Yield Response and Antioxidant Activity of Greenhouse Organic Pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata Duch.) as Affected by Soil Solarization and Biofumigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an informative and good research on alternatives to synthetic pesticides. However, the study took a different angle when authors started reporting only on plant variables and no longer focus on the effect of solirization on soil borne pests as they indicated in their introduction. 

 

Under Materials and methods and results  sections, there was no mentioning of soil sampling to determine those soil borne pathogens, however, under discussion, authors indicates the effectiveness of solarization on soil borne pathogens without even mentioning the names.

 

The research work focused on agronomic issues and it would be much better if authors remove the plant protection part. The title also support the contents of the study.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Referee,

thank you for your comments which surely help to improve the manuscript.
We modified the manuscript following all your suggestions.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for this valuable research 

In abstract the statistical tests used to analys the results must be mentioned

In line 76 how is the wide is moer than the length?

In line 179 need correction

In table 1 check 1.006

In line 295 correct thar

In line 309 remove the before there is

References must be same style

 

Author Response

Dear Referee,

thank you for your comments which surely help to improve the manuscript.
We modified the manuscript following all your suggestions

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Specific notes:

TITLE

Nothing to comment

ABSTRACT

Lines 30-32: Delete the description of the statistical analysis performed

KEYWORDS

Nothing to comment

1. INTRODUCTION

Lines 46-72: From my opinion, I find the introduction part of the article a bit short. In addition to removing the yellow shading that appears over the text.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

Lines 83-84: The authors could also add the electrical conductivity and pH data if they had them.

Line 134 and line 138: The date formats (03/11/2019) must be similar throughout the entire article, since they are different from those used in line 116.

Line 145: The reference does not follow the guidelines of the journal

3. RESULTS

Authors should avoid repeating in the text the values results shown in Table 2.

4. DISCUSSION

 

I don't understand the amount of text shaded in different colors, but the authors should remove it

 

FIGURES

 

Nothing to comment

TABLES

Nothing to comment

 

REFERENCES

 

I don't understand the amount of text shaded in different colors, but the authors should remove it

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the precious notes which we have all accepted and which certainly make our manuscript better.

Below you can find the details of our responses to your comments and suggestions. The changes are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The Manuscript ID: agronomy-2251135 investigates yield response and antioxidant activity of greenhouse organic pumpkin as affected by soil solarization and biofumigation. It addresses an important and interesting subject. As the current and sound trends shift towards sustainable agriculture with minimal chemical pesticide use, such approaches seems to be prominent and effective in minimizing the pest/pathogen damage. Generally, the subject is worth publication and the authors did a good job but further insights should have improved this research. I’d suggest the following points:

 

1)    Although the study evaluated the long-term effect of soil solarization, singly or coupled with organic amendments, on yield response and antioxidant activity of an organic pumpkin cultivation in greenhouse, the EXACT impact of such assessment on pest/pathogen suppression is not clear. The solarization treatment was conducted in the summer 2018 while the pumpkin cultivation was carried out from March to July 2018 and in the meanwhile other two crop cultivations, i.e., an autumn cycle of lettuce and an autumn-winter cycle of kohlrabi, were performed. However, they stated that “no nematode damage on pumpkin roots were observed at the end of crop cycle” This is superficial estimate of nematode effect, they should have counted nematode population levels at least referring to the existing nematode genera.  Likewise, their assessment of weeds and other pathogens were not in depth. Therefore, their conclusion that “effects of solarization treatment on the growth and yield of pumpkin are probably related to the release of nutrients induced by soil heat” lacks accuracy.

 2)    They should have stated the nutrient composition of the added soil amendments or at least their main components and Carbon/Nitrogen ratio. This would help in elaborating the reasons for differences among the outputs of these various soil amendments that they applied.

3)    It is well known that basics required for the successful biofumigants are safety to the environment and human health, reliable pesticide effect, and favorable economics. For instance, among synthetic chemical pesticides, toxic isothiocynates (ITCs) ITCs are included as active ingredients. Notwithstanding the utility of natural ITCs as biofumigants against pests, they may share the same biochemical mechanism of action against the targeted pathogens/pests. Thus, negative effects of ITCs in biofumigants have caused vulnerability and instability of soil food webs and suppression of beneficial organisms. Non-target organisms are also adversely affected because both synthetic and natural components of ITCs interact in a non-specific and irreversible manner with amino acids and proteins. Such a statement should be stated to harness their safe utilization in pest management programs.

4)    Many flaws and typos are found in the writing, to name few:

i)                   on 5 (random ?) fruits per each plot

ii)                3.2. Yield an3.2 Yields and

iii)              No significant effect on fruits length were found

iv)              plots had heavier fruit (with) respect to the non-solarized

Therefore, I would suggest resubmitting after major revision.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the precious notes which we have all accepted and which certainly make our manuscript better.

Below you can find the details of our responses to your comments and suggestions. The changes are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript

Author Response File: Author Response.docx