Boosting Tomato Resilience in Tanzania: Grafting to Combat Bacterial Wilt and Abiotic Stress

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have revised and improved the entire introduction

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have added references to strengthen this paper.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have reorganized how the results have been presented to enhance coherence.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: Introductory part is too long. Results are only 3 sentences.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have revised the entire abstract to shorten the introduction and include more sentences showcasing results.

Comments 2: Introduction: At the end of the Introduction please provide a well defined one sentence objectives.

Response 2: Agreed we have indeed provided a well-defined one-sentence objective at the end of the introduction.

Comments 3: Table 1. Title is too short and not informative. Give more details in the title.

Response 3: Agreed we have provided more details for the title of table 1.

Comments 4: Figure 2. The quality of the figure is very bad. Please change it. No x title is given.

Response 4: Agreed we have improved all figures in the manuscript including figure 2.

Comments 5: Figure 3. Again the quality of the figures are very bad. Unreadable text. 

Response 5: Agreed we have improved all figures in the manuscript including figure 3.

Comments 6: References need to be revisited and formatted according to journal format

Response 6: Agreed we have revisited and formatted all references with accordance to journal format.

4. Additional clarifications

We have revised the entire manuscript to improve it with accordance to reviewers comments and journal’s requirement.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Ensure consistent terminology and clarity throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and understanding for readers.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the entire manuscript to ensure consistent terminology usage throughout the manuscript to enhance readability and understanding for readers.

Comments 2: Provide additional details on specific procedures, such as the grafting process, fertilization techniques, and irrigation schedules, to offer a comprehensive understanding of the experimental setup and methodology.

Response 2: Agreed, we have provided additional details on specific grafting procedures, fertilization techniques, and irrigation schedules to enhance understanding of the experimental setup and methodology.

Comments 3: all references are accurately cited and listed appropriately to maintain academic integrity and provide readers with the necessary sources for further reading or verification.

Response 3: We have cross-checked the usage of all references together with their specific formatting

Comments 4: Comparative discussion is needed in more detail. For instance, see these articles for your citation, i.e., 1. 10.1007/s10725-024-01128-y 2.

Response 4: Thank you for providing additional resources, and we have added it int this manuscript. From our end, we have improved the discussion to make it more informative and focused.

4. Additional clarifications

We have revised the entire manuscript to improve it with accordance to reviewers comments and journal’s requirement.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have revised and improved the entire introduction

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have added references to strengthen this paper.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have added information to the research design section to make it comprehensive.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have further enhanced the description of our research methods.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have reorganized how the results have been presented to enhance coherence.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

We have tremendously improved the conclusion section.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Dear authors, The manuscript does not provide both scientific and practical merits. Please find the attachment.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, I would like to express my gratitude for bringing this to our attention. Our team conducted an experiment using scientifically proven techniques in a Sub-Saharan African locality to offer alternative solutions to tomato growers facing soil-borne disease issues and environmental stressors. Though the outcome did not meet our expectations, it provides valuable insight and direction on how to proceed in addressing these challenges. We believe that this manuscript will serve as a valuable resource for future studies aimed at finding sustainable and environmentally friendly approaches to managing soil-borne problems and restoring profitability for small-scale farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Comments 2: 1. Introduction - The objective of an experiment is not clear. Show what authors want to know from three independent experiments.

Response 2: Agreed, we have indeed provided a well-defined one-sentence objective at the end of the re-worded introduction.

Comments 3: Materials and methods - Check fertilization (Ex. 1): 15% (M&M) or 50% (Results); - Add soil physicochemical properties of each experimental sites; - Explain why authors employed reduced fertilization (15%) and how controlled water potentials to generate water deficit.

Response 3: We have checked and corrected the 50% written instead of 15% therefore currently, the fertilization is either standard or low (i.e., 15%); we have also added similar soils information for each experimental site and explained why we employed reduced fertilization (15%) and how we controlled water potentials to generate deficit.

As for the reasoning behind the fertilization approach, we have explained that the standard practice of adding 5-t ha-1 of cow manure during plowing serves to replenish soil nutrients slowly. However, this method only meets 15% of the crop's NPK needs, leading farmers to rely heavily on synthetic fertilizers to supplement the plants' nutritional demands (which was also our standard fertilization practice). Therefore, for our 15% reduced fertilization approach, plants only received the 5-t ha-1 of cow manure added during plowing.

Comments 4: Results - Resolution of all figures is very low; - Table 4: Explain the reason why fresh weight was big different between both seasons even though the difference of leaf surface was not greater.; - Based on the result of marketable yield, the experiment was likely to be failed. Authors also mentioned the yield is very low compared to real production (up to 5kg/m2).

Response 4: Agreed, we have enhanced all the statistical data in the manuscript. The variation in fresh weight can be attributed to the impact of the rainy season during season 2, which resulted in the proliferation of both early and late blight diseases that were quite difficult to manage. This information is clearly outlined in the introduction of the discussion section. Despite the challenges encountered, the findings of the experiment are quite valuable and could be useful to anyone conducting similar experiments. It is worth noting that the experiment was conducted under sub-Saharan conditions, and as such, the yield was also affected similarly to what is experienced by farmers in the region.

Comments 5: Discussion - Authors described the failure of the experiment in Discussion section with an expression like ‘our results provide no evidence’, ‘the absence of a significant difference’ and ‘the results of the three experiments provide no evidence for

any advantage in using grafted plants

Response 5: Agreed, some of the results were truly insignificant, but still, this manuscript once accepted is a great way to communicate with fellow scientists especially in the region, to avoid a repetition which won’t be fruitful.

4. Additional clarifications

We have revised the entire manuscript to improve it with accordance to reviewers comments and journal’s requirement.

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

x

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The article submitted for review deals with strengthening tomato resilience through grafting. The issue taken up by the authors is an important one. Crop grafting can be effective in reducing damage caused by abiotic stress or disease.

Response 1: Thank you for being positive with this manuscript, we look forward to further strengthen it inform the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa about the potential in Tomato grafting.

Comments 2: The manuscript sent for review was carefully prepared. The experiments conducted are well described, the conclusions are drawn from the results of the experiments. The article may be accepted for publication. The authors should increase the resolution of the posted charts (they are barely legible in their current form).

Response 2: Again, thank you for the commendations, and we also agree with you that the charts had low resolution. we have indeed improved all the graphs within the manuscript.

4. Additional clarifications

We have revised the entire manuscript to improve it with accordance to reviewers comments and journal’s requirement.