Grafting and Plant Density Influence Tomato Production in Organic Farming System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript targets an important applied question. It has clear objectives and easy to follow. However, I feel a few critical information was missing in the MM. The statistic analyses also should be improved. Detailed suggestions: 

1. I did not find the size of experimental plot. This is critical for spacing study, if the experimental plot is too small, and when the edge effects were not considered, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. 

2.  I did not find in the MM the number of fruit selected for quality test, and how the fruit was selected. As qualify parameters can be highly variable due to many factors, having detailed description on the method of selecting the sample fruit is critical. 

3. Interactions of the grafting and density effects were not clear in Table 3-8. Consider presenting the P value. 

4. Rotten fruit can be caused by many factors, knowing what caused the rotten fruit is critical, in order to understand why spacing or grafting can make the difference. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

This manuscript targets an important applied question. It has clear objectives and easy to follow. However, I feel a few critical information was missing in the MM. The statistic analyses also should be improved. Detailed suggestions: 

1. I did not find the size of experimental plot. This is critical for spacing study, if the experimental plot is too small, and when the edge effects were not considered, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. 

Response: Two border rows were planted for each plot. Plots were 12 m² (1.6 x 7 m) and 24 m² (1.6 x 15 m) for the densities of 2.5 and 1.25, respectively, and contained 30 plants. This sentence was added in MM (line 90-92)

2. I did not find in the MM the number of fruit selected for quality test, and how the fruit was selected. As qualify parameters can be highly variable due to many factors, having detailed description on the method of selecting the sample fruit is critical. 

Response: for fruit quality 1 kg of collected fruits per each harvest plot were ground and homogenized. This sentence was added in MM (lines 146-147)

3. Interactions of the grafting and density effects were not clear in Table 3-8. Consider presenting the P value. 

Response: P value was added in each table

4. Rotten fruit can be caused by many factors, knowing what caused the rotten fruit is critical, in order to understand why spacing or grafting can make the difference. 

Response: It was caused by Alternaria spp.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript clearly presents the data obtained but, in my opinion, it would be better if authors present some pictures from the fields.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The manuscript clearly presents the data obtained but, in my opinion, it would be better if authors present some pictures from the fields.

Response: A picture was added

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your paper as a reviewer. The topic of the manuscript is no doubt appropriate, the experiment is well planned, and the conclusions drawn are well settled and not exaggerated. However, I feel, that the documentation has to be improved, as well as the presentation of the results needs further efforts.

General comments

1.       As it was written in the title and in the materials and methods part, the experiment was conducted according to organic regulations. It is clear, that grafting is a great technique to be applied in organic farming, but it is also true for conventional farming. Therefore, I suggest to rethink the reasoning and the statement in the conclusion paragraph at the end.

2.       The abstract is very short, please add some introductory sentences to the beginning.

3.       Consider unifying the way the relation of the rootstock and the scion is mentioned. Rootstock is grafted onto the scion, or the scion is grafted onto the rootstock? Check the whole text for correcting. Additionally, consider using non-grafted instead of no grafted as the latter is grammatically incorrect to my understanding.

4.       The materials and methods has to be elaborated with the number of plants per plot and the size of the plot. It is unclear how the sample was collected for the quality measurements.

 

Detailed comments:

line 28-30: It is true, that yields are generally lower in organic farming, but I don’t believe, that this is the main reason of low market shares. Rather, the limited size of organic areas producing tomato, and also the challenged related to organic production. I suggest rewording this statement.

line 36-38: please add a reference to this statement.

line 50: With grafting, the root of one plant and the upper parts of the other plant is attached, therefore not all benefits are achieved, just the root characteristics of the rootstock, and the above-ground characteristics of the scion. Reword.

line 69: Only one rootstock was used, therefore it is rather like finding the good plant density to the rootstock, not a combination. Reword.

line 87: What do you mean by rustic? Suggest rewording.

Table 1 and 2: Add locations to the captions.

line 108 and 112: The two experiments cannot be considered as repetitions in different years, add locations here. The soil did not change in the two years, as you mistakenly mention it: “In 2019, soil was (…)” and “In 2022, “. the correct way should be: The soil of the experimental field of Reggio Emilia was (…), and The soil of Fisciano was (…).

line 121: Add the official name of the regulation.

Line 124: what do you mean by row length?

line 127: What do you mean by rotten fruits? Infected?

line 130: Were the data recorded in CIELab system? Then it was a*, b* and L* as well. As the name of the instrument says, it has to record three dimensions.

Table 3-8: Location is missing from the captions. Besides average data, standard deviation should also be reported. Letterings for significant differences has to be unified (lower case or upper case). Labeling of the P value is inconsistent in the first columns.

line 220: Rotten is suggested to be substituted by infected.

line 223: Brigade, upper case

line 274: a and a*, as well as b and b* is mixed up, please check and correct.

line 281: I suggest separating the last paragraph as conclusions with using the same chapter title.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your paper as a reviewer. The topic of the manuscript is no doubt appropriate, the experiment is well planned, and the conclusions drawn are well settled and not exaggerated. However, I feel, that the documentation has to be improved, as well as the presentation of the results needs further efforts.

General comments

1. As it was written in the title and in the materials and methods part, the experiment was conducted according to organic regulations. It is clear, that grafting is a great technique to be applied in organic farming, but it is also true for conventional farming. Therefore, I suggest to rethink the reasoning and the statement in the conclusion paragraph at the end

Response: Thank you so much for the suggestion. The conclusion paragraph was added and modified (lines 310-319)

 

2. The abstract is very short, please add some introductory sentences to the beginning.

Response: done (lines 11-15)

 

3. Consider unifying the way the relation of the rootstock and the scion is mentioned. Rootstock is grafted onto the scion, or the scion is grafted onto the rootstock? Check the whole text for correcting. Additionally, consider using non-grafted instead of no grafted as the latter is grammatically incorrect to my understanding.

Response: Thank you for the suggestions. We added a clarification in lines 92-95 and replaced no grafted with non-grafted

 

4. The materials and methods has to be elaborated with the number of plants per plot and the size of the plot. It is unclear how the sample was collected for the quality measurements.

Response: Two border rows were planted for each plot. Plots were 12 m2 (1.6 x 7 m) and 24 m2 (1.6 x 15 m) for the densities of 2.5 and 1.25, respectively, and contained 30 plants. This sentence was added in MM (line 90-92)

for fruit quality 1 kg of collected fruits per each harvest plot were ground and homogenized. This sentence was added in MM (lines 146-147)

 

Detailed comments:

line 28-30: It is true, that yields are generally lower in organic farming, but I don’t believe, that this is the main reason of low market shares. Rather, the limited size of organic areas producing tomato, and also the challenged related to organic production. I suggest rewording this statement.

Response: done (lines 34-36)

line 36-38: please add a reference to this statement.

Response: done (line 44)

line 50: With grafting, the root of one plant and the upper parts of the other plant is attached, therefore not all benefits are achieved, just the root characteristics of the rootstock, and the above-ground characteristics of the scion. Reword.

Response: done (lines 57-58)

line 69: Only one rootstock was used, therefore it is rather like finding the good plant density to the rootstock, not a combination. Reword.

Response: done (lines 75-78)

line 87: What do you mean by rustic? Suggest rewording.

Response: more tolerant to abiotic stress such as nutrients and drought. We removed as only Tomito is tollerant

Table 1 and 2: Add locations to the captions.

Response: done (lines 116-119)

line 108 and 112: The two experiments cannot be considered as repetitions in different years, add locations here. The soil did not change in the two years, as you mistakenly mention it: “In 2019, soil was (…)” and “In 2022, “. the correct way should be: The soil of the experimental field of Reggio Emilia was (…), and The soil of Fisciano was (…).

Response: done (lines 122-126)

line 121: Add the official name of the regulation.

Response: done (lines 136)

Line 124: what do you mean by row length?

Response: this parameter was removed

line 127: What do you mean by rotten fruits? Infected?

Response: Yes, infected by Alternaria spp.

line 130: Were the data recorded in CIELab system? Then it was a*, b* and L* as well. As the name of the instrument says, it has to record three dimensions.

Response: Yes, but in processing tomato the red and yellow colour are the most relevant parameters for final products as so we considered in this manuscript just a*, b*

Table 3-8: Location is missing from the captions. Besides average data, standard deviation should also be reported. Letterings for significant differences has to be unified (lower case or upper case). Labeling of the P value is inconsistent in the first columns.

Response: done

line 220: Rotten is suggested to be substituted by infected.

Response: done

line 223: Brigade, upper case

Response: done (line 253)

line 274: a and a*, as well as b and b* is mixed up, please check and correct.

Response: done

line 281: I suggest separating the last paragraph as conclusions with using the same chapter title.

Response: done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The author has done a lot of work, but the presentation method of the results is poor. The paper shows too many tables and measured values. It looks more like an experimental report than a formal submission manuscript.

The readability of the manuscript is poor, making it difficult to attract readers. I suggest using more diverse or attractive expressions.

To be honest, I don't have the time and energy to carefully read the data in the table one by one and make judgments about their logic and accuracy. Too many tables make me feel sleepy.

The data needs to be showed with errors before it can be used for significance analysis.

The analysis of the results is too simple and needs to be thoroughly rewritten.

If it can be reorganized well, I believe it has value for publication.

Further improvement is possible.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

The author has done a lot of work, but the presentation method of the results is poor. The paper shows too many tables and measured values. It looks more like an experimental report than a formal submission manuscript.

The readability of the manuscript is poor, making it difficult to attract readers. I suggest using more diverse or attractive expressions.

To be honest, I don't have the time and energy to carefully read the data in the table one by one and make judgments about their logic and accuracy. Too many tables make me feel sleepy.

The data needs to be showed with errors before it can be used for significance analysis.

The analysis of the results is too simple and needs to be thoroughly rewritten.

If it can be reorganized well, I believe it has value for publication.

Response: the result paragraph was rewritten and deviation standard values were added to average values in the tables

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors, 

Comments I made in the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

 

Why do you write ‘per’ plant in Italian everywhere?

Response: ‘per’ was replaced by ‘per’ without italics

These sentences are more like a hypothesis

Response: the sentences were modified (lines 73-78)

What is the plot size?

Response: Response: Two border rows were planted for each plot. Plots were 12 m² (1.6 x 7 m) and 24 m² (1.6 x 15 m) for the densities of 2.5 and 1.25, respectively, and contained 30 plants. This sentence was added in MM (line 90-92)

 

Captions of tables 1 and 2 were modified  (lines 116 and 119)

‘Morphological’ was replaced by ‘biometric’

‘Biomass’ was replaced by ‘mass’

What does it mean? Row length

Response: this parameter was removed

Collar diameter was replaced by diameter of root collar.

Could the plant have had so many leaves, please explain?

Response: unlike the tomato genotypes used for fresh market that have an un-determinate growth and few leaves, the genotypes used for the production of tomato for processing have a determinate growth, are bushy and many leaves to cover fruits and prevent sunburnt fruits.

Lower case was used for letter in all tables

In tables 7 and 8, the meaning of a b-1, °BRIX and BY (t ha^-1) was added in the caption

The conclusion section was modified (lines 312-319)

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thank you for considering my suggestions.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Thank you for considering my suggestions.

Response: thank you for your suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The presentation mode and analysis of the results still need further improvement.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

The presentation mode and analysis of the results still need further improvement.

Response: some changes was made following also Academic Editor’s suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work can be published as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

In introduction, some more references are needed to be included, such as other researchers’ work. And the aim or hypothesis of the present research could be clearly pointed out.

In materials and methods, the collection of root biomass needed to be pointed out.

In discussion, according to data H/H is even had nigher biomass accumulation than that of H/T, this result needed to be discussed in details.

Language also need to be improved .

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript   is well done  but it describes only one experiment. 

It describes only one rootstock-scion combination.

the decision of accepting for publication depends on the journal policy.    

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf