Effect of Branch Bending on the Canopy Characteristics and Growth of Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Prothrombin Time / International Normalized Ratio (PT/INR) and the Partial Thromboplastin Time (PTT or aPTT )
High MO%:
Chronic inflammation
Infection
Autoimmune disease
Blood cancers
https://dnacore.missouri.edu/PDF/fragment-analysis-chemistry-guide.pdf
This strategy is simpler and more flexible, but pooling
products from multiple singleplex PCR reactions often
increase the salt concentration in the loaded samples,
which can cause unwanted downstream effects (see
“Desalting” on page 190).
• If PCR product sizes overlap, use different color dyes so
they separate during electrophoresis (see “Dyes” on
page 36).
• Use a combination of dyes that can be detected using
one spectral matrix (one spectral calibration).
• Optimize sample concentration to optimize signal
intensity for each dye (see “Optimizing signal intensity”
on page 77)
The manuscript titled "Effect of branch bending on canopy characteristics and growth of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch)" clearly describes that different branch opening angles affect several growth and photosynthetic parameters, well as C/N content, and various characteristics of fruits. Introduction is rather informative and provides enough information to sustain the need for the presented study. Aims and goals are presented well. Material and methods provide sufficient data to possibly repeat the study. Results and Discussion are clear, but several checking of the results presented might be needed (please see below). The general impression is that the language usage is quite weak. The whole text is abundant in vague phrases, incomplete sentences, and indeterminate meaning. My most sincere advice is to have the manuscript professionally edited by a native English speaker proficient in this scientific field or a commercial editing agency. In this form, the manuscript cannot be read and properly understood and I would not suggest accepting it for publications. Here are the main flaws:
- Plant species Latin name must be italicized in both the main abstract and the first sentence of Introduction. The authority L. stands in brackets here as in https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:1212858-2.
- Phrases such as "the light conditions of the tree", "the relative light intensity of the canopy", "canopy structure was more reasonable" provided in Abstract are scientifically unacceptable and should be revised to get sense.
- Please avoid random capitalization of various words (e.g., L31, L190, L490)
- Please avoid vernacular phrases such as "light-loving tree". Stick to the scientific terminology instead.
- Please define "luster" in L42.
- What does it mean "at home and abroad". The reader's home might be different than that of authors.
- Please provide cultivar names under single quotation marks in L46.
- What does it mean "...and also had a significant effect on hormones"?
- Please rewrite the sentence (L55) "The spatial distribution of canopy structure within the canopy has both horizontal and vertical structures." to obtain meaning.
- The whole Material and Methods section must be rewritten in either active or passive voice, not in imperative.
- Please present centrifuge rotations in g force, not in rpm. It needs calculation (available on the internet) if a radius of the rotor is known.
- Results: Figure 2 - Please double-check the letters of significance for Jun in the panel A. "Diffuse", not "Didduse" in the caption.
- Two sentences in L282-284 lack verbs.
- Figures 5 and 6 - Please provide explanations for each panel of the figure (from A to I).
- Please write L345-346 to become a sentence.
- Letters of significance should be double-checked for: Figure 8B - for UP, Figure 9D for MID, since probably being wrongly computed and/or labelled.
- L389: Did the authors investigate apple or peach?
- Please do not start a sentence with a number (e.g., L397, 411, 428, 463).
- Please start a new sentence with a capital letter in L442.
- The sentence in L490-492 lacks a verb.
- Please elaborate what are "pathways".
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you for your letter and the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript
entitled “Effect of branch bending angle on growth and fruit quality of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch)”. (Manuscript ID: agronomy-2300406). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and have great guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections which can meet with your approval hopefully. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following:
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: Plant species Latin name must be italicized in both the main abstract and the first sentence of Introduction. The authority L. stands in brackets here as in https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:1212858-2.
Response 1: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have replaced these terms. ( lines 3, 31, 35)
Point 2: Phrases such as "the light conditions of the tree", "the relative light intensity of the canopy", "canopy structure was more reasonable" provided in Abstract are scientifically unacceptable and should be revised to get sense.
