Actinidia (Mini Kiwi) Fruit Quality in Relation to Summer Cutting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here are some specific comments that can improve the manuscript:
The English of the manuscript need to be revised carefully.

Introduction: This section is too long. Some paragraphs are not connected and it is difficult to follow the flow of the information. Authors could try to identify a global problem and focus on possible solutions that can lead to the aim of the study.

Materials and Methods: A section should be added to list all the chemicals used in this work including the purity, company, and region.

Section 2.7: Please, add detailed data for the phenolic compounds analysis. It is not clear what gradient and conditions were used for LC-ESI MS analysis.

Author Response

We want to thank you very much for the valuable comments of the Reviewers. As suggested, the work has been improved in detail. We have responded to all comments and made changes in the text.

We have made a great effort to improve our manuscript and we hope that manuscript will be accepted.

All changes are marked in the text.

We have prepared the manuscript as indicated in the Guide.

The English text has been re-edited.

 

Reviewer #1

The Abstract and Conclusions have been corrected.

We have completed and revised the material and methods: we have completed information on all the chemicals used in this work, we have corrected Section 2.7.

We have corrected all errors pointed out by the Reviewer.

Best regards

Ireneusz Ochmian and co-autors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript reported the influence of summer pruning on the quality of kiwifruit cultivars. I appreciate the opportunity to review this interesting and practical study.

 

Major concerns:

It is clear that the authors collected a lot of data for different parameters, but the submitted manuscript is lacking the same attention to detail especially in the introduction and materials and methods sections. Besides, the discussion should focus on the effects of pruning on the stated four cultivars regarding each considered parameter. Perhaps the work would be better if it may have to be re-written focusing on the objective. Generally, I think this manuscript requires major revisions.

 

The abstract lacks clear communication about the effect of pruning on the quality of ‘Sientiabrskaja’, ‘Geneva’, ‘Issai’, and ‘Ken's Red’ kiwifruit cultivars.

Line 25-26, 'Sientiabrskaja' can be recommended for consumption as the cultivar richest in polyphenols and with the highest health-promoting values-with or without summer pruning?

Line 73-75, 'Lack of adequate pruning during dormancy and summer results in the formation of a very dense crown, with fruits heavily shaded'. Why does summer pruning decrease the content of polyphenols (line 24-25)?

 

The introduction lacks flow, and pruning is not well addressed. For instance, lines 70-75 could be elaborated more, supported by previous works, and moved above the last paragraph.

Line 91, what do you mean by high biological value?

The methods section is lacking the details necessary to repeat these experiments. It also needs re-arrangement.

Line 109-110, ‘Irrigation of the plantation was carried out annually using a permanently installed T-Tape drip irrigation line with a performance of 4.5 L/1 h/mb’. How many times annually? What ‘mb’ stands for?

Line 129, Section 2.3 please state clearly the pruning…what are the comparisons? One cut and two cuts only? No control? It appears on the graphic abstract as if there is no cutting (control)

Please move line 175-178 to line 159, start general fruit parameters with firmness. 

Line 183, what do you mean by ‘surface color of dried fruits’?

Line 188, ‘Fruits were then’ seems there is a remaining sentence/s before line 188.

 

Discussion should focus on the effects of pruning on the stated four cultivars regarding each considered parameter.

Line 282, Table 4, color of leaves??

Line 332, antidiabetic activity??

 

The conclusion again needs to focus on the effect of pruning on the compared cultivars.

Author Response

We want to thank you very much for the valuable comments of the Reviewers. As suggested, the work has been improved in detail. We have responded to all comments and made changes in the text.

We have made great effort to improve our manuscript and we hope that manuscript will be accepted.

All changes are marked in the text.

We have prepared the manuscript as indicated in the Guide.

The English text has been re-edited.

Reviewer #2

We have corrected all the chapters of the manuscript.

The Abstract and Conclusions has been corrected.

We have significantly shortened the introductions - we have mainly included the aspects studied in the manuscript.

We have completed and revised the Material and Methods: control plants were cut only once in summer. This is a basic agrotechnical procedure, the plants must be cut so that they do not become too dense.

We have rewritten all sections in the Results and Discussion chapter.

We have corrected all errors pointed out by the Reviewer.

 

Best regards

 

Ireneusz Ochmian and co-autors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you!