Bokashi, Boiled Manure and Penergetic Applications Increased Agronomic Production Variables and May Enhance Powdery Mildew Severity of Organic Tomato Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (MS) is dealing with an actual topic, namely how to reduce the tomato powdery mildew disease by using several types of organic treatments. The authors were using different treatments, the selection of those used treatments, however, is not showing any logical arrangements or does not follow literary supported selection and arrangement. There might be great chemical-biological differences among those used organics, as the boiled manure (BM), the Bokashi compost, and the Penergetic, which is a new industrial product. The boiled manure was used in an increasing ratio and it is interesting that at the highest ratio of 10% concentrations in water it could resulted in a higher severity of the disease. The reason on the other hand is not known and cannot be explained by the authors. Other measured parameters of the tomato (size, yield, and total soluble solids) were rather variable during the experiments. This fact ought to have also further clarification. So finally, no real conclusion can be realized from the study. In this form, the MS cannot be suggested for publication.

The title: It is saying, that all the treatments, the „bokashi, the boiled manure, and the Penergetic affect the agronomic value of tomato and the severity of powdery mildew”. From this title, it is not clear that the changes are positive or negative and also it is rather variable in the text. So, a clearer title would be required. Please clarify for instance which product is the „Penergetic”…?

Abstract: Generally, it is very short. No clear objective, how the treatments were selected, and why those were applied? The BM (liquid) and Bokashi compost (as solid) and Penergetic (not-known form) treatments with great differences. It is really difficult to compare those variable treatments. It is also not clear what is for instance the „protected cultivation” (Page 2, line 17)? Bokashi compost „in two applications” (which one…?). What were the doses of the „Penergetic” and which product is it at all? How many BM was given/tomato plants? Only the percent in water is known, but what were the doses for each plant and when it was applied? What is the reason that the disease severity was increased at 10% BM? Any explanation? It seems to be that no real conclusion was found in the study. The abstract ought to be clear and show all of the relevant information independently from the text, finished with a message, an acceptable conclusion.

Key-words: Less and more focused could be suggested (not more than 5, only…)?

Introduction: Very short and gives only relatively few literary data regarding the used treatments. Those data are not well-supporting of the objectives. There are different results on various plants using the selected organic amendments. The data about the disease severity on the tomato is rather missing? The authors are avoiding the chemical pesticide treatments, but still no data about the used pesticides against those diseases in general. The introduction ought to be arranged in some logical order: Severity of diseases on tomato, which treatments are used in general, what are the alternative suggested solutions, the potential effect of selected treatments, and why? If no data about the tomato, that is why they are ready to test it….etc. The objectives might come from previous literary data.

Materials and Methods: The treatments are described generally. Not every aspect is clear. For instance, how much time the bokashi was fermented? How many molasses was added to what quantity of organics? The Description ought to be clarified, so as to be repeatable of those treatments if any.

Results: are showing all the treatments in one chapter. It would be better to interpret those results if authors are separate the effects, and prepare sub-chapters on the basis of the treatments (as a solid treatment to the substrate, or liquid treatments to the shoots, or as the Penergetic, which is adding either potassium or phosphorous. Another solution to separate the effects on the yield quantity and quality (size and TSS) and another subchapter as the disease severity. Without such a logical arrangement it is difficult to see any tendency of the used solutions, as treatments.

Figures and Tables are also not helping the understanding of the effects. Such separation of the results might have further understanding, I guess.

Table 1: What is PP, as plant production? Is it the green biomass of the shoots or what?

If the 1^st and 2^nd cycle, not the same tomato variable was used, then it should be stated in the title.

It seems to be that the same tendency was found at the 1^st and the 2^nd stage of the experiments. Some correlation regression analysis would help to show this.

Discussion: Page 6, line 176: “Varied from cycle to cycle”. But this is the question to understand the reason, of why?

The discussion is separated into different treatments. It is clear that the bokashi can show somehow positive effects. and literary data supporting it. The boiled chicken manure liquid is not a usual treatment. and its effect is not really clear. The highest value is increasing the tomato fruit quantity and quality, and on the other hand, it is increasing the disease severity. This fact ought to be explained by the authors.

Penergetic effect of “reduced metabolic quotients”. This was not assessed in the present study, so it is not known, how the real effect in this study was developed?

Finally, the authors are stated that higher than 10% of BM should be tried in the future or the combination of different treatments, or to test them in other diseases. This is not a clear conclusion. It can be stated, that the readers are not able to learn anything from the study and unfortunately the authors seem to be in the same position.

Some suggestion: It can be suggested to separate the treatments or separate the two growing seasons and/or separate the 2 different tomato varieties, or focusing only on the tomato quantity and quality and not for the disease, or only for the effect on soil-suppressiveness against of the diseases….? The bokashi as anaerobic fermentation is known to act as soil-hygienic treatments…etc. After some clarification, it is possible perhaps to draw some of the literary supported conclusion from the study.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

First, we would like to thank for the time that you had to review our manuscript. We appreciate the comments and suggestions made.

Following we are the authors’ response, point by point, for your valuable comments and suggestions:

 

Reviewer: The manuscript (MS) is dealing with an actual topic, namely how to reduce the tomato powdery mildew disease by using several types of organic treatments. The authors were using different treatments, the selection of those used treatments, however, is not showing any logical arrangements or does not follow literary supported selection and arrangement. There might be great chemical-biological differences among those used organics, as the boiled manure (BM), the Bokashi compost, and the Penergetic, which is a new industrial product. The boiled manure was used in an increasing ratio and it is interesting that at the highest ratio of 10 % concentrations in water it could resulted in a higher severity of the disease. The reason on the other hand is not known and cannot be explained by the authors. Other measured parameters of the tomato (size, yield, and total soluble solids) were rather variable during the experiments. This fact ought to have also further clarification. So finally, no real conclusion can be realized from the study. In this form, the MS cannot be suggested for publication.

Authors Response: Thanks for the important comments. This manuscript had the objective of testing two new source of organic source for plant fertilization: boiled manure and Penergetic. The Bokashi was used because it is a well-known fertilizer used in organic agriculture worldwide and was used as positive control treatment. The three different sources are different. However, as organic fertilizers sources are scarce there is a need for search for new options for farmers. The boiled manure has been used in strawberry crop with success. However, there are no studies with other plants and there is the gap that this manuscript is intent to fill. This source is very easy to prepare and have low cost for preparation. That’s because have been drawing attention from farmers but there are still few studies dealing with this topic. For Penergetic there are also few studies, despite studies showed potential for its use in agricultural crops (Artyszak and Gozdowski 2020a; 2020b; Hata et al., 2019; Hata et al., 2020). The points suggested by the reviewer will be answering next and we are going to accept most of them and others we would like to clarify our point of view.

 

Reviewer: The title: It is saying, that all the treatments, the „bokashi, the boiled manure, and the Penergetic affect the agronomic value of tomato and the severity of powdery mildew”. From this title, it is not clear that the changes are positive or negative and also it is rather variable in the text. So, a clearer title would be required. Please clarify for instance which product is the „Penergetic”…?

Authors Response: The “affect powdery mildew severity” is written that way because our results varied on this variable. Then, we could not add a sentence with positive or negative result. However, we decided to add this “vague” sentence to the reader know that incidence of this important disease was evaluated. In our humble opinion, the information is important because other experiments could and must be performed to reach more conclusive results. We found in two crop cycles BM 10 % with higher than control severity. It is a significant result even that other results varied.

Here we have only justified our option to use the title in that form. If the reviewer and editor recommend that the title must be reformulated then we are going to follow the recommendations.

 

Reviewer: Abstract: Generally, it is very short. No clear objective, how the treatments were selected, and why those were applied? The BM (liquid) and Bokashi compost (as solid) and Penergetic (not-known form) treatments with great differences. It is really difficult to compare those variable treatments. It is also not clear what is for instance the „protected cultivation” (Page 2, line 17)? Bokashi compost „in two applications” (which one…?). What were the doses of the „Penergetic” and which product is it at all? How many BM was given/tomato plants? Only the percent in water is known, but what were the doses for each plant and when it was applied? What is the reason that the disease severity was increased at 10% BM? Any explanation? It seems to be that no real conclusion was found in the study. The abstract ought to be clear and show all of the relevant information independently from the text, finished with a message, an acceptable conclusion.

Authors Response: The abstract was writing as the instruction for authors guide recommend (structured-style) and it is limited to 200 words. We did not enter in details because of limitation in words use.

 

Reviewer: Key-words: Less and more focused could be suggested (not more than 5, only…)?

Authors Response: Only five key-words were now used: Solanum lycopersicum; Leveillula taurica Lév. G. Arnaud; organic fertilization; efficient microorganisms; area under the disease progress curve.

 

Reviewer: Introduction: Very short and gives only relatively few literary data regarding the used treatments. Those data are not well-supporting of the objectives. There are different results on various plants using the selected organic amendments. The data about the disease severity on the tomato is rather missing? The authors are avoiding the chemical pesticide treatments, but still no data about the used pesticides against those diseases in general. The introduction ought to be arranged in some logical order: Severity of diseases on tomato, which treatments are used in general, what are the alternative suggested solutions, the potential effect of selected treatments, and why? If no data about the tomato, that is why they are ready to test it….etc. The objectives might come from previous literary data.

Authors Response: The introduction section was rearranged for a better understanding and to follow a more logical line as recommended. Tomato disease information was added to the introduction section.

 

Reviewer: Materials and Methods: The treatments are described generally. Not every aspect is clear. For instance, how much time the bokashi was fermented? How many molasses was added to what quantity of organics? The Description ought to be clarified, so as to be repeatable of those treatments if any.

Authors Response: The percentage of solid products and quantity of molasses and EM was described: Bokashi was prepared by a mixture of rice (25 %), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (25 %), maize (25 %), and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) (25 %), bran, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) molasses (3 L per ton of solid products), and effective microorganisms (EM) (3 L per ton of solid products). The total period of preparation was 10 days until the material was without any negative odor and presented homogeneous.

 

Reviewer:  Results: are showing all the treatments in one chapter. It would be better to interpret those results if authors are separate the effects, and prepare sub-chapters on the basis of the treatments (as a solid treatment to the substrate, or liquid treatments to the shoots, or as the Penergetic, which is adding either potassium or phosphorous. Another solution to separate the effects on the yield quantity and quality (size and TSS) and another subchapter as the disease severity. Without such a logical arrangement it is difficult to see any tendency of the used solutions, as treatments.

Figures and Tables are also not helping the understanding of the effects. Such separation of the results might have further understanding, I guess.

Table 1: What is PP, as plant production? Is it the green biomass of the shoots or what?

If the 1^st and 2^nd cycle, not the same tomato variable was used, then it should be stated in the title.

It seems to be that the same tendency was found at the 1^st and the 2^nd stage of the experiments. Some correlation regression analysis would help to show this.

Authors Response:

As suggested we separated into two sections: “3.1. Plant production and quality” and “3.2. Powdery mildew severity.”

“Plant production” was replaced for “Fruit production of first three trusses of one plant (FP).” We hope that this sentence is clearer.

Cultivars used on first and second cycle are now detailed in the table title.

Pearson correlation was significant for two cycles (0.64, p <0.01).

 

 

Reviewer: Discussion: Page 6, line 176: “Varied from cycle to cycle”. But this is the question to understand the reason, of why?

The discussion is separated into different treatments. It is clear that the bokashi can show somehow positive effects. and literary data supporting it. The boiled chicken manure liquid is not a usual treatment. and its effect is not really clear. The highest value is increasing the tomato fruit quantity and quality, and on the other hand, it is increasing the disease severity. This fact ought to be explained by the authors.

Authors Response:

The discussion was improved as reviewer request. Explanation of increasing in fruit production by BM 10% was improved and total soluble solid results were discussed.

 

Reviewer: Penergetic effect of “reduced metabolic quotients”. This was not assessed in the present study, so it is not known, how the real effect in this study was developed?

Authors Response:

“The same may occur in the present study and may explain partially our results.” That statement was added to emphasize that the microbiological analysis was not performed in the present study and may explain partially our results because the study was conducted in a similar condition.

 

Reviewer: Finally, the authors are stated that higher than 10% of BM should be tried in the future or the combination of different treatments, or to test them in other diseases. This is not a clear conclusion. It can be stated, that the readers are not able to learn anything from the study and unfortunately the authors seem to be in the same position.

Authors Response:

That was not a conclusion. Actually, it was a suggestion for future studies. The conclusions are located in the “5. Conclusions” topic.

 

Reviewer: Some suggestion: It can be suggested to separate the treatments or separate the two growing seasons and/or separate the 2 different tomato varieties, or focusing only on the tomato quantity and quality and not for the disease, or only for the effect on soil-suppressiveness against of the diseases….? The bokashi as anaerobic fermentation is known to act as soil-hygienic treatments…etc. After some clarification, it is possible perhaps to draw some of the literary supported conclusion from the study.

Authors Response:

We focused on the fruit production on this manuscript. As explained when we were asked about the manuscript title, even that is not clear why the results were not conclusive, it is important to inform on the disease evaluation results because future experiments could and must be performed to reach more conclusive results.

 

Best regards,

 

PhD. Fernando Teruhiko Hata (on behalf of the authors)

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

My comments are as follows.

1. I suggest the abstract add some sentence as a conclusion at the end.
2. Why do you need five replicates?
3. Figure 1 needs unit for axis.
4. Line 176: I suggest to write down the full name for “TSS” results…………….
5. You may discuss the side effect or some disadvantage from previous studies about usage for experiments based on organic sources of fertilization (boiled manure, Bokashi and Penergetic) and awareness.
6. You may write some discussion or conclusion to explain the result of Powdery mildew severity increased with BM 10 %, compared to control treatment. You do not really discuss this part.
7. Please format the references into correct way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

First, we would like to thank for the time that you had to review our manuscript. We appreciate the comments and suggestions made and we are going to accept all of them.

Following we are answering point by point your valuable comments and suggestions:

 

Reviewer: I suggest the abstract add some sentence as a conclusion at the end.

Response: “BM 10 % and Penergetic presented similar fruit productions to Bokashi and they are good candidate for substitution of Bokashi or alternate these organic fertilizers/amendments use maintaining the tomato yield.” was added at the end of the abstract.

 

Reviewer: Why do you need five replicates?

Response: Actually, we used five repetition of each treatment. We will correct the sentence.

 

Reviewer: Figure 1 needs unit for axis.

Response: We added title on axis “y”: Percentage of injured area (%) and axis “x”: Treatments, and improved the figure quality.

 

Reviewer: Line 176: I suggest to write down the full name for “TSS” results…………….

Response: Added the TSS description “total soluble solid”.

 

Reviewer: You may discuss the side effect or some disadvantage from previous studies about usage for experiments based on organic sources of fertilization (boiled manure, Bokashi and Penergetic) and awareness.

Response: We draw attention to the overuse of BM as it increased disease severity despite increased production of fruits. “The treatment BM 10 % increased the plant production with increasing in disease severity. Overuse of mineral/synthetic fertilizers are reported in literature as increasing pest and disease incidence or severity (Bulluck 2002, Yardim 2003, Hu et al 2016, Alyokhin et al. 2020). Our study draws attention to overuse of organic fertilization source that may induce a higher severity of plant disease.” 

