Deciphering the Effects of Different Calcium Sources on the Plant Growth, Yield, Quality, and Postharvest Quality Parameters of ‘Tomato’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Grammatical errors are required to be rectified. Similarly, sentence construction can be improved throughout the manuscript. Some sentences which needs correction are highlighted in red in the attached file. Please note that the highlighted texts are just some examples and that there are other sentences that could be improved. 

2. Figures 1 and 2 are unclear. Need better resolution. Graph legends are not legible in the file provided to me. Please improve the resolution of figures. 

3. Figures 1 and 2 need a more detailed description of the data shown in the figure legend. 

4. Y axis needs to be labelled better in figures 1 and 2. It just says 'calcium source' in every graph ! Please label y axis accurately. Also, what does the error bars represent ? 

5. Text has to reveal what are the units of measurement. Not merely in the paragraph heading but also in the text. 

6. Authors say "In our study, maximum fruit number and size were observed in the plants treated with different calcium sources when compared to control" - however, calcium salts were the only compounds tested in the entire study. Hence, in order for the authors to claim this, they need to show data for other salts other than that of calcium. 

7.Authors conclude that "Therefore; it is concluded that all calcium sources were effective to improve pre and postharvest fruit quality of tomato" - this is not a conclusion because it well known that calcium salts have beneficial properties for plant growth. This study merely tries to quantify the effects of certain calcium salts on some characteristics of the Tomato plant. The overall language of the manuscript needs to be updated to match the scope of this study. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English can be improved throughout the manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript horticulturae-3119584 entitled “Deciphering the Effects of Different Calcium Sources on Plant Growth, Yield, Quality and Post-Harvest Quality Parameters of ‘Tomato” has been reviewed.  The study investigated the impact of various types of calcium on the overall growth of tomato plants, with a specific focus on fruit quality. However, recommendations, disputes, and critiques can be found in almost every part, as shown below.

 

1. English writing is proficient.

 

2. The abstract should be brief. It is necessary to present visual representations of the numerical data and comparisons of important parameters.

 

3. In the in the introduction,

3.1 The study investigated the effects of various types of calcium on tomato plant development, but only calcium nitrate was provided with detailed information and references (Line 58-59). 

3.2 What was the hypothesis for the application of various types of calcium?

 

4. In the materials and methods,

4.1 Line 81-82, What was the rationale for using each kind of calcium in a 2% concentration?    What is the definition of 2%?  Are you referring about the concentration in a solution or in soil? What is the procedure for administering calcium to plants?

4.2 Line 94-99, What was the age of the seedlings? Which specific fungicide is utilised?

What was the spacing between each plant throughout the planting process? Was the present study conducted throughout two distinct seasons, namely summer and winter?

4.3 Line 117, Which leaf locations were utilised for chlorophyll measurement?

4.4 Line 118, Which leaf locations were utilised to measure leaf area? Did you observe all the leaves of the plants?

4.5 Line 122, What was the fruit maturity to be harvested?

4.6 Line 139, Verify the acid coefficient. If it is citric acid, it should have a value of 0.064.   Additionally, please verify all TA values in the results.

4.7 Line 160, The subtopic referred to as 'Total carotenoids', although the content was actually measured for beta-carotene.

4.8 Line 161, What was the reason for using juice to detect the total phenolic content?

4.9 Line 166, Why was the lycopene content segregated inside this category instead of being grouped together with the total carotenoids? Why was total carotenoid content measured in mg/g, while lycopene was measured in mg/100 g, even when the same technique and reference are used??

4.10 Line 171, Due to slight modification noticed,  please provide a concise protocol that includes the modification..

4.11 Line 179, The sensory test was divided into three categories: colour, texture, and appearance.  The specific characteristics of each hedonic scale for each test need to be displayed.

4.12 Line 156-178, When dealing with quantitative parameters, it is possible that not all of them adhere to the authentic or equivalent standard. However, it is important to display the formula equation for these parameters.  The standard should be notified if it is used.

4.13 Line 183-186, Were the fruit stored? It is necessary to provide a thorough description of the storage conditions. Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify the specific criteria that led to the rejection of the fruit in terms of its shelf life.

4.14 Line 191, Can you confirm that the unit for ethylene production rate was (LC2H4/kg/h)?

4.15 Line 193-194, Provide information on the machine's specifications and current operational status. Was reference No. 22 just used for measuring ethylene?

