Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper describes detailed four-year-old tree growth measures for 3 cultivars on 6 rootstocks, which is of interest to growers and rootstock breeders.
The introduction contains suitable information, though it could be written a little more concisely. A statement describing the trial and why it was undertaken would be a valuable addition. i.e. A trial comparing three apricot scions grafted to 6 rootstocks of diverse parentage was established to assess tree performance under dry Hungarian conditions. We take the opportunity to investigate the relationship between a range of canopy measures to identify appropriate measures of early tree growth.
The methods do not list the scions grafted.
The results explain in detail the observed differences, though it is not clear if the notation separating means refers to the interaction of scion and rootstock or the main effects.
The final section of the discussion could be improved if consideration is given to the work of Westwood and Roberts, and comments on how the relationships between TCA/TH and other variables might change over time.
A comment recommending which measures of canopy development/growth would be valuable.
Please refer to the attached document for detailed suggestions and comments
I would recommend publishing this data, but the manuscript required further revision before this can occur.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The comments of reviewers were very helpful, the manuscript improved a lot by them. Reviews were very helpful. The new version has been improved over the original submission. Title is rewritten. The English is improved by professionals. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. In this experiment we only had the possibility to evaluate the vegetative characteristics of the young trees. Due to heavy late spring frost, we had no reliable results on fruit characteristics yet.
To Reviewer #1's Review for:
We clarified the aims following Your suggestion. The statistical analysis is amended, taken notice of the work of Westwood and Roberts, as You mentioned. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. Graphs are ameliorated, every advice is taken. Your notices and suggestions were very helpful, the manuscript is much professional, then before. Thank You so much!
Yours sincerely,
the authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper s topic presents interest for nurseries and apricot producers, but some of the methods used must be scientifically improved. There are some points that should be addressed by the authors:
Introduction
- Lines 39-51 – there are too much data presented for only one reference 7 -please verify the source of the data
- Lines 83-85 - The paper's aim should be more precise and exposed. In this form, the purpose of the research is not very clearly understood.
Material and methods
- Table 1 – Are the data presented in Table 1, part of the research? If yes, please indicate the methods and the accepted limits. If no, please indicate the sources and also the limits of the variable
- Table 2 – please indicate the source of the data (the meteorological data of the experimental plot or another source)
- Please indicate the canopy shape of the apricot fruit tree after pruning
- In this chapter should be mentioned also the varieties of the apricot - and short descriptions
- Also, should be presented the combination of scion/rootstock
Results
- the article presents, as the in the title, very preliminary results
- the results must be improved with the influence of the rootstock on the phenological data since the spring frosts are more frequent
- also, the article must be improved with results regarding the quantity and quality of the fruits
Discussions
- this chapter is too short and discusses only a few of the biometric results presented in the article
Thank you!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The comments of reviewers were very helpful, the manuscript improved a lot by them. Reviews were very helpful. The new version has been improved over the original submission. Title is rewritten. The English is improved by professionals. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. In this experiment we only had the possibility to evaluate the vegetative characteristics of the young trees. Due to heavy late spring frost, we had no reliable results on fruit characteristics yet.
To Reviewer #2's Review:
The aims are clarified, as You suggested. Acceptable limits in Table 1. are added. Source of meteorological data is included. Descriptions of Figures are complemented. Graphs are ameliorated, every advice is taken. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. Due to heavy late spring frost, we had no reliable results on fruit characteristics yet. We agree in the importance of phenological data and fruit characteristics, and this will be the next step. HSO (Hungarian Statistics Office) provides statistical data in every second year on agricultural production in Hungary, and we tend to use these data (former reference 7). Thank You for your helpful remarks!
Yours sincerely,
the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Line 14
Change: ‘among’ to ‘under’
Lines 14-15
Change: ‘‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’ and ‘Fehér besztercei’ were used as rootstocks, in addition to the with apricot selected seedling.’
Line 18
Change: ‘The experiment was established planted in the spring of 2018 using with 3 x 5 m spacing.’
Lines 18-19
Change: ‘The main effect of the different rootstocks can be observed in the vigor of grafted scions.’ to ‘The results showed strong influence of rootstock on the vigor of grafted scions.’
