Effects of Machine-Harvest Interval on Fruit Quality of Fresh Market Northern Highbush Blueberry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting this manuscript for reviews. It adds data to a very important area of knowledge, which is mechanical harvesting of specialty crops. The research has a great merit. However, the manuscript will benefit greatly if the results are presented on a different, more succinct way, and the discussion is expanded with existing literature (for some specific paragraphs).

 

Introduction

Line 21-23: Greater parameters when comparing to what?

Line 23-24: When comparing to what?

Line 25: ‘Liberty’

Line 46: Remove “vice versa” and specify what you mean. Vice versa doesn’t really fit well here. I believe you are talking about longer harvest intervals for late-season. If so, please spell that.

Line 54: Start a new sentence for stage II.

Line 55: Size increasing.

Line 56: rapid increasing.

Line 57: Decreasing.

Line 60: Remove “and firmness correspondingly declines”. You already said this at the beginning of the sentence.

Line 61: What do you mean “on the bush”? Inside the bush? Please clarify.

Line 73: Start a new sentence here: “soft fruits at harvest are more…”

 

M&M

There is no mention about the horticultural practices of the experimental plots, such as fertilization, irrigation, age of the plants, and pest management. I would suggest a succinct paragraph about this. Something like: “Plants were XYZ years old, in 2019 received XYZ amount of N-P-K and in 2020 …., and had the pest management done following XYZ”.

 

Line 100: What do you mean with “twice per plot”? This is confusing because right after you describe the 3 intervals you harvest. So, is it twice or tree times? Please clarify.

Table 1: Line that says “Days after 1st harvest” is not needed.

Table 1: Is “hr” the correct abbreviation for hour?

 

Results

Line 224: Add space between 3-,10-.

Table 2: Your results indicate that the interaction between method x interval is significant for all 3 variables. You should compare all 6 possible treatments together (3 intervals for hand and 3 for mechanical), and not within method and interval (main factors). You did correctly for the fruit quality parameters. Please follow the same suit.  

Lines 233-250: This paragraph will be changed after you re-analyze the data following the significant interaction between method x interval. You have stated at the very beginning of the paragraph that the interaction was significant, but you disregarded that and started to report on the main effects, which is not the correct way. Analyzing the interaction might clear/shorten some of the results.

 

Table 3: Not sure if it is a problem in configuration after you have submitted the manuscript, but I could not understand table 3. Superscripts x and w are the same. After reading lines 266-271 it is a little easier to understand, but still very difficult to understand the table as a stand-alone piece.

 

Lines 274 and 300: Please expand the interaction results.

Line 321-322: what does “no harvest interval effect” mean?

Line 323: fruits

Overall, the results are way too long. I acknowledge that you have a large data set. However, it is very difficult to follow your results and see the main picture. The main reason is because there is a lack in pattern of data presentation. Sometimes you start the sentence with harvest interval, another time with storage days, another with harvest type, and this “back and forth” is confusing. Since you don’t compare storage days, I would suggest that you explain each storage day separately from the other storage days, as long as separating is warranted. Otherwise I would suggest you to use sentences like “overall in 2019, TA(%) of machine-harvested fruits at 3-day interval is greater than the first harvest and the other harvest intervals for all storage days, despite of harvest type”.

 

Discussion

Some pieces of the discussion need more discussion by comparing or citing existing literature.

Line 429: What does poorer mean? Smaller? Be specific. There are other instances where you use “poor”, please fix those all well.

Line 429: What does better mean? Greater? Be specific.

Lines 439-442: Please compare this what is found in the literature.

Line 444-446: Not sure if this sentence is needed, since your work does not compare modified OTR vs. conventional OTR. The sentence does not add to the discussion.

Line 445: What does better mean? Greater? Be specific.

Lines 454-468: Please compare this what is found in the literature.

Line 484: Please add citation.

Lines 486-488: Please add citation.   

Lines 492-493: Please add citation.   

Line 511: Machine harvesting instead of picking. Be consistent. Please change throughput the text.

Line 571: “This interval”. Please be specific.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find our responses to reviewer 1 (and 2).

 

Thanks,

Lisa 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The ms entitled “Machine harviest Interval Effects Fruit Quality of fresh Market Northern Highbush Blueberry” is an interesting and well-done paper that provides technical support for optimum agricultural management and especially technology development for fruit quality and Freshness.

The question arises, how this result translates into practice? Can you please explain briefly in conclusions? 

Once that is covered, I think this is acceptable for publication. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached our response to Reviewer 2 (and 1). A quick summary is also provided below. 

Reviewer: The ms entitled “Machine harviest Interval Effects Fruit Quality of fresh Market Northern Highbush Blueberry” is an interesting and well-done paper that provides technical support for optimum agricultural management and especially technology development for fruit quality and Freshness. The question arises, how this result translates into practice? Can you please explain briefly in conclusions? Once that is covered, I think this is acceptable for publication. 

Comment: We are appreciative of the positive feedback. In the conclusion, we have clarified and expanded how the results can be translated into practice and elaborated on impacts.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate all the hard work done by the authors to address my suggestions! Thank you! Great job on the conclusions section!

I just have one extra suggestion, which was done initially:  

Lines 468-472: There are some literature that look at TSS, TA, TSS/TA as a function of harvest method. I believe this should be incorporated in the discussion. Please search for some research conducted at the University of Florida in the past 5-6 years. Dr. Takeda is familiar with those researches, as he was part of those grants that worked with machine harvesting/modified machine harvesting. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

Thank you for the positive feedback and continued suggestions. Please see below how we modified the manuscript based on the remaining comment below. Our response is in red font. 

Lines 468-472: There are some literature that look at TSS, TA, TSS/TA as a function of harvest method. I believe this should be incorporated in the discussion. Please search for some research conducted at the University of Florida in the past 5-6 years. Dr. Takeda is familiar with those researches, as he was part of those grants that worked with machine harvesting/modified machine harvesting.  Thank you for the specificity. Co-author Takeda and I discussed and have incorporated this research into the manuscript. In particular, we added the following papers in Lines 565-589 of the revised manuscript. 

Casamali, B.; Williamson, J.G.; Kovaleski, A.P.; Sargent, S.A.; Darnell, R.L. Mechanical harvesting and postharvest storage of two Southern highbush blueberry cultivars grafted onto Vaccinium arboretum HortScience 2016, 51, 1503–1510. 

Sargent, S.A.; Berry, A.D.; Brecht, J.K.; Santana, M.; Zhang, S.; Ristow, N. Studies on quality of southern highbush blueberry cultivars: Effects of pulp temperature, impact and hydrocooling.  Acta. Horticulturae 2017, 1180, 497–502.

Sargent, S.A.; Takeda, F.; Williamson, J.G.; Berry, A.D. Harvest of southern highbush blueberry with a modified, over-the-row mechanical harvester: Use of handheld shakers and soft catch surfaces. Agriculture 2020, 10.1, 4, doi:10.3390/agriculture10010004.

Thank you,

Lisa