Effect of Biodegradable Mulch and Different Synthetic Mulches on Growth and Yield of Field-Grown Small-Fruited Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL REMARKS

The manuscript “Effect of biodegradable mulch and different synthetic mulches  on growth and yield of field-grown small-fruited tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)” is scientifically interesting but there are some major problems. One of them is that the experimental design used in ANOVA was not clearly reported and it was not clear whether the Years were considered as a factor in the experimental design itself (some figures would suggest yes). The significance of the interactions, if any, was not clearly evidenced (e.g., both main effects and interactions with Years are commented for the same parameters; in this context, figures 5 and 6 should be presumably deleted). Major efforts should be also made to report and discuss results, making in evidence, separately, when possible, the effect of mulching materials or of mulching color on all measured parameters (when prevails one or the other). At present, there is a great confusion about these aspects that did not help authors to write conclusive remarks (in the conclusion paragraph, they again reported results).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Line 18. “7.2%” is on average? Please, specify

Line 20. "with respect to......." should be added after “leaf count”.

Line 21. "with respect to ......." (the control?). Please, add here

Line 23. “ (P, K, DPPH radical scavenging, vitamin C etc.)” should be added after “fruits”.

Line 30. Some data about areas harvested or yield, at global level or at countries/regions/special groups basis, should be reported here (i.e., FAOSTAT data)

Line 52. Polyethylene should be changed with "PE"

Line 53. "(PP)" should be added after "polypropylene"

Lines 57-59. These sentences should be moved at line 49, before Amare and Desta

Lines 44-70. The sentences from line 44 to line 70, should be reorganized. First of all, color effects, materials effects and then the combination of both should be reported. In the present form, there is some confusion when reading the paragraph

Line 84. Please, check the titles of paragraphs (journal template)

Lines 104-105. A reference (i.e., NRCS Soils Classification.......) and some details on characteristics of that kind of soil should be inserted after "class IIIa"

Lines 145-147. This part should be moved at the end of Materials and methods paragraph, preferably in a separate sub paragraph titled "Experimental design and statistical analyses". The experimental design must be clearly described. How did authors consider Years?

Lines 164-166. Each instrument type, used for the analyses, should be moved after each analysis’s description

Lines 167-170. The aim of the experiment should be moved at the end of Introduction (at line 83)

Lines 212-221. The influence of the experimental Year should be reported for each parameter

Lines 229-231. These sentences should be moved after line 232

Lines 234-236. These sentences should be moved after line 237. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (a)

Lines 241-244. These sentences should be moved after line 245. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (b)

Line 244. What about span? It is not explained in the M and M at present

Lines 247-249, These sentences should be moved after line 250. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (b)

Lines 272.274. These sentences should be moved after line 275. It should be clearly stated in the caption of the figure what are the number above the histogram bars (average of years, presumably). In addition, why did authors show averaged values of years if data of the same parameters and of each year were already showed separately, suggesting that there was an interaction with Year, and it was significant?

Lines 332-335. These sentences should be moved after line 336

Lines 354-357. These sentences should be moved after line 358

Line 358. What cluster? Is it the average values of different clusters?

Several other minor imperfections are present along the manuscript

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments:

The manuscript “Effect of biodegradable mulch and different synthetic mulches  on growth and yield of field-grown small-fruited tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)” is scientifically interesting but there are some major problems.

Response:

Thank you for comment. We are checked manuscript carefully point by point

Comments:

One of them is that the experimental design used in ANOVA was not clearly reported and it was not clear whether the Years were considered as a factor in the experimental design itself (some figures would suggest yes).

Response:

The field experiment was conducted for 3 years, as indicated in the ‘Methodology and Research Procedures’ chapter. The years of research were taken into account as a first experimental factor. This information was added in new version. “The statistical analysis performed concerned the influence of weather conditions (years of research), type of mulch, and the interaction: years x type of mulch.”

Comments:

The significance of the interactions, if any, was not clearly evidenced (e.g., both main effects and interactions with Years are commented for the same parameters; in this context, figures 5 and 6 should be presumably deleted).

Response:

In the figures 5 and 6 present tomato morphological features data as an average from the years of study (2014-2016) to present the effect of mulch on tomato plant morphology. In our opinion, this is valuable information and we believe it should remain in the manuscript.

Comments:

Major efforts should be also made to report and discuss results, making in evidence, separately, when possible, the effect of mulching materials or of mulching color on all measured parameters (when prevails one or the other).

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

At present, there is a great confusion about these aspects that did not help authors to write conclusive remarks (in the conclusion paragraph, they again reported results).

Response:

Thank you for comments. Conclusion corrected

Comments:

Line 18. “7.2%” is on average? Please, specify

Response:

Thank you. Changed:

Compared to the control, the use of black, red, and aluminum PE films and brown PP resulted in a 7.2% increase in plant height

Comments:

Line 20. "with respect to......." should be added after “leaf count”.

Response:

Thank you. Added:

Comments:

Line 21. "with respect to ......." (the control?). Please, add here

Response (Line 20 and 21):

Corrected

Comments:

Line 23. “ (P, K, DPPH radical scavenging, vitamin C etc.)” should be added after “fruits”.

Response:  

The information in this sentence is correct. On the biodegradable foil, only the content of potassium, lycopene was the highest and polyphenols was one of the highest.

Comments:

Line 30. Some data about areas harvested or yield, at global level or at countries/regions/special groups basis, should be reported here (i.e., FAOSTAT data)

Response:

New information was added (from FAOSTAT).

World tomato production is 192.3 million tons. This species is cultivated on over 5.4 million ha globally and the average yield is 35.5 t ha^-1. In Europe it occupies 395.5 thousand ha, the production is about 21.5 million tons and the average yield is 54.3 t ha^-1. In Poland it is cultivated on 8.5 thousand ha, the harvest is around 0.9 million tons, the yield is 103.9 t ha^-1. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

Comments:

Line 52. Polyethylene should be changed with "PE"

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Line 53. "(PP)" should be added after "polypropylene"

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Lines 57-59. These sentences should be moved at line 49, before Amare and Desta

Response:

Sentences moved

Comments:

Lines 44-70. The sentences from line 44 to line 70, should be reorganized. First of all, color effects, materials effects and then the combination of both should be reported. In the present form, there is some confusion when reading the paragraph.

Response:

The sentences corrected. New version:

In temperate climates, synthetic mulches play a significant role in enhancing growth conditions for thermophilic species belonging to the Solanaceae and Cucurbitaceae families. The effectiveness of such mulches is influenced by the color of the mulch material composition, thickness, and color of the mulch. The color of the mulching film deter-mines its photoselective properties, thereby influencing the microclimate surrounding the cultivated plants. Additionally, it impacts soil temperature both at and below the surface. Mulches also contribute to optimizing the radiation balance, which depends on the type of material used. They can transmit, absorb, or reflect portions of solar radiation, directly influencing above-ground plant growth. Kader et al. [8] confirmed that mulching is an effective water conservation technique, reducing soil evaporation. Furthermore, Amare and Desta [6] emphasized that the color of the mulch significantly affects soil moisture levels and its water retention capacity. The color of the (mulch) mulching film determines its photoselective properties, thereby influencing the microclimate surrounding the cultivated plants. Additionally, it impacts soil temperature both at and below the surface. Bucki and Siwek [7] reported that in temperate climates, black polyethylene PE film raises daytime soil temperature by an average of 3–4°C, while polypropylene (PP) fabric achieves an increase of 1–2°C. Amare and Desta [6] observed that black and blue polyethylene (PE) films tend to increase soil temperature, whereas light colored and white films reduce it. Amare and Desta [6] observed that black and blue polyethylene (PE) films tend to increase soil temperature, whereas light-colored and white films reduce it. Bucki and Siwek [7] reported that in temperate climates, black polyethylene film raises daytime soil temperature by an average of 3–4°C, while polypropylene fabric achieves an increase of 1–2°C. Kader et al. [8] confirmed that mulching is an effective water conservation technique, reducing soil evaporation. Furthermore, Amare and Desta [6] emphasized that the color of the mulch significantly affects soil moisture levels and its water retention capacity.

Mulches also contribute to optimizing the radiation balance, which depends on the type of material used. They can transmit, absorb, or reflect portions of solar radiation, directly influencing above-ground plant growth.  The factors mentioned above directly influence the above-ground growth of plants. Experimental studies have demonstrated that tomato plants cultivated on black or white mulching films exhibit an increased number of leaves and longer stems compared to those grown on red or silver mulching films [9]. Mutoro [10] found that using white mulching film for tomatoes enhanced plant height and the number of stems. Research conducted by Bhujbal et al. [11] revealed that specific mulch colors, such as black on silver film, silver on black film, and transparent film, promote flowering, fruiting, and yield while simultaneously reducing the incidence of pest-induced plant diseases. The accelerated development of the above-ground parts of vegetables grown with mulching directly translates into improved yields, a trend observed across multiple species and climate zones. Adamczewska-Sowińska et al. [12] demonstrated that the use of black polyethylene PE film mulch significantly increased eggplant yield in temperate climates.

Comments:

Line 84. Please, check the titles of paragraphs (journal template).

Response:

Changed

Comments:

Lines 104-105. A reference (i.e., NRCS Soils Classification.......) and some details on characteristics of that kind of soil should be inserted after "class IIIa".

Response:

Added: Soil characteristic properties inserted. Please look lines 137-142.

Comments: -

Lines 145-147. This part should be moved at the end of Materials and methods paragraph, preferably in a separate sub paragraph titled "Experimental design and statistical analyses". The experimental design must be clearly described. How did authors consider Years?

Response:

Paragraph created and part moved in the end of Materials and methods

Comments:

Lines 164-166. Each instrument type, used for the analyses, should be moved after each analysis’s description.

Response:

Modified

Comments:

Lines 167-170. The aim of the experiment should be moved at the end of Introduction (at line 83).

Response:

Experiment aim moved

Comments:

Lines 212-221. The influence of the experimental Year should be reported for each parameter.

Response:

Thank you for comments. New table (table 1) added

Comments:

Lines 229-231. These sentences should be moved after line 232.

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Lines 234-236. These sentences should be moved after line 237. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (a).

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Lines 241-244. These sentences should be moved after line 245. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (b).

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Line 244. What about span? It is not explained in the M and M at present.

Response:

Thank you for comments. The correct information was given in the materials and methods (lines 176-177) “lateral spread”. The translation in the figures was incorrect. In the revised version it was corrected.

Comments:

Lines 247-249, These sentences should be moved after line 250. Please, check the lack of letters in the graph (b).

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Lines 272.274. These sentences should be moved after line 275. It should be clearly stated in the caption of the figure what are the number above the histogram bars (average of years, presumably). In addition, why did authors show averaged values of years if data of the same parameters and of each year were already showed separately, suggesting that there was an interaction with Year, and it was significant?

Response:

Sentence moved

In the title of Figure 5. It is stated that this is the average from 2014 – 2015

Figure 5 presents the effect of mulch type on tomato plant height, on average for the years of the study. In statistical analysis was the significance of the interaction of weather conditions in each year and mulch type (significant interaction). Additionally authors wanted to emphasize that the effect of individual mulching types on tomato plant height was significant.

Comments:

Lines 332-335. These sentences should be moved after line 336.

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Lines 354-357. These sentences should be moved after line 358

Response:

Corrected

Comments:

Line 358. What cluster? Is it the average values of different clusters?

Response:

Thank you for comments.

New sentence added (Lines 168-170): “The average number of fruits and average fruit weight (g) from each cluster intended for each harvest were assessed.

Comments:

Several other minor imperfections are present along the manuscript.

Response:

Corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 This article represents a significant endeavor. Covering measures are widely employed in global agricultural production, including fruits, vegetables, and tea, as crucial strategies for increasing yield and enhancing quality. However, the excessive use of plastic products inevitably exerts greater pressure on the environment. This manuscript explores the application of biodegradable mulch in vegetable cultivation, constituting a timely and scientific work. Nevertheless, the results of this manuscript fall below my expectations. On one hand, the related work on mulch degradation has not been conducted. On the other hand, the data handling and figure preparation in the article lack scientific rigor.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Need to improve.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comments:

This article represents a significant endeavor. Covering measures are widely employed in global agricultural production, including fruits, vegetables, and tea, as crucial strategies for increasing yield and enhancing quality. However, the excessive use of plastic products inevitably exerts greater pressure on the environment. This manuscript explores the application of biodegradable mulch in vegetable cultivation, constituting a timely and scientific work. Nevertheless, the results of this manuscript fall below my expectations. On one hand, the related work on mulch degradation has not been conducted. On the other hand, the data handling and figure preparation in the article lack scientific rigor

Response:

Thank you for comments. We are checked manuscript carefully point by point

Comments:

1. The author's grammar requires revision by an English professional. For instance, the sentence "The tomato is one of the most important horticultural species in the world. Its relatively easy cultivation and the ability to choose from thousands of registered varieties make it suitable for commercial production by both small and large producers. Due to its various applications, tomato varieties can be divided into those intended for the fresh market or for processing. Varieties for direct consumption can be grown both in greenhouses and in open fields." should be transformed into "The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), a member of the nightshade family, stands as a paramount horticultural species globally. Its cultivation is notably facile, and the plethora of thousands of registered varieties facilitates its adaptability for commercial cultivation by both smallholder and large-scale producers alike. The tomato's diverse applications have led to a classification system that distinguishes between varieties destined for fresh market consumption and those intended for processing purposes. Varieties earmarked for direct consumption are cultivated in both protected environments, such as greenhouses, and in open-field settings."

Response:

Thank you for suggestion changing and proposal. Manuscript English grammar improve

Comments:

2. The research on biodegradable mulch is a highlight of the manuscript, and the author has conducted experiments for three years, yet I have not seen any images or data related to the mulch. Over three years, is there a significant difference between biodegradable mulch and conventional mulch?

Response:

Thank you for comments.

New sentences was added

Lines 350-353:

The use of Fbio mulch ensured a similar condition of the plants as in the other mulches. The exception was the height of the plants, which was among the smallest in both measurement terms, and the number of leaves in August.

Lines 413-416:

Tomato cultivation on Fbio, the marketable yield of ‘Intrigo’ fruit constituted an aver-age of 67.1% of the total yield. The total and marketable yield was lower by 16.4% and 18.8%, respectively, compared to the highest yield obtained from black PP.

Lines 455-456:

On the Fbio mulch, the number of fruits per cluster was at the same level as in the control.

Comments:

3. The author's description of the experimental process lacks some crucial information, such as how many replicates were conducted for each treatment?

Response:

We disagree with Reviewer comments. All information about field experiment was included in lines 119-136. Number of replication given in line 124.

Comments:

4. For all the tabular data, we have not seen any standard errors, nor error bars, making it impossible to assess whether the variance significance is correct.

Response:

Bar errors added for all figures.

Data presented in each table were subjected to statistical analysis. Homogeneous groups were marked accordingly and descriptions were provided below the tables. For example, below Table 1 “The same letters mark values belonging to the same homogeneous groups. determined on the basis of statistical analysis for α=0.05. *Capital letters refer to: years, **lower letters refer to type of mulch.”

Comments:

5. Regarding the author's Figures, I would like to see a thorough revision. (1) Standard errors are missing; (2) Some figures lack analysis of variance significance; (3) The text in the figures should have a uniform format; (4) In terms of analysis, I believe the focus should be on the differences between treatments within the same year, with inter-annual differences further analyzed using two-way analysis; (5) The figure titles should be placed before the annotations; (6) Some figures contain numerical values, while others do not; please standardize the format, and it is suggested to remove all numerical values.

Response:

Figures modify regarding the reviewer comments.

Comments:

6. Conclusion. The conclusion of the article should be a summary and outlook of the research findings, rather than a repetition of descriptions from the results section. A complete revision is recommended.

Response:

Thank you for comments. Conclusion corrected

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The most important changes requested were done and the manuscript was substantially improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I saw that the author spent great efforts to thoroughly revise the manuscript. Although some parts in the experimental design still did not meet my expectations, overall, this manuscript has reached a level where acceptance can be considered. I hope the author can fully consider my previous suggestions in the next step of work, because those are the aspects that agricultural production pays more attention to.