LED White Light Treatment Delays Postharvest Senescence of ‘Zaosu’ Pear Fruit with Inhibited Chlorophyll Degradation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting work on the effect of LED white light on the post-harvest senescence of Zaosu' Pear Fruit.

Some points are presented for the authors' attention.

Add the scientific name of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit in title of manuscript.

Line 37: Provide the meaning of 1-MCP.

Line 40: In "... light-emitting diodes (LEDs) dur to their remarkable attributes.". Did you mean "due"?

Lines 106, 108: "V0", "VS", must be "V₀", "V_S". According to the formula in line 105.

Lines 118, 134: Change "CO2" to "CO₂".

Lines 150-152: Review the way the formulas for quantification of chlorophyll content are written and correct them appropriately so that they are understandable.

Line 175: Table 1 is missing.

Lines 183-185: Delete lines.

Lines 194, 200, 205, 207: "Fig. 1" must be "Fig. 2" followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 214: Change "Fig. 2" to "Fig. 3".

Lines 217-220: In "However, the respiration rate and ethylene production of pear fruits in LWT group were significantly higher than in the control group (P<0.05). This indicates that LWT can inhibit the respiration process and ethylene synthesis in pear fruits."
Please review this statement, or clarify because it seems contradictory. Whether the respiration rate and ethylene production in the LWT group was higher than that in the control group; so this does not indicate that LWT can inhibit the process of respiration and ethylene synthesis. Figure 3 shows the opposite of what was stated.

Lines 230, 235: "Figures 3" must be "Figures 4" followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 242: "Figures 4 and 5" must be "Must be "Figures 5 and 6"

Line 244: Change "Fig. 4" to "Fig. 5".

Line 256: Change "Fig. 5" to "The Figure 6".

Lines 270, 279, 282, 288: Fig. 6, should refer to Fig. 7 followed by the corresponding letter.

Lines 302, 306: Fig. 7, should refer to Fig. 8 followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 318: Change "Fig. 8" to "Fig. 9"

The discussion and conclusion sections should be separated.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Here, we would like to resubmit the revised paper (horticulturae-2776637) for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised for our paper, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. All the authors have reviewed and approved the revision. We hope that the revision could be acceptable and look forward to hearing from you soon.

The details are as below:

It is an interesting work on the effect of LED white light on the post-harvest senescence of Zaosu' Pear Fruit.

Some points are presented for the authors' attention.

Add the scientific name of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit in title of manuscript.

• Thank you for your kind comments. For avoiding a very long title, we have added the scientific name of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit in the Introduction section. (Line 24)

Line 37: Provide the meaning of 1-MCP.

• We have given the full name of 1-MCP. (Line 38)

Line 40: In "... light-emitting diodes (LEDs) dur to their remarkable attributes.". Did you mean "due"?

• Yes, thank you. We have corrected it now. (Line 40)

Lines 106, 108: "V0", "VS", must be "V₀", "V_S". According to the formula in line 105.

• We have corrected them now. (Lines 106 and 108)

Lines 118, 134: Change "CO2" to "CO₂".

• We have changed them. (Lines 118 and 134)

Lines 150-152: Review the way the formulas for quantification of chlorophyll content are written and correct them appropriately so that they are understandable.

• We have corrected them. (Line 150-152)

Line 175: Table 1 is missing.

• We have added Table 1 in the text now. (Line 178-179)

Lines 183-185: Delete lines.

• We have deleted them now.

Lines 194, 200, 205, 207: "Fig. 1" must be "Fig. 2" followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 214: Change "Fig. 2" to "Fig. 3".

• Thank you. We have corrected them throughout the manuscript.

Lines 217-220: In "However, the respiration rate and ethylene production of pear fruits in LWT group were significantly higher than in the control group (P<0.05). This indicates that LWT can inhibit the respiration process and ethylene synthesis in pear fruits."
Please review this statement, or clarify because it seems contradictory. Whether the respiration rate and ethylene production in the LWT group was higher than that in the control group; so this does not indicate that LWT can inhibit the process of respiration and ethylene synthesis. Figure 3 shows the opposite of what was stated.

• Thank you so much. We have corrected the error now. (Line 215)

Lines 230, 235: "Figures 3" must be "Figures 4" followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 242: "Figures 4 and 5" must be "Must be "Figures 5 and 6"

Line 244: Change "Fig. 4" to "Fig. 5".

Line 256: Change "Fig. 5" to "The Figure 6".

Lines 270, 279, 282, 288: Fig. 6, should refer to Fig. 7 followed by the corresponding letter.

Lines 302, 306: Fig. 7, should refer to Fig. 8 followed by the corresponding letter.

Line 318: Change "Fig. 8" to "Fig. 9"

• Thank you. We have corrected them throughout the manuscript.

The discussion and conclusion sections should be separated.

• Thank you for your kind suggestion. Now the conclusion has been separated from the discussion. (Line 367)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript that was submitted by Jingxin Chen1, Bin Liu, and colleagues, entitled "LED White Light Treatment Delays Postharvest Senescence of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit with Inhibited Chlorophyll Degradation" the authors study the effect of white light treatment on the postharvest quality of pears via physiological traits and gene expression analysis. Overall, the writing is good, and the figures have a good presentation. The current manuscript is in line with the aims and purposes of the Horticulturae journal; however, there are some issues that should be carefully addressed.

Major and minor

Introduction

Lines 31-32; Replace ‘which accelerating the aging process’ with ‘which accelerates senescence’

MM section

Theoretically, with the harvest of the pears, fruit enter cold storage for short- and long-term storage. Why did you only choose to expose the fruits to 25 and not to 0? It is a common practice.

Line 55; The plural of ‘fruit’ is ‘fruit’ and not fruits, fruits refer to different kinds of fruits. So revise accordingly.

Line 57; What was the size of the fruits?

Lines 87-88; Why ‘quality’, replace with ‘weight’

Lines 98-99; Rewriting the sentence is not clear.

Line 175; Add primers in Table 1

Results

Lines 183-185; remove the sentence.

Lines 192-194, 203-204, 275-276, 281; these sentences should be included in the discussion section.

You should write results about Figs. 9 and 10.

The discussion and conclusion sections should be separated.

Incorporate in the discussion section the abovementioned lines from the results section.

The conclusion section is the last paragraph. Therefore, it should be separated.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Here, we would like to resubmit the revised paper (horticulturae-2776637) for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised for our paper, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. All the authors have reviewed and approved the revision. We hope that the revision could be acceptable and look forward to hearing from you soon.

The details are as below:

In the manuscript that was submitted by Jingxin Chen1, Bin Liu, and colleagues, entitled "LED White Light Treatment Delays Postharvest Senescence of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit with Inhibited Chlorophyll Degradation" the authors study the effect of white light treatment on the postharvest quality of pears via physiological traits and gene expression analysis. Overall, the writing is good, and the figures have a good presentation. The current manuscript is in line with the aims and purposes of the Horticulturae journal; however, there are some issues that should be carefully addressed.

Major and minor

Introduction

Lines 31-32; Replace ‘which accelerating the aging process’ with ‘which accelerates senescence’

• Thank you. We have revised it. (Line 32)

MM section

Theoretically, with the harvest of the pears, fruit enter cold storage for short- and long-term storage. Why did you only choose to expose the fruits to 25 and not to 0? It is a common practice.

• Thanks for your constructive comments. Usually, pears were stored under cold storage. However, in our study, we were trying to investigate the effect of LED white light treatment on the postharvest senescence of pear fruit and its relationship with chlorophyll degradation. Of course, as you mentioned, we can test the effect of LED white light on fruit exposed to 0 ºC in our further research.

Line 55; The plural of ‘fruit’ is ‘fruit’ and not fruits, fruits refer to different kinds of fruits. So revise accordingly.

• We have revised it throughout the paper now.

Line 57; What was the size of the fruits?

• The fruit size is about 200-230 g. (Line 57)

Lines 87-88; Why ‘quality’, replace with ‘weight’

• We have revised it. (Line 87)

Lines 98-99; Rewriting the sentence is not clear.

• We have rewritten the sentence. (Line 98-99)

Line 175; Add primers in Table 1

• We have added Table 1 in the paper. (Line 178-179)

Results

Lines 183-185; remove the sentence.

• We have deleted the sentence.

Lines 192-194, 203-204, 275-276, 281; these sentences should be included in the discussion section.

• Thanks for your kind suggestion. These sentences are common sense, so we deleted them.

You should write results about Figs. 9 and 10.

• Thank you so much for your reminding. It is our fault that we did not note Figs. 9 and 10 in the text. Now we have corrected it. (Line 312, 317, 319)

The discussion and conclusion sections should be separated.

Incorporate in the discussion section the abovementioned lines from the results section.

The conclusion section is the last paragraph. Therefore, it should be separated.

• Thanks for your kind comments. The conclusion section had been separated from the discussion section. (Line 367)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Regarding the review of the document with title: LED White Light Treatment Delays Postharvest Senescence of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit with Inhibited Chlorophyll Degradation

The title is appropriate and describes the content of the manuscript. In the introduction section, the scientific name of Zaosu should be placed. Review the amount of fruits used (112) since it is mentioned that 9 were used for each day, and the total would be 108 fruits; please explain.

Table 1 does not appear in the text.

Delete lines 183-185 of the text.

Be careful when using the greater than and less than sign, because it can cause confusion.

The references in the text of the figures are wrong, since Figure 1 shows the diagrams and spectra, and in the results section they refer to postharvest quality values. Correct the numbers of consecutive figures.

On line 270, Fig. 6A should be placed.

Increase discussions of results in general.

Minimal spelling and grammar check

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Here, we would like to resubmit the revised paper (horticulturae-2776637) for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised for our paper, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. All the authors have reviewed and approved the revision. We hope that the revision could be acceptable and look forward to hearing from you soon.

The details are as below:

Regarding the review of the document with title: LED White Light Treatment Delays Postharvest Senescence of 'Zaosu' Pear Fruit with Inhibited Chlorophyll Degradation

The title is appropriate and describes the content of the manuscript. In the introduction section, the scientific name of Zaosu should be placed.

• Thank you for your comments. We have added the scientific name in the Introduction section.

Review the amount of fruits used (112) since it is mentioned that 9 were used for each day, and the total would be 108 fruits; please explain.

• Actually, on day 0, nine pears were used, so the total is 99 pears. The remain pears were used for weight loss. Usually, we prepared more samples than theoretical calculation.

Table 1 does not appear in the text.

• We have added Table 1 in the paper. (Line 178-179)

Delete lines 183-185 of the text.

• Thank you for your reminding. We have deleted the text.

Be careful when using the greater than and less than sign, because it can cause confusion.

The references in the text of the figures are wrong, since Figure 1 shows the diagrams and spectra, and in the results section they refer to postharvest quality values. Correct the numbers of consecutive figures.

On line 270, Fig. 6A should be placed.

• Thanks for your comment. We have corrected the mistake throughout the manuscript.

Increase discussions of results in general.

• Thanks for your comments. We have tried to improve the discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All my concerns have been successfully addressed. I accept this manuscript in present form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 363, review the word "chllide"