Effect of Low-Temperature Tolerant Rootstocks on the Growth and Fruit Quality of Watermelon in Semi-Forcing and Retarding Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research contains important results.

In general, the study was planned and carried out correctly.

A little literature review can be done for research.

There are very minor errors in my English spelling. should be reviewed.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

I really appreciate your review.

I resubmit the manuscript which was revised according to reviewer's comment. 

Sincerely yours,

Yoonah Jang

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussion section of the manuscript is rather low quality, should be rewritten and improved. Several paragraphs seem to be a repetition of the introduction with evaluation of literature data without comparison of the data of their own research. The authors should more emphasize their own results compared to the literature data, even if the results seemingly contradict to the previous statements. Authors seemingly try to avoid the statement that the overall acceptance and several fruit quality parameters were best on non grafted plants 'Sambokkul'. Despite of this some of rootstocks in plant characteristics and fruit quality near or exceed the non grafted plants. Reasoning, why the rootstock FR79 is recommended for further cultivation, in which characteristics near or exceed this rootstock the ungrafted plants should be more empasized. Authors collected very detailed and valuable dataset on growth of grafted and non-grafted watermelon plants, which is worth for publication. After the authors improve the Discussion section, I suggest acceptation for the publication in Horticulturae. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

I really appreciate your review about the manuscript ‘Effect of low-temperature tolerant rootstocks on the growth and fruit quality of watermelon in semi-forcing and retarding culture’

I rewrote the part of discussion according to your comment.

• The first paragraph which overlap with the introduction has been deleted.
• Line 313-316 and line 367-370 have been rewritten.

I resubmit the revised manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Yoonah Jang

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear car

Your manuscript addresses an interesting topic. However, it is necessary to include some important considerations.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

I appreciate your review of the manuscript ‘Effect of low-temperature tolerant rootstocks on the growth and fruit quality of watermelon in semi-forcing and retarding culture’

I rewrote the part of the discussion according to your comment.

1. Some sentences or paragraphs have been deleted.
2. Keywords have been rewritten.
3. Some references you recommended were added, and the list of references has been written for style.
4. Tables (Tables 1-5) and figures (Figures 1, 2) have been revised.
5. The experimental site information was added (lines 105-106).
6. Blocks in a randomized complete block design concerning experimental plot design were meant replicates (row) (line 122).
7. The description of the statistical analysis has been revised.

I resubmit the revised manuscript.

Sincerely yours,

Yoonah Jang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Your manuscript addresses an interesting topic. However, it is important to include some changes to improve its structure.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

I appreciate your second review about the manuscript ‘Effect of low-temperature tolerant rootstocks on the growth and fruit quality of watermelon in semi-forcing and retarding culture’.

I rewrote the part of discussion according to your comment.

 

1. The sentence in line 52 to 53 and related references were deleted.
2. The references you recommended were added.
3. The information on the evaluation method for low-temperature tolerance of rootstock accessions was additionally described. (Line 80-83)
4. Scientific name of bottle gourd in table 1 was corrected.
5. The experimental site information was added. (Line 107-109)
6. The description of experimental plot design has been revised. (Line 121-124)
7. The description of statistical analysis about the sensory evaluation has been revised. (Line 182-183)
8. The information about growing degree days (GDD) has been added in ‘Materials and Method’ (Line 142-148) and Figure 2.
9. You suggested the deletion of decimal in Table 5. But decimals should be displayed to show the multiple comparison result.
10. The value in line 349 was the ration of stem diameter between scion and rootstock. So the value had no unit.

I resubmit the revised manuscript.

I would like to sincerely thank you again for your generous advice, especially in the experimental plot design and statistical analysis.

Sincerely yours,

Yoonah Jang

Author Response File: Author Response.docx