Effects of Canopy Position and Microclimate on Fruit Development and Quality of Camellia oleifera

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

I think that the study contains interesting results, but it is not seriously presented.

Objectives are confuse determined

M&M are written in a chaotic form. Information is repeated in different paragraphs several times, excessive description that can be summarized and other methodologies with insufficient explanation. Statistical analysis is not appropriate for the experiment design

Results show problems from the first table on. Figures have titles with small letter font sizes and the texts are too lengthy.

 

Abstract

Word number. According to Instructions for Authors, Abstracts should contain a total of about 200 words. The Abstract in the manuscript has more than 300 words.

General comments. The Abstract should show data. For example, "Fruit quality in the outer canopy was found to be better than that in the inner canopy, 23 especially the fruit quality in UO and LI regions was significantly different" does not provide precise information. Quality involves quite a lot of traits and improvement should be described precisely and in detail.

Line 15-canopy Regions or positions. After that, you should describe the positions UI, LO, etc. Then you should define the measurements made within the canopy. Authors report microclimate affecting fruit quality, then we need to know microclimate changes within the canopy in advance so that we can understand responses in fruit quality. That is, microclimatic results should be presented before fruit quality results.

Lines 18-21- This sentence is too long and confusing. I think that fruit position within the canopy has affects fruit quality and oil yield. Then 4 positions within the canopy were defined. Position and region are used as synonyms.  

Line 26- The authors define microclimate effects fruit quality, then we need know firstly the environment changes within the canopy for understand the response in fruit quality. I think that microclimatic results should be presented before fruit quality.

 

Introduction

 

Lines 36-40- The sentence is too long and not easy to read. The information about other oil trees seems excessive or without a clear focus.

Line 43-44. This concept could be written in a shorter form. In general, several sentences could be shortened

Line 46-47. This sentence could be deleted. I think that it is not relevant to the study aim or discussion.

Line 49. 0.627 tons lacks mention of the product. According to Zhang 2022 it is oil.

Line 58. The microclimate includes several more factors, viz. Uv radiation, IR radiation, VPD, precipitations, wind.

Line 62. Did the authors mean varieties or species?

Line 66. What does low lAD mean? It is defined in M&M. The sentence seems more appropriate for the Discussion than for the Introduction section. The same applies for high  lAD.

Line 68. Perhaps a full stop  should be inserted before "The position..."

Lines 72-73. In this case, enhanced seems to be a poor choice of word the microclimatic conditions are modified.

Line 76. The repetition of improved is confusing. Should the second “improved” be substituted by “enhanced”?

Line 81. What characteristics of the fruit were correlated with microclimate variables?

Line 87. Nutrients?

Line 92. Oil conversion period should be defined.

Line 92. Lower yield. The previous sentence is referred to oil fruit concentration. The next sentence is about yield. Fruit yield? Then the economic value is defined by oil concentration or fruit yield or both.

Lines 98-102. The aim of the study is to increase oil yield and fruit quality. But how and why the authors state it (lines 94-102) is unclear. How can oil yield be improved by studying fruit quality variability within canopy? This is not well justified. The means by which the authors claim to attain the study aims are quite unclear.

 

M&M

 

Lines 105-113 should be rewritten.

Lines 118-121 should be summarized.

Line 125. Fruit shape index is defined in lines 156-165.

Lines 150-165. Under the title Fruit oil Content and Fatty Acids fruit quality analysis is described, some of this is also included under Fruit Phenotype. Perhaps from 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 should be merged.

Lines 166-175. In general, microclimate variable measurements are poorly explained. One can speculate how the canopy was divided into 16 areas in total, when only four were explained above.

 

Statistical analysis.

The design includes repeated measures in time and space, then ANOVA is not the most appropriate method.

 

Results.

Location is not defined in M&M. Preserve terminology to make reading comprehension easier.

Every table defines location and period, but the same terms were not used in M&M The fruit were picked from North, E, W and S, but this is not considered in Results.

