Influence of Wild Relative Rootstocks on Eggplant Growth, Yield and Fruit Physicochemical Properties under Open Field Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting, however, the experimental design is a little complex. The authors did not present the data adequately. So it is very difficult to get the useful information from this paper. The data of 3 factors (4 scion cultivars, 3 rootstock cultivars, 2 years), should be clearly described. The experiment cannot be done by only one factor analysis (multiple range test). In addition, the paper should be written in a concise way.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to your observations

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Verified - for authors

line 38- FAO 2020 is missing from the bibliography;

line 40 - FAO 2020 is missing from the bibliography;

line 45 - missing Rivard, 2010 from the bibliography;

line 50- missing Bletsos et al., 2003 and Daunay, 2008 from the bibliography;

line 45 - missing Proietti et al., 2008 from the bibliography;

line 104 - number of leaves after 60 DAT ( in material and methods 2.2) or primary branches (table  2) ?

line 179- missing Uthumporn et al., 2016 a from the bibliography;

line 210- missing Aadesariya et al., 2017 from the bibliography;

line 221- missing Pelletier, 1985 from the bibliography;

In table 2

- the units of measurement are missing;

- number of leaves (material and method) or primary branches at 60 DAT

- number of fruits / plant ?

- total yield / plant (kg) ?

there is no correlation between the weight of a fruit, the number of fruits / plant and the total yield / plant ! (example self-grafted ME / ME 360.76g x 55 fruits = 3.78 kg?)

In table 3

- the units of measurement are missing;

- fruit length / width (fruit shape index) - it's a suggestion!

In table 4

- the units of measurement are missing;

- the data in the text (results) do not correspond to those in table 4 (example dry matter at self-grafted CE / CE, in the table it is 7.39 and in the text it is 7.37)!

In table 5

- the units of measurement are missing;

- the data in the text (results) do not correspond to those in table 5 (ascorbic acid at grafted ME / SI, in the table it is 35.08 and in the text 38.08) the units of measurement are missing !

- at TPC there are such problems too !

line 371- Mari et al., 2014 is missing from the bibliography;

line 392- Ei-Wani et al., 2014 missing from bibliography;

line 431 Khant et al., 2006 or Khah et al., 2006 how is it in the bibliography ?

the correct line 437 is Hoza et al., 2017 not Gheorghita et al., 2017

There are 19 bibliographic titles in the references that are not found in the paper !

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please find attached the response to your observations

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

　In this study, eggplant grafting was conducted to determine the effect of wild relative rootstocks such as success and yield. The research design is appropriate, but the introduction, discussion, and format of citations are need to be revised.

Major comments

1. This study shows the usefulness of the wild relative rootstocks, but the information on wild relatives is not enough in this introduction. It is better to include the reasons why you focused on wild relatives in introduction, including citations (e.g., Musa et al. 2020 Plants 9, no. 11: 1583. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111583). Also, information on the wild relatives used in this study would be helpful to understand this study.
2. For easy understanding, abbreviations should be listed first, including the variety name. A table of the varieties used in this study would make it easier to understand this study.
3. Citations need to be cited correctly. Some citations are not in the reference (e.g., LL38). In References, the citation format needs to be standardized.
4. In discussion, please cite the result tables obtained in this study. The lack of citation of the results makes it difficult to compare this study with previous studies.
5. In the conclusion, it is better to describe which traits were improved by which wild relative rootstocks. Also, interspecific hybrid rootstock was reffered in the conclusion, but there is no mention of the other parts of manuscript, so I could not understand the relevance.

 

Minor comments

L15; No period needed. Please correct it appropriately.

L140; In general, no space is needed before "%" or "°C".

L235; Reagents and instruments are described in the form of an instrument name (product number, company name, country name).

L256; Statistical differences would be easier to understand if they were indicated by different alphabets.

L294; Is it a period instead of a comma?

L317; The parentheses are doubled. Please correct it appropriately.

L360; There are extra parentheses. Please correct it appropriately.

L373; The space is wide. Please correct it appropriately.

Author Response

Please find attached the response to your observations

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Table 4, Total soluble solid, what is the unit?

2. The lawout of this MS should be improved, now it is not clear. 

Year, this is the average data? I think the data for each graft combination should be given for each year.

Year 2018

Year 2019

The below data belong which yerar?

Also rootstock

ME, CE, NE, TE are not rootstocks

Maybe graft combinations is better to conclude this.

 

I suggest to present the 4 scions respectively in figures, not combined, just to see the rootstock effect.

Author Response

Please find attached the round two response

Author Response File: Author Response.docx