Rootstock Effects on Yield and Some Consumer Important Fruit Quality Parameters of Eggplant cv. ‘Madonna’ under Protected Cultivation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work was well conducted and the manuscript is well written, although there are some small corrections to be made, as indicated below:

- Table 1: the unit of fruit fresh weight cannot be gram; it is kilogram

- Tables 2-4: the meaning of abbreviations must be reported in the caption

- In the tables, all the letters indicating differences following LSD’s test must be shown; for example, ‘a-c’ must be replaced by ‘abc’

- Figure 3 shows only the data from six treatments. Why?

- The positive effect of self-grafting on crop yield and the reason for the increase of fruit number in grafted plants should be discussed.

The authors should consider these references in the discussion:

• Boyaci, H.F., Ellialtioglu, S.S. - Rootstock usage in eggplant: Actual situation and recent advances. (2020) Acta Horticulturae, 1271, pp. 403-410. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1271.55
• Gisbert, C., Prohens, J., Nuez, F. - Performance of eggplant grafted onto cultivated, wild, and hybrid materials of eggplant and tomato (2011) International Journal of Plant Production, 5 (4), pp. 367-380.
• Giuffrida, F., Cassaniti, C., Agnello, M., Leonardi, C. - Growth and ionic concentration of eggplant as influenced by rootstocks under saline conditions. (2015) Acta Horticulturae, 1086, pp. 161-166. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1086.20
• Kyriacou, M.C., Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., Zrenner, R., Schwarz, D. - Vegetable grafting: The implications of a growing agronomic imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive value. (2017) Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, art. no. 741. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00741
• Pebriana, E., Dawam Maghfoer, M.O.C.H., Widaryanto, E. - Effect of grafting using wild eggplant as rootstock on growth and yield of four eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) cultivars. (2018) Bioscience Research, 15 (1), pp. 337-347.
• Plazas, M., Vilanova, S., Gramazio, P., Rodríguez-Burruezo, A., Fita, A., Herraiz, F.J., Ranil, R., Fonseka, R., Niran, L., Fonseka, H., Kouassi, B., Kouassi, A., Kouassi, A., Prohens, J. - Interspecific hybridization between eggplant and wild relatives from different genepools (2016) Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 141 (1), pp. 34-44. DOI: 10.21273/jashs.141.1.34
• Sabatino, L., Iapichino, G., Maggio, A., D'Anna, E., Bruno, M., D'Anna, F. - Grafting affects yield and phenolic profile of Solanum melongena L. landraces. (2016) Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15 (5), pp. 1017-1024. DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61323-5

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

would like to thank you for the consideration and evaluation of the submitted study and for taking the time to read and review it. Your corrections and comments were very useful and helped a lot to improve the manuscript. The raised questions and comments have been considered and we are sending the updated version of the manuscript.

According to the requested revisions, and taking into account all the suggestions, the recommended corrections have been applied in track changes.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The work was well conducted and the manuscript is well written, although there are some small corrections to be made, as indicated below:

- Table 1: the unit of fruit fresh weight cannot be gram; it is kilogram

Authors: That s right, we changed it.

- Tables 2-4: the meaning of abbreviations must be reported in the caption

Authors: abbreviation meanings wrote in the caption, Maybe it wasnt clear and mixed with the main results part

- In the tables, all the letters indicating differences following LSD’s test must be shown; for example, ‘a-c’ must be replaced by ‘abc’

Authors: we changed them to full significant letters

- Figure 3 shows only the data from six treatments. Why?

Authors: The number of samples had to be reduced as the standard maximizes the amount of sample that reviewers can evaluate.

- The positive effect of self-grafting on crop yield and the reason for the increase of fruit number in grafted plants should be discussed.

Authors: more information added. The positive effect of grafting itself has been confirmed by several authors, the stress of grafting increases the individual performance of the plant.

The authors should consider these references in the discussion:

Authors: Thanks for your suggestion, we used 5 of these refrences which related to our paper and topic.

• Boyaci, H.F., Ellialtioglu, S.S. - Rootstock usage in eggplant: Actual situation and recent advances. (2020) Acta Horticulturae, 1271, pp. 403-410. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1271.55
• Gisbert, C., Prohens, J., Nuez, F. - Performance of eggplant grafted onto cultivated, wild, and hybrid materials of eggplant and tomato (2011) International Journal of Plant Production, 5 (4), pp. 367-380.
• Giuffrida, F., Cassaniti, C., Agnello, M., Leonardi, C. - Growth and ionic concentration of eggplant as influenced by rootstocks under saline conditions. (2015) Acta Horticulturae, 1086, pp. 161-166. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1086.20
• Kyriacou, M.C., Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., Zrenner, R., Schwarz, D. - Vegetable grafting: The implications of a growing agronomic imperative for vegetable fruit quality and nutritive value. (2017) Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, art. no. 741. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00741
• Pebriana, E., Dawam Maghfoer, M.O.C.H., Widaryanto, E. - Effect of grafting using wild eggplant as rootstock on growth and yield of four eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) cultivars. (2018) Bioscience Research, 15 (1), pp. 337-347.
• Plazas, M., Vilanova, S., Gramazio, P., Rodríguez-Burruezo, A., Fita, A., Herraiz, F.J., Ranil, R., Fonseka, R., Niran, L., Fonseka, H., Kouassi, B., Kouassi, A., Kouassi, A., Prohens, J. - Interspecific hybridization between eggplant and wild relatives from different genepools (2016) Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 141 (1), pp. 34-44. DOI: 10.21273/jashs.141.1.34
• Sabatino, L., Iapichino, G., Maggio, A., D'Anna, E., Bruno, M., D'Anna, F. - Grafting affects yield and phenolic profile of Solanum melongena L. landraces. (2016) Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 15 (5), pp. 1017-1024. DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61323-5

We would like to thank once again for your time and your valuable comments, and we hope that improved version of the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Your sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The scope of this study about eggplant grafting is interesting. However, there is a number of serious issues especially as regards the results presentation. The authors have not included Anova analysis in the tables and also a number of the results is not based on the actual statistical analysis. The authors often do not address the data statistically and deviate from the statistical analysis when presenting their results.

Specific comments

Lines 86-88

Comment: From which part of the fruit the measurements were taken. Using ruler instead of vernier caliber could create many artifacts during the measurements.

Table2

Comments: The authors should present marketable fruit number instead of total fruit number. Correct g to Kg for average fruit weight measurement units.

Lines 135-136

Comment: The authors should include fruit shape index (width/ length) data in the tables after performing a statistical analysis on this parameter. Draft shape index estimation of O treatment (0.51) shows that is very similar to the SG (0.51) and most of the other treatments (0.47-0.52). Since the shape of the fruit is mainly determined by genetic factors, the authors must have solid statistical data before claiming that grafting practice affected the shape of the fruit.

Lines 136-138

Comment: This raises an important question that should be answered by the reviewers. Increased thickness (width) of the SG fruit when compared to the SR fruit treatment means that the practice of grafting itself affects fruit thickness regardless of the rootstock. The question is why no increase in fruit thickness was observed in all the other rootstock treatments? Also the fact that a ruler was used instead of a vernier caliber could create many artifacts during the measurements. From which part of the fruit were the measurements taken?

Lines 155-156

Comment: The authors do not always address their results statistically. For example, concerning L* in table 2: SR, SG, ST and SI had the lowest a* value since they all had the same letters according to LSD test. However, arithmetically speaking SG and SR had the lowest values. The authors should address the data only statistically and make corrections for all the tables of the manuscript. The authors should be very careful not to deviate from the statistical analysis.

Lines 156-157

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156.

Lines 158-160

Comment: This statement is false. CIRG index was the same by grafting on rootstocks E and O or SR combinations since mean letters were not different according to LSD test.

Lines 168-169

Comment: This makes no sense. Please rephrase.

Lines 170-171

Comment: This statement is false. No statistical differences were observed.

Lines 171

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156. Also none of the rootstock treatments differ statistically from SR.

Lines 173-175

Comment: Authors should also mention that only E & O rootstock treatments differed from the SR.

Lines 182-184

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156. Why no increase in TSS was observed in the other rootstock treatments?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

would like to thank you for the consideration and evaluation of the submitted study and for taking the time to read and review it. Your corrections and comments were very useful and helped a lot to improve the manuscript. The raised questions and comments have been considered and we are sending the updated version of the manuscript.

According to the requested revisions, and taking into account all the suggestions, the recommended corrections have been applied in track changes.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled: "Rootstock effects on the yield and some consumer important fruit quality parameters of eggplant cv. ‘Madonna’ under protected cultivation", addresses an important topic related to eggplant yield and fruit quality. This is a study that deserves to be published because it adds interesting results about improve yield and fruit quality parameters appreciated by consumers. However, in the writing of the manuscript there are a number of areas that would benefit from clarification and/or more detailed information. The following aspects should be addressed:

Materials and Methods:

Lines 73 and 74: Please indicate why tomato rootstocks was not sown before than 'Madonna' cultivar.

Authors: we added more information in the material and method section. Tomato rootstocks were germinating and developing faster then the other rootstocks.

Figure 1: Please change the representation of date for the day of year (DOY). It is easier to understand the graph when the date is expressed as DOY instead the date.

Authors: we changed the figure.

Lin 92: Please indicate that total sugar content was measured as total soluble solids.

Authors: we changed it to total sugar content.

Lines 120 and 121: Please indicate the most relevant questions performed to the panelists.

We added one table about examined parameters.

Results:

Lines 168 and 169: The meaning of this sentence is not clear. Could you rewrite in order to understand it?

Authors: we improved this sentense.

Figure 3: The results showed on the graph are poorly described on the text. Please describe it more detailed.

Authors: we added more information.  

We would like to thank once again for your time and your valuable comments, and we hope that improved version of the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled: "Rootstock effects on the yield and some consumer important fruit quality parameters of eggplant cv. ‘Madonna’ under protected cultivation", addresses an important topic related to eggplant yield and fruit quality. This is a study that deserves to be published because it adds interesting results about improve yield and fruit quality parameters appreciated by consumers. However, in the writing of the manuscript there are a number of areas that would benefit from clarification and/or more detailed information. The following aspects should be addressed:

Materials and Methods:

Lines 73 and 74: Please indicate why tomato rootstocks was not sown before than 'Madonna' cultivar.

Figure 1: Please change the representation of date for the day of year (DOY). It is easier to understand the graph when the date is expressed as DOY instead the date.

Lin 92: Please indicate that total sugar content was measured as total soluble solids.

Lines 120 and 121: Please indicate the most relevant questions performed to the panelists.

Results:

Lines 168 and 169: The meaning of this sentence is not clear. Could you rewrite in order to understand it?

Figure 3: The results showed on the graph are poorly described on the text. Please describe it more detailed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

would like to thank you for the consideration and evaluation of the submitted study and for taking the time to read and review it. Your corrections and comments were very useful and helped a lot to improve the manuscript. The raised questions and comments have been considered and we are sending the updated version of the manuscript.

According to the requested revisions, and taking into account all the suggestions, the recommended corrections have been applied in track changes.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The scope of this study about eggplant grafting is interesting. However, there is a number of serious issues especially as regards the results presentation. The authors have not included Anova analysis in the tables and also a number of the results is not based on the actual statistical analysis. The authors often do not address the data statistically and deviate from the statistical analysis when presenting their results.

 Authors: Thanks for your advice, we rewrite all results according to the analysis data.

Specific comments

Lines 86-88

Comment: From which part of the fruit the measurements were taken. Using ruler instead of vernier caliber could create many artifacts during the measurements.

Authors: supplemented and clarified. Thank you for indicating that we were not using the correct term „ruler”, we used tape line, we didn’t have a caliper of the right size unfortunately.

Table2

Comments: The authors should present marketable fruit number instead of total fruit number. Correct g to Kg for average fruit weight measurement units.

Authors: we changed g to Kg.

Lines 135-136

Comment: The authors should include fruit shape index (width/ length) data in the tables after performing a statistical analysis on this parameter. Draft shape index estimation of O treatment (0.51) shows that is very similar to the SG (0.51) and most of the other treatments (0.47-0.52). Since the shape of the fruit is mainly determined by genetic factors, the authors must have solid statistical data before claiming that grafting practice affected the shape of the fruit.

Authors: we improved the sentenses; that s corrent fruit shape index was not significant and your draft calculation is correcrt. We didnt put shape index data in the table.

That s correct fruit shape controll by genetic but environemt and agriculture managment can influnce on fruit shape. Not onlys in eggplant and vegetable fruits but also in fruit tree can change by using fertilizer, grafting and etc.

You can find more information in Kyriacou et al. (2017) review paper in Morphometric characteristics section. For example, when vigours rootstock used in grafting plant can cause a larger fruit (‘Maxifort’ or ‘Beaufort’ for tomato scion) and in contrast less vigorous rootstocks (‘Brigeor’ or goji  berry) reduce fruit size.

Lines 136-138

Comment: This raises an important question that should be answered by the reviewers. Increased thickness (width) of the SG fruit when compared to the SR fruit treatment means that the practice of grafting itself affects fruit thickness regardless of the rootstock. The question is why no increase in fruit thickness was observed in all the other rootstock treatments? Also the fact that a ruler was used instead of a vernier caliber could create many artifacts during the measurements. From which part of the fruit were the measurements taken?

Authors: Grafting effect are different between genotypes, rootstocks and grafting combinations. Self-grafting due to grafting may cause hormonal changes what can improve plant growth and yield. However, the examination of these was not included in our experiment therefore we cannot give an exact answer to this question. In the Material and methods section, the ruler was refined on a tape line and supplemented with the exact location of the measurements.

Lines 155-156

Comment: The authors do not always address their results statistically. For example, concerning L* in table 2: SR, SG, ST and SI had the lowest a* value since they all had the same letters according to LSD test. However, arithmetically speaking SG and SR had the lowest values. The authors should address the data only statistically and make corrections for all the tables of the manuscript. The authors should be very careful not to deviate from the statistical analysis.

Authors: we rewrite all results according to the analysis data.

Lines 156-157

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156.

Authors: Results rewrite according to statstically analysis data.

Lines 158-160

Comment: This statement is false. CIRG index was the same by grafting on rootstocks E and O or SR combinations since mean letters were not different according to LSD test.

Authors: Results rewrite according to statstically analysis data

Lines 168-169

Comment: This makes no sense. Please rephrase.

Authors: Thanks for your kind suggestion. We improved the sentense.

Lines 170-171

Comment: This statement is false. No statistical differences were observed.

Authors: Results rewrite and we mentioned the range of data and not compared to control or other rootstocks.

Lines 171

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156. Also none of the rootstock treatments differ statistically from SR.

Authors: Results rewrite according to statstically analysis data

Lines 173-175

Comment: Authors should also mention that only E & O rootstock treatments differed from the SR.

Authors: Results rewrite according to statstically analysis data

Lines 182-184

Comment: Please read comments for lines 155-156. Why no increase in TSS was observed in the other rootstock treatments?

Authors: Results rewrite according to statstically analysis data. Other researchers have also reported this reduction of the impact of grafting on other vegetables.

We would like to thank once again for your time and your valuable comments, and we hope that improved version of the manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

General comment

-The authors did not present Anova analysis as they were asked in the first manuscript revision. The authors should provide Anova analysis for all the data listed in the tables since most of the differences presented in the tables are marginal and LSD test could be biased.

