The Relationship between Different Fruit Load Treatments and Fruit Quality in Peaches
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
This manuscript presents useful information for science and also for farmers and agroindustries.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advice.
Best wishes.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I think the authors improve significantly the paper.
However, when making some corrections, they should write with different color letters, to be easily found by reviewers.
Also, there is a need for English language editing.
Moreover, in line 80 should be clarified what are the 3 diameters, maybe with a figure.
In the conclusions line 305, you should report results by 100 m2, 1000m2 or hectare, not in the area of the orchard as you did.
Needs editing.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your advice. In response to your suggestion, we have made the following modifications:
1. We highlight all the changes in the manuscript.
2. We have checked and corrected the language in the manuscript.
3. For the problem of longitudinal 、 transverse and lateral diameter of fruits in 80 rows, we added a schematic diagram of longitudinal 、 transverse and lateral diameter of fruits in the manuscript (figure 1).
4. For the output problem in the conclusion of line 305, we have revised it in the manuscript to the output under 100 m2.
Best wishes.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
General comments
I examined the manuscript and the suggested changes have been carried out correctly, including English form, the captions of the figures and tables.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have re-checked and corrected the language in the manuscript.
Best wishes.
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 paper's content is not novel and the results are the expected ones, more thinking, better quality of the remaining fruits.
There are some words not technical correct, like "fruit abdomen"
Reviewer 2 Report
I hope this email finds you well. I have recently reviewed your paper titled "The relationship between different fruit loading treatments and fruit quality in peach" and found it to be an insightful contribution to the field. Overall, I believe the study provides valuable insights into understanding the impact of fruit loading treatments on peach fruit quality. However, I have identified a few minor corrections that I would like to suggest before the final publication.
1. abstract
1. Line 1 instead of fruit loading you can write as fruit load treatments . also do same in remaining text.
2. In the few sentences the author has used too many “and” which should be adjusted accordingly as in one sentence too many “and “ is not good.
3. Key words should be used other than used in the title.
2. Discussion section, I encourage you to further elaborate on the practical implications of your research. Providing insights into how the identified relationships between fruit loading treatments and fruit quality in peaches can be applied in orchard management or fruit production strategies would be highly valuable to both researchers and practitioners in the field.
I believe addressing these minor corrections will significantly improve the clarity and impact of your paper. Overall, I commend you and your team on your rigorous research and insightful findings.
I have thoroughly reviewed your paper titled "The relationship between different fruit loading treatments and fruit quality in peach" and appreciate the valuable insights it provides to the field. While the content and methodology of the study are commendable, I would like to suggest some improvements to the English language expression to enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript.
Throughout the paper, there are instances where sentence structure and grammar could be refined to convey your ideas more effectively. For example, in the Introduction section, it would be beneficial to rephrase certain sentences to ensure a smoother flow of information. Furthermore, I noticed a few instances where word choices could be improved for better precision and coherence.
In addition, I would recommend a thorough proofreading to address minor typographical errors and inconsistencies in punctuation, as these can distract readers from fully engaging with the content. Ensuring consistent and correct usage of scientific terminology and abbreviations would also enhance the overall professionalism of the manuscript.
I understand that English may not be your first language, and I commend you for your efforts in writing this paper. To further enhance the language quality, I suggest having a native English speaker or a professional language editor review the manuscript to ensure that the ideas are presented clearly and accurately.
Please consider these suggestions as constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript's overall quality. I believe that by refining the English language expression, the impact and accessibility of your research will be greatly enhanced.
Reviewer 3 Report
THE manuscript presents useful information on fruit (peach) cultivation. Minor details can improve the text. See below.
Lines:
59: Material and Methods
60-62: to use experiments.
220: not indexes, check this, to use indices
Table 1:to explain R in the table legend
286:to check: calculated as...
Figures: figs in color will be more understable.
THE manuscript presents useful information on fruit (peach) cultivation. Minor details can improve the text. See below.
Lines:
59: Material and Methods
60-62: to use: experiments.
220: not indexes, check this, to use indices
Table 1:to explain R in the table legend
286:to check: calculated as...
Figures: figs in color will be more understandable.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments to the Authors.
In the manuscript the Authors used many improper terms, such as, for instance, "peel" instead of “pericarp” and abbreviations. It is recommended for terms to see the following manuscript: Zhang B, Peng B, Zhang C, Song Z, Ma R (2017) Determination of fruit maturity and its prediction model based on the pericarp index of absorbance difference (IAD) for peaches. PLoS ONE 12(5): e0177511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
In addition, the following necessary improvements are:
-The whole manuscript needs to be carefully revised according to the Instructions for authors.
-The references should be reported in the correct format both in the text of the manuscript and in the Reference section.
-English language needs to be revised and improved.
-Figure and not Fig.
-Page 2, line 62-63: The experiments were performed on two main “Y” shaped branches of the ‘Xihui 11’ peach cultivar with basically the same growth pattern.
Response: Report the scientific name.
-2.2.3. Determination of firmness
The firmness of the fruit flesh was measured on both sides of the suture using a model TA.XT Plus probe (Stable Micro Systems, UK).
Response: a texture analyzer, model …
-2.2.4. Determination of SSC
Fruit SSC on both sides of the abdomen was measured using a PAL-1 (ATAGO, Japan), and the average value was taken as the SSC of the fruit (Zhang et al. 2015).
Response: change in “Determination of soluble solid contents (SSC)”
Fruit SSC on both sides of the abdomen was measured using a digital Brix Refractometer, model PAL-1 (ATAGO, Japan), and the average value was taken as the SSC of the fruit (Zhang et al. 2015).”
-2.2.5. IAD determination of the peel
Response: change in “Determination of pericarp index of absorbance difference (IAD)”
The IAD of the pericarp on both sides of the abdomen of the fruit was measured using a vis/NIR portable spectrometer DA-Meter (TR Turoni SRL, Italy). The IAD can reflect the degree of fruit ripening by measuring the change of pigment (chlorophyll) content in fruit skins and calculating the difference in fruit skin absorbance between 670 nm and 720 nm, over an index ranging from 0 to 2.2. An IAD value of 2.2 represents an unripe fruit, and 0 represents full maturity (Ziosi et al., 2008; Farnrti et al., 2015)."
-2.2.6. Determination of peel color
Response: please rewrite the paragraph
-Data Processing
SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc., USA) software was used for all data analysis. ANOVA was used to analyze the significance of differences between different fruit load treatments, and Excel 2016 software was used for data mapping.
Response: Rewrite the part concerning the statistics; Specify the post-hoc test used after ANOVA.
-In the graphs: Modify the labels in the vertical axis Y, for example Fig. 2 “SSC/°Brix” should be changed in “SSC (°Brix)”; in addition, report the title of the horizontal axis X “Days after full-bloom”
- Results and analysis. Response: Please check the values and report the average values of the parameter recorded.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The whole manuscript needs to be carefully revised according to the Instructions for authors.
-The references should be reported in the correct format both in the text of the manuscript and in the Reference section.
-English language needs to be revised and improved.
