Evaluation of Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Four Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars at Different Drought Stress Levels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I acknowledge that the article has some merit, but not enough to warrant publication in Agronomy. The study has a predominantly metabolic focus, making it more suitable for Plants or similar journals, as it presents preliminary findings and the mechanisms discussed are already well-documented in the literature. To be relevant for Agronomy, the study should have been conducted under field conditions, simulating stress scenarios and linking the identified mechanisms to plant production.

Below are some comments to improve the manuscript's writing:

• The introduction is well-grounded; however, the paragraphs are lengthy and could be divided into smaller sections.
• The study's hypothesis and objectives should be clearly stated at the end of the introduction.
• The comparison of dry mass is questionable because each tested cultivar has a distinct growth pattern. Consequently, it is expected that one will develop more than the other, without necessarily affecting yield. This reinforces the need for the experiment to be conducted under field conditions or, at the very least, in a greenhouse, provided that yield was evaluated.
• The statistical analyses should be redone. The authors employed a factorial design (4 cultivars × 3 water regimes); therefore, the analyses should have been performed accordingly, considering factor interactions and evaluating each factor level within the levels of the others. Consequently, the entire results section needs to be revised.
• In the PCA analysis, did the authors group the different irrigation conditions to create confidence ellipses? If so, this is a critical mistake, as within each stress condition, cultivars may exhibit distinct relationships among variables.
• The conclusion section is overly long and largely reiterates the results section. The authors should rewrite it concisely, ensuring alignment with the study's objectives. Moreover, its length is inconsistent with the simplicity of the study conducted.

Author Response

Dear referee, thank you very much for your suggestions. I am sending the revision in pdf format as an attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Varieties is a botanical term, an agricultural variety should be referred to as a cultivar. This note applies to the entire text

Abstract: water scarcity should be replaced by 20% PEG. This last term for the degree of water deficit appears suddenly in the description of the results. The parameters listed in the work should be presented in such a way that square brackets are not used in the text, but round brackets. It is worth trying to indicate in the abstract and in the conclusions what physiological or biochemical parameter can be considered a marker of tomato resistance/sensitivity to drought stress.

Introduction: The first sentences regarding biotic and abiotic stresses in general are unnecessary. The authors should focus on the description of drought stress.

Materials and methods: As I have already mentioned, the term water scarcity should be avoided in the methodology and the second PEG concentration, i.e. 20%, should be provided. In addition, it would be good to calculate the water deficit as a percentage of the full water capacity of the substrate or provide the values ​​of the water potential of perlite. Keeping plant samples at -20ºC is probably not enough. Either they should be kept in liquid nitrogen or at -70 to -80 ºC. I understand that the authors will not change this at this time, but this is a note for future analyses. The methodology should specify how many repetitions all analyzes were performed.

Results: In the figures, replace water scarcity with 20% PEG. Figure 4. What does the abbreviation Pro mean - it was not described in the methodology. The figure descriptions lack the number of repetitions and what test was used to analyse the differences between means.

Conclusions should be more precise, fewer obvious statements, more specifics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences are written in a not very good style. I suggest you review the text with a native speaker, especially the abstract.

Author Response

Dear referee, thank you very much for your suggestions. Your suggestions were corrected one by one in the manuscript. In addition, it was supported by additional material. I am sending the revision in pdf format as an attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Although the article has been improved based on my suggestions, I still believe its relevance for publication in Agronomy is questionable. However, I have no further suggestions.

Author Response

Dear referee,
Thank you very much for all your suggestions and contributions to the manuscript. Please review the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript still contains many errors.

1. Abstract. I suggested that in the conclusions, one of the parameters studied should be identified as a physiological/biochemical marker of tomato resistance to drought stress. And such a conclusion should be included in the abstract.
2. The word varieties has still not been changed to cultivars.
3. The keywords should be listed alphabetically.
4. Line 9. There is a double bracket.
5. Line 62. Superoxide anion should be written O₂^{• –}
6. The unit mL should be changed to cm³ and nanomol to nM
7. The number of repetitions for each parameter analyzed is still missing. Sometimes there are 9 repetitions, sometimes 27, otherwise in the description of statistical methods, otherwise in the legend to the figures, there is no description in points 2.2.2; 2.3.1; 2.3.2; 2.3.3; 2.3.6.
8. What amount of seeds was sown into the pots for each cultivar?
9. There is no description of the water cutting method, what did it consist of? Was it an original method or did the authors follow some literature?
10. The discussion contains many repetitions of the description of the results and there are references to Figures or Tables, which should not be used in the discussion. There must be more polemics with other authors. It must be radically rebuilt.

Author Response

Dear referee,
Thank you very much for all your suggestions and contributions to the manuscript. Please review the appendix.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no more comments