Pre- and Postharvest Factors Control the Disease Incidence of Superficial Scald in the New Fire Blight Tolerant Apple Variety “Ladina”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is a very interesting paper and the subject is difficult.
I have some comments about it:
- The term “ULO” is generally referred to “ultra-low oxygen”. In this manuscript it refers to “under low oxygen. It should be clarified.
- It may be interesting to remember how to calculate the ripeness index as well as the meaning of the results.
- Materials and Methods, Line 110-112: No information on the methods used to evaluate firmness, sugar content and starch index.
- Line 136 – 139: “The K/Ca content measured … Four points along the equator of the fruits were measured per fruit”. How many replicates were done per analysis?
- Line 163: Values of the “three different ripeness degrees” should be given.
- Materials and Methods: There is no information on preharvest chemical treatments.
- Figure 2A: Orchard “MA” is not included.
- Results: Line 233 – 236: This information should be moved to “Materials and Methods”.
- There is no information on phytotoxicity symptoms occurrence or absence.
- some references do not follow the general format
Author Response
We thank both reviewers for the time and work invested in thoroughly revising the manuscript and the constructive comments, which will improve the quality of the manuscript.
- The term “ULO” is generally referred to “ultra-low oxygen”. In this manuscript it refers to “under low oxygen. It should be clarified.
The author is correct. We changed the term throughout the manuscript in lines 25, 29, 98, 130, 155, 193, 203, 209 and 299 “ultra-low oxygen”
- It may be interesting to remember how to calculate the ripeness index as well as the meaning of the results.
We added the formula to calculate the ripeness index in line 104. I do not understand the meaning of the second part of the sentence. “remember ….. the meaning of the results?” To which results is the reviewer referring?
- Materials and Methods, Line 110-112: No information on the methods used to evaluate firmness, sugar content and starch index.
We agree with the reviewer that readers unfamiliar with that “Pimprenelle” cannot judge how the values were measured. Thus, we changed the sentence in line 113 to
"To control for ripeness, basic apple quality parameters firmness (kg/cm2) using a penetrometer equipped with a 11mm punch, sugar content (% brix) using a refractometer per fruit plus acidity (titration) as a mean of 10 fruits) were assessed on the ‘Pimprenelle’ machine (Setop Giraud-Technology, Cavaillon, France) and starch index was assessed visually prior to storage (data not shown)."
- Line 136 – 139: “The K/Ca content measured … Four points along the equator of the fruits were measured per fruit”. How many replicates were done per analysis?
The XRF technology works in a way that the measurement time can be controlled. The set time increases the signal to noise ratio producing a value with greater trust. When a sufficient measuring time is chosen, the value stays the same unless the fruit is moved. We tested this initially on ten fruits producing the same value for measured replicates. Thus, no replicates needed to be measured per spot.
We added the sentence “The K/ Ca content measured using X-ray fluorescence analysis was performed on a CTX Counter Top XRF (Bruker, Berlin, DE) according to the instructions of the manufacturer.” In line 144
- Line 163: Values of the “three different ripeness degrees” should be given.
We added a reference to Table1 were the ripeness indexes of the harvested fruits can be seen. The layout is currently in a way that it is on the same page which facilitates reading.
- Materials and Methods: There is no information on preharvest chemical treatments.
The authors are right that we did not give this information since the whole paper does not deal with plant protection and that we did not test potential effects of plant protection treatments. Nonetheless, we added a sentence in line 107 to clarify
Fruits from WA, GU, WU and MA were treated with a standardized plant protection strategy representative for Swiss Integrated Pest Management while fruits from BI were treated under a Swiss organic management strategy.
- Figure 2A: Orchard “MA” is not included.
Correct – For this trial, we did not have any fruits of orchard MA. Due to logistics reasons, we did not have fruits from all orchards all the years
- Results: Line 233 – 236: This information should be moved to “Materials and Methods”.
The section “For the fruits of the growing season 2018, the incidence of superficial scald was quantified using an automatic iQS quality sorting system mounted on a small industrial scale fruit-sorting machine. Additionally the disease incidence was scored visually on a scale from 1-5 and by calculating the percentage of fruits with disease per plot/ orchard” was moved to line: 141
- There is no information on phytotoxicity symptoms occurrence or absence.
Correct we did not evaluate fruits for phytotoxic effects of plant protection products since this is outside the scope of the present work.
- some references do not follow the general format
We double checked the references and believe that the journal copyediting team already made some changes to format as well. If the reviewer or the copyediting team of the journal could point out which references to change, we will happily comply.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper examines the influence of various pre-and postharvest factors on the incidence of superficial scald in Malus x domestica cv. Ladina. Although this study presents interesting findings as they examined control strategies to reduce scald in organic apples, the manuscript requires major revisions prior to publication. In particular, the introduction should be revised to provide a more concise account of previous work. The introduction currently reads more like a literature review than an introduction of a paper. Some of the results are not understandable unless one reads the full paper. Results should be revised so that the figures can be understood without the text. Additionally, the key findings of this study are not clear in the conclusions section.
Introduction
Lines 34-40: Provide reference(s) to previous work.
Lines 50-63: Consider revising. This reads more like a literature review. I don’t think it is necessary to go into so. Much detail on superficial scald.
Line 42: Figure 1. Move to Results section.
Materials and Methods
Line 113: Specific which “basic apple quality parameters” you are referring to here.
Line 120: Spell out CA so the table can be interpreted without the supporting text.
Lines 129-135: Reference for this method?
Results
Lines 169-175: Include error bars. It is not clear from the plots which groups are significantly different from one another.
Figure 4: It’s unclear from the legend what the vertical lines near some of the boxes represent.
Figure 5: I can’t differentiate what the shapes are for the WA and GU plots. Suggest make the points smaller? Or remove all together.
Lines 233-234: Move to materials and methods section.
Conclusion
Line 330: Specify which technologies were effective in reducing scald/
Line 331: What was the effect?
Author Response
We thank both reviewers for the time and work invested in thoroughly revising the manuscript and the constructive comments, which will improve the quality of the manuscript.
This paper examines the influence of various pre-and postharvest factors on the incidence of superficial scald in Malus x domestica cv. Ladina. Although this study presents interesting findings as they examined control strategies to reduce scald in organic apples, the manuscript requires major revisions prior to publication. In particular, the introduction should be revised to provide a more concise account of previous work. The introduction currently reads more like a literature review than an introduction of a paper.
This is in a way what we intended to do. In our opinion a paper introduction needs to A) state the current problem that led to the performed body of work, B) summarize the relevant “prior art” thus a literature review and C) describe a short outlook on what was done. The journals guide for authors also states that the introduction “must include a literature review”
We intended to cover these three parts in line 32-50 (A), 51-98 (B) and 99-104(C). To satisfy the comment of the reviewer we shortened the literature review section in line 51-98.
Some of the results are not understandable unless one reads the full paper. Results should be revised so that the figures can be understood without the text. Additionally, the key findings of this study are not clear in the conclusions section.
We completely agree with the reviewer and tried to expand the figure legends to be understandable “standalone”
Introduction
Lines 34-40: Provide reference(s) to previous work.
We added a reference to a published conference proceedings article in line 37 to cover for this.
Lines 50-63: Consider revising. This reads more like a literature review. I don’t think it is necessary to go into so. Much detail on superficial scald.
This section is intended to give an overview on the disorder. Since Agronomy is a journal covering not only fruits, we expect some readers not being familiar with the details of the disorder. We did shorten the section as much as we could without losing the important information.
Line 42: Figure 1. Move to Results section.
Done
Materials and Methods
Line 113: Specific which “basic apple quality parameters” you are referring to here.
We changed the sentence to “Basic apple quality parameters (Firmness, Total soluble solids (TSS), Acidity) were measured immediately after removal from storage and again after 7 days of ‘shelf life’ at 20 °C.” in line 111
Line 120: Spell out CA so the table can be interpreted without the supporting text.
We changed the sentence in line 124 of the Table 1 legend to “Where not indicated otherwise, fruits were stored under controlled atmosphere (CA) conditions at 1 °C, 1 % CO2, 1 % O2 and 92 % relative humidity (control treatment).” In line 128
Lines 129-135: Reference for this method?
The method is adapted from the manual of the manufacturer of the AAS machine. Thus, no reference is available. We adapted the sentence in line 138: “Potassium and calcium concentrations and their ratio K/ Ca were measured as suggested by the manufacturer of the atomic absorption spectrometer. Briefly, ten apples…» to clarify
Results
Lines 169-175: Include error bars. It is not clear from the plots which groups are significantly different from one another.
Most of these values only contain two data points. The advice from a statistician was to present the data like this since with only two values, error bars do not add value, but the mean, denoted as a horizontal line helps the reader grasp the differences more easily. We added the sentence “Dots represent measured data points and horizontal lines denoting the means.” to the figure legends to clarify. It is hard to denote the groups tested with the linearized model in the plots. It has not to be confused with a pairwise comparison as for example t-tests. Thus, we preferred to state the significant groups within the Table2 and hope the reviewer agrees with this decision
Figure 4: It’s unclear from the legend what the vertical lines near some of the boxes represent.¨
Figure 4 is a standard boxplot since enough data points are available. The whiskers represent the min and max values of the respective data excluding the outliers denoted as “fat dots”. Since this is standard in boxplots, we do not describe in the figure legend.
Figure 5: I can’t differentiate what the shapes are for the WA and GU plots. Suggest make the points smaller? Or remove all together.
The reviewer is right that the amount of dots clutter the image and impair readability. Although the dots would add some value to understanding the structure in the data, we decided to remove them in Figure 5 for clarity.
Lines 233-234: Move to materials and methods section.
Done, also satisfies the comments of Reviewer 1
Conclusion
Line 330: Specify which technologies were effective in reducing scald/
The sentence was changed to: “Storage under DCA, 1-MCP and a combination thereof showed a promising reduction in the development of senescent scald” in line 360
Line 331: What was the effect?
The sentence was changed to: ”The distribution of potassium, calcium and its ratio within the skin, but not in dried apple slices showed an effect on the development of senescent scald with low calcium values promoting the extent of the disorder.” In line 362
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Upon re-reviewing this paper it is apparent that the authors have spent a considerable amount of time making significant changes that have greatly improved the manuscript.
As the analysis was done in R and the corresponding plots possibly with ggplot2? The authors could consider using the jitter() function to stagger the dots that represent individual measurements instead of removing them altogether.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17547699/what-does-the-jitter-function-do-in-r
Author Response
We thank reviewer 2 for the re-revision of the manuscript.
The reviewer is right that the dots with jitterdodge option add to the understanding of the data. Thus we adapted Figure 5. Additionally we changed Figure 6 to harmonize layout of the figures
