Identification of Phenological Growth Stages of Four Morus Species Based on the Extended BBCH-Scale and Its Application in Fruit Development with Morphological Profiles and Color Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the format and organization of your manuscript to be engaging and the need for a BBCH model for Morus clearly justified. I thought the approach was reasonable. As the plant material came from a repository, I suggest you indicate accession information (numbers) to denote the clones used. Often repositories hold unique resources, and this addition will facilitate access to them for future research. Or in the case of taxonomic changes or cultivar/species identities are corrected or pedigrees are clarified, this won't negate your established scale. 

I was confused by Figure 7. Line 207 indicates figure 7 should show Principal Growth Stage 9, but is missing. Instead the included Figure 7 (line 215) illustrates PGSs 0-9. Recheck that a figure isn't missing and renumber the figures as needed. 

Also, the legend for Figure 7 (line 216) should define what the colors indicate (even if they are simply to separate the cultivars for the reader). 

I suggest including all the phenological data collected as a table. Ideally, this would include the date for each stage (00-97) but also expressed as Growing Degree Days which is typical for phenological studies. Great that chilling hours are reported in the supplemental data.  

I did think the number of citations should be reviewed. Some didn't seem fully relevant to the background, or simply use one instead of multiple. Hard to judge as I'm not an expert on mulberry. 

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below, and changes are highlighted with red words in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1：

I found the format and organization of your manuscript to be engaging and the need for a BBCH model for Morus clearly justified. I thought the approach was reasonable. As the plant material came from a repository, I suggest you indicate accession information (numbers) to denote the clones used. Often repositories hold unique resources, and this addition will facilitate access to them for future research. Or in the case of taxonomic changes or cultivar/species identities are corrected or pedigrees are clarified, this won't negate your established scale.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. The accession information (numbers) of four Morus species has been supplemented. Please see Table 1.

 

I was confused by Figure 7. Line 207 indicates figure 7 should show Principal Growth Stage 9, but is missing. Instead the included Figure 7 (line 215) illustrates PGSs 0-9. Recheck that a figure isn't missing and renumber the figures as needed.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We have verified that the insertion position in Figure 7 was incorrect. We have adjusted the insertion position in Figure 7 to match the illustrates content of the article.

Please see Line 223-260.

Also, the legend for Figure 7 (line 216) should define what the colors indicate (even if they are simply to separate the cultivars for the reader).

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We have changed the color types to make it easier for readers to distinguish and understand what the colors describe. We have also defined what the colors indicate in the legend for Figure 7.

Please see Line256-260.

 

I suggest including all the phenological data collected as a table. Ideally, this would include the date for each stage (00-97) but also expressed as Growing Degree Days which is typical for phenological studies. Great that chilling hours are reported in the supplemental data.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. As shown in Figure 7, all the phenological data (00-97) have been included. In order to more intuitively show the phenological data for each stage and help readers better understand, we have listed all phenological data in Table S3.

 

I did think the number of citations should be reviewed. Some didn't seem fully relevant to the background, or simply use one instead of multiple. Hard to judge as I'm not an expert on mulberry.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We have carefully reviewed the number of citations. As you said, some didn't seem fully relevant to the background, or simply use one instead of multiple, but we think it is necessary to help readers understand the content of the article. 

 

All the new revisions done by us have been marked in the new revised manuscript. Please check them.

 

We would like to take this opportunity to offer our gratitude to all of the reviewers for the helpful input about how to improve the scientific rigour and utility of our study and manuscript. Many thanks.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below, and changes are highlighted with red words in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2：

What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?

The study concerns the identification and description of the phenological stages of six varieties of mulberry (Morus sp.), belonging to four species cultivated in different regions of China. The subject is of interest for the better knowledge of the vegetative and generative development of mulberry varieties in different climatic zones, including in the perspective of climate changes.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? The subject is not new, it being addressed in previous research by other researchers, a significant similarity of the title found in an article published in Ann. Appl. Biol. 2015, 166, by E.M. Sánchez-Salcedo, J.J. Martínez-Nicolás, Fca. Hernández. However, this 2015 article is cited, which makes the present article a work with its own individuality, although an absolutely original title would be required. The paper provides additional data on the phenological evolution of the mulberry, which complement those existing at this moment in the specialized literature and available for Chinese horticulture.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

Is the paper well written ? Is the text clear and easy to read? The article is well written and organized, clear, coherent, easy to read and error-free. The research uses a precise protocol. However, both in the introduction and in the methodology, a broader presentation of the BBCH scale, its usefulness in phenological analysis and the particularities that appear for mulberry is required.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed? The conclusions are clear, covering the aspects studied, consistent with the results and arguments.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

Specific comments:

Line 18: … black mulberry (Morus nigra)

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We have changed “black (Morus nigra L.) mulberry” to “black mulberry (Morus nigra L.)”.

Please see Line 21.

 

Line 148: must be mentioned in the title of figure, between the brackets, the BBCH stage, (Stage 0). The same for all 1–6 figures.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. “Buds are densely covered with hairs in CS-XZ” has been mentioned in the title of Figure1, 2, 4.

All the new revisions done by us have been marked in the new revised manuscript. Please check them.

 

We would like to take this opportunity to offer our gratitude to all of the reviewers for the helpful input about how to improve the scientific rigour and utility of our study and manuscript. Many thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting work on the application of the BBCH phenological scale to 4 mulberry species.

The work is well documented, containing many high-quality photographs, on which the authors base a large part of the results.

I think that although most of the results are visual (hence the importance of the photographs), the title of the work and its content related to the BBCH scale, is enough information to be accepted for publication.

