Functional Quality of Improved Tomato Genotypes Grown in Open Field and in Plastic Tunnel under Organic Farming
, Creola Brezeanu 2, Carmenica Doina Jităreanu 1, Teodor Robu 1, Liviu Mihai Irimia 3, Alina Elena Trofin 4, Lorena-Diana Popa 3, Vasile Stoleru 3, Florin Murariu 5,* and Petre Marian Brezeanu 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was significantly modified and improved
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed all the suggested revisions.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors accept mostly of reviewers recommendation and improve quality of manuscript
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please open Attach and read all review suggestion
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
Line 25 (first version) Line 25 (corrected version): The 2019 specification in the abstract was omitted, therefore it was corrected.
Line 26-27 (first version): This part of sentences “grown in an organic system by using 3 products accepted for organic farming (Konflic 0.3%, Bionid 0.5% and Neemex 0.3%” was excluded.
Introduction
Line 45 to line 72 (first version): First part of introduction was excluded.
Nine references from first part of Introduction were excluded.
Line 80 (first version) Line 53 (corrected version): References from 14 to 18 were excluded.
Material and methods
Line 115 (first version) Line 85 (corrected version): it was corrected in the abstract. The results were presented like mean values for two years of studies (2019 and 2020).
More details of: fertilization were specified at lines 138 – 145 (in corrected version), of irrigation and pollination at lines 124 – 127 (corrected version), about plant protection at lines 129 – 137 (corrected version), about harvest method at lines 152 to 157 (corrected version), about time of harvest at lines 113-114 (corrected version) and at line 157 (corrected version) through BBCH 803 – 804 and about level of maturity at lines 151-153.
Line 195 (first version) Line 188-192 (corrected version): the correct References for the equations of maturity and flavor indexes calculation created by Navez et al., (1999) and Nielsen (2003) was inserted in text and in References list at lines [519-522].
Lines 263 – 267 (corrected version): the paper was completed with the information mentioned in the literature by Navez (1999) and Ilic (2014) as your kind suggest (I read the information from the Ilic article and I improved it lines 297 - 302.
Lines [326-338] (corrected version): Genotypes 1 and 8 highlighted very high content of dry matter but this kind of values was obtained for organic tomato another authors, specifications added at lines 332-338.
Table 3 – Maturity index and its results: it was completed at lines 294-297 (corrected version): results obtained by other researcher with high value for the maturity index.
An example:
Jingwei Wang, Yuan Li, and Wenquan Niu. 2020.Deficit Alternate Drip Irrigation Increased Root-Soil-Plant Interaction, Tomato Yield, and Quality. Environmental Research and Public Health,17, 781, 1-18. In table 3 it can be observed the values for TSS (%)> 5.8%, 6.93%, 7.3% and 6.03% with organic acid 0.32%, 0.29%, 0.21% and 0.18%. The calculation of maturity index: TSS/TA reveals the values 18.1; 23.9; 34.18 and 33.5 values that are higher than those obtained in current research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
All the comments are in the attached pdf.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
Title: was remade acording with comment
Keywords: Solanum Lycopersicum L. – L is noted without italic
Line 48: it was added the Reference suggested:
- Argento s., Melilli M.G., Branca F. Enchancing greenhouse tomato-crop productivity by using Brassica macrocarpa Leaves for Controlling Root-Knot nematodes. Agronomy 2019; 9, 820, doi:10.3390/agronomy9120820.
Line 54: it was added the Reference suggested:
- Melilli M.G., Tringali S., Riggi E., Raccuia S.A. Screening of genetic variability for some phenolic constituents of globe artichoke head. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 730. 2007, 10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.730.8.
Lines 123-127 (first version) Line 92 (corrected version):
This informations were deleted: Thus, in this research, the diversity of plant genetic resources was considered for the production of tomato genotypes free of pesticide residues. We also had in mind the improvement of sensory traits with characteristics appreciated by the consumers, and of a nutritional profile according to the European market demands regarding the antioxidant components.
Information about the soil: Lines 94-97 (corrected version): In both experimental variants (open field and plastic tunnel), the tomato crops were cultivated on soil with the same characteristics: clayey chambic chernozem soil with the following characteristics: pH 6.8; 2.6% organic matter; 0,150% N, 116 ppm P (mobile), 195 ppm K (mobile).
Information about the size of open field and plastic tunnel and distance about the two factors studied: Lines 115-127 (corrected version):
The sowing was carried out on February 16th for plastic tunnel and March 16th for the experimental field. Plantlets were transplanted in the plastic tunnel on April 11 and in the field on May 11. The experimental facility covers an area of 576 m2 (288 m2 for open field and 288 m2 for plastic tunnel located at ≅ 20 m distance from each other) and it was laid out in a completely randomized design.
The randomized experimental field was displayed in four replicates, 9 m2 replicate /tomatoes variant, ensuring a density of 4.8 plants/ m2 (in open field) and 2.4 plants/ m2 (plastic tunnel area) with seedlings of 45 old days.
For both experimental fields, it was ensured mulched with black plastic film and drip irrigation. The irrigation of tomatoes was done by drip from may to august. It was used watering tape with a flow rate of 2 l/hour with irrigation norm/vegetation period ≅ 89 m3 with the weight of irrigation pipes of 6.61 and length of 652 and the quantity per single distribution of 3.87 m3. No pollinators were used.
Also it were specified more details about fertilization at lines 138 – 145 (in corrected version), of irrigation and pollination at lines 124 – 127 (corrected version), about plant protection at lines 128 – 136 (corrected version), about harvest method at lines 151 to 157 (corrected version), about time of harvest at lines 113-114 (corrected version) and at line 157 (corrected version) through BBCH 803 – 804 and about level of maturity at lines 152-153.
Line 128 (first version) Line 100 (corrected version):
The meteorological data presented represent conditions from the experimental period. Therefore I can’t present it in the Results, being mentioned on the conditions of the experiment.
Line 159: Each genotypes were described in Fig 1.
Line 150-154: Fruits were harvested manually from each variant at each harvest, random from10 plants of each genotype for each system of growing. The fruits were harvested from 3 and 4 clusters each of them weighing 2000 – 2500g, per each repetition for both crops so that they corresponded to uniformity of size and maturity (BBCH 803 – 804) for each population (Figure 1).
Line 178: it was corrected °Brix
Line 190: it was corrected °Brix
Line 201: it was corecte 2,6-dichlorophenolindophenol.
Line 234: it was corrected (Table 1).
Line 242: All de unit measures were corrected for TA expressed in Citric acid%.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article provides the information on the functional quality of eight tomato genotypes grown in different environments using organic farming. The authors compared the fruit quality of eight genotypes harvested from open field and plastic tunnel systems. They concluded plastic tunnel system is better than open field system. Although the results are interesting, plant materials, experimental designs and statistical analyses are not appropriate. First of all, the source of eight genotype is not provided. If the genotypes are not inbred lines (not genetically fixed), the fruit quality will be different not by environmental but by genetic factors. The authors must provide information on the source of genotypes to ensure that the genotypes are reliable. Second, this experiment included field trials which usually require more than two years to exclude the error from year variation. Third, the data is wired. For example, I do not understand where TSS in OF (6.33± 1.64) in Table 2 came from. The mean of eight genotypes in OF in Table 3 cannot be 6.33 and there is no explanation on it. Last, statistical analyses should be simple. In this experimental design with only two variables, simple t-test would be better to show the difference between open field and plastic tunnel systems.
Author Response
the manuscript and responses are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
