Identification of ‘Calanda’-Type Peach Genotypes Tolerant to Monilinia laxa (Aderh. & Ruhland) Honey
, Vitus Ikechukwu Obi 1,†, Juan Jose Barriuso 2 and Yolanda Gogorcena 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript, Identification of ‘Calanda’ type peach genotypes resistant to Monilinia laxa (Aderh. & Ruhland) Honey by Montenegro et al., describes efforts to select superior genotypes of ‘Calanda’ type-peaches with good fruit quality and tolerance to M. laxa. The manuscript presents a considerable amount of disease and fruit quality data in support of its conclusions. Because these conclusions indicate that disease tolerance rather than disease resistance has been obtained, the manuscript title should be revised accordingly. The manuscript will require a more thorough editing for the English language to be acceptable for publication, although the intent of the authors was generally clear throughout. The quality of the data and of the subsequent data analysis is very good, making this manuscript an important contribution to improved understanding and management of this important disease. The length of the manuscript, however, could be shortened somewhat while still maintaining a high quality.
Specific editorial suggestions are presented below.
Table 2 should show 2014 and 2015 data separately so that year to year consistency can be assessed.
Tables 3 and 5 should also show 2014 2015 data separately for the Andross and Calante parents.
Line
Change:
10 with a high tolerance to Monilinia spp. and high nutritional value. In this study, the tolerance to
To:
10 with a high tolerance to Monilinia spp. while maintaining fruit quality. In this study, the tolerance to
Change:
37 conditions it can produce up to 80% of the yield loss [3,4]. This disease is caused by three
To:
37 conditions it is responsible for up to 80% of the yield loss [3,4]. This disease is caused by three
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The background of the study and general considerations
This manuscript describes an interesting study regarding the evaluation of the tolerance to Monilinia laxa and agronomic and biochemical characteristics of forty-two genotypes of peach derived from the 'Andross' × 'Calante' cross under controlled conditions during two consecutive years, and compared with their parents, with the aim of identifying genotypes with agronomic value, useful in peach breeding.
The experiments have been correctly designed and performed, the methods are described in detail, the results are correctly presented and discussed, and the conclusions are sound and based on the experimental data. There is, therefore, no serious criticism of the content of the manuscript. Still, some minor changes regarding formal aspects or reformulations are recommended to improve the quality of the paper, as detailed below.
E.g: Please see the following parts of the text.
Abstract
Please revise the sentence (Lines L 9-10): "The way to control this disease is the selection of genotypes with a high tolerance to Monilinia spp. and high nutritional value.".
Rephrase clearly, because here, control of the disease and selection of genotypes with a high tolerance to Monilinia spp. is a different subject from the nutritional value of the fruits. Obviously, we want the new cultivars to have very good quality fruits, associated with an appropriate response to the attack of the pathogen (resistance, or at least tolerance).
Please analyze the text in Lines L 10-13:
"In this study, the tolerance to Monilinia laxa and agronomic and biochemical characteristics of forty-two genotypes derived from the 'Andross' × 'Calante' cross were studied under controlled conditions during 2014 and 2015, and compared with their parents."
Line L 12: “during 2014 and 2015, and...”.
The years can only appear in the full text of the manuscript. Here, I suggest replacing the years ("during 2014 and 2015") with "two consecutive years".
In this way, in the academic databases where the abstract appears, the research does not seem old, or the question does not arise as to why the research was not capitalized earlier.
Introduction
L 63-104: The information in this single paragraph is dense and difficult for the reader to follow and assimilate. Try to restructure/reformulate this part of the text into several distinct paragraphs (e.g., 2-3), with different issues.
L 74: … in vivo method… – please use italics for ‘in vivo’
L 82: Names of cultivars/varieties have to be included within single quotation ‘...’ (as you did below for the same cultivar, ‘Bolinha’ – see L 85). Check if this requirement is respected in the entire manuscript.
Abstract, Introduction and M&M
Please analyze Lines L 10-13:
"In this study, the tolerance to Monilinia laxa and agronomic and biochemical characteristics of forty-two genotypes derived from the 'Andross' × 'Calante' cross were studied under controlled conditions during 2014 and 2015, and compared with their parents."
You use here (and in 116 other places!), the term 'genotype'/'genotypes', but never hybrid/hybrids.
I understand your considerations (not to alternate synonymous terms and cause confusion for the readers). But probably the use of the term hybrids in a key point would help a better understanding of the biological material you worked with, and also of the results of the research.
In addition, you used the synonymous term 'offspring/s' / “F1 offsprings” (L 90-93, and in three other places): "The present study has been carried out with forty-two genotypes of the F1 offsprings obtained by the cross between two varieties of peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch]: 'Andross' (female parent) and 'Calante' (male parent) with differences in Monilinia laxa tolerance."
It would probably be good to reformulate the objectives at the end of the Introduction chapter (in some more general terms), and these explanations to be included in the M&M chapter (section "2.1. Plant materials"), which should be better presented, clear and easy to understand.
Please review some formulations that are not clear or understandable, i.e. see L 108-109: "The progeny of 104 genotypes, derived of the controlled biparental cross between two commercial peach" (e.g. "progeny of 104 genotypes? They seem to be descended/hybrids from 104 genotypes/parental forms, which is not the case).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