Response 2: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We modified these statements.( lines 400, 452, 513, 531, 558 and Fig. 10A)
Point 3: Please avoid random capitalization of various words (e.g., L31, L190, L490)
Response 3: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We re-checked and modified the issue of word capitalization in the article.
Point 4: Please avoid vernacular phrases such as "light-loving tree". Stick to the scientific terminology instead.
Response 4: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion,We have changed "light-loving tree" to “heliophilous plant”.(line 36)
Point 5: Please define "luster" in L42.
Response 5: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We re-checked and modified the issue of word capitalization in the article.(line 42-43)
Point 6: What does it mean "at home and abroad". The reader's home might be different than that of authors.
Response 6: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion,We have changed "at home and abroad" to “at china and overseas”.(line 44)
Point 7: Please provide cultivar names under single quotation marks in L46.
Response 7: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed it to single quotation marks.(line 46)
Point 8: What does it mean "...and also had a significant effect on hormones"?
Response 8: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have carried out English polishing service and attached the certificate.(待修改)
Point 9: Please rewrite the sentence (L55) "The spatial distribution of canopy structure within the canopy has both horizontal and vertical structures." to obtain meaning.
Response 9: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have carried out English polishing service and attached the certificate. (L56)
Point 10: The whole Material and Methods section must be rewritten in either active or passive voice, not in imperative.
Response 10: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We re-checked and modified the issue of word capitalization in the article.
Point 11: Please present centrifuge rotations in g force, not in rpm. It needs calculation (available on the internet) if a radius of the rotor is known.
Response 11: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed “The samples were centrifuged at 12,000 rpm for 10 min.” to “The samples were centrifuged at 12,000 g for 10 min.”.(line 107)
Point 12: Results: Figure 2 - Please double-check the letters of significance for Jun in the panel A. "Diffuse", not "Didduse" in the caption.
Response 12: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have rechecked Figure 2 and re-uploaded.(243). The legend in Figure 2 is changed to:
“Figure 2. Differences in canopy characteristics of peach trees with different main branch opening angles. A: Leaf area index; B: Mean tilt angle; C: Diffuse none-interceptance; D: Extinction coef-ficient. Within the same period, means followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05)”
Point 13: Two sentences in L282-284 lack verbs.
Response 13: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have carried out English polishing service and attached the certificate. (L282-284)
Point 14: Figures 5 and 6 - Please provide explanations for each panel of the figure (from A to I).
Response 14: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have rewritten the legends for Figures 5 and 6.
“Figure 5. Three-dimensional distribution of relative light intensity in the canopy of peach trees at the early stage of canopy formation. UP(A: 45°; B:65°; C: 85°); MID(D: 45°;E:65°;F: 85°) ; LOW(G: 45°;H:65°;I: 85°)”(line312-314)
“Figure 6. Three-dimensional distribution of relative light intensity in the canopy of peach trees at the end of crown formation. UP(A: 45°; B:65°; C: 85°); MID(D: 45°;E:65°;F: 85°) ; LOW(G: 45°;H:65°;I: 85°)”(line327-329)
Point 15: Please write L345-346 to become a sentence.
Response 15: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have integrated these two sentences into one sentence.
”As can be seen from Figure 8B and C , the circumference and area of the leaf pores in the middle and upper parts of the canopy are greater than 85°>65°>45°,but in the lower part of the canopy，85°>45°>65°.”(line356-359)
Point 16: Letters of significance should be double-checked for: Figure 8B - for UP, Figure 9D for MID, since probably being wrongly computed and/or labelled.
Response 16: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have rechecked Figure 8, Figure 9, and re-uploaded.
Point 17: L389: Did the authors investigate apple or peach?
Response 17: Thanks for your valuable question. Since there are fewer relevant studies on peach trees, we investigated apple.
Point 18: Please do not start a sentence with a number (e.g., L397, 411, 428, 463).
