Micro-Tom Tomato Response to Fertilization Rates and the Effect of Cultivation Systems on Fruit Yield and Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In lines 85-86, the year of the experience should also be mentioned.

 

Small typos:

Line 194: "area(cm2)" is missing the space before the parenthesis.

l. 229: correct "(23.5 cm)", but in lines 225, 230 and many others "11.7cm", "20.7cm", incl. "5000rpm", "290°C" etc., there is no space after numbers.

Author Response

Comment: In lines 85-86, the year of the experience should also be mentioned.

Reply: Thank you for your useful advice. We added the information of experiment year.  

Comment:"area(cm2)" is missing the space before the parenthesis.

Reply: this sentence was removed due to another reviewer`s suggestion.

Comment: 229: correct "(23.5 cm)", but in lines 225, 230 and many others "11.7cm", "20.7cm", incl. "5000rpm", "290°C" etc., there is no space after numbers.

Reply: Space has been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript is interesting and gives important information about effect of different fertilization and cultivation systems on micro-tom tomato plant growth and fruit quality parameters.

This is a very well written and readable manuscript on a topic that is important.

However, the work has a major methodological flaw. In the title, discussion and conclusion, the influence of different doses of nitrogen on the parameters of growth and quality of tomato fruit is commented. On the other hand, it can be seen from the materials and methods that the fertilization treatments had different doses of phosphorus and potassium at the same time. The discussion and conclusions are unusable because they refer to the influence of nitrogen, and the experiment was designed so that the influence of nitrogen cannot be distinguished from the influence of phosphorus and potassium. As a result, the effect of nitrogen cannot be seen from this experimental setup. Practically, the paper investigated the influence of different doses of NPK fertilizers, not different doses of nitrogen.

Since the topic is interesting, I suggest that the paper be returned to the authors to correct the title, introduction, discussion and conclusion in order to match the material and method, i.e. the setting of the experiment.

 

Author Response

Comment:Since the topic is interesting, I suggest that the paper be returned to the authors to correct the title, introduction, discussion and conclusion in order to match the material and method, i.e. the setting of the experiment.

Reply: Your positive comments encouraged us greatly. Accordingly, the title, introduction, discussion and conclusion have been reorganized and rewritten.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report on horticulturae-2209529-peer-review-v1

This strikes me as a couple of well executed experiments, that unfortunately do not relate one to the other, and that in reality do nothing in terms of pushing back our knowledge of the effects of N rates and cultivation system on tomato yield and quality.

 

There are many drawbacks to the manuscript, but the main one is that there is no link between the first and second experiment, indeed some of the reported data [e.g. numbers of flowers, SPAD and so on] are not measured in both experiments; what is measured is yield and the second experiment conventional yield is way less that the recommended rate in the first.

I also query whether the improved yield with hydroponics in the second experiment could be due to the additional balance of other nutrients and micronutrients [what does the ‘Akadama’ soil provide? The authors make no mention of these issues.

I have annotated the manuscript with issues that I would expect the authors to address if to improve the manuscript, some relate to English usage and others to queries about procedures, data and the like. I refer to some of thes [not language issues] as follows;

Line 10 you cannot have ‘another hand’ if you have not mentioned the ‘first hand’ Remember this always..

Line 16 you use Micro-Tom, Micro-tom and even micro-tom. Standardise please.

Line 17 and elsewhere, always put a space between a numeral and unit.

Lie 31 what are these two references without numbers?

Line 43 nitrogen is not a fertiliser, but a nutrient.

Line 87 weather, not climatic.

Line 94 who considers this?

Line 99 give some properties of this soil.

Line 105 give some detail of the fertilisers.

Line 133 exactly what was the combination? And how relate to the first experiment?

Line 137 how was the N rate set for the organic system? N as total or soluble? And how does the rate relate to the first experiment?

Line 144 are root and fruit weight per fruit dry? Indicate.

Line 149 I guess these were small plants, so no harvest after 90 days?

Line 154 as it reads, 1 g plus 2 ml won’t fit in a 1.5 ml tube. Explain clearly.

Line 169 what is the standard solution. If that in line 182 then bring line 182 forward.

Lines 194-196 are superfluous.

Line 197 when were SPAD readings taken and why not in the first experiment?

