The Effect of Canopy Position on the Fruit Quality Parameters and Contents of Bioactive Compounds and Minerals in ‘Braeburn’ Apples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

New version of manuscript looks much better than first one. Authors are accept and incorporate all reviewer recommendation and comments. 

Manuscript can be publish as soon as possible.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

We thank you for your decision,

 

Best regards,

 

Rajko Vidrih

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Line	Says	Should say
172	using vacuum sealer machine and then fixed to the branches of the both trees.	using a vacuum sealer machine and then fixed to the branches of both trees.
173	illuminance and PAR measurement	illuminance and PAR measurements
174	where there are actually	where there were actually
175	measurements inside the canopy	measurements taken inside the canopy
176	PAR was measured	PAR were measured
177	all major sides of the sky	all major orientations of the sky
179	outside and inside sensor	outside and inside sensors
436	spindle bush training system inside sensors	spindle training system, inside sensors
438	outside and inside sensor	outside and inside sensors
439	In Lithuania Kviklys	In Lithuania, Kviklys
442	Fruit lighting is thus significantly	Light availability to the fruit
443	of 'Fuji' apples Jakopič	of 'Fuji' apples, Jakopič
445	reported that central part of large round canopy	reported that the central part of a large round canopy
Note		In abstract, the authors need to mention the main effects of treatments on light availability within the canopy

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thanks for your effort. We have done as requested regarding text in lines 172 - 445. We also made English editing and inserted information regarding light intensity within canopy and outside canopy.

Best regards,

 

Rajko Vidrih

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

To make a link in the material and method section between the measurements made in 2023 on light and the ones that they could have had during the sampling of apples in 2012 and 2013, because the reviewers were aware of the reasons but is not easy for a new lecture. And discuss it a little afterwards in the results
Then 2 minor corrections Line 138: change xtracts by extracts Line 638: keep colour instead of color.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your efforts, we have done our best to fulfill your requirements.

To make a link in the material and method section between the measurements made in 2023 on light and the ones that they could have had during the sampling of apples in 2012 and 2013, because the reviewers were aware of the reasons but is not easy for a new lecture.

Our reply: we made a link Material and method: 2.2.5. Light measurements

And discuss it a little afterwards in the results

Our reply: we discussed it in results: 

3.6. Light measurements outside and inside of canopy

3.6.1 Insolation and total irradiance data 

and discussion:  Lines 446-451

Then 2 minor corrections Line 138: change xtracts by extracts Line 638: keep colour instead of color.

 

Our reply: that was done as requested

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the research, we are expected to recommend the cultivation form and method, pruning, and the plant density for a given variety (cv. Braeburn) so that the fruits are exposed to light in a greater level throughout the day.

Why you are now publishing the results you achieved ten years ago? Reason?

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Based on the research, we are expected to recommend the cultivation form and method, pruning, and the plant density for a given variety (cv. Braeburn) so that the fruits are exposed to light in a greater level throughout the day.

Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the recognition of the value of our study.

Why you are now publishing the results you achieved ten years ago? Reason?

Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. This is due to the fact that this study is a part of ongoing doctoral thesis of the first author, and due to private reasons he was incapable to start work on his dissertation, e.g. this paper. In addition, we lost around 2 years in one journal waiting for the review process to finish, and afterwards withdraw the article before the completion of review process.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript provides the results about the compositon and phenotypes of apples depending on the placement of the fruit in the tree two consecutive years.

There is a complete analysis of apple to characterise them.

The only thing, except minor points signaled in the attached document, is that once we know all this what we can do or how it's going to be taken into account to increase the value of apples?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript provides the results about the composition and phenotypes of apples depending on the placement of the fruit in the tree two consecutive years. There is a complete analysis of apple to characterise them.

Our reply: We thank the Reviewer for the supportive comments, and we have tried to satisfactorily address the modifications requested, as detailed below.

 

The only thing, except minor points signaled in the attached document, is that once we know all this what we can do or how it's going to be taken into account to increase the value of apples?

Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. By taking into consideration facts obtained from this study the value of apples can be increased by all the practices that will allow penetration of higher proportion of the light in to the inner part of canopy and thus increase certain fruit quality parameters of apples. This practices include: adequate pruning (winter and summer), usage of reflective mulches, optimal fertilization that will not cause canopy to become too density etc.

Reviewer 3 Report

When comparing different canopy positions, you need to assess the micro-environmental conditions within plants, along the season and across years.

The major problem with this paper is that they did not assess the micro-environmental conditions with the plants. For instance, they were aware of the importance of light variations within the canopy. In the conclusions they stated in lines 587-588: "There is a need to better understand the fruit canopy positioning physico-chemical parameters of apple since light has a crucial role in physiological changes in fruit cuticle"; also in lines 595-594 they say: "Fruit ground and red blush colour intensities are light dependent..". Is known that the light and temperature conditions vary along the season, among seasons, and within the canopy; however, the authors did not measure these variables in their trials.  In order for this information to be useful for future research on this area (which is one of the purposes of publishing articles), there must be a detailed report on the micro environmental conditions within the plants, along the season and across years.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

When comparing different canopy positions, you need to assess the micro-environmental conditions within plants, along the season and across years.

 

The major problem with this paper is that they did not assess the micro-environmental conditions with the plants. For instance, they were aware of the importance of light variations within the canopy. In the conclusions they stated in lines 587-588: "There is a need to better understand the fruit canopy positioning physico-chemical parameters of apple since light has a crucial role in physiological changes in fruit cuticle"; also in lines 595-594 they say: "Fruit ground and red blush colour intensities are light dependent..". Is known that the light and temperature conditions vary along the season, among seasons, and within the canopy; however, the authors did not measure these variables in their trials.  In order for this information to be useful for future research on this area (which is one of the purposes of publishing articles), there must be a detailed report on the micro environmental conditions within the plants, along the season and across years.

 

Our reply: We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion regarding micro-environmental conditions, and for the time and effort that was obviously put in here. We would note that Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 did not find it crucial to mention that the lack of micro-environmental conditions within plants, along the season and across years wrecks this study in any case. We agree with reviewer that having data about micro-environmental conditions would be of great importance to justify the fruit colour, however this issue was already studied and data is well known. Hence in accordance with the reviewers comment we include literature data regarding light conditions within canopy. At this level, we believe we have integrated all of the comments of Reviewer #3 into this revision.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I have received both the track changes and the new version of the article "Effect of canopy position on..." for a new revision.   In my view, the changes made by the authors are superficial and do not address the main point which is that they did not include in their article micro-meteorological data recorded from the different positions within the canopy in the different seasons and moments of those seasons. On lines 407-409 they state " In general, the outer periphery of the canopy intercepts and reflects a high proportion of the incoming radiation which causes different light distribution profiles for different training systems [33]." Thus, they are aware that among other variables, the training system used in trees employed in a given trial has an impact on the light conditions within the canopy. I think that if they do not provide this data the paper cannot be accepted. Receive my kindest regards

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I have received both the track changes and the new version of the article "Effect of canopy position on..." for a new revision.   In my view, the changes made by the authors are superficial and do not address the main point which is that they did not include in their article micro-meteorological data recorded from the different positions within the canopy in the different seasons and moments of those seasons. On lines 407-409 they state " In general, the outer periphery of the canopy intercepts and reflects a high proportion of the incoming radiation which causes different light distribution profiles for different training systems [33]." Thus, they are aware that among other variables, the training system used in trees employed in a given trial has an impact on the light conditions within the canopy. I think that if they do not provide this data the paper cannot be accepted. Receive my kindest regards

Our reply: We thank the reviewer for the comment. In this study we did not measured light conditions within the canopy. However, we stand by our previous remark that this are well known facts that do not need additional confirmation. Reviewer 3 states that “the training system used in trees employed in a given trial has an impact on the light conditions within the canopy”. It is true, but effect of training system on light conditions has already been studied which is well elaborated in available literature. In this study investigated apple trees were trained as spindle bush. Regarding the effect of light conditions on such or similar training system there are following studies:

• Along a horizontal cross-section of the canopy grown as central leader trees light is distributed as U-shaped pattern (Corelli- Grappadelli and Marini, 2008 according to Porpiglia and Barden, 1980; Marini and Barden, 1982).
• In Lithuania with slender spindle apple training system Kviklys et al. (2022) reported that on average during the growing season, the top of the apple canopy received 43% of the available light, the west side 21%, the east side 16% and inside of the canopy only 12%.
• Shtai et al (2020) reported increase in PAR with increase distance from the three trunk in apples grown as slender spindle

 

References:

1. Corelli Grappadelli, L.; Marini, R.P. (2008). Orchard planting system. In The Peach: Botany, Production and Uses; Layne, D.R., Bassi, D., Eds.; Cabi: London, UK; pp. 264–288.
2. Porpiglia, P.J.; Barden, J.A. (1980). Seasonal trends in net photosynthetic potential, dark respiration, and specific leaf weight of apple leaves as affected by canopy position. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 105: 920-923
3. Marini, R.P.; Barden, J.A. (1982). Light penetration on overcast and clear days, and specific leaf weight in apple trees as affected by summer or dormant pruning. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 107: 39-43
4. Kviklys, D.; Viškelis, J.; Liaudanskas, M.; Janulis, V.; Laužikė, K.; Samuolienė, G.; Uselis, N.; Lanauskas, J. (2022). Apple Fruit Growth and Quality Depend on the Position in Tree Canopy. Plants 11, 196.
5. Shtai, W., Tagliavini, M., Holtz, T., Abdelkader, A. Ben, Petrillo, M., Zanotelli, D., Montagnani, L. (2020). Total and diffuse light distribution within the canopy of an apple orchard as affected by reflective ground covers. Italus Hortus 27 (1), 69–84.