Response 18: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have reworked this sentence. ” The main branch opening angle of 85° was better than 45° and 65°, which is consistent with the results of previous studies.”(line410);
”MTA of 85° was greater than 45° and 65°, probably because the 85° main branch opening angle significantly inhibited the outward transport of photosynthetic products in the leaves, resulting in a larger 85° leaf weight and droop.” (line424-426)
” Canopy of 85° has better light transmission conditions in the middle and upper part of the canopy, the canopy is more open, and the lower canopy can intercept more direct solar radiation, which is beneficial to photosynthesis.” (line441-444)
” Inner chamber of 85° had significantly higher CO2 concentration difference than 45° and 65° in a day, which might be due to the relatively open canopy inner chamber at 85° and poor ventilation conditions, which improved photosynthesis of leaves and thus pro-moted photosynthetic product accumulation.” (line479-482)
Point 19: Please start a new sentence with a capital letter in L442.
Response 19: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have reworked this sentence. ” The proportion of high light areas at the upper level of 85° reached 79.7%, higher than 35.7% at 45° and 36.9% at 65°.”(line455)
Point 20: The sentence in L490-492 lacks a verb.
Response 20: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have reworked this sentence. ” In this study, we investigated the effects of different main branch opening angles (three treatments: 45°, 65° and 85°) on canopy light distribution, canopy characteristics, fruit quality and flower bud quality of 'Y'-shaped peach trees.”(line503-506)
Point 21: Please elaborate what are "pathways".
Response 21: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have reworked this sentence.” Additional research is needed to better understand the effects of different branch opening angles on fruit tree growth.”(line518)
We have polished the article as requested and attached a proof of polish.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written, just minor correction in the attached pdf need to be consedered.
The manuscript title “Effect of branch bending on canopy characteristics and growth 2 of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) is discussing a very important issue related to training of the Prunus trees. The manuscript is well written, The objective is clear and is matching with the reached conclusion.
The introduction contains most of the recent literature in the past 10 year are here with relevant detailed discussion.
The experiment is well-designed and statistically analyzed.
The results were well presented, and evidence and arguments address the main question
Are the references number is reasonable and can be checked for the format
Some minor comments need to be considered before accepting this manuscript for publication. These comments are as follows:
1- In the title the scientific name should be italic.
2- Line 80 Three-years old not 3
3- Line 92 use superscript number for H2SO4
4- Line 119 add this sentence “measurements were taken at wavelength”
5- Line 147 is it 400 or 40x?
6- Check all graphs for the significance letter, only different letters when significant. There is no overlap between the standard errors, then the differences should be significant b not a
7- Figure 2 capitation the statistical letters are between each time interval or within each time interval. this need to be clarified in the caption. 45°, 65, 85, should be mentioned Figure 3, add this 45°, 65, 85, should be mentioned, A, B , C
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for your letter and the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript
entitled “Effect of branch bending angle on growth and fruit quality of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch)”. (Manuscript ID: agronomy-2300406). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and have great guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections which can meet with your approval hopefully. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following:
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: The peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) tree is a large-growing (should be italic)
Response 1: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We change the “Prunus persica” to italic.(line 35)
Point 2: Select 15 3-year-old peach trees with roughly the same tree body indicators. (Three-years old)
Response 2: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed “3-year-old” to “Three-years old”.(line 80)
Point 3: The H2SO4-H2O2 combined decocting method was used to decoct the sample, and after 92 cooling, the capacity was fixed to a 50 mL volumetric bottle. (use superscript number)
Response 3: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed “H2SO4-H2O2” to “H2SO4-H2O2”.(line 92)
Point 4: Draw 0.5 mL of sample extract and add it to the scale test tube, add 1.5 mL of distilled water, add 0.5 mL of anthrone-ethyl acetate reagent and 5 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid, fully oscillate in a boiling water bath and keep warm for 1 min, cool to room temperature and colorimetric at a wavelength of 630 nm. (measurement were taken)
Response 4: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed it to “Draw 0.5 mL of sample extract and add it to the scale test tube, add 1.5 mL of distilled water, add 0.5 mL of anthrone-ethyl acetate reagent and 5 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid, fully oscillate in a boiling water bath and keep warm for 1 min, cool to room temperature and colorimetric measurement were taken at a wavelength of 630 nm.”.(line 115-118)
Point 5: The piece treated with nail polish was then placed on a microscope 146 slide and examined with a fluorescence microscope at 400× magnification (AXI0, Carl 147 Zeiss, Germany). (is it 400 or 40x?)