Line 317-318 how were data in the left hand side of Figure 4 derived from the left hand side?

Line 341 not true, not for treatment ‘G’.

Line 351-352 did you notice anything similar?

Line 367 the reference is not for tomato.

Line 376 where are data for N uptake efficiency?

Line 395 relate this to your first experiment.

Line 449-451 I really believed we knew this already?!

References

Too many. I have not reviewed the references for I recommend that the paper not be accepted for the journal.

Author Response

Comment: Line 10 you cannot have ‘another hand’ if you have not mentioned the ‘first hand’ Remember this always.

Reply: Thank you for your kind instruction. ‘On the other hand’ has been deleted.

Comment: Line 16 you use Micro-Tom, Micro-tom and even micro-tom. Standardise please.

Reply: The word Micro-Tom has been standardized in every place.

Comment: Line 17 and elsewhere, always put a space between a numeral and unit.

 Reply: A space has been put between a numeral and unit.

 Comment: Lie 31 what are these two references without numbers?

Reply: Our apologies for this mistake. References have been deleted.

Comment: Line 43 nitrogen is not a fertiliser, but a nutrient.

Reply: The word fertilizer has been deleted.

Comment: Line 87 weather, not climatic.

Reply:  The word climatic has been replaced with weather. Thank you for your suggestion.

Comment: Line 94 who considers this?

Reply: The line has been deleted.

Comment: Line 99 give some properties of this soil.

Reply: Some soil properties has been added.

Comment: Line 105 give some detail of the fertilisers.

Reply: Details of fertilizers has been added.

Comment: Line 133 exactly what was the combination? And how relate to the first experiment?

Reply: The sentence has been changed. In both the first and second experiments standard fertilization rate (0.26 g L^-1), was set according to the Kanagawa prefecture recommendation. It has been referenced in the manuscript.

Comment: Line 137 how was the N rate set for the organic system? N as total or soluble? And how does the rate relate to the first experiment?

Reply: The fertilization rate (NPK) of both experiments was set according to the Kanagawa prefecture recommendation.

Comment: Line 144 are root and fruit weight per fruit dry? Indicate.

Reply: The sentence has been edited and included that the root's dry weight and the fruit`s fresh weight were taken for the experiment.

Comment: Line 149 I guess these were small plants, so no harvest after 90 days?

Reply: The period has been corrected

Comment: Line 154 as it reads, 1 g plus 2 ml won’t fit in a 1.5 ml tube. Explain clearly.

Reply: The method has been edited.

Comment: Line 169 what is the standard solution. If that in line 182 then bring line 182 forward.

Reply: The line that explains preparing the standard solution has been brought forward.

Comment: Lines 194-196 are superfluous.

Reply; Lines have been removed

Comment: Line 197 when were SPAD readings taken and why not in the first experiment?

Reply: the SPAD reading was taken from Sep 18 to Nov. 12. In the first experiment, SPAD (leaf parameters) was not considered because the study focused on yield and fruit quality parameters.

Comment: Line 317-318 how were data in the left hand side of Figure 4 derived from the left hand side?

Reply: Figure 3 has been moved to the proper place.

Comment: Line 341 not true, not for treatment ‘G’.

Reply: Line has been corrected.

Comment: Line 351-352 did you notice anything similar?

Reply: The sentence has been rewritten to show the similarities between the results of Matsumaru et al. and this study.

Comment: Line 367 the reference is not for tomato.

Reply: Reference has been removed.

Comment: Line 376 where are data for N uptake efficiency?

Reply: All the arguments related to N uptake efficiency in the manuscript were removed because N uptake efficiency was not evaluated in this study,

Comment: Line 395 relates this to your first experiment.

Reply: The line has been moved to the first experiment.

Comment: Line 449-451 I really believed we knew this already?!

Reply: The sentence was deleted.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript title “Fertilizer Responses of Micro-Tom Tomato to Different Nitrogen Rates and Different Cultivation Systems” is a good study for optimum usage of nitrogen fertilizer under different condition. However, a revision is required, and I suggest authors to perform Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA-Heat map) of amino acids, organic acids, and sugars.

Reviewer Comments:

1-      Line 17:  “E) 0.26g L-1 standard [21]” please remove the [21] reference from abstract and explain in methods.

2-      Line 39-40: “Overfertilization has been practiced to obtain maximum yield despite the occurrence 39 of serious environmental impacts and adverse effects on crop growth and quality”. This sentence is similar to the abstract line 10-11. Please rewrite this.

3-      Line 285-287 the figure 3 and table 3 are disordered. Similar problem with figure 3 (figure legends are up and figure is down).

4-      Why authors didn’t perform Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA-Heat map) of metabolic data (amino acids, organic acids, and sugars)? In HCA the metabolic result will be easily interpreted. I suggest authors to perform HCA and add the HCA figure in the MS.

5-      The Figure 1 and 2 should be combined.

 

Author Response

Comment: “E) 0.26g L-1 standard [21]” please remove the [21] reference from abstract and explain in methods.

Reply:  The reference number [21] has been removed from the abstract. Because it was a typing mistake

Comment: “Overfertilization has been practiced to obtain maximum yield despite the occurrence 39 of serious environmental impacts and adverse effects on crop growth and quality”. This sentence is similar to the abstract line 10-11. Please rewrite this.

Reply: Line 39-40 has been edited

Comment: Line 285-287 the figure 3 and table 3 are disordered. Similar problem with figure 3 (figure legends are up and figure is down).

Reply: The order of figure 3 and table 3 has been rearranged. The legend of figure three has been brought to the correct position.

Comment: Why authors didn’t perform Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA-Heat map) of metabolic data (amino acids, organic acids, and sugars)? In HCA the metabolic result will be easily interpreted. I suggest authors to perform HCA and add the HCA figure in the MS.

Reply:  HCA has been done and included in the results. Thank you for your good advice. The Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA-Heat map) of metabolic data has been added to the menu script.

Comment: The Figure 1 and 2 should be combined.

Reply:  According to your suggestion, Figure 1 and 2 have been combined.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been corrected according to the comments. Great job. Congratulations.

Author Response

Comment: The manuscript has been corrected according to the comments. Great job. Congratulations.

Reply: The authors thank to the reviewer for his/her valuable comments and suggestions that made possible to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report on horticulturae-2209529-peer-review-v2

The authors have improved the manuscript.

The authors MUST indicate what micronutrient were supplied to the plants in Experiment 1 and to the conventional treatment  in Experiment 2. And I do not agree that the same fertilization rates were used in the three treatments in Experiment 2, for in the conventional N:P:K was apparent in the ratio of 1:1:1, in the organic we do not know and in the hydroponic it was  3.2:4.1:3.0.

As I indicated earlier, 'I also query whether the improved yield with hydroponics in the second experiment could be due to the additional balance of other nutrients and micronutrients. The authors make no mention of these issues.'

Once these issues are addressed, then the authors must supply a clean copy and I'll completely read through again. 

 

 

Author Response

Comment:The authors MUST indicate what micronutrient were supplied to the plants in Experiment 1 and to the conventional treatment in Experiment 2. And I do not agree that the same fertilization rates were used in the three treatments in Experiment 2, for in the conventional N:P:K was apparent in the ratio of 1:1:1, in the organic we do not know and in the hydroponic it was  3.2:4.1:3.0.

Reply: We thank you for your keen consideration and advise. The amount of micronutrients used in the first experiment was added and it was mentioned that no micronutrients were added in the conventional and organic systems in the second experiment. For the hydroponic system, we mentioned the proportion of the micronutrients contained. We also mentioned that in both experiments, the amount of each fertilizer varied in order to reach the standard N fertilization rate recommended by Kanagawa prefecture. All these information was added to the methodology section. We followed the practical way, using the most common fertilizers in each fertilization method in Japan and compare the effects of them.

Comment: As I indicated earlier, 'I also query whether the improved yield with hydroponics in the second experiment could be due to the additional balance of other nutrients and micronutrients. The authors make no mention of these issues.'

Reply: It has been discussed that different balance of nutrients in the hydroponic system might influence the yield. The results were compared with other studies.

Comment: Once these issues are addressed, then the authors must supply a clean copy and I'll completely read through again. 

