Assessing Quantitative Criteria for Characterization of Quality Categories for Grafted Watermelon Seedlings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the submitted manuscript fit within the general scope of the Journal. The experiment deal with an important topic such as vegetable grafting the study is an applied research with some interest to the scientific community but especially extension specialists and growers. The authors aimed to evaluate to set critical limits of quanti and qualitative measurements for grafted  watermelon  seedlings’    as  well  as  to  propose the  most  accurate  and  convenient 
among them for application by the vegetable industry and nursery.

The experiment was well conducted and the experimental design sounds and the sata set presented is quite acceptable. I have some minor concerns before publications:

1) In the Introduction section several important review papers dealing with grafting should be cited and commented especially when the authors state that grafted vegetables can mitigate the detrimental effects of abiotic as well as biotic stress. For instance the following reviews and research papers should be reported Lee et al. (2010)Louws et al. (2010) on biotic stress, Schwarz et al. (2010) and Savvas et al. (2010) on abiotic stress these four reviews were published in the Special Issue of Scientia Horticulturae. Other important works Colla et al. (2013) on salinity and cucumber in Scientia Horticulturae, Kumar et al. (2015) on Frontiers in Plant Science on heavy metal tolerance.

2) I urge the authors to merge the Results and Discussion section in order to avoid redundancy since the experimental design is quite simple.

3) the conclusion section should be more exhaustive and should be re-written with simple take-home messages.

The manuscript could be accpeted for publication after the minor revisions as stated above.

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer 1

1) In the Introduction section several important review papers dealing with grafting should be cited and commented especially when the authors state that grafted vegetables can mitigate the detrimental effects of abiotic as well as biotic stress. For instance the following reviews and research papers should be reported Lee et al. (2010)Louws et al. (2010) on biotic stress, Schwarz et al. (2010) and Savvas et al. (2010) on abiotic stress these four reviews were published in the Special Issue of Scientia Horticulturae. Other important works Colla et al. (2013) on salinity and cucumber in Scientia Horticulturae, Kumar et al. (2015) on Frontiers in Plant Science on heavy metal tolerance.

Response: References were added in the introduction section, as suggested.

 

2) I urge the authors to merge the Results and Discussion section in order to avoid redundancy since the experimental design is quite simple.

Response: We decided that “Results” and “Discussion” should constitute two separate sections since we tested a significant number of parameters, as well as because the two time intervals led to different quality categories and we feel that it should be clear to the reader.

 

3) the conclusion section should be more exhaustive and should be re-written with simple take-home messages.

Response: Rewritten according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the comments and suggestions in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to reviewers’ comments

Reviewer 2

·       Line 20. 'shoot/root ratio' or 'shoot-to-root ratio' Please unify the expression.

Response: The term was corrected to root-to-shoot (R/S) ratio throughout the manuscript.

 

·       Line 63. repeated at the end of this sentence.

Response: Sentence was corrected.

 

·       Line 66. Please unified 'plastic' or 'polystyrene'

Response: Plastic trays were used for the production of scion and rootstock seedlings, while polystyrene trays were used for grafted seedlings.

 

·       Line 69. Please add product information.

Response: The chamber was custom build by the nursery company (Agris S.A.).

 

·       Line 70. Suggest to move the germination part to 2.2 & change the title of 2.2 to 'Germination, grafting, healing, and acclimatization'.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Line 70. Check if the description are correct or not.

Response: The description was changed for better clarification.

 

·       Line 72. Add full name of HPS & add product information.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Line 73. 1. Please describe the reason of supplementary lighting was used only for the scion watermelon.

2. Please add the supplementary lighting time and the photoperiod of natural light.

Response: Necessary information’s were added in the manuscript.

 

·       Line 77. Do you mean cutting off the roots?

Response: Yes, root system was completely cut off which is a commonly practiced technique for Cucurbita moschata.

 

·       Line 85. As mentioned earlier, 'healing and acclimatization of grafted seedlings was achieved after 7 days' so  What do you mean by 'down to 89% after 7 days'?

Response: It is now clarified in the manuscript (lines 96-98).

 

·       Line 85. Please add product information.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Line 104. Dry weight or fresh weight ratio?

Response: We calculated the dry weight ratio. It is now clarified in the manuscript.

 

·       Line 108. Should be: (model, company name, city name, country) such as (CR-400 Chroma Meter, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan).

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Line 126. As mentioned in the DQI calculation method before, is it precise if the shoot height showed significant difference but DQI has no differences

Response: It is possible since the DQI calculation is based in 4 parameters and not only total height.

 

·       Line 198. Need references.

Response: Reference was added.

 

·       Line 200. ‘Two quality categories derived at 7 days after grafting & three quality categories derived at 14 days after grafting’

The author mentioned that the quality categorizing was assisted by experienced personnel, but no standard basis or reference have been mentioned in M&M or discussion.  The criteria for seedling quality categorizing needs to be explained

Response: An explanation was added (lines 106-108).

 

·       Line 208. Please add the intention for the measurement of colorimetric parameters and discuss the results.

Response: An explanation was added (lines 106-108) while colorimetric results were better discussed.

 

·       Line 210. The authors measured a lot of data on cotyledons, but some explanations & references to the importance of cotyledons in watermelon seedlings are missing

Response: An explanation was added (lines 106-108).

 

·       Line 220. Please use it consistently. Grafted Citrulus lanatus or grafted watermelon.

Response: The term was corrected to ‘grafted watermelon’ throughout the manuscript.

 

·       Line 250. 1. There are certainly differences between different cultivars of watermelon. Therefore, the author's conclusion should indicate the cultivar name.

2. The number of leaves & specific leaf weight are also important indices to measure the quality of seedlings.

Response: 1 Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions. 2 In the case of grafted watermelon, leaf number is stable at 7 or 14 days after grafting, forming 2 and 3 leaves respectively. Regarding specific leaf weight, we calculated two seedling quality indices (DW/L and DQI) and we assume that they are sufficient for our current study.

 

·       Table 1, line 97. Should be center in this table cell.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Table 2, line 138. Recommended to use the three-line table that is commonly used in the article.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Table 2, line 138. All decimal points should be aligned

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Table 3 label, line 144. h*？ There may be a typo.

Response: Yes, it was a typo and now it is corrected.

 

·       Table 3, line 143. Recommended to use the three-line table that is commonly used in the article.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Table 3, line 143. What is a*/b*? Please add the description

Response: Descriptions for a* and b* were added to the table labels, as well as in the manuscript.

 

·       Table 4, line 176. Recommended to use the three-line table that is commonly used in the article.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Table 5, line 183. Recommended to use the three-line table that is commonly used in the article.

Response: Corrected according to the reviewer suggestions.

 

·       Figure 1, line 165. Why use different statistical methods for A & B?

Response: Data measured at 7 days (A) after grafting were analyzed using the t-test, since at that time point the seedlings were grouped at only two quality categories (“optimum” and “acceptable”). Data measured at 14 days (B) after grafting were analyzed using ANOVA, since at that time point the seedlings were grouped at three quality categories (“optimum”, “acceptable” and “not acceptable”). In this case, mean comparisons were conducted using the Scott-Knott procedure because it does not present any overlapping in its grouping results. In order to obtain quality indices that segregate the different quality categories overlapping results between groups must not be present.