The Effect of Low-Growing Rootstocks on the Adaptability and Productivity of Sour Cherry Varieties (Prunus cerasus L.) in Arid Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper report on investigations of some recently introduced cherry rootstock coming from Russia. Some of these rootstocks gain popularity out of Russia too, thus the information on vigor, drought and frost resistance and yielding are useful for scientists and growers.
The investigations were carried out on experimental orchard, which is properly designed, data are statistically analysed. Authors gained interesting data which are not properly presented and discussed.
In the text technical terms are several places incorrect, may confuse the readers, these terms are corrected in remark boxes. In the text authors used the common Russian name of Prunus mahaleb, however the name “Antipka” is understandable for Russian speaking readers only. Please use the name “Mahaleb” instead of “Antipka”.
Concerning the variety features references are missing. Neither rootstocks nor varieties are not commonly known, references are essential.
The weekness of the investigation is the rather simple and outdated methodology of drought tolerance investigations. The level of leaf hydration depends on the part of the day, usually highest in the morning hours, followed by a midday depression. Authors should mention, which part of the day the samples were taken! Despite of this, data could be interesting when they are correctly presented and discussed. The methodology of investigation on drought tolerance are described confusing, formulas 2 and 3 are mixed up. The elements of the formula should be explained (what are A, B, C standing for, please use English letters!). Not mentioned, which part of the day were the samples taken? In the text authors use LW (loss of water) but the formula 4 presents Russian letters. Correct this mistake.
In Table 1 data on water deficiency (“water scarsity”) is presented, but the results are not discussed. Variety Toy performed differently than the other two sour cherries. The water deficit was the highest in Toy leaves on rootstock Mahaleb Sdlg, while varieties Memory of Zhukova and Loznovskaya showed largest WD on VSL-2 (K5). Authors should discuss the data on water deficit (Table 1), which seems to be inconsistent with the water retension capacity of leaves. Please, discuss the inconsistent performance of variety Toy, which is P. cerasus x P. avium hybrid.
In page 5 authors describe the methodology of heat resistance but no data are presented on this investigation. If there are no data, please, delete this section of methodology.
In Table 2 Limits of significant differences (HCP05) are missing, please put these data into the Table 2.
In the last three paragraphs of Discussion several data on correlation analysis are presented but without conclusion. Most of these correlated biometric parametes (trunk diameter – canopy diameter) usually do not have any importance on yield efficiency or drought tolerance of roostock-scion combinations. What is the conclusion of authors based on this not always consistent correlation data considering the vigor and yield efficiency of rootstocks? If there are no conclusions, these last three paragraphs are not necessary.
Several further remarks are put into text as remarks boxes, please consider the at correction. My final conclusion: after a major correction the paper can be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript and valuable comments and suggestions.
In response to your comments, we have corrected all the names of "Antipka" in the text to the name "Magaleb". Added links to descriptions of varieties and rootstocks. Added the time of day when samples were taken. We took into account your wishes about outdated methods. In our future research, we will definitely use more modern techniques. We have also made adjustments and corrections in the description of the techniques themselves. We have added water scarcity to the discussion, the data on which are presented in Table 1.
Removed from the text unnecessary sections of the methodology for which there is no data and discussion of the results. The limits of significant differences (HCP05) were added to Table 2. There are also extra paragraphs in the discussion, for which there are no conclusions.
Thanks to your comments, we have tried to seriously improve the article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled „THE EFFECT OF LOW-GROWING ROOTSTOCKS ON THE ADAPTABILITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF SOUR CHERRY VARIETIES (Prunus cerasus L.) IN ARID CONDITIONS” is about how to grow sweet cherry among dry climate conditions. The suitable water supply is really important for the successful sweet cherry production.
Please improve the Materials and methods section of the manuscript. Please add the literature sources, which were used for creating the rootstock descriptions. Is it possible to put into an order the characteristics of the described sweet cherry varieties? E.g. large fruitiness is described twice, two different ways in two different parts. Please double check the GPS location of the fruit site marked on the 3rd page. Unfortunately, there is no row numbers in the manuscript.
Is it possible to put the climatic conditions of the observed years of 20119, 2020, and 2021 into a table to be transparent?
I think the statistical evaluation is missing from the paper. Please complete the data with statistical evaluation (Table 2, Figure 1.), please add the homogeneity groups to the data.
Author Response
Dear reviewer! We are very grateful to you for an objective assessment of our manuscript and thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We tried to take them into account in the correction of our manuscript.
We have improved the section "Materials and methods" of the manuscript, added literary sources that were used to create a description of the rootstock. A table with climatic conditions for 2019, 2020 and 2021 was included in the text. Added data on statistical evaluation to the article.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Replace the word ‘substances’ with ‘compounds’
Rewrite the sentence ‘But if the use of low-growing rootstocks has been widely studied in many cultures, then there are certain gaps in this issue for cherries.’
Avoid repetition of the same word like here ‘As rootstocks, rootstocks of Russian breeding (Krymsk, Krasnodar region) were taken, which are widely used for cherries (Prunus avium L.), but at the same time they are practically not used for sour cherries.’
The abstract section could be enriched with exact data – achieved plant height, winter hardiness, drought durability, highest fruit mass/yield... in the current form abstract is to narrative and not much attention-catching.
The introduction section did not cover all important aspects of this paper, and the aim of the study is too general, I suggest adding specific goals/aims of the conducted research.
The introduction section should lead the reader toward the mail limitations and environmental problems that cherry production faces. Also, there are papers suggesting that rootstocks have developed mechanisms to adjust their cambial activity and water uptake during drought events. I suggest reading some of the papers related to cherry cambial activity in ‘oblačinska’ sour and European ground cherry (stepska) which also originate from sites that face water scarcity, and act similarly to Krymsk ® rootstocks.
M&M section
To what do ‘rootstock forms’ refer?
Please add lines explaining the rootstock-scion compatibility if known for these combinations. Some of the plant responses might be due to the inner, inherited properties leading to the poor tree performances in the field. Discuss it further in the discussion section.
Correct ‘Care of experimental plantings’ to the ‘maintenance of the research trial’
Why did you opt for V crown = πr2 ×h/3 as a formula for crown volume? How do these values correspond to the crown shape, was it taken into account when choosing the formula? Please see some newly published papers that take into account these specifics, and thus use effective crown volume as accurate parameter for cherry trees in their calculations.
Results section
Please structure the text so it has the appropriate flow. The text should be followed by an appropriate table or figure, not scattered as they are in the current manuscript. Correct figures to Latin and English vocabulary.
Discussion section
‘The steppe cherry, being a typical representative of the shrubs of the wild flora of steppe regions, transmits signs of stunting and drought resistance when crossed with other Prunus species’. If you are referring to the offspring, please discuss this further, since there is some novel evidence regarding the heritability of anatomical characteristics and drought resistance in cherry interspecific hybrids.
‘Earlier entry into fruiting of the variety was provided by all rootstocks, with the exception of the Antipka’ which is as expected, due to the Prunus mahaleb general performances when used as rootstock, discuss it further.
This paragraph should be corroborated by the results or at least a supplementary file, listing all correlations mentioned here: ‘All the studied signs forming the harvest were interrelated, but the degree of their dependence turned out to be different. In the Loznovskaya variety, seven out of 18 paired correlations were statistically reliable: on the LC-52 rootstock - yield - stem diameter (r=0.87); stem diameter - crown diameter (r= 0.71); stem diameter - tree height (r=0.76); crown diameter - tree height (r=0.77). On the rootstock VSL-2 (K5): yield - the diameter of the stem (r= 0.98); crown diameter – the height of the tree (r=0,85). Of the 18 paired correlations of the Zhukova Memory variety, three were reliable: on the rootstocks VSL-1, VSL-2 (K5): yield - stem diameter (r= 0.95; 0.86 and 0.76), respectively. Of the 18 paired correlations in the Toy variety, six remained statistically reliable: on the LC-52 (K6) rootstock: stem diameter – crown diameter (r= 0.77); on the VSL-1 rootstock: yield - tree height (r=0.76); stem diameter – tree height (r=0.87) and the diameter of the crown is the height of the tree (r=0.84). VSL-2 (K5): yield is the height of the tree (r=0.76). In most of the signs, correlations were weak and statistically unreliable.’
The conclusion section is too narrative, it should be amended with exact data, main values and indicators, conclusions and recommendations, in order to be readable on a stand-alone basis.
The English language needs serious editing, there are also numerous errors and typos, and fonts are not unified throughout the manuscript, which makes it harder to follow.
Line numbers should be added in order to make it easier to review and follow.
Suggestions for future research:
After reading the papers I have previously suggested, please consider broadening your research in the next years and in the new trials. It would be very significant for the future of cherry rootstock breeding to decipher the cambial activity in the conditions where trees suffer from water deficit and then suddenly one day a week receive 2 liters/hour by drip garden irrigation.
Author Response
In Abstract:
We have replaced the word "substances" with "compounds".
Rewrote the sentence: "But if the use of stunted rootstocks has been widely studied in many cultures, then there are certain gaps in this issue for cherries."
The repetition of the same word in the text was excluded: "Rootstocks of Russian breeding (Krymsk, Krasnodar Krai) were taken as rootstocks, which are widely used for cherries (Prunus avium L.), but at the same time are practically not used for sour cherries."
The annotation section was supplemented with accurate data - maximum fruit weight/yield. At the same time, they did not add data on tree growth, drought resistance, winter hardiness, in order not to clutter up the annotation.
In the introduction section, more specific goals/objectives of the study were described.
We have selected articles related to the cambial activity of cherries in sour "cloud" and European ground cherry (steppe), which we plan to familiarize ourselves with in the near future for further use in the work.
Section M&M
We tried to add lines explaining the compatibility of the rootstock and the graft, which we know. Discussed in the discussion section possible manifestations of incompatibility, if any.
We have changed the "Care of experimental plantings" to "Maintenance of the prototype»
We chose V of the crown = πr 2 ×h/3 as the formula for the volume of the crown, since the methods known to us describe this formula. But we will definitely get acquainted with some recently published articles that take these features into account and, in order to be aware of and in future studies, use the effective crown volume as an accurate parameter for cherry trees in our calculations, provided that it is acceptable in our studies..
In the results section, we tried to structure the text so that it had the appropriate flow. Corrected the numbers to the Latin and English alphabets.
In the discussion section
"The steppe cherry, being a typical representative of the shrubs of the wild flora of the steppe regions, transmits signs of stunting and drought resistance when crossed with other Prunus species." Yes, indeed, we meant posterity, but we did not bring it into the discussion in addition. After getting acquainted with the new data on the heritability of anatomical characteristics and drought resistance in interspecific cherry hybrids, we will take them into account in our next works.
Paragraph: "All the studied signs forming the harvest were interrelated, but the degree of their dependence was different. In the Loznovskaya variety, seven of the 18 paired dependencies were statistically reliable: on the rootstock LK-52 - yield - trunk diameter (r=0.87); trunk diameter - crown diameter (r=0.71); trunk diameter - tree height (r=0.76); crown diameter - tree height (r=0.77). On the rootstock VSL-2 (K5): yield - stem diameter (r= 0.98); crown diameter – tree height (r=0.85). Of the 18 paired dependencies of the Zhukov Memory variety, three were reliable: on the rootstocks VSL-1, VSL-2 (K5): yield - stem diameter (r= 0.95; 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). Of the 18 paired dependencies of the Toy variety, six remained statistically reliable: on the rootstock LC-52 (K6): trunk diameter – crown diameter (r=0.77); on the rootstock VSL-1: yield - tree height (r=0.76); trunk diameter – tree height (r=0.87), and crown diameter – tree height (r=0.84). VSL-2 (K5): yield – tree height (r=0.76). For most of the signs, the correlations were weak and statistically unreliable," we decided to completely exclude it from the article, since it does not carry any useful information.
The conclusions section was supplemented with accurate data, basic values and indicators, conclusions and recommendations so that it could be read independently.
We tried to improve the English language, corrected errors and typos.
Added line numbering to make it easier to view and track.
We are very grateful for suggestions for future work and will definitely expand our research in the coming years, including in the direction of deciphering cambial activity in conditions when trees suffer from water scarcity
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Review round #2
In Abstract:
You replaced the word "substances" with “conections”, please correct to "compounds".
Please correct Magaleb into Mahaleb as requested by the previous reviewer, since that is the correct term.
M&M section
Still needs clarification: To what do ‘rootstock forms’ refer?
As I suggested, correct ‘prototype’ to ‘maintenance of the research trial’.
Results
Please correct the figure legend:
Figure 2. Generative kidneys after freezing in the chamber, varieties: Memory of Zhukova (A), Toy (B), Loznovskaya (C).
To
Figure 2. Generative buds after freezing in the chamber, varieties: Memory of Zhukova (A), Toy (B), Loznovskaya (C).
Some of my suggestions and corrections were simply omitted, followed by the authors’ statement “we will take them into account in our next works “. There are still English errors and typos, the English language should be polished.
Author Response
Hello dear editor. We thank all rhe reviewers of our article, we have taken into account all coments and suggestions for improving the writing of the article
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
The submitted manuscript titled „Study of New Rootstock forms of Stone Crops in Combination with Cherry Varieties of Domestic Selection” is report about some novel bred rootstock for stone fruit species. I think there is a lot of work taking lots of years behind this activities.
In the manuscript it can be read in same places „cherries and cherries”. Please use sweet and sour / tart cherries instead of this term. The „variety-rootstock combinations” is not the perfect term for „rootstock/scion combinations”. Please seek a native speaker asking for read the manuscript through, because there are some mistakes in the spelling, terms, grammar, and syntax.
Please re-write the materials and methods and add more detailed information about the test plot design, planting year, canopy. Is it possible to add a short description about the rootstocks and cultivars? You can use some literature sources as well, so the references can be increased. Please remove the description of soil and climate conditions of the plot from the results and discussion and put in the materials and methods. If I understood well, this trial was not irrigated. Am I right?
Please remove the Russian letters from the Table 1, and use English ones. The statistical evaluation of Table 3 and Figure 1 is missing. Please mark the homogeneity groups on the tables and figures in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a wide range of rootstock/scion interactions, drought resistance, winter hardiness, precocity and fruit quality of sweet cherry varieties. One of these rootstock features could be enough for one good paper. Authors do not know the recent literature, research data, development in the field, methodology, etc. Several references in the introduction are not listed in the section of references, some of them are in Russian (e.g. Fadónet al. 2015 in introduction section but not listed in references). Usage of technical terms is confusing. The applied methods are not sophisticated and clear enough. Presentation of data is sometimes confused. That is why I suggest rejection of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract:
Stone fruit crops such as cherries, cherries, apricots…., especially cherries and cherries… à Comment: The difference is not clearly understood. Sour cherry and sweet cherry? This is repeated throughout the article.
Introduction:
…demanding stone crops cultivated in our country is cherry.. à Comment: It is recommended to mention the species the first time (Prunus avium L. or Prunus cerasus?).
It is desirable to include a final paragraph in the introduction that explains the objectives of the study and how it is intended to be carried out.
Materials and Methods:
Mathematical processing… à Comment: “Statistical analysis… “. It is desirable to include a brief description of the methodology and not just mention the authors.
There is no description of the plant material which they worked. What species are they? Are they grafted trees? what age? None of this is clear.
Results and discussion:
Experimental conditions, locations, edaphoclimatic condition is part of the Materials and Methods.
“Cherry, among stone fruit crops, is second only to apricot in drought resistance…” à I disagree. Peach and almonds are very tolerant and rootstocks from Subgenus Amygdalus conferred tolerance. Some cherry rootstocks with P. mahaleb background are tolerant too, but in general there are no comprehensive comparative studies between all these species to ensure which is more tolerant.
Mentioning in the discussion that there are variations between the data and not deepen into the causes and consequences of this is a poor way of discussing the results.
If there are no significant differences between the values, it is not worth mentioning which genotype obtained the highest and lowest value. The graphs do not contain titles on the axes to understand the units.
The methodology based on few variables, basic and without environmental or soil water content control, seems very weak to identify drought tolerant and sensitive genotypes.
The experiment of freezing of individual parts is described widely in the Results and discussion part. For this there is the materials and methods section...
