Proleptic and Sylleptic Shoot Formation Is Affected by Rootstock Genotype in Two-Year-Old Branches of Almond Trees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This short report draws attention to the phenomenon that apical dominance of scion and rootstock vigor interact in formation of sylleptic and proleptic shoots of almond. Authors correctly emphasize that further studies are needed to better understand the rootstock/scion interactions in control of tree architecture. I think, the paper would fit well into th Special Issue "New insights into rootstock/scion interaction of horticultural crops".

Author Response

This short report draws attention to the phenomenon that apical dominance of scion and rootstock vigor interact in formation of sylleptic and proleptic shoots of almond. Authors correctly emphasize that further studies are needed to better understand the rootstock/scion interactions in control of tree architecture. I think, the paper would fit well into th Special Issue "New insights into rootstock/scion interaction of horticultural crops".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The minimum number of measurements that were used for publication is summarized. The previous publication under item number 17 is much more interesting. Should be enriched with other parameters tested in the previous publication, if possible. Fewer cultivars and rootstocks were used, hence the question of why the number of observed parameters was limited or a new one was not introduced. Correct according to comments in the text. 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The minimum number of measurements that were used for publication is summarized. The previous publication under item number 17 is much more interesting. Should be enriched with other parameters tested in the previous publication, if possible. Fewer cultivars and rootstocks were used, hence the question of why the number of observed parameters was limited or a new one was not introduced. Correct according to comments in the text. 

The analysis realized in the previous publication (Montesinos et al., 2021) was carried out in the same orchard. Hence, repeating the same measures was discarded due to the limited new information that could add respecting the amount of time necessary to collect that kind of data. Even more, as reported in the previous publication, the measurement of some of those parameters is not even feasible in the third year of growth due to the size of the tree.

 

Line 22 - The best combinations of the variety in relation to the rootstock are not given.

 

There is not a single best combination since all depend on the desired orchard characteristics. In the discussion we refer to combinations with vigor-conferring rootstocks and high apical dominance cultivars or combinations with low vigor-conferring rootstocks and low apical dominance cultivars as the most interesting options for typical commercial orchards. But different conditions and limitations may require different scion/rootstock combinations.

 

Line 52 - what it looks like in other prunus species

 

Tree architecture is still a limited area of study in Prunus and apart from the few studies carried out in almond and peach, there is almost no available data in other Prunus trees.

 

Line 61 - is it possible to provide the reader with the characteristics of these varieties, for example, their growth force, if they are commonly grown in Spain

 

We add a reference (17) that explains their growth habit and vigor.

 

Line 71 - it is not possible to plant trees in the orchard in the same year as budding.

 

We respectfully disagree with this notion. Modern nurseries practice the micrografting and under irrigation grafted plants are completely developed in field.

 

Line 76 - Please specify the climatic conditions

 

We indicate the season that we take measures on winter 2021.

 

Line 98 - how to understand the number of repetitions, 10 different trees of each combination

 

Line 98 now reads “For each relative node, probability was calculated based on the occurrence or not of a blind node, proleptic or sylleptic shoot in each of the ten replicates annotated, consisting of ten different trees for each combination”.

 

Line 118 - use the same designation of the names of the rootstocks as in the table for easier identification. Use the same spelling throughout the text, one time is GN8, another time GN-87

 

GN8 designation has been changed to its commercial name Pilowred^® as in the rest of the manuscript.

 

Line 191 - what do the brown lines mean and what do the blue lines on the chart mean

 

The legend of Figure 1 indicates that orange lines refer to proleptic shoots and blue lines to sylleptic shoots.

 

Line 266 - what issues in this topic are important for the future, please show progress in the application in relation to the previous publication (number 17)

 

Figure 1 clearly showed that low vigor conferring rootstock Pilowred^® and Rootpac 20^® developed more prollectic branching and high vigor rootstocks more sylleptic branching. This issue was not specify in the paper 17.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This manuscript presents statistical data by examining the effect of rootstock on Proleptic and Sylleptic Shoot Formation. However, important data must be presented for this manuscript to be published in Agronomy. The overall phenotype (harvest time, yield, flowering time, shooting time, trunk diameter of rootstock, etc.) of 15 combinations of rootstock and cultivar should be presented. A photograph must also be presented.

Author Response

This manuscript presents statistical data by examining the effect of rootstock on Proleptic and Sylleptic Shoot Formation. However, important data must be presented for this manuscript to be published in Agronomy. The overall phenotype (harvest time, yield, flowering time, shooting time, trunk diameter of rootstock, etc.) of 15 combinations of rootstock and cultivar should be presented. A photograph must also be presented.

 

This study was carried out during the third year of growth of these combinations. Working with young trees is what makes feasible to measure architectural parameters, but on the other hand in such young trees is not possible to collect data regarding flowering time or harvesting. Which, in any case, it is outside of the scope of this short communication, where we have depicted aspects regarding only the three-dimensional structure of the tree. This may affect yield or flowering but given that no data regarding these traits was possibly be collected, we did not write any conclusions in this aspect.

 

It is deemed necessary we could add a picture to the manuscript. However, in our opinion such photographs do not add useful information since in 2D field images is difficult to discern which shoots belong to which tree or which branch.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

Agronomy

I am writing my comments regarding manuscript number: agronomy-1802670 which has been submitted to Agronomy-MDPI.

The paper describes the ‘Proleptic and Sylleptic Shoot Formation Is Affected by Root-stock Genotype in Two-year Old Branches of Almond Trees’

 The authors used some morphological data in 15 combinations of scion/rootstock in two years old branches of almond plants to achieve the objectives.

 

General comments: The ms is preliminary work on effect of different rootstocks on almond architecture and could contribute good information to our knowledge in this respect.  However, we believe that the authors have to clarify major questions that arise and/or do some modifications to improve the manuscript. However, the authors compare one-year data on two years old branches of 15 combinations of scion/rootstock in this work and I believe that the work would be more comprehensive if they would have used more data and experiments for better comparison. I believe that the authors must have collected more data for the third and fourth years of grafted plants so that the evaluation becomes more reliable. Material and methods are not clearly written. I could not follow the number of replications used in this study.

In the end, the authors concluded that ‘Apical dominance and apical control have a crucial impact in differences observed between different scion/rootstock combinations.’; however, this conclusion was made without comparison with pruned trees. Also, the experiment needs to be repeated in different regions to remove the effect of environmental conditions.

In conclusion, it may be considered to be acceptable for publication as a short communication. But at this time, I advised that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication in Agronomy.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

85: What was the experimental design?  

102: “…while combinations with Pilowred® and  Rootpac® 20 tended to be shorter although differences were only significant with ‘Guara’”…. Therefore Rootpac 20 should not be mentioned.

200: Other parameters like root hydraulic conductance could be an explanation for different vigors.

217: Or seasons had different environmental condition that affect growth differently in the same rootstock/scion combination.  

Reviewer 3 Report

I think the paper is OK