Effect of Rootstock Selection on Tree Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality of Lemon Varieties Cultivated in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The presentation of the work in this manuscript needs to be improved, particularly in terms of the concordance between results and objectives, and by removing certain false assertions. References to support information are missing. Details of the points to be corrected are given below.

Keywords: Generally, keywords include terms that are not present in the title

Line 66: citrange not citranges

Line 67: “Due to sour orange's high susceptibility to CTV [10] new plantations are now established using more tolerant or resistant rootstocks, such as Volkameriana”. It’s no true. Sour orange is not susceptible to CTV, but when it’s used as rootstock associated with mandarin or sweet orange fruits, the tree is susceptible. Furthermore, the sour orange / lemon association is tolerant to CTV.   

Line 69: “Volkameriana, a natural hybrid of mandarin x citron of Italian origin [11]” The reference 11 (Saunt 2000) wrote “believed to be a hybrid between the lemon and sour orange, and of Italian origin….“. A correct reference have to be added for the genetic origin of Volkamer lemon. 

Lines 72-73: “Yuma Ponderosa lemon, a lemon-pomelo hybrid…”.  Add a reference for this information and for the other agronomical characteristics the of Yuma ponderosa. Curk et al. 2016 do not supported this hypothesis: “Ponderosa displayed C. maxima and C. medica homozygous alleles, suggesting a more complex origin (possibly an F2-like origin)”. A lemon-pomelo origin does not produce homozygosity of citron alleles.

Lines 80-81: “The assessment focused on tree characteristics, tolerance to mal secco infestation, and fruit quality attributes”. There is no work or results on Mal Secco tolerance in this manuscript, so this objective should be deleted.

Line 93: more than a sub-tropical is a typical Mediterranean climate

Line 98: detail EC

Line 113: “The scion and rootstock circumference were measured during January every year, just above and below the bud union, and their ratio was calculated”. Indicate the distance (cm) from the bud union where the circumference is measured.  

Line 122: “Also, the weight of each fruit was estimated (model 572, Kern & Sohn Gmbh, Germany) with a precision of 0.01 mg” why such precision ?

Lines 133-134: “The maturation index (MI) of the lemon fruit was calculated as the TSS/TA ratio”. This index is used only for citrus fruit with an acidity changing during the fruit maturation such as sweet orange, mandarin and relatives. Both acidity and soluble sugar content are stable during ripening, so the E/A ratio is not an indicator of lemon ripeness.

Line 148: “The mixture was incubated for 24 “ the unit is missing   

Line 175: a space after two dots

Lines 176-177: Quotation marks are missing to Femminello Commune, and  Ziagara Bianca

Variety names must be harmonized throughout the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's recommendations for authors. Sometimes it's "X", sometimes "X" and sometimes without quotation marks.

 

Table 1 caption: scion:rootstock add a space after double dots

Lines 232-233: “Seed number was strongly affected in the studied cultivars only when Yuma Ponderosa rootstock was used” not true, because the combination “Femminelo”/ sour orange had the higher number of seeds compared to the two other rootstocks.

Lines 233-235: “The use of the latter rootstock increased the number of seeds in 233 the fruits of “Mikrokarpo Messaras” by 45%, but decreased their number in the fruits of 234 “Nouvel Athos” and “Femminello Commune” by 62% and 20%, respectively”. I suggest that authors avoid using direct verbs such as "increase/decrease", as this means that the rootstock acts directly on the number of seeds, whereas there is no explanation of the nature of the rootstock's influence on this character. We can also assume that there are other factors of variation in this trait that are not controlled in the experiment, such as pollen flow. To demonstrate a possible effect of rootstock, it would have been necessary to carry out self-fertilizations or controlled fertilizations. If there are references mentioning such work on this trait and its control by the rootstock, then this point should be discussed.  

As mentioned by the authors in ‘material and method’ chapter: “Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used for the determination of variables that provide a better explanation of observed differences.” The authors do not present any result regarding the most efficient variables in the diversity. They have to add the plot representing the contribution of the variables to the PCA. 