Introduction
Line 42
Add: ‘and this can be also observed in the yield’
Lines 43-44
Change: ‘The intensive apricot orchard means minimum density is 667 trees per hectar, and it comprises this segments takes 10% of the total Hungarian apricot orchard industry.’
Lines 45-47
I suggest deleting of this sentences because they are irrelevant to your study. ‘The canopy is usually open vase (45%) or spherical (40%), but intensive vase (10%) and tall spindle (5%) are in the practice too. Area of organic apricot 46 production reaches 5% of the total orchard surface.’
Line 51
Change: ‘The share ratio of vegetatively propagated rootstocks in apricot production is 16.5%’.
Line 52
Add: ‘they consist of two (or three)’
Line 55
Change: ‘a large-scale renewal of apricot orchards cultivars’
Line 56
Add: ‘numerous new cultivar releases’
Line 57
Add: ‘have resulted with a large number’
Lines 59-60
I suggest you to move this sentence to line 45, because it seems to be out of context in this place.
Lines 61-66
I suggest deleting of this sentences because they are irrelevant to your study.
Line 68
Add: ‘the vegetative growth of grafted trees‘
Line 81
Change: ‘than when other rootstocks are used those from other species’
Line 82
Change: ‘trails’ to ‘trials’
Lines 83-84
‘We have to find’ is to informal to be used in this type of paper. Please use something more adequate, for example The aim of our study was to evaluate…. You did not state the aim of your research, it should be more concise and clear what you have been investigated.
Materials and Methods
Line 87
Change: ‘is was planted’. Please make sure to use the right tense.
Line 89
Change: ‘N 47°10’35.0, E 19°50’28.6, Its altitude is 96 meters above sea-level’
Line 90
Change: ‘was planted established’
‘CaCO3’ to ‘CaCO3’ Please check and correct subscript and superscript in the whole manuscript.
Table 1
Please put all units in the brackets.
Line 97
Delete the dot.
Line 98
Change: ‘HoweverAlbeit one third of Hungarian apricot fields is are situated in similar locations’
Line 100
Delete ‘-‘
Table 2
Change: ‘sonny’ to ‘sunny’
Line 102
Change: ‘The trees were orchard was planted in spring of 2018, using with planting distance of’
Lines 106-107
Please rewrite this sentence to be more understandable.
Lines 109-122
I suggest that the order of the rootstocks in this explanation follows the order given in the table 3.
Lines 112-113
Change: ‘…but it showed some due its incompatibility with some cultivars [45], therefore apricot selected seedlings…’
Line 115
Add: ‘its early fruiting induction and wide adaptability’
Line 116
Change: ‘‘Wavit’ is in raising among others’ to ‘The use of ‘Wavit’ compared to the other rootstocks is in rising’
Line 123
Add the dot at the end of the sentence.
Lines 123-124
Change: ‘All scions were grafted on every mentioned all investigated rootstocks on the soil level.’
Line 124
Add some information on the studied cultivars too.
Line 131
When did the measurement of trunk perimeter and shoot lengths are performed, also in November? How many shoots per tree were measured, of what age? You could split this sentence in two, the second one for the canopy diameter and tree height.
Line 132
Change ‘were specified by measuring’ to ‘were measured’
Lines 134-146
Please rewrite this paragraph, it is confusing. Please format the equations as explained in the Journal’s manuscript template. In that way the sentences would be more understandable and not two long. Also correct the superscript numbers in equations and units. For example: TCSA in cm2= (trunk perimeter/2π)2*π
Line 137
Please check did you forgot *π in the equation?
Line 138
Change ‘is reckoned’ to ‘was calculated’
Lines 135-140
Divide this long sentence in two sentences.
For example: ‘The canopy projection area (CA) of every rootstock-scion combination was obtained from the canopy diameters…’ and ‘The canopy volume (CV) was calculated in accordance to the following equation: …’
Line 140
Add: ‘To estimate the canopy space filling (CF) for the exploitation…’
Line 141
Maybe ‘ratio’ rather than ‘proportion’
Line 142
Use the past tenses for something that was done: was calculated, were expressed and similar.
Line 144
Add (CO) after the first mention of canopy space occupation in this sentence in order to be more understandable.
Lines 142 and 145
Consider adding the * 100 in these equations in order to get the values in %
Line 144
Can you explain why 3*3*3 m is desired dimensions for the CO in the tree wall?
Line 147
Move the sentences about statistical analysis to the next subsection.
Line 150
Change ‘with’ to ‘regarding’
Line 157
Add ‘were carried out’
Line 157-159
This sentence is confusing, please rewrite it.
Results
Line 164
Please mention that you have measured two types of shoots in the methods section.
Lines 165-167
Add ‘the’ before all parameters: the canopy projection area etc.
Figures
It would be better to comment the results in the order of parameters’ appearing in the figures. For example, change the order of paragraphs to follow the figure 1, TH, TCSA, and then the SR. Do the same for all figures.
Please refer to all figures in the text where it is appropriate, for example at the mention of the first parameter from the figure in the results commenting - (Figure 1) in first comment about TH etc. Also I suggest first to mention figure in the text and then to display it.
Explain the abbreviated rootstock names in footers of figures 1-3, all figures must be self-explainable.
Also, indicate in footers of all figures did you compare statistically values between rootstock-scion combinations by cultivars or rootstocks as factor, when explaining what different letters presented in figure mean.
Line 174 – the end of the document
Please change the following in the whole manuscript: when commenting on some values obtained on grafted trees, write ‘the trees/plants on –the name of the rootstock-‘. Check that carefully in the whole manuscript.
The example of correction: ‘The lowest SR belonged to the trees grafted on ‘Wavit’ (63%).‘
Line 178
Add: ‘…the ranking of SR survival rate came out as from the lowest to the highest was: …’
Line 181
Change ‘was the best’ to ‘performed the best’
Lines 183-185
Change: ‘The combination, showed the worst survival rate, was ‘Bergarouge’ grafted on ‘Wavit’ (50%), the best one was ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ grafted on ‘Rootpac R’ (100%).’ to ‘The combination, which showed the worst lowest survival rate, was ‘Bergarouge’ grafted on ‘Wavit’ (50%), while the best one was ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ grafted on ‘Rootpac R’ was characterized with the maximal SR (100%).’
Line 189
Add ‘so no statistical difference was observed’
Line 190
Change: ‘The weakest scion was’ to ‘The weakest scion height was observed on’
Line 191
Change: ‘‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ had a medium height level with 291 cm height’
Lines 200
Add ‘,respectively’ at the end of this sentence
Line 201
Add ‘,respectively’ in brackets after values
Figure 2, footer
Add ‘row- and cross-directional’ in the brackets to explain CDR and CDC
Line 205
Add ‘row- and cross-directional’ in the brackets to explain CDR and CDC
Line 206
Change ‘while CDC varied extended from…’
Lines 208-2015
‘row’ and ‘cross’ in the brackets replace with ‘CDR’ and ‘CDC’
Line 209
Change: ‘which are significantly belong to the same group’ to ‘which belonged to the same group concerning the statistical significance’
Line 213
Change: ‘had the two smallest canopies which are significantly different from the others’ to ‘induced the two smallest canopies which differed significantly from the others’
Lines 213-215
Change: ‘The ascending order of scions was ‘Bergarouge’, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Lily Cot’ in CDR and CDC as well.’ to ‘The ascending order of scions regarding both CDR and CDC was ‘Bergarouge’, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Lily Cot’.’
Line 217
These is no need to write ‘at the end of the 4thseason’ in several paragraphs because you only have values for one season, so it is clear which year it was.
Lines 217-219
Change: ‘At the end of the 4th season The trees on ‘Fehér besztercei’ had the smallest shoot growth (163 cm), followed by the plants grafted on ‘Wavit’ (174 cm), ‘Rootpac R’ (212 cm) ‘Myrobalan 29C’ and ‘Montclar’ (218 cm both).’
Line 219
Change: ‘Apricot seedling induced (225 cm) had the largest SLR growth (225 cm).’
Lines 219-222
Change: ‘The trees grafted on the last four mentioned rootstocks significantly belonged to the same group of the same statistical significance. The trees on ‘Wavit’ and ‘Fehér besztercei’ were significantly different from the others. ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ produced the shortest (187 cm), while ‘Bergarouge’ the longest (226 cm) shoots row directionally.
Line 225
Do not begin sentence with the abbreviation.
Lines 225-231
Change: ‘The cross-directional shoot lengths of trees (SLC) ranged from 153 cm (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’) to 238 cm (‘Bergarouge’ on ‘Rootpac R’). The cross-directional shoot lengths of trees (SLC) The SLC values on ‘Montclar’ exceeded of the rootstock were the highest with it’s the average of 217 cm, followed by the values obtained on the apricot seedling (212 cm), ‘Rootpac R’ (210 cm) ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (202 cm). The trees on the last four mentioned rootstocks was grouped by the same statistical significancesignificantly belonged to the same group. The trees on ‘Fehér besztercei’ (190 cm) and ‘Wavit’ (172 cm) rootstocks formed another a significantly different group. In average, both SLC of ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Lily Cot’ was also valued 192 cm, while ‘Bergarouge’ reached 217 cm.’
It is necessary to check and improve your English in the whole document, in addition to and in the same manner as the listed/suggested changes. Please arrange that your manuscript is checked at least by English speaking person, before you submit it in revised form, because at this moment it comprises many grammatical errors.
Lines 242-244
The sentence ‘This massive dispersal…’ is more like a discussion so you should discuss it in the next section.
Discussion
As I previously mentioned for the Results section, in this section is also necessary to follow the same order of rootstocks/cultivars/parameters when discussing the results. It has to rewritten to be more readable and understandable, in addition to the mandatory English improvement.
As commenting and referring to other authors’ studies, please be more careful to clarify what is the result of your study, maybe by pointing to it at the beginning of the sentence with ‘In our study/research/Our results showed… etc’. For example, in line 313: ‘They also manifested…’, the sentence is very confusing when compared to the previous sentences.
Lines 321-323
How are those results in compliance with your results? It need to be discussed.
Lines 324-328
Again, please refer to your results also.
Because the main aim of this research was not precisely stated, it is not clear what was the general conclusion you were striving to confirm. The conclusion that TCSA should be used in the vegetative growth prediction is not enough concerning all investigated parameters showed in this manuscript. The manuscript title shed the light mainly on the tree traits of rootstock-scion combination, but with the appropriate aim, the study will be directed toward finding the right parameter for the rootstock selection. Also, the obtained data showed significant differences among investigated combinations, so it should be discussed in more detail.
Further, in the aim that you gave only in the Abstract, it was stated that the trial was irrigated. You should mention that information also in the Methods. Maybe you could find how these rootstocks influenced apricot cultivars in the non-irrigated conditions, if such trials were conducted. Also, you wrote: ‘We have to find those rootstock-scion combinations which are suitable for the production in our growing area’. It would be interesting to discuss how these rootstocks performed in some other areas, or how studied cultivars performed in your growing area on other rootstocks.
However, the precise formation of aims of your research will strongly affect the development of your discussion.
Additional information
Please delete Supplementary Materials text and add Author Contributions, Funding, Data Availability Statement and Acknowledgments, if any.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The comments of reviewers were very helpful, the manuscript improved a lot by them. Reviews were very helpful. The new version has been improved over the original submission. Title is rewritten. The English is improved by professionals. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. In this experiment we only had the possibility to evaluate the vegetative characteristics of the young trees. Due to heavy late spring frost, we had no reliable results on fruit characteristics yet.
The aims are clarified, as You suggested. Graphs are ameliorated, every advice is taken. Equation and footers are revised and supplemented. The methods are clarified, the results are more comprehensible. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The aims are clarified, and the scions are described. Your notices and suggestions were very helpful, the manuscript is ameliorated a lot!
Yours sincerely,
the authors
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
As said before, the paper s topic presents interest for nurseries and apricot producers and data regarding this subject in continuous climatic changes conditions.
Most of the recommendations were changed.
- For Table 1 – it still is not very clear: Are the data presented in Table 1, part of the research? If yes, please indicate the methods. If no, please indicate the sources and also the limits of the variable.
The limits for the variable are presented after the first revision, but the values of the limits also need some references.
Thank you!
Comments for author File: Comments.doc
Author Response
Dear Reviewer2,
The comments of reviewers were very helpful. The new version has been improved over the original submission. The methods of the Table 1 are clarified in line 88-90. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing.
Thank You for your helpful remarks.
Your sincerely,
the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for implementing the necessary changes.
Paper is acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer3,
Many Thanks for your help, all of your suggestions. Quality of the manuscript improved a lot.
Yours sincerely,
the authors
