Productivity and Quality Characteristics of Tomato Fruits (Solanum lycopersicum) Are Improved by the Application of a Green Seaweed (Ulva ohnoi)

Comments 1: [It is recommended that the following areas be given due consideration to enhance the study: firstly, the introduction should be expanded to include the biochemical mechanisms by which Ulva ohnoi influences plant growth]

Response 1: [We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included the biochemical mechanisms by which Ulva ohnoi influences plant growth in the Introduction section, page 2, paragraph 5 and lines 80–94].

Comments 2: [Secondly, the methodology should incorporate a preliminary statistical power analysis to ensure that the experimental design is robust enough to detect significant effects, if they exist].

Response 2: [Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, we conducted previously a statistical power analysis. In this case, the replication of 2 previous experiments and data aggregation (meta-analysis) were used to improve the power substantially, resulting in a number_fruits_plant of n =12. The file (Power analysis) with the results of the analysis is attached. The information was incorporate in statistical section, page 6, paragraph 1 and lines 218-221]. The Cohen’s statistical power analysis of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (three treatment groups, effect size 0.5, confidence level (α) of 95%, and N = 12 [individuals per group]) was evaluated using the ‘pwr.anova.test()’ function from the ‘pwr’ package in R software (version 4.4.3).

Comments 3: [thirdly, the results obtained require a more careful interpretation, particularly with regard to statistically significant differences].

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have accordingly, revised and modified carefully the data interpretation of results. In Results section (highlighted in blue) the changes are page 6, lines 241-244, 247-250, 253-256. Page 7, lines 257-260; page 9, 318-322; page 10 333-337; page 11,374, 380]

Comments 4: [and, the following discussion should include an expanded comparison with previous studies and explore the potential environmental effects of using Ulva ohnoi in sustainable agriculture].

 Response 4. Agree. We have modified the discussion section (highlighted in blue) to emphasize this point. Information was included to compare with previous studies. Also, information was included regarding the potential environmental effects of using Ulva ohnoi in sustainable agriculture, according to comments of the reviewer. Page 12, lines 420-425, 428-430; page 13, lines 434-437, 484-487; page 14, lines 495-498, 501-502 and 553-540; page 15, lines 541-545, 561-588].

Comments 5: [Finally, it is recommended that the conclusions provide a more concise synthesis of practical applications and future research directions].

Response 5. [Thank you for pointing this out. The conclusion was modified according to comments of the reviewer (highlighted in blue). Pages 14 -16].

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: [I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this manuscript; Notwithstanding, the language appears to be comprehensible. However, it is recommended that a professional language review be undertaken in order to ensure clarity and correctness].

Response 1: [The manuscript was corrected by a professional language review].

5. Additional clarifications

Comments 1: [It is recommended that the study be accepted with minor revisions, as it is both relevant and methodologically robust. However, it would benefit from improvements in writing clarity and a more in-depth exploration of the discussion to further enhance its impact].

Response 1: [The authors of the work appreciate the comments of the reviewers to improve the quality of the writing].

Comments 1: [The comments that follow might help improve the quality of your study:

Abstract In line 16, you should explain that the experiment was organized into three treatments, each with three replications, and that 36 tomatoes were potted individually. Instead of using tomato fruit in line 18, it would be more appropriate to state the name of the variety, which is Rio Fuego. It would be more appropriate to provide the concentration of seaweed suspension and extract in line 19. Ensure that the presentation of the results data is consistent, or provide it in the form of a number or on paper. As it can be found in line 20].

Response 1:  We agree with this comment. Therefore, in abstract was include appropriate information to emphasize this point (highlighted in yellow). Page 1, lines 16–22.

Comments 2: [Methodology. In preparing the seaweed extract, have you autoclaved the extract or distilled water? in line 95 assuming you autoclaved the extract after adding the powder to distilled water].

Response 2: [The powder seaweed suspension (SWS) was added to distilled water without being autoclaved, and the liquid seaweed extract (SWE) was prepared used distilled water and then autoclaved].

Comments 3: [Line 104: Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. "Rio Fuego" seeds were chosen in your study, it is better to briefly add some information about this tomato variety to provide the reader with the criteria behind selecting these materials. For instance: This species stands out for its compact growth, making it ideal for both small gardens and larger operations. With its firm structure and rich, deep red color, it's an excellent choice for preparing sauces, pastes, and other delectable foods. Rio Fuego is resistant to common diseases and adapts well to a variety of growth environments. With early maturity and powerful production potential, these seeds are an excellent choice for anyone looking to produce delicious tomatoes efficiently].

Response 3: [Agree. We have included information, according to the suggestion of the reviewer Pages 1 and 2 (Lines 43–49)].

Comments 4: [Utilize the number 36 instead of the number 35 on line 116; this is probably an error. It is more advisable to eliminate lines 122 to 124, as they are unnecessary. Alternatively, if they are available, provide the number of applications with a 15 or 7-day interval until the harvest point].

Response 4: Agree. The number 35 was modified to 36 (Page 4; Line 138) and information in lines 122 to 124 were eliminated. Also, the number applications were included in lines 142–144.

Comments 4: [Discussion. Pages 12-16. In lines 423-424, you obviously stated that SWS was discovered to contain a higher concentration of all the chemical compounds analyzed (anions, cations, and microelements), which was nearly twice as much as in SWE (Table 1). One possible explanation is that polyphenols are very vulnerable to heat degradation, which is one of the key contributors to their breakdown. This process is especially important for specific classes or subgroups of phenolic acids, which degrade at different rates depending on their structural features. Furthermore, the temperature utilized during extraction influences both the quantity and kind of polyphenols produced. Higher extraction temperatures can cause the degradation of some polyphenols while allowing the release of others that are more temperature-resistant. You might include this information briefly in your discussion as support. It is possible that the concentrations of chemicals were affected by the fact that you heated the extraction to 121°C in the present scenario].

Response 4: [Thank you for pointing this out. We have modified; accordingly, the discussion section was improved according to suggestions of reviewers].

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: