, we apologize and will certainly be aware of these issues in future trials. We hope our modifications can get your approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I am not satisfied with the changes made in the manuscript. Still I request you to kindly check the Englisgh language corrections once again.

Regards

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you very much for reviewing our article again, your suggestions and comments are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript based on your suggestions again, and the parts of the manuscript marked in yellow are the changes we made.

Reviewer #3:

Point 1: I am not satisfied with the changes made in the manuscript. Still, I request you to kindly check the Englisgh language corrections once again.

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Based on your suggestion, we have rechecked the grammar, spell and references in our manuscript. In fact, since your last comment, we have asked a polishing company (Shanghai Elixigen) revised our manuscript. We hope our current modified version can get your approval.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The ms has been improved according to my comments.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript, your suggestions and comments are very helpful in improving the quality of our manuscript. Meanwhile, your suggestions have also been very helpful for our future experiments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx