Tolerance and Adaptability of Tomato Genotypes to Saline Irrigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper is sound, but descriptive and provides little scientific insight. It needs to update the statistical analysis. The use of p values should follow the recommendations by Wasserstein et al. (Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL & Lazar NA. 2019. Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”, The American Statistician, 3:sup1, 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913). In brief, p values should be reported as continuous quantities (i.e. the actual value should be stated, such p=0.006, or p=0.094, or p=0.87). The expression p<0.05 should not be used. Reporting the actual p values is meant to prevent instances when p=0.049 and p=0.051 are treated very differently, which is not rooted in reality. Similarly, the wording “statistically significant”, “non-significant”, or the variations thereof, should not be used, thus avoiding dichotomisation based on an arbitrary point (p=0.05) chosen more than 130 years ago. The description and discussion of results should be based on the actual p values, as well as on the related prior evidence, uncertainty in data and variation in effects, compatibility intervals between hypotheses and data, potential underlying mechanisms, and plausibility of the data being false positives, to name a few.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer who took the time to provide such a thorough review of our manuscript. We believe that the changes suggested have made our manuscript much more direct and much easier to follow.

Thanks!

Reviewer 1: The paper is sound, but descriptive and provides little scientific insight. It needs to update the statistical analysis. The use of p values should follow the recommendations by Wasserstein et al. (Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL & Lazar NA. 2019. Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”, The American Statistician, 3:sup1, 1-19, DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913). In brief, p values should be reported as continuous quantities (i.e. the actual value should be stated, such p=0.006, or p=0.094, or p=0.87). The expression p<0.05 should not be used. Reporting the actual p values is meant to prevent instances when p=0.049 and p=0.051 are treated very differently, which is not rooted in reality. Similarly, the wording “statistically significant”, “non-significant”, or the variations thereof, should not be used, thus avoiding dichotomisation based on an arbitrary point (p=0.05) chosen more than 130 years ago. The description and discussion of results should be based on the actual p values, as well as on the related prior evidence, uncertainty in data and variation in effects, compatibility intervals between hypotheses and data, potential underlying mechanisms, and plausibility of the data being false positives, to name a few.

Answer: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

     Lines 25-27: this sentence is not understandable; please re-phrase it.

·       The sentences in lines 23-25 and in lines 29-31 are repeating each other.

·       Lines 52-56: This sentence needs thorough improvement; are the vacuoles present in the cell walls? Or in the cells themselves? And how does the “Na⁺ spreading in the vacuole” develop the process of tissue tolerance?

·       Line 66: what are Iif and Iid? These should be written in full as they are mentioned here for the first time within the manuscript.

·       Line 109: what kind of device? Tensiometer? Please indicate properly with manufacturer’s details.

·       Lines 132-144: this paragraph is unclear; are the first group of soil characteristics for the control treatment and the second group for the stressed group? If so, aren’t there 2 treatments of salinity?

·       Lines 159-161: is there any reference for salinity levels of water applied to tomato plants that supports your claim that these levels represent moderate and severe salinity? It must be mentioned here as different species differ widely in salinity tolerance. Also, the indication of the salinity treatments can be changed to something more meaningful than 1, 2 and 3 (for example, S1, S2 and S3, or anything more appropriate).

·       Lines 163-165: a reference is needed here.

·       Line 167: I suggest to replace “evaluations” with “Traits”.

·       Line 177: in both groups of what?

·       Lines 183-184: please re-phrase this sentence; e.g., analyzed to determine…, or the concentrations of …. were separately….

·       Lines 213-214: Onix had 20% higher NCF as compared to other genotypes.. how is that? Do you mean 20% higher than the average of all other genotypes? This sentence reads like all the genotypes had the same NCF except for Onix. The same question goes for the following sentences in the same paragraph and the other paragraphs; kindly interpret more clearly.

·       Table 1: the mean of the number of fruits in the severe treatment is incorrect.

·       Table 1: “Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the lines differ from each other by the Tukey test at 1% probability”.. do you mean “in the lines within each trait”? because it’s a big mistake to compare the 3 salinity treatments of the number of fruits with the 3 treatments of the commercial fruit weight. The same notice goes for the other tables.

·       The values of F test of both commercial fruit weight (table 1) and fruit yield (table 3) are surprising in connection with the significance at 0.01 level (as indicated). I strongly recommend to add the calculated p value for each trait both for genotypes and for salinity treatments (the latter did not have eve F value mentioned, so it’s be better to write both the calculated F and the p values).

·       Lines 389-391, 419-421 and 451-453 unnecessarily repeat the exact same interpretation.

·       Lines 424-428: how is this relevant to the study? The authors did not investigate proline concentration.

·       Lines 436-437: irrelevant interpretation.

·       Lines 445-447: reference? Justification?

·       Lines 447-449: the 2 parts of the sentence are not connected to each other; talking about sodium and suddenly jumping to chloride. Please re-phrase.

·       Lines 514-516: “while K absorption…..” is just a repeated sentence of the first part “The concentrations of phosphorus, potassium and calcium decrease under salt stress conditions”, right?

