Rootstocks for Commercial Peach Production in the Southeastern United States: Current Research, Challenges, and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very fine; maybe it is just a bit too long. So, the suggestion is, if it is possible in some parts to be more stringent and shorter!

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

The abstract has been changed and some parts of the review has been reworded to make the paper more straight to the point.

Reviewer 2 Report

Lesmes-Vesga et al. reviewed and summarized the literature regarding available rootstocks for commercial peach production in the Southeastern United States. In general, the manuscript is well written and easy to follow, except in some cases (see my specific comments below). The manuscript is well suited for publication in the journal Horticulturae after some relevant revisions by the authors. Here are my main concerns:

The title states “current research, challenges, and opportunities”. However, 99 out of 152 (65%) of the references are more than 10 years old. Besides, I failed to see the parts regarding the “opportunities” (future opportunities I believe) in the manuscript. I would strongly encourage the authors to highlight them in the text. I also missed a sentence in the last part of the introduction mentioning that this review was design as a narrative review (if this is not the case, the methodology implemented to systematically assess the literature is required). Considering the narrative nature of the review, I think the authors could provide an outlook regarding the future of the rootstock field in the future (kind of related with the challenges/opportunities) maybe. Note that the last two sections (i.e. 8 and 9) doesn’t quite complete this purpose. Finally, I also missed a bit of explanation on the “problem” that this review is trying to address (rather than describing in detail the huge number of rootstocks available). Why and how this review can contribute to solving the identified issue?

I think the abstract is a good introduction to the topic. However, I am missing a bit more technical details regarding the study. Consider stating the goal of the review, the methodology used to select the relevant literature (difference between systematic or narrative reviews), etc.

L43, L50, L52. I don’t understand the use of the term “Myr”. Is it Millions of years? If so, one could read the sentence as “The modern Prunus appeared ~61 Million years in Eastern Asia…”. Isn’t a word missing? Maybe “ago”?

L54. I think the citation style is [6, 5] and not [6], [5]. Please check the guidelines of the journal and amend this and other citations through the text.

L57. I am not a native English speaker, but I would say that “is” could be replace by “was” considering that you are talking about the past (i.e. 2018).

L148. Compound? Singular maybe? Considering that you used “an antifungal…”. I think a “t” is missing in that sentence also, i.e. “tha”

L225-226. This sentence is a bit odd. Consider rephrasing.

L265. I am not sure bacterium is the right term here. Please check it is correct.

L270 and further examples. Consider adding bullet points or other kind of mark to guide the reader through the examples you are giving. Otherwise, these get confused with plain text.

L297. “… resistance to X. fastidiosa have”?

Fig. 1. Nice figure! I know it may be tricky, but do the authors have a better illustration (e.g. dark background) to show the Root-knot nematode galls? That may really help show the symptom. Now it is tricky to see.

L354. Shouldn’t be “abiotic stresses (i.e. plural)”? Considering that you use “these” before.

L358. “4 days…” (the specific clause) could go between brackets. Otherwise, add some words to make it fit in the sentence.

L380. Consider adding a hyphen/dash between “graft” and “compatible”.

L382. I am not totally sure if this should be “tolerant of waterlogging” or “tolerant to waterlogging”. Please assess the term and modify it according everywhere in the text (I have seen it before e.g. L378, L386).

L387. I think the word “to” is missing here.

L415-417. This sentence is difficult to follow. Consider re-phrasing it.

L421. Consider making it the use of “peach x almond” consistent throughout the text.

L439-440. “Prunus uses as reduction mechanism…” it is not clear “what for” they used such a mechanism.

L525-526. It looks to me that one word is missing in this section of the sentence: “… whose traits include trees structure have few blind nodes, …”

L555-557. Consider adding the “P.” for prunus before mentioning all species.

L577. Add space before “pv.”. Same with “van Hall”. “Tolerant to”?

L591. “vulnus(..” add space

L622-630. Controversial that “lower replant problems” is an advantage of this rootstock and some lines after, a disadvantage is that “does not perform well in replant conditions”.

L633-634. Sometimes I don’t understand the criteria for abbreviating the scientific names, e.g. A. mellea and Verticillium alboatrum in the same sentence. Is there any (I am not an expert in scientific names rules)?

L637-638. The subject (“who”) is missing in this sentence…

L639-649. Here, the subject and the verb are missing.

L680-681. I don’t understand this sentence. Please explain it better.

L692-694. Compared to what size?

L715. Additional bracket “)”

L726. Additional “is”

L729. The citation is missing (number).

L766. Space after the comma is missing.

Author Response

Lesmes-Vesga et al. reviewed and summarized the literature regarding available rootstocks for commercial peach production in the Southeastern United States. In general, the manuscript is well written and easy to follow, except in some cases (see my specific comments below). The manuscript is well suited for publication in the journal Horticulturae after some relevant revisions by the authors. Here are my main concerns:

Thank you. We appreciated the time you took to give us detailed revisions and comments about our review paper. Please see our comments below.

The title states “current research, challenges, and opportunities”. However, 99 out of 152 (65%) of the references are more than 10 years old. Besides, I failed to see the parts regarding the “opportunities” (future opportunities I believe) in the manuscript. I would strongly encourage the authors to highlight them in the text. I also missed a sentence in the last part of the introduction mentioning that this review was design as a narrative review (if this is not the case, the methodology implemented to systematically assess the literature is required). Considering the narrative nature of the review, I think the authors could provide an outlook regarding the future of the rootstock field in the future (kind of related with the challenges/opportunities) maybe. Note that the last two sections (i.e. 8 and 9) doesn’t quite complete this purpose. Finally, I also missed a bit of explanation on the “problem” that this review is trying to address (rather than describing in detail the huge number of rootstocks available). Why and how this review can contribute to solving the identified issue? I think the abstract is a good introduction to the topic. However, I am missing a bit more technical details regarding the study. Consider stating the goal of the review, the methodology used to select the relevant literature (difference between systematic or narrative reviews), etc.

The abstract has been rewritten and it now mention that this is a narrative review. The abstract also now stated the goal of the review paper. Additionally, sections 8 and 9 have been expanded and now highlight some of the opportunities.

L43, L50, L52. I don’t understand the use of the term “Myr”. Is it Millions of years? If so, one could read the sentence as “The modern Prunus appeared ~61 Million years in Eastern Asia…”. Isn’t a word missing? Maybe “ago”?

Fixed

L54. I think the citation style is [6, 5] and not [6], [5]. Please check the guidelines of the journal and amend this and other citations through the text.

Fixed

L57. I am not a native English speaker, but I would say that “is” could be replace by “was” considering that you are talking about the past (i.e. 2018).

Fixed

L148. Compound? Singular maybe? Considering that you used “an antifungal…”. I think a “t” is missing in that sentence also, i.e. “tha”

Fixed

L225-226. This sentence is a bit odd. Consider rephrasing.

Fixed

L265. I am not sure bacterium is the right term here. Please check it is correct.

Fixed

L270 and further examples. Consider adding bullet points or other kind of mark to guide the reader through the examples you are giving. Otherwise, these get confused with plain text.

Fixed

L297. “… resistance to X. fastidiosa have”?

Fixed

Fig. 1. Nice figure! I know it may be tricky, but do the authors have a better illustration (e.g. dark background) to show the Root-knot nematode galls? That may really help show the symptom. Now it is tricky to see.

Fixed. A zoom-in section was added next to the original image.

L354. Shouldn’t be “abiotic stresses (i.e. plural)”? Considering that you use “these” before.

Fixed

L358. “4 days…” (the specific clause) could go between brackets. Otherwise, add some words to make it fit in the sentence.

Fixed

L380. Consider adding a hyphen/dash between “graft” and “compatible”.

Fixed

L382. I am not totally sure if this should be “tolerant of waterlogging” or “tolerant to waterlogging”. Please assess the term and modify it according everywhere in the text (I have seen it before e.g. L378, L386).

Fixed

L387. I think the word “to” is missing here.

Fixed

L415-417. This sentence is difficult to follow. Consider re-phrasing it.

Fixed

L421. Consider making it the use of “peach x almond” consistent throughout the text.

Fixed

L439-440. “Prunus uses as reduction mechanism…” it is not clear “what for” they used such a mechanism.

Fixed

L525-526. It looks to me that one word is missing in this section of the sentence: “… whose traits include trees structure have few blind nodes, …”

Fixed

L555-557. Consider adding the “P.” for prunus before mentioning all species.

Fixed

 L577. Add space before “pv.”. Same with “van Hall”. “Tolerant to”?

Fixed

 L591. “vulnus(..” add space

Fixed

L622-630. Controversial that “lower replant problems” is an advantage of this rootstock and some lines after, a disadvantage is that “does not perform well in replant conditions”.

Fixed

L633-634. Sometimes I don’t understand the criteria for abbreviating the scientific names, e.g. A. mellea and Verticillium alboatrum in the same sentence. Is there any (I am not an expert in scientific names rules)?

Fixed, all the scientific names are now presented without authorities and the genus is only fully spelled out when it is first mentioned.

L637-638. The subject (“who”) is missing in this sentence…

Fixed

L639-649. Here, the subject and the verb are missing.

Fixed

L680-681. I don’t understand this sentence. Please explain it better.

Fixed

L692-694. Compared to what size?

Fixed

L715. Additional bracket “)”

Fixed

L726. Additional “is”

Fixed

L729. The citation is missing (number).

Fixed

L766. Space after the comma is missing.

Fixed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the manuscript to the Horticulturae. I think it can be acceptable to publish this form in the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well written and well justified with references. However, I recommend that the authors change the abstract, giving more specific details from the bibliography as a general summary of the work (best rootstock, future needs, etc.).

Authors must complete the "author contributions" section

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. The abstract has been changed and aspects about opportunities have been added in sections 8 and 9.

The Authors contribution section has been completed as well.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors seem to have addressed most of my comments. However, I think that a few minor revisions may still be required before I can recommend the paper to be published.

L242. “a trait that …”

L274, L433, L445. Citation format

L394. “Tolerant to”

L494. Not sure, but it may be “onto” instead of “on to”. Please check.

L496-543. I am not fully convinced this section is aligned with the header “Production problems in Southeast United States (Potentially solved with rootstocks breeding)”. I agree it is a production problem. However, as it is now explained by the authors, it doesn’t seem particularly easy/feasible to solve it via rootstock breeding. In the text, the authors did not mention how rootstock can help solve this disorder. They affirm that the cause of blind node is mainly environmental factors (i.e. too warm summers). Considering that comments by other reviewers suggested shortening the text, I would suggest removing this section. Otherwise, the authors may need to make it explicit (using the appropriate references) the role of rootstocks to solve the disorder.

L601. “‘Lovell’ does not sucker…” Is this concept correct? Seems awkward to me.

L620. Since you used “it” as a subject, shouldn’t be “does” instead of “do”? I am not a native English speaker, but it sounds weird to me. Please check.

L626. Delete the “the” before the scientific name. It does sound better to me.

L636. “… delayed precocity” sounds awkward to me. While delayed means being late, precocity means the opposite. Overall, “delayed precocity” may mean “just in time”. Consider using a better term.

L904. “tolerate”

Author Response

The authors seem to have addressed most of my comments. However, I think that a few minor revisions may still be required before I can recommend the paper to be published.

Thanks for taking the time to quickly revise our resubmitted paper. We reworked on the manuscript and addressed all your comments and revisions.

L242. “a trait that …”

Fixed

L274, L433, L445. Citation format

Fixed

L394. “Tolerant to”

Fixed

L494. Not sure, but it may be “onto” instead of “on to”. Please check.

Fixed

L496-543. I am not fully convinced this section is aligned with the header “Production problems in Southeast United States (Potentially solved with rootstocks breeding)”. I agree it is a production problem. However, as it is now explained by the authors, it doesn’t seem particularly easy/feasible to solve it via rootstock breeding. In the text, the authors did not mention how rootstock can help solve this disorder. They affirm that the cause of blind node is mainly environmental factors (i.e. too warm summers). Considering that comments by other reviewers suggested shortening the text, I would suggest removing this section. Otherwise, the authors may need to make it explicit (using the appropriate references) the role of rootstocks to solve the disorder.

The paragraph has been removed

L601. “‘Lovell’ does not sucker…” Is this concept correct? Seems awkward to me.

Fixed

L620. Since you used “it” as a subject, shouldn’t be “does” instead of “do”? I am not a native English speaker, but it sounds weird to me. Please check.

L626. Delete the “the” before the scientific name. It does sound better to me.

Fixed

L636. “… delayed precocity” sounds awkward to me. While delayed means being late, precocity means the opposite. Overall, “delayed precocity” may mean “just in time”. Consider using a better term.

Fixed

L904. “tolerate”

Fixed