Quality of Olive Oil Obtained by Regulated Deficit Irrigation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) In the Abstract portion, the authors should add the significance of this article in the ending lines.

(2) A total of 6 tables were shown in the manuscript, and suggest to delete into 3 or 4 ones, and the deleted tables could presented with another means, such as figures.

(3) Suggest to set the marks of A , B, and C in the all the Figures as the left banlk, and the resolution of all the figures were too low.

(4) Suggest to divide the Results and Discussion into two separate portions.

Author Response

1. In the Abstract portion, the authors should add the significance of this article in the ending lines.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 33-34.

2. A total of 6 tables were shown in the manuscript, and suggest to delete into 3 or 4 ones, and the deleted tables could presented with another means, such as figures.

The manuscript consists of 6 tables and 2 figures. Authors prefer to keep tables in this format because they present simultaneously relevant values and their statistical processing. On the other hand, Figure 1 has been removed and data have been included in the manuscript text; please, see lines 229-239.

3. Suggest setting the marks of A , B, and C in the all the Figures as the left blank, and the resolution of all the figures were too low.

The quality and titles of Figure 2 have been modified, as requested.

4. Suggest dividing the Results and Discussion into two separate portions.

Authors prefer to keep the section of Results and Discussion together, because for us it is easier to understand by the readers. Results are presented and immediately discuss, which makes the understanding of the readers easier. Besides, with all the comments raised by the Reviewers and the new writing of this section, the manuscript reads much better and easier. Thank you to the Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find attached pdf for review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review - Quality of olive oil obtained by regulated deficit irrigation

Text in italics represent text taken from the manuscript; text in “quotations” represents the reviewer’s suggestions.

 

General comments

1. The first half of the abstract gives good context to the paper; however, your aim and objectives are not articulated well. It is not clear what your methods were, and the final sentence is confusing. For instance, you mention consumer preference, but you haven’t said anywhere that you were measuring this, and how you measured it.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 26-34.

2. Sensory, physical, and chemical parameters were analyzed does not give enough of an idea of the methods you used to achieve your aim. Additionally, there is no conclusive sentence as how the results will be applied; the results must be brought back into the broader context of the paper.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 26-29.

3. The Introduction gives a good background to olive oil agriculture in Spain and context to HydroSOS irrigation. With regards to your writing, avoid too many within-sentence citations (e.g., line 64). However, it is not clear why you are linking HydroSOS and consumers –physi is it because consumers do not understand HydroSOS, or do consumers currently avoid olive products produced using HydroSOS? Additionally, you give no introduction to how quality is measured in olive oil – this must be introduced to the reader considering you are providing so many measures of quality in the results and discussion. In the final paragraph, you need to give specific aims and objectives that outline what you are measuring and what methods you’ll be using; how will you be measuring how deficit irrigation influences olive oil? Finally, you must outline what you are expecting to find.

We have limited the within-sentence citations to the minimum possible, as requested. Please, see lines 75-76 and along the manuscript.

The requested information has been added in lines 71-74, 82-86 and 87-89.

4. There are issues in terms of the treatments; there weren’t really two varieties analyzed if Arbosana olive oil wasn’t obtained from the conventional irrigation treatment. It is possible to still do a comparison between these three olive oils, but ideally if there is a distinction between Arbosana and Arbequina, which you have not presented. The scale for the second part of the questionnaire in particular did not seem appropriate, but this could be a translation issue. Also, there are no references for the consumer study section; consider adding citations for other papers that used similar methods/defined methods you used. Why did you choose to use a 9-point scale?

The requested information has been added; please, see lines 96-101.

The Reviewer is fully right and there were some problems with the translation of the JAR scale; please, see lines 131-132. Besides, references to support the work done on the consumer studies have been added, as requested; please, see line 124.

In general, we have used the 9-point JAR scale, dividing it into three sections: (i) too weak, points 1-3; (ii) just about right, points 4-6; and, (iii) too strong, points 7-9. This scale and procedure has given us very good results.  

5. The results and the discussion should be separated; there is too much information here to have both in the same section. In addition, when writing the Results, you must quote significant statistical results in the text (F statistic, d.f. and the p value) rather than just the points of difference, for example. Also, although efforts have been made to relate certain analyses with their health benefits or their contribution to taste, etc., little has been done to discuss why certain factors changed under the two levels of irrigation.

Authors prefer to keep the section of Results and Discussion together, because for us it is easier to understand by the readers. Results are presented and immediately discuss, which makes the understanding of the readers easier. Besides, with all the comments raised by the Reviewers and the new writing of this section, the manuscript reads much better and easier. Thank you to the Reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

6. Although you have summarized your results, the Conclusion should dig deeper into why this research is important and how the results will be applied.

Authors have completely rewritten the Conclusions section; please, see lines 387-397.

7. Figure 1 is hard to interpret. Firstly, the graphic on the left is misleading as it almost looks like the taste profile of one of the olive oils. Furthermore, it is not clear what the graph on the right is showing seen as there is no y axis and purchase intention is not well defined.

Figure 1 has been removed from the revised version of the text and data have been included in the manuscript text; please, see lines 229-239.

 

Line by line

8. Line 27 – It has been shown that is a misleading way to present your results. Consider changing to “Our results show…” or “We found that…”.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 29-30.

9. Line 36 – Remove In addition.

Done as suggested; please, see line 40.

10. Line 39 – This sentence needs to be rephrased as it is not clear what this percentage is referring to.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 40-42.

11. Line 40 – You have already said there are 75 million hectares of olive cultivation in Spain in line 35; this does not need to be repeated.

Deleted as suggested; please, see lines 44-45.

12. Line 41 – Remove In addition.

Done as suggested; please, see line 45.

13. Lines 48-52 – How do these strategies address lack of diversity posed by super-high intensity orchards?

Done as suggested; please, see lines 53-54.

14. Line 70 – The term acceptance is not measurable and is confusing to the reader. Could you change to “preference”?

Done as suggested; please, see line 80.

15. Line 103 – What do you mean by correct? This scale does not seem to match the question.

Authors have rewritten these terms, which are typical of the JAR scales. Correct means that the intensity of an attribute is “just about right”. Please, see lines 131-132.

16. Line 109 – But what did they measure? You’ve said how they were trained, but you must explicitly say what analysis they undertook.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 138-143.

17. Line 111 – Their level of experience is not necessary information – in addition, as readers, we don’t know what 700 hours of experience

Done as suggested; please, see lines 138-143.

18. Line 115 – Was it random? Or was it just in no particular order? How did you ensure it was random?

Done as suggested; please, see line 146-147.

19. Line 119 – Who and where were these parameters analyzed?

Done as suggested; please, see line 153-154.

20. Line 181 – Remove were.

Deleted as suggested; please, see lines 215-216.

21. Line 186 – It is not clear what the result is.

Done as requested; please, see lines 229-239.

22. Line 211 – This should have been introduced in your Methods. Also, it is not defined what Penalty Analysis

Done as requested; please, see lines 207-209.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A very important and interesting topic was covered in the Manuscript. The introduction is written appropriately, and relevant references are listed. The research is well designed, and the experimental section is mostly adequately written. However, some parts of this section are written too extensively (Fatty acid profile). It is unnecessary to describe the experiment in detail if adequate references are given. In general, the results of this research are compared with appropriate literature data. However, the English language is simply inadequate in Results and discussion section and makes reading difficult.

The most significant disadvantage of this research is the small number of samples. It is really a pity that a larger number of samples were not available, because the differences among the results obtained for only three samples cannot be adequately statistically processed. Actually, the results obtained for the Arbosana variety cannot be adequately commented/compared, because only one irrigation system was applied. All results obtained for this variety can only be compared with another variety (Arbequina) where the same irrigation system was applied. My suggestion is that the results obtained for the variety Arbosana be excluded from this Manuscript because this data does not contribute to the Manuscript topic. In addition, I believe that, considering the number of samples, there is no need to apply two statistical tests.

In general, the authors made too bold conclusions considering the number of samples.

Tables: It is necessary to add the standard deviation for all values presented in the Tables. Capitalize first word in titles (Tables: 1, 3, 4, and 5).

Figure 1: Capitalize first word in title (Importance...)

Figure 2: It seems that the quality of Figure is not satisfactory. The title of this Figure is not clear enough. It is not stated what the colors represent. In addition, the explanation of Figure 2 in text is not broad enough.

 

Lines 257-259: Respect on free acidity, expressed in % of oleic acid, Arbequina Conventional had the highest value, with 0.485 %, obtained HydroSOS samples, Arbequina and Arbosana, the lower values (0.212 % and 0.281 %, respectively). The sentence is not adequately written, it needs to be reformulated.

 

Lines 273-276: The sentences are unclear due to the inadequate use of the English language.

 

Line 286: ‘showed’ instead ‘shown’.

 

Line 292: ‘abundant’ instead ‘concentrated’.

 

Fatty acids profile section: English very difficult to understand.

 

A similar observation can be applied to the Antioxidant activity and TPC section.

I suggest publishing the paper after major revision.

Author Response

A very important and interesting topic was covered in the Manuscript. The introduction is written appropriately, and relevant references are listed. The research is well designed, and the experimental section is mostly adequately written. However, some parts of this section are written too extensively (Fatty acid profile). It is unnecessary to describe the experiment in detail if adequate references are given. In general, the results of this research are compared with appropriate literature data. However, the English language is simply inadequate in Results and discussion section and makes reading difficult.

The Reviewer is completely right, and the English grammar and writing have been revised by the senior authors and changes can be clearly identified in the text by its blue font.

The most significant disadvantage of this research is the small number of samples. It is really a pity that a larger number of samples were not available, because the differences among the results obtained for only three samples cannot be adequately statistically processed. Actually, the results obtained for the Arbosana variety cannot be adequately commented/compared, because only one irrigation system was applied. All results obtained for this variety can only be compared with another variety (Arbequina) where the same irrigation system was applied.

The Reviewer is right, but unfortunately not too many companies are using the hydroSOS label and therefore only these three samples were available. To fully identify this weakness of the study, a sentence clarifying this point has been added; please, see lines 96-101.

My suggestion is that the results obtained for the variety Arbosana be excluded from this Manuscript because this data does not contribute to the Manuscript topic. In addition, I believe that, considering the number of samples, there is no need to apply two statistical tests.

Please, see comment above. The two statistical tests (ANOVA and multiple range) are complementary and need to be done no matter how complex is the experimental design.

In general, the authors made too bold conclusions considering the number of samples.

Authors feel that with the sentence added indicating the preliminary character of the study, this point is clarified. However, there is a real need to demonstrate that hydroSOS olive oils are of high quality and that consumers appreciate and accept this type of water-saving products.

 

1. Tables: It is necessary to add the standard deviation for all values presented in the Tables. Capitalize first word in titles (Tables: 1, 3, 4, and 5).

The multiple range test (letters added after the mean values) are calculated using the standard deviation and make the follow-up of the tables easier but not putting too many values in the tables. Thus, authors think it is better to keep the multiple range test letters instead of the standard deviation values, although they are available and can be added as supplementary material, if considered appropriate.

Regarding capitalization of the first word of the table titles, done as suggested; please, see revised version of the table titles.

2. Figure 1: Capitalize first word in title (Importance...)

Done as suggested; please, see line 250.

3. Figure 2: It seems that the quality of Figure is not satisfactory. The title of this Figure is not clear enough. It is not stated what the colors represent. In addition, the explanation of Figure 2 in text is not broad enough.

Done as suggested; please, see the revised version of Figure 1.

4. Lines 257-259: Respect on free acidity, expressed in % of oleic acid, Arbequina Conventional had the highest value, with 0.485 %, obtained HydroSOS samples, Arbequina and Arbosana, the lower values (0.212 % and 0.281 %, respectively). The sentence is not adequately written, it needs to be reformulated.

Done as requested; please, see lines 279-281.

5. Lines 273-276: The sentences are unclear due to the inadequate use of the English language.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 296-300.

6. Line 286: ‘showed’ instead ‘shown’.

This sentence has been rewritten; please, see lines 307-310.

7. Line 292: ‘abundant’ instead ‘concentrated’.

Done as suggested; please, see line 317.

8. Fatty acids profile section: English very difficult to understand.

This section has been fully rewritten, as requested; please, see lines 331-350.

9. A similar observation can be applied to the Antioxidant activity and TPC section.

This section has been fully rewritten, as requested; please, see lines 366-379.

 

I suggest publishing the paper after major revision.

Thank you very much for your recommendation and detailed comments and suggestions, which have drastically improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors presented very interesting research results. However, taking into account their purpose described in the title and in the introduction, one can feel a clear lack of satisfaction. The authors analyzed the effect of irrigation on the quality of olive oil. The part of the article describing the research methodology and the results of the oil quality tests is very well described and presented. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for irrigation. The text of the article undoubtedly needs to be supplemented in this respect by someone who knows about irrigation (even the irrigation terminology used by the authors is not professional). The article requires additions and corrections in the following areas:

- 2.75 million. Ha is certainly not 62% of the EU and 17% of the world (maybe the authors meant to refer to the area under olive trees), lines 35-36;

- the authors do not explain what is meant by the terms "super-hight intensity irrigation orchards" (line 46) and "super-hight intensity orchards" {line 47), are there any differences between them?

- what irrigation system was used during the study?

- how was irrigation controlled during the experiment?

- why were these olive tree varieties analyzed in the study (line 77)?

- what does "Finca la Matila" (line 82) mean?

- "estimated water lost" (line 84) is not a professional term for defining water needs

- Description of irrigation techniques (lines 83-87), used in the experiment, water needs of plants should be radically changed and supplemented, including the description of meteorological conditions;

- what does the term "3 oil samples" (line 98) mean in terms of the methodology of the experiment?

- how much water was used for irrigation, what water savings were achieved?

Author Response

The authors presented very interesting research results. However, taking into account their purpose described in the title and in the introduction, one can feel a clear lack of satisfaction. The authors analyzed the effect of irrigation on the quality of olive oil. The part of the article describing the research methodology and the results of the oil quality tests is very well described and presented. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for irrigation. The text of the article undoubtedly needs to be supplemented in this respect by someone who knows about irrigation (even the irrigation terminology used by the authors is not professional).

The Reviewer is completely right and the section dealing with the olive oil samples and especially irrigation has been fully rewritten by the senior authors. Please, see lines 91-116. Sorry for the initial problems in this section.

 

The article requires additions and corrections in the following areas:

1. 75 million. Ha is certainly not 62% of the EU and 17% of the world (maybe the authors meant to refer to the area under olive trees), lines 35-36;

This part of the Introduction section has been rewritten to clarify its meaning, as requested; please, see lines 38-45.

2. The authors do not explain what is meant by the terms "super-high intensity irrigation orchards" (line 46) and "super-high intensity orchards" {line 47), are there any differences between them?

No, this was just a grammatical difference; this sentence has been rewritten; please, see lines 92-95.  

3. What irrigation system was used during the study?

The required information is provided in lines 102-116.

4. How was irrigation controlled during the experiment?

The required information is provided in lines 102-108.

5. Why were these olive tree varieties analyzed in the study (line 77)?

The required information is provided in lines 96-101.

6. What does "Finca la Matilla" (line 82) mean?

This is just the name of the farm.

7. "Estimated water lost" (line 84) is not a professional term for defining water needs.

This section has been rewritten; please, see lines 91-120. Sorry for the terminology used in the original version of the manuscript.

8. Description of irrigation techniques (lines 83-87), used in the experiment, water needs of plants should be radically changed and supplemented, including the description of meteorological conditions.

This section has been completely rewritten, as requested; please, see lines 91-120.

9. What does the term "3 oil samples" (line 98) mean in terms of the methodology of the experiment.

This point has been clarified; please, see lines 126-127.

10. How much water was used for irrigation, what water savings were achieved?

The required information is provided in lines 109-116.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There has been a significant improvement in this manuscript since the previous submission, and I commend the authors for making such considered changes. 

- The author should add a brief summary of the methods and the hypotheses for the study at the very end of the Introduction.

- Line 82-86 of the Introduction refers to lack of consumer knowledge surrounding irrigation. I believe this was not explored enough within the Discussion and it could be mentioned in the Conclusion that this study hopes to empower consumers.

- The author has not detailed what the units are for Table 2.

- Delete 'as a consequence' in line 392 of the Conclusion.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

There has been a significant improvement in this manuscript since the previous submission, and I commend the authors for making such considered changes. 

1. The author should add a brief summary of the methods and the hypotheses for the study at the very end of the Introduction.

Done as suggested; please, see lines 89-93.

2. Line 82-86 of the Introduction refers to lack of consumer knowledge surrounding irrigation. I believe this was not explored enough within the Discussion and it could be mentioned in the Conclusion that this study hopes to empower consumers.

Done, as suggested; please, see lines402-403.

3. The author has not detailed what the units are for Table 2.

The Reviewer is absolutely right, and although these values have no units, the scale used to quantify the intensity of each attributes was not mentioned. Please, see lines 149-150 and 276-277.

4. Delete 'as a consequence' in line 392 of the Conclusion.

Done, as suggested; please, see line 399.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors accepted most of the comments and corrected the text. English has been significantly improved.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The authors accepted most of the comments and corrected the text. English has been significantly improved.

Thank you for your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf