Effects of Different Regulating Measures on the Floral and Nutritional Physiology of Lemon
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors
This manuscript was well organized and contained practical informations for lemon production.
In grammer of abstauct, the following sentence is if you can take out while and put but or however is recommended.. : "While gibberellin significantly reduced the 24
lemon flowering branches and promoted the vegetative growth of lemon"
Author Response
Line 24: Thank you for the advice. The word “while” has been modified to “However”.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work is interesting, the idea of ​​using two antagonistic regulators is good especially in terms of flowering, fruit set and fruit quality in citrus, however, I have many observations and doubts about how the paper is exposed:
First of all, I consider that it is necessary to make an exhaustive revision of the English, it can be improved a lot.
The introduction is short, it has no physiological support, it is necessary to cite important articles that help to give physiological arguments. How to give a simple explanation of how gibberellins act in flowering, vegetative growth and its general effect on flowering and fruit set and consequently its quality; likewise the PBZ as an antagonist as it acts, that is, to give a theoretical framework of the physiological function in the variables evaluated.
Unclear materials and methods, they do not match with the results.
Perhaps give a brief explanation of the experiment, such as the age of the plants, were they grafted or free-standing, did they use pots, which substrate did they use, the coordinates of the place of the experiment.
Final measures of vegetative growth such as branches are mentioned, but they are not mentioned if they were adjusted with respect to the beginning of the experiment.
They do not describe measurement methodologies such as fruit set, how the vegetative measures were taken, misuse of nomenclature of variables (transverse and longitudinal diameter of the leaves).
It is mentioned that the experiment lasted 72 days but immediately measurements are only mentioned at 52 days and in results they are reported at 52 and 72 (very confusing), nor are they mentioned in the methodology how the weight was measured if it was at harvest or at the end of the experiment. The abbreviation VC is not explained.
It also only mentions the technique of solids and starch but does not briefly detail how it was done.
In Fig 4C, they talk about morphology but to consider morphology you must report the relation Diameter Longitudinal/Diameter transversal.
I also consider that once the materials and methods are detailed, the results are reviewed, which are very short without units (that is, number of flowers/shoots), etc.
Author Response
We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I consider that the paper has improved a lot, many of the doubts were answered.
I only suggest a detailed review for some typed mistakes and in figure 4 D it speaks of an index in SST, AC and VC that I cannot explain myself since the index that is explained in materials and methods is that of the shape fruit (ratio diameter long/diameter transverse).
Author Response
Thanks for the advice. I have reviewed the spelling in the full text.
In the chapter 2.3.2.：TSS, TA, VC, and the fruit shape index are four important indexes of fruit quality. Thus, we describe them in materials and methods, and in figure 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