 

Reviewer: You may write some discussion or conclusion to explain the result of Powdery mildew severity increased with BM 10 %, compared to control treatment. You do not really discuss this part.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have now discussed that. In that treatment, tomato plants presented higher fruit production means and higher supply of nitrogen was one of the factors involved. On the other hand, this higher nitrogen input may have induced the plant susceptibility to the pathogen.

 

Reviewer: Please format the references into correct way.”

Response: We are going to correct the reference as guide for authors recommends.

 

 

Best regards,

 

PhD. Fernando Teruhiko Hata (on behalf of the authors)

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the study of the organic fertilizer effects on tomato yield quantity, as well as powdery mildew severity. The topic is important, all methods focused on yield increasing are welcome nowadays. Several similar investigations are known in the scientific literature, present work is one of this series.

The experiment is well planned and effectuated, with sufficient scientific background. The research design is appropriate, the methods clearly described and adequate. The presentation of the results is simple and clear, fully understandable. The conclusions are fully supported by the results.

I am not a big joker in English, but for me the language and style used was simple and fully understandable. I haven't detect any mistakes in the text.

The importance of this work seems to be focused on the practitioners, mainly those working in organic farming. In this way I can predict higher interest from experts working on practical side of tomato producing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

 

First, we would like to thank for the time that you had to review our manuscript. We appreciate the comments made. The interest for organic food increasing and growers has to produce safety food for this demand. We expect that with this manuscript the organic tomato production may increase with low-cost fertilizations use.

 

Best regards,

 

PhD. Fernando Teruhiko Hata (on behalf of the authors)

Reviewer 4 Report

The present study is very interesting and was well conducted by the authors. The study of substances that can help organic farming is in great demand and current. The article is well written and very understandable. I would like to point out only one shortcoming that concerns the two tables in which the explanation of what F is is missing. While also for CV it is indicated what it is, for F there is no indication and it is always better to explain everything that is not immediate. Finally, I would recommend broadening the conclusions a little, perhaps indicating the impact on the sector of the results of this research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

 

First, we would like to thank for the time that you had to review our manuscript. We appreciate the comments and suggestions made and we are going to accept all of them.

Following we are answering point by point your valuable comments and suggestions:

 

Reviewer: The present study is very interesting and was well conducted by the authors. The study of substances that can help organic farming is in great demand and current. The article is well written and very understandable. I would like to point out only one shortcoming that concerns the two tables in which the explanation of what F is is missing. While also for CV it is indicated what it is, for F there is no indication and it is always better to explain everything that is not immediate. Finally, I would recommend broadening the conclusions a little, perhaps indicating the impact on the sector of the results of this research.

 

Response: The suggestions we applied to the manuscript.

1 - F: F-statistics sentence was added to the manuscript.

2 - We added a paragraph about impacts of the manuscript results on farmers “Our results would impact growers, technicians, researchers and other people that intent to use an organic source of fertilization. The treatment BM 10 % increased the plant production with increasing in disease severity. Overuse of mineral/synthetic fertilizers are reported in literature as increasing pest and disease incidence or severity (Bulluck 2002, Yardim 2003, Hu et al 2016, Alyokhin et al. 2020). Our study draws attention to overuse of organic fertilization source that may induce a higher severity of plant disease.”

 

 

Best regards,

 

PhD. Fernando Teruhiko Hata (on behalf of the authors)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to answer all of the main requirements. Still the effects are various, due to the large diversity of used treatments. It is difficult therefore to find a real answer to what to use for the improved tomato yield and reduced disease severity. The title for instance does not show, that those treatments can result in even enhanced tomato diseases. So it is suggested that regarding the title authors should replace the word "affect" with "may enhance", so as to give some result in the title.

The separation of results into 2 sub-part is the main requirement, what the authors have done, and also the conclusion is improved. Now it is clear, that high fertilization even it is an organic way cannot always improving the disease severity.

The manuscript can be published, included with those changes what the authors have been done, so far.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the valuable comments by the reviewer. We accept the suggestion made on the manuscript title.

Kind regards