Chemical Fruit Profiles of Different Raspberry Cultivars Grown in Specific Norwegian Agroclimatic Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents new data on the composition of raspberry cultivars. However it needs some more preecisions in order to be accepted for publication.

Give a description of the different samples according to agronomical conditions and climat conditions

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5: please add the variation coefficient

Line 225: can you explain the differences by differences in soil composition or agronomical practices?

Line 234: it is stange to mention correlations between sweet taste and acid content without any mention of the correlation between acid taste and sweet taste. Sweet taste is usually negatively correlated with acid taste, and the negative correlation with acid content should be the result of this sensory negative correlation.

Line 251: what do you mean by sweetest sugar, give values of sensory thresholds.

Line 253: do you have data on the consumer preferences between the different varieties?

Line 268: can you compare the content per dry matter and not per fresh weight?

Line 364: are these correlations logical? How can you explain the results? Agricultural practices? It should be good to look at the correlations between mineral content and other parameters such as acids, sugars, polyphenols, … Did you looked at these correlations?

At least it should be good to analyse together sugar and acid content and analyse the results taking into account the sensory properties of the different cultivars

Concerning the phenolic content do you have any explanation taking into account their formation in the fruit?

In conclusion, it could be good to have a global PCA with all the variables or at least the most significant in each individual PCA to visualise the combined effect of all these variables and discuss on the respective benefits of the different types of ingedients for each variety?

Line 510: can you justify the effect of soil from data in your present work?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

On the whole, this manuscript is well written, with a polite style, with an English language only requiring limited and marginal intervention. The Authors have wisely avoided unproven hypotheses; instead, they have performed a detailed and rigorous analysis of their data. Alas, they refer to a previously published paper for the extraction procedure, which on the contrary should be outlined in the manuscript. In conclusion, the manuscript is a good piece of work, deserving publication, provided that the minor changes indicated are accomplished.

Here below is a list of suggested minor changes:

Line 45 Are you sure that the specific name derives from the Turkish Ida Mountain (about 1700 m height, Mediterranean semi-arid climate) and not from the Greek Ida Mountain (Creta Island, about 2400 m height, Mediterranean semi-humid climate)?

L 83 Why using the progressive present tense?

L 86 As for L 83

L 123 please change “schimik” into the correct word shikimic

 

L 158 Drying in an oven at 40°C could produce some chemical alteration of the fruits. Why do not use freeze drying?

L 261 Please change “Was known” into is known

L328-329 What do you mean with “location”. Geographical location? Location in different plant organs and/or tissues? Please explain

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the chemical composition (from mineral nutrients to organic acids to sugars) of 18 different raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) cultivars from two different Norwegian areas collected during the 2019 and 2020-year seasons. Phenolics and radical scavenging activity were also detected.

Even if the chemical characterization of the 18 cvs of raspberry was complex and time-consuming, I have to raise numerous points concerning the goodness of the manuscript. Overall, it is bad-structured. Very little information was given about methods applied and the preparation of samples for the different detection methods, which does not allow to understand the reliability of the experiment. For example, which was the radical detection molecule for the determination of RSA? The section of “Results” contains comparisons with literature but a proper discussion is lacking. A clear aim was not supported by a clear conclusion.

Major problem was due to the fact that different cvs from two different Norwegian areas were characterized. Different pedo-climatic conditions affect chemical composition, especially as regards mineral nutrients and phenolics (secondary metabolites) and cvs from Eastern and Western Norway cannot be compared. A detailed pedo-climatic characterization of the two Norwegian areas should be also added. To better understand which was the cv. with the best nutraceutical profile, all the 18 cvs should have been cultivated in a same area. For comparisons between Eastern and Western Norway all the 18 cvs should have been cultivated in both areas. For the above reasons the use of “Fingerprint” in the Title is not proper.

Moreover, about “Statistics” it is not clear how many repetitions for each assay were performed. Tables reporting “The averages of…..” should also include the standard error.

No novelty can be drawn in the conclusion (lines 37-38) that “Chemical composition of studied cultivars depended on genotype and locality of growing”.

Minor:

-        Table 1: Mineral contents were expressed in mg/kg but N in %: uniform;

-        Table 1: I suggest to divide Macro- from micro-nutrients.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript “Fingerprint of different raspberry cultivars grown in specific 2 Norwegian agroclimatic conditions” evaluates quality indicators of raspberry cultivars that are grown in Norway. The topic and research perspective are useful, but manuscript has some problems with the Tables, Methods introduction and the analysis of the results is not comprehensive enough. At the current level, I suggest that it could be accepted for publication after minor revisions.

Comments:

References in the manuscript are not novel enough (especially in the part of Introduction).

For Line88-97 in Page2, this part is a bit redundant.

As to “2.3. Sample preparation”, what is the moisture content of the sample? Is it continuous drying for 10 days?

As to “2.5. Method”, please supply the detail method parameters.

Some pages have missing page numbers, please check.

Please fill in the standard deviation of the data in all tables.

Results analysis should focus on analyzing the differences between varieties and regions, rather than simply comparing the results of other author's determinations.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors used HPEAC-PAD, UHPLC-DAD MS/MS and ICP-OES to analyze the nutritional components of different raspberry cultivars from different Norwegian areas, as well as grown cultivars. The authors have done a lot of research works, and this manuscript provides valuable information on raspberry production. I think it is suitable to publish on Horticulturae, with only few minor comments:

1. In the Abstract, many methods were showed, but few result. I think 2-3 sentences should be added to show the main results of the data analysis.

2. Line 190, ‘Results’ should be changed to ‘Results and Discussions’, because there is no separate discussion section of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 5,

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did not give the variation coefficients for the average values in the tables as requested

Author Response

Authors: Thank you for this information. The CV values are presented in tables, according to the Reviewer's comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx