Fruit Agronomic and Quality Traits of Tomato F1 Hybrids Derived from Traditional Varieties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Why the author added a point in the title, while lacked of one point in the ending of the Abstract ? The authors also should present the significance of this study in the ending of the Abstract.

(2) The 1st reference in the Introduction might be wrongly cited, since the accessed data  was 2024.

(3) All the trait testing were performed by the kit or were send to the company ?

(4) Did the authors consider to add a comprehensive clustering diagram of 20 hybrid groups ?

(5)  The references were not uniform, as some ones lack the issue number, and some Latin or gene names were not italic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing of the manuscript needs improvement, and some grammatical and spelling errors still exist. Suggest to invite someone native to help with the polish.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I have attached the answers to your questions about the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript “Fruit quality traits and nutritional value of tomato F1 hybrids derived from traditional varieties.” by Sánchez-Sánchez et al. evaluated eighteen field-grown tomato F₁ hybrids developed from fourteen different tomato genotypes with varying fruit types for agronomic, nutritional, organoleptic, and bioactive compounds. This study created an evaluation index based on organoleptic and bioactive traits and reported five hybrids ranking highest out of eighteen for fruit yield and quality. The manuscript provides a detailed comparison of the hybrids with respect to the traits measured in the study, especially the fruit traits. The results of this study can be useful to the breeding program owning these materials in developing more parental lines and varietal development processes. However, there are some points that can help in improving the methods, results, and conclusions that this manuscript is trying to convey to the reader.

Please find the suggestions below that might need further attention or need to addressed:

1.      Table 1. Please mention any apriori information on these specific parental lines selection and what crossing scheme was selected for hybrid creation for this study and when were these hybrids created?

2.      The experimental details including repetitions are missing. Please include in which years/locations was this research conducted. Evaluating hybrids in one location and one year may not represent the variation in traits, especially quantitative traits some of which this study has tried to capture. Spatial and temporal variation needs to be considered.

3.      Please insert correlation table of multiple season/location data for the traits studied.

4.      Keywords: Please correct “Laadrces” to Landraces.

5.      In methods, eighteen hybrids have been mentioned and in results, twenty hybrids are said to be developed. Please be consistent in both sections.

6.      Table 2. Are the parental means average of both male and female lines? Please explain.

7.      Section Methods: line 2: Explain “traditional hybrids”. Tomato varieties are hybrids and why did you use hybrids as parents instead of using inbred lines? If the parents were hybrids, all ten replications in the experiment could be segregating within themselves and no uniform reads could be expected.

8.      Section Methods: Evaluation index – please include details on the trait prioritization and weightage in the creation of the index or provide appropriate references to the protocol used. Additionally, it is recommended that correlation = 1 be removed from the figure because the heat signatures for 1 is misleading.

9.      Section Methods: Please include the methods that was used to determine that hybrids were responsible for the variation in the measured traits (ANOVA, etc.).

10.  Figure 2: Please use the Journal’s guidelines in inserting numerals and commas in figures.

11.  Please follow the Journal’s guidelines in formatting and correction of language errors. There are numerous writing errors in the manuscript, and it is beyond the scope of the peer-review process to recommend these corrections. It is encouraged that authors correct these errors before submission or use language service.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I have included in the attached document the answers to your questions about the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study finished the crossings among fourteen traditional tomato varieties, and measured the agronomic, physical, organoleptic and nutritional characteristics of eighteen F1 hybrids, while the results indicated five hybrids were of interesting traits and higher yield. Generally, this manuscript was properly organized, and a few aspects should be improved.

(i) The manuscript indicated tomato suffered genetic erosion, and the present study aimed to relieve this erosion. The authors should introduce the status of genetic variation and diversity of the fourteen parent varieties of tomato.

(ii) Some contents in the Discussion part were repeated with Results, and the Discussion could be abbreviated.

(iii) The meaning of ‘37.7939600, −0.9559300’ in page 3 should be explained.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript needs minor editing of English language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, I have included in the attached document the answers to your questions about the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf