Preharvest Foliar Application of Si–Ca-Based Biostimulant Affects Postharvest Quality and Shelf-Life of Clementine Mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I believe that submitted manuscript is not final. My previous comment was:
“The main disadvantage is insufficient description of the applied product (in suspension concentrates (SC) formulation (35% w/v SiO2 and 35% w/v CaO, AGROLOGY SA), of Si-Ca of fossil origin). Such poor, unprecise description of used novel product leaves the possibility that other substances of fossil origin (for example naphthenic acids) could be responsible for fruit/plant reaction. Used product MUST BE more precisely described (especially organic part, or to be precise remaining 30% of product) in such way that experiment could be replicated (with same substances). If the product is a trade secret, it should be available on the market (which also includes obtaining licenses for use in agriculture and all aspect of safety issues) also because of reproducibility. On top of all mentioned, unspecified 30% of used substance and fossil origin, and its beneficial effect on mandarin definitely rise question regarding its pollution potential, which is another question which must be answered in the manuscript.”
The authors response was:
“Thank you for your comment. Within the manuscript the Si-Ca based compound is indicated know with its full commercial name. Also, the other 30% of product is now indicated as inert material, after the details provided by the company (AGROLOGY SA, Greece). Furthermore, the Si-Ca biostimulant is safe for use in organic farming, as indicated by its label upon the commercial package. Additionally, the company declared that this Si-Ca biostimulant derives from pulverized rock.”
However, in text, there is no mentioning of commercial name:
“During the years 2019 and 2020, a novel Si-Ca-based compound, (35% w/v SiO2, 35% w/v CaO and 30% w/v inactive compounds, originated from pulverized rock, creating a particle film of Si-Ca, being certified for organing farming use and commercially available by AGROLOGY SA), was sprayed on fifteen trees at the rate of 10 g/ L water, while another set of fifteen trees was unsprayed and served as control (five trees per replication). Overall, three sprays were performed each year: at the beginning of Au-95 gust, mid-September and late November.”
Meaning that main disadvantage of manuscript remains.
Addition of data of individual years significantly improve scientific significance of manuscript and now, it is observable that difference between years exists, as it should when biostimulators and bioregulators are applied. Tables are significantly upgraded, however I would strongly suggest to add significance of factors, since majority of values are very close . Just to remove confusion, significance of factors is present in table of recently published paper https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8090809. Also, majority of discussion in results chapter is related to pooled results which should be emphasized in text.
Line 59, [Si(OH)4, please use subscript for number 4
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: I believe that submitted manuscript is not final. My previous comment was:
“The main disadvantage is insufficient description of the applied product (in suspension concentrates (SC) formulation (35% w/v SiO2 and 35% w/v CaO, AGROLOGY SA), of Si-Ca of fossil origin). Such poor, unprecise description of used novel product leaves the possibility that other substances of fossil origin (for example naphthenic acids) could be responsible for fruit/plant reaction. Used product MUST BE more precisely described (especially organic part, or to be precise remaining 30% of product) in such way that experiment could be replicated (with same substances). If the product is a trade secret, it should be available on the market (which also includes obtaining licenses for use in agriculture and all aspect of safety issues) also because of reproducibility. On top of all mentioned, unspecified 30% of used substance and fossil origin, and its beneficial effect on mandarin definitely rise question regarding its pollution potential, which is another question which must be answered in the manuscript.”
The authors response was:
“Thank you for your comment. Within the manuscript the Si-Ca based compound is indicated know with its full commercial name. Also, the other 30% of product is now indicated as inert material, after the details provided by the company (AGROLOGY SA, Greece). Furthermore, the Si-Ca biostimulant is safe for use in organic farming, as indicated by its label upon the commercial package. Additionally, the company declared that this Si-Ca biostimulant derives from pulverized rock.”
However, in text, there is no mentioning of commercial name:
“During the years 2019 and 2020, a novel Si-Ca-based compound, (35% w/v SiO2, 35% w/v CaO and 30% w/v inactive compounds, originated from pulverized rock, creating a particle film of Si-Ca, being certified for organing farming use and commercially available by AGROLOGY SA), was sprayed on fifteen trees at the rate of 10 g/ L water, while another set of fifteen trees was unsprayed and served as control (five trees per replication). Overall, three sprays were performed each year: at the beginning of Au-95 gust, mid-September and late November.”
Meaning that main disadvantage of manuscript remains.
Response: Authors highly appreciate the reviewer’s interest and time to review our manuscript critically. The product that we used in the present study is commercially available with the following name: Gravitalâ Force SC. In the abstract and Materials and methods section, we added the product commercial name and made sure that there will be no confusion regarding the product commercial name or ingredient.
Addition of data of individual years significantly improve scientific significance of manuscript and now, it is observable that difference between years exists, as it should when biostimulators and bioregulators are applied. Tables are significantly upgraded, however I would strongly suggest to add significance of factors, since majority of values are very close . Just to remove confusion, significance of factors is present in table of recently published paper https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8090809. Also, majority of discussion in results chapter is related to pooled results which should be emphasized in text.
Response: Thanks for providing rigorous comments and a link of the published article as a reference. In the present study, our main objective is to assess the impact of the preharvest foliar application of our target product on postharvest fruit quality. We believe that our tables in their current form are appropriate to provide the required data (main factors and interaction). Moreover, in the result section, there is a description of the significance of factors for each treatment. We hope you will agree with our logic.
Line 59, [Si(OH)4, please use subscript for number 4
Response: We apologize for this typo. In the revised version, we have fixed this error.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Manuscript Number: horticulturae-1982356, titled:
Preharvest foliar application of Si-Ca-based biostimulant affects postharvest quality and shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan)
Review 2 – 10 Oct 2022
Dear Editor of Horticulturae
this study investigated on Effects of novel Si-Ca based GRAS compound upon the quality and post-harvest shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan). the argument is interesting but it has to be improved. The Authors have included many of my comments, however some improvements more are necessary. Many inaccuracies in the text.
The tables and the references section have to be carefully arranged as per Horticulturae instructions for Authors.
I have attached a pdf file with all comments to be sent to Authors.
The Authors have to attach a cover letter describing all corrections.
Please, write in red color or evidence differently the corrections you will do.
I suggest a major revision
Regards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2:
This study investigated on Effects of novel Si-Ca based GRAS compound upon the quality and post-harvest shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan). the argument is interesting but it has to be improved. The Authors have included many of my comments, however some improvements more are necessary. Many inaccuracies in the text.
The tables and the references section have to be carefully arranged as per Horticulturae instructions for Authors.
I have attached a pdf file with all comments to be sent to Authors.
The Authors have to attach a cover letter describing all corrections.
Please, write in red color or evidence differently the corrections you will do.
I suggest a major revision
Regards.
Response: Authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewer for reviewing our manuscript and providing us with valuable suggestions. We considered all comments and very carefully addressed them in our revised version. We hope the revised version will satisfy the reviewer. Given below are the reviewer's comments with our responses.
- Nikos Bravos affiliation
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the missing information in the revised version.
- Do not insert publication year of each reference within the text.
Response: We are sorry for citation style mistakes. As per the journal guideline, we revised all the citations throughout the manuscript.
- Check Si(OH)4 for style and size.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have fixed these errors throughout the manuscript.
- In the material and Methods section, indicate how many trees.
Response: Thanks for asking this valuable information. In the revised version, we have incorporated the required information.
- In the material and Methods section, indicate the fertilizer use (type, quantity, period).
Response: Thank you for your comment. Information regarding fertilizer usage is added.
- Delete space before letter L (line 93).
Response: Thank you for your comment. The space is deleted.
- Delete word kilograms (line 120)
Response: Thank you for your comment. The word is deleted.
- Within the text, write “tables” with small “t” (line 166).
Response: Thank you for your comment. The word is corrected.
- Within the text, replace “&” with “and”
Response: Thank you for your comment. “&” is now replaced with “and”
- Within the text, do not use bold type for the captions of tables.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Within the tables, no bold letters are used.
- Within the text and tables, use full stop to separate decimals.
Response: Thank you for your comment. A full stop is now used to separate decimals.
- For the tables use guide for authors.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We reformatted the table according to the author's guidelines. All letter font size is 8 and the table was made by using “insert table” from Word.
- Use symbol ° from the keyboard.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The symbol ° from the keyboard is now used.
- Change Book references according to the guide for authors.
Response: Thank you for your comment. All book references are now changed according to the guide for authors.
- Use dot instead of comma after the last page of each reference.
Response: Thank you for your comment. All book references are now changed according to the guide for authors. A dot is used at the end, prior to doi.
- At reference list, delete issue number.
Response: Thank you for your comment. All issue numbers are now deleted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Manuscript Number: horticulturae-1982356-v2, titled:
Preharvest foliar application of Si-Ca-based biostimulant affects postharvest quality and shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan)
Review 3 – 21 Oct 2022
Dear Editor of Horticulturae
The authors have included all my comments.
I suggest the publication of this manuscript in the present form.
Regards.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I am honored for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Effects of novel Si-Ca based GRAS compound upon the quality and post-harvest shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan)”, by Ziogas et al. I am really glad to see manuscripts dealing with postharvest, especially if subject deals with interaction of preharvest treatment on postharvest quality, since in practice this happens all the time, but papers dealing with such interactions are rare. Despite its potential significance, this manuscript does have some serious deficiencies, of which some can prevent publishing of the manuscript, in the current state.
The main disadvantage is insufficient description of the applied product (in suspension concentrates (SC) formulation (35% w/v SiO2 and 35% w/v CaO, AGROLOGY SA), of Si-Ca of fossil origin). Such poor, unprecise description of used novel product leaves the possibility that other substances of fossil origin (for example naphthenic acids) could be responsible for fruit/plant reaction. Used product MUST BE more precisely described (especially organic part, or to be precise remaining 30% of product) in such way that experiment could be replicated (with same substances). If the product is a trade secret, it should be available on the market (which also includes obtaining licenses for use in agriculture and all aspect of safety issues) also because of reproducibility. On top of all mentioned, unspecified 30% of used substance and fossil origin, and its beneficial effect on mandarin definitely rise question regarding its pollution potential, which is another question which must be answered in the manuscript.
Throughout the manuscript, the term “GRAS “ appears in the title together with postharvest, which leans reader expectations that postharvest treatment with Si will be applied. Beside misleading reader, there is issue with using GRAS term. GRAS substances are usually used in food industry, and applied or added to food products. In presented manuscript substance is used as foliar fertilizer (or bioregulator or biostimator, by spraying whole tree) and commented as biostimulant which makes confusion in manuscript. Due to foliar application of substance and strongly suggest avoidance of GRAS term in manuscript! I will also suggest pairing preharvest treatment (which in this case application of substance is the case) to change of postharvest properties of mandarin (which is one of right ways of presenting and data description).
Another disadvantage of manuscript is pooling data from two years. The repeatability of obtained results, despite been old orchard, seems to be extraordinary, for both control and treated plants! However it is only mentioned once, in “statistical analysis” chapter. I suggest rearranging data in a way that both years are presented, which will certainly point out beneficial effect of applied substance.
Until all issues regarding description of substance, decision how substance is defined (bioregulator, fertilizer), presentation of results from two years are maid AND consolidation of whole manuscript is made according to previously made decisions, manuscript is not suitable for publishing.
Since papers connecting pre and postharvest are very rare, I encourage authors to make necessary changes and resubmit paper again!
Beside mentioned, there some specific errors that must be addressed:
Table 1, Fruit loss. Fruit loss was not mentioned in material and method section (but weight loss is! – please uniform name of analysis or define fruit loss in material and method chapter). Fruit loss of Si-Ca. Something is not right with results. Standard deviation is higher than results (0.40 ± 3.54 and 3.00 ± 3.64) meaning that in some point fruit has to gain weight. Please make correction.
Table 2, TSS/Acidity. Something is not right with lettering. 19.39ab and 26.33b, while 24 has c. Please make corrections!
Please check literature numbering throughout manuscript! Some specific lettering are found:
Line 282 “In the latter years, there is a shift in agriculture towards the adoption and implemen-281 tation of agricultural practices that preserve fruit quality attributes [34].” Reference 34 is related to Si and Fe.
Line 288-290. “This 288 result is aligned with that of Omar and Abo El-Enin [35], who demonstrated that the foliar 289 application of Ca did not significantly affect citrus fruit weight.” Reference 35 is Mditshwa, A.; Bower, J.P.; Bertling, I.; Mathaba, N.; Tesfay, S.Z. The potential of postharvest silicon dips to regulate phenolics in citrus peel as a method to mitigate chilling injury in lemons. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 1482-1489. Please make necessary corrections.
Line 290-292. “Similar results were recorded by Peris-Felipo, et al. [36], where the application of Si to hydroponically cultivated strawberries, under Fe deficiency, did not alter fruit weight” Peris-Felipo, et al. is literature nuber 34. Please make necessary corrections.
Line 292-294 „On the contrary, when lemon fruit were dipped in Si solution, a significant reduction of weight loss was recorded, due to the proposed reduction of membrane permeability and increased membrane stability and integrity [37].“ Literature 37 is related to mandarins. Please make necessary corrections.
Line 336-337 “In our work, TSS, TA and juice pH were positively affected by the foliar application of Si-Ca based compound at all-time intervals of analysis (Table 2).” 1)please define “positive affect”; 2)
Lines 298-299 “The colour of the mandarin fruit is a crucial quality attribute since it determines con- sumer choice [38]. 38-is related to tomato, please make necessary corrections.
Line 301 Bang, et al. [39] is not 39
Line 302 Peris-Felipo, Benavent-Gil and Hernández-Apaolaza is 34 (not [36]).
Line 306 Weerahewa and David is 38 (not 40)
Line 307-308 Yavad and Varu is 39 (not [41] )
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: horticulturae-1921826, titled:
Effects of novel Si-Ca based GRAS compound upon the quality and post-harvest shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan).
Review 1 – 6 Sept 2022
Dear Editor of Horticulturae
this study investigated on Effects of novel Si-Ca based GRAS compound upon the quality and post-harvest shelf-life of clementine mandarin (Citrus clementina Hort. Ex Tan). the argument is interesting but it has to be improved. The introduction section has to be improved and better argued. The bibliography of the discussion section has to be improved, I have included some references but the Authors have to include references more. Inaccuracies in the text.
I suggest a major revision
To the Authors (in detail):
1) Introduction section, please, describe also the wold production of citrus fruits and of mandarins before to describe the Greek one and support this statement with some relevant references;
2) Lines 55, 59 and in the whole manuscript, please, verify the font size;
3) Line 77, verify the size of brackets for the reference 23;
4) Introduction section, before to focus the discussion on the topic of your manuscript, please, evidence that many factors were found to influence the quality of citrus fruits, such as: cultivar and harvest date [X1]; fruit canopy position [X2]; mineral nutrition [X3]. Please, include the reference number after each influencing factor and do not cumulate all references at the end of the sentence. Find, read and discuss [X1-X3]:
[X1] Bergamot (Citrus bergamia, Risso): The Effects of cultivar and harvest date on functional properties of juice and cloudy juice.
Antioxidants 8, 221 (2019). doi:10.3390/antiox8070221
[X2] Fruit canopy position and harvest date influence on colour and quality of Imperial
mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco)
Prakash Adhikari; Zora Singh; Vijay Yadav Tokala; Poe Nandar Kyaw; Bronwyn Walsh.
Australian Journal of Crop Science 14(04):660-666 (2020).
doi: 10.21475/ajcs.20.14.04.p2304
[X3] Factors affecting citrus fruit quality: Emphasis on mineral nutrition.
Científica, Jaboticabal, v.44, n.4, p.64-72, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15361/1984-5529.2017v45n1p64-72
5) 2.1 sub-section, delete the space between the hyphen and ine 94, delete one space before …. was sprayed;
6) 2.1 sub-section, please, describe the type of soil and the irrigation;
7) 2.3 sub-section, line 118 and in the whole manuscript: kg in small letters;
8) Line 124, delete one space before %;
9) Line 136 and line 180 and in the whole manuscript, the symbol for ° of °C it seems to be not always the same, verify the size;
10) Lines 192, 198 and in the whole manuscript: &?
11) Line 199: 13% and not 13%, be consistent with your manuscript (line 187);
12) Line 217, separate the text by the footnote;
13) Line 260, separate the text by the footnote;
14) Line 72 (et al, in italic); line 291. 301 (no italic for et al), please, be consistent in the whole manuscript and apply the guidelines of Horticulturae;
15) The Discussion section has to be improved and the authors should increase the references and the discussed works. Data have to be compared with more published works and results have to be explained. Why these data?
16) Discussion section: line 348. Yes, it is true, ascorbic acid and phenolic compounds are the basic phytochemicals in citrus juice. Please, support this statement with proper references and include each reference after each species [X4, X5, X6]:
[X4] Physico-chemical Stability of Blood Orange Juice during Frozen Storage.
International Journal of Food Properties 20:sup2, 1930-1943 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2017.1359184
[X5] Chemical composition and sensory profile of pomelo (Citrus grandis (L.)
Osbeck) juice
Mun Wai Cheong, Shao Quan Liu, Weibiao Zhou,Philip Curran, Bin Yu.
Food Chemistry 135 (2012) 2505-2513.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.07.012
[X6] Quality Parameters of Spanish Lemons with Commercial Interest.
Marlene G. Aguilar-Hernández, Dámaris Núñez-Gómez , María Ángeles Forner-Giner, Francisca Hernández, Joaquín J. Pastor-Pérez,Pilar Legu.
Foods 2021, 10, 62. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010062
17) References section, please, do not underline the doi;
18) References section, sometime you have written the title of the paper in capital letters (ref 40) and sometime in small letter (ref 41) please, be consistent;
19) Please, write in blue color or evidence differently the corrections you will do.
I suggest a major revision
Regards.
