Biostimulant Effects of Algae Species, Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, and Their Combinations on Yield and Quality of Yellow Tomato Landrace Under Different Crop Cycles
, Alessio Vincenzo Tallarita 2,*, Eugenio Cozzolino 3,*, Vasile Stoleru 4, Otilia Cristina Murariu 5, Amina Abidi 6, Roberto Maiello 2, Vincenzo Cenvinzo 2, Pasquale Lombardi 7, Antonio Cuciniello 3, Lamia Hamrouni 6, Gianluca Caruso 2,†and Rafik Balti 8,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript by Abidi et al. investigates the impact of different biostimulants, specifically brown algae extracts, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and their combinations, on the yield and quality of the yellow tomato landrace under various crop cycles.
* Can the authors provide detailed descriptions of how each biostimulant was prepared and the specific concentrations used in each treatment?
* Could the authors elaborate on the environmental conditions maintained during the study and discuss how these conditions were controlled or monitored?
* Can the authors include the results of interaction effects between the biostimulants and planting times?
* Could the authors discuss any potential long-term effects or sustainability issues associated with continuous use of these biostimulants in agricultural practices?
* The paper could significantly benefit from a deeper mechanistic insight into how these biostimulants influence plant physiological processes. This would not only enhance the academic contribution of the paper but also its applicability. Can the authors provide more detailed hypotheses or data on the biochemical pathways influenced by the biostimulants?
* The manuscript discusses increases in antioxidant activities; can the authors provide more quantitative data on this? How do these increases compare statistically with control treatments?
* Based on the findings, what are the potential commercial applications of these biostimulants in agriculture? Can the authors speculate on the economic benefits or cost-effectiveness of using these treatments?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, in attached the reply file. Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors evaluated biostimulant effects of algae species, AMF and their combinations on yield and quality of yellow tomato landrace under different crop cycles. After carefully reading the manuscript, I am worried about that this manuscript cannot be published at present version. My main comments are as follows.
Lines 90-95, the soil properties should be provided, like SOC, total N, total P, available P et al.
Line 69-111, I know the study was conducted in field and contained two factors (planting times and eight biostimulant treatments (control +7 biostimulant)). How did you perform each factor? That is to say, how is the plot size for each treatment combination? What is the distance between each plot? How did you add the seven biostimulant? What ‘s the amount of each biostimulant added into each plot? Which AMF species was used? What about the AMF spore density? All these information is unclear.
Lines 155-158, did author check the normality and homogeneity of residual? Besides, as mentioned in the manuscript, authors used two-way ANOVA, but in the Results, I did not see the results of ANOVA.
Lines 160-268, the presentation of results are not appropriate. The results of ANOVA should be provided in a table, and the mean values±SE should be provided in figures.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, in attached the reply file. Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, please consider the following comments and suggestions:
General comments
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi species?
The introduction could benefit from merging paragraphs
The methods section should be divided into sections and the methods should be explained with more detail.
A figure explaining the overall study design and rationale could improve the report
Although statistical tests were performed, there is no reporting of the deviations in the data points; this is important to assess robustness of results
I suggest that results of the tables be presented in graphs, for example, bar graphs with data points
Specific comments
How was AMF obtained?
Line 102-103 In what did the replicates consist of?
How much sample was actually used for catalase activity and guaiacol peroxidase activity determination? This is not clear.
Why is “abiotic stress” being used as keyword?
Line 25/26 The scientific names are not properly formatted
Line 74 – italics are missing
Line 76 – this needs references
Line 78 – italics are missing
Line 111 – abbreviations must be written in full the first time they are usí
Line 275 – italics are missing
Check italics in the references, e.g., 361
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, in attached the reply file. Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the revised version, most of the suggestions have been considered. The paper should be accepted in its current form.
Author Response
Comment 1:
In the revised version, most of the suggestions have been considered. The paper should be accepted in its current form.
Answer 1: Thank you for Your time to review this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. line 256-257, 283-284, 321-322, delete repeated sentences.
2. Table 2, what does "L", "a", "b" mean?
3. "p" in "P value" should be italic.
4. delete line 365.
Author Response
Comment1. line 256-257, 283-284, 321-322, delete repeated sentences.
Answer1: Addressed
Comment2. Table 2, what does "L", "a", "b" mean?
Answer2: Information explaining the meaning of the indices is now included in the text (L: Lightness; a (green-magenta axis); b(blue-yellow axis))
Comment3. "p" in "P value" should be italic.
Answer3: Addressed
Comment4. delete line 365.
Answer4: Addressed
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Lines 75-78:
The reference [13] Celis-Plá, P. S.; Korbee, N.; Gómez-Garreta, A.; Figueroa, F. L. Seasonal photoacclimation patterns in the intertidal macroalga 389Cystoseira tamariscifolia (Ochrophyta). Sci. Mar. 2014, 78, 377-388.
does not match with the text. I suggest including appropriate reference(s)
- I suggest adding, in the caption of figure 2, the abbreviations of the legend in full extent.
- Line 120:
1% concentration for each fungi species, or 1% among the various species?
Which rhizosphere bacteria?
Author Response
Comment1- Lines 75-78:
The reference [13] Celis-Plá, P. S.; Korbee, N.; Gómez-Garreta, A.; Figueroa, F. L. Seasonal photoacclimation patterns in the intertidal macroalga 389Cystoseira tamariscifolia (Ochrophyta). Sci. Mar. 2014, 78, 377-388.
does not match with the text. I suggest including appropriate reference(s)
Answer1: Thank you, addressed.
Comment 2- I suggest adding, in the caption of figure 2, the abbreviations of the legend in full extent.
Answer 2 : Addressed
Comment 3 - Line 120:
1% concentration for each fungi species, or 1% among the various species?
Which rhizosphere bacteria?
Answer3: Thank you for this comment. The information is now addressed in the text
