Extended Post-Harvest Effect of Melatonin in Fresh-Cut Broccolini Plants (Bimi^®)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed “Extended Post-harvest Effect of Melatonin in Fresh-cut Brocco- 2 lini Plants (Bimi®)”. The manuscript illuminates an exciting aspect, but some major problems must be addressed. I carefully revised the manuscript and found some major mistakes regarding the melatonin application which can be useful and also revealed greater changes in the plant functioning. After careful review, I recommend the major revision to the author and will consider it for publication after careful revision and addressing all the comments.

The abstract section needs to have a stronger justification, treatment discussion, and results presentation; therefore, I recommend a major revision. I suggest improving the English and removing all the grammatical mistakes. The author discusses the results and compares them with another treatment but does not mention any values in the abstract. Also, it has some language problems which need to be addressed. Finally, kindly write two lines regarding the conclusion and future recommendations which the authors will easily understand. I suggest the author give a problem relating to melatonin application in the first two lines of the abstract which is more important and attractive to the readers. The last three lines need to be revised. Kindly revise it with great care and will consider them for publication after substantial revision.

General comments: Why do we do these experiments, and what are their benefits to the farmer’s community? Briefly explain this and end your abstract with future recommendations.

Introduction:

I suggest removing the old references from this section and replacing them with new ones.

I noticed many previously published works that are mainly related to your current study, which you should have mentioned in your manuscript. I recommend:

·       From Challenges to Solutions: The impact of Melatonin on Abiotic Stress Synergies in Plants via Redox Regulation and Epigenetic Signaling

·       Phosphorus Application Improves the Cotton Yield by Enhancing Reproductive Organ Biomass and Nutrient Accumulation in Two Cotton Cultivars with Different Phosphorus Sensitivity

What are the objectives of the current study? What are the hypotheses? It creates a big ambiguity for the readers. Mention the objectives and hypotheses in the current experiment. Therefore, I suggest revising the last paragraph and mentioning them clearly.

Material and methods:

I suggest revising it carefully and mentioning some new references in your text related to your work.

Section 2.11 needs more references

Results:

The result section is well-written and explained adequately. However, it has some grammatical mistakes which need to be revised in the revision of the manuscript.

Also, the figures need to be revised and mentioned in high quality. Similarly, adding the lettering i.e., a, b, c, and d in its correct form. Mention some space in treatment effects which will be clearer to the readers.  

Discussion:

This section needs to be stronger and requests a major revision. I suggest giving a brief discussion and explaining each and every hypothesis point to point and paragraph by paragraph, which the authors will easily pick during studying.

I also suggest the author remove and replace old references with new ones. Kindly use up-to-date references from 2018 onwards.

I suggest including some new reference which is mainly related to your current research.

Conclusion:

I suggest revising this section and including some future recommendations that will be easy for readers.

I found some minor grammatical errors which need to be revised. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed “Extended Post-harvest Effect of Melatonin in Fresh-cut Brocco- 2 lini Plants (Bimi®)”. The manuscript illuminates an exciting aspect, but some major problems must be addressed. I carefully revised the manuscript and found some major mistakes regarding the melatonin application which can be useful and also revealed greater changes in the plant functioning. After careful review, I recommend the major revision to the author and will consider it for publication after careful revision and addressing all the comments.

The abstract section needs to have a stronger justification, treatment discussion, and results presentation; therefore, I recommend a major revision. I suggest improving the English and removing all the grammatical mistakes. The author discusses the results and compares them with another treatment but does not mention any values in the abstract. Also, it has some language problems which need to be addressed. Finally, kindly write two lines regarding the conclusion and future recommendations which the authors will easily understand. I suggest the author give a problem relating to melatonin application in the first two lines of the abstract which is more important and attractive to the readers. The last three lines need to be revised. Kindly revise it with great care and will consider them for publication after substantial revision.

General comments: Why do we do these experiments, and what are their benefits to the farmer’s community? Briefly explain this and end your abstract with future recommendations.

A: The abstract has been thoroughly revised and rewritten according to the referee's suggestions.

Introduction:

I suggest removing the old references from this section and replacing them with new ones.

I noticed many previously published works that are mainly related to your current study, which you should have mentioned in your manuscript. I recommend:

• From Challenges to Solutions: The impact of Melatonin on Abiotic Stress Synergies in Plants via Redox Regulation and Epigenetic Signaling

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112369

• Phosphorus Application Improves the Cotton Yield by Enhancing Reproductive Organ Biomass and Nutrient Accumulation in Two Cotton Cultivars with Different Phosphorus Sensitivity

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020153

A: Thanks for the suggestions. The suggested references have been incorporated and others from 2023.

 

What are the objectives of the current study? What are the hypotheses? It creates a big ambiguity for the readers. Mention the objectives and hypotheses in the current experiment. Therefore, I suggest revising the last paragraph and mentioning them clearly.

A: This section has been rewritten, recording in a more concise way the objectives, the hypothesis, and other interesting aspects.

 

Material and methods:

I suggest revising it carefully and mentioning some new references in your text related to your work.

Section 2.11 needs more references.

A: As the reviewer suggests two more references have been added. Also, more data have been included in sections 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4.

Results:

The result section is well-written and explained adequately. However, it has some grammatical mistakes which need to be revised in the revision of the manuscript.

A: The text has been revised and any grammatical mistakes found have been corrected.

Also, the figures need to be revised and mentioned in high quality. Similarly, adding the lettering i.e., a, b, c, and d in its correct form. Mention some space in treatment effects which will be clearer to the readers.  

A: The graphics have been edited at 600 dpi, possible lack quality is due to the transformation of the file to pdf. Also, we have aligned the statistical letters in the corresponding figures for your best view.

Discussion:

This section needs to be stronger and requests a major revision. I suggest giving a brief discussion and explaining each and every hypothesis point to point and paragraph by paragraph, which the authors will easily pick during studying.

I also suggest the author remove and replace old references with new ones. Kindly use up-to-date references from 2018 onwards.

I suggest including some new reference which is mainly related to your current research.

A: We have incorporated more current references, but we have maintained references from before 2018 because we consider them essential.

A: In the Results & Discussion section more information and comments have been incorporated, specifically in sections 3.0, 3.2 and 3.3. The text has been revised and a more extended discussion appears in the new version.

Conclusion:

I suggest revising this section and including some future recommendations that will be easy for readers.

A: As suggested we have added a recommendation sentence for agri-companies.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Chapter Materials and Methods:

Line 115 and 116: Was it the temperature of the spectrophotometer or the storage of the reagents?

Line 130:  How were the temperature and relative air humidity controlled during broccoli storage?

Results and discussion:

Line 224. I suggest changing “preliminary results” to “results of the preliminary study”

Figure 1. How do the Authors explain the higher weight loss after 7 days than after 14 and 28 days?

Conclusions:

Line 353: Based on the results it seems that the positive effect of melatonin treatments on extending shelf life is even longer than 7 days.

Figure 7. There are no results concerning organoleptic properties

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Chapter Materials and Methods:

Line 115 and 116: Was it the temperature of the spectrophotometer or the storage of the reagents?

Answer: The controlled temperature corresponds to that of the spectrophotometer, which allows the reaction temperature to be constant and adequate. The text has been rewritten for a better understanding of the procedure.

Line 130:  How were the temperature and relative air humidity controlled during broccoli storage?

A: Temperature and relative humidity of the air were controlled during the storage of broccolini by using a cold room equipped with temperature and humidity sensors, commonly used for the preservation of fruits and vegetables.

Results and discussion:

Line 224. I suggest changing “preliminary results” to “results of the preliminary study”

A: The suggestion has been accepted, and the expression has been changed.

Figure 1. How do the Authors explain the higher weight loss after 7 days than after 14 and 28 days?

A: We have reviewed Figure 1 and based on our data we have decided to select a better way to express changes in weight loss of plant material. The data actually expresses the rate of weight loss per day of storage. Thus, in the new version of Figure 1 we have only changed the way of expressing weight loss on the ordinate axis, resulting in weight loss rate (g/day) versus storage time. We hope that in this way the reader obtains a better interpretation of the kinetics of weight loss.

Conclusions:

Line 353: Based on the results it seems that the positive effect of melatonin treatments on extending shelf life is even longer than 7 days.

A: We have reviewed the data, and as indicated by the reviewer and based on the results obtained, it could be stated that the optimal conservation time is of 7 days, however an improved conservation time could be extended until 14 days. This consideration has been added in the text.

Figure 7- FIG.6. There are no results concerning organoleptic properties.

A: We agree with the referee's considerations. The new version of figure 6 avoids referring to possible alterations in the organoleptic properties of melatonin-treated broccolini.