Table 1. Location and Period seem inverted. I did not find uppercase letters, but differences between May and Aug seem evident. Perhaps a graph can show fruit growth better.

Lines 191-193. These results are not shown.

Line 194. The description of fruit longitudinal growth change is imprecise, perhaps it   become stable after August. Here the text seems refer to month evolution more than canopy position, but the former sentence is referred to location within the canopy and the sentence before implies time effect.

 

Lines 207-209. Month significance is not shown in Table 2. Figures usually show fruit growth better than Tables. Relative fruit growth should be reported.

 

 

 

Supplementary.

Fig. S1. The axes are without titles or units.

Author Response

Responds to the reviewers’ comments：

Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions have enabled us to improve our work.

In abstract, we have removed and revised some sentences and added more data information to make the abstract less wordy and clearer. To make the M&M read easily and clearly, we have revised the description of experimental material and design and excessive description in M&M has been deleted. In addition, to make the article more integrative and analyze more deeply, we have shortened and improved our results, more precise description was added and substituted. Furthermore, we have substituted Table 1 and 2 with Figure 1 and 2 to show fruit growth better.

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and revised by a native English speaker and we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. I would be happy to make any further changes if it may be required.

Abstract

1. Comment: Word number. According to Instructions for Authors, Abstracts should contain a total of about 200 words. The Abstract in the manuscript has more than 300 words.

Thanks for your reminder, as we have added precise information and shortened some sentences in abstract, the abstract has been less than 300 words.

 

2. Comment: General comments. The Abstract should show data. For example, "Fruit quality in the outer canopy was found to be better than that in the inner canopy, 23 especially the fruit quality in UO and LI regions was significantly different" does not provide precise information. Quality involves quite a lot of traits and improvement should be described precisely and in detail.

Thanks for your comment which gives us a lot of help. We have added more precise information in fruit qualities and microclimate in abstract.

 

3. Comment: Line 15-canopy Regions or positions. After that, you should describe the positions UI, LO, etc. Then you should define the measurements made within the canopy. Authors report microclimate affecting fruit quality, then we need to know microclimate changes within the canopy in advance so that we can understand responses in fruit quality. That is, microclimatic results should be presented before fruit quality results.

It is a great suggestion. We believe that “positions” is more suitable and we have added the description of positions after “for a total of four canopy positions”. Moreover, we have described microclimate changes with the canopy in advance.

 

4. Comment: Lines 18-21- This sentence is too long and confusing. I think that fruit position within the canopy has affects fruit quality and oil yield. Then 4 positions within the canopy were defined. Position and region are used as synonyms.  “

We have substituted “region” with “position”. We have rewritten this sentence to make it clear, here is the revised sentence: “The canopy was divided into two vertical layers and two horizontal layers, for a total of 4 canopy positions: upper outer canopy (UO), upper inner canopy (UI), lower outer canopy (LO), and lower inner canopy (LI).” We also think fruit position within the canopy has affects fruit quality and oil yield, we have added more precise information about fruit qualities in different canopy positions.

 

5. Comment: Line 26- The authors define microclimate effects fruit quality, then we need know firstly the environment changes within the canopy for understand the response in fruit quality. I think that microclimatic results should be presented before fruit quality.

This is a great suggestion; we have revised this part in abstract and presented the microclimatic results before fruit quality.

Introduction

1. Comment: Lines 36-40- The sentence is too long and not easy to read. The information about other oil trees seems excessive or without a clear focus.

Thanks for your suggestions. Since the information about other oil trees seemed excessive and was not relevant, we removed them. Also, we have revised this part to ensure that the sentence flows well and is not too long to read. Here is the revised sentence:

“Camellia oleifera Abel., is one of the major woody oil trees in the world with a history of over 2000 years. It has been widely grown in the south of the Yangtze River in China, such as in Jiangxi, Hunan, Guangxi, and Hainan province, and it is also distributed in India and Vietnam.”

 

2. Comment: Line 43-44. This concept could be written in a shorter form. In general, several sentences could be shortened.

We have shortened this sentence. This is the revised sentence:

“The extracted tea oil is beneficial for the human cardiovascular system and has antioxidant properties, which helps to enhance the antioxidant capacity of human skin when used in skin care products.”

 

3. Comment: Line 46-47. This sentence could be deleted. I think that it is not relevant to the study aim or discussion.

Thanks for your suggestions. We have deleted this sentence since this sentence is not relevant to the study.

 

4. Comment: Line 49. 0.627 tons lacks mention of the product. According to Zhang 2022 it is oil.

Thanks for your reminder. According to Zhang 2022, we have added the precise product in the sentence.

 

5. Comment: Line 58. The microclimate includes several more factors, viz. Uv radiation, IR radiation, VPD, precipitations, wind.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the above factors into the introduction of microclimate.

 

6. Comment: Line 62. Did the authors mean varieties or species?

Sorry to make you unclear. We consider “species” is more appropriate and have substituted "varieties" with " species".

 

7. Comment: Line 66. What does low lAD mean? It is defined in M&M. The sentence seems more appropriate for the Discussion than for the Introduction section. The same applies for high lAD.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised and moved this sentence to the Discussion.

 

8. Comment: Line 68. Perhaps a full stop should be inserted before "The position..."

A full stop has been inserted before “The position…”.

 

9. Comment: Lines 72-73. In this case, enhanced seems to be a poor choice of word the microclimatic conditions are modified.

We have substituted "enhanced" with "altered" according to your suggestion.

 

10. Comment: Line 76. The repetition of improved is confusing. Should the second “improved” be substituted by “enhanced”?

We have substituted "improved" with " enhanced " according to your suggestion.

 

11. Comment: Line 81. What characteristics of the fruit were correlated with microclimate variables?

Sorry to make you unclear. We have added we added the sentence about the characteristics between fruit and microclimate variables. Here are specific descriptions:

“Microclimate especially light intensity affected fruit yield and quality significantly from July to October, which improved from bottom to top, from the inner to outer canopy.”

 

12. Comment: Line 87. Nutrients?

We have substituted "nutrition" with " nutrients" according to suggestions.

 

13. Comment: Line 92. Oil conversion period should be defined.

We have added we added the sentence to defined the oil conversion period. Here are specific descriptions:

“The growth period of C. oleifera is mainly from May to October, the fruit volume increases rapidly between June and August, accounting for 66% to 75% of the total volume. The fruit oil conversion period starts in July and peaks in October. Most C. oleifera fruits ripen in October. When C. oleifera matures, the fruit cracks and the seeds fall of naturally.”

 

14. Comment: Line 92. Lower yield. The previous sentence is referred to oil fruit concentration. The next sentence is about yield. Fruit yield? Then the economic value is defined by oil concentration or fruit yield or both.

Sorry to make it unclear. We believe the economic value is defined by oil concentration. As tea oil is edible and rich in unsaturated fatty acids (up to 90%), which is extracted from mature C. oleifera fruit. The tea oil yield also depends on fruit yield, so fruit yield could be considered as an indirect reason for determining the economic value of C. oleifera.

 

15. Comment: Lines 98-102. The aim of the study is to increase oil yield and fruit quality. But how and why the authors state it (lines 94-102) is unclear. How can oil yield be improved by studying fruit quality variability within canopy? This is not well justified. The means by which the authors claim to attain the study aims are quite unclear.

 Sorry to make the study aims unclear. We have revised our aim to this study. Our aim was to investigate the effect of canopy positions on the microclimate factors and fruit qualities. The relationship between microclimate and fruit qualities during the oil conversion period was also be investigated. According these results, the means to increase oil yield and fruit qualities will be conducted in next study.

