Productivity and Vigor Dynamics in a Comparative Trial of Hedgerow Olive Cultivars

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is not ready yet for publishing. Please evaluate to improve the quality of the table (cumulated versus year data) and to better discuss the data according to agronomy (the very high pruning per year…)

 

 Row 69. For this kind of paper Standard practice must be reported (quantity and type of fertilization NPK and type and cubic meter per year of irrigation)

 

Row 71 .. manual removal of basal…

 

Table 1 is confusing because some of the data are the related at the final date (I suppose the perimeter) some are related to the cumulative results during the selected period, some other are increase (it is not clear yearly or cumulative…) ….. but this is not clear in the head of the column.

 

Fig3 pruning weight 30-50.000 kg per ha per year? in some varieties and years. Could you better discuss these values.

 

In the discussion there is no reference about the vigor related to fertilization and irrigation, because in this trial there is only type of irrigation and fertilization you can discuss the responses only related to this system. The discussion should not be limited to climatic conditions, but also to agronomic

 

Row 260 two times in

Author Response

The paper is not ready yet for publishing. Please evaluate to improve the quality of the table (cumulated versus year data) and to better discuss the data according to agronomy (the very high pruning per year…)

 

Table 1 has been modified to improve clarity. Two sentences discussing the high pruning needs have been included in the discussion section.

 

 Row 69. For this kind of paper Standard practice must be reported (quantity and type of fertilization NPK and type and cubic meter per year of irrigation)

 

Done

 

Row 71 .. manual removal of basal…

 

Done

 

Table 1 is confusing because some of the data are the related at the final date (I suppose the perimeter) some are related to the cumulative results during the selected period, some other are increase (it is not clear yearly or cumulative…) ….. but this is not clear in the head of the column.

 

Table 1 headings have been clarified

 

Fig3 pruning weight 30-50.000 kg per ha per year? in some varieties and years. Could you better discuss these values.

 

There was a mistake in the calculations that has been corrected.

 

In the discussion there is no reference about the vigor related to fertilization and irrigation, because in this trial there is only type of irrigation and fertilization you can discuss the responses only related to this system. The discussion should not be limited to climatic conditions, but also to agronomic

 

New sentences have been included in the material and methods and discussion sections to stress this fact.

 

Row 260 two times in

 

Corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written and provides useful information on the vegetative and productive development in six of the most employed cultivars for super intensive olive growing, in a 9-year trial in Spain.

I have only one specific observation: the cv Arbosana, Oliana and Sikitita, resulting -in that specific environment- the ones “with better balance of vegetative growth and productivity”, were even the ones with the lowest initial canopy and trunk diameter. Is this last condition typical in the comparison among these cultivars -namely, are they generally less vigorous-? Or this might be due to used the plant material and the pedo-climatic conditions? Did you try to express canopy and trunk perimeter increment as a percentage increase (to thin out the initial differences) ?

However, it is clear that the cv Arbosana, Oliana and Sikitita maintained low vigor and a good regular production through the years, so that the article is based on a sound reasoning.

Minor checks:

-line 45 “ only ‘Arbequina’, its seedling ‘Arbosana’ […]and, in lesser extent, ‘Koroneiki’, has been….” change “has” into “have”

-line 97 “three subsamples of around 35 were…”   35 what?

-line 116 “Pearson correlation among those parameters were also estimated” change “were” into “was”

-line 129 “‘Koroneiki’ has the highest trunk perimeter during all the experiment.”  change “has” into “had”

-lines 136-137 “The exception is ‘Lecciana’ that showed an irregular bearing behavior during all the years in evaluation.” I would say that it showed a marked alternate bearing.

-line 218 “This could be due to the difficulties to properly measured” change “measured” into “measure”

-line 220 Unmanned lowercase initial

line 14 “ most of them has been focused”    “have” is to be preferred

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some corrections are reported in the "Comments and Suggestions for Authors" section

Author Response

The article is well written and provides useful information on the vegetative and productive development in six of the most employed cultivars for super intensive olive growing, in a 9-year trial in Spain.

I have only one specific observation: the cv Arbosana, Oliana and Sikitita, resulting -in that specific environment- the ones “with better balance of vegetative growth and productivity”, were even the ones with the lowest initial canopy and trunk diameter. Is this last condition typical in the comparison among these cultivars -namely, are they generally less vigorous-? Or this might be due to used the plant material and the pedo-climatic conditions? Did you try to express canopy and trunk perimeter increment as a percentage increase (to thin out the initial differences) ?

However, it is clear that the cv Arbosana, Oliana and Sikitita maintained low vigor and a good regular production through the years, so that the article is based on a sound reasoning.

 

All the plants had the same size and condition when they were planted. This has been stated in materials and methods. All the trees were trained to form a hedgerow 2,5 high and 1,2-1,7 wide as stated in materials and methods. Once trees reached that size, we measured yearly canopy increment as an estimation of cultivar vigor.

 

Minor checks:

-line 45 “ only ‘Arbequina’, its seedling ‘Arbosana’ […]and, in lesser extent, ‘Koroneiki’, has been….” change “has” into “have”

 

Done

 

-line 97 “three subsamples of around 35 were…”   35 what?

