Linking Conventional and Organic Rainfed Almond Cultivation to Nut Quality in a Marginal Growing Area (SE Spain)
, Leontina Lipan 2, Víctor Hugo Durán Zuazo 1, Miguel Soriano Rodríguez 3, Esther Sendra 2, Ángel Antonio Carbonell-Barrachina 2, Francisca Hernández 2, Juan Francisco Herencia Galán 4, Alfredo Emilio Rubio-Casal 5 and Iván Francisco García-Tejero 4,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This work aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of conventional and organic production systems on the yield and quality of Marcona and Desmayo Largueta almond cultivars in the southeast of Spain.
General comments:
The subject and the objective of the research are important, although the duration of the experiment reported four years for the yield monitoring is adequate, for the almond kernel quality performed in the low yield season and for one year is inadequate (at least 2 years data is necessary). Besides, because of the influence of the environment on the yield and quality, the supportive data such as monitoring the water relations as well as the gas exchange of the sampled experimental trees for nut quality is necessary, so missing in this manuscript.
Other remarks:
Title:
- Needs revision to justify the present data. Note that, the current title does not represent the duration of the study for nut quality, so a longer period of nut quality assessment with related supportive data is necessary.
Abstract:
- include the distinguished obtained results in the abstract
- Besides, the abstract is not well prepared, so needs to be revised
Introduction:
- In line 110 use nut maturity instead of grain maturity
M+M section:
- Describe the pollination and possible pollinizer requirements of the cultivars used.
- The nut quality assessment carried out in the last season with very low yield in the experimental plots and trees so needs to be repeated for another season (at least two years of data is necessary)
- Add the water relations data for the soil and experimental trees if available.
Results:
- The current results are not well presented with the proper necessary detail in the Figure's captions or Table titles, so the nut quality attributes that are reported in the manuscript need to be clear and reported for the year of sampling and the sample analysis.
Discussion:
- Needs revision based on the current data
Finally, the current data does not well cover the objectives of the work, so it does not support well the mentioned conclusion.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
In general, the quality of English is OK
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, on behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you your constructive suggestions that will improve the final result of this manuscript. We have considered all of them, including additional modifications to clarify other relevant points suggested by the remaining reviewers.
General comments:
The subject and the objective of the research are important, although the duration of the experiment reported four years for the yield monitoring is adequate, for the almond kernel quality performed in the low yield season and for one year is inadequate (at least 2 years data is necessary). Besides, because of the influence of the environment on the yield and quality, the supportive data such as monitoring the water relations as well as the gas exchange of the sampled experimental trees for nut quality is necessary, so missing in this manuscript.
Response: In relation to experimental monitoring time, the consolidation of the effects of the treatments is only achieved with the transition time, and singularly in our case with almond organic production system. In this sense, the effects of production systems have been evaluated in the last year after subjecting to field treatments after four seasons. In agronomic experiments the techniques, strategies, and practices used in the cultivation of crops is important to consider the temporal and spatial variability to elucidate the effects of different managements (or biotic and/or abiotic stresses) in the crop agronomical responses. It would be specially justified if we would want to determine the range of yields obtained under given strategy implemented. For instance if our aim is "define yield values when mature rainfed almond trees are subjected to rainfall depth variability". However, this is not the objective of the present work. In our case, not few studies have been published in order to assess the best irrigation strategies or crop management to improve the almond quality (please find the list of our recent published papers below). These papers were published taken into consideration one single season, because the objective was not to define the range of absolute values of organic acids, sugars or fatty acids when almond trees were cultivated under a certain strategy, but compare different crop management strategies to choose the best of them in terms of almond quality improvements. Among other issues because of the high difficulty (or impossibility) of defining these range of values in absolute terms (even more difficult than obtaining the yield ranges). Thus, the main aim of this study was to compare different management strategies and choose the best of them taking into consideration the changes in the almond quality parameters. Likewise, the text has been edited to clarify this point.
Publications:
Lipan L et al. (2021) “HydroSOStainable” concept: how does information influence consumer expectations towards roasted almonds? Agronomy 11(11), 2254. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112254
García-Tejero IF et al. (2020) Deficit irrigation and its implications for HydroSOStainable almond production. Agronomy10(11), 1632. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10111632
Lipan L et al. (2020) Correlation between water stress and phenolic compounds of hydroSOStainable almonds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 101, 3065-3070. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10896
Gutiérrez GS et al. (2020) Cultivar dependent impact on yield and its components of young almond trees undersustained- deficit irrigation in semi-arid environments. Agronomy 10(5), 733. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050733
Lipan L et al. (2020) How does water stress affect the low molecular weight phenolics of hydroSOStainable almonds?. Food Chemistry 339, 127756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127756
Gutiérrez GS et al. (2020) Deficit irrigation as a suitable strategy to enhance the nutritional composition of HydroSOSalmonds. Water 12, 3336. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123336
Lipan L et al. (2020) Enhancing nut quality parameters and sensory profiles in three almond cultivars by differentirrigation regimes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 68, 2316-2328. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b06854
Lipan L et al. (2020) Phytoprostanes and phytofurans-oxidative stress and bioactive compounds-in almonds are affected by deficit irrigation in almond trees. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 68, 7214-7225. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c02268
Gutiérrez GS et al. (2019) Response of three almond cultivars subjected to different irrigation regimes in Guadalquivirriver basin. Agricultural Water Management 222, 72-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.05.031
García-Tejero IF et al. (2018) Thermal imaging at plant level to assess the crop-water status in almond trees (cv. Guara) under deficit irrigation strategies. Agricultural Water Management 208,176-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.06.002
On the other hand, the main aim of this study was not to assess the water status of almond trees but the effect of agricultural systems, knowing that almond trees are under rainfed conditions with innate water stress. The present research group carried out many studies regarding to the water relations in irrigated almonds, especially with deficit irrigation strategies vs. almond nut quality. Consequently, monitoring in rainfed trees the gas exchange (less than 100 mmol/m2 s1) or water potential (more than -1.0 Mpa) in high water-stressed trees does not make sense because obvious results. However, we will take into consideration this recommendation for our further experimentation.
Other remarks:
Title:
- Needs revision to justify the present data. Note that, the current title does not represent the duration of the study for nut quality, so a longer period of nut quality assessment with related supportive data is necessary.
Response: The authors considered that the title response the content of the study: agricultural production systems vs. nut quality.
Abstract:
- include the distinguished obtained results in the abstract
- Besides, the abstract is not well prepared, so needs to be revised
Response: The abstract has been rewritten according to the remarks: it has been split into two parts and the majors advances demonstrated in the article have been better highlighted. Text has been edited according to journal’s guidelines.
Introduction:
- In line 110 use nut maturity instead of grain maturity
Response: Modified.
M+M section:
- Describe the pollination and possible pollinizer requirements of the cultivars used.
Response: This information has been added to the manuscript.
- The nut quality assessment carried out in the last season with very low yield in the experimental plots and trees so needs to be repeated for another season (at least two years of data is necessary).
Response: As explained previously, only the results corresponding to one year of sampling and analysis are shown in this work. A detailed response to this concern has been explained at beginning of the general comments.
- Add the water relations data for the soil and experimental trees if available.
Response: It has already been answered in the general comments.
Results:
- The current results are not well presented with the proper necessary detail in the Figure's captions or Table titles, so the nut quality attributes that are reported in the manuscript need to be clear and reported for the year of sampling and the sample analysis.
Response: Thank you for pointing to these formatting issues in Tables and Figures. We made all the required corrections in the new version of manuscript.
Discussion:
- Needs revision based on the current data Finally, the current data does not well cover the objectives of the work, so it does not support well the mentioned conclusion.
Response: Yes, it has been done.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript entitled "Linking conventional and organic rainfed almond cultivation to nut quality in a marginal growing area (SE Spain)" is well written and gives good knowledge in almond plantation under conventional and organic farming systems.
some suggestions for improvement:
I did not see the discussion part - i believe it is combined with the result section. If so, please indicate it.
Several places i saw the authors has long sentences. I suggest shortening those long sentences which makes it easy for audience to read and understand.
I did not see that much differences between the conventional vrs organic farming systems except for tillage part? Authors can better explain this!
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is fine - just needs minor attention and also the scientific writing as well.
Author Response
This manuscript entitled "Linking conventional and organic rainfed almond cultivation to nut quality in a marginal growing area (SE Spain)" is well written and gives good knowledge in almond plantation under conventional and organic farming systems.
Response: Dear Reviewer, on behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you your positive comments and constructive suggestions that will improve the final result of this manuscript. We have considered all of them, including additional modifications to clarify other relevant points suggested by the remaining reviewers.
Some suggestions for improvement:
-I did not see the discussion part - I believe it is combined with the result section. If so, please indicate it.
Response: Indeed. We have combined the results and discussion sections.
- Several places I saw the authors has long sentences. I suggest shortening those long sentences which makes it easy for audience to read and understand.
Response: Yes, we agree. We thank the reviewer for his time, his interest in this paper and his helpful comments. As recommendation has been shorten the sentences, we had to suppress some paragraphs, which have been addressed by comments of the reviewer.
- I did not see that much differences between the conventional vrs organic farming systems except for tillage part? Authors can better explain this!
Response: The main differences between the two farming systems (conventional and organic) are indicated in Table 1. These are the soil management system and the type of inputs used in fertilization and insecticide treatments. In the organic system, the inputs used are allowed by the organic production regulations, while for the conventional system the most common in the area are used.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
A study conducted in Spain compared conventional and organic almond production systems for two popular almond varieties, Marcona and Desmayo Largueta, in marginal hill areas. This research is significant for its focus on enhancing agroecosystem sustainability, promoting soil health, and reducing environmental impacts.
The study's findings suggest that organic farming in rainfed almond orchards resulted in improvements in several almond quality parameters, albeit with a slight reduction in yield. Notably, positive outcomes were observed in terms of moisture content, organic acids, sugars, antioxidant activity, phenolic content, and the oleic to linoleic acid ratio. Despite the decrease in productivity within organic systems, the gains in quality compensate for the yield losses.
However, there are concerns about the experimental design and the conclusions reached. One noteworthy issue is the ambiguity regarding the placement of plots or plot pairs. The description hints at a split-plot design rather than a completely random one, and this aspect needs further clarification to ensure the validity of the results.
Another concern relates to the authors' approach to post-hoc tests. In cases where there is a significant interaction between two factors in a Two-Way ANOVA, it signifies that the effect of one factor depends on the level of the other. In such instances, comparing the means of different levels of each factor without considering the interaction could lead to misleading conclusions. There's a need for clarification on why post hoc tests for main effects were employed when a significant interaction was present.
Finally, it is essential to clarify how the random effect of years was factored into the individual analyses.
Author Response
A study conducted in Spain compared conventional and organic almond production systems for two popular almond varieties, Marcona and Desmayo Largueta, in marginal hill areas. This research is significant for its focus on enhancing agroecosystem sustainability, promoting soil health, and reducing environmental impacts.
The study's findings suggest that organic farming in rainfed almond orchards resulted in improvements in several almond quality parameters, albeit with a slight reduction in yield. Notably, positive outcomes were observed in terms of moisture content, organic acids, sugars, antioxidant activity, phenolic content, and the oleic to linoleic acid ratio. Despite the decrease in productivity within organic systems, the gains in quality compensate for the yield losses.
Response: Dear Reviewer, on behalf of the authors, I would like to thank you your positive comments and constructive suggestions that will improve the final result of this manuscript. We have considered all of them, including additional modifications to clarify other relevant points suggested by the remaining reviewers.
However, there are concerns about the experimental design and the conclusions reached. One noteworthy issue is the ambiguity regarding the placement of plots or plot pairs. The description hints at a split-plot design rather than a completely random one, and this aspect needs further clarification to ensure the validity of the results.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, we have gained immensely and revised them according to your comments.
Another concern relates to the authors' approach to post-hoc tests. In cases where there is a significant interaction between two factors in a Two-Way ANOVA, it signifies that the effect of one factor depends on the level of the other. In such instances, comparing the means of different levels of each factor without considering the interaction could lead to misleading conclusions. There's a need for clarification on why post hoc tests for main effects were employed when a significant interaction was present.
Response: Throughout the results and discussion section we have tried to explain the influence of this interaction between the analyzed factors. We hope that with the improvements introduced it will be clearer.
Finally, it is essential to clarify how the random effect of years was factored into the individual analyses.
Response: Thanks to the valuable advice you provided. We are totally in agreement with your assessment. When we are developing field experiments, and more concretely in agronomy, it is important to consider the temporal and spatial variability to elucidate the effects of different managements (or biotic and/or abiotic factors) in the agronomical responses. This is specially justified if we seek to determine the range of results obtained when a crop management is implemented. However, this was not the aim of the present work, in our experiment, the objective was not to define the range of absolute values of organic acids, sugars or fatty acids when almond trees are cultivated under a certain strategy, but compare different crop management strategies to choose the best of them in terms of almond quality improvements. Among other issues because of the high difficulty (or impossibility) of defining these range of values in absolute terms (even more difficult than obtaining the yield ranges). Thus, the main aim of this work has been to compare different management strategies and choose the best of them taking into consideration the changes in the almond quality parameters. Additionally, a detailed reply to this concern has been cited in response to Reviewer 1 at the general comments, discussing why the random effect of the years has not been taken into account, since in this analysis made during the last monitoring season.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This revised version is acceptable, so I suggest using the comments on the original manuscript for your future research