Response 5: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed “400×” to “400”.(line 147)
Point 6: There is no overlap between the standard errors, then the differences should be significant (b); same here and the third graph , it should be "b"
Response 6: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have rechecked Figure 1 and re-uploaded.(line 206)
Point 7: the statistical letters are between each time interval or within each time interval. this need to be clarify in the caption.
45°, 65, 85, should be mentioned
Response 7: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have added the following sentence ”Within the same period, means followed by different letters are significantly different (P<0.05) .“ (line 249)
Point 8: 45°, 65, 85, should be mentioned, A, B , C
Response 8: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have rechecked Figure 3 and re-uploaded.(line 250)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have considerably improved the manuscript, but several omissions are still present. They are as follows:
To my comment:
Point 2: Phrases such as "the light conditions of the tree", "the relative light intensity of the canopy", "canopy structure was more reasonable" provided in Abstract are scientifically unacceptable and should be revised to get sense.
Authors responded with:
Response 2: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We modified these statements.( lines 400, 452, 513, 531, 558 and Fig. 10A).
Please note that this comment is related to Abstract (as stated in the original remark), to L11-33. The mentioned non-scientific expressions remained in Abstract and they have to be rectified and I strongly recommend consulting a senior scientist from the same field to help with proper wording.
L47: "china" should stand capitalized.
Regarding centrifugation conditions in L118: 12,000 rpm is not equal to 12,000 g unless a rotor of about 7,5 cm in radius was used. Please measure the radius of your rotor and use an online calculator to transform rpm into g.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you for your letter and the Reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript
entitled “Effect of branch bending angle on growth and fruit quality of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch)”. (Manuscript ID: agronomy-2300406). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper and have great guiding significance to our researches. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corresponding corrections which can meet with your approval hopefully. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the Reviewer’s comments are as following:
Responses to the Reviewer’s comments:
Point 1: Point 2: Phrases such as "the light conditions of the tree", "the relative light intensity of the canopy", "canopy structure was more reasonable" provided in Abstract are scientifically unacceptable and should be revised to get sense.
Authors responded with:
Response 2: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We modified these statements.( lines 400, 452, 513, 531, 558 and Fig. 10A).
Please note that this comment is related to Abstract (as stated in the original remark), to L11-33. The mentioned non-scientific expressions remained in Abstract and they have to be rectified and I strongly recommend consulting a senior scientist from the same field to help with proper wording.
Response 1: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed it to “A reasonable main branch opening angle can improve the canopy light environment of a tree, change the direction of nutrient transport, and promote the formation of flower buds. In this experiment, 3-year-old 'Lu Hong 618' was used as the test material to study the effects of different main branch opening angles (three treatments: 45°, 65°, and 85°) on the canopy light distribution, canopy characteristics, fruit quality, and flower bud quality of 'Y'-shaped peach trees. The main findings were as follows: the solar energy utilization in the canopy varied greatly between dif-ferent main branch opening angles, with the best relative light intensity of the canopy at 85°. In addition, the canopy light distribution on photosynthesis was more reasonable at 85°, and the daily variation range of CO2 concentration in the inner canopy was the greatest, which facilitated ventilation and light penetration in the inner canopy.”. ( lines 3, 31, 35)
Point 2: "china" should stand capitalized.
Response 2: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We have changed "china" to "China".
Point 3: Regarding centrifugation conditions in L118: 12,000 rpm is not equal to 12,000 g unless a rotor of about 7,5 cm in radius was used. Please measure the radius of your rotor and use an online calculator to transform rpm into g.
Response 3: Thanks for your valuable question. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, Re-calculate according to the formula
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
