Metabolic Response of Malus domestica Borkh cv. Rubin Apple to Canopy Training Treatments in Intensive Orchards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written. The topic of this study is suitable for the journal and the results are of potential interest for scientific community. I recommend it for its acceptance and publication after minor revision.

Some minor comments:

1. Please explain why the authors only show the datas in 2017 .
2. Please add the latin name of apple in title.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We are very grateful for the valuable comments of the Reviewer for our manuscript “The metabolic response of cv. Rubin apples to the agrotechnological tools used in intensive orchards”. We have changed the title of the manuscript according to the Reviewers suggestion to “The metabolic response of Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Rubin apple to the agrotechnological tools in intensive orchards”. Also we have changed the manuscript according to remarks of the reviewers and we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Information on all performed modifications are provided in detail with answers to the remarks of the reviewer. We hope very much that the performed changes improved the manuscript and the revised version will be accepted for publishing in the Special Issue „Precision Management of Fruit Trees" of journal “Horticulturae”. 

We sincerely thank the Reviewers for the review of our manuscript. Please find the comments below and changes in the manuscript.

 

Answers to reviewer 1:

 

1) Please explain why the authors only show the datas in 2017 .

 

Reply: The description may not be accurate, we have adjusted and supplemented the information to make it clear that the data provided is a three-year average. The information is corrected throughout all the manuscript (line 193, p. 5).  

 

 

2) Please add the latin name of apple in title

 

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

 

Sincerely,

Vaida Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, Ph.D

Corresponding author: e-mail: Vaida.Seziene@mi.lt

Laboratory of Forest Plant Biotechnology

Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Compliments on this important topic which tackle very valuable questions like plant defense mechanisms that are (as authors stated) ‘related with the group of interconnected processes, therefore the resistance and/or plant susceptibility can’t be explained by a single mechanism’. There are some significant improvements that have to be performed prior to the acceptance of the manuscript.

Introduction section

Line 53: delete ‘were was noted’

Line 55: change ‘it related to’ to ‘in relation to’

Line 67: change ‘it also saying’ to ‘furthermore’ or ‘in addition.

Line 70: change ‘affects’ to ‘affect’. Also, check through the whole manuscript for appropriate usage of English grammar.

At the end of the introduction section please add a paragraph clearly stating the research aims.

M&M section

Line 94 Please add references regarding the usage of P60 rootstock, or list some basic properties like origin, the degree of dwarfness and similar, to provide worldwide readers with information regarding this Polish rootstock.

Line 98: do you mean ‘Three single trees PER EACH TREATMENT were fully randomized’?

Line 99 authors state that “Seven agrotechnological tools were used”, but list and further investigate 6.

Line 107: add word station after meteorological

Lines 110 and 112: delete unnecessary wording ‘While’ or combine those sentences into one.

Line 121, 135, 147: correct ‘Fresh plant sample’ into more detail explaining which plant part, leaf or fruit?

Results section

Line 169 ‘Agrotechnological tools has’; ‘ant’ correct the grammar and typo.

Lines 170-171 delete unnecessary brackets.

Line 189-190 please uniform the usage of commas vs. points for decimal places ‘The total amount of phenolic compounds of apple leaves varied from 73.46 mg g-1 to 101.07 mg g-1 and from 3,56 mg g-1 to 4,95 mg g-1’.

Line 199 correct ‘apples’ to apple fruits or simply fruits.

Line 211 change ‘talking about fruits’ into ‘regarding the fruits’. The same line add word ‘influence’ after significant.

Discussion section

229-231 please improve the English language in these lines.

Line 234: please rephrase ‘factorial analyses showed significant dependence of vegetation season on the accumulation of all photosynthetic pigments, except lutein+zeaxanthin’. In the current form, the sentence is confusing, meaning that vegetation depends on pigments instead of vice versa.

 

Lines 255-258 ‘Our results showed the total amount of phenols in apple fruits were almost 15-fold lower comparing with the amount of total phenolic compounds in leaves (Fig 3). The factorial analyses confirmed significant dependence of accumulation of total phenols in fruits on years and different agrotechnological tools.’ This is evidence of the immediate plant response to the applied treatments. It would be beneficial to add a few references regarding the long-term influence of those ‘damages’ on the plant's overall vitality and longevity.

Line 263: correct this part ‘tree. [41].’ delete the unnecessary point.

Conclusion section

Having in mind worldwide readership of the Horticulturae Journal, clearly state which agrotechnical measure of the investigated six, you would recommend to the apple producers and for which climate or production conditions, in order to produce both quality and healthy conditions. In the conclusion section, you should emphasize the applicability of your findings, so that producers can benefit from this research.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We are very grateful for the valuable comments of the Reviewer for our manuscript “The metabolic response of cv. Rubin apples to the agrotechnological tools used in intensive orchards”. We have changed the title of the manuscript according to the Reviewers suggestion to “The metabolic response of Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Rubin apple to the agrotechnological tools in intensive orchards”. Also we have changed the manuscript according to remarks of the reviewers and we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Information on all performed modifications are provided in detail with answers to the remarks of the reviewers. We hope very much that the performed changes improved the manuscript and the revised version will be accepted for publishing in the Special Issue „Precision Management of Fruit Trees" of journal “Horticulturae”. 

We sincerely thank the Reviewers for the review of our manuscript. Please find the comments below and changes in the manuscript.

 

Answers to reviewer  2:

1) Introduction section

• Line 53: delete ‘were was noted’

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 55: change ‘it related to’ to‘in relation to’

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 67: change ‘it also saying’ to ‘furthermore’ or ‘in addition.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 70: change ‘affects’ to ‘affect’. Also, check through the whole manuscript for appropriate usage of English grammar.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The manuscript have been revised for English by the native speaker to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes

• At the end of the introduction section please add a paragraph clearly stating the research aims.

Reply: the additional information was included according to the reviewer‘s suggestion: “The main objectives of the research are related to the evaluation of the most appropriate agrotechnological tools and their application to optimize the physiological processes of apples trees and the quality of fruits.” The changes made in manuscript with Track Changes (line 99-101, p. 3).

2) M&M section

• Line 94 Please add references regarding the usage of P60 rootstock, or list some basic properties like origin, the degree of dwarfness and similar, to provide worldwide readers with information regarding this Polish rootstock.

Reply: the additional information was included according to the reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in manuscript with Track Changes (line 103-109, p. 3).

• Line 98: do you mean ‘Three single trees PER EACH TREATMENT were fully randomized’?

Reply: the additional information was included: “Three single trees per each replicate of treatment were fully randomized.” (line 113-114, p. 3). More information related with methodology were added in the “2.2. Sample preparation” section of the manuscript. The changes made in manuscript with Track Changes (line 132-145, p. 3-4).

• Line 99 authors state that “Seven agrotechnological tools were used”, but list and further investigate 6.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s comments. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 107: add word station after meteorological

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Lines 110 and 112: delete unnecessary wording ‘While’ or combine those sentences into one.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 121, 135, 147: correct ‘Fresh plant sample’ into more detail explaining which plant part, leaf or fruit?

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

3) Results section

• Line 169 ‘Agrotechnological tools has’; ‘ant’ correct the grammar and typo.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Lines 170-171 delete unnecessary brackets.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 189-190 please uniform the usage of commas vs. points for decimal places ‘The total amount of phenolic compounds of apple leaves varied from 73.46 mg g-1 to 101.07 mg g-1 and from 3,56 mg g-1 to 4,95 mg g-1’.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 199 correct ‘apples’ to apple fruits or simply fruits.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 211 change ‘talking about fruits’ into ‘regarding the fruits’. The same line add word ‘influence’ after significant.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• The results description is clear I would improve Figures quality by providing coloured graphs.

Reply: all graphs in the manuscript was provided in color. Please find colored graphs in the “Results” section of the manuscript.

4) Discussion section

• 229-231 please improve the English language in these lines.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The manuscript have been revised by the native speaker to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

• Line 234: please rephrase ‘factorial analyses showed significant dependence of vegetation season on the accumulation of all photosynthetic pigments, except lutein+zeaxanthin’. In the current form, the sentence is confusing, meaning that vegetation depends on pigments instead of vice versa.

 Reply: according to reviewer‘s suggestion, changes have been made in manuscript (line 283-285, p.9).

• Lines 255-258 ‘Our results showed the total amount of phenols in apple fruits were almost 15-fold lower comparing with the amount of total phenolic compounds in leaves (Fig 3). The factorial analyses confirmed significant dependence of accumulation of total phenols in fruits on years and different agrotechnological tools.’ This is evidence of the immediate plant response to the applied treatments. It would be beneficial to add a few references regarding the long-term influence of those ‘damages’ on the plant's overall vitality and longevity.

Reply: we agree with the reviewer‘s suggestions, moreover number studies about long-term effects of agrotechnological tools are still ongoing in our institution, however the results still not published yet. Those results related with this research area will be the part of other our manuscript. One of the main aspects, which could be highlight at this moment, that using only mechanical pruning, apple trees thicken like hedges, resulting in a significant reduction in light penetration into the crown, deterioration of fruit discoloration and quality. But the data still needs to be verified.

 

• Line 263: correct this part ‘tree. [41].’ delete the unnecessary point.

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

5) Conclusion section

Having in mind worldwide readership of the Horticulturae Journal, clearly state which agrotechnical measure of the investigated six, you would recommend to the apple producers and for which climate or production conditions, in order to produce both quality and healthy conditions. In the conclusion section, you should emphasize the applicability of your findings, so that producers can benefit from this research.

Reply: the additional information was included according to the reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in manuscript with Track Changes (line 352-356, p. 10-11).

 

Sincerely,

Vaida Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, Ph.D.

