Preharvest Application of 1-Methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to Schedule the Harvest and Maintain the Storage Quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ Apples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

After a careful reading, I have a good understanding of your research work and the article has some scientific contributions. The article systematically evaluated the field effects of a novel 1-MCP formulation (Harvista™ 1.3 SC) in apple production areas in subtropical climates, providing a technical basis for similar climatic zones such as Brazil, which is innovative; the results showed that higher concentrations of 1-MCP reduced pre-harvest fruit drop and maintained storage hardness, which was superior to traditional AVG treatments; and the three-year replicated trials combined with multi-indicator evaluation enhanced the conclusions' Reliability. The article is clearly structured and logically coherent, but in the introduction and discussion part, the literature is somewhat thin and lacks in-depth analysis and comparison of existing studies; in addition, the methodology is not rigorous enough.

The following are some problems and suggestions:

1. CA (air-conditioned storage) is not defined when it first appears;
2. In the keywords, there is a punctuation error;
3. 1-MCP is unstable in the liquid state and decomposes very easily, so please explain how to ensure the stability of 1-MCP in the spraying process;
4. The latitude and longitude coordinates are not written correctly in line 78;
5. The data of fruit drop is only from 2022/2023 year, but used to support the conclusions of the three-year study, lack of reliability;
6. Hardness reference values (71.2/66.7/62.3 N) in Figure 3 are not cited as a source, please clarify the basis of the hardness reference values;
7. It is stated in lines 213-220 that the higher concentration of 1-MCP was more effective in reducing fruit set than AVG, and gene regulation is mentioned but not shown, further discussion is recommended;
8. Line 334 should be changed to Figure 5A. Figure 5A should be changed to Figure 4A;
9. The cited references are too early, please add newly published articles in recent years;
10. The references are inconsistently formatted, and some do not have DOI numbers.

Author Response

Reviewer #1

 

The following comments and suggestions are highlighted by the reviewer:

 

1. CA (air-conditioned storage) is not defined when it first appears;

“Controlled atmosphere (CA)” was defined in the Abstract and also in the Methodology sections (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

1. In the keywords, there is a punctuation error;

Corrected (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

1. 1-MCP is unstable in the liquid state and decomposes very easily, so please explain how to ensure the stability of 1-MCP in the spraying process;

Harvista™ 1.3 SC formulation consist of 1-MCP encapsulated within α-cyclodextrin, forming a stable complex. The concentrated magnesium sulfate solution is used to decrease the solubility of the 1-MCP-α-cyclodextrin complex. By reducing its solubility, the release of the 1-MCP gas from the complex is slowed down. This allows the product to be applied as a liquid spray, and the 1-MCP gas is released more gradually after application, ensuring better coverage and effectiveness on the plant. The manufacturer recommends a direct injection system that adds Harvista™ 1.3 SC to the water in the spray line, close to the spray nozzle. The application requires the use of specialized equipment or a kit provided by AgroFresh to ensure proper mixing and application. This information was included in the Introduction section (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

1. The latitude and longitude coordinates are not written correctly in line 78;

Corrected (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

5. The data of fruit drop is only from 2022/2023 year, but used to support the conclusions of the three-year study, lack of reliability;

Correct, the fruit drop data was collected in the 2022/2023 season. However, we believe this single-year data is still representative. The fruit drop data, therefore, serves as a representative snapshot that supports our broader conclusions.

 

1. Hardness reference values (71.2/66.7/62.3 N) in Figure 3 are not cited as a source, please clarify the basis of the hardness reference values;

The values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N represent a progression of apple maturity, with firmness decreasing as the fruit mature.

Harvest Window: The firmness of an apple dictates its potential for storage and its quality for consumption.

Higher Firmness (e.g., 71.2 N or 16 pounds): This value indicates a very firm apple that is likely suitable for long-term storage, as it can withstand handling and has a longer shelf life before becoming overripe.

Intermediate Firmness (e.g., 66.7 N or 15 pounds): This value suggests the apple is nearing optimal maturity for consumption or short-term storage. It has a good balance of firmness and flavor.

Lower Firmness (e.g., 62.3 N or 14 pounds): This value indicates that the apple is at a more advanced stage of maturity. Apples at this firmness level are typically ready for immediate consumption or a very short storage period. A firmness of at least 62.3 N is a criterion for shipped products to be accepted by some markets without risk of rejection, highlighting this value as a commercially important threshold. According to Harker et al. (2008) the flesh firmness of apple fruit for maximum acceptance by the consumers must be > 62.3 N.

 

The specific values provided in the manuscript are relevant because they can be used to set a "harvest window" for apple fruit, helping growers and handlers decide when to pick their fruit to achieve a desired market outcome (e.g., long-term storage or fresh-market sales).

 

This information reference values (71.2/66.7/62.3 N) was included in the text (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

1. It is stated in lines 213-220 that the higher concentration of 1-MCP was more effective in reducing fruit set than AVG, and gene regulation is mentioned but not shown, further discussion is recommended;

Based on the reviewer's comments, the text was improved by strengthening the connection between the observed data and the proposed mechanisms, particularly by clarifying the role of gene regulation as a supporting explanation from existing literature, not as an original finding of your study. We provided a revised version of the paragraphs that aims to make the text clearer and more responsive to the reviewer's feedback (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

Previous paragraph:

            The greater effect of higher 1-MCP concentrations (175 and 225 mg L^-1) in reducing preharvest fruit drop, compared to AVG, can be related to the fact that 1-MCP was applied one week before the commercial harvest. In addition, AVG is an inhibitor of ethylene biosynthesis, but does not inhibit the ethylene action, as occurs with 1-MCP. Besides in-hibiting the ethylene action, 1-MCP also inhibits the expression of ACC synthase genes (ACCS), ethylene receptor genes (Md-ETR1 and Md-ERS1) and the polygalacturonase gene (MdPG2) in the abscission zone [27], thus reducing more effectively, at higher doses, the effects of ethylene on fruit abscission [7].

 

New paragraph:

The greater effect of higher 1-MCP concentrations (175 and 225 mg L^-1) in reducing preharvest fruit drop compared to AVG can be attributed to the timing of application: 1-MCP was applied one week before commercial harvest, while AVG was applied 28 days before commercial harvest. In addition, AVG is an inhibitor of ethylene biosynthesis, but does not inhibit the ethylene action, as occurs with 1-MCP. Besides inhibiting the ethylene action, 1-MCP also inhibits the expression of ACC synthase genes (ACCS), ethylene receptor genes (Md-ETR1 and Md-ERS1) and the polygalacturonase gene (MdPG2) in the abscission zone [27], thus reducing more effectively, at higher doses, the effects of ethylene on fruit abscission [7].

 

1. Line 334 should be changed to Figure 5A. Figure 5A should be changed to Figure 4A;

Corrected (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

1. The cited references are too early, please add newly published articles in recent years;

We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion to include more recent publications. We agree that incorporating new literature strengthens the discussion and provides a more current context for our findings. Accordingly, we have included two new references (References #30 and #31) in the manuscript to further support our results (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

 

10. The references are inconsistently formatted, and some do not have DOI numbers.

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in our reference formatting and the missing DOI numbers. We apologize for this oversight. We have carefully reviewed and corrected all references to ensure they adhere strictly to the journal's required citation style. Additionally, we have updated the list to include the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) for all available references, which we agree improves the traceability and accessibility of the cited studies. We have also verified the formatting of all references to ensure complete consistency throughout the manuscript (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Agronomy-3781128: This manuscript presents a well-structured and multi-year study evaluating the efficacy of preharvest 1-MCP applications in scheduling harvest and maintaining postharvest quality in ‘Maxi Gala’ apples grown under subtropical conditions.

L2–5: The title is descriptive but a bit long. Consider simplifying for better readability.

L17: Replace “orchard-applied” with “preharvest” for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

L68: Could you please further explain what does it mean “in the sprayable water close to the spray nozzle”?

L85–98: Consider creating a table summarizing treatment groups for reader clarity.

Line 103 Please explain why only one tree per treatment per replicate was harvested at each date.

Line 323: Please explain the rationale for choosing 44.5 N as a threshold.

Line 408–409: Please clarify how “44.5 N” relates to consumer or legal standards. You mention 40 N in Line 410, which seems inconsistent.

Figure 1a: Linear regression over all treatments seems meaningless.

Figure 3: I am curious why these 3 numbers were chosen: 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N? And please add explanation for horizontal lines in the caption.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

 

The following comments and suggestions are highlighted by the reviewer:

 

L2–5: The title is descriptive but a bit long. Consider simplifying for better readability.

The title was changed to: “Preharvest application of 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) to schedule harvest and maintain the storage quality of ‘Maxi Gala’ apples” (see the file, with text highlighted in blue).

 

L17: Replace “orchard-applied” with “preharvest” for consistency with the rest of the manuscript.

Corrected (see the file, with text highlighted in blue).

 

L68: Could you please further explain what does it mean “in the sprayable water close to the spray nozzle”?

Corrected as suggested by the Reviewer #1, to improve the clarity about the formulation and spraying procedure (see the file, with text highlighted in yellow in the Introduction).

 

L85–98: Consider creating a table summarizing treatment groups for reader clarity.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the creation of a table to summarize the treatment groups. We appreciate your focus on enhancing the clarity of our manuscript for the reader. In the 'Materials and Methods' section, we have provided a detailed description of the experimental treatments. Specifically, we state that the study involved five concentrations of 1-MCP (Harvista™ 1.3 SC) which were 0, 75, 125, 175, and 225 mg a.i. L^-1, applied seven days before the anticipated harvest. We also explain that aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG; Retain^®) at 124 mg a.i. L^-1 was used as a commercial control and was applied 28 days before the anticipated harvest. We believe this comprehensive explanation in the text clearly outlines the different treatment groups and their application timings. However, we are happy to create and include a table summarizing the treatments if you feel it is essential for the manuscript's overall readability. Please let us know if you would like us to proceed with this addition.

 

Line 103 Please explain why only one tree per treatment per replicate was harvested at each date.

Only one tree per treatment per replicate was harvested at each date to ensure that each fruit sample was independent and unaffected by previous harvesting events.

By harvesting from a different tree each time point, we are able to:

1. Avoid Confounding Factors: This design prevents the confounding of the harvest date factor with the effects of previous fruit removal, ensuring that any observed changes in fruit maturity over time are due to natural ripening and treatment effects, not to the consequences of repeated sampling from the same source.
2. Maintain Statistical Independence: Each tree within a replicate serves as an independent experimental unit for a specific harvest date. This is critical for the integrity of statistical analysis and allows for a robust assessment of the treatments' effects across the maturity period.
3. Provide an Unbiased Sample: The approach guarantees that each harvest date's fruit sample is representative of a unique, undisturbed tree, thereby providing an accurate snapshot of fruit maturity at that specific time point for each treatment.

 

The revised text explicitly state this (see the file, with text highlighted in blue).

 

 

Line 323: Please explain the rationale for choosing 44.5 N as a threshold.

A flesh firmness of 44.5 N (approximately 10 pounds) is widely considered the minimum acceptable firmness for many common apple cultivars at the point of sale. Apples with firmness below this value are often perceived by consumers as soft, mealy, or overripe, leading to a significant decrease in marketability and consumer satisfaction.

 

Line 408–409: Please clarify how “44.5 N” relates to consumer or legal standards. You mention 40 N in Line 410, which seems inconsistent.

Thank you for pointing out the need for clarification regarding the flesh firmness values. We appreciate the opportunity to make this aspect of our paper clearer. In the text, we used 44.5 N as a point of reference to highlight the efficacy of the higher 1-MCP concentrations (175 and 225 mg L^-1). As stated in the results, even when the fruit was harvested 28 days after spraying, these treatments were able to maintain flesh firmness above 44.5 N after controlled atmosphere (CA) storage and a seven-day shelf life. We also note that this 44.5 N value is well above the minimum flesh firmness of 40 N established by the Brazilian legal standard for the commercialization of 'Gala' apples. Therefore, the treatments not only met but exceeded the legal standard, even with a significant delay in harvest. This distinction is important because it underscores the commercial viability and robustness of the 1-MCP treatments. The revised text explicitly state this relationship, ensuring there is no inconsistency in how these values are presented (see the file, with text highlighted in blue).

 

Figure 1a: Linear regression over all treatments seems meaningless.

Figure 1a's linear regression model demonstrates the rate of fruit weight increase over time, which directly relates to the potential for increased yield when harvest is delayed. While the individual treatments didn't show a difference in fruit weight increase, the overall linear model for all treatments combined (y = 11.22 + 0.84x; R² = 0.9982) proves that there is a consistent increase in fruit weight of approximately 0.84 g per day. This information is crucial because it allows growers to understand the economic benefit of delaying harvest, as it directly correlates to an increase in fruit size and, consequently, yield. The regression analysis of fruit weight increase with harvest delay, averaged across all treatments, is a key piece of information for growers who are using 1-MCP to extend their harvest window. For instance, delaying harvest by 14 days with 1-MCP at 175 and 225 mg L^-1 can lead to a 7g increase in average fruit weight, while delaying it up to 28 days can lead to a 12g increase. The regression model supports the conclusion that delaying harvest with 1-MCP treatments improves fruit size and yield.

