Effects of a Local Tomato Rootstock on the Agronomic, Functional and Sensory Quality of the Fruit of a Recovered Local Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Named “Tomate Limachino Antiguo”
, Raúl Fuentes 2, Karen Farías 1, Nelson Loyola 3, Alejandra Freixas 4, Claudia Stange 5, Boris Sagredo 6, Muriel Quinet 7 and Stanley Lutts 7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The MS deals with an interesting topic to increase the acceptability with a yield of a local cultivar by using landrace as rootstock. The study was well planned and executed and presented well. However, apart from several minor mistakes, there is a serious flaw is that dry matter content of plant (kg/ m2) in general and fruit dry biomass (kg/per m2) which is very high. Authors are suggested to revisit the data. Tomato fruit dry matter content hardly rose to >6% or so, and even there was not stress was imposed that could have reduced water content in fruits.
Another mistake committed by the authors is that they have not removed the comments at two places made in MS by either any of the authors or reviewer of last submitted journals, as the case may be. This is not a good gesture of a serious team of researchers to submit a paper in such a high If journal without reading it before submission.
In addition, I have suggested some specific comments/ edits to be made in the revision, as below:
L 25: ‘sensory properties’ not ‘properties sensory’
L 26: add ‘(L)’ after Limachino
L 27: …fruits produced ‘in this graft combination’ were…
L 29: Revise sentence ‘during 146 days of the summer season during two consecutive year’ like ‘for 146 days during summer of two consecutive years.
L 30: You may like to add ‘(L/R)’ after Limachino scion to clearly show this graft combination.
L 32: add ‘(quality)’ after form.
L 42: Fruit crops not fruit crop, so add ‘s’ after crop.
L 45: correct spelling ‘diseases’
L 47: add for after importance.
L 48: …..aroma, texture, etc.)
L 59: fruits or cultivar?
L 61: other fruits or other cultivar
L 73: ..used to ‘increase’
L 114: Italicize ‘Pseudomonas syringae’.
L 126: designated not designed.
L 136: about 2 mm
L 138: Silicon clip
L 140: Please check plant density 4.16 plants per m2 is too high in commercial planatation. Was it single row planting or paired row?
L 153-154: What were inside greenhouse, out side values have no relevance as these affected by many factors (i.e., type of cladding material, ventilation, etc)
L 181: replace these by samples
L 198: close the bracket after FW/DW
L 200: delete ‘( ‘ before [34]
L 143-150: Shift this paragraph just before section 2.2 Shoot biomass and yield.
L 390-391: small letter in water
L 435-436: very strange to see the comments made and left as such in this submitted MS. It seems authors have not read the final MS before submission.
L 445: Armstrong
L 472-473: This sentence is not clear!
L 477: write floret straightway.
L 485: Floret, delete “floron”
L 605: works
L 600: There shall be an exclusive Conclusion heading, as per the journal format, which should clearly highlight the major findings and future line of work.
L 608-611: Again, a paragraph of review suggestion is left as such in this submitted MS.
The comments can also be found in the reviewed PDF file attached.
Regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The MS deals with an interesting topic to increase the acceptability with a yield of a local cultivar by using landrace as rootstock. The study was well planned and executed and presented well. However, apart from several minor mistakes, there is a serious flaw is that dry matter content of plant (kg m-2) in general and fruit dry biomass (kg per m-2) which is very high. Authors are suggested to revisit the data. Tomato fruit dry matter content hardly rose to >6% or so, and even there was not stress was imposed that could have reduced water content in fruits.
Response to the referees: We do agree with the referee. Data was revisited, verified, and reanalyzed. A new Figure 3 was introduced in the revised version. We apologize for not having detected this error before submitting the article. These changes enhanced the discussion made in the submitted version of the paper
Another mistake committed by the authors is that they have not removed the comments at two places made in MS by either any of the authors or reviewer of last submitted journals, as the case may be. This is not a good gesture of a serious team of researchers to submit a paper in such a high If journal without reading it before submission.
Response to the referee; We do agree with the referee. Indeed, this was not acceptable. We therefore fully apologize for this mistake. Our teams are commonly working in a professional way, and we always read the final version before submission. In this case, there was a confusion regarding the version that was uploaded on the site during the final step of submission. We do apologize, once again.
In addition, I have suggested some specific comments/ edits to be made in the revision, as below:
L 25: ‘sensory properties’ not ‘properties sensory’
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 26: add ‘(L)’ after Limachino
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 27: …fruits produced ‘in this graft combination’ were…
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 29: Revise sentence ‘during 146 days of the summer season during two consecutive year’ like ‘for 146 days during summer of two consecutive years.
Response: We do agree, this is corrected in the revised version
L 30: You may like to add ‘(L/R)’ after Limachino scion to clearly show this graft combination.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 32: add ‘(quality)’ after form.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 42: Fruit crops not fruit crop, so add ‘s’ after crop.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 45: correct spelling ‘diseases’
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 47: add for after importance.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 48: …..aroma, texture, etc.)
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 59: fruits or cultivar?
Response: cultivar
L 61: other fruits or other cultivar
Response: Other cultivars
L 73: ..used to ‘increase’
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 114: Italicize ‘Pseudomonas syringae’.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 126: designated not designed.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 136: about 2 mm
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 138: Silicon clip
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 140: Please check plant density 4.16 plants per m2 is too high in commercial plantation. Was it single row planting or paired row?
Response: it is pertinent to point out that the Old Limachino Tomato is a local non-hybrid accession with less vigor than the commercial varieties. This difference means that the plants associated with the commercial varieties require a greater separation between them, which means that the planting density is much lower in relation to the planting density of the Limachino accessions. Thus, the usual density at which the Old Limachino Tomato has been grown for almost a century has ranged, on average, between 3.8 to 4.2 plants m-2, while the value for commercial varieties ranges, on average, between 2.3 to 3 plants m-2. This is explained in detail in the revised version (L146-154).
L 153-154: What were inside greenhouse, out side values have no relevance as these affected by many factors (i.e., type of cladding material, ventilation, etc)
Response: Unfortunately, during the period of the experiment, the greenhouse did not have internal electronic monitoring equipment as it does today. However, at the time, the architecture and construction of the greenhouse considered a hood type design with lateral, front, rear and zenithal ventilation, which were open during most of the day and during the whole experimental period (spring-summer) to avoid heat excesses. This is indicated in the revised version (L157-161).
L 181: replace these by samples
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 198: close the bracket after FW/DW
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 200: delete ‘( ‘ before [34]
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 143-150: Shift this paragraph just before section 2.2 Shoot biomass and yield.
Response: this was made in the revised version
L 390-391: small letter in water
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 435-436: very strange to see the comments made and left as such in this submitted MS. It seems authors have not read the final MS before submission.
Response to the referee; We do agree with the referee. Indeed, this was not acceptable. We therefore fully apologize for this mistake
L 445: Armstrong
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 472-473: This sentence is not clear!
Response: we do agree, the sentence is confusiong. We rewrote it in order to clarify it.
L 477: write floret straightway.
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 485: Floret, delete “floron”
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 605: works
Response: this is corrected in the revised version
L 600: There shall be an exclusive Conclusion heading, as per the journal format, which should clearly highlight the major findings and future line of work.
Response: we do agree with the referee; at the end of the manuscript, we introduced a separate “conclusion section”, presenting the major take-home messages and mentioning a few perspectives.
L 608-611: Again, a paragraph of review suggestion is left as such in this submitted MS.
Response to the referee; We do agree with the referee. Indeed, this was not acceptable. We therefore fully apologize for this mistake
The comments can also be found in the reviewed PDF file attached
Response : thank you very much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The grafting is a cultivation technique applied to achieve better results in a negative environmental condition to grow a horticultural crops.
In grafting research, it seems that the characteristics of the scion, rootstock, and grafted plant should be compared and presented.
However, in this study, it was not possible to confirm the characteristics of the rootstock and how those characteristics were expressed in the grafted plants.
Therefore, please explain the comparison by inserting data contain the above-mentioned contents and the characteristics of the rootstock.
Author Response
Response to the referees.
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors:
The grafting is a cultivation technique applied to achieve better results in a negative environmental condition to grow a horticultural crops.
In grafting research, it seems that the characteristics of the scion, rootstock, and grafted plant should be compared and presented.
However, in this study, it was not possible to confirm the characteristics of the rootstock and how those characteristics were expressed in the grafted plants.
Therefore, please explain the comparison by inserting data contain the above-mentioned contents and the characteristics of the rootstock.
Response to the referee In the present study, Limachino scion were self-grafted (L/L) or grafted on Poncho Negro rootstocks. It is commonly considered that in this type of study. Self-grafted (L/L) plants were used in our work and data regarding this treatment are presented. In a large set of experiments, preliminary work performed by Dr J.P. Alfaro in the framework of his PhD study (ref 26) provided clear evidences that the grafting process had no impact on Limachino performances. Juan Felippe Alfaro indeed studied a large number of parameters. A first class of parameters was related to the physiological properties. We quantified mineral nutrition, photosynthesis (gaz exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence) transpiration rate and stomatal conductance, as well as hormonal and polyamines concentrations. Starting 30 days after grafting, we recorded no differences between self-grafted plants and intact plants until the end of the culture, whatever the parameter. The only difference was a brief transient increase in ethylene synthesis resulting from wounding induced by grafting, with a concomitant accumulation of putrescine and depletion of spermine. These modifications lasted 7 days, and then disappeared. Similarly, plant phenology was not affected by grafting: the rate of leaf appearance, the date of flowering as well as the number of flowers per inflorescence were exactly the same for self-grafted and non-grafted Limachino. This was also valid for all parameters recorded on fruits. We concluded that Limachino is managing grafting process in an efficient way and that the technic we used for grafting is correct. This set of data is currently submitted to another journal and could therefore not be presented in this study. However, we added in the Material and Methods of the revised version a sentence clarifying this point. We did not included non-grafted plants of Poncho Negro since we were not interested in the properties of fruit produced by this cultivar ; even though Poncho Negro is a valuable cultivar under salt-stress conditions, its fruits have no specific interest under non-stressed conditions and we therefore did not include this treatment in our experiment.
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
there are several grafting techniques, but authors have not mentioned which grafting techniques used for multiplication of tomato plants on different rootstocks.
six plant of tomato per treatment are too low to draw any conclusion.
what is the significant of observing TSS/acid ratio in this study?
why authors have not used rootstock for local tomato, here rootstock effect are missing in whole study.
money places author mentioned 'slight higher' if authors have analysed data and result are being presented based on statistical analysis, then it either significantly higher or lower.
author have not mentioned that why he has taken local tomato on its own roots, while other on different roots. in this study rootstock effect, and interaction between rootstock scion is totally missing. Unable understand design of experiment as treatment were L/Pn, L/L and LSL. it would have been better if author used LSL/PN and LSL/L, then only some valid conclusion on effect of rootstock can be drawn.
see line no 314-318, page no 8 it was mentioned that LSL presented the highest mean value (1.91 kg/m2), it could be because of genotypic difference of scion variety not because of rootstock influence.
what does mean two type grafting (refer line 323 page 8) as author has not mentioned what type of grafting technique used for tomato multiplication, whether grafting technique is also treatment?
line 328 page page 8, what does mean LSL treatment???
line 401-402 page 13, values are not comparable because
Author Response
Comments and suggestions from Reviewer 1 and responses from the authors
Reviewer: There are several grafting techniques, but authors have not mentioned which grafting techniques used for multiplication of tomato plants on different rootstocks.
Response of the authors. We do fully agree with the reviewer. According to his/her suggestion, we have added the following paragraph in the new version of the manuscript:
Line 134: There are several grafting techniques. We use in our experiments the technique known as splice grafting.
We do believe that this modification will clarify the presentation.
Reviewer: Six plants of tomato per treatment are too low to draw any conclusion.
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. There was a mistake from our part. We apologize for this. However, we do think that the former presentation was a bit incomplete. According to his/her suggestion, we have rewritten the full paragraph as follows:
Line 151: At this point, it is important to note that one plant was selected as the experimental unit for each of the 12 blocks, which, in turn, housed each 18 plants in total, i.e., 6 plants per treatment. As a result of this design, a total of 216 plants could be analysed. Except for the fruit quality analysis, one plant per block was randomly selected to measure each variable according to the type of treatment, i.e., each variable was measured 12 times during each season (2018-2019 and 2019-2020). Regarding fruit quality analysis, a sample of 3 fruits (cluster) were taken per plant for each replicate (or block) and treatment was used, that translates into 108 fruits were used in total for each variable associated with fruit quality during each season.
We do believe that the presentation will look more complete with this modification.
Reviewer: What is the significant of observing TSS/acid ratio in this study.
Response of the authors. The significant of observing this ratio is explained in the Discussion Section, lines 694: Since the TSS/TA ratio is generally associated with fruit flavour, i.e. the balance between sweetness and acidity [7], it is plausible to claim that acidity contained in tomato fruits is a determinant for consumers' preferences and acceptability for and towards the fruit, just as the sensory analysis reveals
In other words, TSS/acid ratio is a good predictor of tomato flavour in our study, it was important to measure, at least on a subjective level, whether Poncho Negro maintained, decreased or increased fruit flavor, one of the most recognized attributes of the Old Limachino Tomato. If the effect of the rootstock had been to decrease flavor, the likelihood of transferring it as a production input to the Old Limachino tomato producer would be very low.
We do hope that this explanation satisfies the arbitrator's concern.
Reviewer: Why authors have not used rootstock for local tomato, here rootstock effect are missing in whole study.
Response of the authors. We do partially agree with the reviewer. We recognize that we were skillful in highlighting the role of PN played in all the study. We have added a PCA analysis to clarify this important point. See Section 3.4.
Reviewer: Many places author mentioned “slight higher”. If authors have analysed data and result are being present based on statistical analysis, then it either significantly higher or lower.
Response of the authors. We do fully agree with the reviewer. We have made the changes directly in the new version of the manuscript.
Reviewer: Authors have not mentioned that why he has taken local tomato on its own roots, while other on different roots. In this study rootstock effect, and the interaction between rootstock scion is totally missing. Unable understand design of experiment as treatment were L/Pn, L/L and LSL. It would have better if author used LSL/PN and LSL/L, then only some valid conclusion on effect of rootstock can be drawn.
Response of the authors. We partially agree with the reviewer. First, although it may have a scientific interest, we decided not to graft PN on the commercial variety because our research agenda is also associated with an agenda of development and strengthening of (local) cultivars using also local technologies. Breeding foreign commercial varieties sold in Chile and the world is not within our scope. The L/L treatment was carried out to determine the effect of cutting (self-grafted) on the Old Limachino tomato cultivar after grafting. In this way, it is possible to know whether the effect of cutting affects or not the productivity and quality of the fruit of the Old Limachino tomato.
We do hope that this explanation satisfies the arbitrator's concern.
Reviewer: See line nª 314-318, page 8. It was mentioned that LSL presented the highest mean value (1.91 kg/m2). It could be because of genotypic difference of scion variety not because of rootstock influence.
Response of the authors. We partially agree with the reviewer. We have added the following sentence to clarify the situation.
Line 555: In other words, when comparing the variables on a fresh and dry weight basis, the influence of rootstock is clearly present, and this influence is in addition to the influences due to the genetic differences present in the accessions.
Reviewer: What does mean two type grafting (refer line 323 page 8) as author hs not mentioned what type of grafting technique used for tomato multiplication, whether grafting technique is also treatment?
Response of the authors. We do fully agree with the reviewer. It was a mistake on our part. We apologize for that. Instead of “two types of grafting" it should read “two types of treatment”. We have made the change directly in the new version of the manuscript.
Reviewer: Line 328 page 8, what does mean LSL treatment?
Response of the authors. We do not understand at all this concern. If we have understood it correctly, we suggest cordially the reviewer to read again the beginning of the M&M Section.
Lines 142: To carry out the experiments, a long-shelf-life tomato variety (commercial variety DRW 7742, Seminis) was chosen as a comparison variety with the grafted and self-grafted SLY074 accession. From this, the following 3 treatments were defined: (1) a non-grafted plant of the long-shelf-life (LSL); (2) a self-grafted plant of OLT (L/L); and (3) a grafted plant of OLT on PN rootstock (L/R). Hereafter, we will occasionally refer to fruit from the L/L and L/R treatments as fruit from the “limachina” accessions (or locals) since both treatments contain the SLY074 accession.
Reviewer: Line 401-402 page 13, values are not comparable because….
Response of the authors. Unfortunately, we are unable to respond to this comment because it is incomplete.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript was researched to create data for using local rootstocks in Chile for tomato cultivation.
Although the purpose of this study was good, there seems to be some disappointment in the various analysis methods.
Please refer to the attached data for correction.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments and suggestions from Reviewer 2 and responses from the authors
- Reviewer: Overall, the references in the introduction and discussion sections are too old. Currently, many papers related grafting are coming out, so please cite newer references.
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. We have replaced the oldest non-key references and complemented others with newer ones.
- Reviewer: The reason for grafting using rootstock is to increase environmental adaptability, but there is no information about the cultivation environment. Therefore, basic data on the photoperiod during the cultivation period, the change in the amount of light during the day, the change in the temperature during the day, and the change in relative humidity should be presented and sufficiently explained.
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. We have added more details and some key graphs showing information about the cultivation environment. The databases used can be accessed by request. See Figures 1 and 2.
- Reviewer: What is the average weight of each fruit, and how much do 6 fruits weight? Usually, when analyzing, 1 kg is considered as one analysis standard, so please explain in more detail.
Response of the authors: We do partially agree with the reviewer. These values are already mentioned in the Results Section from Figure 3C and Figure 5A. We believe that taking 1 kilo of fruit for analysis is a bit excessive as this is equivalent to taking almost a whole bunch of the plant. This would be a large volume of fruit to be stored at -80 ºC.
- Reviewer: Please explain in detail the pre-processing method for analysis.
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. We have added the following paragraph just at beginning of Section 2.3.
Line 232: To measure each of the agronomic and functional variables, three fruits of uniform size and red color (stage 5-6) per plant and per replicate were harvested manually during the morning. The fruits were transported in harvesting boxes to the laboratory for storage and analysis. For agronomic analysis, some variables were measured immediately after harvest (fresh fruit weight, firmness, soluble solids, color, size) while variables such as titratable acidity, FRAP, and polyphenol content were measured with fruit stored at -80 Cº.
- Reviewer: What equipment did you use to analyze it?
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. The name of the equipment was added in the new version of the Manuscript. See Line 266.
- Reviewer: In natural science research papers, the quality or characteristics of fruit can be sufficiently analyzed using scientific equipment, but it is questionable whether it is right to explain it with a sensual analysis.
Response of the authors: See number 9 please.
- Reviewer: It is necessary to perform principal component analysis to determine the relationship between various factors.
Response of the authors. We do agree with the reviewer. The PCA analysis was added in Section 3.4.
- Reviewer: Replace units with international units.
Response of the authors: The changes were made directly on the new Manuscript.
- Reviewer: The Y-axis description needs to be revised to be more concise (Figure 2)
Response of the authors: If we have correctly understood the reviewer’ comment, we have modified the figure. The change was made directly on the new Manuscript.
- Reviewer: This part requires a lot of thought. This is unscientific. Maybe it's just a personal feeling? (Section 3.4)
Response of the authors: We do not agree with the reviewer.
Sensory analysis is based on known methodologies cited in the Manuscript. In addition, there is also an international standard (UNE-EN-ISO-5492-2010 Standard) that clearly defines what should be done. Not using measurement equipment does not mean that there is no scientific method to support the analysis. Counting this type of input is important for our objectives since OLT consumption in Chile has expanded because the fruit enjoys a great reputation among consumers due to two attributes: its exquisite flavor and seductive aroma. Can any equipment measure these attributes? It is clear that there are measurements related to them, mainly through metabolic profiles (volatile and non-volatile compounds). However, how do we relate these measurements to the consumer's final decision on whether or not to accept the fruit? The results obtained from the analysis show a greater preference and acceptability of Chilean consumers towards NP-grafted fruit. And this opens at least two avenues of research: (1) to know in more detail the metabolic profile (volatile and non-volatile compounds) of the L/R fruit that is directly associated with these attributes and, (2) to continue using the NP as landrace parental material to generate interspecific hybrids to improve the functional, agronomic and sensory quality of the fruit. In other words, if the use of NP would have decreased fruit acceptability and preference relative to the self-grafted tomato, its use as parental material to improve OLT would be discarded. For this agenda, we are motivated by works such as those of Distefano et al. (2022), Wang et al. (2022) and Casals et al. (2019).
- Reviewer: It is necessary to discuss the characteristics of tomato rootstocks commercially used in Chile and the rootstocks used in this study. (Discussion Section)
Response of the authors: We do agree with the reviewer. We have added the following paragraph.
Line 530: About 40 commercial tomato rootstocks are present in the market in Chile, all of them foreign. The most commonly used are: Arazi, Amnstrong, Arnold, Beaufort, Brigeot, Emperor, King Kong, Optifort, Maxifort, Multifort and Unifort. Most of them are interspecific hybrids of high vigor and have been selected to be commercialized to resist diseases (viruses such as ToMV, among others; fungi present in the soil such as Fusarium oxysporum f sp lycopersci, Verticillium albo-atrum, Verticillium dahlia, among others) and nematodes (Meloidogyne arenaria and Meloidogyne javanica). The first focus of this discussion is on analyzing the effects of PN on the OLT since our purpose is to improve the durability and agronomic, functional and sensory attributes of the latter fruit since none of the rootstocks marketed in Chile have been created for these purposes or for tomato landraces
- Reviewer: Is it just a matter of grafting? Could it be a problem caused by not cultivating properly?
Response of the authors: We have added the following paragraph to complement our finding.
Line 597:. In this regard, the literature concerning the study of the effect of rootstock on tomato geometry is scarce and not consensual. On the one hand, Qaryouti et al. [39], and more recently Mauro et al. [40], reported a null effect of different rootstocks on several commercial tomato varieties. These findings suggest that fruit geometry is controlled by genotype [41]. On the other hand, Turhan et al. [11] and Casals et al. [42] did report changes in the geometry of local tomato fruits grafted and grown under conventional, high tunnel cultivation, observing differences between graft combinations under outdoor and organic cultivation. These findings suggest that certain scion-rootstock combinations and environmental conditions may have played some role in the geometric changes detected.
- Reviewer: The conclusion and summary should be written in light of the characteristics of the rootstocks and grafted plants, but this manuscript ends with a conclusion that feels too socially scientific. Overall, please write a discussion that fits a scientific paper.
Response of the authors: We do agree with the reviewer. We have ruled out the final paragraph and replaced it by the following one:
Overall, although it may seem somewhat disappointing in relation to one of the objectives of this research, the use of PN as a local (non-hybrid) rootstock to improve the global quality of a highly reputable landrace tomato such as the Old Limachino Tomato was not entirely innocuous. There is a positive effect on the level of consumer acceptability and preference. Principal component analysis (Figure 11) suggests that agronomic and functional attributes related to acidity, polyphenols content and colour might explain this phenomenon observed from the sensory analysis. Motivated by works such as Distefano et al. [58], Wang et al. [59] and Casals et al. [46], this finding opens up at least two avenues of research. On the one hand, we are quite interested in knowing in depth the metabolic profile (volatile and non-volatile compounds) of the L/R fruit that is directly associated with flavor and aroma attributes. On the other hand, we now have valuable information that encourages us to use PN as landrace parental material to generate interspecific hybrids to improve the functional, agronomic and sensory quality and other agronomic characteristics of OLT, particularly those ones related to its short postharvest durability and tolerances to diseases and abiotic stresses present in the growing area of this cultivar.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Rejected manuscript does not qualify for resubmission because author can not include tomato genotypes on all rootstock.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the quality of the manuscript with significant revisions.
There are some things that need to be changed to italics in the statistics section.
When expressing units, double check that they are in international units.