Reply: As you requested, a clean copy of manuscript (without track changes) has been uploaded to the journal system. Authors are grateful for your comments and suggestions to improve manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report on horticulturae-2209529-peer-review-v2

The manuscript is much improved, and the authors now explain for the reader the various concentrations of the nutrients used in the trials. I wonder why the authors used the standard rate of N for the second experiment, and not the double rate, since in the first experiment it gave so much better yield, and then maybe the hydroponics wouldn’t have been so superior.

As an aside,  the double N rate  yield was five times that of the organic or conventional, but no other parameter measured was so much better for the double rate, the number of fruits set were only between two to three times greater with the double N rate. Any comments?

Again, I have annotated the manuscript. Do ask the authors to take note of all I am asking to be corrected, they missed a number of issues I raised on the earlier annotated version, pay attention to detail for example, ‘Fruit Weight’ must be ‘Weight per Fruit’.

And when were the NO3 measures of leaves made, so that the reader can see where they coincide with the SPAD data in Figure 3C?

Figure 5 is pretty, but doesn’t to me add anything in addition to Figure 4!!

And reference to high leaf NO3 in line 408, does not justify lines 409-411. That is conjecture. And lines 431-438 refer to leaves for the authors data, but we don’t eat tomato leaves and there are no data for NO3 in the fruit, so remove these lines!!

For the references, makes sure ALL Latin names are in italics, that article titles do not have capitals, and that there is a space between the last author’s initial and the next word.

Also, in reference 28 spell deficit and yield correctly

In reference 34 write vegetable

Reference 37 not capital for lycopersicum

And reference 62 remove the ‘-‘

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

Our cordial gratitude for the quick and significant comments. We prepared the following answers, so please kindly refer to them.

Comment: The manuscript is much improved, and the authors now explain for the reader the various concentrations of the nutrients used in the trials. I wonder why the authors used the standard rate of N for the second experiment, and not the double rate, since in the first experiment it gave so much better yield, and then maybe the hydroponics wouldn’t have been so superior.

Reply: The N rate of the second experiment was used because this is the recommended N rate in Japan for tomato cultivation. The first experiment definitely showed that the double N rate resulted higher yield, but such higher N rate sometimes can cause disease infection, especially in case of practical summer cultivation in open field in Japan. Currently, there are farmers who grow tomato in open field and greenhouse, thus these results are more useful for the latter.

Comment: As an aside,  the double N rate  yield was five times that of the organic or conventional, but no other parameter measured was so much better for the double rate, the number of fruits set were only between two to three times greater with the double N rate. Any comments?

Reply: This fact has been mentioned in the discussion.

Comment: Again, I have annotated the manuscript. Do ask the authors to take note of all I am asking to be corrected, they missed a number of issues I raised on the earlier annotated version, pay attention to detail for example, ‘Fruit Weight’ must be ‘Weight per Fruit’.

Reply: All the changes have been done in the manuscript according to the pdf sent by the reviewer. We apologize for our careless response last time.

Comment: And when were the NO3 measures of leaves made, so that the reader can see where they coincide with the SPAD data in Figure 3C?

Reply: Dates when the measurements were recorded, added in the methodology section.

Comment: Figure 5 is pretty, but doesn’t to me add anything in addition to Figure 4!!

Reply: Figure 5 was added to the manuscript as requested by another reviewer. We could know some of the important information on hierarchical clusters among the factors, only from Fig.5.  We could understand the rough grouping of sugars, amino acids, and organic acids from Fig.4, but we know how closely the factors relate one another, only from Fig.5.

Comment: And reference to high leaf NO3 in line 408, does not justify lines 409-411. That is conjecture. And lines 431-438 refer to leaves for the authors data, but we don’t eat tomato leaves and there are no data for NO3 in the fruit, so remove these lines!!

Reply: Lines have been removed. Thank you for your valuable comment.

Comment: For the references, makes sure ALL Latin names are in italics, that article titles do not have capitals, and that there is a space between the last author’s initial and the next word.

Reply: All references have been checked and changed according to your comments.

Comment: Also, in reference 28 spell deficit and yield correctly

Reply: Both words have been corrected.

Comment: In reference 34 write vegetable

Reply: Reference has been corrected.

Comment: Reference 37 not capital for lycopersicum

Reply: The mistake has been corrected. Thank you for letting us notice this mistake.

Comment: And reference 62 remove the ‘-‘

Reply: ‘-‘ has been removed.