Effect of Pre- and Postharvest Chitosan and Calcium Applications on the Yield and Major Biochemical Qualities of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)
, S. M. Mashiur Rahman Nayeem 1, Quazi Forhad Quadir 1, Shaila Sharmin 2, Phalguni Das 1, Tasnuva Jahan Moury 1, Laila Arafat Sathi 1, Ronzon Chandra Das 1 and Md. Harun Or Rashid 3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe necessary corrections are in the attached file. You should add standard errors to the data in the table. Also, when explaining your results, all of your values should have standard errors. There are errors in the order of your references. You should correct these as well.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to ask the authors to consider the following points:
The title is too long and needs to be shortened. Suggested title: 'The effect of preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield parameters and the effect of postharvest chitosan treatment on the biochemical quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.).'
Line 18: Please revise this line for clarity.
The treatments are not clearly defined in the abstract. Clearer descriptions of experimental treatments are required.
Ensure that the keywords in the list differ from those in the title.
Line 52: Please replace But unfortunately with 'However' to achieve a more formal tone.
In paragraph 2, please revise to eliminate unnecessary repetition regarding the properties of chitosan.
Line 59: Several studies are mentioned, but only one is referenced. Please provide an appropriate citation for each study mentioned.
Line 65: What should be changed in the interior? is unclear and needs to be clarified.
Line 104: Please remove the ‘western side of the'.
Line 105: Please provide specific geographical coordinates and location details.
Throughout this section, single-digit numbers are presented in both written and numerical forms (e.g. lines 122, 113 and 120). Choose one format and use it consistently.
Please clarify whether the control plants were sprayed with distilled water.
In Section 2.4, please specify the exact dates, growth periods and frequency of foliar spray applications.
The number of samples per treatment is unclear for several measurements. Please specify the exact sample size for each parameter.
For postharvest treatments, please clarify whether foliar spraying was performed immediately after harvest.
Ensure that all abbreviations are defined at their first use. For example, define 20 DAPS in line 151 before using the abbreviation.
Line 226: Correct 'Dunkan's' to 'Duncan's'.
Consider why a factorial experimental design was not employed, as this would enable the main and interaction effects to be assessed more effectively.
Table 1: Please clarify how many harvest stages are included in the yield calculations. The reported yield per hectare for tomatoes appears unusually low. Verify that the calculations based on plants per hectare, fruits per plant, and fruit weight align with the reported yields.
Lines 303–307: Please check "All biochemical quality parameters showed statistical insignificance, suggesting that pre-harvest treatments may not significantly affect the examined attributes".
Please confirm that all the biochemical quality parameters in lines 303–307 were statistically insignificant. Pre-harvest treatments may not significantly influence the examined attributes.
In section 3.1.5 (lines 289–292), there is an inconsistency in the statistical reporting. The text states that C, T2, T8 and T6 are statistically comparable, but Table 1 shows different letters to indicate significance: T2 (4654a), T8 (4504ab) and T6 (4460abc), indicating significant differences.
However, in the table: T2 (4654a), T8 (4504ab) and T6 (4460abc). Different letters indicate significant differences.
Ensure that the presentation of results is consistent across sections, particularly between the Results, Discussion and Final Conclusions sections.
In Table 1, many treatments in the Fruit length column share the same letters (a and b), which may suggest that the statistical discrimination is insufficient.
Define wt in Table 1 or spell out the full term in the table caption.
Provide the full terms for the abbreviations CV and LSD in Table 1.
Use either the chemical symbol (Ca) or the full term (calcium) consistently throughout the manuscript.
Define the x-axis in all figures and include treatment definitions in figure captions (e.g. Figure 2).
The quality of the figures requires improvement.
Complete descriptions and legends must be provided for all tables and figures. Define all abbreviations used.
Explain what the bars and letters
Lines 415–416 mention C0T2 and C2T6, but do not explain the other treatments.
Clarify whether shrinkage is measured as a percentage.
Figure 6 shows that the p-values at 7 and 20 days (20 DAPS) appear identical (p₁=0.000, p₂=0.963, p₁₂=0.999), which seems to be an unusual repetition of the 7-day values. Please verify these statistics. Add significance letters (a, b, c, d) to the columns in the graphs for the parameters showing statistical significance.
Lines 474–477: The same negative relationships are described repeatedly (e.g. increased vitamin C, decreased shrinkage and lycopene/sugar). Avoid redundancy.
The Correlations among the Analyzed Parameters section require complete revision in order to resolve the statistical inconsistencies.
Line 576: Change chitosan therapy to chitosan treatment for appropriate terminology.
Eliminate repetitive content throughout the conclusions.
The positive effects of chitosan are mentioned unnecessarily multiple times.
The first paragraph of the Conclusions section is excessively long and should be divided into shorter, more focused paragraphs.
I kindly invite the authors to check the manuscript, as there are some errors relating to punctuation and a lack of consistency (e.g. spaces between numbers and units).
The style of the references is not uniform.
General revisions to the English are suggested.
My recommendation is 'Major Revision'.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGeneral revisions to the English are suggested.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle” Preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield and yield attributes and postharvest application of chitosan on major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”
The title of the paper is not suitable, is too long, “and” used too much
The treatments were applied after fruit initiation, while they increased fruit number. How is it possible? Which mechanism maybe involved in such increase?
Figure 2 is referred to a qualitative trait, which is not suitable for variance analysis. Just report frequency values for such trait
The correlation is better to calculated for mean of trait in 3 observations
The discussion is not accepted, it looks like a literature review. For none of the traits the mechanism involved in difference is not presented
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite the interesting topic and potential use in postharvest quality management, the manuscript "Preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield and yield attributes and postharvest application of chitosan on major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)" is a nice work to explore new treatments for post harvest quality improvement.
There are few suggestions to improve the readability and acceptability amongst the audience.
The title of the manuscript needs to be revised as the scientific name of the tomato has been changed long back, also the chitosan has been used after harvesting the fruits where as in title it is at both places like Pre and Post harvest treatments.
There are several advancements that have occured in the case of quality assurance and consumer preference, however in the present manuscript only old techniques has been used.
Line No. 340-360 In the method material the visual quality score was measured at 7, 14 and 20 However in the result section visual quality has been presented for 14 and 20 DAPS.
The work has been well executed and nicely presented in the manuscript but there are several similar type of publications are available by other group.
For example
Said A. Shehata, Said Z. Abdelrahman, Mona M. A. Megahed, Emad A. Abdeldaym, Mohamed M. El-Mogy, Karima F. Abdelgawad, Extending Shelf Life and Maintaining Quality of Tomato Fruit by Calcium Chloride, Hydrogen Peroxide, Chitosan, and Ozonated Water, 2021, 7, 2311-7524, 309, 10.3390/horticulturae7090309
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
A Bacterial Endophyte Bacillus amyloliquefaciens W10 Enhances the Tomato Resistance against Tuta absoluta
Manuscript ID: agrochemicals-3677669
The manuscript, entitled Preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield and yield attributes and postharvest application of chitosan on major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), The manuscript presents an environmentally friendly method of improving the growth and yield of tomatoes, as well as extending the postharvest longevity of tomato fruits. The study involved conducting a series of trials on tomato plants using three different solutions: chitosan, calcium and combinations of the two. Additional postharvest applications of these compounds were conducted to study the influence of chitosan on the major biochemical traits of tomato.
The article was prepared in accordance with the standards required for scientific articles. However, the manuscript needs improvement before publication.
Comment 1
P2 L 68-75 In my opinion, examples from the literature given in the Introduction should include numerical data to support the effectiveness of chitosan. Put numerical data where possible. The remark also refers to the Discussion chapter.
Comment 2
P2 L 87 “It is regarded as the most vital mineral for determining the quality of fruit”
In my opinion, this is too authoritative a statement. After all, very important is nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus. Correct this sentence.
Comment 3
P3 L 92-93 In my opinion, examples from the literature given in the Introduction should include numerical data to support the effectiveness of chitosan and CaCl2. Put numerical data where possible.
Comment 4
“However, the present study introduces a novel approach that involves preharvest application of chitosan along with calcium and its interaction with postharvest chitosan coating in our condition”
What do you mean by “our conditions”?
The Materials and Methods chapter should be completed so that the reader can reproduce the experiment.
Comment 5
P3 L 107 Why was this variety chosen? Explain why in the text.
Comment 6
P3 L 103-108 There is no information in the text about the content of the soil, the NPK doses applied. I think that these treatments have a major impact on the yield and its quality. Complete it in the text.
Comment 7
P3 L 112-117
In my opinion, the information about preparing the seedlings is missing. When were the plants planted in the field and at what BBCH stage?
Comment 8
P3 L 120-124
You need to specify when you started spraying, at what BBCH stage? How many ml were applied per plant? Were only the leaves sprayed or the stems as well? Provide more details so that the reader can reproduce the experiment.
Comment 9
P3 L 131-135
Has the pH been studied? Was Tween added, etc.
Comment 10
P4 L 142 When was the fruit harvested? When was the fruit considered ripe? It has a significant impact on the crop and its quality.
Comment 11
P4 L 145-147 You need to specify when you sprayed? How many ml were applied per fruit or per kg? provide more details.
Comment 12
P4 L 149-154
What storage conditions were used: temperature, light humidity?
Comment 13
P4 L 179
Give the concentration of phenolphthalein? 1%?
Comment 14
P4 L 182
0.064 ????? What does this number mean?
Comment 15
P5 L 225-227 “To determine whether the variations in the quality traits of the tomato fruits were significant, the study applied the Dunkan’s Multiple Range Test and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test at a significance level of P ≤ 0.05”
Was an analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed? Write it in the text.
Comment 16
P6 L 238 ……………which showed statistical similarity to the control group, as well as to the T3, T4, and T7 treatments.
Are you sure it showed statistical similarity to the T4 treatment? Or to the T5 treatment?
Comment 17
P6 L 242 Remark on the description of table 1. I think it would be useful to supplement the description with the information that it refers to the biochemical qualities of tomato fruits
Comment 18
P6 L 250-251 The T2 treatment yielded the highest fruit diameter of tomatoes, with T8, T6, T1, and T3 following closely behind.
In my opinion T8, T6, T1, T3 had the same value and not ranked close behind T2
Comment 19
P6 L 251-256
“Almost similar findings were also reported by Parvin et al. [15], who obtained the maximum fruit diameter of tomatoes by applying chitosan to the soil at 120 ppm. This finding indicates that while there were variations in fruit diameter among the different treatments, none of the levels of chitosan and Ca significantly influenced the overall diameter of the tomatoes. Therefore, other factors may be responsible for the observed differences in fruit diameter”
This fragment of text should be moved to the discussion section
Comment 20
P7 L 275-276
Treatment T2 produced the largest individual fruit weight of tomatoes, statistically comparable to treatments T1, T6, T7, and T8.
This sentence is a mental shortcut. Correct it. Treatment T2 cannot produce the largest fruit.
Comment 21
P7 L282 ………………that the administration of Ca ………………….
I suggest changing administration to application
Comment 22
P7 L 312-314 This information should be included in the discussion
Comment 23
P8 L321-323 “It can be seen from this figure that postharvest application of chitosan at all DAPS and preharvest application at longer durations (14 and 20 DAPS) had significant effects on the shrinkage of tomato fruits.”
I think the conclusion is too far-fetched. In my opinion, the application of chitosan does not induce statistically significant effects in every case.
Postharvest application of chitosan on T0 of chitosan caused a decrease in fruit shrinkage compared to the control C0 but the difference was not statistically significant (between C0 and C1, for T1 between C0 and C1, for T3 between C0 and C1, C2; 7 DAPS). Am I reading the graph incorrectly?
The same comment refers to sentence P8 L331-333
Comment 24
P8 description of Figure 1
I suggest adding explanations of abbreviations to the Figure description: C0, C1, C2
The same comment refers to Figures 2-6
Comment 25
P9 L 343-346 What about the T2 treatment, 14 DAPS, in this case no statistically significant increase in fruit quality was recorded?
Comment 26
P11 L 402
The letters above the bars of the graph are missing
Comment 27
P11 L 405-408 I suggest moving this sentence to the Introduction
Comment 28
P11 L 412-414
……………….In this study, postharvest application of chitosan at 0.1% and 0.2% significantly enhanced lycopene content in tomato fruits at 7, 14, and 20 days after postharvest storage
Are you sure that postharvest treatment with chitosan enhanced lycopene content???? The results of 7 DAPS and 14 DAPS indicate otherwise. Refer to this in the text.
Comment 29
………………………..Among the treatment combinations, the highest lycopene contents were recorded in C0T2 (5.97 mg/100 g fresh weight) at 7 DAPS and C2T6 (7.78 mg/100 g fresh weight) at 14 DAPS…………………….
In my opinion the highest lycopene content was recorded in C1T2 at 14 DAPS
Comment 30
P12 L 422-425 Why was a decrease in lycopene observed first and then an increase, what does it indicate? Explain it in the discussion chapter
Comment 31
P 12 L 438-441
Are you sure that postharvest treatment with chitosan significantly enhanced accumulation of total sugars? Please see T0 7 DAPS and 14 DAPS?
Comment 32
P13 L 456-460
I suggest this fragment be transferred to the Discussion
P14 L 479-480
The same comment as above
Comment 33
The discussion is long, but it needs to be restructured.
P14 L 479 These results also are consistent with the findings………..
I suggest moving this fragment to the discussion
Comment 34
P15 L 490-494 The authors describe the effect of calcium on tomato fruit and cite literature publications on the impact of the application of chitosan on reproductive efficiency. Rephrase this fragment.
Comment 35
P15 L 518-524
This fragment provides examples from the literature to illustrate the positive or negative effects of chitosan. However, these examples are not thoroughly analyzed in depth to interpret the results obtained in the study. Complete it in the text
Comment 36
P16 L 563-578
In this fragment, the authors provide examples from the literature with different findings on the effects of chitosan, so what conclusions can the reader draw from this?
Comment 37
P17 L 588
In contrast to the current study……….
Or perhaps: As in this study……………..
Comment 38
“Consistent with our results, earlier research showed that chitosan coating often enhances the external look or aesthetic appeal of fruits and vegetables” – Give reference
Comment 39
The conclusions can be improved. One third of the text is an introduction to the research topic, this is unnecessary.
Preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield and yield attributes and postharvest application of chitosan on major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)
Manuscript ID: agrochemicals-3677669
The manuscript, entitled Preharvest application of chitosan and calcium on yield and yield attributes and postharvest application of chitosan on major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), presents an environmentally friendly method to improve growth and yield of tomatoes, as well as extending the postharvest longevity of tomato fruits. The study involved conducting a series of trials on tomato plants using three different solutions: chitosan, calcium and combinations of the two. Additional postharvest application of these compounds was conducted to study the influence of chitosan on major biochemical traits of tomato. The authors highlight the use of innovative approach of using a combination of chitosan and calcium to enhance tomato productivity.
The article was prepared in accordance with the standards required for scientific articles, and the subject was the environmentally friendly methods of initiating significantly boost tomato yield, enhanced longevity and preserve biochemical quality.
A key strength of the article lies in its comprehensive evaluation of the impact of chitosan alone or in combination with Ca on the functional traits of plants and fruits. The paper recommends effective doses of chitosan and calcium to improve tomato production but also for long-term storage after harvesting.
The manuscript contains some deficiencies that need to be addressed. I have included the detailed comments in the file for Authors. In the Introduction, the incorporation of additional numerical data illustrating the effects of the use of chitosan by other authors and in other crop species would be advantageous. The Materials and methods chapter should be completed so that the reader can reproduce the experiment. The Authors should provide comprehensive details on experimental design and layout in the field. They also did not specify when exactly chitosan was applied, at which BBCH stage and in what quantity (ml) per plant. In addition, they did not specify the storage conditions for tomato fruit.
The Results section could be improved. Some of the findings in the text are overly authoritative and sometimes inconsistent with the results shown in the figures. It is essential that figure descriptions are supplemented so that they are self-explanatory and the reader does not have to refer to the manuscript text. In my opinion, some parts of the text from this chapter should be moved to the discussion chapter.
The discussion is conducted in a satisfactory manner. However, some parts of the text appear to lack organization. The authors describe the effect of calcium on tomato fruit and cite literature publications on the impact of the application of chitosan on reproductive efficiency. Furthermore, examples from the literature are provided to illustrate the positive or negative effects of chitosan. However, these examples are not thoroughly analyzed to interpret the divergent results. Additionally, there are instances where references are not included in the text.
Additionally, the conclusions can be improved. One third of the text is an introduction to the research topic, this is probably unnecessary.
22.4% of literature cited is recent, within the last 5 years. My recommendation is minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI kindly ask the authors to address the following issues and resubmit the revised manuscript
The current title does not reflect the calcium treatment component of the study. Suggested revision: Effect of pre- and post-harvest chitosan applications on yield and major biochemical qualities of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)”.
The abstract exceeds the recommended length and should be condensed to improve readability.
Remove chitosan and calcium from the keywords, as these are already mentioned in the title.
Line 11: Change which is one among the popular varieties to which is one of the popular varieties.
Line 53: Replace the outdated statistics from 2017 with more recent data.
Line 78: Change Botrytis cinerea to Botrytis cinerea.
Line 107: Change Field Experimental Site to Experimental Site.
Line 131: Clarify whether this should be the first week of November 2023 or 2024.
Line 163: Change However, no diseases or pests were infected to No diseases or pests were observed.
Consider removing Figure 1, as it may not add significant value to the manuscript.
Line 211: Correct the subject–verb agreement: About 10 grams of tomato juice was diluted in 50 ml rather than About 10 grams of tomato juice diluted in 50 ml.
Line 269: Remove the standard error values from the main text. Example: Change 4.1 ± 0.92 to 4.1–4.6 cm.
Table captions are incomplete and lack proper definitions. All abbreviations (e.g. SE for standard error) should be defined in table captions or footnotes.
Line 293: This evidence indicates that treatment T2 was the most effective. These results also suggest that T2 was the most effective treatment.
Line 304: The change from aerial to foliar application.
Line 322: Please remove and indicating significant differences.
Lines 343–345: This sentence contains content that is inappropriate for the Results section and should either be relocated to the Discussion section, where it would be more suitable, or removed entirely from the manuscript.
Lines 352–357 and 377–382: The statistical data presented in these sections is overly complex and confusing for readers and requires significant simplification to improve the clarity and comprehension of the results.
Line 400: This line requires comprehensive revision.
Lines 404–406: Please check and revise this section.
Section 3.4.2: There is an obvious and critical contradiction between the textual claim of an increase and the actual data, which shows a smaller reduction.
Lines 742–747 and 747–750: Duplicate material has been identified in these sections and should either be merged to eliminate overlapping content or deleted.
Some minor editorial and spelling corrections are required.
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. Please find the point-by-point reply to your comments in the attached file. Please see the corrections done accordingly in the revised article that are highlighted in green colour.
Thanks once again for your kind efforts and valuable time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthis version is acceptable
Author Response
Comments: This version is acceptable.
Reply: Thanks a lot for your kind effort and most valuable times.