 

5. In the results and discussion,

5.1 Line 204, Is the part just dedicated to presenting results without any accompanying discussion?

5.2 No statistical analysis was indicated for any of the figures. What do the vertical bars represent in each treatment? The symbols used for treatment are ambiguous. Many figures showed confusion regarding the Y axes, as they are not calcium sources, actually.

5.3 Line 247-256 and Fig. 1e, Some individuals are experiencing confusion.  For instance, the ripening index was calculated as the ratio of soluble solids (SS) to titratable acidity (TA).

- SS of control (6.1), calcium sulfate (7.5), calcium carbonate (6.3), calcium nitrate (6.0), and calcium chloride (5.5)

- TA of control (0.58), calcium sulphate (0.65), calcium carbonate (0.66), calcium nitrate (0.63), and calcium chloride (0.54)

- The recommended SS/TA values are as follows: control (10.5), calcium sulphate (11.5), calcium carbonate (9.5), calcium nitrate (9.5), and calcium chloride (10.2). However, they did not exhibit equality, as indicated in the report and Figure 1e.

 

6. In the discussions, the experiment examined many forms of calcium, however only calcium chloride (CaCl2) was described in lines 337-339.   The effects of various types of ca should be evaluated and compared based on crucial parameters.

 

7. In the conclusion, what factors led to the determination that CaCl2 had a greater impact on fruit quality? What were the specific criteria used?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.Introduction 

Line 52- Line 56,  Add some references.

Add some closely related references. Clearly indicate which aspects the research on the effects of adding calcium on crops mainly focuses on. What are the differences between the research content of this paper and previous reports?

2. Materials and Methods

Well

3. Results and Discussion

The main scale line of the data graph is missing. The size of all data graphs needs to be consistent. The size of the text in the graphs also needs to be consistent.

4. Discussions

Divide Line 321-Line 388 into several sections and then analyze and summarize them. Pay attention to the logic between each section.

Strengthen the comparative analysis of experimental results and driving mechanisms between this paper and previous reports. Clarify the similarities and differences between this paper and previous reports, and provide reasonable explanations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for the analysis methods used, the analysis of the experimental data, the experimental concept and the topic addressed.

I propose the authors to continue and expand the research considering the complexity and socio-economic importance of the field, the studies be directed, financed, carried out and in the future and validated.

I recommend the following additions and corrections to the authors:

 

Chapter 2. Materials and Methods

The origin of the calcium sources used should be specified: calcium sulfate (CaSO₄); calcium nitrate (Ca(NO₃)₂); calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) and calcium chloride (CaCl2) and the concentration of calcium in them.

To be specified that Tween®20 is a polyoxyethylene sorbitol ester that belongs to the polysorbate family. Tween® 20 is a nonionic surfactant and detergent widely applied in biochemical and life sciences research.

In the case of a 2% solution containing calcium carbonate, respectively calcium sulfate, these represent suspensions and you must specify the size of the particles, important in their application (do they fall into the nano field or not?).

It is good to specify the pH of the applied solutions.

To be completed with the climatic data and the physico-chemical characteristics of the soil.

To specify the dose of solution applied / plant or surface unit.

It should be specified the potassium fertilizer applied to the soil.

Chapter 3. Results and Discussion

It should be taken into account that there are two types of solutions applied, one containing calcium in ionic form (calcium chloride and calcium nitrate) and another in suspension form (calcium sulphate and calcium carbonate), the mechanisms of absorption and protection on the fruits or the plant are totally different. .

It should be specified whether when applying the four sources of calcium, the experimental differences obtained was significant or not (considering that a P ≤ 0.01 was used statistically).

To be analyzed if the results obtained by applying the four sources of calcium are not due to the different concentrations and form of calcium in the solutions of 2%, compound with calcium.

It should be specified whether or not the application of the 2% concentration led to phytotoxicity effects, especially in the case of CaCl₂. In agricultural practice, calcium nitrate applied by spraying is frequently used in much lower concentrations (below 1%) and the use of CaCl₂ is avoided. The recommendation regarding the application of CaCl2 must be made with reservations.

The results obtained were more relevant if the determinations performed were complete and with analyzes for tomatoes fruits and plant material, considering the physical-chemical characteristics and different absorption mechanisms for the applied solutions.

4. To clarify the expressions for:

𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 - row 211

𝑆𝑂𝐷 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 - row 216

5. The article cited in "References" at position [31] refers to the application of chitosan and not CaCO₃ (line 424 - 429). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of chitosan and vanillin coating on defense-related enzymes activites on tomato fruits during ambient storage.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx