Propagation Methods and Mulching Modulate the Quantum Yield, Ionic Relations, and Production Components of Sour Passion Fruit under Salt Stress
, Geovani Soares de Lima 3,*, Francisco de Oliveira Mesquita 4, Luan dos Santos Silva 5, Bruno da Silva 1, Lucas Soares Rodrigues 2, Evandro Franklin de Mesquita 6, Hans Raj Gheyi 3 and Alberto Soares de Melo 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In semiarid regions of Brazil, water and/or soil salinity is one of the limiting factors for fruit production. Low rainfall rates combined with edaphic conditions intensify deleterious effects on plants. Thus, strategies that minimize the effects of salt stress, e.g., grafting with tolerant species and soil mulching, are extremely important to ensure the expansion of irrigated fruit farming in this region. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of grafting and mulching on the quantum yield, ionic relations, and fruit production of sour passion fruit irrigated with moderately saline water. The results showed that the ionic relations in passion fruit leaves were increased with the use of rootstocks and plastic mulching under irrigation with moderately saline water. The use of mulching increased the yield of photosystem II in sour passion fruit. The passion fruit plants propagated by seeds had significantly more fruits than those grafted onto P. cincinnata. The use of rootstocks with P. cincinnata in sour passion fruit restricted the uptake of Na and Cl but reduced fruit production. Thus, In general, this manuscript is weill-written and results are quite significant. I have only the following minor points:
Minor comments:
1. Figure2A-2C is very complicated, particularly for the first labeling a and b, for example, for the GP treatment, why the treatment with without mulching plastic has lower value is b than with mulching plastic, which is a. But both these values are have much higher ratio than SP which are all a. Maybe could separate them into two figures. Is the same case for the rest of the Figures, they are very difficult to understand.
2. There is no literature from year of 2023. Literature need to be undated.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The authors are grateful for the valuable contributions of the reviewers to improve the manuscript. Each issue raised has been responded below and is highlighted in red colorin the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In semiarid regions of Brazil, water and/or soil salinity is one of the limiting factors for fruit production. Low rainfall rates combined with edaphic conditions intensify deleterious effects on plants. Thus, strategies that minimize the effects of salt stress, e.g., grafting with tolerant species and soil mulching, are extremely important to ensure the expansion of irrigated fruit farming in this region. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of grafting and mulching on the quantum yield, ionic relations, and fruit production of sour passion fruit irrigated with moderately saline water. The results showed that the ionic relations in passion fruit leaves were increased with the use of rootstocks and plastic mulching under irrigation with moderately saline water. The use of mulching increased the yield of photosystem II in sour passion fruit. The passion fruit plants propagated by seeds had significantly more fruits than those grafted onto P. cincinnata. The use of rootstocks with P. cincinnata in sour passion fruit restricted the uptake of Na and Cl but reduced fruit production. Thus, In general, this manuscript is weill-written and results are quite significant. I have only the following minor points:
Questions: Figure 2A-2C is very complicated, particularly for the first labeling a and b, for example, for the GP treatment, why the treatment with without mulching plastic has lower value is b than with mulching plastic, which is a. But both these values are have much higher ratio than SP which are all a. Maybe could separate them into two figures. Is the same case for the rest of the Figures, they are very difficult to understand.
Response: The letters present the unfolding of each factor within the other factors. The means followed by the same letters are statistically similar. Lowercase letters compare treatment means with and without plastic mulching within each electrical conductivity of the water and propagation mode. Uppercase letters compare forms of propagation within each treatment with plastic mulching (with and without) and the electrical conductivity of the water. Greek letters compare the means of the variables referring to the electrical conductivity of the water within each mulching treatment with plastic film and propagation method. The comparison, therefore, is pair by pair.
Questions: There is no literature from year of 2023. Literature need to be undated.
Response: As per suggestion, some new and recent references have been inserted in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The article is interesting and well structured, however there are some small details to be improved.
Specific comments:
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Characterization of the experimental area
Line 93. The coordinates should represent the centre of the experimental plot. Is this correct?
2.2. Plant material and experimental design
Lines 137-144. Figure 1. Further explanation of the experimental design is recommended. It is not clear enough.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The authors are grateful for the valuable contributions of the reviewers to improve the manuscript. Each issue raised has been responded below and is highlighted in red colorin the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2
Questions: 2.1. Characterization of the experimental area Line 93. The coordinates should represent the centre of the experimental plot. Is this correct?
Response: Thanks for the suggestion, the correction has been made "7°00’0.3’’ S and 35°47’54’’ W"
Questions: 2.2. Plant material and experimental design Lines 137-144. Figure 1. Further explanation of the experimental design is recommended. It is not clear enough.
Response: As per suggestion, further details concerning plant material and experimental design have been inserted.
Sincerely
Corresponding Author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Remarks and comments
1. Description of climatic conditions. Why in the text the authors refer only to 2020, while the graph shows data from the entire study period.
2. Soil samples were taken from the 0-20 cm layer for testing. I have doubts if analysis of just this layer is sufficient. What about leaching of ingredients and increased salinity in deeper soil layers?
3. Plant material and experimental design. No exact information on how many plants in each research block (combination) were taken for detailed observation?
4. How many leaves were tested for chlorophyll content?
5. How were the fruits harvested - from individual plants, all from a combination?
6. On how many fruits was the average weight tested?
7. What does „subplot” means? 3 plants per plot and within it a subplot division? Please clarify the number of plants for the study variant (treatment).
8. Figure 4 - letter A is missing (upper left corner).
9. In the subsection "Conducting the experiment" there is information about propagation (production of rootstocks and collection of scions for grafting). Was this part of the experiment conducted in a different location and therefore under different climatic conditions?
10. Please provide the manufacturer of the portable conductivity meter used to measure the electrolytic conductivity of the soil.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
The authors are grateful for the valuable contributions of the reviewers to improve the manuscript. Each issue raised has been responded below and is highlighted in red colorin the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 3
Questions: 1. Description of climatic conditions. Why in the text the authors refer only to 2020, while the graph shows data from the entire study period.
Response: This part has been deleted without affecting the readability.
Questions: 2. Soil samples were taken from the 0-20 cm layer for testing. I have doubts if analysis of just this layer is sufficient. What about leaching of ingredients and increased salinity in deeper soil layers?
Response: Yes, that's correct. The correct depth is 0-0.40 m. Thanks for pointing out.
Questions: 3. Plant material and experimental design. No exact information on how many plants in each research block (combination) were taken for detailed observation?
Response: Each treatment within each block had three plants. All plants were evaluated for the variables studied, as mentioned in line 128.
Questions: 4. How many leaves were tested for chlorophyll content?
Response: The text was modified inserting “on two leaves per plant in each treatment in each block, one on the East side and another on the West side”.
Questions: 5. How were the fruits harvested - from individual plants, all from a combination?
Response: Fruits were harvested together, i.e., three plants of each treatment in each block. The total mass of the fruits harvested from the three plants was determined and then divided by three to obtain the production of the treatment.
Questions: 6. On how many fruits was the average weight tested?
Response: All fruits were counted and then weighed to obtain the mean weight.
Questions: 7. What does „subplot” means? 3 plants per plot and within it a subplot division? Please clarify the number of plants for the study variant (treatment).
Response: The text was modified by inserting “by combining the subplots inside each plot”.
Questions: 8. Figure 4 - letter A is missing (upper left corner).
Response: Thanks, letter A was inserted in Figure 4.
- In the subsection "Conducting the experiment" there is information about propagation (production of rootstocks and collection of scions for grafting). Was this part of the experiment conducted in a different location and therefore under different climatic conditions?
Response: No. The seedlings, propagated by seeds and grafted, were obtained in the greenhouse located at the Federal University of Paraíba. When the seedlings were apt for transplanting, they were taken to the experimental area.
- Please provide the manufacturer of the portable conductivity meter used to measure the electrolytic conductivity of the soil.
Response: The required information was inserted - “an Instrutherm portable conductivity meter model CR-850”.
Authors are thankful to the Editor and unanimous Reviewers for the comments and suggestions and continue to remain at the disposal for any further information needed in this connection.
Sincerely
Corresponding Author.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
