Olive Oils from Fruits Infected with Different Anthracnose Pathogens Show Sensory Defects Earlier Than Chemical Degradation
, Pedro Talhinhas 2, Hugo Afonso 2, Helena Alegre 2, Helena Oliveira 2 and Suzana Ferreira-Dias 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is well written and concerns a topic of practical relevance for olive oil production. The text is clear and denotes mastery of the subject the Authors are addressing. I suggested only minor revisions and to add a reference in the introduction (see Notes in the text, attached file)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the helpful revision of the manuscript.
All the suggestions were accepted, and they highlighted in green, in the text
The details concerning inoculation were added to the manuscript, as follows:
“Fruits (aprox. 10kg) of each cultivar were surface disinfected in 0.5% NaClO for 1 min, thoroughly rinsed in sterile distilled water and air-dried. Intact fruits of both cultivars were inoculated, by spraying conidial suspensions (106 spores/mL) of C. nymphaeae (isolate 18-006), C. godetiae (isolate 18-019) or C. acutatum (isolate 18-015) as previously described [4].”
The reference Schena et al. (2017) was added as reference nº 13.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper entitled "Olive oils from fruits infected with different anthracnose pathogens show sensory defects earlier than chemical degradation" deals the chemical and sensorial quality of two different Portuguese olive cultivars affected by anthracnose. The experiment was counducted using Colletotrichum spp. and olive fruits.
The isolates used are not specified in Materials and methods. It is not enough to specify the manuscript where the Colletotrichum species used in the above paper are described.
Which isolates from the manuscript of Talhinhas et al., 2015 were used?
The results are comprehensive. This study is adapted to the journal and the subject is interesting.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the helpful revision of the manuscript.
All the suggestions were accepted, and they highlighted in the text in green.
The information concerning the protocol of disinfection of drupes before inoculation and the codes of isolates were added to the manuscript, as follows:
“Fruits (aprox. 10kg) of each cultivar were surface disinfected in 0.5% NaClO for 1 min, thoroughly rinsed in sterile distilled water and air-dried. Intact fruits of both cultivars were inoculated, by spraying conidial suspensions (106 spores/mL) of C. nymphaeae (isolate 18-006), C. godetiae (isolate 18-019) or C. acutatum (isolate 18-015) as previously described [4].”
Table 2 was formatted according to the style of the journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work I am reviewing is a very valuable research. It is written in correct English, however, there were some minor errors, which I indicate in the comments in the submitted manuscript .
I have no objections to the work, except for the chapter "Conclusions" were suggestions for improvement have been marked in the comment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the helpful revision of the manuscript.
All the suggestions were accepted, and they highlighted in the text in green.
The final paragraph of Conclusions was modified as follows:
“Changes in anthracnose pathogen populations point towards the dissemination of the most virulent species. The present study showed that the presence of more virulent species, namely C. acutatum and C. nymphaeae, strongly promoted detrimental effects on olive oil quality even after short incubation periods. This is particularly important for more susceptible olive cultivars such as ‘Galega Vulgar’. In this context, climate change, with increased unpredictability, namely concerning the occurrence of periods of high humidity and mild temperatures, is a concern for sustainable management of olive cultivation, harvesting and processing for producing high quality EVOO.”