Materials and Methods

1. Comment: Lines 105-113 should be rewritten.

We have rewritten this part, here are the revised sentences:

“The trees of C. oleifera ‘Hua Xin’ grown in the ShanPu Seedlings Co., Ltd. nursery (Zhuzhou, Hunan Province, China; 27°37’12” N, 113°7’48″E) were used for the experiment. The plantation density was 120 trees per hectare. The temperature variation and precipitation of the experimental area during 2019–2022 are presented in Figure S1. The trees that were neither clipped nor chemically treated within two years were selected for this study. A total of 30 – 40, 7-year-old trees (planting distances = 2.5 m × 3 m) grown adjacent to each other with similar canopy structure and size were selected for sampling throughout the experiment. The average height of trees was 2 ± 0.5 m, the average crown width was 2 ± 0.5 m.”

 

2. Comment: Lines 118-121 should be summarized.

We have summarized this sentence and moved it to 2.3, here is the revised sentence:

“From May to October 2021, the tea fruits were collected from all four large positions at the following dates: 5 (JE1), 15 (JE2) and 26 (JE3) June; 6 (JY1), 16 (JY2), 26 (JY3) July; 7 (A1), 18 (A2), 27 (A3) August; 7 (S1), 17 (S2), 27 (S3) September; 7 (O1), 17 (O2), 27 (O3) October; and 1 November (N1).”

 

3. Comment: Line 125. Fruit shape index is defined in lines 156-165.

Thanks for your reminder, we have removed the repeated definition in the text.

 

4. Comment: Lines 150-165. Under the title Fruit oil Content and Fatty Acids fruit quality analysis is described, some of this is also included under Fruit Phenotype. Perhaps from 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 should be merged.

Thanks for giving us such a great suggestion. We have merged 2.2.1 to 2.1.4 into 2.3 to avoid repeated mention.

 

5. Comment: Lines 166-175. In general, microclimate variable measurements are poorly explained. One can speculate how the canopy was divided into 16 areas in total, when only four were explained above.

Sorry to make it unclear. We have revised the description about the division of microclimate factors in 2.2, here is the revised sentence:

“Centered on the trunk, the canopy was divided into an inner canopy (0.5–0.7 m) and an outer canopy (0.7–1.2 m) horizontally; and a lower canopy (1–1.2 m) and an upper canopy (1–1.2 m) vertically. The canopy was divided into four large canopy positions in total (Figures S2 and S3): upper outer (UO), upper inner (UI), lower outer (LO), and lower inner (LI).

Based on the four large canopy positions, each canopy centered the trunk was divided into four directions: north, west, south and east. There were 16 small areas in total.”

 

6. Comment: Statistical analysis.

The design includes repeated measures in time and space, then ANOVA is not the most appropriate method.

In this study, we compared the differences among periods in the same canopy and the differences among canopy positions in the same period respectively. Moreover, we referred to some articles and analyzed time and space separately, so we chose ANOVA.

Here are the referred articles:

“Wen, Y.; Su, S.; Ma, L.; Yang, S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X. Effects of canopy microclimate on fruit yield and quality of Camellia oleifera. Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam. 2018, 235, 132-41.

Zhang, Y.; Wen, Y.; Bai, Q.; Ma, Z.; Ye, H.; Su, S. Spatio-temporal effects of canopy microclimate on fruit yield and quality of Sapindus mukorossi Gaertn. Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam. 2019, 251, 136-49.

Anthony, B.M.; Chaparro, J.M.; Sterle, D.G.; Prenni, J.E.; Minas, I.S. Metabolic signatures of the true physiological impact of canopy light environment on peach fruit quality. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2021, 191, 104630.

Kviklys, D.; Viškelis, J.; Liaudanskas, M.; Janulis, V.; Laužikė, K.; Samuolienė, G.; Uselis, N.; Lanauskas, J. Apple Fruit Growth and Quality Depend on the Position in Tree Canopy. Plants. 2022, 11, 196.

Willaume, M.; Lauri, P.R.; Sinoquet, H. Light interception in apple trees influenced by canopy architecture manipulation. Trees. 2004, 18, 705-13.”

 

Results

1. Comment: Location is not defined in M&M. Preserve terminology to make reading comprehension easier.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have substituted “location” with “position” in Tables S4 and S5, and substituted tables with figures as a graph can show fruit growth better. The terminology about canopy positions is shown in 2.2 and 2.3.

 

2. Comment: Every table defines location and period, but the same terms were not used in M&M The fruit were picked from North, E, W and S, but this is not considered in Results.

Sorry to make it unclear, we have revised it in 2.3 and added the description about period. As fruits picked from North, E, W and S in the same canopy layer showed rare difference between four areas, we mixed the fruits picked from the four areas in the same layer. This part has also revised in 2.3.

 

3. Comment: Table 1. Location and Period seem inverted. I did not find uppercase letters, but differences between May and Aug seem evident. Perhaps a graph can show fruit growth better.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have substituted "Table 1" with " Figure 1" and modified mistakes you raised.

 

4. Comment: Lines 191-193. These results are not shown.

We have substituted "Table 1" with "Figure 1" and these results have been shown in “Figure 1”.

 

5. Comment: Line 194. The description of fruit longitudinal growth change is imprecise, perhaps it become stable after August. Here the text seems refer to month evolution more than canopy position, but the former sentence is referred to location within the canopy and the sentence before implies time effect.

Sorry to make it unclear, we have revised this paragraph and more data about fruit qualities during the growth period has been shown.

 

6. Comment: Lines 207-209. Month significance is not shown in Table 2. Figures usually show fruit growth better than Tables. Relative fruit growth should be reported.

 Thanks for giving us such a great comment, we decide to use figures to show fruit growth. We have substituted "Table 2" with " Figure 2". We have revised this part and added the description of relative fruit growth.

Supplementary

1. Comment: S1. The axes are without titles or units.

We have modified this mistake. Thank you looking though our manuscript so carefully.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This  Mns provide detail information about fruit development of C. Oleifera. However, the main subject and methods should be clarify. The suggestions are as follow:

1. L97: The phenology of C. oleifera should be given, especially the detail of fruit maturity.

2. L100-101: The growth rate under different canopy position were already reported in many plant species. Authors should emphasize with the applications on cultivating methods or microclimate to improve the yield.

3. L109: In Fig S1, the title and unit of Y axis should be given. And Fig.A should be the precipitation.  

4. L109-110: Were the clipped and chemical treatment never treated during the 7 years? Or during the study period? Additionally, the last pruning time should and more detail operations should be given.

5. L116-117: Fig S2: The NW, SW, SE and NE should be deleted. Fig S3: The "M, middle layer" should be deleted.

6. L123: Are the following measurements an analysis also use the same samples? 

7. L168: There were 4 locations in fruit analysis, but 16 areas in microclimate measurements. The data use and correlation between microclimate and fruit should provide more description.

8. L203 (Table1): The significant differences between location were not shown in Table 1 and 2. Is that means no significant differences? According to the description in L189-191, the lowercase letter should represent the different between months. This is not consistent with Table description.

9. L218: The description of Figure S5 was inconsistent with the figure.

10. L274, 372: The unit should be given in Table 3 and 4.

11. L562: The conclusion was not respond to the  Introduction. Please focused on the main aim of this study.

Author Response

Responds to the reviewers’ comments:

Thank you very much for the time and effort that you have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Your suggestions have enabled us to improve our work.

To make the article clearer, we have added some sentences related to the phenology of C. oleifera, and revised the aims to respond to the conclusion. Moreover, to make the division of canopy positions easier to understand, we have added more detailed description on experimental materials and experimental design. In addition, we have modified the mistakes appearing in figures and tables. Also, we have substituted Tables 1 and 2 with Figures 1 and 2 as figures could show the fruit growth better.

The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. I would be happy to make any further changes that may be required.

 

1. Comment: L97: The phenology of C. oleifera should be given, especially the detail of fruit maturity.

We have added the phenology of C. oleifera, here are specific descriptions:

“The growth period of C. oleifera is mainly from May to October, the fruit volume increases rapidly between June and August, accounting for 66% to 75% of the total volume. The fruit oil conversion period starts in July and peaks in October and most C. oleifera fruits ripen in October. When C. oleifera get matured, the fruit cracks and the seeds fall of naturally.”

 

2. Comment: L100-101: The growth rate under different canopy position were already reported in many plant species. Authors should emphasize with the applications on cultivating methods or microclimate to improve the yield.

Sorry to make it unclear. Our aim was to investigate the effect of canopy positions on the microclimate factors and fruit growth, maturation, qualities. In addition, we also investigated the relationship between microclimate and fruit qualities during the oil conversion period. Based on these results, the applications on cultivating methods or microclimate will be done to improve the yield in the next study.

 

3. Comment: L109: In Fig S1, the title and unit of Y axis should be given. And Fig.A should be the precipitation.

We have added the title and unit of Y axis and the notes for Figures A and B have been replaced. Thanks for your suggestion.

 

4. Comment: L109-110: Were the clipped and chemical treatment never treated during the 7 years? Or during the study period? Additionally, the last pruning time should and more detail operations should be given.

It is such a professional question. The last pruning time of the trees were in June 2019 and the spring shoots growing in the outer canopy were pruned by almost 60%. The chemical treatment was never treated during the 7 years.

 

5. Comment: L116-117: Fig S2: The NW, SW, SE and NE should be deleted. Fig S3: The "M, middle layer" should be deleted.

Sorry to make this mistake, we have modified this mistake. Thank you looking though our manuscript so carefully.

 

6. Comment: L123: Are the following measurements an analysis also uses the same samples?

Yes. The following measurements an analysis use the same samples.

 

7. Comment: L168: There were 4 locations in fruit analysis, but 16 areas in microclimate measurements. The data use and correlation between microclimate and fruit should provide more description.

We divided the canopy into two vertical layers and two horizontal layers, for a total of 4 large canopy positions. Based on the four large canopy positions, each canopy centered the trunk was divided into four directions: north, west, south and east. There were 16 small areas. The 16 areas are prepared for a 3D-visiual in Figure 7 to show the distribution of microclimate factors in canopies directly. Since fruit development and qualities showed rare differences between four small areas in each large canopy, we analyzed data in large canopy positions for fruit and microclimate.

 

8. Comment: L203 (Table1): The significant differences between location were not shown in Table 1 and 2. Is that means no significant differences? According to the description in L189-191, the lowercase letter should represent the different between months. This is not consistent with Table description.

Sorry for the Table description is not consistent with text. We have changed Table 1 and 2 into Figure 1 and 2, and Figure S4 and S5 have been replaced by Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. The significant differences between location and the lowercase letter which should represent the different between months have been shown clearly.

 

9. Comment: L218: The description of Figure S5 was inconsistent with the figure.

Sorry for this mistake in Figure S5. In order to show the description better, we have replaced Figure S5 into Table S5.

 

10. Comment: L274, 372: The unit should be given in Table 3 and 4.

The units in Table 3 and 4 have been given. Thanks for your reminder.

 

11. Comment: L562: The conclusion did not respond to the Introduction. Please focused on the main aim of this study.

We have revised the aims in the Introduction and the conclusion to make them correspond with each other.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After detailed modification of the MS by authors, I think it's suitable for publication.

However, one little problem should be modified: there are two Figure 4 in the MS, please check it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the attention and comments concerning our manuscript. Your suggestions are very valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper.

We have revised the number of figures in the manuscript, thanks for your suggestion. Additionally, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised by a native English speaker.

Revised portion are marked in the manuscript which we hope meet with approval. I would be happy to make any further changes if it may be required.

 

1. Comment: one little problem should be modified: there are two Figure 4 in the MS, please check it.

Thanks for your suggestion. The numbers of related figures have been revised.