Influence of High Tunnel Microclimate on Fruit Quality and Calcium Concentration in ‘Santina’ Sweet Cherries in a Mediterranean Climate

General comments

The article, written in a concise and clear language, presents the results of the study of the effect of high tunnel protection on the quantity and quality of sweet cherries’ yield produced under the Mediterranean climate of the Central Valley of Chile.  The article describes in detail the changes in fruit marketable characteristics as related to environmental conditions (temperature, humidity) under tunnel protection as compared with the open field, as well chemical properties of the produced sweet cherries. I believe the article is of great interest to specialists in the specific field, i.e. the agronomy of the fruit-bearing woody crops, and broader audience as well.  The manuscript is worth publishing.  However, I may suggest to the authors some avenues to improve the manuscript prior to publishing.

Major comments

Line #

Original text

Comments/questions/suggestions

Abstract

I strongly suggest to kindly provide your readers with at least one sentence a) describing the background, i.e. some kind of justification of why the research was conducted in the first place; and b) identifying the main gaps/issues to be addressed in future research, i.e. concluding remarks.

M&M

The subsection 2.1, describing plant material, study site and treatments, is written in much detail. However, some important information is missing:  soil taxonomy, both national and WRB (World Reference Base of Soil Resources),  some basic  soil chemical and physical properties, and a brief history of agricultural use. I believe the authors can easily amend their article with such information and, by doing so, make this subsection more comprehensive and more agronomy-related.

M&M

The subsection 2.4, describing statistical analyses, stated that “Analysis of variance, ANOVA, was carried out to determine significant (p = 0.05) differences between the two treatments”.  But then the test for post-hoc comparison was never specified in the manuscript, both in M&M and table footnotes. Please, specify the test.

Results

Analysis of variance got its name by performing analysis of variance per se, i.e. allocating portions of the observed variance to the studied factors and their interactions. Since ANOVA has been already performed with the data presented in the manuscript, it is not a problem to add a table with percentage of the total variance of a variable (fruit yield, mineral content, whichever else the authors find worthwhile/most interesting to include)  in such a table.  The percentage is calculated as factor SS divided by the total SS and the multiplied by 100. There would be  3 factors, if I got the setup correctly: 1) cover=tunnel, no tunnel; 2) plot=plot1, plot 2; 3) canopy=lower, upper; and their interactions. Besides, in GLM temperature and humidity can be also taken as continuous factors. Can you explain why you do not use all the info from ANOVA analyses?

Discussion

You do not discuss the decrease in fruit sweetness found  in your 2019 report. Personally, I am very curious to know how tunnel protection affects not only crackability, etc. (this is growers’ perspective), but how such protection affects the sensory/organo-leptic quality of fruits, i.e. taste, flavor etc. (consumers’ perspective).  Can you briefly address the point in this section?

References

I could not find this reference  at the indicated position. (Blanco, V.; Zoffoli, J.P.; Ayala, M. Eco-physiological response, water productivity and fruit quality of sweet cherry trees 459 under high tunnels. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 284, 110108). I wanted to check how you assessed fruit quality.  Was it sensory, or chemical, or both?

Minor comments

166

Fruit dry matter was calculated (DM, %)

Please, specify temperature and for how long

167

Combustion until components were converted to ash.

Please, specify temperature and for how long

242

physicochemical parameters obtained

physicochemical properties of fruits obtained

265

parameters

I would suggest “characteristics” instead of “parameters”  everywhere in this context

Technical comments

37

and, one

and one

38

profitability, is

profitability is

40-41

Failure in the extension of the cuticular membrane is induced by water is uptake either by the fruit skin and/or via the root

Need rewording.

42

rain induced

rain- induced

43

they present

The covers present

44

growers and

growers, and

45-46

passively-vented

 passively vented

46

vented, hoop

vented  hoop

55

and so slow

and thus slow

76

and associated

and can be associated

79

potential – particularly

potential ,  particularly

82-83

Valley, were

Valley  were

83

open but

open,  but

90

fruit and with

fruit with

107

assessed, covered

assessed:  covered

118

conditions, air

conditions, i.e. air

16, 19, 21, 124

fruit

fruits

Please, check everywhere: in some cases it is OK to use “fruit” like in “fruit yield”, but in many others it should be plural.

186

microclimate altering

microclimate,  altering

194

this is

being

196

between bloom and fruit set

between the bloom and the fruit set

216

on plot

on the plot

259

lab

laboratory

260

Values

The values

267

unchanged but

unchanged,  but

273, 274, 295, 296, 319, 345

covered

the covered

And elsewhere in the manuscript

298

dry matter

dry matter content

317

between fruit

Between the fruit

331

both, fruit

both  fruit

332

quality, in

quality  in

334

during bloom

during the bloom

339

in covered environments exceed

in the covered environments exceeded

341

to lower

to the lower

346

parameters such

such characteristics

347

Fruit

Fruits

358

was

were

394

Ca

Calcium

403

found,

found;

419

High K/Ca likely results because Ca

High K/Ca likely results from the fact that Ca

420

mobile that can also

mobile and can

421

in vegetative organs in the fruit

???

423-424

compared to in the 423 open.

Needs editing

426

with mean

with the mean

429

with uncovered… covered

with the uncovered … the covered