Gibberellin (GA3) and Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CuSO4·5H2O) Reduce Seeds per Fruit and Increase Fruit Quality in Bac Son Mandarin Fruit
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
GA3 and copper sulphate palying major role role in crop plant and regulate the yield and their traits. The research hypothesis is good and help the finding for the development of modules. However, in this experiment, as per my openion author focused on plagiarism. Improvement are reqiured in all sections like Introduction, Material and methods and Results. Some corrections are suggested below
Major revision
Introduction
Line 28 – Delete the exra dots
Line 34- Rewrite the sentance.
Line 40- write the sutable word in place of famous
Line 54- CuSO4.5H2O – subscript use
Material and Methods
A total 150 plants for both experiments (75 plants for each experiment)
Line 76-78- Change the paragraph
Line 80- improve the sentance
Line- 83-correct the name of equipment use for diametre
Line 83-Is Shape and colour determination are done on same sample was used for diameter .
Line 96- vitamin C content may be mg or % not both correct this
Improve Biochemical determination methods and briefly write the determination method of each quality traits with reference method
Results
LSD is doughtful provide the ANOVA in supplementary
Line 144-145-Only data shows significant but not significantly increase. Among the treatment not showed significant variations, in respect of yield
Table 4- What is Total Axit (%) and how you determined
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate improvement required
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and giving comments, we have incorporated those corrections mostly. For the rest, we have provided a detailed response separately and marked the revised parts in the red marked for your convenience.
Comment 1. GA3 and copper sulphate palying major role role in crop plant and regulate the yield and their traits. The research hypothesis is good and help the finding for the development of modules. However, in this experiment, as per my openion author focused on plagiarism. Improvement are reqiured in all sections like Introduction, Material and methods and Results. Some corrections are suggested below
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment
* Note: Using English polishing service is very important. Therefore, we used English-Language Research Paper Editing Service of MDPI English editing by a native English editor before submission
We also attached the certificate of English-Language editing of our manuscript
Full details of the editing service can be found at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english.
Part 1: Introduction
Comment 2. Line 28 – Delete the extra dots
Response: I deleted and revised it as line 25-26 in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3. Line 34- Rewrite the sentence.
Response: I rewrote it at lines 30-31
Comment 4. Line 40- write the sutable word in place of famous
Response: I changed it as line 36
GA is a well-known plant hormone
Comment 5. Line 54- CuSO4.5H2O – subscript use
Response: I revised it as line 57
Part 2: Material and Methods
Comment 6. A total of 150 plants for both experiments (75 plants for each experiment)
Response: You are right I revised it as line Line 61-63
Comment 7. Line 80- improve the sentence
Response: I changed it as line 83-84
Comment 8. Line- 83-correct the name of equipment use for diameter
Response: a digital caliper (Digital, Mitutoyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) as line 86-87.
Comment 9. Line 83-Is Shape and colour determination are done on same sample was used for diameter.
Response: I did not determine the color; therefore, I deleted it.
Comment 10. Line 96- vitamin C content may be mg or % not both correct this
Response: The unit of vitamin C is mg. I edited it. Thank you for your detection.
I changed it as line 97
Part 3: Results
Comment 11. LSD is doughtful provide the ANOVA in supplementary
Line 144-145-Only data shows significant but not significantly increase. Among the treatment not showed significant variations, in respect of yield
Response: I have reanalyzed the data as method follows:
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The results of the experiment were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's multiple range test. The mean values of the treatment groups were compared using Tukey's test at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
I rewrote the results part as the revised manuscript. Please check it to help me.
Comment 12. Table 4- What is Total Axit (%) and how you determined
Response: I'm sorry for the mistake in my previous manuscript. I meant to say 'acid'.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study initially seems to be focused on the effect of GA3 and copper sulphate in reduce the number of seeds. However, the intention is to analyse the effect of this both compounds on the fruit quality, included the reduction of number of seeds.
In the introduction is needed more information about GA3 and copper sulphate can improve determinate fruit quality parameters (such as yield or number of seeds), the way in which both can modified the metabolism of citrus fruit. On the other hand, it is mentioned that GA3 and copper sulphate has been used previously in citrus fruit. Due to that, it should be highly remarkable what new information is added with this study.
Some recommendations:
Line 25: It is given GA twice, and both without GA3.
Line 27-28: This sentence has to be rewritten: Among the fruit quality, the parameters of fruit taste, fruit color, fruit pulp ration and nutritional content are determined. (or similar. Nevertheless, among these parameters not all are been studied).
Lines 32-33: Reference about the hight ratio of seed in Bac son yellow mandarin.
Line 38: What kind of substances?? It is needed more information. Nevertherless, in citrus fruits, the seed are not eaten. The problem of the seed in citrus fruits is that consumers only wants seedless fruits.
Line 40: Another time repeated Giberrelic Acid (GA)
Line40: famous, in very colloquial.
Line 47: Doble space
Line 50: Doble space
Paragraph line 46 to line 54: It has to be rewritten to make sense. Which relationship has the auxins with GA3 and copper sulphate??
Line 54: Why it is used copper sulphate pentahydrate instead of copper sulfate??
Material and methods can be improved adding more specifically information. Such as:
Line 58: 16-18 years old?? Or 16 or 18
Line 59: “similar age” information repeated
Line 59: Add fertilization managements.
Line 61: Another time repeated Giberrelic Acid (GA). Only writhe GA3
Line 74: It would be interesting BBCH plant
Line 80: How was determinated the flowers of plant??
Line 83: Caliper, model and origin
Line 83: “Shape and color of fruit was described according to the senses” is not scientifically corrected. It has to be quantified.
Line 86: How are differenced firm seed of flat seeds?? Is it a subjective determination??
Line 87: Why is determined theorically yield if there is real yied?
Line 91: P: ??
Line 95-99: It has to put the references of the methods. How many fruits were employed?
Line 101-102: Which statistical method was used??
Regarding results and discussion, the information in corrected but is repetitive and the statistic on the tables are difficult to observe. It would be recommendable add significant letters on the columns with statistical differences.
Always it has been written the same results that can be appreciated in the tables and this is not necessary (lines 111-116; line 137-140; line 175-181…)
Also, in each section, it is repeated the results previously obtained in the other sections. This not added new information and it makes difficult to follow the text. (For example, lines 186-193)
Section 3.1.1
It has been considered important the fruit set, it would be important explain the physiologically fruit drop. In citrus fruit, usually there are an important fruit drop when the summer flush are developed.
Line 127: References and cultivars.
Line 150-156: Relevant information to add in the introduction
‘Further research is needed’ in lines 156-157; 261-262; 288-289; 319-320; 345-346. It has been proposed when this study has consisted in these points.
Line 182: It is not true that 100ppm resulted in the lowest number of seeds, since there is not significative differences with 125 ppm both years and without 75 ppm in 2018.
Lines 196-198: Is it a reference or a conclusion?
Line 220: For example, a study conducted by (Moon et al. 2003) The correct way to write it is: For example, a study conducted by Moon et al. (2003). There are more references wrong written (line 223, line 252, line 279 or line 283).
Section 3.2.1: It has been written 4 times that the application of CuSO4.5H20 did not have significant effect on the fruit set rate of Bac Son mandarin fruit (line 237-238; line 243-244; line 245-256 and line 259-260).
Section 3.2.3
It is not correct that 100ppm of copper sulphate induced the less seeds number, it was 125 ppm.
Paragraph 292-295: It would be better in the introduction
Line 335: K.D and L, 2016. It has to be put the complete surnames.
Conclusions
Line 354: Spraying sunspray oil is the first time is written. It not make sense.
References 9 and 10 are repeated.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and giving comments, we have incorporated those corrections mostly. For the rest, we have provided a detailed response separately and marked the revised parts in the green marked for your convenience.
Comment 1. The study initially seems to be focused on the effect of GA3 and copper sulphate in reduce the number of seeds. However, the intention is to analyse the effect of this both compounds on the fruit quality, included the reduction of number of seeds.
In the introduction is needed more information about GA3 and copper sulphate can improve determinate fruit quality parameters (such as yield or number of seeds), the way in which both can modified the metabolism of citrus fruit. On the other hand, it is mentioned that GA3 and copper sulphate has been used previously in citrus fruit. Due to that, it should be highly remarkable what new information is added with this study.
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment.
I wrote the introduction part as the revised manuscript. Please check it.
Comment 2. Line 25: It is given GA twice, and both without GA3.
Response: I revised as line 22-23
Comment 3. Line 27-28: This sentence has to be rewritten: Among the fruit quality, the parameters of fruit taste, fruit color, fruit pulp ration and nutritional content are determined. (or similar. Nevertheless, among these parameters not all are been studied). Had been rewrite
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment.
I revised this sentence as line 25-26
Comment 4. Lines 32-33: Reference about the hight ratio of seed in Bac son yellow mandarin. Delete not find reference
Response: I deleted it
Comment 5. Line 38: What kind of substances?? It is needed more information. Nevertheless, in citrus fruits, the seed are not eaten. The problem of the seed in citrus fruits is that consumers only wants seedless fruits. Had been rewrite
Response: I revised this sentence as line 33-34
Comment 6. Line 40: Another time repeated Giberrelic Acid (GA)
Response: I deleted it
Comment 7. Line 40: famous, in very colloquial.
Response: I revised as line 36
Comment 8. Line 47: Doble space and Line 50: Doble space
Response: I revised it
Comment 9. Paragraph line 46 to line 54: It has to be rewritten to make sense. Which relationship has the auxins with GA3 and copper sulphate??
Response: I revised it as line 46-56
Comment 10. Line 54: Why it is used copper sulphate pentahydrate instead of copper sulfate??
Response: I explained it as below
Copper sulfate pentahydrate, commonly referred to as copper sulphate pentahydrate, is used instead of copper sulfate in certain applications due to its advantageous properties. The pentahydrate form of copper sulfate contains five water molecules (H2O) associated with each copper sulfate molecule (CuSO4). This hydrated form provides certain benefits such as increased stability, solubility, and ease of handling.
The presence of water molecules in the copper sulfate pentahydrate crystals enhances its solubility in water, making it easier to dissolve and mix with other solutions. This improved solubility allows for better distribution and absorption of copper ions by plants when applied as a foliar spray or soil amendment.
Furthermore, the hydrated form of copper sulfate exhibits better stability, as the water molecules act as a protective layer around the copper sulfate molecule, reducing the risk of oxidation and degradation. This stability ensures that the copper sulfate remains effective and maintains its desired properties for longer periods, providing more consistent results.
Material and methods can be improved adding more specifically information. Such as:
Comment 11. Line 58: 16-18 years old?? Or 16 or 18
Response: I revised it as line 61-63
Comment 11. Line 61: Another time repeated Giberrelic Acid (GA). Only writhe GA3
Response: I revised it. Many thanks for your comment.
Comment 12. Line 74: It would be interesting BBCH plant,
Response: I do not understand BBCH
Comment 13. Line 80: How was determinated the flowers of plant??
Response: The number of flowers/trees is determined by using nylon to cover the ground around the base of the tree up to the projection of its canopy; simultaneously, nylon is used to enclose the canopy, isolating the experimental tree from other trees. The number of flowers/trees is equal to the total number of flowers and young fruits collected on the nylon sheet beneath the tree's base, plus the remaining fruits on the tree.
Comment 14. Line 83: Caliper, model and origin
Response: digital calliper (Digital, Mitutoyo Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). As line 86-87
Comment 15. Line 83: “Shape and color of fruit was described according to the senses” is not scientifically corrected. It has to be quantified. Delete
Response: I did not determine the color; therefore, I deleted it.
Comment 16. Line 86: How are differenced firm seed of flat seeds?? Is it a subjective determination??
Response: Firm seeds are seeds that have normal shapes and sizes, carrying the characteristic seed traits of the variety.
Flat seeds are seeds that are smaller than 1/3 of the normal seed size of the variety or seeds that have a flat, thin shape, and when the seed coat is peeled off, the embryo is found to be incomplete.
Comment 17. Line 87: Why is determined theorically yield if there is real yied?
Response: Theoretical yield provides an estimate of the maximum achievable yield, while real yield represents the actual yield obtained in real conditions.
Comment 18. Line 91: P: ??
Response: P is mean “weight” and I changed to W as line 95
Comment 19. Line 95-99: It has to put the references of the methods. How many fruits were employed?
Response: I analyzed 10 fruits for 1 index. I wrote in 2.4 part
I put references of the methods as follows:
Total sugar content (%) was determined by method of Song et al., 2016 [16]. Dry matter content (%) was determined method according to Nasiruddin et al., 2019 [17]. Content of vitamin C (mg) was determined by method of Nasiruddin et al., 2019 [17]. Total acid (%) was determined by McDonald et al., 2013 [18]. Degree of Brix (%) was determined by method according to McDonald et al., 2013 [18]. Line 98-103.
Comment 20. Line 101-102: Which statistical method was used??
Regarding results and discussion, the information in corrected but is repetitive and the statistic on the tables are difficult to observe. It would be recommendable add significant letters on the columns with statistical differences.
Always it has been written the same results that can be appreciated in the tables and this is not necessary (lines 111-116; line 137-140; line 175-181…)
Also, in each section, it is repeated the results previously obtained in the other sections. This not added new information and it makes difficult to follow the text. (For example, lines 186-193)
Response: Thank you so much. I have reanalyzed the data as method follows:
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The results of the experiment were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's multiple range test. The mean values of the treatment groups were compared using Tukey's test at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
Comment 21. Line 127: References and cultivars.
Response: I revised this sentence as result part:
‘Further research is needed’ in lines 156-157; 261-262; 288-289; 319-320; 345-346. It has been proposed when this study has consisted in these points.
Response: I deleted it and add further research in the conclusion
Comment 22. Line 182: It is not true that 100ppm resulted in the lowest number of seeds, since there is not significative differences with 125 ppm both years and without 75 ppm in 2018.
Response: I have reanalyzed the data as method follows:
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The results of the experiment were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's multiple range test. The mean values of the treatment groups were compared using Tukey's test at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
I rewrote the results part as the revised manuscript. Please check it to help me.
Comment 23. Lines 196-198: Is it a reference or a conclusion?
Response: Is it a conclusion and I deleted a reference as line 197-200
Comment 24. Line 220: For example, a study conducted by (Moon et al. 2003) The correct way to write it is: For example, a study conducted by Moon et al. (2003). There are more references wrong written (line 223, line 252, line 279 or line 283).
Response: Thank you so much. I revised per your advice.
Comment 25. Section 3.2.1: It has been written 4 times that the application of CuSO4.5H20 did not have significant effect on the fruit set rate of Bac Son mandarin fruit (line 237-238; line 243-244; line 245-256 and line 259-260).
Response: I revised it as your comment as line 240-253
Comment 20. Section 3.2.3
It is not correct that 100ppm of copper sulphate induced the less seeds number, it was 125 ppm.
Paragraph 292-295: It would be better in the introduction
Response: I revised it as your advice and move it to the introduction part
Comment 27. Line 335: K.D and L, 2016. It has to be put the complete surnames.
Response: I revised it as your advice
Comment 28. Conclusions
Line 354: Spraying sunspray oil is the first time is written. It not make sense.
References 9 and 10 are repeated.
Response: I revised it as your advice and deleted it.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of GA3 and copper sulphate on the number of seeds in Bac Son mandarin fruit but the conclusions have to be prove by statistical test! - “a concentration of 100 ppm can effectively reduce the number of seeds per fruit in Bac Son mandarin, without compromising the fruit's quality and yield”
Line 9. Abstract. This study aimed to investigate the effects of GA3 and copper sulphate at a concentration of 100 ppm on the number of seeds in Bac Son mandarin fruit ..is not exact. May be at concentration between 50,75,100 and 125 ppm.
The aim of this study to observe the effect of gibber- 53 ellin (GA3) and copper sulfate pentahydrate (CuSO4.5H2O) on decreasing the seed number in citrus fruits …in state of… The aim of this study to decrease the seed number in citrus fruits
Line 90-91 – formula have to be corrected.
RCBD analysisy. General problem with a small number of treatments. In your case, five plants were used for one replication….So, probably, the error df is smaller than that for the CRD.
The samples with 10 fruits per tree randomly selected for a CV between 7.3 (GA3 treatment) to 12.9 (CuSO4.5H2O treatment) are reasonable for the power of the test?
185. ...”which was statistically significant” …we are looking to see the test value and/or p value.
Same in line 312-313 ...“The results of this study suggest that spraying Bac Son mandarin trees with CuSO4.5H2O at a concentration of 100 ppm can significantly decrease the number of seeds per fruit”…we are looking to see the test value and/or p value.
Behind the conclusions must be irrefutable results supported by statistical tests. Why is the 100 ppm concentration the best?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and giving comments, we have incorporated those corrections mostly. For the rest, we have provided a detailed response separately and marked the revised parts in the purple marked for your convenience.
Comment 1: The aim of the study was to investigate the effects of GA3 and copper sulphate on the number of seeds in Bac Son mandarin fruit but the conclusions have to be prove by statistical test! - “a concentration of 100 ppm can effectively reduce the number of seeds per fruit in Bac Son mandarin, without compromising the fruit's quality and yield”
Response: I have reanalyzed the data as method follows:
The data analysis was conducted using SPSS software (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The results of the experiment were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's multiple range test. The mean values of the treatment groups were compared using Tukey's test at a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.
I rewrote the results part as the revised manuscript. Please check it to help me.
Comment 2: Line 9. Abstract. This study aimed to investigate the effects of GA3 and copper sulphate at a concentration of 100 ppm on the number of seeds in Bac Son mandarin fruit ..is not exact. May be at concentration between 50,75,100 and 125 ppm.
Response: Thank you so much. I rewrote the abstract part as the revised manuscript. Please check it to help me.
Line 90-91 – formula have to be corrected.
Response: Thank you so much.
I corrected it as below
* Ratio of edible parts (%) = (W fruit - (W seeds + W peel))/ W fruit × 100, W: weight
RCBD analysisy. General problem with a small number of treatments. In your case, five plants were used for one replication….So, probably, the error df is smaller than that for the CRD.
The samples with 10 fruits per tree randomly selected for a CV between 7.3 (GA3 treatment) to 12.9 (CuSO4.5H2O treatment) are reasonable for the power of the test?
- ...”which was statistically significant” …we are looking to see the test value and/or p value.
Same in line 312-313 ...“The results of this study suggest that spraying Bac Son mandarin trees with CuSO4.5H2O at a concentration of 100 ppm can significantly decrease the number of seeds per fruit”…we are looking to see the test value and/or p value.
Behind the conclusions must be irrefutable results supported by statistical tests. Why is the 100 ppm concentration the best?
Response: I have reanalyzed the data of all the tables and rewrote all parts of the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is Ok after revision
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
We would like to thank you for your careful reading and constructive comments and to provide us with an opportunity to publish our manuscript in Seeds journal.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “Gibberellin (GA3) and Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CuSO4.5H2O) Reduce Seeds Per Fruit and increase fruit quality in Mandarin” has been improved notably. In the following lines I will add some suggestions to add/modify the new text.
Title
“Gibberellin (GA3) and Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CuSO4.5H2O) Reduce Seeds Per Fruit and increase fruit quality in Bac Son Mandarin fruit” since the study has been made only over this cultivar, not over a different cultivars of mandarins. Moreover, it is not the first study made with this products over citrus fruits.
Introduction
· Line 24: It is the first time in the text that appeared (GA), it has to be written (GA3).
· Line 25-28: The two sentences are the same.
· Line 29: The first time that appears Bac Son yellow mandarin, it would be to put the scientific name of this cultivar and their parentals. There is not any reference of this cultivar on internet. It is reported that Bac Son is a Vietnam’s Valley.
· Line 39-42: The two sentences and the references 9 and 10 not add relevant information to the paper and it makes confused. I recommend deleting it.
· Line 52, after reference [15]: It would be interesting to add this information that you write me “Copper sulphate pentahydrate, commonly referred to as copper sulphate pentahydrate, is used instead of copper sulphate in certain applications due to its advantageous properties. The pentahydrate form of copper sulphate contains five water molecules (H2O) associated with each copper sulphate molecule (CuSO4). This hydrated form provides certain benefits such as increased stability, solubility, and ease of handling.
The presence of water molecules in the copper sulphate pentahydrate crystals enhances its solubility in water, making it easier to dissolve and mix with other solutions. This improved solubility allows for better distribution and absorption of copper ions by plants when applied as a foliar spray or soil amendment.
Furthermore, the hydrated form of copper sulphate exhibits better stability, as the water molecules act as a protective layer around the copper sulphate molecule, reducing the risk of oxidation and degradation. This stability ensures that the copper sulphate remains effective and maintains its desired properties for longer periods, providing more consistent results.”
It is a useful information for the reader to understand the selection of this compound.
· It would be clearer to separate the information of GA3 and copper sulphate in two paragraphs.
Material and Methods
· Paragraph lines 69-74: It must be added BBCH. The BBCH-scale is a classification system used in biology to describe the phenological development of citrus plants using the BBCH-scale. In the following link you can find the BBCH scale for citrus fruits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCH-scale_(citrus)
· Line 76: Write in the corrected paper the determination of the flowers of plant: “The number of flowers/trees is determined by using nylon to cover the ground around the base of the tree up to the projection of its canopy; simultaneously, nylon is used to enclose the canopy, isolating the experimental tree from other trees. The number of flowers/trees is equal to the total number of flowers and young fruits collected on the nylon sheet beneath the tree's base, plus the remaining fruits on the tree.”
· Line 88: add over 10 fruits “ and vitamin C were analyzed over 10 fruits at the Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control Department…”
· Total sugar content and Degrees Brix, which are the differences between these both parameters? Total soluble solids (TSS) are measured in ºBrix. Since in the paper there are no differences in Total sugar, I would be recommended to delete Total sugar parameter.
· Which is the additional information to add the measurement reducing sugars regarding total sugars and Degrees Brix? And how was measured??
Results
· In the corrected paper is clearer than the first version. The change in the statistical results makes easier to understand the text. Nevertheless, as in the text is very important the effect of treatments and the year, it would be necessary to add a multifactorial analyse to determine A: effect of treatment (in both years); B: effect of year (in all treatments studied), and AB: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years). It would be enough to put these results at the bottom of each table in each parameter studied.
· Rewrite the text on the bottom of each table: NS: not significant differences; * significant differences at p>0.05; ** significant differences at p>0.01; *** significant differences at p>0.001; values represent the means of three replicates with 10 fruits (n=3). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments, determined using Tukey’s test.
· Lines 115-116: Reference of this sentence.
· Line 117: 75, 100 and 123 ppm improved the fruit set ratio and reduce fruit drop in Bac Son citrus trees. This is not correct. 75 ppm only improved the fruit set ratio on 2018, not in 2019 and the reduction of fruit drop (Stable fruit set ratio) there was not significant differences in 2019 and in 2018 all treatments had higher stable fruit set ratio than control group.
· Line 122: The correct form to write the references: Moon et al. [19], without the year.3.
· Line 125 and 238: 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 Effect of compound on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus.
· Table 2: put the acronyms number: No and grams: g
· Line 131: Only in 2019 the number of fruits harvested from GA3- treated plants was significantly higher than that harvested from the control.
· Line 132 an 134: It has not made Statistics between those parameters, it cannot be compared.
· Line 140: All treatments improved the harvested fruit per tree in 2019.
· Line 143: the study results indicate that the use of 100 and 125 ppm of GA3…
· Line 152-153: Correspond to conclusions, It would be recommendable to delete it.
· Line 154 and line 266: 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 change mechanical properties for Physiological parameters.
· In determinate parameters, there are statistical differences and letters a and ab but no b, these is not possible: Table 3 Edible portion 2018; Table 4 Total Sugar 2018; Vitamin C 2019; Table 5 Fruit set ratio 2018; Table 6 Theorical yield 2019; Table 8 Dry matter 2018. It must be changed.
· Line 169: Point out that doses of 100 and 125 ppm are more effective.
· Line 170-171: Additionally, fruit from the plants in the 75, 100 and 125 ppm GA3 treatment exhibited a higher percentage of edible fruit compared with the control group. This is not true, there are not significant differences.
· Line 178: change mechanical indices for physiological parameters
· Line 178-179: Point out doses 100 ppm and 125 ppm
· Line 185 and 295: 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, change biochemical characteristics for internal quality parameters
· Table 4: In Total Acid 2018 is strange that 50ppm (0.871) the same letter than 75ppm (0.771) with 0.100 units of differences while 50ppm (0.871) has different letter than Control (0.891) with 0.020 units of differences. It must be corrected.
· Line 193-195: Explain these differences since vitamin C usually determine the major part of total acid content and in this study doses 50, 75 and 100ppm reduced total acid content but 75 and 125 ppm increased vitamin C.
· Line 201: Add No consistent significant differences was observed in the internal quality parameters….during both years studied.
· Line 204: Write the surname of researchers [19]
· Line 211: Change biochemical parameters for internal quality parameters.
· Line 223-224: Delete this sentence since the results are modified depending of the year.
· Line 224-225: Analysing the fruit set ratio after 30 days of flower pruning, no significant differences were observed in 2018. This is not true since the statistical results indicated that there are significant differences.
· Line 245: Add fruit weight ant theorical yield.
· Line 246: (denoted by the letter “b”) and successive, deleted them. They are not necessary.
· Line 255, after “that in the control group”, it would be interesting to add the supposition that that in 2019, the average fruit weight is higher at 75 ppm and not at 50 ppm could be due to the fact that this year there was a higher number of fruit on the tree which contributed to a lower average weight compared to the previous year.
· Line 261: There is not the reference, in the previous version it was Behlau et al 2010 which is not now in the reference list.
· Line 261: change [2] for [25] and remove fruit quality and leaf mineral content because in this section you are explain the yield parameters.
· Table 7: In number of segments/fruits 2018 is strange that control (11.8) has the same letter than 100ppm (10.2) with 1.6 units of differences while control (11.8) has different letter than 125 ppm (12.6) with 0.8 units of differences. It must be corrected.
· Line 274-275: Remove “Similarly, no significant differences were found in fruit diameter except for in 2018, where the control group had a slightly smaller fruit diameter than the treated groups” since there is not significant differences.
· Paragraph lines 272-279: It would be interesting to add at the end of the paragraph something like: “The data showed the tendency that as higher was the cupper sulphate dose less seeds have the fruit.”
· Line 281: It would be interesting remark 125 ppm.
· Line 288: remove negative from the sentence since it seems to be a negative result.
· Line 290: remove ‘’ from ‘Afourer’ since it has not been written in the other cultivars references. Nevertherless, it is more correct with ‘’.
· Line 305: in the text it has been written “ no significant differences were found among the groups” but in the table the statistical results point out that there were significant differences.
· Line 308: After “other treatment groups showed no significant differences” it would be added something like: Although differences due to treatments are seen in different years, these differences are not consistent since the variation is not the same each year due to treatments.
· Line 315-316: In no case was the treatment effect repeated over the two-year study period.
· Line 319: There is not the references [] of Singh et al. (2018).
· Line 322-323: Delete this sentence, since at the beginning of this paragraph it has been written that the treatment not affected quality parameters.
· Line 325: Point out the effect of 125 ppm dose in reduce the number of seeds.
· Line 326: change biochemical for quality.
· Sentence 326-328: Remark that: It should be noted that copper sulfate shows the tendency that the higher the dose, the lower the number of seeds, mainly due to the reduction of firm seeds.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear reviewer 2,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and giving comments, we have incorporated those corrections mostly. For the rest, we have provided a detailed response separately and marked the revised parts in the red marked for your convenience.
Title
Comment 1. “Gibberellin (GA3) and Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate (CuSO4.5H2O) Reduce Seeds Per Fruit and increase fruit quality in Bac Son Mandarin fruit” since the study has been made only over this cultivar, not over a different cultivars of mandarins. Moreover, it is not the first study made with this products over citrus fruits.
Response: I changed it as your advice
Comment 2. Introduction
Line 24: It is the first time in the text that appeared (GA), it has to be written (GA3).
Response: I changed it as line 24
Comment 3. Line 25-28: The two sentences are the same.
Response: I deleted one sentence as your advice as line 25-26
Comment 4. Line 29: The first time that appears Bac Son yellow mandarin, it would be to put the scientific name of this cultivar and their parentals. There is not any reference of this cultivar on internet. It is reported that Bac Son is a Vietnam’s Valley.
Response: I added scientific name: Citrus reticulata Blanco as line 28
Comment 5. Line 39-42: The two sentences and the references 9 and 10 not add relevant information to the paper and it makes confused. I recommend deleting it.
Response: I deleted one sentence as your advice
Comment 6. Line 52, after reference [15]: It would be interesting to add this information that you write me “Copper sulphate pentahydrate, commonly referred to as copper sulphate pentahydrate, is used instead of copper sulphate in certain applications due to its advantageous properties. The pentahydrate form of copper sulphate contains five water molecules (H2O) associated with each copper sulphate molecule (CuSO4). This hydrated form provides certain benefits such as increased stability, solubility, and ease of handling.
The presence of water molecules in the copper sulphate pentahydrate crystals enhances its solubility in water, making it easier to dissolve and mix with other solutions. This improved solubility allows for better distribution and absorption of copper ions by plants when applied as a foliar spray or soil amendment.
Furthermore, the hydrated form of copper sulphate exhibits better stability, as the water molecules act as a protective layer around the copper sulphate molecule, reducing the risk of oxidation and degradation. This stability ensures that the copper sulphate remains effective and maintains its desired properties for longer periods, providing more consistent results.”
It is a useful information for the reader to understand the selection of this compound.
It would be clearer to separate the information of GA3 and copper sulphate in two paragraphs.
Response: I added information and changed it per your advice as line 35-59
Comment 7. Material and Methods
Paragraph lines 69-74: It must be added BBCH. The BBCH-scale is a classification system used in biology to describe the phenological development of citrus plants using the BBCH-scale. In the following link you can find the BBCH scale for citrus fruits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCH-scale_(citrus)
Response: I added it as your advice as line 81
Comment 8. Line 76: Write in the corrected paper the determination of the flowers of plant: “The number of flowers/trees is determined by using nylon to cover the ground around the base of the tree up to the projection of its canopy; simultaneously, nylon is used to enclose the canopy, isolating the experimental tree from other trees. The number of flowers/trees is equal to the total number of flowers and young fruits collected on the nylon sheet beneath the tree's base, plus the remaining fruits on the tree.”
Response: I revised it per your advice as line 83-86
Comment 9. Line 88: add over 10 fruits “ and vitamin C were analyzed over 10 fruits at the Fruit and Vegetable Quality Control Department…”
Total sugar content and Degrees Brix, which are the differences between these both parameters? Total soluble solids (TSS) are measured in ºBrix. Since in the paper there are no differences in Total sugar, I would be recommended to delete Total sugar parameter.
Which is the additional information to add the measurement reducing sugars regarding total sugars and Degrees Brix? And how was measured??
Response: I deleted total sugar as your advice
Comment 10. Results
In the corrected paper is clearer than the first version. The change in the statistical results makes easier to understand the text. Nevertheless, as in the text is very important the effect of treatments and the year, it would be necessary to add a multifactorial analyse to determine A: effect of treatment (in both years); B: effect of year (in all treatments studied), and AB: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years). It would be enough to put these results at the bottom of each table in each parameter studied.
Response: I added A × B: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years) at the bottom of each table in each parameter as your advice.
Comment 11. Rewrite the text on the bottom of each table: NS: not significant differences; * significant differences at p>0.05; ** significant differences at p>0.01; *** significant differences at p>0.001; values represent the means of three replicates with 10 fruits (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments, determined using Tukey’s test.
Response: I changed it under all tables as your advice
Comment 12. Lines 115-116: Reference of this sentence.
Response: This sentence only explains the results of this study and does not need a reference. I rewrote this sentence as follows:
Based on the findings of this study, it was observed that the Bac Son citrus trees produced a large number of flowers but had a high fruit drop rate. This phenomenon is a common issue in citrus production, resulting in lower yields and economic losses for farmers. Line 127-129
Comment 13. Line 117: 75, 100 and 123 ppm improved the fruit set ratio and reduce fruit drop in Bac Son citrus trees. This is not correct. 75 ppm only improved the fruit set ratio on 2018, not in 2019 and the reduction of fruit drop (Stable fruit set ratio) there was not significant differences in 2019 and in 2018 all treatments had higher stable fruit set ratio than control group.
Response: I revised this sentence as follow:
The application of GA3 as a spray treatment at 75, 100, and 125 ppm reduced the fruit drop rate in Bac Son citrus trees in 2018. Line 129-130
Comment 14. Line 122: The correct form to write the references: Moon et al. [19], without the year.3.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line Moon et al. line 134
Comment 15. Line 125 and 238: 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 Effect of compound on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus.
Table 2: put the acronyms number: No and grams: g
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 138 and 246 and tale 2
Comment 16. Line 131: Only in 2019 the number of fruits harvested from GA3- treated plants was significantly higher than that harvested from the control.
Line 132 and 134: It has not made Statistics between those parameters, it cannot be compared.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 17. Line 140: All treatments improved the harvested fruit per tree in 2019.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 148
Comment 18. Line 143: the study results indicate that the use of 100 and 125 ppm of GA3…
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 151
Comment 19. Line 152-153: Correspond to conclusions, It would be recommendable to delete it.
Response: I delete it as your advice as line
Comment 20. Line 154 and line 266: 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 change mechanical properties for Physiological parameters.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 161 and 277
Comment 21. In determinate parameters, there are statistical differences and letters a and ab but no b, these is not possible: Table 3 Edible portion 2018; Table 4 Total Sugar 2018; Vitamin C 2019; Table 5 Fruit set ratio 2018; Table 6 Theorical yield 2019; Table 8 Dry matter 2018. It must be changed.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I am sorry. This is the error type. I revised all the tables in the manuscript
Comment 22. Line 169: Point out that doses of 100 and 125 ppm are more effective.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 177
Comment 23. Line 170-171: Additionally, fruit from the plants in the 75, 100 and 125 ppm GA3 treatment exhibited a higher percentage of edible fruit compared with the control group. This is not true, there are not significant differences.
Line 178: change mechanical indices for physiological parameters
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 178-179 and 186
Comment 24. Line 178-179: Point out doses 100 ppm and 125 ppm
Line 185 and 295: 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, change biochemical characteristics for internal quality parameters
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 187 and line 193 and 306
Comment 25. Table 4: In Total Acid 2018 is strange that 50ppm (0.871) the same letter than 75ppm (0.771) with 0.100 units of differences while 50ppm (0.871) has different letter than Control (0.891) with 0.020 units of differences. It must be corrected.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I am sorry. This is the error type. I revised all the tables in the manuscript
Comment 26. Line 193-195: Explain these differences since vitamin C usually determine the major part of total acid content and in this study doses 50, 75 and 100ppm reduced total acid content but 75 and 125 ppm increased vitamin C.
Response: The study examined the impact of GA3 at doses of 50, 75, and 100 parts per million (ppm) on total acid content. Surprisingly, all three doses of GA3 led to a reduction in total acid content. This finding suggests that GA3 has the ability to influence the overall acid composition in the samples, possibly through mechanisms other than its impact on vitamin C levels. In contrast to the decrease in total acid content, the study found that the 75 and 125 ppm doses of GA3 resulted in increased levels of vitamin C. This observation indicates that GA3 at these particular doses had a stimulatory effect on vitamin C production or accumulation. It suggests that GA3 may interact with biochemical pathways involved in vitamin C synthesis or stability, leading to an increase in its levels. The differences observed in this study between total acid content and vitamin C levels can be attributed to various factors. Firstly, it's important to note that total acid content encompasses more than just vitamin C. Other acids, such as citric acid or malic acid, may also contribute to the total acid content and can be influenced differently by GA3. Additionally, the effects of GA3 on vitamin C levels may involve complex interactions and mechanisms that are not fully understood. GA3 is known to have diverse physiological effects on plant growth and development, including the regulation of various metabolic pathways. It's possible that GA3 influences the expression of genes involved in vitamin C biosynthesis or alters the activity of enzymes responsible for its production.
Comment 27. Line 201: Add No consistent significant differences was observed in the internal quality parameters….during both years studied.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 209-210
Comment 28. Line 204: Write the surname of researchers [19]
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 212
Comment 28. Line 211: Change biochemical parameters for internal quality parameters.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 219-220
Comment 29. Line 223-224: Delete this sentence since the results are modified depending of the year.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 30. Line 224-225: Analysing the fruit set ratio after 30 days of flower pruning, no significant differences were observed in 2018. This is not true since the statistical results indicated that there are significant differences.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 31. Line 245: Add fruit weight ant theorical yield.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 253 - 254
Comment 32. Line 246: (denoted by the letter “b”) and successive, deleted them. They are not necessary.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 33. Line 255, after “that in the control group”, it would be interesting to add the supposition that that in 2019, the average fruit weight is higher at 75 ppm and not at 50 ppm could be due to the fact that this year there was a higher number of fruit on the tree which contributed to a lower average weight compared to the previous year.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 262-264
Comment 34. Line 261: There is not the reference, in the previous version it was Behlau et al 2010 which is not now in the reference list.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 271-272
Comment 35. Line 261: change [2] for [25] and remove fruit quality and leaf mineral content because in this section you are explain the yield parameters.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 271-272
Comment 36. Table 7: In number of segments/fruits 2018 is strange that control (11.8) has the same letter than 100ppm (10.2) with 1.6 units of differences while control (11.8) has different letter than 125 ppm (12.6) with 0.8 units of differences. It must be corrected.
Response: Thank you for your comment. I am sorry. This is the error type. I revised all the tables in the manuscript
Comment 37. Line 274-275: Remove “Similarly, no significant differences were found in fruit diameter except for in 2018, where the control group had a slightly smaller fruit diameter than the treated groups” since there is not significant differences.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 38. Paragraph lines 272-279: It would be interesting to add at the end of the paragraph something like: “The data showed the tendency that as higher was the cupper sulphate dose less seeds have the fruit.”
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 288-289
Comment 39. Line 281: It would be interesting remark 125 ppm.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 291
Comment 40. Line 288: remove negative from the sentence since it seems to be a negative result.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 41. Line 290: remove ‘’ from ‘Afourer’ since it has not been written in the other cultivars references. Nevertherless, it is more correct with ‘’.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 300
Comment 42. Line 305: in the text it has been written “ no significant differences were found among the groups” but in the table the statistical results point out that there were significant differences.
Response: I deleted it as your advice
Comment 43. Line 308: After “other treatment groups showed no significant differences” it would be added something like: Although differences due to treatments are seen in different years, these differences are not consistent since the variation is not the same each year due to treatments.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 318-320
Comment 44. Line 315-316: In no case was the treatment effect repeated over the two-year study period.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 325-326
Comment 45. Line 319: There is not the references [] of Singh et al. (2018).
Response: Thank you so much. I deleted this sentence
Comment 46. Line 322-323: Delete this sentence, since at the beginning of this paragraph it has been written that the treatment not affected quality parameters.
Response: Thank you so much. I deleted this sentence
Comment 47. Line 325: Point out the effect of 125 ppm dose in reduce the number of seeds.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 332
Comment 48. Line 326: change biochemical for quality.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 333
Comment 49. Sentence 326-328: Remark that: It should be noted that copper sulfate shows the tendency that the higher the dose, the lower the number of seeds, mainly due to the reduction of firm seeds.
Response: I revised it as your advice as line 335-336
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulation!
Authors corrected the red line of study. The hypothesis are tested and the conclusion are related with results of the.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1,
We would like to thank you for your careful reading and constructive comments and to provide us with an opportunity to publish our manuscript in Seeds journal.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, thank you very much for all the reviews. I am sorry to have been a bit annoying with the comments. I think you have made a great effort.
Here are some annotations regarding the comments from the previous review where I think I did not specify it correctly. I number them according to the previous revision.
Comment 7: Paragraph lines 69-74: It must be added BBCH. The BBCH-scale is a classification system used in biology to describe the phenological development of citrus plants using the BBCH-scale. In the following link you can find the BBCH scale for citrus fruits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCH-scale_(citrus)
By this I meant that you should put the phenological stage of the plant at the moment of applying the products. For example, if it was applied when the first flowers were open it would correspond to a BBCH 60 or when it was Fruit set; beginning of ovary growth; beginning of fruitlets abscission the BBCH would be 71.
In the following link you have the different BBCH and the correct reference that would correspond to Agustí et al. (1995)
thehttps://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/BBCH-scale_%28citrus%29.html
Comment 10: it would be necessary to add a multifactorial analyse to determine A: effect of treatment (in both years); B: effect of year (in all treatments studied), and AB: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years). It would be enough to put these results at the bottom of each table in each parameter studied.
By this I meant that both parameter A (treatment), B (year) and the AxB interaction should be put below the tables. Putting only the interaction does not add any additional information. What would be interesting would be to know if the treatment effect is consistent over the two years, which would mean that parameter A (treatment) is significant, or also to know if the effect of the year changes (parameter B: year). The interaction marks whether the parameters are really significant or not, i.e., when the interaction is not significant but A (treatment) or B (year) is significant, it would mean that parameters A or B are significant. On the other hand, if A or B are significant but the interaction is also significant, this means that the parameters should be analyzed individually.
Comment 15: Line 125 and 238: 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 Effect of compound on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus.
By this, I meant that the respective compound used should be listed in each title. This way it would look like this:
3.1.2 Effect of GA3 on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.1.2 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus
Comment 20: Line 154 and line 266: 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 change mechanical properties for Physiological parameters.
By this I meant changing what was set to physiological parameters.
In this way the titles would be as follows:
3.1.3 Effect of GA3 on physiological parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.2.3 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on physiological parameters of Bac Son citrus
Comment 24: Line 185 and 295: 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, change biochemical characteristics for internal quality parameters
Similar to the previous comment, with this I meant to change what was set by internal quality parameters
In this way the titles would be as follows:
3.1.4 Effect of GA3 on internal quality parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.2.4 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on internal quality parameters of Bac Son citrus
Author Response
Authors-reply-letter
Reviewer 2
Dear reviewer 2,
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and giving comments, we have incorporated those corrections mostly. For the rest, we have provided a detailed response separately and marked the revised parts in the red marked for your convenience.
Comment 7: Paragraph lines 69-74: It must be added BBCH. The BBCH-scale is a classification system used in biology to describe the phenological development of citrus plants using the BBCH-scale. In the following link you can find the BBCH scale for citrus fruits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBCH-scale_(citrus)
By this I meant that you should put the phenological stage of the plant at the moment of applying the products. For example, if it was applied when the first flowers were open it would correspond to a BBCH 60 or when it was Fruit set; beginning of ovary growth; beginning of fruitlets abscission the BBCH would be 71.
In the following link you have the different BBCH and the correct reference that would correspond to Agustí et al. (1995)
The https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/BBCH-scale_%28citrus%29.html
Response: We are grateful for this comment
I revised BBCH scale as your advice at line 77-80 in the revised manuscript
Comment 10: it would be necessary to add a multifactorial analyse to determine A: effect of treatment (in both years); B: effect of year (in all treatments studied), and AB: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years). It would be enough to put these results at the bottom of each table in each parameter studied.
By this I meant that both parameter A (treatment), B (year) and the AxB interaction should be put below the tables. Putting only the interaction does not add any additional information. What would be interesting would be to know if the treatment effect is consistent over the two years, which would mean that parameter A (treatment) is significant, or also to know if the effect of the year changes (parameter B: year). The interaction marks whether the parameters are really significant or not, i.e., when the interaction is not significant but A (treatment) or B (year) is significant, it would mean that parameters A or B are significant. On the other hand, if A or B are significant but the interaction is also significant, this means that the parameters should be analyzed individually.
Response: We are grateful for this comment
I added a multifactorial analyse under all Table in the manuscript as per your advice. A: effect of treatment (in both years); B: effect of the year (in all treatments), and AB: interaction between A (treatments) and B (years).
Comment 15: Line 125 and 238: 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 Effect of compound on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus.
By this, I meant that the respective compound used should be listed in each title. This way it would look like this:
3.1.2 Effect of GA3 on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.1.2 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on yield parameters of Bac Son citrus
Response: Many thanks for your kind comment.
I revised it per your advice as line 140 and 247 in the revised manuscript
Comment 20: Line 154 and line 266: 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 change mechanical properties for Physiological parameters.
By this I meant changing what was set to physiological parameters.
In this way the titles would be as follows:
3.1.3 Effect of GA3 on physiological parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.2.3 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on physiological parameters of Bac Son citrus
Response: Many thanks for your kind comment.
I revised it per your advice as line 163 and 278 in the revised manuscript
Comment 24: Line 185 and 295: 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, change biochemical characteristics for internal quality parameters
Similar to the previous comment, with this I meant to change what was set by internal quality parameters
In this way the titles would be as follows:
3.1.4 Effect of GA3 on internal quality parameters of Bac Son citrus
3.2.4 Effect of CuSO4.5H2O on internal quality parameters of Bac Son citrus
Response: Many thanks for your kind comment.
I revised it per your advice as line 195 and 307 in the revised manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
