Growth Characteristics of Five Plum Varieties on Six Different Rootstocks Grown in Containers at Different Irrigation Levels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper contains practical and useful information on different plum rootstocks and varieties value in Hungarian growing conditions. The results are interesting both for pomologist and fruit growers, and may be widespread in all countries of this part of the Europe.

However, while reading the work, I found a few errors that the authors should correct.

1.       It does not follow from the title and keywords that the tests were carried out in containers and that one of the research aspects involved different levels of irrigation. Maybe the topic of the article should be: „Growth characteristics of five plum varieties on six different rootstocks grown in containers at different irrigation levels”.

2.       Verse 62 and 459 should be ‘St. Julien GF 655/2’, and 460 – ‘Fereley’

3.       Verse 229 and 385, Table 5 (2x), Table 6, Table 7 (2x) should be ‘Myrobalan’ not ‘Mirobalan’

4.       Verse 281 - The description does not apply to Tables 5 and 6. The Tables 5 and 6 do not show the length of the shoots

5.       In the  Tables 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 it is not known in which units the data was given

6.       In the tables 10 and 11 sum of Bouquets and bouquet spurs, Short fruiting lat[1]erals, Medium and long fruiting laterals, in each variety/rootstock shoud be 100.

 

 

Author Response

Thanks for Your suggestions and constructive criticism. We have corrected the English of the text. I have accepted and corrected the rest of your suggestions.

1. It does not follow from the title and keywords that the tests were carried out in containers and that one of the research aspects involved different levels of irrigation. Maybe the topic of the article should be: „Growth characteristics of five plum varieties on six different rootstocks grown in containers at different irrigation levels”.

 I accepted your suggestion and added the title.

2. Verse 62 and 459 should be ‘St. Julien GF 655/2’, and 460 – ‘Fereley’

I corrected.

3. Verse 229 and 385, Table 5 (2x), Table 6, Table 7 (2x) should be ‘Myrobalan’ not ‘Mirobalan’

I corrected in the table and the text.

4. Verse 281 - The description does not apply to Tables 5 and 6. The Tables 5 and 6 do not show the length of the shoots
5. In the  Tables 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 it is not known in which units the data was given

I given the units.

6. In the tables 10 and 11 sum of Bouquets and bouquet spurs, Short fruiting lat[1]erals, Medium and long fruiting laterals, in each variety/rootstock shoud be 100.

      The deviation from 100 percent came from rounding. I corrected these data.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript presents a detailed study on a theme of local interest given the characteristic of production systems in the country of its origin. english revision is necessary. Also authors should explain the criteria for analizing the rootstock and variety combinations. It is necessary for readers to know, for instance, why not all possible combinations were assayed.  

Author Response

The manuscript presents a detailed study on a theme of local interest given the characteristic of production systems in the country of its origin. english revision is necessary. Also authors should explain the criteria for analizing the rootstock and variety combinations. It is necessary for readers to know, for instance, why not all possible combinations were assayed.  

 

Thank you for your comments. I have corrected your comment.

I wrote the criteria for analizing the rootstock and variety combinations. And I explained why not every rootstock- is a variety combination.

In the nursery I couldn’t buy each other rootstock-variety combinations. If I had ordered all the rootstock-variety combinations, the plantation would have been delayed by 1 or 2 years.

We have corrected the Englishness too. 

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The authors have prepared a manuscript concerning “Growth characteristics of five plum varieties on six different rootstocks in young orchard”. Experiments were well performed and the theme is moderately novel and very interesting, but some minor improvements are needed. Overall, the manuscript will meet the publishing standard of the journal after minor revisions.

Line 45-46: ‘Similarly, the soil, climate, and ecological conditions is also a very important characteristic......’

Is the punctuation after ‘Similarly’ wrong? Is ‘ecological conditions’ followed by ‘is’ or ‘are’ ?

Line 99: Is the punctuation after ‘Figures 1’ wrong? ‘Figures’ or ‘Figure’？

Line 152-153:‘Ca2+ 171 mg/l;......;PO4 3- 0,175mg/’Are the ions written in the required format?

Table 5：I suggest changing the format of the table to make the results look more concise and clear. For example, the significant difference ‘18.34 b’ can be expressed as ‘18.34±b’ or ‘18.34b’. Three-line tables can use horizontal lines of different thickness.

Table 6-7：Suggest replacing the table with a three-line table or table format.                                                                                     

Table 9, 11：Suggest a change in the form of the table.

Line 382: ‘(2.51 cm2)’ The unit format is written incorrectly.

Line 340, Line 389: ‘(Table 5, Fig 3.), (Fig. 3)’  The abbreviated form of ‘figure’ is not consistent with other abbreviations in the manuscript

Line 444: Is the first line of the paragraph formatted correctly?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

The authors have prepared a manuscript concerning “Growth characteristics of five plum varieties on six different rootstocks in young orchard”. Experiments were well performed and the theme is moderately novel and very interesting, but some minor improvements are needed. Overall, the manuscript will meet the publishing standard of the journal after minor revisions.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I accepted them.

Line 45-46: ‘Similarly, the soil, climate, and ecological conditions is also a very important characteristic......’

Is the punctuation after ‘Similarly’ wrong? Is ‘ecological conditions’ followed by ‘is’ or ‘are’ ?

I corrected.

Line 99: Is the punctuation after ‘Figures 1’ wrong? ‘Figures’ or ‘Figure’？

This mistake is corrected.

Line 152-153:‘Ca2+ 171 mg/l;......;PO4 3- 0,175mg/’Are the ions written in the required format?

I formatted this text.

Table 5：I suggest changing the format of the table to make the results look more concise and clear. For example, the significant difference ‘18.34 b’ can be expressed as ‘18.34±b’ or ‘18.34b’. Three-line tables can use horizontal lines of different thickness.

I accepted your suggestion. I corrected.

Table 6-7：Suggest replacing the table with a three-line table or table format.                                                                                     

Table 9, 11：Suggest a change in the form of the table.

I made minor changes to the tables to make them more transparent.

Line 382: ‘(2.51 cm2)’ The unit format is written incorrectly.

This mistake was corrected.

Line 340, Line 389: ‘(Table 5, Fig 3.), (Fig. 3)’  The abbreviated form of ‘figure’ is not consistent with other abbreviations in the manuscript

I corrected all that.

Line 444: Is the first line of the paragraph formatted correctly?

I formatted this line.