A Decade-Long Quantitative–Qualitative Characterization of 18 Lemon Cultivars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comment.

I had the opportunity to review your article. The study is an original study with a high potential to contribute to the related literature and the journal. For publication it is necessary to fix the following:

1.     Please double-check the reference. Some are not technically written according to the instructions for the authors.

2.     In the introduction, move the sentence from line 70 to line 62 in front of However. and fix the order of references as needed.

3.     In the materials and methods in line 114, I would like a little more information about irrigation. How many days does the system work in a year, when does it work, or at what moment did it start (does it work constantly throughout the year or)?

4.     It is necessary to write a little more about the composition of the soil in which lemons were grown. Is there an analysis of the soil on which the lemons were grown? Please a little more about the composition of the soil (ph, N, P, K ...)? line 116.

5.     When describing the climate, it is necessary to state the average annual temperatures and air humidity in the observed period of lemon cultivation. Line 117

6.     Figures 2 and 3 are not the same because they do not list 18 equal varieties of lemons, so the comparison in the discussion needs to be greatly changed. A new figure 3 is needed. Line 181 i line 200.

7.     In the discussion in line 203, the cultivar Erica is listed, which does not exist in Figure 3. Must be fixed.

8.     The discussion in line 206 mentions the variety femminello con. m 84 as one of the least productive, which cannot be seen from the graph.

9.     The discussion in line 206, line 216, line 228 ... fixing the entire discussion part related to figure 3 after inserting the new figure3.

10.  In line 10 after table 2, the wrong cultivar is listed (Femmminello Siracusano 2 KR) as the variety with the highest polar diameter, while it is evident from table 2 that it is the cultivar Iniasel 95.

11.  In line 37 after the table fix why is Segesta Cultivar listed? If one wanted to compare the highest and lowest average number of seeds, then Femminello Cerza had the lowest number, not  Segesta. Fix or explain!

12.  In lines 61-65 after table 2 discuss the correlation between the two variable. It is necessary to put a correlation graph in order to be sure of the stated claims and references that confirm this conclusion. Because in lines 65-68, other influences on juice content and fruit size are mentioned, to correct conclusions or to remove certain statements.

13.  In line 73 after table 2, the wrong cultivar with the lowest ph is listed. It is not Iniasel 95 (2.42) but Femm. Con. m 84 with 2.40!

14.  After figure 5, make a little more detailed discussion, comment on the other cultivars that you did not mention from line 87-96.

15.  It is necessary to write a new part of the conclusion after correcting the discussion and a new figure 3.

16.  Fix the last sentence in Conclusion, it is not clear enough (line 117-119)! Which cultivars would be the best to grow in the cultivated area before your research and parameters.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REV. 1

 I had the opportunity to review your article. The study is an original study with a high potential to contribute to the related literature and the journal. For publication it is necessary to fix the following:

1. Please double-check the reference. Some are not technically written according to the instructions for the authors.

Thank you for your observation, the bibliography is now fully standardized.

2. In the introduction, move the sentence from line 70 to line 62 in front of However. and fix the order of references as needed.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your thorough review. Below, we have incorporated all the changes you requested.  At lines 62-63 The sentence has been moved as you requested.

3. In the materials and methods in line 114, I would like a little more information about irrigation. How many days does the system work in a year, when does it work, or at what moment did it start (does it work constantly throughout the year or)?

Dear reviewer more information related to irrigation has been added to the lines 122-127: “For irrigation, a self-compensating drip system with two nozzles per tree, delivering 4 liters per hour, was employed. The amount of water given to plants through irrigation was established based on the water balance equation starting from the month of May. The climatic parameters (ETo and Rainfall) were obtained from a meteorological station located near the experimental orchard, while the Kc varied between 0.6 and 0.8, according to FAO, for various crop stages, changing with time (Allen et al., 2005)”.

4. It is necessary to write a little more about the composition of the soil in which lemons were grown. Is there an analysis of the soil on which the lemons were grown? Please a little more about the composition of the soil (ph, N, P, K ...)? line 116.

More details of the soil analysis have been reported in Table 1. The following sentence has been added at lines 128-130: “The soil at the site had a sandy loam texture, more details of the soil analyze are shown in table 1 and detail of sampling site are reported in Ruggiero et al. 2021.”

5. When describing the climate, it is necessary to state the average annual temperatures and air humidity in the observed period of lemon cultivation. Line 117

Dear reviewer further details regarding the minimum, maximum, and average temperatures in the trial years are provided in Table 1. The following information has been included in the text at lines 130-135: “The climate exhibited typical Mediterranean characteristics in particular during the trial, the lowest average temperature was recorded in 2010 at 16.1, while the highest was reported in the last year of the trial 2018 at 17.3, confirming a substantial increase in temperatures over the years with hot and dry summers and mild winters”.

6. Figures 2 and 3 are not the same because they do not list 18 equal varieties of lemons, so the comparison in the discussion needs to be greatly changed. A new figure 3 is needed. Line 181 i line 200.

Dear reviewer, we apologize for the reported error; we have corrected and provided the accurate Figure 3.

7. In the discussion in line 203, the cultivar Erica is listed, which does not exist in Figure 3. Must be fixed.

The authors have corrected and updated a new Figure 3 (due to an error in the copy and paste process), so now the Erice cultivar is included in the figure.

8. The discussion in line 206 mentions the variety femminello con. m 84 as one of the least productive, which cannot be seen from the graph.

Dear reviewer, following the replacement with the correct Figure 3, we confirm that the sentence "while among the least productive cultivars with a cumulative production of 156 kg per plant there are the following cultivars: Femminello S, Femminello Scandurra and Femminello Continella m 84" is accurate. We apologize for the error.

9. The discussion in line 206, line 216, line 228 ... fixing the entire discussion part related to figure 3 after inserting the new figure3.

Dear reviewer, we confirm that the following discussion, following the modification of Figure 3, is correct.

10. In line 10 after table 2, the wrong cultivar is listed (Femmminello Siracusano 2 KR) as the variety with the highest polar diameter, while it is evident from table 2 that it is the cultivar Iniasel 95.

Dear reviewer, we have removed the incorrect information regarding the cv Femminiello Siracusano 2KR and have adjusted the sentence to: “The cultivar Iniasel 95 showed a major polar diameter of 103.77 mm and the equatorial diameter of 71.27 mm, while he Kamarina cultivar instead in addition to a lower weight also showed a lower polar diameter equal to 82.81 mm and an equatorial diameter equal to 63.16 mm, showing itself as the cultivar characterized by smaller fruits” (lines 10-16 after table 4).

11. In line 37 after the table fix why is Segesta Cultivar listed? If one wanted to compare the highest and lowest average number of seeds, then Femminello Cerza had the lowest number, not Segesta. Fix or explain!

Dear reviewer, the sentence has been corrected as you indicated: “The cultivar Femminello Siracusano m 296 reported a significantly higher average than the others equal to 21.70 seeds, instead an average number of seeds equal to 0.00 was shown in the Femminello Cerza cultivar”(lines 34-36).

12. In lines 61-65 after table 2 discuss the correlation between the two variable. It is necessary to put a correlation graph in order to be sure of the stated claims and references that confirm this conclusion. Because in lines 65-68, other influences on juice content and fruit size are mentioned, to correct conclusions or to remove certain statements.

Dear reviewer we added the correlation value R² and changed the sentence as follows: “Our results have highlighted an inverse relationship between juice content and fruit size, as the Kamarina cultivar exhibited smaller-sized fruits compared to others but had a higher juice content, that's confirmed by a correlation between juice percentage and fruit weight, which showed an r² of 0.013.The relationship between lemon fruit weight and juice content can vary depending on various such as the specific variety of lemon, growing conditions, and cultural practices, can also influence juice content independently of fruit weight [20]” (lines 56-62).

13. In line 73 after table 2, the wrong cultivar with the lowest ph is listed. It is not Iniasel 95 (2.42) but Femm. Con. m 84 with 2.40!

Dear reviewer, thank you for the correction. We have modified the sentence to: “Higher pH values were reported in the Erice cultivar (2.83), while lower values were observed in the Femminello Continella mc84 cultivar (2.40)”(lines 66-67).

14. After figure 5, make a little more detailed discussion, comment on the other cultivars that you did not mention from line 87-96.

Dear reviewer, more comments have been added from line 88 to 100.

15. It is necessary to write a new part of the conclusion after correcting the discussion and a new figure 3.

Dear reviewer, Figure 3 has been correctly replaced, and the discussion now aligns with the information presented in the graph. We apologize for any inconvenience. The conclusions have been revised as reported at the point 16.

16. Fix the last sentence in Conclusion, it is not clear enough (line 117-119)! Which cultivars would be the best to grow in the cultivated area before your research and parameters.

