Nutrient Uptake of Two Semidomesticated Jaltomata Schltdl. Species for Their Cultivation

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Abstract. Write where the study was carried out and the period of experimentation. Some recorded macro and micronutrient concentration values may also be included.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The recommendations were addressed, the place of the study was carried out and the period of experimentation, and macro and micronutrient concentration values were added. Page number: 1; paragraph: 1; line: 14-23

Comments 2:

Materials and Methods. I recommend entering these part immediately after Line 65 (2. Materials

and Methods). Write some distinct characteristics that differentiate the two species studied.

Response 2:

Thank you for pointing this out about entering this part immediately after Line 65, but the document is written taking into account the Plants journal template. We are not sure if it could be changed

As for the distinct characteristics that differentiate the two species studied, they were added. Page number: 14; paragraph: 6; line: 432

Comments 3:

The numbering will change throughout the manuscript (2. Results will be written 3. Results; 3. Discussions will be written 4. Discussions etc... ).

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out about changing the manuscript numbering, but the document is written taking into account the Plants journal template. We are not sure if it could be changed.

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

The authors did not address the impact of environmental stress, genotype-environment interactions, and soil and climate specifics, resulting in a major news deficiency.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. These characteristics are important, however they were not considered because it was a research under controlled conditions.

Comments 2:

The authors should make additions to the description of the work and expand on the anatomical studies that should be conducted to determine the behavior of both Jaltomata species at high levels of Molybdenum uptake (Mo).

Response 2:

Thank you for pointing this out. Recommendations were taken into account. Page number: 13; paragraph: 2; line: 370-372

Comments 3:

The authors could expand the discussion on the possibility of relating the obtained results to field conditions, taking into account the peculiarities of these conditions and the need to adapt fertilization programs.

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. It was a first approximation to determine the nutrient requirements of both species, because these species are semi-domesticated and are more efficient in the use of nutrients, but we added information about the characteristics of the traditional production systems in Mexico, and the importance of using the information to carry out fertilizations for field conditions.

Page numbers: 1, 14 and 16; paragraphs: 2, 4 and 8; lines: 40-44; 421-425 and 518-519.