An Experimental Study on the Effect of Cutting Angle on the Growth of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings Using the One-Cotyledon Grafting Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript claims cutting angle's effect on grafted watermelon's growth. This manuscript needs several major areas for improvement. The Materials and Methods (M&M) provided insufficient information regarding the measurements taken. Experimental design and statistical analysis methods needed to be adequately described. The discussion section needs to be more comprehensive and relevant to the experimental objectives.

Comments:

Materials and Methods:

·      Grafting materials are not very clear in the Materials and Methods (M&M) section. Please describe which cutting angle of the scion matched to cutting angle of the rootstock. If scion and rootstock cutting angles are the same, what is the significance of doing two experiments (experiment 1 and 2).

·      It needs to be clarified how you measured the phloem reconnection rate and its unit (%), as mentioned in Figure 7. Add a clear explanation about the phloem reconnection rate and include the equation you used in the M&M section. I guess that it should be phloem reconnection success (%) (measured using the following equation = ((phloem reconnected grafts/ total grafts)*100)). The same explanation is for the xylem reconnection rate (%) in Figure 7.

·      When presenting statistical test results, you need to include the statistical test with its p-value. As a typical example (not related to this experiment), (t-test, P < 0.05). Please include which test you used in Figures 7, and 8.

 

Discussion

·      In the discussion, you need to discuss your study results (success and improvements needed) compared to other studies. There is no result for cutting angle accuracy in this experiment, though there is a discussion section (4.1). Use discussion section 4.3 to discuss the significance of technical improvement of the cutting device you developed. Add references to support your findings in 4.2.

 

Conclusion

·      The conclusion does not align with the experiment results.

 

Line 15: suggestion – In growing cucurbits, …

Line 18: suggestion - established based on experience …

Line 46: Is it labors or laborers?

Lines 60-61: Suggestion – … stress value at the bevel angle …

Line 90: Italicize the botanical name C. lanatus

Line 91: … as the scion …

Line 99: … with a water-soluble …

 

 

Author Response

January 10, 2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

    On behalf of all the authors, I would like to sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript entitled ‘An Experimental Study on the Effect of Cutting Angle on the Growth of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings, Using the Splice Grafting Method’. Your comments not only provide constructive suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript, but also lead us to in-depth thinking of our approaches. We will benefit from them for our future research. Based on your review comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly and highlighted the changes. In the following, we described the changes we made corresponding to each comment.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    The manuscript claims cutting angle's effect on grafted watermelon's growth. This manuscript needs several major areas for improvement. The Materials and Methods (M&M) provided insufficient information regarding the measurements taken. Experimental design and statistical analysis methods needed to be adequately described. The discussion section needs to be more comprehensive and relevant to the experimental objectives.

    Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.

Q1. Grafting materials are not very clear in the Materials and Methods (M&M) section. Please describe which cutting angle of the scion matched to cutting angle of the rootstock. If scion and rootstock cutting angles are the same, what is the significance of doing two experiments (experiment 1 and 2).

    Authors’ Response: In this paper, two experiments were using single factor experiment design. The rootstock cutting angle matched for scion cutting angle treatment was fixed, similar to rootstock cutting angle treatment. We have add the describe which cutting angle of the scion matched to cutting angle of the rootstock. Detailed as follows:

    Experiment 1 was carried out with 10° (SL), 14° (SM), and 20° (SS) of scion (Figure 4), the rootstock cutting angle of the three treatments were 27°. Experiment 2 was carried out with 10° (RL), 17° (RM), and 27° (RS) cutting angles for the rootstock (Figure 5), the scion cutting angle of the three treatments were 14°. Please see lines 154-156.

Q2. It needs to be clarified how you measured the phloem reconnection rate and its unit (%), as mentioned in Figure 7. Add a clear explanation about the phloem reconnection rate and include the equation you used in the M&M section. I guess that it should be phloem reconnection success (%) (measured using the following equation = ((phloem reconnected grafts/ total grafts)*100)). The same explanation is for the xylem reconnection rate (%) in Figure 7.

    Authors’ Response: The data of phloem reconnection rate for each time point was collected from three treatments with 20 seedlings per treatment and this was repeated three times. The equation we used to calculate the phloem reconnection rate and the xylem reconnection rate, was same with your guess. In the manuscript, we added the formula and units. Please see line 186.

Q3. When presenting statistical test results, you need to include the statistical test with its p-value. As a typical example (not related to this experiment), (t-test, P < 0.05). Please include which test you used in Figures 7, and 8.

    Authors’ Response: The two experiments have three factors. Single factor analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis. We refer to a large number of the papers, statistical analysis method are similar to us. In addition, the Materials and Methods (M&M) provided statistical analysis method, it was Duncan’ tests. Thank you for your attention and understanding.

Q4. In the discussion, you need to discuss your study results (success and improvements needed) compared to other studies. There is no result for cutting angle accuracy in this experiment, though there is a discussion section (4.1). Use discussion section 4.3 to discuss the significance of technical improvement of the cutting device you developed. Add references to support your findings in 4.2.

    Authors’ Response：According your comments, we modification the discussion section. We supplement the research related to the cutting device we developed, discuss the main factors affecting the accuracy of cutting parameter and，add the related references.Please see lines 277-403.

Q5. The conclusion does not align with the experiment results.

    Authors’ Response: Carefully compare the conclusion with the results, we found the rootstock cutting angle and the scion cutting angle was reverse, has been modified. Thank you for your valuable comments. Please see lines 557-558.

Q6. Line 15: suggestion – In growing cucurbits, …

Line 18: suggestion - established based on experience …

Line 46: Is it labors or laborers?

Lines 60-61: Suggestion – … stress value at the bevel angle …

Line 90: Italicize the botanical name C. lanatus

Line 91: … as the scion …

Line 99: … with a water-soluble …

    Authors’ Response: Thank you for your careful review. The errors include grammar, words, etc, were modified. Please see lines 15, 18, 48, 62, 92, 93, 102.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study investigated the best cutting angle for scion and rootstock on the Growth of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings.
This study may be of practical interest to companies, allowing them to develop a mechanization of the grafting process that is currently done mainly by hand.
The work is well done and I believe it is ready for publication after minor revision.
May I suggest improving the exposition of the conclusions.
In particular paragraph 4.5 I think should be merged/rearranged in the conclusions. In the conclusion section, you should remind the reader of what they have just read. Your conclusion should:

·               Restate your hypothesis or research question;

·               Restate your major findings;

·               Tell the reader what contribution your study has made to the existing literature;

·               Highlight any limitations of your study;

·               State future directions for research/recommendations;

Author Response

                                                                January 10, 2023

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

    On behalf of all the authors, I would like to sincerely appreciate your valuable comments on the manuscript entitled ‘An Experimental Study on the Effect of Cutting Angle on the Growth of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings, Using the Splice Grafting Method’. Your comments not only provide constructive suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript, but also lead us to in-depth thinking of our approaches. We will benefit from them for our future research. Based on your review comments, we have revised the manuscript accordingly and highlighted the changes. In the following, we described the changes we made corresponding to each comment.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    The study investigated the best cutting angle for scion and rootstock on the Growth of Grafted Watermelon Seedlings. This study may be of practical interest to companies, allowing them to develop a mechanization of the grafting process that is currently done mainly by hand. The work is well done and I believe it is ready for publication after minor revision. May I suggest improving the exposition of the conclusions. In particular paragraph 4.5 I think should be merged/rearranged in the conclusions. In the conclusion section, you should remind the reader of what they have just read. Your conclusion should:

• Restate your hypothesis or research question;
• Restate your major findings;
• Tell the reader what contribution your study has made to the existing literature;
• Highlight any limitations of your study;
• State future directions for research/recommendations;

    Authors’ Response: We really appreciate your positive and constructive comments on our manuscript. The manuscript was revised carefully based on the comments.

Q1. In particular paragraph 4.5 I think should be merged/rearranged in the conclusions. In the conclusion section, you should remind the reader of what they have just read.

    Authors’ Response: According to your comments, we merged the content of discussion 4.3 and conclusion section. In addition, in order to let the reader can more easily understand our research conclusion, we rearrange and modify the content of the conclusion. Please see lines 405-572.

Restate your hypothesis or research question：

  Grafting robot can reduce grafting work intensity and improve grafting productivity, will replace grafter in future. At present, the grafting success efficiency of grafting robot has not advantage with hand-grafting, seedling companies in China cannot accept robot. Lacking grafting seedling production technology matched for grafting robot was one main insufficient. Hole-insertion grafting is the most popular method used for Watermelon grafting in China. However, one cotyledon grafting is the only method that has been automated with grafting robot. The grafting parameters, such as cutting angle and the aging of scion and rootstock, are still not clear. In order to provide a reference for the setting of cutting parameters in mechanized grafting, we performed experiments to study the influence of the cutting angle of the rootstock and scion on the grafting survival rate and the later growth of grafted watermelon seedlings.

Restate your major findings：

    The results showed that different cutting angles had no significant impact on the grafting survival rate. However, the cutting angle had a certain influence on the formation of the phloem reconnection, the adhesion force and the dry weight. A larger cutting angle for the rootstock and scion led to a delay in the reconnection of the phloem and a decrease of adhesion force. Considering seedlings growth and adhesion tightly, we suggest a cut-ting angle of about 14° for the scion and a cutting angle of about 17°for the rootstock. In this situation, the incision lengths of rootstocks and scions were 6.46 mm and 5.48 mm, respectively.

Tell the reader what contribution your study has made to the existing literature：

    Consequently, this study analyzed the effects of cutting angle on the grafted seedling growth and recommend a cutting angle for scion and rootstock using the one-cotyledon grafting method. It will provide a cutting parameter for manual grafting and simplify the cutting system of grafting robot.

Highlight any limitations of your study：

However, the grafting union is the joining of the two part, the cutting area of scion and rootstock. This research only study the effects of the single factor, the interaction effects of the rootstock and scion cutting angle was not studied. It was unknown whether the rootstock and scion cut by machine using the recommend cutting angle has high utilization rate and success rate.

State future directions for research/recommendations：

    At present, technical standards of seedling cultivation suitable for machine grafting are very scarce. More research is needed to further study such as different healing environment, and different species of cucurbit. In addition, it is necessary to determine the age and plant-type structures of grafted seedlings for different varieties. These work is difficult and meaningful. With the implementation of standards, more seedling cultivation enterprises can cultivate standard seedlings suitable for machine grafting, which would be conducive to promoting the rapid application of grafting machines and would reflect the value of standardization and efficiency.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx