Influence of Seed and Fruit Characteristics of Lagenaria siceraria on Production and Quality of Grafted Watermelon
, Onecimo Grimaldo-Juárez 2,*, Carlos Ceceña-Durán 2, Juan Carlos Vázquez-Angulo 1, Laura Dennisse Carrazco-Peña 1, Leonel Avendaño-Reyes 2, Carlos Enrique Ail-Catzim 2, Ulin Antobelli Basilio-Cortes 2 and Azareel Angulo-Castro 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- All key elements are present.
- The title clearly describes the article.
- The abstract content clearly reflects the entire content of the article.
- In the introduction paragraph the authors clearly present the problem investigated. Also, the purpose of the study is specified.
- Although, there is one little observation on LINE 118-120: Explain better how the measurements were taken and also the indices hue angle (h°), L* and C*.
- Results are clearly presented and discussed.
- Conclusions are supported by the results and are reasonable.
- References are appropriate.
Author Response
Answer 5: The methodology for measuring color attributes (brightness, chromaticity and hue) was supplemented.
Other modifications suggested by other reviewers:
- In INTRODUCTION section, research justification information was integrated.
- In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, information of experimental site was integrated and in the measurement of variables, the methodology was detailed.
- In RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, rationale explaining the variation of the evaluated parameters was added.
- In CONCLUSION section, relevant information regarding soluble solids was specified.
- A general review of the paper was carried out.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is well structured, provides sufficient background and includes relevant references for the paper topic. The paper is well written and the methods used scientifically appropriate. I appreciated the large number of L. siceraria accessions analyzed, which allow the accuracy of research results. The conclusions are supported by the clearly presented results. Because an important attribute of watermelon quality is the soluble solids content, I think the results about it should be specified also in conclusion. Only a few points should be modified by authors - view attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Answer 1: changed japan to Japan
Answer 2 and 3: y was changed to and
Answer 4: CONCLUSION: Soluble solids parameter information was integrated.
Other modifications suggested by other reviewers:
- In INTRODUCTION section, research justification information was integrated.
- In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, information of experimental site was integrated and in the measurement of variables, the methodology was detailed.
- In RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, rationale explaining the variation of the evaluated parameters was added.
- In CONCLUSION section, relevant information regarding soluble solids was specified.
- A general review of the paper was carried out.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Why do the authors believe that accession groups with differences in seed and fruit traits can interfere in grafted watermelon production components?
This question needs to be answered. What’s the motivation to investigate the hypothesis that dissimilarity groups can provide differentiated answers? What’s the theoretical foundation? Authors need to make this information clear in the introduction. The research problem is not well described. The intro needs to be reworded. There should be solid literature to support the research in the introduction.
Introduction
The introduction should be more concise and clear. Readers should identify the research problem and its motivations.
Line 62 – the justification used by the authors should be better elucidated throughout the introduction. Why was the study carried out? Is there scientific evidence to support the study? Which ones are they? Research indicates the benefit of use, however, what are the indications that fruit and seed characteristics can reflect in a differentiated response?
Material and methods
Line 124 – Why was the ANOVA not used previously or why was it not mentioned? The authors could highlight the reasons why they did not, since it only makes sense to unfold the degrees of freedom of treatments when this source of variation is significant.
Line 127 – What does normal mean? Ungrafted plants? Authors need to standardize.
Results and discussion
Line 142 – What contributes to increments when using rootstock? In this paragraph there is only the citation of works. There is no discussion of the scientific findings. What are the characteristics inherent to L. siceraria that contribute to the favorable effects?
Line 152 – What is the similarity between the work of Pal et. al.[21] with the submitted manuscript? I would like the authors to discuss this similarity. It's actually possible parallels between them. Do the studies by Pal et al validate this answer found?
Line 177 - Why does the increase occur? There is no effective discussion of the results, only parallel with other works.
Line 255 – How can it influence the “hue” angle?
General comment
The authors need to discuss the relationship between the dissimilar characteristics of the rootstock groups and their findings. Consistency with the hypothesis and objective must be maintained in the item “Results and Discussion”.
Author Response
Answer 1: in INTRODUCTION section, information on justification of the research was included.
Answer 2: in MATERIALS AND METHODS section, the statistical analysis was specified.
Answer 3: changed normal to ungrafted.
Answer 4: in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, information on the basis of yield increase by rootstock was integrated.
Response 5: The information was not modified.
Response 6: in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, the increase in rind thickness was justified.
Response 7: The information was not modified.
Other modifications suggested by other reviewers:
- In INTRODUCTION section, research justification information was integrated.
- In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, information of experimental site was integrated and in the measurement of the variables, methodology was detailed.
- In RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, rationale explaining the variation of the evaluated parameters was added.
- In CONCLUSION section, relevant information regarding soluble solids was specified.
- A general review of the paper was carried out.
Reviewer 4 Report
In this ms, bottlegourd rootstock was tested with watermelon scions. Authors found differences among accessions. There are some issues with the English in places and there are methods that need to be clarified.
Firmness of rind is presented in Table 4 but conclusions refer to flesh firmness. No details on type or size of probes are given; the amtek 100 firmtester listed has a 100 lb module which will work for rind (40-80 lbs) but lacks sensitivity for flesh (1-6 lbs). how is pulp percentage determined?
Soil type and taxonomy are not provided. This information is available from the WRB. I assume this is a leptosol.
Author Response
Answer 1: In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, methodology used for evaluation of variables determined was detailed.
Answer 2: In CONCLUSION section, reference is made to pulp and rind firmness. In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, probe type and size used was described and the methodology for determining pulp percentage was complemented.
Response 3: In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, the soil taxonomy was carried out was added.
Other modifications suggested by other reviewers:
- In INTRODUCTION section, research justification information was integrated.
- In MATERIALS AND METHODS section, information of experimental site was integrated and in the measurement of variables, the methodology was detailed.
- In RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, rationale explaining the variation of the evaluated parameters was added.
- In CONCLUSION section, relevant information regarding soluble solids was specified.
- A general review of the paper was carried out.