However, the authors (and I think they do it to better document the results obtained), show complementary information (lines 278 onwards) on other aspects not included in the study title, such as chill requirements, morphological profile or fruit color, etc, with references throughout the text to tables S1 and S2, from the species studied and from aspects of some of these species founded in other geographical locations. They do not explain their relationship with the work title, nor justify or document the methodology used to obtain the results shown.

From my point of view, this added information and not expressly related to the BBCH scale, disables the publication of the work as it is presented.

For these reasons, the authors should either

-remakes the title, adding other words or changing them and explaining the methodology used, or

- they should remakes the work, leaving only what is related to the BBCH scale according to the study title.

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below, and changes are highlighted with red words in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3:

Interesting work on the application of the BBCH phenological scale to 4 mulberry species.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

The work is well documented, containing many high-quality photographs, on which the authors base a large part of the results.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing.

 

I think that although most of the results are visual (hence the importance of the photographs), the title of the work and its content related to the BBCH scale, is enough information to be accepted for publication. However, the authors (and I think they do it to better document the results obtained), show complementary information (lines 278 onwards) on other aspects not included in the study title, such as chill requirements, morphological profile or fruit color, etc, with references throughout the text to tables S1 and S2, from the species studied and from aspects of some of these species founded in other geographical locations. They do not explain their relationship with the work title, nor justify or document the methodology used to obtain the results shown.

From my point of view, this added information and not expressly related to the BBCH scale, disables the publication of the work as it is presented. For these reasons, the authors should either remakes the title, adding other words or changing them and explaining the methodology used, or they should remakes the work, leaving only what is related to the BBCH scale according to the study title.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. The paper describes the phenological growth stages of four Morus species based on the extended BBCH-scale. In the manuscript the authors present the morphological characteristics and phenological growth stages for six commercial cultivars derived from four species (M. multicaulis, M. alba, M. laevigata, and M. wittiorum var. mawa). Based on this BBCH scale, authors have classified eight principal stages, including bud, leaf, and shoot development stage, inflorescence emergence stage, flowering stage, fruit development stage, fruit maturation stage, senescence, and beginning of dormancy stage. To facilitate the use of the BBCH model in mulberry, the authors have also presented detailed descriptions data of fruit size (weight, size and diameter) and fruit color (anthocyanin contents, chlorophyll contents and carotenoid contents) to support the photographic images of fruit development stage and fruit maturation stage, respectively, which are convenient and available to define and standardize morphological characteristics and phenological descriptions for other mulberry researchers, farmers, and breeders. Based on the description above, we believe that this added information can better support the newly extended BBCH scale in mulberry and will enable mulberry breeding and agronomic in many practical aspects. 

Just as you suggested, we have remade the title and added other words to include the complementary information. Please see the “Title”, Line 2-5.

The methodology for the measurement of the weight, size, diameter, anthocyanin contents, chlorophyll contents and carotenoid contents of mulberry fruit have been described in detail. Please see Line 127-134.

 

All the new revisions done by us have been marked in the new revised manuscript. Please check them.

 

We would like to take this opportunity to offer our gratitude to all of the reviewers for the helpful input about how to improve the scientific rigour and utility of our study and manuscript. Many thanks.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dears

I recognize the effort you are making with this study. I consider it very interesting, since it provides both results and new information by the control of mulberry phenology.

It is very important that the scientific results achieved are previously well documented.

For this reason, I remind the authors again that they have the option (already suggested in my previous review) of eliminating the references to 'chill requeriments' and 'susceptibility to sclerotinia' or else in section 2 'Materials and Methods' necessarily explain the methodology used to

a) to reach the data for the chill requiremets showed in table S1.

b) the new information over the 'susceptibility of the fruits to sclerotinia', (an aspect that is introiduce in the present text under review (lines 386 to 398, 417 and table S4) and that in the first version of this publication it was not mentioned).

Author Response

Response Letter to Reviewers

We appreciate the reviewers’ comments and valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses to the reviewers’ comments are detailed below, and changes are highlighted with red words in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3：

I recognize the effort you are making with this study. I consider it very interesting, since it provides both results and new information by the control of mulberry phenology.

 

It is very important that the scientific results achieved are previously well documented.

 

For this reason, I remind the authors again that they have the option (already suggested in my previous review) of eliminating the references to 'chill requeriments' and 'susceptibility to sclerotinia' or else in section 2 'Materials and Methods' necessarily explain the methodology used to

 

1. a) to reach the data for the chill requiremetsshowed in table S1.

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We are very sorry that we did not notice this detail in the last revision. Please forgive our carelessness! We have explain the methodology used to obtain the results of the chill requiremets showed in Table S1. Please see section 2 ‘Materials and Methods’, Line 135-139.

“The calculation of the chilling requirements (expressed in chilling units, CUs) was obtained based on the Utah method [28]. In this models, the calculation of CUs is initiated in the fall after the accumulation of the largest number of negative CUs occurred, and the starting point of low temperature accumulation is determined as November 20, 2020 and November 21, 2021 in Wuhan.”

[28] Richardson, E.A., Seely, S.D., Walker, D.R. A model for estimating the completion of rest for ‘Redhaven’ and ‘Elberta’ peach trees. HortScience 1974, 9, 331–332.

1. b) the new information over the 'susceptibility of the fruits to sclerotinia', (an aspect that is introiduce in the present text under review (lines 386 to 398, 417 and table S4) and that in the first version of this publication it was not mentioned).

Response: Thanks for your careful reviewing and advice. We carefully consider that this added information ‘mulberry fruit sclerotiniosis’ (section 4 ‘Discussion’) is not expressly related to the whole content of the article, which will make readers difficult to understand. We have finally decided to eliminate the added information, references and Table S4.

Please Line 375-376, 523 and ‘New revised Supplymentary’.

 

Thank you again for your contribution to the publication of this article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx