Comprehensive Evaluation of Texture Quality of ‘Huizao’ (Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Huizao) and Its Response to Climate Factors in Four Main Production Areas of Southern Xinjiang
, Qianqian Qiu 2,†, Chuanjiang Zhang 1, Xiangyu Li 1, Minjuan Lin 1, Cuiyun Wu 1,*, Shuangquan Jing 3, Xingang Li 4 and Zhenlei Wang 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors perform an extensive evaluation of six fruit texture parameters of a jujube cultivar in different locations of China. The authors performed a wide range of statistical analyses of the data gathered. But, in my opinion, the most important one, that is missing, is an analysis of variance to estimate the distribution of variance within and between 109 locations and, then between and within the 31 production areas. Also, it is not clear how many trees per location were sampled. In my opinion, this analysis is compulsory before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Also, a much more detailed description is needed of how the six texture parameters were measured.
For the next manuscript, please use the line numbering function for an easier review.
Huizao is not a “variant” is a “cultivar” or “variety”
Figure 2A. Error bars are a less precise estimator of mean differences than letters of significance. Therefore, you can eliminate the error bars without any loss of meaning. Please, indicate the meaning of the letters of significance in the legend.
In the last sentence of the first paragraph of the result section, you cited “…which could be attributed to differences between years and samples.” If you have repeated the measurements in different years, you need also to evaluate the variance due to year effect. I assume that you have evaluated all orchards in the same year.
Figure 2B. You need a much-detailed description on how you calculate the data of this figure. The same for Figure 2C. What the 0 to 1 score means?
With respect to the comments on Table 1, please eliminate from text information like “(13.69% in Hotan and 14.42% in Aksu)” as this information is redundant with the Table itself. In this table, you also have maximum, minimum and SD data, but you do not mention them in the text. So, you have two options, mention those data in text or delete them from Table 1.
Figure 3 does not lead to any discussion nor conclusion, so it can be eliminated without any loss of meaning.
Figure 4B. Again, the error bars could be eliminated.
In the subheading 3.4 the sentence “In this instance, the correlation was utilized to autonomously select the six texture quality indices that were most representative.” is confusing as you are using six texture indices from the beginning.
Figure 5A. You can eliminate the “1” data of the self-correlations. You can also eliminate the Figure 5B as is redundant with Figure 5A
In general, I do not see the purpose of subheading 3.6. The sentence “As a result, screening the major texture index is more accurate for determining the quality of HZ fruits” is not understandable.
Besides, subheading 3.7 is very confusing. It is not clear how do you reach the equation “Y=0.597y1+0.240y2+0.163y3.”? You need to fully rewrite all this subheading and leave only the relevant information.
It is also not clear if result and discussion sections are together or separate. If they are separate, then do not cite any reference in the result section. All of them should go to discussion.
In general, it seems that the manuscript needs a deep review by the authors to reach a final version fully understandable and better explain the methods used and why you have used them. And then, eliminate all the calculations that are not necessary to reach the final conclusions.
Author Response
First of all, I am very grateful to the reviewers for spending valuable time to put forward very good amendments to this manuscript. The author answers and modifies the questions and suggestions raised by the reviewer one-on-one. Please see the attachment and manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors and Authors,
I read with interest the manuscript entitled “Comprehensive evaluation of texture quality of ‘Huizao’ (Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Huizao) and its response to climate factors in four main production areas of Southern Xinjiang”. This study has three main objectives: 1) to learn about the texture quality of HZ and how it differs from other main producing areas; 2) to find out how various texture quality indices work together and to screen the core indices for a thorough assessment of HZ fruit texture quality; and 3) to set up a model for evaluating quality and scoring HZ fruit in Xinjiang. Therefore, the manuscript needs some adjustments so that it can then be forwarded to the publication process. The manuscript has the potential for publication in the journal Horticulturae and needs the following adjustments:
The article does not meet the standards required by the journal. This made reviewing very difficult. I suggest that in the next version, the article is formatted correctly. This is the authors' obligation.
ABSTRACT
- It is not necessary to mention the statistical tests used. Delete.
- The objective of the work should be similar to that mentioned in the last paragraph of the Introduction.
- Keywords that are repeated in the title must be replaced. This will improve the search for the article by other researchers after publication.
INTRODUCTION
- Delete the webpage mentioned in the first paragraph.
- Insert hypotheses before objectives. This will enrich the Introduction section.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
- Enter the geographic coordinates for each orchard. If possible, create a table to improve the visualization of this information.
- How do you collect the fruits? How many fruits were collected from each orchard? What criteria are established? Random? This information must be clarified in the first paragraph.
- Few variables were analyzed. Despite the high number of fruits evaluated and interesting statistical analysis, it is not much. Did you analyze more variables besides these?
I suggest that the article be resubmitted, following the journal's rules, and that they check the possibility of including other variables to enrich the research. The statistical analyzes and figures are correct, however, as this is a work of characterization and comparison between different areas, it needs more analysis.
Author Response
First of all, I am very grateful to the reviewers for spending valuable time to put forward very good amendments to this manuscript. The author answers and modifies the questions and suggestions raised by the reviewer one-on-one. Please see the attachment and manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- "Fruit" is non-countable: without "s" even in plural.
- The abstract is too long. To summarize with relevant information and results.
- The structure of INTRODUCTION is too bad and not coherent. To change completely.
- Also, the last paragraph of INTRODUCTION related to stating the study objectives is poorly written. To change.
- The references are not displayed correctly in the text. Authors should follow with journal requirements.
- Since the manuscrit is based only on TPA analysis, authors should add an illustration of this analysis with the used equipment.
- Part 2.2 of M and M should be more described.
- In M and M, authors omit to clarify how they collect and recorded environnemental and meteorological data!!!
- Authors should avoid using web-references in the text.
- The 1st sentence of part 3.1 is not suitable. To delete.
- The stratification of RESULTS into 9 sub-sections is very problematic and not clear. Thus, The content of RESULTS should be rewritten in homogenize, proper and coherent sections (not more than 4-5).
- The CONCLUSION paragraphs should be re-written with scientific style.
- Overall, this manuscrit should be integrally revised in font and form since not clear findings were reported.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
To improve strongly.
Author Response
First of all, I am very grateful to the reviewers for spending valuable time to put forward very good amendments to this manuscript. The author answers and modifies the questions and suggestions raised by the reviewer one-on-one. Please see the attachment and manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I would like to thank you very much for the invitation as a reviewer for the manuscript Horticulturae-3114459 entitled “Comprehensive evaluation of texture quality of ‘Huizao’ (Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Huizao) and its response to climate factors in four main production areas of Southern Xinjiang ”. The results obtained by the authors during a study do not allow solving a number of problems, which the authors themselves write about in the manuscript and there is no doubt that this study should be continued. I hope that my remarks will help to improve some points of this article.
The article was written without using the template. According to the Instructions for Authors the use the Microsoft Word template or LaTeX template to prepare a manuscript is recommended.
It seems that the Introduction section should provide more information about the huizao cultivated in the province Xinjiang and about the factors affecting the fruit texture.
Line 54. This link should be in the list of References.
All subsections in the Materials and Methods and Results sections should be numbered, the article should be made according to the template.
Line 91. What was the total area of the orchards involved in the study and the square of separate orchard?
Lines 92-93. Specify the geographical coordinates of these production areas so that readers have a general idea.
Line 99. How these fruits were chosen? Were they selected from those 50 or something else?
Line 100. This subsection provides too little information. Readers may not be familiar with the works of the above authors, or these publications may not be available, in particular publication 32 in Chinese, which makes it difficult to understand correctly. It is necessary to briefly describe which parameters were studied and how this study was done.
Fig. 1 – Fig. 6. According to the Instruction for Authors “please insert your schemes, figures, etc. in the main text after the paragraph of its first citation. It would much easier for readers to understand your articles.
Line 113. The formula must be written according to the rules.
Line 119. This link should be in the list of References.
Line 120. Section 4 is Discussion, section 3 should only be Results.
Tables, like figures, are also better placed in the text n after the paragraph of its first citation.
In the Discussion section, based on our own and literary data, it would be interesting to give some ideas for readers due to what factors this may occur.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
First of all, I am very grateful to the reviewers for spending valuable time to put forward very good amendments to this manuscript. The author answers and modifies the questions and suggestions raised by the reviewer one-on-one. Please see the attachment and manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Thank you for taking your valuable time to suggest very good revisions to the manuscript. The latest version of the manuscript will be uploaded later.Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear,
The article has been reviewed and may be published.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Thank you for taking your valuable time to suggest very good revisions to the manuscript. The latest version of the manuscript will be uploaded later.Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- In actual form, the "introduction" section is not sufficient.
- The "discussion" section is too limited and should be detailed with comparison of previous connected works.
- As the main objective of this study is to elaborate correlations between TPA parameters and climatic conditions (mainly temperature and relative humidity/RH), authors should report clearly the range of temperature and RH for each region and if these two parameters were statistically different between the studied regions/areas. Then, authors should describe how each TPA parameters was correlated to climatic conditions.
- Conclusion is not sufficient and no recommendations were provided. To be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate improvement is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer Thank you for taking your valuable time to suggest very good revisions to the manuscript. The author answers the questions, please see the attachment. The latest version of the manuscript will be uploaded later.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
