Fruit Variation in Yellow-Fleshed Actinidia (Actinidia chinensis Planch) Plants Grown in Southern Italy as a Function of Shoot Type

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. The first point is that convention dictates the genera and species are italised hence throughout this paper Actinidia chinensis should be as written throughout the paper. In addition, the abbreviation for cultivar is cv. and the authors are inconsistent with this so check throughout.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The suggested change has been done

 

1. One other grammatical aspect is the failure to introduce a paragraph when the context changes, for example at line 310, the sentence is related to the pergola growth system, but the next sentence is on carbohydrates, sink strength and supply and there are no connections to these two sentences hence a paragraph is required.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

1. R. More generally, the authors fail to use a paragraph break in the text and an example here is the Introduction is one very long paragraph even though numerous topics are introduced. Similarly, the opening sentence of the Introduction is very long and should be split. More generally, the Introduction covers the knowledge of kiwifruit vines shoot types and their functionality.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

R: The methods are characterised by brevity, for example, hydraulic resistance (L93 – 94) was measured but no details as to how or what instrument was used.  Ah I see on lines 156 – 161 the required details are reported, hence the reference on 93 – 94 should be deleted.

 

1. Note also that abbreviations should be spelled out firstly with the noted abbreviation included in brackets, for example Days after full bloom (DAFB).
2. Thanks for the recommendation

 

1. Gas exchange (150 – 154) is another example of brevity. What is missing are the photon flux density, CO₂ concentration, Leaf temperature and vapour pressure difference (leaf to air). As a user of the LI6400 XT system I am acutely aware that all this information is recorded so there is no excuse to omit these details.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. A. The data gas exchange has been updated

 

1. I am not convinced that a one-way ANOVA was the appropriate statistical procedure for a data set containing 4 treatments and two years data. As yet the authors present an apparent interaction in the tables but how this was achieved was not clear. In the experimental design, a two-way analysis or a general linear modelling approach would be far more appropriate.
2. Thank you for the recommendation. It is a two-way ANOVA. In fact, two-way ANOVA was reported in the tables, but not updated in the text.

 

1. The tables are another example of brevity, for example in Table 1 the list of shoot types should be spelled out in the Table legend as well as the measured parameters. It is permissible to use the abbreviations of the shoot types in the subsequent tables. However, in all other tables the list of measured parameters should be defined in the table legend.

A: Thank you for the recommendation. It is a two-way ANOVA. In fact, it was reported in the tables, but not updated in the text.

 

The tables are also chacterised by over precise numbers, for example of fruit weights are best listed as 166.7 g but this comment applies to all tables.

 

 

252. Aside from the lack of clarity as to how the treatment x year interaction was determined, the occasions when there was a significant interaction, but the authors have universally assumed that the year effect was not important, as all tables are presented as averaged data. Whereas for soluble solids (Table 2) there was an apparent significant interaction suggesting these data varied across the two years. It is incorrect for the authors to assume because the year effect was not significant hence averaging the year data but the interaction has a higher standing in statistical terms hence the data for SS should be presented for both years. This comment applies to all data for which there is a significant interaction. The text is marked in several instances where the year effect was dismissed, L241 – 242 and L 251 – 252.
253. Thank you for the recommendation. We are sorry. Yes indeed, the use of three significance thresholds caused us confusion when drafting the tables. in this version we decided to accept the significance p<0.05 and adopt a single asterisk. So we revised the tables.

 

 

I note that the data in Table 3 with the exception of ^oHue, the rest of these data were not discussed.

 

1. : The case for defining terms is well required in Table 5 where the term ‘Phylloptosis’ is not defined in the legend and should include the units of these numbers. My comment about overprecise numbers applies especially to shoot length and notably the very large error for the NT shoot length, is this correct?
2. Thank you for the recommendation. We are sorry. The term ‘Phylloptosis’ was changed to Leaf -Drop. We checked the standard error of the NT parameter and there was a typo. However, the data for the two separate years are now present.

R: It was notable that the discussion (one long paragraph) leads off about budbreak but there was no information was presented to warrant the view that budbreak did not vary over the two years. What is missing in the discussion is the time of flowering can influence both fruit yield and composition so this should be referenced and noted.

1. Thanks for the recommendation. A. The data has been updated in table 1.

 

 

R: An example of lack of clarity occurred at L 339 – 340 regarding the hydraulic conductance was lowest but so what? What does this mean?

1. Thanks for the recommendation. A. The data has been updated in table 1.

 

 

1. Again, lack of clarity in L 326 – 358 where the amount of reserves determines the type of shoot but what indications were used to indicate reserves. A similar issue is the notion that the size was optimal for each bud type. This needs much more discussion.

A: Thank you for the suggestion. This information was adopted using the work conducted on this topic. We hope it will now be clear.

 

1. I am not clear after presenting the fruit composition how the hypothesis L 365 that harvesting could be advanced as it does not relate to the fruit composition.

 

1. One final comment. In the English language fruit is a term to describe one or more fruit. No need to add an ‘s’ when referring to several fruit.

There are some aspects of the text which need checking.

A: Thank you for your suggestions. The text has been submitted for linguistic analysis by the EDitorial Language MPDI

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Fruit variation in yellow-fleshed A. chinensis plants grown in southern Italy as a function of shoot type" fits within the general scope of AGRICULTURAE MDPI. The authors assessed the effect of shoot type on fruit variation for different morphometric, fruit quality, and physiological traits in A. chinensis. The manuscript could be significant to the field of Kiwifruit orcharding. The issues that need to be addressed in this manuscript are as follows:

Line #2: In the title, mention the common name and include the scientific name in italics within brackets.

Line #11: The scientific name should be italicized throughout the manuscript.

Line #15: Mention the prevailing category here.

Line #73: Since it is a field study and the year has been used as a factor, provide details about the weather (meteorological) parameters for the two years during the experimental duration.

Line #77: Use "grafting" instead of "grafted."

Line #77: Mention the rootstock and its species used for interspecific grafting.

Line #104: Mention the depth of penetration on the fruit with this probe.

Line #182: It should be "not significant."

Line #241: It should be "years."

Line #271: The results of ecophysiological indices should start with a new paragraph for better readability.

Line #326: The sentence is not clear.

Line #362: The prevailing category (TE) needs to be mentioned here.

Author Response

1. Line #2: In the title, mention the common name and include the scientific name in italics within brackets.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

R.Line #11: The scientific name should be italicized throughout the manuscript.

1. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

R.Line #15: Mention the prevailing category here.

1. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

R.Line #73: Since it is a field study and the year has been used as a factor, provide details about the weather (meteorological) parameters for the two years during the experimental duration.

1. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

1. Line #77: Use "grafting" instead of "grafted."
2. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

1. Line #77: Mention the rootstock and its species used for interspecific grafting.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The suggested has been adopted

 

1. Line #104: Mention the depth of penetration on the fruit with this probe.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The suggested has been explained

 

1. Line #182: It should be "not significant."
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

R.Line #241: It should be "years."

1. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

R.Line #271: The results of ecophysiological indices should start with a new paragraph for better readability.

1. Thanks for the recommendation. The change has been done

 

1. Line #326: The sentence is not clear.
2. Thanks for the recommendation. The suggested has been explained

 

R.Line #362: The prevailing category (TE) needs to be mentioned here.

1. Thanks for the recommendation.

 

A: The text has been submitted for linguistic analysis by the EDitorial Language MPDI

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The responses of the authors to the various comments and suggestions have been adequately addressed in the revised version. I have no further concerns. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No further issues were found in the revised text and all suggestions have been adopted