Line 340: “The scion/rootstock diameter ratio serves as an indicator of compatibility, and values 340 close to one (1) indicate excellent compatibility”. It is not fully exact, because the use of trifoliate orange or Carrizo citrange as rootstock associated with sweet orange or clementine, produces a difference of diameter between the scion and the rootstock (bottle neck form) and nevertheless the association is qualified as excellent compatibility. The fruit production and quality is higher in clementine grafted on trifoliate orange than on sour orange rootstock (scion/rootstock trunk ratio close to 1).

Lines 263-265: “Our study found that the use of Yuma Ponderosa or Volkameriana rootstock significantly decreased both TSS and TA of lemon fruits from all studied cultivars compared to sour orange”. Is it a good or bad news ? What are the objectives of the selection and why ?.

Line 369: “Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) which plays a vital role in various metabolic processes and the immune system”, precise that is for human health

The dates of the following references are missing:

Biters, W. Citrus Rootstock: Their Characters and Reaction; Marty Nemeth, Reference Librarian, UC Riverside Science Library: USA;

Bowman, K.D.; Joubert, J. Chapter 6 - Citrus Rootstocks. In The Genus Citrus; Woodhead Publishing ISBN 978-0- 444 12-812163-4

Saunt, J. Citrus Varieties of the World; Agscience Inc; ISBN 1-872960-00-6

Author Response

Reviewer#1

The presentation of the work in this manuscript needs to be improved, particularly in terms of the concordance between results and objectives, and by removing certain false assertions. References to support information are missing. Details of the points to be corrected are given below. 

 

Keywords: Generally, keywords include terms that are not present in the title

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The keywords are changed, and they are not present in the title.

 

Line 66: citrange not citranges

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Citranges is changed to citrange.

 

Line 67: “Due to sour orange's high susceptibility to CTV [10] new plantations are now established using more tolerant or resistant rootstocks, such as Volkameriana”. It’s no true. Sour orange is not susceptible to CTV, but when it’s used as rootstock associated with mandarin or sweet orange fruits, the tree is susceptible. Furthermore, the sour orange / lemon association is tolerant to CTV.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We recognize the false assertion, and the specific part is removed.

 

Line 69: “Volkameriana, a natural hybrid of mandarin x citron of Italian origin [11]” The reference 11 (Saunt 2000) wrote “believed to be a hybrid between the lemon and sour orange, and of Italian origin….“. A correct reference have to be added for the genetic origin of Volkamer lemon.  

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A correct reference is added (Curk et al., 2016)

 

Lines 72-73: “Yuma Ponderosa lemon, a lemon-pomelo hybrid…”.  Add a reference for this information and for the other agronomical characteristics the of Yuma ponderosa. Curk et al. 2016 do not supported this hypothesis: “Ponderosa displayed C. maxima and C. medica homozygous alleles, suggesting a more complex origin (possibly an F2-like origin)”. A lemon-pomelo origin does not produce homozygosity of citron alleles.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The statement “lemon-pomelo hybrid” is changed to “pommelo hybrid”. According to the website https://citrusvariety.ucr.edu/crc3488 [13] the genetic origin of Yuma Ponderosa lemon is not known, and it is stated that it is not a true ponderosa lemon. For this reason, we believe that it is more suitable to write pommelo hybrid. We agree that In the work of Curk et al., 2016, the genetic origin of Ponderosa lemon was elucidated, not that of Yuma Ponderosa lemon.

 

 

 

 

Lines 80-81: “The assessment focused on tree characteristics, tolerance to mal secco infestation, and fruit quality attributes”. There is no work or results on Mal Secco tolerance in this manuscript, so this objective should be deleted.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The specific line is deleted.

 

Line 93: more than a sub-tropical is a typical Mediterranean climate

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word “sub-tropical” is changed to “Mediterranean”.

 

Line 98: detail EC

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word “EC” is deleted.

 

Line 113: “The scion and rootstock circumference were measured during January every year, just above and below the bud union, and their ratio was calculated”. Indicate the distance (cm) from the bud union where the circumference is measured.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The distance “15 cm” is added, which indicated the distance from the bud union where the circumference was measured.

 

Line 122: “Also, the weight of each fruit was estimated (model 572, Kern & Sohn Gmbh, Germany) with a precision of 0.01 mg” why such precision ?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that such precision is not necessary. 0.01 mg is deleted.

 

Lines 133-134: “The maturation index (MI) of the lemon fruit was calculated as the TSS/TA ratio”. This index is used only for citrus fruit with an acidity changing during the fruit maturation such as sweet orange, mandarin and relatives. Both acidity and soluble sugar content are stable during ripening, so the E/A ratio is not an indicator of lemon ripeness.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that for lemons the TSS/TA ratio is not used as maturation index. For lemons, an indicator of maturation is the juice content. For this reason, we change the term maturation index in the manuscript with TSS/TA ratio.

 

Line 148: “The mixture was incubated for 24 “ the unit is missing

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We acknowledge that the unit is missing. The unit hours (h) is added.

 

Line 175: a space after two dots

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The two dots are changed with “/”.

 

Lines 176-177: Quotation marks are missing to Femminello Commune, and  Ziagara Bianca

Variety names must be harmonized throughout the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's recommendations for authors. Sometimes it's "X", sometimes "X" and sometimes without quotation marks.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We follow the guide for authors and we added the appropriate quotation marks for the rootstocks and lemon varieties.

 

 

Table 1 caption: scion:rootstock add a space after double dots

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The two dots are changed with “/”.

 

Lines 232-233: “Seed number was strongly affected in the studied cultivars only when Yuma Ponderosa rootstock was used” not true, because the combination “Femminelo”/ sour orange had the higher number of seeds compared to the two other rootstocks.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The paragraph was re-written so as to present the data with the most accurate way.

 

Lines 233-235: “The use of the latter rootstock increased the number of seeds in 233 the fruits of “Mikrokarpo Messaras” by 45%, but decreased their number in the fruits of 234 “Nouvel Athos” and “Femminello Commune” by 62% and 20%, respectively”. I suggest that authors avoid using direct verbs such as "increase/decrease", as this means that the rootstock acts directly on the number of seeds, whereas there is no explanation of the nature of the rootstock's influence on this character. We can also assume that there are other factors of variation in this trait that are not controlled in the experiment, such as pollen flow. To demonstrate a possible effect of rootstock, it would have been necessary to carry out self-fertilizations or controlled fertilizations. If there are references mentioning such work on this trait and its control by the rootstock, then this point should be discussed. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The paragraph was re-written so as to present the data with the most accurate way. The words negative/positive were deleted. In the current work no self-fertilization or controlled fertilization is carried out, so this point is not discussed in the manuscript. This point will be taken into serious consideration for future experiments regarding this effect.

 

As mentioned by the authors in ‘material and method’ chapter: “Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used for the determination of variables that provide a better explanation of observed differences.” The authors do not present any result regarding the most efficient variables in the diversity. They have to add the plot representing the contribution of the variables to the PCA. 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Due to the many points (as each variable is examined in each scion in relation to the rootstocks and vice versa) we list the loadings of rootstocks and scions in a Supplementary Table.

 

Line 340: “The scion/rootstock diameter ratio serves as an indicator of compatibility, and values 340 close to one (1) indicate excellent compatibility”. It is not fully exact, because the use of trifoliate orange or Carrizo citrange as rootstock associated with sweet orange or clementine, produces a difference of diameter between the scion and the rootstock (bottle neck form) and nevertheless the association is qualified as excellent compatibility. The fruit production and quality is higher in clementine grafted on trifoliate orange than on sour orange rootstock (scion/rootstock trunk ratio close to 1).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The above statement was based above the reference Basal, 2009 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423808003002), which is also supported by Bisio et al., 2003 (L. Bisio, B. Vignale, F. Carrau, J.C. Diez Evaluation of nine rootstocks for ‘Owari’ satsoma mandarin in Uruguay Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture. IX Congress, vol. 1, Orlando, Florida, December 3–7, 2000 (2003), pp. 479-481).

 

 

Lines 263-265: “Our study found that the use of Yuma Ponderosa or Volkameriana rootstock significantly decreased both TSS and TA of lemon fruits from all studied cultivars compared to sour orange”. Is it a good or bad news ? What are the objectives of the selection and why ?.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The impact is negative and it is stated into the text.

 

Line 369: “Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) which plays a vital role in various metabolic processes and the immune system”, precise that is for human health 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word ‘human’ is added so as to be more precise.

 

The dates of the following references are missing: 

Biters, W. Citrus Rootstock: Their Characters and Reaction; Marty Nemeth, Reference Librarian, UC Riverside Science Library: USA; 

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The year is added.

 

Bowman, K.D.; Joubert, J. Chapter 6 - Citrus Rootstocks. In The Genus Citrus; Woodhead Publishing ISBN 978-0- 444 12-812163-4

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The year is added.

 

Saunt, J. Citrus Varieties of the World; Agscience Inc; ISBN 1-872960-00-6

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The reference is deleted and changed.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The presented study shows interesting and valuable results regarding comparison of tree growth, yielding and fruit quality traits of four lemon cultivars grafted onto three different rootstocks. Its scientific and practical significance is indisputable, broadening the knowledge on rootstocks which possess the potential to provide better yielding and fruit quality of lemon cultivars compared to the trees grafted on sour orange. In that way, different lemon cultivars could be grown in a wide range of pedo-climatic conditions.

However, the manuscript need to be rewritten in order to be suitable for publishing. English need to be checked and improved, at least by some native English speaker, due to many mistakes observed in the text.

Following issues must be addressed, so that after major revision manuscript could be suitable for acceptance.

I recommend to consider changing the title to: Effect of rootstock selection on tree growth, yield and fruit quality of lemon varieties cultivated in Greece, because yielding in this paper was presented as important parameter of selection.

Abstract:

Please restructure the abstract in order to follow the journal's recommendation (template), by adding more methods information, and more concisely presented main findings of the paper.

Please use quotation marks when writing cultivars/rootstocks’ names (‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’, ‘Yuma Ponderosa’ etc.), check that in the whole manuscript, including tables.

 Line 29 Letter ‘n’ is missing in the rootstock name.

Introduction:

Line 43 Is it ‘Ziagara Bianca’ Italian or Crete’s indigenous cultivar? Please state that more clearly in the sentence like you did in the lines 79-80, check lines 244, 274 (you have written: Greek local varieties not variety referring to both ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ and ‘Ziagara Bianca’), etc.

Lines 46-52 Please try to always follow the order of examined parameters and cultivars/rootstocks both in text and tables/figures, to facilitate reading and understanding of the text. The order needs to be the same throughout the whole manuscript (in all sections).

Lines 65-66 Provide full genus name in the Latin name of species at the moment of first mentioning in the text, for example Citrus paradisi, not C. paradisi.

Lines 69 and 72 Provide full scientific Latin names of investigated rootstocks when you mention it for the first time and after that use ‘Yuma Ponderosa’ and ‘Volkameriana’ in the whole manuscript.

Lines 77-80 There is a mistake in the text, you have investigated four not two varieties, one Greek, one Georgian and two Italian.

Lines 81 Tolerance to mal secco infestation was not investigated, please be more careful during the manuscript writing. Rewrite this sentence and be more precise about characteristics that were investigated.

Materials and methods:

More information on the trial must be added: the exact location of the trial, latitude, longitude, altitude; when the trees were planted, in which year, and in which three years parameters of vegetative growth and yield were investigated (line 111), were there three replications per cultivar/rootstock combination, are the used rootstocks vigorous, semi vigorous or low vigorous? In line 89 you have written that 9-year-old trees was used, but you did investigated trees during more than one vegetation, please be more clear about that.

Please provide an explanation of methodology used for all investigated parameters, and then use the same order when presenting your results both in tables and in text (check tables and order of parameters). Methodology for some investigated parameters is completely absent, while for some traits methods are not sufficiently described.

 

                Starting with subsection 2.2., please establish the order of parameters to explain first the methodology, and later the results regarding that parameters. The same order must be followed in the textual explanations of the data presented in the tables, as well during the discussion.

                In order to do that, start with vegetative parameters, including measurements of rootstock and scion circumferences, then scion/rootstock ration calculation, and after that yield per tree determination. Please provide information on years in which particular parameter was investigated, in which time/ month/moment during the year, on how many replicates as well as measurement unit for each parameter. Add information on instruments used to conduct measurements, such as caliper and weighing scale, including information in the brackets on model and manufacturer. Do not repeat additional information if some instruments were used more than once. For fruits, follow the order of logical performing of measurements: diameters, fruit shape calculated from diameters, fruit mass (rather than fruit weight), rind thickness, number of seeds.

                Line 119 Please use the same terminology throughout the manuscript, for example if you use the word ‘horizontal diameter’ in the table, do not use ‘equatorial diameter’ in the methods explanation. Check that in the whole manuscript.

When using abbreviation for the first time, provide the full term and put the abbreviation in the brackets. Further in the text, please use your abbreviations, with the exception of the beginning of the sentences, where you must use the full term. To be more understandable, in the new section you can again repeat the full term at the first mentioning accompanied with the abbreviation in the brackets. Also, there is no need to abbreviate some terms if you would not use that abbreviation further in the text.

                Results:

                In all tables, cultivar ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ is named as ‘Messaras’. Please change it to the full name of the cultivar - ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’.

Line 192 Delete following sentence: Rootstock choice significantly affected the weight of the fruit. That already has been said in the previous sentence.

Lines 207-210 belong to the Methods section.

                Text under the tables is confusing, please rewrite; also add that Duncan’s Multiple Range test was performed.

                Please present your results in the text not only in the manner of comparison between the results obtained on investigated rootstocks and sour orange, but also in the manner of the lowest and highest values per parameter, values range, average value per cultivar/rootstock combination and similar, where appropriate. For example, what was the highest scion diameter and on which rootstock, what is the value of highest yield, fruit mass, TSS, total phenolic content etc. In that way valuable data obtained through the investigation and presented in the tables will be highlighted in the text.

                Line 304 Delete following sentence: The antioxidant activity was evaluated via the FRAP methodology. It has been already said in the methodology, please avoid the repetition of information.

When you mention data from the table or figure, refer to that table/figure at the place of first mentioning, not at the end of paragraph.

                In the Principal Component Analysis explanation, please provide information on investigated parameters (variables) which defined each principal component (PC1, PC2), by having the highest importance in determination of variation within sample (highest absolute values of coefficients corresponding to each variable).

                Discussion:

It would be good that discussion for each parameter start with the short introduction on the investigated trait, why is it important to evaluate that characteristic, what are the standards valuated by the market, consumers or producers, and after that to discuss your results with referring to the other authors’ findings and important literature. The way that you have discussed your results does not show how valuable your data is.

For example, you did say that lemon fruit size is important quality trait in lines 348-349. Then you stated that cultivar ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ is characterized with small-sized fruits not suitable for fresh market, without saying what size is suitable. Also, the lack of discussion with regard to results of other studies is notable for almost all discussed traits. There is no need to write results of other authors in the form: 51.80 ± 1.12 g. You can say around 50 g, or above 50 g and similar. But it is important to make comparisons in some context, where literature is available.

In line 358 you have written ‘legal limit for market use of 20%’, what did you mean by legal limit? Also, for such statements, it is necessary to refer to some literature sources.

In line 363, taste, flavor and palatability are synonyms – please delete unnecessary words.

In lines 373-374 you have mentioned correlation of rootstock vigor and ascorbic acid content. That is the first time that vigor was mentioned, even though it is important information when conducting investigation on cultivars’ performance on different rootstocks. I suggest that when commenting tree growth expressed through the rootstock and scion circumferences, also include vigor into the discussion and the fact that trees on ‘Volkameriana’ had higher values of those parameters of vegetative growth, in comparison with trees on other two rootstocks, and to discuss yield in relation to both growth and fruit mass.

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Editor,

The manuscript needs to be rewritten in order to be suitable for publishing. English needs to be checked and improved, at least by some native English speakers, due to many mistakes observed in the text.

Mirjana

Author Response

Reviewer #2

Dear authors,

The presented study shows interesting and valuable results regarding comparison of tree growth, yielding and fruit quality traits of four lemon cultivars grafted onto three different rootstocks. Its scientific and practical significance is indisputable, broadening the knowledge on rootstocks which possess the potential to provide better yielding and fruit quality of lemon cultivars compared to the trees grafted on sour orange. In that way, different lemon cultivars could be grown in a wide range of pedo-climatic conditions.

 

However, the manuscript need to be rewritten in order to be suitable for publishing. English need to be checked and improved, at least by some native English speaker, due to many mistakes observed in the text.

 

Following issues must be addressed, so that after major revision manuscript could be suitable for acceptance.

 

I recommend to consider changing the title to: Effect of rootstock selection on tree growth, yieldand fruit quality of lemon varieties cultivated in Greece, because yielding in this paper was presented as important parameter of selection.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word ‘yield’ is added to the title.

 

Abstract: 

Please restructure the abstract in order to follow the journal's recommendation (template), by adding more methods information, and more concisely presented main findings of the paper.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The abstract is restructured according to journal template. More methods information are added and the results are presented more concisely.

 

Please use quotation marks when writing cultivars/rootstocks’ names (‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’, ‘Yuma Ponderosa’ etc.), check that in the whole manuscript, including tables.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. For all the names of cultivars and rootstocks, quotation marks are used.

 

 Line 29 Letter ‘n’ is missing in the rootstock name.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. An ‘n’ is added.

 

Introduction:

Line 43 Is it ‘Ziagara Bianca’ Italian or Crete’s indigenous cultivar? Please state that more clearly in the sentence like you did in the lines 79-80, check lines 244, 274 (you have written: Greek local varieties not variety referring to both ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ and ‘Ziagara Bianca’), etc.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The line has been rewritten, so as to indicate that ‘Ziagara Bianca’ is of Italian origin.

 

Lines 46-52 Please try to always follow the order of examined parameters and cultivars/rootstocks both in text and tables/figures, to facilitate reading and understanding of the text. The order needs to be the same throughout the whole manuscript (in all sections).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The section has been rewritten accordingly.

 

Lines 65-66 Provide full genus name in the Latin name of species at the moment of first mentioning in the text, for example Citrus paradisi, not C. paradisi.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The full genus name is added.

 

Lines 69 and 72 Provide full scientific Latin names of investigated rootstocks when you mention it for the first time and after that use ‘Yuma Ponderosa’ and ‘Volkameriana’ in the whole manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The scientific Latin name of the “Yuma Ponderosa Lemon” was added when the rootstock was mentioned for the first time into the text.

 

Lines 77-80 There is a mistake in the text, you have investigated four not two varieties, one Greek, one Georgian and two Italian.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We made the appropriate change in the manuscript. Four is correct.

Lines 81 Tolerance to mal secco infestation was not investigated, please be more careful during the manuscript writing. Rewrite this sentence and be more precise about characteristics that were investigated.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We deleted the line, since mal secco infestation was not investigated in this manuscript.

 

Materials and methods:

More information on the trial must be added: the exact location of the trial, latitude, longitude, altitude; when the trees were planted, in which year, and in which three years parameters of vegetative growth and yield were investigated (line 111), were there three replications per cultivar/rootstock combination, are the used rootstocks vigorous, semi vigorous or low vigorous? In line 89 you have written that 9-year-old trees was used, but you did investigated trees during more than one vegetation, please be more clear about that.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We added the year the trees were established. The exact location as instructed. The vegetative growth was examined only on December 2022, while the fruit parameters and yield were examined during 2019-2022. It was clarified that three replications per cultivar/rootstock were used. The vegetative growth was measured only during January 2022. The vigor of each rootstock was added.

 

Please provide an explanation of methodology used for all investigated parameters, and then use the same order when presenting your results both in tables and in text (check tables and order of parameters). Methodology for some investigated parameters is completely absent, while for some traits methods are not sufficiently described.

 

                Starting with subsection 2.2., please establish the order of parameters to explain first the methodology, and later the results regarding that parameters. The same order must be followed in the textual explanations of the data presented in the tables, as well during the discussion.

                In order to do that, start with vegetative parameters, including measurements of rootstock and scion circumferences, then scion/rootstock ration calculation, and after that yield per tree determination. Please provide information on years in which particular parameter was investigated, in which time/ month/moment during the year, on how many replicates as well as measurement unit for each parameter. Add information on instruments used to conduct measurements, such as caliper and weighing scale, including information in the brackets on model and manufacturer. Do not repeat additional information if some instruments were used more than once. For fruits, follow the order of logical performing of measurements: diameters, fruit shape calculated from diameters, fruit mass (rather than fruit weight), rind thickness, number of seeds.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We made the appropriate changes. We initially presented the vegetative parameters, then the morphological and at the end the qualitative. We also rearranged the order that each measurement is presented to the Tables. Fruit mass is used rather than fruit weight.