·       Lines 520-523: I couldn’t understand this sentence; kindly clarify.

·       Some English-editing is needed (e.g., line 24: concentrations, line 67: analyses, line 68: carried out, line 153: consists, line 186: analyses, line 373: was, line 416: either “damages” or “is”, … etc.).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer who took the time to provide such a thorough review of our manuscript. We believe that the changes suggested have made our manuscript much more direct and much easier to follow.

Thanks!

Reviewer 2: Lines 25-27: this sentence is not understandable; please re-phrase it.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• The sentences in lines 23-25 and in lines 29-31 are repeating each other.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 52-56: This sentence needs thorough improvement; are the vacuoles present in the cell walls? Or in the cells themselves? And how does the “Na⁺spreading in the vacuole” develop the process of tissue tolerance?

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Line 66: what are Iif and Iid? These should be written in full as they are mentioned here for the first time within the manuscript.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Line 109: what kind of device? Tensiometer? Please indicate properly with manufacturer’s details.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 132-144: this paragraph is unclear; are the first group of soil characteristics for the control treatment and the second group for the stressed group? If so, aren’t there 2 treatments of salinity?

A: Soil with moderate saline stress had not been inserted. Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 159-161: is there any reference for salinity levels of water applied to tomato plants that supports your claim that these levels represent moderate and severe salinity? It must be mentioned here as different species differ widely in salinity tolerance. Also, the indication of the salinity treatments can be changed to something more meaningful than 1, 2 and 3 (for example, S1, S2 and S3, or anything more appropriate).

A: Based on classic studies such as that of Mass and Hoffmann (1977), who classified the tolerance threshold for tomato salt at 2.5 dS m^-1 in soil. The classification into moderate and severe is related to the losses caused in the genotypes in general, according to Sofi et al. (2018) losses between 25 and 50% in relation to the control are moderate and above 50% of yield losses are severe for the crops.

Mass, E. V., Hoffman, G. J. (1977). Crop salt tolerance - current assessment, Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, 103, 115-134.

Sofi, P. A., Rehman, A. A., Gull, M. (2018). Stress tolerance indices based on yield, phenology and biomass partitioning: A review. Agricultural Reviews, 39, 292-299.

• Lines 163-165: a reference is needed here.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Line 167: I suggest to replace “evaluations” with “Traits”.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Line 177: in both groups of what?

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 183-184: please re-phrase this sentence; e.g., analyzed to determine…, or the concentrations of …. were separately….

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 213-214: Onix had 20% higher NCF as compared to other genotypes.. how is that? Do you mean 20% higher than the average of all other genotypes? This sentence reads like all the genotypes had the same NCF except for Onix. The same question goes for the following sentences in the same paragraph and the other paragraphs; kindly interpret more clearly.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Table 1: the mean of the number of fruits in the severe treatment is incorrect.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Table 1: “Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the lines differ from each other by the Tukey test at 1% probability”.. do you mean “in the lines within each trait”? because it’s a big mistake to compare the 3 salinity treatments of the number of fruits with the 3 treatments of the commercial fruit weight. The same notice goes for the other tables.

A: It was not compared between the variables evaluated, it is only within each Variable, so all 3 levels of salinity were compared within the number of fruits only, and the weight of commercial fruits only.

• The values of F test of both commercial fruit weight (table 1) and fruit yield (table 3) are surprising in connection with the significance at 0.01 level (as indicated). I strongly recommend to add the calculated p value for each trait both for genotypes and for salinity treatments (the latter did not have eve F value mentioned, so it’s be better to write both the calculated F and the p values).

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 389-391, 419-421 and 451-453 unnecessarily repeat the exact same interpretation.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 424-428: how is this relevant to the study? The authors did not investigate proline concentration.

A: Excerpt has been removed.

• Lines 436-437: irrelevant interpretation.

A: Excerpt has been removed.

• Lines 445-447: reference? Justification?

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 447-449: the 2 parts of the sentence are not connected to each other; talking about sodium and suddenly jumping to chloride. Please re-phrase.

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 514-516: “while K absorption…..” is just a repeated sentence of the first part “The concentrations of phosphorus, potassium and calcium decrease under salt stress conditions”, right?

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.

• Lines 520-523: I couldn’t understand this sentence; kindly clarify.

A: When we work with genotypes, we make salinity tolerance groups that are based on the genetic material used in each environment studied, whether with or without salinity stress. The adaptability and stability analysis, on the other hand, groups all the data and selects the genotypes that manage to develop well in all three studied environments, so they can be used in all of them. In our study, we were able to identify four genotypes with high tolerance and adaptability to stress, but in different genetic groups, this allows that when crossing them, they can increase fruit yield by increasing variability and further exploring tolerance to salt stress.

• Some English-editing is needed (e.g., line 24: concentrations, line 67: analyses, line 68: carried out, line 153: consists, line 186: analyses, line 373: was, line 416: either “damages” or “is”, … etc.).

A: Suggestions accepted and highlighted in red in the text.