Corresponding author: e-mail: vaida.seziene@lammc.lt

Laboratory of Forest Plant Biotechnology

Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• The expression agrotechnological tools is too generic, it must be described as canopy training treatments, or pruning treatments
• Yields should be reported, since they are not a trivial effect after pruning/training treatments
• The results shoud be described according to the statistical significance, and to to the actual numbers
• The text should be substantilaly revised for English

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We are very grateful for the valuable comments of the Reviewer for our manuscript “The metabolic response of cv. Rubin apples to the agrotechnological tools used in intensive orchards”. We have changed the title of the manuscript according to the Reviewers suggestion to “The metabolic response of Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Rubin apple to the agrotechnological tools in intensive orchards”. Also we have changed the manuscript according to remarks of the reviewer and we have uploaded the revised manuscript. Information on all performed modifications are provided in detail with answers to the remarks of the reviewers. We hope very much that the performed changes improved the manuscript and the revised version will be accepted for publishing in the Special Issue „Precision Management of Fruit Trees" of journal “Horticulturae”. 

We sincerely thank the Reviewers for the review of our manuscript. Please find the comments below and changes in the manuscript.

 

Answers to reviewer  3:

1) The expression agrotechnological tools is too generic, it must be described as canopy training treatments, or pruning treatments

Reply: we agree with the reviewer‘s suggestions, however in these kind of research the expression should be more general, covering not only crown pruning and spraying, but also technological tools such as trunk or root incision. Co-authors have published several publications, in which precisely such an expression was used:

463. a) Laužikė, K.; Uselis, N.; Samuolienė, G. The Influence of Agrotechnological Tools on cv. Rubin Apples Quality. Agronomy2021, 11, 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030463
464. b) Laužikė, K., Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, V., Uselis, N., Samuolienė, G. 2020. The Impact of Stress Caused By Light Penetration and Agrotechnological Tools on Photosynthetic Behavior of Apple Trees. Scientific Reports 10, 9177 DOI: 1038/s41598-020-66179-3)

• Yields should be reported, since they are not a trivial effect after pruning/training treatments

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. Additional information and graphic (Figure 5) was added in the Results section. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes (line 264-274, p. 8-9).

• The results shoud be described according to the statistical significance, and to to the actual numbers

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes (see Results section).

• The text should be substantilaly revised for English

Reply: the manuscript have been revised for English by the native speaker to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes

 

Sincerely,

Vaida Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, Ph.D.

Corresponding author: e-mail: vaida.seziene@lammc.lt

Laboratory of Forest Plant Biotechnology

Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors have provided sufficient explanations and appropriate corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We are very grateful for the valuable comments of the Reviewer for our manuscript “The metabolic response of cv. Rubin apples to the agrotechnological tools used in intensive orchards”. We have changed the title of the manuscript according to the Reviewers and MDPI English Editing Team suggestion to “Metabolic response of Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Rubin apple to canopy training treatments in intensive orchards”. We have changed the manuscript according to additional remarks of the other reviewers. We hope very much that the performed changes improved the manuscript and the revised version will be accepted for publishing in the Special Issue „Precision Management of Fruit Trees" of journal “Horticulturae”. 

We sincerely thank the Reviewers for the review of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Vaida Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, Ph.D.

Corresponding author: e-mail: vaida.seziene@lammc.lt

Laboratory of Forest Plant Biotechnology

Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-agrotechnological tools is not an acceptable description, since the content of the experimet is confined to training techniques, and not to the whole managemente of the orchard

-Table 5: the statistical comparison should be run among  treatments, not among years

Author Response

Dear reviewer

 

We are very grateful for the valuable comments of the Reviewer for our manuscript “The metabolic response of cv. Rubin apples to the agrotechnological tools used in intensive orchards”. We have changed the title of the manuscript according to the Reviewers and MDPI English Editing Team suggestion to “Metabolic response of Malus domestica Borkh. cv. Rubin apple to canopy training treatments in intensive orchards”. We have changed the manuscript according to additional remarks of the reviewer. We hope very much that the performed changes improved the manuscript and the revised version will be accepted for publishing in the Special Issue „Precision Management of Fruit Trees" of journal “Horticulturae”. 

We sincerely thank the Reviewers for the review of our manuscript. Please find the comments below and changes in the manuscript.

 

Answers to reviewer  3:

1) -agrotechnological tools is not an acceptable description, since the content of the experimet is confined to training techniques, and not to the whole managemente of the orchard

Reply: changed according to reviewer‘s suggestion. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes in all manuscript.

2) Table 5: the statistical comparison should be run among  treatments, not among years

Reply: the statistical analysis in Table 5 were done among different treatments: “The different letters in year indicate significant difference in treatment.” (line 286-287, p. 11).

 

The manuscript have been revised for English by MDPI English Editing Team to improve the quality of the manuscript. The changes made in the manuscript with Track Changes.

 

Sincerely,

Vaida Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė, Ph.D.

Corresponding author: e-mail: vaida.seziene@lammc.lt

Laboratory of Forest Plant Biotechnology

Institute of Forestry, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf