Influence of Mulching on Replantation Disease in Sour Cherry Orchard

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The goal of the research is sound and the authors acquired data over 9 years. Unfortunately, the main treatment (+/- replanting) was not replicated. Measurements were taken in two different orchards, but since the replant treatments were not replicated, statistical comparisons cannot be made. Data taken from four plots within one orchard is simply subsampling from one treatment; therefore, statistical comparisons cannot be made between the virgin and replanted sites. One cannot know if differences between sites were due to replanting or due to some other location factor that differed between the two sites. 

It is also unclear if the mulching treatments were randomly assigned to the 8 plots within each orchard site. If they were, then mulching treatment can be statistically compared. But perhaps the mulching treatments were not randomly assigned. The manuscript says, "Each treatment was represented by 4 repetitions of 4 trees each" but does not say if the mulch treatments were randomly assigned to the 4-tree plots. If they were not randomly assigned, then statistical comparisons between mulching treatments cannot be made either.

This is unfortunate since data collection involved a lot of work over many years. But one cannot just take a few measurements in one orchard and a few in an adjacent orchard, then compare them statistically and say they are different. They may be different, but the reason cannot be attributed to replanting because there may be many other differences between the two orchards. The replant treatment itself has to be replicated and it wasn't.

The first thing the authors need to do is determine if the mulching treatment was truly replicated. If so, then the paper can focus on the effect of the mulch, using orchard as a block (not a treatment). If the mulch treatment was not randomly assigned to plots, then no statistical comparisons can be made. The paper is then about trends over time (e.g. Fig. 6) or between years - nothing can be said about statistical significance. 

Correlations between color components and growth variables are valid (as in Table 19) as they don't assume replication. And the temperature data are interesting (as in Tables 20 -22).

One other point - the authors assume that the orchard where trees had been grown before suffer from a disease, yet there is no supporting evidence of a disease. How does a disease increase fruit weight and color? I think the authors are concluding that a disease exists, but this may not be the case since pathogens were not isolated. 

The manuscript needs to be completely revised with these major points in mind. I think the data that describe variation from year-to-year are good and correlations among certain variables are valid. These could form the basis of a revised manuscript. (I would suggest showing responses to temperatures in graphical form rather than in tables.) But statistical comparisons between sites are simply not valid.

The first sentence of the abstract states, "Going to an orchard was a place where an orchard used to grow is associated with the appearance of replantation disease, which is becoming more and more common." This is an example of the awkward English that makes the paper difficult to read in places.

Author Response

In attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Abstract and introduction: The significance of this research is not pointed out. Although the purpose of the research was written, the significance of the research is not clear, so that others cannot grasp the key point. It is suggested that you elaborate the research significance of your paper in the introduction and emphasize the academic value of this research. Please stick to the research topic of the thesis.

2. Materials and methods: It jumped directly from 2.1 to 2.3, and 2.2 in the middle was not written out. This part needs to be improved and checked, and whether it is omitted or mislabeled needs further verification.

3. Results:3.Quality of cherry fruits 3.1 Fruit weight. In the bar chart shown in Fig4, Only 100 fruits are taken every year or there are duplicates, which are not clearly introduced. If there are multiple repetitions, there is no standard deviation or standard error.If there is a standard deviation or standard error, it needs to be marked with an error bar. (Other bar charts have the same problem.)

4. Figure : Fig.5, Fig.6, Fig.7.It is recommended that you mark the horizontal and vertical coordinates of the figure clearly, for example, the vertical coordinates of Fig.7 are only marked by one ' % '. It is not indicated that this is ' Total soluble solids content in years(%) ', and it is necessary to show the figures and tables more accurately and intuitively.

5. Three-line table : Table17, Table18, Table19, Table21, the bottom line should not use thin lines, should be consistent with the top line, with thick lines.

6.There are two first-level titles marked with three serial numbers in the article : 3.Results and Discussion, 3.Quality of cherry fruits, jumped from 3 straight streets to 5.conclusions, mistakenly marked serial number 4 as serial number 3, please rechecked and modified to avoid the same error.

Great command of English and clear expression.

Author Response

In attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting and concerns a topic that has not been explored in the literature. However, many improvements are needed, in summary:

-improve the introduction which is poor for the topic of the paper, although there is not much in the literature trying to underline the importance of a scientific contribution on the topic covered;

-improve the M&M section by better describing the sites (the distance between, if both flat, the same altitude? It was not specified). Furthermore, to compare two sites it is necessary that at least the physical-chemical parameters of the soil are statistically non-different, in order to declare that the sites are homogeneous. Another suggestion is to use the number of fruits as a covariate when analyzing production and quality, because it improves the comparison considering the crop load.

-improve results and discussion section. There are some doubts about the statistical analysis used, we talk about the interaction between two factors without ever revealing whether the interaction is significant or not. This would change the approach to data discussion. Some information loses concentration on the focus of the article therefore, although interesting, it should be eliminated, because it does not explain anything about the treatments carried out. It is suggested to write another paper on this. It will be better specified in the comments.

-conclusions are interesting but the table should be improved.

Please consider all comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All responses to comments are included in a pdf file, while changes are included in the manuscript and marked in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors handling of the data is much improved; however, nothing that the authors can do will compensate for the fact that the experiment was NOT a split-plot design. The authors state that "The experiment was assumed in a split-block system in 4 repetitions" but that assumption is not correct. The only way to correctly report the results is to treat the effect of mulching separately for each orchard site and not combine them into one experiment for the purposes of statistically comparing orchard sites. The replant treatment was NOT replicated nor randomized across the experimental area. (Figure 1 is deceiving - there were no blocks in this experiment.) There is still valuable data to be shared with the research community, so the paper should be published. But it is just not valid to make statistical comparisons between two adjacent fields when the treatments were not randomly assigned to plots. All the data can still be presented, mostly in its current form, but this is really two experiments - not one - and the results should be presented as such. Unless this is addressed, there isn't much else a reviewer can do to help improve the paper.

Much improved - only a few awkward sentences. For example, what is "fawn soil proper"?

Orchard 1- control (OR1–C)- trees planted in replanted soil in a place where for 21 years grow (should be, "where trees previously grew for 21 years")

Author Response

As recommended, we made a number of changes to the manuscript. Among other things, we performed a statistical reanalysis. Details in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf