Fruit Position on Tree Canopy Affects Fruit Quality Traits in ‘Sanguinelli’ Blood Oranges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      It was suggested to add important result data in the abstract;

2.      Significant differences were suggested to be added in table 2, figure 3, and figure 4.

3.      The results indicated that the interaction of C x S x O had no significant impacts on the weight, EC, IC, TSS, TA, and MI. The reasons for the results need further explanation.

4.      The subheadings of the figures or tables need to be described in detail, and it is difficult to understand the treatments.

5.      8 treatments were set in the study, however, only 4 treatments were shown in figure 5.

6.      External (EC) and internal colour (IC) of each stage expressed as hue angle in table 3.

7.      It seems to be different from your research purpose, or is it necessary to represent the fruit quality of different positions at different stages?

8.      How did the author consider that the ripening time of fruits in different positions may vary?

9.      Six parameters were investigated for the blood oranges, why did the author choose these indicators, or are the indicators sufficient?

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all the valuable comments. We really appreciate all the useful comments that you have provided and that will help to improve our original manuscript. Please find below a detailed list of all your comments and suggestions and the corresponding answers and modifications performed in the revised manuscript. All changes have been included and highlighted in red ink in the manuscript.

Comment 1. It was suggested to add important result data in the abstract.

Answer. Thank you very much for your suggestion. In this work we have tried to explain the effect of different fruit canopy position on tree in the final quality of blood oranges, studying some variables that could determine the fruit quality. Therefore, our results are focused on this purpose and each data is part of a bigger pool in line to explain those differences. Then, if we add more specific data in our abstract maybe we can confuse the reader.

Comment 2. Significant differences were suggested to be added in table 2, figure 3, and figure 4.

Answer. Thank you very much for your suggestion. The statistical differences on Table 2 are included at the bottom. Regarding Figure 3 and 4 we are showing the number of fruits in percentage (as a frequency) for each quality parameter in a data range, we are not doing a statistical analysis of these data, which was shown in table 2.

Comment 3. The results indicated that the interaction of C x S x O had no significant impacts on the weight, EC, IC, TSS, TA, and MI. The reasons for the results need further explanation.

Answer. F-values on table 2 showed that the relation between each variable (canopy layer and shoot position) was strongly correlated with each quality parameter. For example, TSS was strongly correlated with canopy layer and not with shoot position, therefore the interaction of canopy layer and shoot position was not significant, and the same occurred when we tried to find out the interaction of canopy layer, shoot position and orientation.

Comment 4. The subheadings of the figures or tables need to be described in detail, and it is difficult to understand the treatments.

Answer. Thank you very much for your suggestion, all tables and figures descriptions were revised in the document.

Comment 5. 8 treatments were set in the study, however, only 4 treatments were shown in figure 5.

Answer. In this study we worked with orientation (East vs. West), canopy layer (upper vs. lower) and shoot position (grouped and individual) as field variables that affect fruit quality. Therefore, when we analyzed the significance of the variance between each variable and each quality parameter, we determined that the effect of orientation was not significant (Table 2). Thus, we carry on working only with the canopy layer and shoot position.

Comment 6. External (EC) and internal colour (IC) of each stage expressed as hue angle in table 3.

Answer. The main goal to show a colorimetric data (as hue angle) to characterize internal and external colour of blood oranges in Table 3 was to provide a quantitative assessment for each visual stage.

Comment 7. It seems to be different from your research purpose, or is it necessary to represent the fruit quality of different positions at different stages?

Answer. Thank you very much for this question. In this experiment we harvested all fruits from four trees, then we had fruits in different maturation stages which were characterized using the main quality parameters for blood oranges. Therefore, in this work we have shown that fruits with the highest maturity indexes were harvested from the upper canopy layer (Table 2).

Comment 8. How did the author consider that the ripening time of fruits in different positions may vary?

Answer. In our work we have not determined how the canopy layer and shoot position affect fruit quality. However, the main hypothesis is related to sunlight exposure and fruits as resources sink.

Comment 9. Six parameters were investigated for the blood oranges, why did the author choose these indicators, or are the indicators sufficient?´

Answer. Thank you very much for this question. In this experiment we individually measured 1400 fruits, then we had to design an assay with easy to measure quality parameters related to blood orange maturation. In this sense, it was enough to provide enough information about the maturation stage of each fruit harvested from each tree canopy position.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with an interesting topic, that of the effect of fruit position within the canopy on fruit quality parameters.

I found it interesting but simple. I mean the measurements made are the basic ones, few for a journal with tha impact factor of Horticulture. It is surely interesting and I believe the readers will probably enjoy it, but there are many more things that could be done here.

My remarks are the following

1. you had a clear effect of canopy position on fruit number, which could influence the fruit quality parameters. I beleive this could be a matter of ANCOVA analysis.

2. in many results presented you do not have proceeded with statistical analysis, why is that? i.e. fruit number, and frequencies.

3. In PCA you do not give the components weights, so the reader will be able to draw some conclusions.

Overall this is a simple trila, where only four trees were used, without having any clue if there was a significant difference among these trees, regarding fruit load and other fruit quality characteristics.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all the valuable comments. We really appreciate all the useful comments that you have provided and that will help improve our original manuscript. Please find below a detailed list of all your comments and suggestions and the corresponding answers and modifications performed in the revised manuscript. All changes have been included and highlighted in blue ink in the manuscript.

The manuscript deals with an interesting topic, that of the effect of fruit position within the canopy on fruit quality parameters. I found it interesting but simple. I mean the measurements made are the basic ones, few for a journal with the impact factor of Horticulture. It is surely interesting and I believe the readers will probably enjoy it, but there are many more things that could be done here.

My remarks are the following

Comment 1. you had a clear effect of canopy position on fruit number, which could influence the fruit quality parameters. I believe this could be a matter of ANCOVA analysis.

Answer. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have shown the effect of fruit canopy position on tree in yield in lines from 123 to 126. Furthermore, we have modified table 1 adding 2 columns with the anova analysis, according to your suggestions.

Comment 2. in many results presented you do not have proceeded with statistical analysis, why is that? i.e. fruit number, and frequencies.

Answer. Thank you very much for this comment. The statistical analysis of the fruit number has been revised as we said in the previous question. Regarding the frequencies we are showing the number of fruits in percentage (as a frequency) for each quality parameter in a data range, we are not doing a statistical analysis of these data, which was shown in table 2.

Comment 3. In PCA you do not give the components weights, so the reader will be able to draw some conclusions.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment, we have revised this part, according to your suggestions.

Comment 4. Overall this is a simple trial, where only four trees were used, without having any clue if there was a significant difference among these trees, regarding fruit load and other fruit quality characteristics.

Answer. This experiment was designed using four representative trees in the field aiming to measure all harvested fruit individually. Then, this experiment was focused to analyze simple but important fruit quality parameters that let us establish the maturation stage of 1400 fruits, if not this assay would have been impossible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by this research regards if fruit position on tree canopy affects fruit quality traits in ‘Sanguinelli’ blood oranges in Alicante, Spain.

Topic is of medium originality, almost everyone who works in the horticultural field knows that many properties of fruits and vegetables are influenced by the light intensity they benefit from.

Compared with other published material, the manuscript follows the influence of fruit positioning on traits like internal colour, external colour, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and maturity index of Sanguinelli’ blood oranges.

I would kindly ask the authors to give some details on how or what methods did the authors used to determine total soluble solids and titratable acidity.

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed.

References are appropriate, the authors cited works and results of other authors, related to the topic of this manuscript. The authors cite related articles.

Tables and figures are clear and easy to follow. They have been detailed by the authors also in the text.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all the valuable comments. We really appreciate all the useful comments that you have provided and that will help improve our original manuscript. Please find below a detailed list of all your comments and suggestions and the corresponding answers and modifications performed in the revised manuscript. All changes have been included and highlighted in purple ink in the manuscript.

The main question addressed by this research regards if fruit position on tree canopy affects fruit quality traits in ‘Sanguinelli’ blood oranges in Alicante, Spain. Topic is of medium originality, almost everyone who works in the horticultural field knows that many properties of fruits and vegetables are influenced by the light intensity they benefit from. Compared with other published material, the manuscript follows the influence of fruit positioning on traits like internal colour, external colour, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and maturity index of Sanguinelli’ blood oranges.

Comment 1. I would kindly ask the authors to give some details on how or what methods the authors used to determine total soluble solids and titratable acidity.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. The methodology description has been improved according to your suggestions. However, both parameters, total soluble solids and titratable acidity, were individually measured in juice using a digital refractometer and an automatic titrator, respectively.

Comment 2. Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. Conclusion section has been modified according to your suggestions.

Comment 3. References are appropriate, the authors cited works and results of other authors, related to the topic of this manuscript. The authors cite related articles.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment.

Comment 4. Tables and figures are clear and easy to follow. They have been detailed by the authors also in the text.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have some questions that need to be considered.

1.      What is the relationship between table 1 and table 2 as they had the same ANOVA and F-value. It is not easy for readers to understand.

2.      Significant differences were suggested to be added in table 2.

3.      We can figure out the differences among treatments in figure 3 and figure 4. Is there a standard deviation in statistical analysis in these data.

4.      Further discussion was need in the revised manuscript. For example, Comment 3. The results indicated that the interaction of C x S x O had no significant impacts on the weight, EC, IC, TSS, TA, and MI. The reasons for the results need further explanation. In the last version.

5.      Significant differences were observed in external colour (EC), internal colour (IC) in table 2 and table 3? The data is more than 10-folds the difference. The reason for the differences.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for all the valuable comments. We really appreciate all the useful comments that you have provided and that will help improve our original manuscript. Please find below a detailed list of all your comments and suggestions and the corresponding answers and modifications performed in the revised manuscript. All changes have been included and highlighted in red ink in the manuscript.

Comment 1. What is the relationship between table 1 and table 2 as they had the same ANOVA and F-value. It is not easy for readers to understand.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. ANOVA showed significant differences between the field variables evaluated (canopy layer, shoot position and orientation) in the number of fruits (table 1) and fruit quality parameters (table 2). In this sense, F-value can be used to determine whether the test is statistically significant. This calculation determines the ratio of the explained variance to unexplained variance. For that reason, we applied the same test in both tables.

Comment 2. Significant differences were suggested to be added in table 2.

Answer. Thank you very much for your suggestion. F- value showed significant differences in each variable and its interaction for each fruit quality parameter, being statistical differences on Table 2 included at the bottom.

Comment 3. We can figure out the differences among treatments in figure 3 and figure 4. Is there a standard deviation in statistical analysis in these data.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. Figure 3 and 4 are showing the percentage (as a frequency) for each quality parameter in a data range, we are not doing a statistical analysis of these data. Those tables show a distribution of our data.

Comment 4. Further discussion was need in the revised manuscript. For example, Comment 3. The results indicated that the interaction of C x S x O had no significant impacts on the weight, EC, IC, TSS, TA, and MI. The reasons for the results need further explanation. In the last version.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. We were focused on discussing in depth the meaning of the significant results. In this sense, many of our differences have been related with the sunlight and the sink function of the fruits. Therefore, we would need further experiments to explain why in our study the interaction of relevant variables as canopy position and orientation, for example, was not statistically significant. We appreciate this suggestion a lot and we will keep it in mind for our next experiments.

Comment 5. Significant differences were observed in external colour (EC), internal colour (IC) in table 2 and table 3? The data is more than 10-folds the difference. The reason for the differences.

Answer. Thank you very much for your comment. According to the statistical analysis, the differences observed in table 2 about the external colour (EC) are strongly related to the canopy layer, while the internal colour (IC) are related to the shoot position. Therefore, sunlight exposure and the number of fruits per shoot determine the EC and IC, respectively. Regarding table 3, we expressed the EC and IC as hue angle for each maturation stages, thus the differences observed were related to the maturation of the fruit.