 

Grams. It has been corrected

 

-line 116 “Pearson correlation among those parameters were also estimated” change “were” into “was”

 

Done

 

-line 129 “‘Koroneiki’ has the highest trunk perimeter during all the experiment.”  change “has” into “had”

 

Done

 

-lines 136-137 “The exception is ‘Lecciana’ that showed an irregular bearing behavior during all the years in evaluation.” I would say that it showed a marked alternate bearing.

 

Done

 

-line 218 “This could be due to the difficulties to properly measured” change “measured” into “measure”

 

This sentence has been corrected

 

-line 220 Unmanned lowercase initial

 

Done

 

line 14 “ most of them has been focused”    “have” is to be preferred

 

This sentence has been corrected

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper attempts to evaluate six olive cultivars under a hedgerow system for several years by measuring growth and biomass accumulation by determining the volume of pruning, the thickness of the trunk production, etc. This writing needs to reflect the work developed fully; in addition to presenting too much confusion, it is written with a lot of heterogeneity and needs to be clarified for the reader, making it very difficult to follow and evaluate the quality of the work. 

1. The introduction does not support the work; it is necessary to develop more deeply into the topic, especially the objectives.

2. It is necessary to homogenize the numbers; sometimes, they are separated with (.) and other times with a comma (,).

3. Are there no legends in the literals that mean?

4. Are ABI and BI the same?  ABI is recorded in materials and BI in results.

5. Table 1 needs to be understood; is it the average of the years reported in the first column? If this is how it is interpreted, it isn't obvious for me to analyze it like this if you want to explore the growth of biomass per year.

6. There is format heterogeneity in the figures; it can be improved and presented better; furthermore, in Figure 1, the cumulative diameter needs to be clarified. If so, it does not reflect the growth year by year in such a way that unitary growth, cumulative growth, and growth efficiency could be calculated.

7. The results in many lines (151-152, 171-175) can go in the materials and methods section; also very confusing; there needs to be a logical and systematic sequence with summary-type explanations without detailing the variables. Is the Pearson correlation valid in dependent variables since one variable is part of the other?

8. Materials and methods mention that it was analyzed in random blocks, and the results in blocks need to be explained or reported whether there was significance or not.

9. The discussion does not answer the reason for the results and is only limited to assigning the result to pre-established conditions; further physiological explanation is needed.

10. The conclusions do not reflect the objectives; in the objectives, You talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the hedge system, and the conclusions are only limited to saying which responds best.

11. It is necessary to update the bibliographical reference; 30% are more than ten years old, and 40% are more than seven years old.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. It is necessary that an exhaustive review be done. Review English style because many sentences have literal translations, such as the titles of the figures, materials, and methods, and finger errors, such as in line 34 with the word “that” written twice.

Author Response

The paper attempts to evaluate six olive cultivars under a hedgerow system for several years by measuring growth and biomass accumulation by determining the volume of pruning, the thickness of the trunk production, etc. This writing needs to reflect the work developed fully; in addition to presenting too much confusion, it is written with a lot of heterogeneity and needs to be clarified for the reader, making it very difficult to follow and evaluate the quality of the work.

 

1. The introduction does not support the work; it is necessary to develop more deeply into the topic, especially the objectives.

 

Introduction has been modified following this suggestion.

 

2. It is necessary to homogenize the numbers; sometimes, they are separated with (.) and other times with a comma (,).

 

Done

 

3. Are there no legends in the literals that mean?

 

We have improved the figure and table legends

 

4. Are ABI and BI the same? ABI is recorded in materials and BI in results.

 

Yes, they are the same. It has been homogenized.

 

5. Table 1 needs to be understood; is it the average of the years reported in the first column? If this is how it is interpreted, it isn't obvious for me to analyze it like this if you want to explore the growth of biomass per year.

 

Table 1 headings have been modified for better understanding.

 

6. There is format heterogeneity in the figures; it can be improved and presented better; furthermore, in Figure 1, the cumulative diameter needs to be clarified. If so, it does not reflect the growth year by year in such a way that unitary growth, cumulative growth, and growth efficiency could be calculated.

 

Some modifications have been made to the figures for homogenization.

Trunk perimeter was replaced by trunk cross sectional area increment in Table 1 and by trunk cross sectional area variation in Figure 1 and both in Table 2.

 

 

7. The results in many lines (151-152, 171-175) can go in the materials and methods section; also very confusing; there needs to be a logical and systematic sequence with summary-type explanations without detailing the variables. Is the Pearson correlation valid in dependent variables since one variable is part of the other?

 

Part of the results have been moved to materials and methods as requested. We preferred to keep all the variables used in the correlations as some of them are only partially dependent.

 

8. Materials and methods mention that it was analyzed in random blocks, and the results in blocks need to be explained or reported whether there was significance or not.

 

As the block is a random factor we did not test its significance. Besides its variance was from 5 to 10-fold less than the cultivar factor for most of the traits measured. This has been stated in the results section.

 

9. The discussion does not answer the reason for the results and is only limited to assigning the result to pre-established conditions; further physiological explanation is needed.

 

The discussion has been extended, in particular to physiological aspects of the results obtained.

 

10. The conclusions do not reflect the objectives; in the objectives, You talk about the advantages and disadvantages of the hedge system, and the conclusions are only limited to saying which responds best.

 

We have modified the objective paragraph

 

11. It is necessary to update the bibliographical reference; 30% are more than ten years old, and 40% are more than seven years old.

 

Most of the references found in the bibliography about olive cultivar trials in hedgerow system are old.  We have added some recent references including some of Congress’s papers found in Web of Science.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. It is necessary that an exhaustive review be done. Review English style because many sentences have literal translations, such as the titles of the figures, materials, and methods, and finger errors, such as in line 34 with the word “that” written twice.

 

The English language has been extensively reviewed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of table 1 should be simplified. If something is not reported in matherial and methods should be moved there. No comment in the title

 

Title of table 2 take out ….. This is because pruning volume and pruning weight are measured at the beginning of the year and correspond to last year growth.

 

Line 211 put the data of the fresh/dry weight percentage of the leaves and of the stems.

 

Line 273 please separate the word….. proportion

 

Line 279 please separate the word….. good

 

In the discussion a comment about oil production and quality should be added according to the different varieties.

 

In the conclusion a comment is necessary about capacity to make variation of the agronomic approach to different varieties… It is critical to have low pruning needs and low biennial bearing, but also a variation of planting density, fertilization and irrigation, and pruning technique according to the variety is critical too.

Author Response

Title of table 1 should be simplified. If something is not reported in matherial and methods should be moved there. No comment in the title

Done

Title of table 2 take out ….. This is because pruning volume and pruning weight are measured at the beginning of the year and correspond to last year growth.

Done

Line 211 put the data of the fresh/dry weight percentage of the leaves and of the stems.

Done

Line 273 please separate the word….. proportion

Done

Line 279 please separate the word….. good

Done

In the discussion a comment about oil production and quality should be added according to the different varieties.

Done

In the conclusion a comment is necessary about capacity to make variation of the agronomic approach to different varieties… It is critical to have low pruning needs and low biennial bearing, but also a variation of planting density, fertilization and irrigation, and pruning technique according to the variety is critical too.

Done, very good point, thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is a significant improvement, however, I suggest that the experimental design part be reviewed, given that I didn't see who works as blocks, is it the orchards?
In addition, the quality of the figures could be improved and I add some more suggestions…. Line 8                 What kind of relationship? Line 21              How do you define “vigor”? Line 20 and 21.  (‘Koroneiki’, ‘Arbequina’, and ‘Lecciana’ were the cultivars with the higher vigor both in young and adult trees. They also were the ones with higher pruning needs from 5 to 10 years after planting.) Can be rewritten: ‘Koroneiki’, ‘Arbequina’, and ‘Lecciana’ cultivars were the highest vigor in both young and adult trees. Since pruning needs from 5 to 10 years after planting.

 

Line 22             (Yield showed high stability (low alternate bearing) across years for all cultivars except ‘Lecciana’.)

Can be rewritten: The yield behavior in each of the years evaluated was stable in all treatments except ‘Lecciana’.

Line 107 -107 I suggest that you put equations and it could be better understood
(e.g. PV (pruning volume) = Pf (pruning final) - Pi (pruning initial), I suggest that you put equations and it could be better understood (e.g.

The style of table 2 needs to be improved, abbreviations can be placed and legends separated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English style is better, but it still needs to be improved

Author Response

There is a significant improvement, however, I suggest that the experimental design part be reviewed, given that I didn't see who works as blocks, is it the orchards?

Experimental design has been further explained

In addition, the quality of the figures could be improved and I add some more suggestions….

Excel spreadsheet with original figures is included

Line 8                 What kind of relationship?

“relationship” has been replaced by  “correlation”

Line 21              How do you define “vigor”?

“vigor” has been replaced by “canopy growth”

Line 20 and 21.  (‘Koroneiki’, ‘Arbequina’, and ‘Lecciana’ were the cultivars with the higher vigor both in young and adult trees. They also were the ones with higher pruning needs from 5 to 10 years after planting.) Can be rewritten: ‘Koroneiki’, ‘Arbequina’, and ‘Lecciana’ cultivars were the highest vigor in both young and adult trees. Since pruning needs from 5 to 10 years after planting.

Done

Line 22             (Yield showed high stability (low alternate bearing) across years for all cultivars except ‘Lecciana’.) Can be rewritten: The yield behavior in each of the years evaluated was stable in all treatments except ‘Lecciana’.

Done by using the word “cultivars” instead of “treatments”

Line 107 -107 I suggest that you put equations and it could be better understood

(e.g. PV (pruning volume) = Pf (pruning final) - Pi (pruning initial), I suggest that you put equations and it could be better understood (e.g.

Done

The style of table 2 needs to be improved, abbreviations can be placed and legends separated.

Style has been improved but we tried to avoid abbreviations as we think that it  could increase confusion regarding the interpretation of the table