Review Reports - Biostimulants Improve Yield and Quality in Preharvest without Impinging on the Postharvest Quality of Hass Avocado and Mango Fruit: Evaluation under Organic and Traditional Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

agronomy-2498925-peer-review-v1

Article: Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems.

Abstracts:

In general, the abstract needs to be rewritten, focusing on highlighting the results, not the materials and methods, for example, cv. Hass avocado (traditional and organic) and cv. Keitt mango (traditional).

Keywords: Postharvest, avocado, mango, yield, quality; storage; respiration, ethylene rate.

Introduction:

The introduction part lists scientific material about a general term, which is (biostimulants), how to cite a general term in the introduction part, there is no mention in the introduction of the name of biostimulants at all, and therefore this part is not suitable in this image for publication, and it does not add any information to the reader

Materials and Methods:

Line 155: in the cauliflower state ??

Table 1. Composition of biostimulants used in the study.

It is clear that this is a commercial compound that contains many macro and micro elements, and many amino acids. How is this and how can the results be interpreted for a multi-component in its content?

Results and Discussion:

Unfortunately, based on the experimental treatments, the results cannot be approved, discussed, and valid for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1.

Abstracts: In general, the abstract needs to be rewritten, focusing on highlighting the results, not the materials and methods, for example, cv. Hass avocado (traditional and organic) and cv. Keitt mango (traditional).

R: We understand in part with the reviewer's comments, and we try to improve the details associated with the most relevant results optioned in our work. In addition, we remove information without interest in this section.

We believe and the other reviewers agree that the structure of an abstract should consider all sections of the manuscript. Our summary and its parts were fit to the format of the journal and to the manuscripts published there. Additionally, it agrees with reported in the literature on how this section should be written.

We used the following structure: “The first sentence orients the reader by introducing the broader field in which the particular research is situated. Then, this context is narrowed until it lands on the open question that the research answered. A successful context section sets the stage for distinguishing the paper’s contributions from the current state of the art by communicating what is missing in the literature (i.e., the specific gap) and why that matters (i.e., the connection between the specific gap and the broader con-

text that the paper opened with). The content (“Here we”) first describes the novel method or approach that you used to fill the gap or question. Then you present the meat—your executive summary of the results. Finally, the conclusion interprets the results to answer the question that was posed at the end of the context section. There is often a second part to the conclusion section that highlights how this conclusion moves the broader field forward (i.e., “broader significance”). This is particularly true for more “general” journals with a broad readership.” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2015.08.005,https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pcbi.1005619).

Introduction: The introduction part lists scientific material about a general term, which is (biostimulants), how to cite a general term in the introduction part, there is no mention in the introduction of the name of biostimulants at all, and therefore this part is not suitable in this image for publication, and it does not add any information to the reader

R: We understand in part with the reviewer's comments, and we try to improve the details associated with biosteimulants concept, applications, and uses in agriculture. But we do not agree to add many details about biostimulants, especially about their names. We consider that the names of biostimulants lack scientific relevance in an introduction and in no article are they mentioned. In this section, the conceptual part that is associated with biostimulants is important, what are their active ingredients, how they work, their role in agriculture, among others. These elements were considered in our manuscript.

In addition, we used the following structure and suggestions, where it is clearly specified that an introduction should be informative enough, but without going into details. Please see the general recommendation ¨ In concrete terms, you should start by explaining briefly, using appropriate references, what is already known about this subject¨ (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2015.08.005). ¨ The introduction should not contain a broad literature review beyond the motivation of the paper. This gap-focused structure makes it easy for experienced readers to evaluate the potential importance of a paper—they only need to assess the importance of the claimed gap. ¨ (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619)

Materials and Methods:
- Line 155: in the cauliflower state ??

R: We made the respective correction, specifically adding the phenological state according to the BBCH scale (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.09.051)

Table 1. Composition of biostimulants used in the study.

R: As reported in the literature, the composition of all biostimulants is complex and difficult to characterize specifically. Which justifies our work to evaluate the effect of the product and not of its active ingredients. We suggest reviewing the contributions made in this regard (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00040; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00671)

It is clear that this is a commercial compound that contains many macro and micro elements, and many amino acids. How is this and how can the results be interpreted for a multi-component in its content?

R: We partly understand the comment of the reviewer, but ours was quite rigorous and the objective was clearly to evaluate the effect of the biostimulant in three production systems under field conditions with respect to the traditional management. At no time was it intended to evaluate the mechanisms and any specific active ingredient. Additionally, the literature that supports the growing use of these products in agriculture clearly states that the active ingredients of biostimulants have multiple sources and origins, and like our work, they are done under field conditions, evaluating the product and not its active ingredients ( https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00040).

Results and Discussion: Unfortunately, based on the experimental treatments, the results cannot be approved, discussed, and valid for publication.

R: We do not understand the reviewer's comment, especially since he does not give details of why he considers the results to be invalid. Our work was based on the evaluation of a biostimulant under field conditions, following the strict process of the scientific method, with a clearly defined treatment and its respective controls. We assume that the reviewer's comment alludes to the multiple active ingredients that the composition of the product presents, but this would mean that 90% of the more than 2000 results reported in the literature lack scientific validity, since all evaluate the product and not its active ingredients separately.

For example, the following part of text is associated with the difficult that the reviewer considered that our work don’t have validated ¨ There is a clear need to improve our understanding of biostimulant function so that the efficacy of these materials can be improved and the industrial processes can be optimized. Determining the function of this class of products, however, has proven to be immensely difficult This is in large part due to the diversity of sources of these materials and the complexity of the resulting product, which in most cases will contain a significant number of poorly characterized molecules ¨ (https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00671)

We cordially invite the reviewer to review the reviews that are made in this regard and the articles published in different Journals with applications of biostimulants under field conditions ( https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00040; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00671).

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

With the changes made, the article improved in content, form and presentation. Thank you to consider the considerations made.

Author Response

Reviewer 2.

With the changes made, the article improved in content, form and presentation. Thank you to consider the considerations made.

R: We thank the reviewer for appreciating our work in improving the manuscript with respect to his valuable recommendations made in the previous stage.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Dear Authors

The manuscript titled ,,Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems’’ is written quite clearly and concisely. However, I suggest minor revision.

Discussion

This chapter needs a thorough revision. In the characteristics of the composition of the biostimulants used in organic and traditional management, it is clearly visible that their composition is very different, so the mode of action that could have influenced the results obtained may also be different. The Authors did not address this in the discussion. This aspect should be completed in the revised manuscript.

Conclusions

In this chapter, it would be valuable to provide numerical/percentage values of improvement of the assessed parameters/features. In addition, it is worth pointing out further research directions.

Additional note

The same phrase "traditional" avocados and the abbreviation TM is used for both the production system and the treatment (eg in Figure 1). Different and clearly defined terms should be used to avoid confusion. Please check the entire manuscript in this respect.

Author Response

Reviewer 3.

The manuscript titled “Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems’’ is written quite clearly and concisely. However, I suggest minor revision.

Discussion This chapter needs a thorough revision. In the characteristics of the composition of the biostimulants used in organic and traditional management, it is clearly visible that their composition is very different, so the mode of action that could have influenced the results obtained may also be different. The Authors did not address this in the discussion. This aspect should be completed in the revised manuscript.

R: We agree with the reviewer, but we want to announce that each treatment (biostimulant) was compared within each system, without comparing between systems. Likewise, we incorporate a greater discussion about the components of biostimulants, and the difficulty of being able to evaluate their mechanisms in plants.

Conclusions: In this chapter, it would be valuable to provide numerical/percentage values of improvement of the assessed parameters/features. In addition, it is worth pointing out further research directions.

Additional note: The same phrase "traditional" avocados and the abbreviation TM is used for both the production system and the treatment (eg in Figure 1). Different and clearly defined terms should be used to avoid confusion. Please check the entire manuscript in this respect.

R: We understand the reviewer's concern, but these acronyms mean that two treatments were evaluated, on the one hand, the traditional management (TM), independent of the production system (avocado traditional, organic avocado, and mango), and the traditional management plus the application of the biostimulant (TM + MC). Likewise, make the necessary annotation to clarify the reviewer's doubt.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

As a reviewer, I reviewed this paper in the first round, and the author has modified this paper according to my requirements. Now the quality of the paper has been further improved. I suggest that this paper can be accepted, and there is no other suggestion.

Author Response

Reviewer 4.

R: We thank the reviewer for appreciating our work in improving the manuscript with respect to his valuable recommendations made in the previous stage.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

I thank the authors for their convincing scientific responses. Accordingly, I accept the research in its current form.

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

As a researcher engaged in basic research on avocado and promoting the yield and quality, I was delighted to see this article. The author indicated that the use of biostimulants caused a significant increase (P<0.05) in the yield, number of fruits, and preharvest quality parameters of size and weight, without a negative effect on the postharvest quality of the fruits. Biostimulants can be a strategy to increase the productivity of fruit trees. I think the results presented in this paper will help us promote the yield and quality of avocado and mango. I consider the manuscript as novel and interesting and the the problem analyzed as very important. I am very pleased to review this paper.

However, there are some important issues that, in my view, should be carefully addressed before publication.

The author used six-year-old Hass tree grafted on Hass in the traditional production system of avocado, but used three-year-old Hass tree grafted on West Indian rootstock in the organic production system of avocado. As we all know, the fruit yield and quality of fruit trees in different years may be different, and the different rootstocks will also affect the fruit yield and quality of the tree body. The authors need to explain in detail whether any of these factors could have affected the results of the paper. If so, the results of this paper are debatable.

Author Response

Editor

Agronomy

Dear Editor this letter serves to inform the corrections of the manuscript entitled “Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems” with code: agronomy-2428575, were successfully incorporated. In name of by my colleagues and myself, think that under last version of our manuscript it could be considered for publication in the journal Agronomy

We found the reviews to be helpful. Based on the reviewer’s comments and suggestions, we have made modifications to the original manuscript and proofread it carefully. We are very grateful to the reviewers, as his comments were very helpful to improve the manuscript. Moreover, we strongly agree with the reviewer and all his contributions. We included a better description of all aspects as suggested. Please see the suggestion incorporated in the track changes format. We consider that the manuscript has been highly improved, and we hope that this contribution will now prove the quality required for publication in your journal. Additionally, the language of the manuscript was checked again by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 1.

As a researcher engaged in basic research on avocado and promoting the yield and quality, I was delighted to see this article. The author indicated that the use of biostimulants caused a significant increase (P<0.05) in the yield, number of fruits, and preharvest quality parameters of size and weight, without a negative effect on the postharvest quality of the fruits. Biostimulants can be a strategy to increase the productivity of fruit trees. I think the results presented in this paper will help us promote the yield and quality of avocado and mango. I consider the manuscript as novel and interesting and the problem analyzed as very important. I am very pleased to review this paper.

However, there are some important issues that, in my view, should be carefully addressed before publication.

The author used six-year-old Hass tree grafted on Hass in the traditional production system of avocado, but used three-year-old Hass tree grafted on West Indian rootstock in the organic production system of avocado. As we all know, the fruit yield and quality of fruit trees in different years may be different, and the different rootstocks will also affect the fruit yield and quality of the tree body. The authors need to explain in detail whether any of these factors could have affected the results of the paper. If so, the results of this paper are debatable.

Response: We agree with reviewer comments and the test in the manuscript was added. Please see lines 244-246. The biostimulants applied in each production system were different. DOUCE® for the traditional avocado and mango systems and NAT-DOUCE® for the organic avocado. Additionally, the age, genotypes and system production were different in avocado. For this reason, the results were not statistically compared between the two production avocado systems (organic vs traditional), they were evaluated separately for all variables (preharvest and postharvest), only in each systems the control and treated trees had the same agronomic management, age, and rootstock.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The manuscript titled ,,Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems’’ in its current form cannot be considered for publication. The main reason is the lack of a detailed description of the research method.

For the traditional production system of avocado, the authors provide only: Lines 95-98: A crop was defined as traditional considering the integrated management strategies based on the use of inputs of chemical, inorganic, organic, and biological origin, according to specific indications of the technical staff (specific data not shown due to confidentiality agreements). Lines 101-103: Regarding general agronomic management, six edaphic fertilizations were carried out per year, and 12 foliar applications (nutritional and phytosanitary) were performed with a frequency between 15-20 days.

Similarly, for the organic production system of avocado, the data is very general: Lines 108-111: This crop management was defined as non-conventionally managed given the integrated management strategies based on the use of inputs of organic and biological origin, according to specific indications of the technical staff (specific data not shown due to confidentiality agreements). Lines 114 – 122: Regarding the agronomic management, two edaphic applications of biocompost were and growth-promoting microorganisms, antagonists, and entomopathogenic fungi (specific data not shown due to confidentiality agreements).

For the mango production system it was only state: Lines 2126-129: Regarding the agronomic management of the crop, four soil fertilizations per year and 24 foliar applications (nutritional and phytosanitary) were carried out with an application frequency between 15–20 days.

The above information clearly indicates the use of numerous treatments using inputs of chemical, inorganic, organic, and biological origin. It is impossible to make a thorough interpretation of the obtained results without taking these aspects into account. In addition, in scientific publications, the research methodology should be described in such a way that other researchers can repeat the same studies. Moreover, without a detailed description of the applied means of production, it is not possible to use the research results in practice.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Editor

Agronomy

Reviewer 2.

The manuscript titled, Biostimulants improve the yield and quality in preharvest without implication in postharvest quality of Hass avocado and mango fruit: evaluation under the organic and traditional systems’’ in its current form cannot be considered for publication. The main reason is the lack of a detailed description of the research method.

Response:

We understand the reviewer's comments seeking to clarify the definition of traditional and organic production systems. Likewise, in the introduction we carry out a theoretical approach to the definition according to the literature, which agrees with the classification that we carry out in our work. Additionally, we reviewed this concept very conscientiously and we have asked many colleagues in the area, and they all agreed that the concept in our work was refers correctly. As a complement we give some more details of the production system without falling into breaking the confidentiality that the companies requested of us. As a value and trying to give more details, the company that certifies the production system and the biostimulant as organic is included.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the results obtained in Colombia to confirm whether the biostimulant improves fruit production without having a negative effect on postharvest performance.

In general, the manuscript is well written, with a large vocabulary, and well justified with a high number of bibliographic cites. Besides, material and methods and results are well explained. However, some comments indicate below.

The conclusions obtained are important and novel for the field of fruit growing, where the producers' objectives are focused on increasing production, in many cases providing external inputs whose safety for consumers is in doubt. Therefore, studies such as this one is useful to guarantee at all times the use of biostimulants to increase yields and post-harvest quality without endangering food safety.

Moreover, some main comments about the document can be seen below

· Line 52. (to ha^-1). Explain better. Maybe, do you wanted to write (per ha^-1)?

· Lime 101. I suggest you to make a table with the agronomic management dates, which includes date of each management, dose or rate per ha^-1, active matters, ….

· Lines 142 to 157. The same as previous comment. I suggest you to put this information in a table with the agronomic management dates, which includes date of each management, dose or rate per ha^-1, active matters, ….

· Line 202 and 284. Write units in super index

· Line 226. I know you couldn´t use * as a multiplication symbol but, in my opinion, you should explain the meaning of x in this formula.

· Lines 235, 264 and Figure 1. P value: write in equal form in the all manuscript according to the requirements of the journal.

· Line 258. Numbers should be write with the same number of decimals.

· All the manuscript and Table 1. Be careful with nomenclature: use STT or SST to total quantity of soluble solids. Check this in all manuscript.

· Figure 1: improve de quality of the image

Questions:

Why did you select the cv. Hass in avocado and cv. Keitt on mango? Commercial interests or any interest?

Based on your experience and knowledge, Did you think results will be different considering another different cv.?

Congratulations for this study.

Author Response

Editor

Agronomy

Reviewer 3.

This paper presents the results obtained in Colombia to confirm whether the biostimulant improves fruit production without having a negative effect on postharvest performance. In general, the manuscript is well written, with a large vocabulary, and well justified with a high number of bibliographic cites. Besides, material and methods and results are well explained. However, some comments indicate below. The conclusions obtained are important and novel for the field of fruit growing, where the producers' objectives are focused on increasing production, in many cases providing external inputs whose safety for consumers is in doubt. Therefore, studies such as this one is useful to guarantee at all times the use of biostimulants to increase yields and post-harvest quality without endangering food safety.

Moreover, some main comments about the document can be seen below

Line 52. (to ha-1). Explain better. Maybe, do you wanted to write (per ha-1)?

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made

Line 101. I suggest you to make a table with the agronomic management dates, which includes date of each management, dose or rate per ha-1, active matters, ….

Response: We understand the reviewer's comments improve the details associated with each production system. Likewise, when the work was carried out, a confidentiality agreement was signed with each productive unit, where specific details related to management would not be included. This part was incorporated into the text in order to give more clarity.

Lines 142 to 157. The same as previous comment. I suggest you to put this information in a table with the agronomic management dates, which includes date of each management, dose or rate per ha-1, active matters, ….

Line 202 and 284. Write units in super index

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made but the original formula does not use super index, use as subscript. Please see: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1160921

Line 226. I know you couldn´t use * as a multiplication symbol but, in my opinion, you should explain the meaning of x in this formula.

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made

Lines 235, 264 and Figure 1. P value: write in equal form in the all manuscript according to the requirements of the journal.

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made

Line 258. Numbers should be write with the same number of decimals.

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made

All the manuscript and Table 1. Be careful with nomenclature: use STT or SST to total quantity of soluble solids. Check this in all manuscript.

Response: We agree with reviewer and the correction was made

Figure 1: improve of quality of the image

Response: We improve of quality of the image

Why did you select the cv. Hass in avocado and cv. Keitt on mango? Commercial interests or any interest?

Response: Hass in avocado and Keitt on mango are the most important varieties for the export and national market in Colombia.

Based on your experience and knowledge, Did you think results will be different considering another different cv.?

Response: We believe that although genetics is a very important factor, it is highly likely that in another cv. the effect of biostimulant remains similar to what is found in this study. We affirm it because these results were consistent even in two different species, mango and avocado.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest that this paper could be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comments and suggestions

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript, titled "Biostimulators improve pre-harvest yield and quality without affecting post-harvest quality of Hass avocados and mangoes: evaluation in organic and traditional systems", should not be considered for publication in its current form. My point is the same as before. The experimental methodology was not supplemented in the revised manuscript (chemical, inorganic, organic and biological inputs were not mentioned). Such information is necessary for the interpretation of the obtained results and determines the scientific and practical value of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors appreciate their valuable suggestions and comments for the improvement of this manuscript. We understand your recommendation, but as stated in the previous corrections, the requested information is not possible to supply, however, we consider that this situation does not put the validity of the results at risk. Best regards