 

Figure 3: I am curious why these 3 numbers were chosen: 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N? And please add explanation for horizontal lines in the caption.

Thank you for your question regarding the selection of the flesh firmness values of 71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N for Figure 3. We appreciate the opportunity to provide a clearer explanation.

These three values were not arbitrarily chosen; they were selected to represent distinct stages of 'Maxi Gala' apple maturity and to better illustrate the beneficial effects of our treatments on delaying maturation. Specifically, they were chosen to represent early-stage maturity (71.2 N), mid-stage maturity (66.7 N), and advanced maturity (62.3 N). This approach allowed us to assess how each treatment group performed in delaying the loss of firmness across a range of maturity levels, providing a more detailed analysis than a single reference point would have offered. The use of these specific values enabled us to quantify the delay in fruit maturation in terms of the number of days to reach each of these firmness thresholds.

Regarding the horizontal lines, we updated the caption to explain that these lines represent the three distinct flesh firmness values (71.2 N, 66.7 N, and 62.3 N) used as maturity reference points in our analysis. We also added this explanation to the figure caption as suggested.

This information regarding reference values (71.2/66.7/62.3 N) was included in the text (see the file, the discussion text highlighted in yellow, and Figures 2 and 3, with text highlighted in blue).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript clarifies that 1-MCP treatment is effective for planned harvesting and maintaining freshness in subtropical apple production. I believe that this contains useful information for subtropical apple production. However, there are a number of serious issues, as described below.

 

1. Although investigations were conducted over three seasons, the results appear to be an average of the three seasons. Since weather conditions are likely to vary greatly from season to season, it is not appropriate to average the data for all years. Data for each season should be listed. If there are no significant differences between seasons, it is possible to list only the results of a representative season and omit the data for other seasons by stating that "the results were almost the same."

 

2. The timeline of the experiment is not easy to understand. To make the timeline easier to understand, it is necessary to use diagrams or other tools to make the timeline easier to understand.

 

3. It is difficult to understand whether each piece of data shows the results before harvest or after storage. The data should be presented in a way that makes it easier to understand.

 

4. Is weather data (temperature, humidity, etc.) collected during apple cultivation? If so, it would be desirable to provide this information.

 

5. In Figures 1 and 2, the data for the 28th indicates that 21 days have passed since the optimum harvest time. Is there a problem with the apples being overripe? Some kind of description is needed regarding this.

 

6. The abbreviations "DBAH" and "DASM" are confusing. It is easier to understand without using abbreviations.

 

7. The conclusion is not only too short, but also inappropriate. It should summarize the results obtained in this manuscript and provide a future perspective.

 

8. The phrase "a.i." (Line 18, etc.) appears frequently, but isn't it unnecessary?

 

9. Tables 1 and 2 are of minor importance and should be considered for deletion.

 

10. The English in the text is not only too verbal, but also incoherent. It needs to be proofread by a scientist whose native language is English.

 

Overall, this manuscript provides valuable findings, but has a number of issues. In conclusion, this manuscript will be acceptable for publication in agronomy if the above issues are adequately addressed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the text is too verbal and incoherent.

Author Response

Reviewer #3

 

The following comments and suggestions are highlighted by the reviewer:

 

1. Although investigations were conducted over three seasons, the results appear to be an average of the three seasons. Since weather conditions are likely to vary greatly from season to season, it is not appropriate to average the data for all years. Data for each season should be listed. If there are no significant differences between seasons, it is possible to list only the results of a representative season and omit the data for other seasons by stating that "the results were almost the same."

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the presentation of our data. We understand your concern about potential seasonal variations and the appropriateness of averaging the results.

We chose to present the average data from the three growing seasons because the results were similar among them. By combining the data, we were able to establish more robust response models to the treatments (1-MCP and AVG) that are less susceptible to the specific environmental fluctuations of a single year. A three-year average provides a stronger, more generalized conclusion about the efficacy of the treatments under the subtropical climate conditions in southern Brazil, which is the focus of our study.

Presenting the average data strengthens the statistical significance of our findings and increases the confidence in our conclusions, making them more applicable and valuable for growers in the region. We believe this approach offers a more stable and reliable representation of the long-term effects of the treatments. We had, however, added a note to the manuscript to further clarify that the results were consistent across the seasons, reinforcing the validity of our approach. However, a statement was included in the methodology, describing the climate in Fraiburgo, Santa Catarina, Brazil (see the file, with text highlighted in green).

 

2. The timeline of the experiment is not easy to understand. To make the timeline easier to understand, it is necessary to use diagrams or other tools to make the timeline easier to understand.

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the clarity of our experimental timeline. We appreciate your suggestion to use diagrams or other tools to make it easier to understand.

In our methodology section, we have outlined the timeline of the experiment in a sequential and detailed manner. We explain that our treatments of 1-MCP were sprayed seven days before the anticipated harvest time (DBAH). In contrast, the control treatment, AVG, was applied 28 DBAH. We also specify that fruit harvesting occurred weekly, starting seven days after spraying 1-MCP (DASM), over four weeks. This detailed, step-by-step description in the text aims to provide a clear and precise understanding of the experimental schedule.

However, we are happy to create and include a simple diagram or flowchart in the manuscript if you believe it would significantly enhance the reader's understanding. Please let us know if you would like us to proceed with this addition

 

3. It is difficult to understand whether each piece of data shows the results before harvest or after storage. The data should be presented in a way that makes it easier to understand.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the clarity of our data presentation. We appreciate your suggestion and understand the importance of making the results as easy to follow as possible for the reader.

We have structured the "Results and Discussion" section to clearly delineate between preharvest and postharvest data. Section 3.1, titled "Preharvest fruit drop and delay in maturation," focuses exclusively on data collected at harvest, including fruit drop, fruit weight, ethylene production, respiration rate, flesh firmness, and other maturity indicators. This section's figures, such as Figure 1 and Figure 2, explicitly present data from the fruit's condition at the time of harvest.

Subsequently, Section 3.2 is dedicated to the "Preservation of fruit postharvest quality". This section specifically discusses data on flesh firmness, soluble solids, and titratable acidity after seven months of controlled atmosphere (CA) storage followed by a seven-day shelf life. Figure 4 and Figure 5, which accompany this section, are explicitly labeled with these postharvest conditions in their captions.

We believe this thematic organization of our results, with dedicated sections and clearly labeled figures, provides a straightforward and logical flow for the reader. However, we are open to making further modifications if you believe additional clarification is necessary. We would be grateful for any specific suggestions on how we could improve the distinction between the two datasets.

 

4. Is weather data (temperature, humidity, etc.) collected during apple cultivation? If so, it would be desirable to provide this information.

            Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of weather data. We understand that this information can be important for contextualizing the results.

            Unfortunately, we did not collect specific weather data (temperature, humidity, etc.) on-site during the growing seasons. This was due to the limitations of our experimental setup at the time. However, we have described in the 'Study area' section that our research was conducted in a commercial orchard located in the subtropical climate of southern Brazil, a region that is well-known for producing apples.

            Despite not having on-site weather data, our three-year study, conducted under similar conditions across the seasons, allowed us to average the data, providing a more robust and reliable representation of the treatment effects than a single-season study would have. The consistency of our results across these seasons suggests that any minor seasonal variations in weather were not significant enough to alter the overall treatment effects. We believe that this approach provides a solid foundation for the conclusions drawn in our manuscript.

            However, we have included general information about the climate in Fraiburgo, Santa Catarina, Brazil: “The average annual temperature is approximately 16.4 °C, with the coldest temperatures occurring in July (mean of 11.9 °C) and the warmest in January (mean of 20.2 °C). The region receives substantial and well-distributed rainfall throughout the year, with an annual precipitation of around 1711 mm.” (see the file, with text highlighted in green)

 

5. In Figures 1 and 2, the data for the 28th indicates that 21 days have passed since the optimum harvest time. Is there a problem with the apples being overripe? Some kind of description is needed regarding this.

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the data presented in Figures 1 and 2, and the timeline of our experiment. We appreciate your point about the potential for overripeness in fruit harvested 28 days after the anticipated optimum harvest time.

This specific harvest date was not chosen as an optimal commercial harvest time but was a deliberate part of our experimental design. The purpose of delaying the harvest to 28 days after spraying was to rigorously test the maximum efficacy of the higher 1-MCP concentrations (175 and 225 mg L^-1) and the commercial control, AVG, in delaying fruit maturation and extending the harvest window. Our results demonstrate that these treatments were highly effective, as the fruit was able to maintain commercially acceptable firmness and quality even after this significant delay.

We agree that this point requires clarification for the reader. We updated the manuscript in the Materials and Methods section, to clearly state that “Fruit were harvested until 28 DASM, to evaluate the maximum efficacy of the treatments in delaying fruit maturation and to test their potential to significantly extend the commercial harvest window.” (see the file, with text highlighted in green)

 

6. The abbreviations "DBAH" and "DASM" are confusing. It is easier to understand without using abbreviations.

            Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the abbreviations "DBAH" and "DASM." We understand your concern that these abbreviations may be confusing to some readers. We chose to use these abbreviations to ensure consistency and brevity throughout the manuscript, as they are frequently used in the results and discussion sections. We believe that once a reader becomes familiar with them, they help to streamline the text and improve readability. Additionally, we added a dedicated list of abbreviations to the manuscript to provide a quick reference for readers [including "DBAH" (days before anticipated harvest) and "DASM" (days after spraying with 1-MCP]. We believe this will resolve any potential confusion while maintaining the concise style of our paper.

 

7. The conclusion is not only too short, but also inappropriate. It should summarize the results obtained in this manuscript and provide a future perspective.

The conclusion was rewritten to address the reviewer’s comments (see the file, with text highlighted in green)

 

8. The phrase "a.i." (Line 18, etc.) appears frequently, but isn't it unnecessary?

            Thank you for your feedback regarding the use of the abbreviation “a.i.”. We understand your point about simplifying the text for clarity.

            However, we believe that using “a.i.” (active ingredient) is a necessary convention in this manuscript. The active ingredient is the biologically active component responsible for the physiological effect of a chemical application. In our case, this distinction is important to accurately and precisely specify the concentration of 1-MCP and AVG used, as opposed to the total amount of the commercial product applied. This is a standard practice in agrochemical research to ensure that our methodology and results are reproducible and comparable with other scientific studies.

To address your concern and enhance readability, we included “a.i.” (active ingredient) in the list of abbreviations (see the file, with text highlighted in green). This approach will maintain the scientific precision of our paper while also clarifying the term for all readers.

 

9. Tables 1 and 2 are of minor importance and should be considered for deletion.

            Thank you for your feedback regarding the inclusion of Tables 1 and 2. We understand your concern about keeping the manuscript concise and focused.

            We believe these tables are crucial for the manuscript because they provide the quantitative basis for our conclusions about the relationship between treatment, harvest delay, and fruit quality. Specifically, Tables 1 and 2 present the regression equations, R², and significance values that demonstrate how key variables—such as fruit growth, respiration, and ethylene production—change over time. This information is not just descriptive; it provides a statistical model that supports our argument about the effectiveness of the treatments in delaying maturation.

            Without these tables, our claims about the rate of fruit growth (e.g., the 0.84 g increase per day from the linear regression in Figure 1) and the delay in maturation would be unsupported by the necessary data. Therefore, we believe that retaining these tables is essential for maintaining the scientific rigor and transparency of our findings.

            To address your concern about the main text while retaining this essential information, we could move both Table 1 and Table 2 to an Appendix. This approach would make the data accessible to readers who wish to review the quantitative details of our regression analyses, without disrupting the flow of the main text.

 

10. The English in the text is not only too verbal, but also incoherent. It needs to be proofread by a scientist whose native language is English.

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the English in our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your suggestion and understand the importance of clear and coherent writing for the quality of the paper.

We have carefully reviewed your comments and acknowledge the areas that require improvement. As a non-native English speaker, I am particularly grateful for this insight. Therefore, after the completion of the reviewing processes, and the manuscript approval for publication, we will ensure the manuscript is thoroughly proofread and edited by a professional scientific editing service specializing in papers in our field, with a native English speaker. This will guarantee that the language is precise, concise, and meets the high standards of the journal.

Thank you again for your constructive suggestions; it will undoubtedly lead to a stronger and more polished final manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed most of the questions. I think it can be accepted for this journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have ensured that the revised manuscript is properly revised. Therefore, this manuscript is acceptable for publication in agronomy.