Mesh Crop Cover Optimizes the Microenvironment in a Tropical Region and Modifies the Physiology and Metabolome in Tomato

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors reported the physiological responses and metabolic profiles (sugars and amino acids in particular) of two tomato varieties grown in an environments modified with meshes under high irradiation and a warm/tropical climate. The authors concluded that using meshes in areas with high irradiance is a possible strategy to reduce abiotic stress in plants. Overall, it is an interesting study with practical importance pertaining food production. The paper was well-written, and the results were discussed adequately in relation to the literature. I only have a few comments/suggestions for the authors to consider during the revision process.

 

1.     The novelty of this study (vs. previous reports) should be more explicitly emphasized.

2.     How applicable is the findings to other commercially cultivated tomato varieties or even tropical crops?

3.     Line 164 – “Each plot had 20 useful plants” – the statement is unclear to me. Were the authors referring to replicates? (In the RESULTS section, the authors mentioned n = 9.)

4.     Figure 1 has no error bars in the data points, please check to make sure if there is correct. Are they average values?

5.     The data on fruit biomass per plant were presented. But how were the floral set/ flower number / floral abortion and fruit number affected by the treatments? Individual fruit size and fruit quality altered by treatments (particularly between T3 and T4)?

6.     Figure 3 caption – “* between PAR levels indicate significant statistical differences” (lines 286-287) – This info can be revised. It is too general/uninformative. In Figure 3D, for example, there seem to be no differences between 100, 75 and 50% radiation levels.

7.     Figure 4 caption – “* = significant statistical differences (ANOVA, p ≤ 0.05)” (lines 314-315) – This info can be revised. If there is no asterisk in the charts, it would be less confusing to directly indicate “There was no significant difference between…”.

8.     Lastly, I was wondering about the possibility of using different irradiation control/mesh treatments during different tomato plant growth/development stages. Would that further optimize/enhance the productivity of the tomato crop?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article entitled “Mesh crop cover optimizes the microenvironment in a tropical region and modifies the physiology and metabolome in tomato” is presenting a good theme of research however there are some gaps and deficiencies which are mentioned in the comments.

1. The authors did not mention the grown time in the abstract, please incorporate it.

2. The authors used NMR for metabolic profiling, they should use UPLC-Q-TOF-MS analysis for this study.

3. Section 3.5. should be PCA analysis, not leaf metabolite composition.

4. There must the tabulated presentation of the metabolite profile for more clear understanding and convenience of the readers.

5. Please bind the paragraphs in the conclusion section of the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

	General comments
	The manuscript, presenting results of the study evaluating the physiological responses and metabolic profiles of two tomato varieties grown in microenvironments with different levels of solar irradiance. The study presents many interesting data and results, based on adequate statistical analyses. The manuscript is well written, and its structure well balanced. I read it with great interest and am sure that the audience of Horticulturae, as well as a broader one, will do the same. I recommend publishing the manuscript after minor corrections.
Line #		Original	Comment/suggestion
		Major comments
General		I strongly recommend the authors to add some information about the tomato yield per plant and per 1 sq.m (fresh fruit mass), rather than forcing readers to recalculate it from the dry mass. It is very important for comparing the results of the described experiment with other results and hence enhancing citability of the study, not to mention providing another piece of information into the global tomato productivity picture.
General		I am very curious about the organoleptic qualities of tomato fruits, and specifically, how they correlate with the metabolomic profile. After all, tasty fruits are the ultimate goal of food production (from consumers’ point). It cannot be helped now, but I strongly recommend the authors to perform sensory assessment in their future research, as such assessment is not difficult to perform.
404-423, Conclusion		This Section should comply with its genre, i.e. it should not repeat the results. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that the section should be rewritten. As a suggestion: delete the first paragraph except for the first sentence, leaving the second paragraph as it is. Some general thought might be added as well, if the authors have more of such.
		Minor comments
60-65		While, numerous types of plastic mesh are currently used to promote optimal crop growth and development [11], there needs …	The sentence needs editing.
85-86		19-19-19 + 1% M.E. (Poly-Feed, Haifa, 85 Mexico)	I think it is necessary ti indicate the nutrients, although one can always guess that it is 19-19-19=19N=19P-19K, but a research paper is not about guessing, isn’t it?
438-439		Reference 1	The date of the access to the reference 1 should by all means be updated! It is 2023 not, isn’t it?
		Technical comments
88, 107 elsewhere		das	days
111		weight	mass

           

Comments for author File: Comments.doc

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Major comments:

1)     The impressive results of the work assume the significance of the high irradiation effect also on tomato fruit quality. Is it possible to add such an information to the Results and Discussion section?

2)     It seems that the Introduction section may be improved via inclusion of some more citations, such as: (i) Lais Perin, Roberta Marins Nogueira Peil, Roberto Trentin, Eduardo Anibele Streck, Douglas Schulz Bergmann da Rosa, Daniela Hohn, Willian Silveira Schaun, Solar radiation threshold and growth of mini tomato plants in mild autumn/winter condition, Scientia Horticulturae, 239,2018,P 156-162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.05.037. (ii) H.-P. Kläring, A. KrumbeinThe Effect of Constraining the Intensity of Solar Radiation on the Photosynthesis, Growth, Yield and Product Quality of Tomato. J.Agronomy and Crop Sci 199 (Iss5) 2013,  351-359

3)     High temperature is an important environmental factor negatively affecting tomato growth and development. It seems logically to indicate in the Abstract, that the experiment has been achieved under unfavorably high temperature

4)     The authors discuss both the effect of genetic factor (two cultivars) and different radiation levels on the parameters. In this respect it seems logically to modify Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3A,B providing a comparison between C40 (T1, T2,T3,T4,T5) and MM (T1, T2,T3,T4,T5). That will provide easier perception of the results and easier comparison of MM, C40 cultivars.

Minor comments:

e-mail of the corresponding authors should be deleted at the lines of affiliation, as the data are presented at a separate line before the Abstract, while e-mails of other authors should be supplied with the appropriate initials in brackets

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx