Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigated the effects of different calcium application rates and organic amendments on the growth and yield of four tomato genotypes in a high-calcium soil (4886 ppm). The research design is reasonable, divided into two cycles (shade-house and open-field conditions), exploring the roles of calcium levels and soil amendments respectively. The experimental data are substantial, the statistical analysis is rigorous, and the conclusions possess certain practical significance. The overall structure of the paper is clear, and the language is generally fluent. However, there are areas for improvement in the experimental design, method description, result interpretation, figure presentation, and discussion depth.

1.Major flaw in the overall experimental design: In the first year, the study compared two calcium levels (0% and 25%) under shade-house conditions and concluded that the "0% calcium level was superior." However, in the second year, only the 0% calcium level was selected, and a new factor  "soil amendment"  was introduced, with the experiment conducted under open-field conditions. This design causes a shift in the core scientific question between the two experimental cycles. The second-year experiment cannot answer the key question: "Under open-field conditions and with the application of amendments, is the optimal calcium level still 0%?" The experimental design lacks a coherent logical bridge, appearing as if two independent studies were forcibly combined.

2.Introduction of an unintended nitrogen variable in fertilization treatments: In the fertilization treatments, the non-calcium application treatment used less nitrate compared to the calcium application treatment. This inadvertently adds another experimental factor – different nitrogen application rates – which confounds the results.

3.Insufficient characterization of the compost amendment: Although the raw materials for the compost (chicken manure and sawdust) are described, key chemical composition data are lacking. For instance, what are the nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium contents of the compost itself? What is its C/N ratio? These components directly affect its ability to amend soil and provide nutrients. The lack of this data makes the experimental results difficult to replicate and interpret deeply.

4.Failure to adequately address calcium availability: The paper emphasizes the soil's "high calcium" content of 4886 ppm, but the EC value of 0.24 dS m⁻¹ indicates a low concentration of soluble salts, including plant-available calcium ions, in the soil solution. The paper fails to elucidate this specific soil environment characterized by "high total calcium but low soluble salts." This is precisely the key to understanding the calcium availability issue. Calcium availability depends not only on the total amount but more critically on its release process from soil particles into the solution, which is influenced by factors like pH, CEC, and moisture.

5.Non-standard formatting of tables and figures: The tables are not formatted as standard three-line tables. Some figures lack axis lines. In some charts, categories like "First, Second, Third, Fourth" are not clearly identified.

6.Superficial discussion regarding the negative effects of 25% calcium: The discussion attributes the negative effects of the 25% calcium treatment simplistically to "possibly blocking other nutrients," which remains speculative. It fails to conduct an in-depth analysis considering the key factor of soil pH (8.04). Under high pH conditions, not only is calcium availability itself affected, but the availability of various micronutrients (e.g., Fe, Zn, B, Mn) is also drastically reduced. High calcium application likely exacerbated these micronutrient deficiencies. Although foliar micronutrient supplementation is mentioned, it is not linked to the potential issues arising from high soil calcium and pH.

7.Oversimplified discussion on the mechanisms of amendment effects: The discussion primarily attributes the positive effects of the amendment to nutrient supply, overlooking other potential mechanisms. These include improving soil physical structure (breaking compaction, promoting root penetration), modulating microbial communities, and potentially enhancing moisture retention under open-field conditions. These mechanisms might be more important than mere nutrient supply in explaining the improvements in plant growth (height, stem diameter).

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the MS is relevant, the dataset is rich, and the experimental design is generally fine. However, several parts of the manuscript require clarification, restructuring, and language polishing before it can be considered for publication

1. The introduction is too long and contains too many details in agronomic aspects that would be more appropriate in the Methods section. For that, please avoid generalities and clarify what is new in the MS compared to previous studies and highlight the specific research needs your work fills.
2. Provide justification only 0% and 25% Ca levels were selected and why full recommended Ca levels were not tested
3. For compost, provide physicochemical properties (C/N ratio, pH, EC, nutrient content), if possible.
4. The transition between Year 1 (shade-house) and Year 2 (open field) lacks consistency.
5. The stat analysis should be revised. The MS repeatedly describes significant interactions but does not present interaction plots or simple-effect analysis
6. For year 2, you attribute increased yield to the amendment, but the amendment contains potassium and magnesium fertilizers in addition to compost. Clarify whether improvements result from organic matter, added nutrients, or both.
7. The number of tables is too much and difficult to read, simplify or move some tables to supplementary materials.
8. All figures lack axis labels, units, or error bars. Edit figure to improve figure quality and ensure all variables are clearly labelled.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial language editing to ensure clarity and scientific precision. Consider professional English editing or careful revision for grammar and syntax

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

article is well-prepared. However, I have some notes:

Introduction

- L73-77: these information should be part of methods, in my opinion. Hypothesis should be more general.

Methods

- methods are well-described

- I appreciate using of 4 tomato cultivars. Aspect of genotype is very important. Please, add short information about these cultivars and reason for their selection (random?; or are they the most grown cultivars in your region etc.)

• L139-147: how often irrigation was applied (intervals)
• L 156: correct if fertigation
•  
• what about plant protection: insects or diseases – was it realised?

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised most of the content as requested, but some issues remain, such as the lack of error bars in all figures. Recommend acceptance after minor revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we reiterate our gratitude for your thorough evaluation of this manuscript. In this revised version, the necessary adjustments have been made in accordance with your recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some improvements were added to the manuscript. However, several concerns still need to be addressed. As reviewer, I found it difficult for readers in some sections.

• In the introduction the author could clearly explain why this problem of Ca physiology and soil interactions is important at a global or regional scale (for example: prevalence of alkaline soils, tomato economic importance, or challenges in arid regions).

• The Discussion mixes the effects of calcium treatments, genotype responses, and compost effects without clear transitions or subsections. This makes it difficult for readers to follow the logical progression of results. The authors should consider organizing the section into thematic subsections (e.g., Calcium effects, Genotype responses, Compost effects, Implications for nutrient management).
• Some arguments appear multiple times (example, excessive Ca reducing micronutrient availability, genotype influencing fruit quality, fertigation benefits). The authors should streamline these points to avoid redundancy.
• The number of tables (18) is too high. It would be appropriate to move some of them to the supplementary materials.
• Figures 3, 4, 7, and 8 still need improvement, particularly regarding the positioning of the labels.
• Missing axes in some graphs (e.g., Fig. 8) should be corrected.
• The conclusion looks like the text, is not conclusion. Please rewrite and sumrize

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial language editing to ensure clarity and scientific precision. Consider professional English editing or careful revision for grammar and syntax

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript, addressing all your comments and have made substantial improvements to the English writing. We are at your complete disposal to make any further adjustments you deem necessary for its publication.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The letter in the figures still need revision

The first, second, third, and fourth-quality fruits should follow the numerical order, in the figures first is followed by fourth. It makes the graph hard to red

The discussion should not be devided in section, it lokks like results section

The MS needs English revision

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires substantial language editing to ensure clarity and scientific precision. Consider professional English editing or careful revision for grammar and syntax

Author Response

Estimado revisor 

Todas las figuras se han revisado para corregir las letras y el etiquetado. Las categorías de calidad de las frutas ahora siguen un orden numérico consistente (primera, segunda, tercera y cuarta calidad), lo que mejora la claridad y la legibilidad de los gráficos.
Además, la sección de Discusión se ha reestructurado y ya no está dividida en subsecciones, para diferenciarla claramente de la sección de Resultados y mejorar el flujo de interpretación.
Finalmente, todo el manuscrito se ha sometido a una revisión exhaustiva del inglés para mejorar la gramática, la claridad y la legibilidad general