-This manuscript has a serious problem with the use of English language which in some cases changes the whole meaning of the paragraph or confuse the reader. For example, in lines 164-165 the authors say that:  “Our results in Table 3 showed that the lowest CIRG skin index was in fruits harvested when  ‘Madonna’ was grafted onto tomato rootstocks (E and O; 6.46) in comparison SG (6.69) combinations but not significantly difference with SR, SH and ST.”

What the authors meant to say was: “Our results in Table 3 showed that CIRG skin index of fruits harvested from ‘Madonna’ grafted on tomato rootstocks (E and O; 6.46) was lower that when grafted onto SG but not significantly different from fruits of Madonna grafted on SR, SH and ST.” There are several similar examples like the above. The manuscript must be corrected by a native speaker of English language.

Specific comments

Table2

Comments: The authors should show marketable fruit number instead of total fruit number.

Lines 141-145 & 216-226

Comments: These paragraphs are very confusing. How can the authors explain fruit length change by grafting on some rootstocks (E & O) since grafting on any rootstock did not affect fruit shape or average fruit weight? To avoid this confusion, the authors could include only fruit shape in  table 2, instead of length and width, which is more important. Corrections should be made in results and discussion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer(s),

we would like to thank you for the consideration and evaluation of the re-submitted study. The raised questions and comments have been considered and we are sending the new updated version of the manuscript.

According to the requested revisions the recommended corrections have been applied in track changes. The manuscript has also been proof-read by an experienced English native scholar for English discrepancies.

Please find our detailed responses below:

Reviewers' comments:

-The authors did not present Anova analysis as they were asked in the first manuscript revision. The authors should provide Anova analysis for all the data listed in the tables since most of the differences presented in the tables are marginal and LSD test could be biased.

Thank you for your valuable comment, we revised the results of the manuscript, so we believe this improved version clarifies the analysed data and the new foundings of our work. We added the most important characters of anova (CV, P value and Significant level) for each table.

-This manuscript has a serious problem with the use of English language which in some cases changes the whole meaning of the paragraph or confuse the reader. For example, in lines 164-165 the authors say that:  “Our results in Table 3 showed that the lowest CIRG skin index was in fruits harvested when  ‘Madonna’ was grafted onto tomato rootstocks (E and O; 6.46) in comparison SG (6.69) combinations but not significantly difference with SR, SH and ST.”

The manuscript has been proof-read by an experienced English native scholar for English discrepancies. Accordingly lines 164-165 have been rewritten.

What the authors meant to say was: “Our results in Table 3 showed that CIRG skin index of fruits harvested from ‘Madonna’ grafted on tomato rootstocks (E and O; 6.46) was lower that when grafted onto SG but not significantly different from fruits of Madonna grafted on SR, SH and ST.” There are several similar examples like the above. The manuscript must be corrected by a native speaker of English language.

Thank you for the observation. We have corrected the regarding parts of the text. Accordingly lines 179-181 have been rewritten.

Specific comments

Table2

Comments: The authors should show marketable fruit number instead of total fruit number.

Thank you for your suggestion we modificated and included the marketable fruit data in table 2.

Lines 141-145 & 216-226

Comments: These paragraphs are very confusing. How can the authors explain fruit length change by grafting on some rootstocks (E & O) since grafting on any rootstock did not affect fruit shape or average fruit weight? To avoid this confusion, the authors could include only fruit shape in  table 2, instead of length and width, which is more important. Corrections should be made in results and discussion section.

Thank you for this important question and the opportunity to clarify. We think that length or width of fruit change may not affect the fruit weight and yield.  A larger fruit may have looser textured flesh.

Thank you for your suggestion we modificated and included fruit shape in table 2. We analysed this factor with the help of one statistical expert by SPSS and we found that grafting into different rootstock gave significant  p<0.001) on fruit shape index while when we checked with the tukey or LSD there is no significant letter between rootstocks. Accordingly, corrections were made in results and disscussion part.

Yours sincerely,

The Authors