Diversification and Soil Management Effects on the Quality of Organic Apricots

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current stady entitled „Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality” is very important due to the crop diversification, optimized use of energy, soil and water resources, as well as strategies to counteract adverse future climatic conditions, contribute to long-term sustainability of the agroecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation. The research undertaken in this work are original and supplement and update knowledge in this field.

The paper presented to me for review contains all the key elements required in the scientific work and editors of the journal, however, there are comments and questions that need to be supplemented and improved. Please find my comments and suggestions for overall improvement of the manuscript:

Abstract

• Suggestion to provide the future prospects and potential benefits of this study in one line at the end of the abstract.

Materials and Methods

• The description of the statistical analysis in subchapter 2.5, page 5, line 183 should follow the description of table 3 on page 8 - see attached text

Results

• The results are not always described precisely and correspond to the data included in the tables - see the attached text

Discussion

• A minor note regarding reference to literature - see attached text

Conclusions

Conclusions should include a comparison of treatments and the potential benefits of choosing the best fix, as well as recommendations and future prospects. Meanwhile, they are more like abstract and partly discussion elements.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

The current study entitled Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality” is very important due to the crop diversification, optimized use of energy, soil and water resources, as well as strategies to counteract adverse future climatic conditions, contribute to long-term sustainability of the agroecosystems, climate change mitigation and adaptation. The research undertaken in this work are original and supplement and update knowledge in this field.

The paper presented to me for review contains all the key elements required in the scientific work and editors of the journal, however, there are comments and questions that need to be supplemented and improved. Please find my comments and suggestions for overall improvement of the manuscript

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

 

Reviewer comment:

Abstract:

• Suggestion to provide the future prospects and potential benefits of this study in one line at the end of the abstract.

Answer:

Abstract was changed according to your and other reviewers’ suggestion. Future prospects line was added (Line 27-29).

 

Reviewer comment:

Materials and Methods

• The description of the statistical analysis in subchapter 2.5, page 5, line 183 should follow the description of table 3 on page 8 - see attached text

Answer:

The description of the statistical analysis was modified (Line 264).

 

Reviewer comment:

• Results

The results are not always described precisely and correspond to the data included in the tables - see the attached text:

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

 -Table 2 what month the data is for

Answer:

The month was added to the line 1 of table 2.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Table 2 wrong abbreviation

Answer:

The abbreviation was corrected in the table.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 243 the name of this month is not in the table

Answer:

The month was added to the table 2 as previously request

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 244 does not match the data in the table

Answer:

The data was corrected in the text (Line 188).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 249 does not match the data in the table

Answer:

The data was corrected in the text (Line 193).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 267-275 no data confirming this description

-          Line 277-283 no data confirming this description

-          Line 288-289 no data confirming this description

Answer:

Table 1S was added to report the missing data.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Table 3 the above provisions should be consistent with the provisions in the title of the table

Answer:

Table title was modified (Line 382-383).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 311-314 data do not correspond to the entries in the table

Answer:

We are sorry, the data was correct (Line 399-400).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 330-331 no data confirming this description

Answer:

Table 2S was added to report the missing data.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 347 invalid table number

Answer:

We are sorry, the table number was changed.

 

Reviewer comment:

• Discussion

A minor note regarding reference to literature

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

-          Line 433 Sahamishiirazi et al. does not match number 41 in references

Answer:

It was modified (line 529).

 

Reviewer comment:

• Conclusions

Conclusions should include a comparison of treatments and the potential benefits of choosing the best fix, as well as recommendations and future prospects. Meanwhile, they are more like abstract and partly discussion elements.

Answer:

We understand what is requested but other reviewers are of completely opposite opinion requesting a reduction of the paragraph in question. Therefore, we have decided not to increase or decrease the conclusions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a comment about " Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality " The research of three management modes on apricot tree for two years is a small innovation. I think this manuscript may be suitable for agronomy. But I always have some strange impressions. For example, Figures and tables are not clear and standardized. Some sentences are very subjective, for example, interesting, highly ambitious and so on. All authors should carefully check every sentence and thought in this manuscript to ensure that it meets the requirements of the SCI paper. Overall, although the author's manuscript has some shortcomings, I think it will be accepted after minor modifications.

Detail comments:

Line 22: I can’t see any date in Abstract. In addition, the word interesting is inappropriate

Line25: What is the value of research?

Line58: the word highly ambitious are inappropriate.

Line87: What is your hypothesis? What kind of orchard management do you hope is more suitable for the growth of apricots? Reason?

Table 1: Nutrient content of commercial organic fertilizer and Municipal waste compost should be given

Line200: The formula is very difficult to understand.

Line200-230, Line236-252: In my opinion, these paragraphs do not belong to the "results" section: at all. These climatic conditions are completely mentioned in "materials and methods".

Line385: If possible, the "discussion" section should give subheadings, which will also be clearer.

 

Line385: I didn't see anything about commercial organic fertilizer and Municipal waste compost in the discussion. In addition, the author should also discuss the management of apricot trees with other countries, such as China. For example, for me, I'm curious about your management model and China's management model. What are the advantages and disadvantages?

 

Line501: Although the higher antioxidant activity of apricot fruit represents a good flavor, does this mean that apricot trees are subjected to higher stress at this time?

 

Line: In the past two years, why didn't apricot trees produce the phenomenon of " fruit bearing alternate "?

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

This is a comment about " Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality " The research of three management modes on apricot tree for two years is a small innovation. I think this manuscript may be suitable for agronomy. But I always have some strange impressions. For example, Figures and tables are not clear and standardized. Some sentences are very subjective, for example, interesting, highly ambitious and so on. All authors should carefully check every sentence and thought in this manuscript to ensure that it meets the requirements of the SCI paper. Overall, although the author's manuscript has some shortcomings, I think it will be accepted after minor modifications.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 22: I can’t see any date in Abstract. In addition, the word interesting is inappropriate

Answer:

As suggested date was added (Line 20) and the word interesting was modified (Line 23).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line25: What is the value of research?

Answer:

Values of research was added according to your and other reviewers’ suggestion (Line 27-29).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line58: the word highly ambitious are inappropriate.

Answer:

It was modified (Line 68).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line87: What is your hypothesis? What kind of orchard management do you hope is more suitable for the growth of apricots? Reason?

Answer:

We understand your suggestion, however our study aimed to investigate the relationships between agronomic systems, environmental conditions and cultivars and their effects on the quality of apricots. As well known, the fruit quality could be affected by several factor (climatic conditions, cultivars, agronomic management, harvest time etc). For this reason, we think that is not opportune to add a hypothesis of more suitable orchard management because not all factors could be controlled.

 

Reviewer comment:

Table 1: Nutrient content of commercial organic fertilizer and Municipal waste compost should be given

Answer:

We have added the N and C content for MWC in the table1.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line200: The formula is very difficult to understand.

Answer:

We rewrote it (Line 282).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line200-230, Line236-252: In my opinion, these paragraphs do not belong to the "results" section: at all. These climatic conditions are completely mentioned in "materials and methods".

Answer:

As suggested, the paragraph “pedoclimatic conditions” was moved in materials and methods sections (Line 158-218).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line385: If possible, the "discussion" section should give subheadings, which will also be clearer.

Answer:

Thanks for the suggestions. However, we think that the subdivision of the discussion would make everything unrelated. On the contrary, the paper wants to see the synergistic action of several factors. Therefore, we will not divide the discussion into subsections.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line385: I didn't see anything about commercial organic fertilizer and Municipal waste compost in the discussion. In addition, the author should also discuss the management of apricot trees with other countries, such as China. For example, for me, I'm curious about your management model and China's management model. What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Answer:

We have more clearly reported the reduced role of fertilizers in the obtained results. We argued that the low C:N ratio of the used Muncipal waste compost could have led to reduced nutritional differences between use of compost and commercial organic fertilizer (L545-549).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line501: Although the higher antioxidant activity of apricot fruit represents a good flavor, does this mean that apricot trees are subjected to higher stress at this time?

Answer:

We agree with the referee that many of the compounds that contribute to the antioxidant power are secondary metabolites that are produced by the plant also in response to stress. However, a remainder of the antioxidant activity is due to molecules deriving from the primary metabolism and therefore not produced as a result of stress. For this reason, it is not easy to understand if the antioxidant properties are related to the plant stress or more probably to the synergistic action of several compounds.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line: In the past two years, why didn't apricot trees produce the phenomenon of "fruit bearing alternate "?

Answer:

Thanks for the suggestions. However, most of fruit species are not affected by this physiological disorder. In apple and pistachios alternate bearing occurs while apricot bears fruits constantly every year unless of hostile climatic conditions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality” by R. Ciccoritti, R. Ciorba, F. Mitrano, M. Cutuli, T. Amoriello, C. Ciaccia, E. Testani and D. Ceccarelli (Ref. agronomy-1339812) presents the results from a two year study in which two different apricot cultivars were subjected to three organic management systems. The authors assessed the impact of the management system and the weather on several fruit quality traits. They concluded that a management employing organic waste as compost and with a cover crop improved apricot fruit quality under their growing conditions. Despite the lack of novelty (as several studies approached similar research on other apricot cultivars), this study seems to be carried out correctly and the results presented are interesting. I think that the manuscript fits within the scope of Agronomy.

          I do not have major concerns (despite lack of novelty and a high number of mistakes in the English language) with this manuscript, which I feel reports a study that has been correctly designed and conducted. Therefore, I suggest a minor revision of this manuscript prior to its eventual acceptance in Agronomy. Anyway, English needs revision all over the text

 

Specific comments:

Title:

I suggest a slight modification to “Diversification and soil management effects on the quality of organic apricots”.

 

Abstract:

The abstract is informative and describes quite well the study that has been undertaken. However, I suggest including some quantitative results in the abstract.

Line 15: “solids” instead of “solid”.

Line 17: Why did you put asterisks after the name of the cultivars?

Lines 22-24: This sentence is ambiguous. What do you mean by “turned out to be particularly interesting”? “soluble solids” instead of “solid soluble”.

 

Introduction:

This section sets correctly the problem that the manuscript tries to address. However, it is written as a single paragraph, I suggest separating this huge paragraph into three or four shorter ones.

Line 44: Here, you can separate a paragraph before “Furthermore”.

Lines 47-49: This sentence is confusing. Please, re-phrase it.

Lines 49-52: These two sentences do not relate. First, authors indicated that the industry needs commercial cultivars that produce high-quality fruits. However, the following sentence claims that the quality of the fruits depends on several factors and not on the cultivar. Please, check these sentences and re-phrase them.

Line 52: Here, you can separate another paragraph before “As for the agronomic management systems”.

Line 54: What have soil erosion and pollution to do with apricot fruit quality?

Line 59: “aims to” instead of “aims for”.

Lines 66-67: “based on reducing the intensity of agronomic practices” instead of “based on agronomic practices reductions”.

Line 73: You can start a new paragraph with “In light of”.

Line 76: “conducted” instead of “realized”.

Line 79: “soluble solids” instead of “solid soluble”.

 

Materials and Methods:

The experimental design is correct and the statistical analysis seems to have been performed in a correct manner.

Line 100: Please, define MWC when first used.

Table 1: I think that the title should be more self-explanatory. In the table, use “apricot trees” instead of “apricot plants”. Regarding irrigation, the system and the total amount of water per season are included in the table, but what about timing? Was the irrigation in each management system scheduled in the same manner?

Lines 105-114: Please, indicate the rate (seed per ha) in which these two mixtures of species were sown.

Line 114: Begin a new paragraph at “The split plot was assigned”.

Line 122: In think “realized” is not the correct term here.

Line 126: “randomly” instead of “random”.

Line 127: “plot” instead of “parcel”. Those three replicates refer to three collections in the field or they come from the 1.5 kg sample?

Line 134: “soils from each management system” instead of “soils of each system management”.

Line 145: “color" instead of "colors".

Line 160: This last sentence has no verb. Is this correct?

Lines 167 and 176: “Finally" or "In the end" instead of "At last".

Line 185: “management system" instead of "system management".

Line 194: “we assumed that” instead of “we assumed the”.

Lines 197-199: This sentence does not make sense. Please, re-phrase it.

Line 202: Please, define “KM” and “PM" when first used.

Line 203: “management system" instead of "system management".

Lines 206-210: This is general. What did you use in your study?

Line 211: “Finally” instead of "At last".

Line 213: Remove “system" before “management".

Line 216: “among management systems during the 2018-2020 period” instead of "among the systems management during 2018-2020 period”.

 

Results:

This section clearly reports the results from the study described in this manuscript. However, the figures presented are of very bad quality.

Line 219: “Pedoclimatic conditions” instead of “Pedoclimatic condition”.

Lines 220-221: Re-phrase this sentence to “According to the Köppen classification, Rome has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by mild winters and warm to hot summers”.

Line 225: Put “1971-2000” between parentheses. In addition, I do not believe that the mean air temperature for the period from March to June would be 10 ºC, likely in March is 10 ºC, but not for the whole period (March to June). Please, check English in order to say what you are trying to mean.

Lines 228-229: “variables” instead of “parameters”. “shown” instead of “showed”.

Table 2: The first row of data has nothing in the first column; does it refer to July 2018? By the way, are you showing monthly averages or daily averages? Check the units, meter and millimeter should not be in capital letters.

Line 235: Remove “may have a footer”.

Lines 240-241: If the growing season goes from March to June, as previously indicated, these average temperatures do not correspond with what is shown in the table. According to data shown Table 2, mean temperature over the 2019 growing season was 16.1 ºC and it was 16.5 ºC in 2020. Please, check the data.

Line 246: “long-term averages” instead of “climatic values”.

Lines 251-252: Why including this information in the same paragraph as the weather variables?

Line 255: “management systems” instead of “system management”.

Lines 259-265: This paragraph contains many English mistakes. Please, correct them.

Line 268: “on apricot fruit weight and color” instead of “on apricot pomological trait fruits weight and colors”.

Line 270: Remove “of” before “each cultivar”.

Lines 270-271: Where are these data? How can the readers assess the inter-annual variability in fruit weight if data are not shown?

Lines 277-283: Why are these values shown here and not in the former sub-section when talking about fruit color?

Line 284: “soluble solid” instead of “solid soluble”.

Lines 288-290: This sentence does not make sense. Please, re-phrase it.

Line 291: “observed” instead of “recorded”.

Line 297: “as a function of” instead of “divided by”.

Table 3: Significant differences among management systems, cultivars and/or years are not shown in the table.

Lines 305-309: Alright, but you have stated previously that these differences are not significant.

Line 312: “Finally” instead of "At last".

Line 316: “did not show” instead of “not showed”.

Figure 2: The quality of this figure is poor. Font size is incredibly small and there are no units in the Y axis.

Line 320: “soluble solids content” instead of "solid soluble content”.

Line 324: Remove “As regards the pomological traits".

Line 325: Remove “it ran".

Line 331: “was also calculated highlighting for 2019”, this does not make sense.

Line 340: “three factors” instead of "three factor".

Line 341: “management system" instead of "system management".

Line 343: “shows” or “presents” instead of “presented”.

Line 347: “soluble solids content” instead of “solid soluble content”.

Line 352: Remove “found to be”.

Line 363: “management systems” instead of “systems management”.

Line 367: Add “was positively correlated” after “PC2”.

Lines 373-376: This is only true for 2019, while no clear conclusion can be drawn for 2020. Therefore, the authors cannot obtain a sound conclusion.

 

Discussion:

This section describes and discusses rather well the results from the study. However, I detected some confusing aspects.

Line 394: What do you mean by “with a different extent”?

Lines 397-400: This sentence is confusing. Please, check English and re-phrase.

Line 404: “TSS” has not been defined.

Lines 412-413: This sentence needs re-phrasing because it is unclear and English has mistakes.

Lines 416-440: The effect of weather conditions on apricot quality traits has been previously addressed by a large number of researchers. Therefore, this paragraph can be considerably reduced. Moreover, it has some mistakes including “wheatears” in line 420 and undefined abbreviations in line 432.

Lines 450-452: Check this sentence. As it is written, it does not make sense.

Lines 462-470: This portion of text is messy and confusing. I suggest re-phrasing.

Lines 477-481: Ok, but you did not take any measure to evaluate the level of competition between the cover crops and the apricot trees. You did not show any percentage of soil surface covered by the cover crops, you did not indicate how long the cover crops were active within the orchard, etc.

 

Conclusions:

The conclusion section is very long and needs reduction. I suggest removing one paragraph.

In fact, I would remove lines 501 to 505.

 

References:

Lines 565-569: Since these two references are cited in the text using different numbers, there is no need to use 2020a and 2020b.

Line 573: The journal title (Agronomy) must be written in italics.

Authors might find this reference useful for improving their work:

Pérez-Sarmiento, F.; Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Alcobendas, R.; Alarcón, J.J.; Mounzer, O.; Nicolás, E. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on physiology, yield and fruit quality in apricot trees under Mediterranean conditions. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14(4), e1205; doi: 10.5424/sjar/2016144-9943

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The manuscript entitled “Diversification and soil management strategies effects on organic apricots quality” by R. Ciccoritti, R. Ciorba, F. Mitrano, M. Cutuli, T. Amoriello, C. Ciaccia, E. Testani and D. Ceccarelli (Ref. agronomy-1339812) presents the results from a two year study in which two different apricot cultivars were subjected to three organic management systems. The authors assessed the impact of the management system and the weather on several fruit quality traits. They concluded that a management employing organic waste as compost and with a cover crop improved apricot fruit quality under their growing conditions. Despite the lack of novelty (as several studies approached similar research on other apricot cultivars), this study seems to be carried out correctly and the results presented are interesting. I think that the manuscript fits within the scope of Agronomy.

          I do not have major concerns (despite lack of novelty and a high number of mistakes in the English language) with this manuscript, which I feel reports a study that has been correctly designed and conducted. Therefore, I suggest a minor revision of this manuscript prior to its eventual acceptance in Agronomy. Anyway, English needs revision all over the text.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions a thorough revision of the English was done as suggested.

 

Reviewer comment:

Title:

I suggest a slight modification to “Diversification and soil management effects on the quality of organic apricots”.

Answer:

As suggested Title was modified and date was added (Line 2).

 

Reviewer comment:

Abstract:

The abstract is informative and describes quite well the study that has been undertaken. However, I suggest including some quantitative results in the abstract.

Answer:

It was added (Line 24-27) .

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 15: “solids” instead of “solid”.

Answer:

Done (Line 23).

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 17: Why did you put asterisks after the name of the cultivars?

Answer:

We put asterisks after the name of the cultivars because the used genotype are protected by patent. In details when a new variety is protected by patent, its name is always followed by asterisk (*), while it is followed by ® when the cultivar name is protected by trademark.

 

Reviewer comment:

Lines 22-24: This sentence is ambiguous. What do you mean by “turned out to be particularly interesting”? “soluble solids” instead of “solid soluble”.

Answer:

The sentence was modified (Line 23).

 

Reviewer comment:

Introduction:

 

This section sets correctly the problem that the manuscript tries to address. However, it is written as a single paragraph, I suggest separating this huge paragraph into three or four shorter ones.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. We agree with the reviewer and the paragraph was added.

 

Reviewer comment:

Introduction:

This section sets correctly the problem that the manuscript tries to address. However, it is written as a single paragraph, I suggest separating this huge paragraph into three or four shorter ones.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. We agree with the reviewer and the paragraph was added.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 44: Here, you can separate a paragraph before “Furthermore”.

Answer:

Done (Line 49).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 47-49: This sentence is confusing. Please, re-phrase it.

Answer:

We have revised the sentence to improve the readability (Line 53-55).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 49-52: These two sentences do not relate. First, authors indicated that the industry needs commercial cultivars that produce high-quality fruits. However, the following sentence claims that the quality of the fruits depends on several factors and not on the cultivar. Please, check these sentences and re-phrase them.

Answer:

The sentence was re-phrased with the followed sentences: The modern apricot industry needs commercial cultivars characterized by highly fruit quality attributes [8] which can be intensified by the interaction of several factors, including the cultivation techniques under different environmental conditions and the genotype [3,11,12]. (Line 55-58).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 52: Here, you can separate another paragraph before “As for the agronomic management systems”.

Answer:

Done (Line 62).

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 54: What have soil erosion and pollution to do with apricot fruit quality?

Answer:

Thanks for the comments. However, this sentence was inserted only for introduce the importance of organic farming and diversification system in the reduction of soil erosion and pollution respect to conventional practices, as explained in line 54-57.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 59: “aims to” instead of “aims for”.

Answer:

Done (Line 69).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 66-67: “based on reducing the intensity of agronomic practices” instead of “based on agronomic practices reductions”.

Answer:

Done (Line 76).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 73: You can start a new paragraph with “In light of”.

Answer:

Done (Line 84).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 76: “conducted” instead of “realized”.

Answer:

Done (Line 86).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 79: “soluble solids” instead of “solid soluble”.

Answer:

Done (Line 90).

 

Reviewer comment:

Materials and Methods:

The experimental design is correct and the statistical analysis seems to have been performed in a correct manner.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 100: Please, define MWC when first used.

Answer:

Done (Line 109).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Table 1: I think that the title should be more self-explanatory. In the table, use “apricot trees” instead of “apricot plants”. Regarding irrigation, the system and the total amount of water per season are included in the table, but what about timing? Was the irrigation in each management system scheduled in the same manner?

Answer:

As suggested, we modified the title and changed the term “apricot plants”. In addition, the irrigation timing and scheduling for each management system was added.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 105-114: Please, indicate the rate (seed per ha) in which these two mixtures of species were sown.

Answer:

In accordance with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the dose as kg ha^-1 (Line 122-126).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 114: Begin a new paragraph at “The split plot was assigned”.

Answer:

Done (Line 130).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 122: In think “realized” is not the correct term here.

Answer:

“Realized” was replaces with “started” (Line 140).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 126: “randomly” instead of “random”.

Answer:

Done (Line 145).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 127: “plot” instead of “parcel”. Those three replicates refer to three collections in the field or they come from the 1.5 kg sample?

Answer:

Done.  The replicates refer for each plot. The explanation was added to the text (Line 145).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 134: “soils from each management system” instead of “soils of each system management”.

Answer:

Done (Line 198).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 145: “color" instead of "colors".

Answer:

Done (Line 226).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 160: This last sentence has no verb. Is this correct?

Answer:

The sentence was deleted.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 167 and 176: “Finally" or "In the end" instead of "At last".

Answer:

Done (Line 248 and Line 257).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 185: “management system" instead of "system management".

Answer:

Done (Line 266).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 194: “we assumed that” instead of “we assumed the”.

Answer:

Done (Line 275).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 197-199: This sentence does not make sense. Please, re-phrase it.

Answer:

The sentence was re-phrased (Line 278-280).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 202: Please, define “KM” and “PM" when first used.

Answer:

The abbreviations KM and PM were defined in line 131 and 133.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 203: “management system" instead of "system management".

Answer:

Done (Line 286).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 206-210: This is general. What did you use in your study?

Answer:

A sentence was added (Line 291-292).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 211: “Finally” instead of "At last".

Answer:

Done (Line 294).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 213: Remove “system" before “management".

Answer:

Done (Line 296).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 216: “among management systems during the 2018-2020 period” instead of "among the systems management during 2018-2020 period”.

Answer:

Done (Line 299).

 

Reviewer comment:

Results:

This section clearly reports the results from the study described in this manuscript. However, the figures presented are of very bad quality.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. The figures resolution was increased.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 219: “Pedoclimatic conditions” instead of “Pedoclimatic condition”.

Answer:

Done, and it was transferred in Material and methods as requested by other referee (Line 159-218).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 220-221: Re-phrase this sentence to “According to the Köppen classification, Rome has a Mediterranean climate, characterized by mild winters and warm to hot summers”.

Answer:

As suggested the sentence was re-phrased (Line 163-164).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 225: Put “1971-2000” between parentheses. In addition, I do not believe that the mean air temperature for the period from March to June would be 10 ºC, likely in March is 10 ºC, but not for the whole period (March to June). Please, check English in order to say what you are trying to mean.

Answer:

Done (Line 167-170).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 228-229: “variables” instead of “parameters”. “shown” instead of “showed”.

Answer:

Done (Line 172-173).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Table 2: The first row of data has nothing in the first column; does it refer to July 2018? By the way, are you showing monthly averages or daily averages? Check the units, meter and millimeter should not be in capital letters.

Answer:

All suggestion was reported in addition data referred at monthly averages as reported in table legend.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 235: Remove “may have a footer”.

Answer:

Done (Line 178).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 240-241: If the growing season goes from March to June, as previously indicated, these average temperatures do not correspond with what is shown in the table. According to data shown Table 2, mean temperature over the 2019 growing season was 16.1 ºC and it was 16.5 ºC in 2020. Please, check the data.

Answer:

We are sorry, the data was correct (Line 185).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 246: “long-term averages” instead of “climatic values”.

Answer:

Done (Line 190).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 251-252: Why including this information in the same paragraph as the weather variables?

Answer:

The information was reported in separated paragraph (Line 197).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 255: “management systems” instead of “system management”.

Answer:

Done (Line 203).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 259-265: This paragraph contains many English mistakes. Please, correct them.

Answer:

The sentence was modified (Line 212-216).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 268: “on apricot fruit weight and color” instead of “on apricot pomological trait fruits weight and colors”.

Answer:

Done (Line 353).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 270: Remove “of” before “each cultivar”.

Answer:

Done (Line 355).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 270-271: Where are these data? How can the readers assess the inter-annual variability in fruit weight if data are not shown?

Answer:

Data was added in Table 1S.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 277-283: Why are these values shown here and not in the former sub-section when talking about fruit color?

Answer:

We agree with referee. However, if the paragraph was split in two very small subparagraphs.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 284: “soluble solid” instead of “solid soluble”.

Answer:

Done (Line 371).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 288-290: This sentence does not make sense. Please, re-phrase it.

Answer:

Done (Line 375).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 291: “observed” instead of “recorded”.

Answer:

Done (Line 378).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 297: “as a function of” instead of “divided by”.

Answer:

Done (Line 384).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Table 3: Significant differences among management systems, cultivars and/or years are not shown in the table.

Answer:

In order not to burden the reading of the table, significant differences have not been reported since you should enter 3 types of letters. However, the verification of significance can be done in a simple way by checking the standard deviations.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 305-309: Alright, but you have stated previously that these differences are not significant.

Answer:

Thanks for the comment, We agree with you but We just reported a data description.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 312: “Finally” instead of "At last".

Answer:

Done (Line 400).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 316: “did not show” instead of “not showed”.

