Quality Analysis and Comprehensive Evaluation of Fruits from Different Cultivars of Pecan (Carya illinoinensis (Wangenheim) K. Koch)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Quality analysis and comprehensive evaluation of fruits from different cultivars of pecan(Carya illinoinensis)” presents a comprehensive approach to kernel quality assessment, which is based on a comprehensive assessment of the kernel quality of 27 pecan cultivars growing in China and an examination of  differences in the characteristics of different pecan cultivars. The main purpose of the manuscript is relevant in assessing the quality of the fruit and can be used to assess other species. However, I suggest the authors review some things such as

Introduction. In the final part of the introduction, the set goals and hypothesis should be specified

The data process. The statistical analysis should be described in more detail for what purpose the analysis is used for.

Are Tables 1, 2, and 3 averaging the chemical components in the kernels? If yes, show how much these means vary in each experiment using the standard deviation (±SD). In the table would also like to see significant statistical differences between trials. For this, I suggest using one-way discriminant analysis (ANOVA). Significant differences between the resulting means is determined by Tukey's test at a significance level of p≤0.05.

Line 102, specify how many fruits were taken in total in one variant.

Author Response

1. The introduction has been carefully revised as suggested by experts.

2. The data process part has been carefully revised according to the expert's suggestions.

3. Table 1, table 2 and table 3 have been added as suggested by experts; There may be significant differences in single traits among different varieties, but the difference of comprehensive quality depends on the comprehensive evaluation of various indexes.

4. Added on line 102 as suggested by experts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I can confirm that the subject matter of this study (Quality analysis and comprehensive evaluation of fruits from different cultivars of pecan(Carya illinoinensis)) is of interest and relevance for publication in Forests.

I read with your interesting manuscript but paper needs a lot of work which should be done. In general, your paper is poorly organized and requires a complete redesign. Here are some revisions to improve it:

• in keywords: add ‘nutrients’
• ln 105-127: corrected 2.2. Sample determination – add more details for sampling preparation and chemical analysis
• add reference to statistical analyses
• correct titles of table - ln 147: Table 1. Chemical composition (% of…..) of pecan kernel.
• crude fat, protein, sugar are in % dry mass or fresh? and tannin? add this information in title of table 1
• in tables is ‘Variety’ but in title of paper ‘cultivar’ – correct in all paper consistently
• correct titles of table - ln 159: Table 2. Fatty acid composition (%)of pecan kernel; and delate % at acids, acids correct according to the formula (for example): Palmitic acid to Palmitic acid (C16:0), acids are in % of sum fatty acids or % fat? add
• ln 214 are in table 3 Mineral composition of – not fatty acids ! correct
• add to average values in tables ±SD
• Conclusion? - the conclusion should not be a summary of discussion. Need to be rewritten. Make sure the conclusion is short and solid. An idea may be to synthetize in 3-5 bullet the key results of the study, evidences and recommendation. This improvement will increase clearness and readability. Add a practical implications statement.
• double check language and journal requirements especially in terms of citations.

Author Response

1. It has been carefully revised according to the key words suggested by experts.

2. The sample determination part has been carefully revised according to the expert's suggestions.

3. It has been carefully revised in line 147 as suggested by experts.

4. Is the percentage of dry mass, which has been added to the title of Table 1.

5. The wording has been unified in the full text as suggested by experts.

6. The headings of tables 1, 2 and 3 have been modified.

7. Table 3 has been modified.

8. Tables 1, 2 and 3 have been modified.

9. The conclusion has been rewritten.

10. The manuscript has been sent to the English editor for polishing and relevant parts have been modified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx