Influence of Different Liquid Spray Pollination Parameters on Pollen Activity of Fruit Trees—Pear Liquid Spray Pollination as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

the draft article presents a really good topic and I congratulate you on your work, but I have some suggestions for changes, which I will post below:

The Abstract consists of 303 words. Please rephrase, compress, shorten it so that its length meets the requirements of the MDPI.

In-text references are not appropriate in this form. Please correct this throughout the text.

The Table 2 cross-reference is not followed by the table itself. Please edit this. This thing happens in several places. Please fix them.

If Table 3 is absolutely important, it is integrated into another table.

The Materials and Methods chapter is too detailed. It would be better to compress it a bit, as much as the theme allows. A part of figures and tables can also be published in an appendix.

The Conclusion chapter is too short. I would like to expand on this because the topic warrants it.

Please edit the article. May you have a nice day at work!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the recognition of our study . We also thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attachment. For the main and specific comments you raised, red font was used to answer the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article submitted for evaluation is interesting and topical, in line with the scope of the journal. Without going into the strengths of the article, I would like to draw the authors' attention to the shortcomings and points for discussion.

1. I suggest revising the keywords and replacing the long phrases with terms.

2. When abbreviations are used for the first time in an abstract, they should also be explained in the main text of the article when first used. 

3. The methodology indicates that pollen was collected in 2021 and stored in a freezer. How long have they been in the freezer and when was the experiment conducted? This information must be included in the methodology. Is it possible that the results of the experiment carried out with fresh pollen could be different? 

4. Figure 1 should be edited to show the pollen more clearly. A scale should also be added or the magnification used should be indicated. 

5. In Table 3, the 'samples' in the first column are coded with a series of letters. Do they have any significance or is it a random sequence of letters? Despite my best efforts to understand the logic of the abbreviations, I was unable to do so. Maybe it is possible to use shorter codes that are easier to remember (consisting of two characters). Overall, the biggest weakness of the text is the extremely frequent use of abbreviations, which makes the text almost unreadable. In order to understand what is written, the reader has to prepare a system for decrypting the information.

6. To make Figure 5 easier to read, I suggest grouping the graphs in groups of two and enlarging them (not 2 rows of 3 graphs, but 3 rows of 2 graphs). It is now difficult to read the entries in the graphs. I would also advise you to drop the abbreviations in the figure captions. 

7. The results section is not readable due to the number of abbreviations. In order to understand the text, it must be decrypted. Authors should consider how to present the information in a way that is clear not only to themselves but also to the readers without additional efforts.

8. I missed an analysis in the discussion of why certain spraying regimes might affect pollen germination? What processes are taking place in the pollen? How might the results change when using a fresh pollen suspension? At present, the discussion is limited to technical issues, with very little attention paid to pollen and the underlying phenomena. 

9. There are a number of technical deficiencies in the text (formatting of tables, fonts, missing spaces between words, etc.). These deficiencies need to be addressed. Line numbering would also make the review process much easier, as it would help to pinpoint minor issues to be corrected.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the recognition of our study . We also thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attachment. For the main and specific comments you raised, red font was used to answer the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is interesting and valuable. The English form is correct. The design of the experiment is correct, presentation of the results is clear. Nonetheless, there are some major issues that require improvement before publication:

Please follow the MDPI formatting style.

Keywords should be arranged alphabetically and not repeat words from the title.

Avoid old references and reduce the number of references in the Introduction.

All abbreviations in the text must be explained when first mentioned, regardless of the Abstract.

Delete: “(done by hand, described in the article as hand pollination)’, “described in the article as mechanical pollination”, and “Tables and Figures must be self-explanatory. All abbreviations should be explained in the footnote.”

The aim of the study is unclear. In what plant species?

Provide the geographical location of Sanmenxia.

The unit style is incorrect. It should be g·L^-1 (not g/L).

The text “Pollen activity is one of the most important factors affecting the final pollination results of pears(Sakamoto et al., 2009; Yano et al., 2007). Additionally, GROPG is a crucial way to assess pollen activity(Sakamoto et al., 2009).” Should be transferred to the Introduction or Discussion section.

Figure 1 – scale bar is missing.

Tables and Figures must be self-explanatory. All abbreviations should be explained in the footnote.

The text “0 minutes, 5 minutes...,30 minutes” is unclear. Do you mean 5-min intervals?

Figure 4  - what is the diameter of the Petri dish?

The number of repetitions and replications is not given.

p-level in the Materials and methods is not given.

Some parts of the Results are in fact a Discussion.

Table 4 – delete the horizontal line.

The Discussion is based on two references; this is unacceptable.

Conclusions: Any suggestions for future studies?

 

What about Data availability?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for the recognition of our study . We also thank you for your valuable comments. Please see the attachment. For the main and specific comments you raised, red font was used to answer the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the revised version of the paper and the authors' replies to the comments made in the previous review. Most of the inaccuracies and shortcomings have been taken into account and the text of the paper has been significantly improved. Nevertheless, there are some minor but important points that remain to be corrected in the new version of the paper. 

1. The text contains a number of technical errors. The most common technical error is the missing spaces between words and square brackets with references (e.g., lines 75, 76, 77, 81 etc.). 

2. In the methodology section (2.1), the authors do not specify how long the pollen was kept in the freezer and when the experiment was performed. This is very important information, not only from a practical point of view but also from a theoretical point of view. It is necessary to indicate the duration of the storage of pollen in the freezer and the time when the experiment was carried out. Section 2.4 indicates (line 168) that the test was carried out on 25 March 2021. Does this mean that the pollen was kept in the freezer for 1 or 2 days?

3. To which species does 'Xuehua pear" belong? The scientific name of the species and, if possible, the cultivar should be given. This is also important information.

4. Line 656. The literature source is not numbered. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable comments again. Please see the attachment. For the main and specific comments you raised, red font was used to answer the comments in the attachment.

Kind regards,

All author

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the paper according to my suggestions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your letter. At the same time, we are very pleased with your affirmation of our revised response.

Kind regards,

All authors