Next Article in Journal
Vineyard Yield Estimation, Prediction, and Forecasting: A Systematic Literature Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Niche Shifts, Hybridization, Polyploidy and Geographic Parthenogenesis in Western North American Hawthorns (Crataegus subg. Sanguineae, Rosaceae)
Previous Article in Journal
Ensifer aridi LMR001T Symbiosis and Tolerance to Stress Do Not Require the Alternative Sigma Factor RpoE2
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genetic Diversity and Structure of Local Pear Cultivars from Mountainous Areas from Aragon (Northeastern Spain)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Genotype, Environment, Year, and Harvest Effects on Fruit Quality Traits of Five Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) Cultivars

Agronomy 2021, 11(9), 1788; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091788
by Lauren E. Redpath 1, Marcia Gumpertz 2, James R. Ballington 1,†, Nahla Bassil 3 and Hamid Ashrafi 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Agronomy 2021, 11(9), 1788; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11091788
Submission received: 23 July 2021 / Revised: 30 August 2021 / Accepted: 4 September 2021 / Published: 7 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Genetic Diversity Evaluation of the Fruit Trees)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

you need to get to the point in most part of the manuscript. long sentences and paragraphs describing same findings are confusing. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. We broke the long sentences into shorter sentences and rephrased where there were ambugities. We removed a few sentences from the introduction, results, and discussions. 

We appreciate your constructive comments.  

Authors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

In short, the manuscript deals with an important issue: how to predict fruit quality of five widely-grown Vaccinium corymbosum cultivars in different cultivating locations. The methods are strong and aims of the study are well introduced. However, it looks like the MS was written in a casual manner, containing numerous language-related lapses (please see the attached file). The manuscript would further benefit from a greater narrative to bring these important results closer to the reader. Therefore, I suggest the authors to meticulously read the MS one more time in whole while trying to remove too descriptive parts and focus the story on the most important findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the time you took for a thorough review of our manuscript. We addressed all of your comments point by point in the revised manuscript. The word document has track changes turned on and all the changes can be seen there. The introduction, results, and discussion are better organized to address your concerns. 

Regards,

Authors. 

Back to TopTop