Answer:

Done (Line 404).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Figure 2: The quality of this figure is poor. Font size is incredibly small and there are no units in the Y axis.

Answer:

The figure was replaced. The measure units are reported in the legend.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 320: “soluble solids content” instead of "solid soluble content”.

Answer:

Done (Line 408).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 324: Remove “As regards the pomological traits".

Answer:

Done (Line 412).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 325: Remove “it ran".

Answer:

Done (Line 413).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 331: “was also calculated highlighting for 2019”, this does not make sense.

Answer:

The sentence was removed.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 340: “three factors” instead of "three factor".

Answer:

Done (Line 431).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 341: “management system" instead of "system management".

Answer:

Done (Line 432).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 343: “shows” or “presents” instead of “presented”.

Answer:

Done (Line 434).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 347: “soluble solids content” instead of “solid soluble content”.

Answer:

Done (Line 439).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 352: Remove “found to be”.

Answer:

Done (Line 444).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 363: “management systems” instead of “systems management”.

Answer:

Done (Line 455).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 367: Add “was positively correlated” after “PC2”.

Answer:

Done (Line 459).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 373-376: This is only true for 2019, while no clear conclusion can be drawn for 2020. Therefore, the authors cannot obtain a sound conclusion.

Answer:

The sentence was removed.

 

Reviewer comment:

Results:

This section describes and discusses rather well the results from the study. However, I detected some confusing aspects.

Answer:

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 394: What do you mean by “with a different extent”?

Answer:

We removed it.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 397-400: This sentence is confusing. Please, check English and re-phrase.

Answer:

We done it (Line 489-491).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Line 404: “TSS” has not been defined.

Answer:

We changed with SSC (Line 498).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 412-413: This sentence needs re-phrasing because it is unclear and English has mistakes.

Answer:

We re-phrased it (Line 506-507).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 416-440: The effect of weather conditions on apricot quality traits has been previously addressed by a large number of researchers. Therefore, this paragraph can be considerably reduced. Moreover, it has some mistakes including “wheatears” in line 420 and undefined abbreviations in line 432.

Answer:

We do not agree with the referee about the reduction of this paragraph. However, we modified the mistakes above (Line 514-537).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 450-452: Check this sentence. As it is written, it does not make sense.

Answer:

We don’t understand what the reviewer wants changed.

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 462-470: This portion of text is messy and confusing. I suggest re-phrasing.

Answer:

We re-phrased it (Line 560-566).

 

Specific reviewer comment:

Lines 477-481: Ok, but you did not take any measure to evaluate the level of competition between the cover crops and the apricot trees. You did not show any percentage of soil surface covered by the cover crops, you did not indicate how long the cover crops were active within the orchard, etc.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for his comment. We had already reported the cover crop cycle in the M&M section (Line117-118), but in accordance with the comment we have added information to support this statement. In particular, we specified the cover crop growing period (Line 582) and the mean ASC cover recorded at termination (Line127-129 and Line588-589).

 

Reviewer comment:

Conclusions:

The conclusion section is very long and needs reduction. I suggest removing one paragraph.

In fact, I would remove lines 501 to 505.

Answer:

We cannot follow this suggestion because another referee suggested to extend this paragraph.

 

Reviewer comment:

References:

Lines 565-569: Since these two references are cited in the text using different numbers, there is no need to use 2020a and 2020b.

Answer:

Done.

 

Reviewer comment:

Line 573: The journal title (Agronomy) must be written in italics.

Answer:

Done.

 

Reviewer comment:

Authors might find this reference useful for improving their work:Pérez-Sarmiento, F.; Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Alcobendas, R.; Alarcón, J.J.; Mounzer, O.; Nicolás, E. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on physiology, yield and fruit quality in apricot trees under Mediterranean conditions. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 14(4), e1205; doi: 10.5424/sjar/2016144-9943.

 

Answer:

Thank you for the suggestion. The reference was added.