Dear reviewer, the conclusions have been revised, and the following sentence has been added at line 111-115: “Through a comprehensive multi-year investigation, this research has allowed for a me-ticulous description of various cultivars from the Sicilian and Campanian germplasm. Particularly, based on the agronomic plant data and fruit quality, it is possible to say that among the cultivars studied, those that showed the best qualitative and quantitative performance in the area where the test was carried out there are : Erice and Femminello Siracusano 2KR.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study reported characterizations of eighteen lemon cultivars in a 10-year long data. I have some comments as follows:

1. Page 4, Table 1: In the reference column, the authors should use numbers in stead of name et al., year.

2. Page 4, line 141: the cross sectional area of the trunk (TCSA). Page 5, line 176: TCSA only. Page 6, line 192 and 194: trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), duplicate. It is better to give the full name for the abbreviation at the first appearance.

3. Page 7, Figure 3 and line 206: the authors mentioned three cultivars in the main text; however, the result of Femminello Continella m 84 is around 250 kg in the Figure 3. Please confirm.

4. Page 8, Figure 4 and line 241: the authors mentioned “about 230% lower than the Erice cultivar.” I assumed this number comes from: 5.11 divide by 1.55 equal to 330%. It is really confusing. If 1.55 is normalized as 100%, we can say 5.11 is 230% higher than 1.55, not vice versa.

5. Page 9, Table 2: All the data are expressed as the mean ‘_’ SD can be replaced by mean “±”SD.

6. Page 12, Figure 5: line 80, PC2 29.96%; however, in the Figure 5, the y axis, PC.

 (26.96%). These numbers are not matched. I am having a hard time reading lines 87-96. Can the authors add more detail descriptions for this paragraph.

7. Page 13, Author Contribuctions: Please remove the two sentences in the end.

8. References are too old, three newest references from 2022 and no reference from year-2023. Also check if reference 32 is correct or not?

Author Response

REV.2

The study reported characterizations of eighteen lemon cultivars in a 10-year long data. I have some comments as follows: 

1. Page 4, Table 1: In the reference column, the authors should use numbers in stead of name et al., year.

 Dear reviewer, thank you for the feedback. We have made the requested changes in the text reporting the number and the names of the authors.

2. Page 4, line 141: the cross sectional area of the trunk (TCSA). Page 5, line 176: TCSA only. Page 6, line 192 and 194: trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), duplicate. It is better to give the full name for the abbreviation at the first appearance.

 Dear reviewer, we have made the changes you suggested by inserting only the abbreviation TSCA in all the manuscript.

3. Page 7, Figure 3 and line 206: the authors mentioned three cultivars in the main text; however, the result of Femminello Continella m 84 is around 250 kg in the Figure 3. Please confirm.

 Dear reviewer, we apologize for the error,we have made a modification to Figure 3 as the previous one was incorrect. therefore, the comment in the current text is accurate.

4. Page 8, Figure 4 and line 241: the authors mentioned “about 230% lower than the Erice cultivar.” I assumed this number comes from: 5.11 divide by 1.55 equal to 330%. It is really confusing. If 1.55 is normalized as 100%, we can say 5.11 is 230% higher than 1.55, not vice versa.

Dear reviewer, thank you for your feedback, we have made the sentence clearer as indicated at line 263. Specifically, we have revised the percentage, stating that the cultivars Femminello Scandurra and Femminello Continella m 84, both with a value of 1.55 (kg/cm²), showed a 70.64% reduction compared to the cultivar Erice  with a value higher of 5.11(kg/cm²).

5. Page 9, Table 2: All the data are expressed as the mean ‘_’ SD can be replaced by mean “±”SD.

Thanks. It has been correct.

6. Page 12, Figure 5: line 80, PC2 29.96%; however, in the Figure 5, the y axis, PC.  (26.96%). These numbers are not matched. I am having a hard time reading lines 87-96. Can the authors add more detail descriptions for this paragraph.

 Thank you for your corrections. We have fixed the errors and added more details to the PCA commentary at lines 81-93: “The principal components disclosed 63.88 % of the cumulative variance, with PC1 detailing 36.92 % and PC2 26.96 %”.

7. Page 13, Author Contribuctions: Please remove the two sentences in the end.

Done 

8. References are too old, three newest references from 2022 and no reference from year-2023. Also check if reference 32 is correct or not?