 

                Line 119 Please use the same terminology throughout the manuscript, for example if you use the word ‘horizontal diameter’ in the table, do not use ‘equatorial diameter’ in the methods explanation. Check that in the whole manuscript.

When using abbreviation for the first time, provide the full term and put the abbreviation in the brackets. Further in the text, please use your abbreviations, with the exception of the beginning of the sentences, where you must use the full term. To be more understandable, in the new section you can again repeat the full term at the first mentioning accompanied with the abbreviation in the brackets. Also, there is no need to abbreviate some terms if you would not use that abbreviation further in the text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The same terminology is used. The word equatorial diameter is used.

 

                Results:

                In all tables, cultivar ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ is named as ‘Messaras’. Please change it to the full name of the cultivar - ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word “Mikrokarpo” is added to all Tables.

 

Line 192 Delete following sentence: Rootstock choice significantly affected the weight of the fruit. That already has been said in the previous sentence.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The line is deleted.

 

 

Lines 207-210 belong to the Methods section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The line is added to the Methods section.

 

 Text under the tables is confusing, please rewrite; also add that Duncan’s Multiple Range test was performed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The line is added under every Table.

 

                Please present your results in the text not only in the manner of comparison between the results obtained on investigated rootstocks and sour orange, but also in the manner of the lowest and highest values per parameter, values range, average value per cultivar/rootstock combination and similar, where appropriate. For example, what was the highest scion diameter and on which rootstock, what is the value of highest yield, fruit mass, TSS, total phenolic content etc. In that way valuable data obtained through the investigation and presented in the tables will be highlighted in the text.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Where appropriate, further presentation of results was performed.

 

                Line 304 Delete following sentence: The antioxidant activity was evaluated via the FRAP methodology. It has been already said in the methodology, please avoid the repetition of information

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The line is deleted.

 

When you mention data from the table or figure, refer to that table/figure at the place of first mentioning, not at the end of paragraph.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The Table reference is added to the proper place in the text.

 

                In the Principal Component Analysis explanation, please provide information on investigated parameters (variables) which defined each principal component (PC1, PC2), by having the highest importance in determination of variation within sample (highest absolute values of coefficients corresponding to each variable).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A supplementary Table regarding the data of the PCA is provided.

          

Discussion: 

It would be good that discussion for each parameter start with the short introduction on the investigated trait, why is it important to evaluate that characteristic, what are the standards valuated by the market, consumers or producers, and after that to discuss your results with referring to the other authors’ findings and important literature. The way that you have discussed your results does not show how valuable your data is.

 

For example, you did say that lemon fruit size is important quality trait in lines 348-349. Then you stated that cultivar ‘Mikrokarpo Messaras’ is characterized with small-sized fruits not suitable for fresh market, without saying what size is suitable.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. This line is deleted, and references are added that determine when a lemon fruit is small or big.

 

Also, the lack of discussion with regard to results of other studies is notable for almost all discussed traits. There is no need to write results of other authors in the form: 51.80 ± 1.12 g. You can say around 50 g, or above 50 g and similar. But it is important to make comparisons in some context, where literature is available.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We added detailed data with values and measurements into the discussion section.

 

In line 358 you have written ‘legal limit for market use of 20%’, what did you mean by legal limit? Also, for such statements, it is necessary to refer to some literature sources.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The reference is added.

 

In line 363, taste, flavor and palatability are synonyms – please delete unnecessary words.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Work taste and flavor is deleted.

 

In lines 373-374 you have mentioned correlation of rootstock vigor and ascorbic acid content. That is the first time that vigor was mentioned, even though it is important information when conducting investigation on cultivars’ performance on different rootstocks. I suggest that when commenting tree growth expressed through the rootstock and scion circumferences, also include vigor into the discussion and the fact that trees on ‘Volkameriana’ had higher values of those parameters of vegetative growth, in comparison with trees on other two rootstocks, and to discuss yield in relation to both growth and fruit mass.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We rewritten this part in the discussion section, and we included data that highlight the importance of the use of vigorous rootstocks and how this is linked with the tree yield and increased fruit mass.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been corrected and I consider that it can now be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for implementing necessary changes.