Flowering Phenology of Olive Cultivars in Two Climate Zones with Contrasting Temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)
, Domingo RÃos-Mesa 1, Ignacio J. Lorite 2, Lorenzo León 2 and Raúl de la Rosa 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with a very important topic relevant to flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures. The content is well presented and illustrated. Some minor corrections and comments are indicated in the revised version.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Some minor corrections are indicated in the revised version.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. All the text corrections suggested have been incorporated. Missing references have been included.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)" presents a study on the influence of genotype, environment and their interaction on olive flowering phenology. The studies are of interest for data refinement in the development of simulation models for predicting the development of a plant in a changing climate.
- However, the authors in their work focused their research on only one variable, temperature, without analyzing the effect of other variables (precipitation, soil types, etc.) on flowering.
-Although in section 2. Materials and Methods indicate that the irrigation rates in the studied areas were different.
- Trees of seven varieties aged 3 to 5 years were included in this study. Most likely, due to the young age of the studied plants, in Cordoba in 2019, three plants did not bloom or their flowering level was not sufficient for the study. This did not allow us to give an average analysis for them over three years of study in this region.
- The number of cited sources in the text of the publication and the list of references at the end of the article do not match.
- A period is missing at the end of the discussion section (line 269).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your very useful comments. Please find below my reply in italics to your comments.
The manuscript "Flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)" presents a study on the influence of genotype, environment and their interaction on olive flowering phenology. The studies are of interest for data refinement in the development of simulation models for predicting the development of a plant in a changing climate.
- However, the authors in their work focused their research on only one variable, temperature, without analyzing the effect of other variables (precipitation, soil types, etc.) on flowering.
In the introduction, it has been stressed that the air temperature has been reported as the main factor influencing flowering phenology. We have also included data on irrigation and solar radiation.
-Although in section 2. Materials and Methods indicate that the irrigation rates in the studied areas were different.
We have included in the first paragraph of the results section a sentence indicating that rainfall was higher in Cordoba than in Tenerife, but that the difference was compensated by higher irrigation dose in Tenerife.
- Trees of seven varieties aged 3 to 5 years were included in this study. Most likely, due to the young age of the studied plants, in Cordoba in 2019, three plants did not bloom or their flowering level was not sufficient for the study. This did not allow us to give an average analysis for them over three years of study in this region.
It is true that we do not have data on three cultivars in 2019. However, we use a Type III sums of squares that is suitable for unbalanced data. We have clarified this intext.
- The number of cited sources in the text of the publication and the list of references at the end of the article do not match.
We have corrected it by including all references in the final list.
- A period is missing at the end of the discussion section (line 269).
Corrected
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors of Manuscript agriculture-2451578 “Flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)” claimed to investigate differences in olive phenology, grown under different climatic regions.
Depending on data, it can be transferred from “Research Article” to “Short Communication”
Although manuscript is dealing an important aspect of olive production i.e., genotypic differences in flower phenology of olives plant grown under different climatic regions, however, current version of manuscript is not suitable for publication, it needs significant improvements.
Major Comments
1. Introduction: rewrite, including need of study
2. Studied experimental locations differ only in terms of different temperature parameters? What about relative humidity, temperature, sunshine hours, precipitation? There is no information about other climatic parameters. Recorded results strongly influenced by not only temperature parameters, but also by relative humidity, temperature, sunshine hours, precipitation, their information is lacking in the manuscript.
3. Temperature data record mentioned only for three experimental years ((2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021), which are indicators of interannual variations in weather (short-term record), however, for studies dealing with regional climate difference, average of 30-Year weather data, technically called climate, is recommended.
4. Recommended terminology (due to repeated use of these terms, better use in abbreviations;
a. Revise “Daily temperature range” as “Diurnal temperature range (DTR)”
b. after defining at their first appearance): Tmax: Daily maximum temperature; Tmin: Daily minimum temperature; Tave: daily average temperature (Tmax+Tmin/2); DTR: Diurnal temperature range (Tmax-Tmin)
5. Carefully proofread terminologies/abbreviations used. For example
a. L-92: FBP is defined as “Length of full bloom period”
b. L-127: FBP is defined as “full flowering period”
c. L-95: FBD is defined as “Full bloom date”
d. L-127: FBD is defined as “full bloom time”
6. Thorough English and Technical revision required e.g., very first line (L-12) of manuscript is confusing
7. Statistical Analysis: how treatments means were compared for significant difference? In Tables lettering (to indicate significant differences) is improper and confusing, correct it
8. Rewrite Conclusion
Specific Comments
Abstract: is lacking numerical differences in recoded parameters
L-62: what were typical olive growing management at both sites?
L-63; L-64: Justify differences in irrigation at both experiment sites
L-64: what type of sensors were used to monitor canopy temperature? And at what height they were deployed?
L-66: add coordinates at map
L-68: what was the criteria for varietal selection?
L-95: Full bloom date (FBD): expressed as a Julian date or number of days?
L-115: Revise the text “Daily mean temperature (mean, maximum, average and range)”
Italicize botanical names
Thorough English revision required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your very useful comments. Please find below my reply in italics to your comments.
Authors of Manuscript agriculture-2451578 “Flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)” claimed to investigate differences in olive phenology, grown under different climatic regions.
Depending on data, it can be transferred from “Research Article” to “Short Communication”
Although manuscript is dealing an important aspect of olive production i.e., genotypic differences in flower phenology of olives plant grown under different climatic regions, however, current version of manuscript is not suitable for publication, it needs significant improvements.
Major Comments
- Introduction: rewrite, including need of study
Introduction has been rewritten to stress the need of the present study
- Studied experimental locations differ only in terms of different temperature parameters? What about relative humidity, temperature, sunshine hours, precipitation? There is no information about other climatic parameters. Recorded results strongly influenced by not only temperature parameters, but also by relative humidity, temperature, sunshine hours, precipitation, their information is lacking in the manuscript.
Precipitation and solar radiation data has been included.
- Temperature data record mentioned only for three experimental years ((2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021), which are indicators of interannual variations in weather (short-term record), however, for studies dealing with regional climate difference, average of 30-Year weather data, technically called climate, is recommended.
We here reported the evaluation of the flowering phenology of a set of olive cultivars that were recently planted in Tenerife in a comparative trial. Therefore, it not possible to have data for a longer period of time. Those cultivars were never planted before in Tenerife. A new sentence has been included in the discussion to stress this fact.
- Recommended terminology (due to repeated use of these terms, better use in abbreviations;
- Revise “Daily temperature range” as “Diurnal temperature range (DTR)”
Done
- after defining at their first appearance): Tmax: Daily maximum temperature; Tmin: Daily minimum temperature; Tave: daily average temperature (Tmax+Tmin/2); DTR: Diurnal temperature range (Tmax-Tmin)
Done
- Carefully proofread terminologies/abbreviations used. For example
- L-92: FBP is defined as “Length of full bloom period”
- L-127: FBP is defined as “full flowering period”
- L-95: FBD is defined as “Full bloom date”
- L-127: FBD is defined as “full bloom time”
Done
- Thorough English and Technical revision required e.g., very first line (L-12) of manuscript is confusing
Done. First line has been rewritten.
- Statistical Analysis: how treatments means were compared for significant difference? In Tables lettering (to indicate significant differences) is improper and confusing, correct it
- Rewrite Conclusion
Done
Specific Comments
Abstract: is lacking numerical differences in recoded parameters
Abstract is limited to 200 words, so we were not able to include numbers and fit all the information in this limit.
L-62: what were typical olive growing management at both sites?
The management in both sites was the same, except for the irrigation dose that was specified. We have rewritten the sentence to clarify this point.
L-63; L-64: Justify differences in irrigation at both experiment sites
Done
L-64: what type of sensors were used to monitor canopy temperature? And at what height they were deployed?
This has been clarified.
L-66: add coordinates at map.
Done
L-68: what was the criteria for varietal selection?
They were selected for having very different origins and being widely cultivated. This has been clarified in text.
L-95: Full bloom date (FBD): expressed as a Julian date or number of days?
Julian date. It has been corrected in text.
L-115: Revise the text “Daily mean temperature (mean, maximum, average and range)”
It has been corrected
Italicize botanical names
Done
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors of Manuscript agriculture-2451578 “Flowering phenology of olive cultivars in two climates zones with contrasting temperatures (Subtropical and Mediterranean)” have significantly revised the manuscript. However, following measures can improve manuscript before formal publication
· Thorough English proofreading (for example See L-53)
· L-61-66: Mention country name
· L-69: it can written as “Multilocation field trial”
· Uniformly use units of measurement e.g., temperature oC, check others also
· Fig. 2, correctly use Daily maximum temperature; Daily minimum temperature; Daily average temperature; Diurnal temperature range
· Different font types are used, follow journal’s font uniformly
· Why using “three Cordoba environments”?
· Thorough English proofreading (for example See L-53) can improve manuscript before formal publication
