Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby
, Kusumiyati Kusumiyati 1,*, Muhammad Arief Soleh 1, Muhammad Rabnawaz Khan 2 and Ristina Siti Sundari 3,4
Alzbeta Hegedusova
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Tomatoe is one of the most widely grown vegetable, so optimizing cultivation parameters is an important area. The other significance is that, unlike other vegetables, Cherry tomatoes are mostly eaten raw, so the bioactive ingredients contained in them do not degrade during processing.
Some comments about the manuscript:
The references are listed in two ways, some with the names of the authors (18,19, 48, 67), the majority with reference to the serial number. This should be standardized in the manuscript.
· 3.1 - Chlorophyll content - the first letter is missing.
· Line 183 - Fe was used in the form of what compound?
· Line 184 - borax acid, is it borax or boric acid?
· Line 184 - N and Mo were used in the form of what compound? Solution B definitely contains non-elemental N and Mo.
· The diagrams do not show the 3rd, in many cases the 2nd growing design. The font size is probably too big, so it doesn't fit on the figures, this needs to be decreased.
· It is difficult to see the differences on pyramid-shaped diagrams, it would be worthwhile to find another way of representation. This is also important because they can show the standard deviation of the results, because it is currently not visible anywhere. This needs to be replaced.
· In general, it can be said that a result should only be presented in one figure, two graphs are unnecessary (e.g. Figure 3, 5, etc.).
· Figure 3.2 shows images a and b, while the legend shows e and f.
· The figures are not numbered properly, e.g. the fruit diameter is Figure 4, but the text refers to figure 3 in the explanation.
· Figure 9. What can cause the shoot dry weight to be so low in screen house cultivation with 100 % ETC. The tendency is completely different from the others, which needs some explanation.
· The Discussion chapter is practically a second literature section. This is where you have to compare your own results with the literature in more detail, explain if they differ, etc. I recommend revising this chapter so that it also includes the results of your own measurements, supported by literature data.
Author Response
Point 1: The references are listed in two ways, some with the names of the authors (18,19, 48, 67), the majority with reference to the serial number. This should be standardized in the manuscript.
Response 1: All of the references have been cross checked and were been revised according to the format. The mentioned become 16, 19. 48, 67 have been revised accordingly.
Point 2: 3.1 - Chlorophyll content - the first letter is missing.
Response 2: 3.10. Chlorophyl Content -The first letter was missing in the spelling of chlorophyll, have been updated.
Point 3: Line 183 - Fe was used in the form of what compound?
Response 3: Fe was used in the form of ferrous sulfate, and have been updated in the line 184.
Point 4: Line 184 - borax acid, is it borax or boric acid?
Response 4: The applied form is boric acid, and has been updated in the manuscript (line 187).
Point 5: Line 184 - N and Mo were used in the form of what compound? Solution B definitely contains non-elemental N and Mo.
Response 5: The compound of N (NH4NO3) and Mo (Na2MoO4) used in the experiments have been added in the manuscript. Please view line 188.
Point 6: The diagrams do not show the 3rd, in many cases the 2nd growing design. The font size is probably too big, so it doesn't fit on the figures, this needs to be decreased.
Response 6: The font size have been updated and the graphs were made feasible for understanding each and every factors of the experiment.
Point 7: It is difficult to see the differences on pyramid-shaped diagrams, it would be worthwhile to find another way of representation. This is also important because they can show the standard deviation of the results, because it is currently not visible anywhere. This needs to be replaced.
Response 7: The data have been represented in another feasible one graphs. Moreover, the standard deviation have been removed as per suggestions from reviewer. The graphical representation have been revised overall.
Point 8: In general, it can be said that a result should only be presented in one figure, two graphs are unnecessary (e.g. Figure 3, 5, etc.).
Response 8: The graphs have been revised and presented the data in one figure, rather than two separate figures as suggested by reviewer.
Point 9: Figure 3.2 shows images a and b, while the legend shows e and f.
Response 9: The figure have been resize and make it proper on the page space.
Point 10: The figures are not numbered properly, e.g. the fruit diameter is Figure 4, but the text refers to figure 3 in the explanation.
Response 10: The figures numbers have been revised in the mentioned text in the results section. All of the numbered are properly mentioned in the text in the results.
Point 11: Figure 9. What can cause the shoot dry weight to be so low in screen house cultivation with 100 % ETC. The tendency is completely different from the others, which needs some explanation.
Response 11: Figure 9 becomes figure 11. The justification have been added in the discussion section. Adequate watering is essential to deliver nutrients and hydration to promote shoot growth. The cherry tomato cultivar Ruby's lower shoot dry weight under 100% ETC watering compared to 75% ETC and 50% may result from overwatering, limiting soil oxygen availability and impairing root activity. In contrast to a greenhouse or a rain shelter, a screen house is subject to harsh environmental conditions like rainfall, leading to a slower rate of shoot productivity. Inadequate watering might reduce shoot growth, whereas proper watering promotes healthy shoot elongation [25], [32].. Please view under the title 4.8. shoot dry weight, line 473-477.
Point 12: The Discussion chapter is practically a second literature section. This is where you have to compare your own results with the literature in more detail, explain if they differ, etc. I recommend revising this chapter so that it also includes the results of your own measurements, supported by literature data.
Response 12: The discussion chapter have been revised for supporting the relevant and updated literature. The discussion have been added according to the relevant literature of the title.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented scientific article presents the results after the application of different watering volumes and cultivation plan on the growth, yields and quality of Ruby cherry tomatoes. The study is an experimental survey using the RCBD factorial. The results are interesting and useful for growers, so I propose to publish the article after completing my comments.
My comments are:
- in the “Material and methods” chapter it is stated that the research took place from November 2022 to May 2023, but in figures 1 and 2 the data is only given from January.
- add the chlorophyll determination method to the Materials and methods chapter and specify whether the content of chlorophyll a or chlorophyll b, or their total content, was determined.
- in line 184, the formula of ammonium phosphate (NH4)2PO4 is correctly (NH4)3PO4.
Author Response
Point 1: - in the “Material and methods” chapter it is stated that the research took place from November 2022 to May 2023, but in figures 1 and 2 the data is only given from January.
Response 1: Yes the research took place from November 2022 to May 2023, the climate data of the experimental sites have been updated from November to May in the figures mentioned under the title “Observation of Weather within Research” line 221.
Point 2: - add the chlorophyll determination method to the Materials and methods chapter and specify whether the content of chlorophyll a or chlorophyll b, or their total content, was determined.
Response 2: The statement have been added regarding chlorophyll determination method in line 127-131. The leaf chlorophyll content was measured using a SPAD meter, a non-destructive method that provides an indirect measurement of total chlorophyll content. The SPAD meter measures a combination of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b levels without distinguishing between the two pigments. This approach provides a rapid assessment of overall leaf chlorophyll content.
Point 3: - in line 184, the formula of ammonium phosphate (NH4)2PO4 is correctly (NH4)3PO4.
Response 3: The formula has been revised and updated accordingly. The correct formula (NH4)3PO4 is mentioned in the line 186.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors took the suggestions into consideration and corrected the errors, so I recommend the article for acceptance.
