Agromorphological and Chemical Characterization of Pear Cultivars Grown in Central–West Iberian Peninsula
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a research article on seventeen pear cultivars grown in Central-Western Iberian Peninsula. This manuscript, in its structure and content, fits with the subject matter of this journal.The content of the manuscript is interesting and informative in both scientific and practical terms.
The manuscript uses 32 sources that are between 1964 and 2023. 14 of them (44%) are older than 10 years,
so I suggest updating the bibliography with newer sources (as much as it is possible for the authors) with the latest scientific discoveries in the field.
Regarding PCA: figure 1 is rather uninformative. It would be good if you could supplement the PCA graph with quality indicators (e.g. brix, acidity, weight, etc.) so that you can see which varieties stand out more according to which parameters. Now it is not clear whether these varieties differ in any way from each other or if they all fall into one cluster.
The conclusions are very general, supports the main idea of the manuscript, but it would be good to make them a little more specific.
The English language of the manuscript is quite good, no significant proofreading errors have been observed, however, the stylistics and some expressions could be improved.
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
The manuscript uses 32 sources that are between 1964 and 2023. 14 of them (44%) are older than 10 years, so I suggest updating the bibliography with newer sources (as much as it is possible for the authors) with the latest scientific discoveries in the field.
The novelty of the maniscript lies in the fact that there are practically no previous studies on traditional pear cultivars in the central western area of ​​the Iberian Peninsula. Despite this, ten more bibliographical references from studies carried out internationally have been included.
Regarding PCA: figure 1 is rather uninformative. It would be good if you could supplement the PCA graph with quality indicators (e.g. brix, acidity, weight, etc.) so that you can see which varieties stand out more according to which parameters. Now it is not clear whether these varieties differ in any way from each other or if they all fall into one cluster.
Figure 1 has been modified and additional information has been included to help interpret the results.
The conclusions are very general, supports the main idea of the manuscript, but it would be good to make them a little more specific.
The conclusions have been expanded by including some more concrete information.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I would like to thank you very much for the invitation as a reviewer for the manuscript agronomy-2737518 entitled “Agromorphological and chemical characterization of pear cultivars grown in Central-West Iberian Peninsula”. The article is dedicated to the vital problem of genetic diversity in old traditional cultivars. The authors did a good study, which should be highly appreciated. Among these cultivars, breeders could find valuable sources for further breeding.
The article meets the general requirements of the Agronomy journal, but it needs some explanations and clarifications (minor changes):
General remark: The text does not always have spaces in the right places; The authors need to edit the text.
Abstract.
General remark: the authors should be more specific about why this is important, such as for genetic collection or identifying valuable traits for further breeding, etc.
Line 12. The abbreviation UPOV must be clarified.
Lines 13-14. “Some cultivars showed distinctive and interesting agronomical characters from a commercial point of view, such as high yields and fruit quality”. This sentence represents a general statement and does not provide information specific to this study what should be done in the study.
Line 14. There is no data about the yields in the article. You must correct the Abstract or add information about yield of these cultivars.
Introduction
General remark: It looks that the Introduction section has insufficient information about the pear growing and local cultivars in the Central and Westerrn part of the Iberian Pepinsula.
Line 53-56. The authors should describe what they are going to study as agromorphological point: (i)…, (i) … and chemical point: (iii) …, (iv) ….. The aim of the study should be formulated more precisely.
Materials and Methods
General remark. It would be better if authors would select the “standard” cultivar to compear the results.
Lines 59-68. It looks that authors should better describe the main principals of the survey organization and reasons of these cultivars selection.
Line 70. Table 1. Because the total rainfall hardly varies in different regions would be better to distribute cultivars according to growing regions.
Line 74-75. “…13 descriptors established by UPOV [19] a further 6 descriptors…” Authors must list these descriptors.
Line 80. It is not clear from the description: how many trees were these ten fruits taken from? On what principle were the fruits selected from the tree?
Line 94. Please clarify: how many trees were these seven fruits taken from?
Results
Two Tables have the same number. Please correct the numbering of tables.
Line 206. It is not entirely clear why the calculated significant difference between the indicators of different cultivars is needed. The different cultivars in any cases will have some various parameters. Maybe authors should add one more row to the table with reference indicators that meet market requirements?
Conclusion
Line 289. There is no data about the yields in the article. You must correct the Conclusions and add information about yield of these cultivars.
References
According to the template, the journal names must be abbreviated. In some sources descripton, the names are not abbreviated (12, 13, 14, 15 … etc.). Please, check the reference list for compliance with the rules for authors.
The authors must have to add in the end of the manuscript:
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Author Response
General remark: the authors should be more specific about why this is important, such as for genetic collection or identifying valuable traits for further breeding, etc.
More information has been included about the importance of screening and characterizing these cultivars.
The abbreviation UPOV must be clarified.
The UPOV abbreviation has been developed.
“Some cultivars showed distinctive and interesting agronomical characters from a commercial point of view, such as high yields and fruit quality”. This sentence represents a general statement and does not provide information specific to this study what should be done in the study.
More concrete results have been included that justify the statement.
There is no data about the yields in the article. You must correct the Abstract or add information about yield of these cultivars.
In the study, yield data per tree were not obtained due to the large number of trees surveyed and the difficulty of managing so much fruit. An attempt is made to assess the production potential through the average weight of the fruits. In many cases, there is usually a clear relationship between these two parameters. Although the influence of soil and climate conditions and the management system used must also be taken into account. The appreciation is appreciated and will be taken into account for future studies.
It looks that the Introduction section has insufficient information about the pear growing and local cultivars in the Central and Westerrn part of the Iberian Peninsula.
Information on the type of plantations and the management system has been included.
The authors should describe what they are going to study as agromorphological point: (i)…, (i) … and chemical point: (iii) …, (iv) ….. The aim of the study should be formulated more precisely.
The objectives of the work have been detailed.
It would be better if authors would select the “standard” cultivar to compear the results.
The cultivars used as a reference have been detailed.
It looks that authors should better describe the main principals of the survey organization and reasons of these cultivars selection.
The interest in carrying out these works has been detailed.
Table 1. Because the total rainfall hardly varies in different regions would be better to distribute cultivars according to growing regions.
A table has been included with information on the location of each of the cultivars.
“…13 descriptors established by UPOV [19] a further 6 descriptors…” Authors must list these descriptors.
A table has been included with all the descriptors studied and the units of measurement or categories.
It is not clear from the description: how many trees were these ten fruits taken from? On what principle were the fruits selected from the tree? / Please clarify: how many trees were these seven fruits taken from?.
The number of fruits taken per tree and from which areas has been detailed.
Two Tables have the same number. Please correct the numbering of tables.
It is really the same table of quantitative fruit data. In the second "continuation" has been added.
It is not entirely clear why the calculated significant difference between the indicators of different cultivars is needed. The different cultivars in any cases will have some various parameters. Maybe authors should add one more row to the table with reference indicators that meet market requirements?.
Information has been included on market preferences in relation to the main quality parameters.
There is no data about the yields in the article. You must correct the Conclusions and add information about yield of these cultivars.
The conclusions have been expanded and included some more specific data.
According to the template, the journal names must be abbreviated. In some sources description, the names are not abbreviated (12, 13, 14, 15 … etc.). Please, check the reference list for compliance with the rules for authors.
The names of the journals have been abbreviated.
The authors must have to add in the end of the manuscript:
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
This paragraph has been added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Review of the manuscript titled "Agromorphological and chemical characterization of pear cultivars grown in Central-West Iberian Peninsula": This work represents a valuable contribution to the research on the diversity of pear varieties in the Central-West Iberian Peninsula. The authors conducted a comprehensive morphological and chemical characterization of seventeen traditional pear varieties, providing insights into their genetic diversity, especially for endangered varieties. One of the key strengths of the study lies in the detailed agromorphological characterization, covering parameters such as fruit stalk length and thickness, fruit dimensions, stalk cavity depth and width, and fruit maturity time. Rigorous statistical analyses facilitated the identification of significant differences between varieties, enhancing the study's value. Chemical analyses, including acidity, pH, and soluble solids content, offer a comprehensive overview of the chemical composition of the fruits. The substantial differences observed in these parameters add significant value for producers concerned with fruit quality. The utilization of chemical composition analysis through PCA (Principal Component Analysis) and dendrogram provides depth to the analysis, allowing for a better understanding of relationships between pear varieties. This approach is particularly valuable for breeding programs, enabling the identification of similarities and differences between varieties.
As a reviewer, I noted several areas that could be further developed or clarified:
1. Abstract Extension and Structure: Consider expanding and restructuring the abstract to provide a more comprehensive overview of the study.
2. Alternative Hypothesis in Introduction: In the introduction, it might be beneficial to present an alternative research hypothesis in addition to the null hypothesis and subsequently verify both hypotheses.
3. Comparison with Previous Studies: It is suggested to include a comparative section with previous studies on the chemical composition of pears in other regions. Such comparisons could offer additional context and highlight the uniqueness of the studied varieties in the Central-West Iberian Peninsula.
4. Sample Collection Methodology: Provide more detailed information in the sample collection methodology section. Describing specific techniques used for sample collection and any special criteria for sample selection could enhance understanding of the research process.
5. Fruit Maturity Criteria: Emphasize the criteria used to determine fruit maturity in the analysis of fruit maturity time. Detailing factors influencing the determination of fruit maturity and aspects considered during measurements would be beneficial.
6. Explanation of Results: Where possible, consider adding more detailed explanations regarding the reasons for observed differences between varieties. This can assist readers in understanding why certain varieties exhibit specific morphological or chemical characteristics.
In conclusion, the study makes a significant contribution to research on the genetic diversity of pear varieties in the Central-West Iberian Peninsula. Careful agromorphological and chemical analyses provide valuable information, and the results from PCA and dendrogram analysis add depth to understanding relationships between varieties. The authors deserve recognition for their work in preserving the genetic resources of pears in this region.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor English editing is required.
Author Response
Abstract Extension and Structure: Consider expanding and restructuring the abstract to provide a more comprehensive overview of the study.
The summary has been expanded and included more detailed information on the results and the importance of the works.
Alternative Hypothesis in Introduction: In the introduction, it might be beneficial to present an alternative research hypothesis in addition to the null hypothesis and subsequently verify both hypotheses.
The objectives pursued by carrying out the work have been detailed.
Comparison with Previous Studies: It is suggested to include a comparative section with previous studies on the chemical composition of pears in other regions. Such comparisons could offer additional context and highlight the uniqueness of the studied varieties in the Central-West Iberian Peninsula.
Ten works developed at an international level have been included that have allowed the results to be discussed.
Sample Collection Methodology: Provide more detailed information in the sample collection methodology section. Describing specific techniques used for sample collection and any special criteria for sample selection could enhance understanding of the research process.
The information on the prospecting work carried out has been expanded.
Fruit Maturity Criteria: Emphasize the criteria used to determine fruit maturity in the analysis of fruit maturity time. Detailing factors influencing the determination of fruit maturity and aspects considered during measurements would be beneficial.
The criteria used to determine the optimal moment of ripeness of the fruits have been detailed.
Explanation of Results: Where possible, consider adding more detailed explanations regarding the reasons for observed differences between varieties. This can assist readers in understanding why certain varieties exhibit specific morphological or chemical characteristics.
Emphasis has been placed in the results on the influence that genetics has on the variations observed between genotypes, without leaving aside the interaction with edapho-climatic conditions and the management system.