Thank you for the observation. Most of the varieties included in the present work were identified in the framework of breeding activities conducted for selecting new varieties with enhanced tolerance to mal secco disease; neverthless most of them are not widely used by growers and only maintained in the germplasm collection at University of Naples Federico II and in the University of Catania experimental farms. This is the main reason why references for fruit characterization of these varieties are quite dated and some other are very recent (due to the new increasing interest for lemon in some areas). One more citation was added and concerns the characterization of the Greek Citrus germplasm collection, including some international lemon varieties.

A new sentence has been added to the lines 103-110: “This has led to the enlargement of the existing Italian lemon germplasm, although the characterization of those traits linked with production, fruit quality and breeding is lacking and even very dated, except a few examples [24–29, Michailidis et al., 2023]. In fact, most of the varieties considered in the present research were identified in the framework of breeding activities conducted for selecting new varieties with enhanced tolerance to the disease (“Mal Secco”), but most of them are not widely used by growers and only maintained in the germplasm collection at University of Naples Federico II and in the University of Catania experimental farms”.

A new reference has been added: Michailidis, M., Ziogas, V., Sarrou, E., Nasiopoulou, E., Titeli, V. S., Skodra, C., ... & Molassiotis, A. (2023). Screening the Citrus Greek National Germplasm Collection for fruit quality and metabolic footprint. Food Chemistry, 137573.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript of Claudio Di Vaio et al. monitored the quantitative-qualitative characteristics of 18 lemon cultivars for 10 years which will provide the valuable instructions for fresh lemon consumption or transformed product. The general concept and experimental designs involving this study are innovative. This manuscript is well organized, and the new discoveries are valuable. Some phrases in the manuscript are still required to be defined or adjusted before publication. Several points need to be clarified or revised.

1. Please add scale bar in Figure 1.

2. When (which year) were the morphological and chemical parameters of fruits collected?

3. Delete frames in figs.

4.  Line 169-176, shoud better be presented in section 2. Materials and Methods

5. Better to describe the presented order of 18 lemon cultivars, randomly or from maximum to minimum.

Better to give a brief introduction of the preferred characteristics for fresh consumption or processed product.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

REV.3

The manuscript of Claudio Di Vaio et al. monitored the quantitative-qualitative characteristics of 18 lemon cultivars for 10 years which will provide the valuable instructions for fresh lemon consumption or transformed product. The general concept and experimental designs involving this study are innovative. This manuscript is well organized, and the new discoveries are valuable. Some phrases in the manuscript are still required to be defined or adjusted before publication. Several points need to be clarified or revised.

1. Please add scale bar in Figure 1.

Dear reviewer, we apologize for the inconvenience; unfortunately, the photos were taken without a ruler alongside. However, the information regarding the fruit dimensions is available in Table 4. Regrettably, without photos taken in this manner, we have no means of making adjustments.

2. When (which year) were the morphological and chemical parameters of fruits collected?

Dear reviewer the morphological and chemical parameters of fruits behavior was closely monitored over the span of 10 years (2009-2018), this information has been added at lines 182-183: “Morphological and chemical parameters of fruits behavior was closely monitored over the span of 10 years (2009-2018)”.

3. Delete frames in figs.

Done

4. Line 169-176, shoud better be presented in section 2. Materials and Methods

This part has been rephrased at lines 196-198 as follows: “The environmental factors in which plants are grown can have a substantial influence on their physiological functions and on vegetative and productive parameters of plants. [30]”.

5. Better to describe the presented order of 18 lemon cultivars, randomly or from maximum to minimum.

Dear reviewer, the cultivars have already been introduced randomly.

6. Better to give a brief introduction of the preferred characteristics for fresh consumption or processed product.

Dear reviewer, thank you for your observation. Additional information has been added to lines 62-75: “In general, lemons are rich in bioactive compounds, such as vitamins, phenolic compounds, fiber, organic acids, and mineral salts, which contribute to their beneficial health effects [8,19,20]. However, research indicates that the chemical composition of lemon juice, both qualitatively and quantitatively, is not constant and can be influenced by factors such as fruit maturity, lemon variety, and cultivation and management conditions [16,17]. Consumers' preferences extend beyond the external appearance of a fruit, such as its size, color, and firmness; they also seek internal quality, including flavor, volatile compounds, and functional components [3,17]. While citrus flavor and aroma play crucial roles in determining commercial quality, consumers primarily base their lemon product purchase decisions on their perception of overall product quality and value for money [18]. Among the key indicators that express good lemon quality are: fruit shape, fruit color, juice content, Juice soluble solids, acids and soluble solid to acid ratio, seeds per fruits, peel thickness and peel smoothness rating[17]”.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper is ready for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comment.