A Multi-Year Study of Forchlorfenuron’s Effects on Physical Fruit Quality Parameters in A. chinensis var. chinensis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The format of the manuscript should not be as follows “Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions”?

 

Materials and Methods

The authors indicate that two kiwifruit orchards with uniform growth and vigor were identified. However, how can they have this guarantee?

Regarding statistical analysis, the authors state that:

·         “Averages and standard errors were calculated using the data from all repetition samples.” »» However, the standard-deviation (SD) describes the variability between individuals in a sample; the standard-error of the mean (SEM) describes the uncertainty of how the sample mean represents the population mean. Authors often, inappropriately, report the SEM when describing the sample. As the SEM is always less than the SD, it misleads the reader into underestimating the variability between individuals within the study sample. In this sense, what should be presented is the SD and not the SEM;

·         “Normality was carried out applying the Shapiro normality test.” »» The sentence must be rewritten, as the name of the test is: Shapiro-Wilk (and place the results obtained as supplementary information, as a table);

·         “The statistical significance of differences among treatments was assessed via multifactorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey HSD test with p < 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1.” »» To perform a multifactorial variance analysis, several requirements must be met, namely (and most importantly!) the homoscedasticity of the variances. Therefore, authors are requested to provide this information in this section and place the results obtained as supplementary information (such as a table). Also, authors must clearly indicate which factors are considered in the analysis. In addition, with a control group, Tukey HSD test is not suitable. Authors must present the results of multiple comparisons with the control, using an appropriate test (for example, Dunnett's test). In addition, the authors report that they used p < 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, however, the results cannot be interpreted by comparing different levels of significance;

·         “Box plots were created using R software, v. 2024, library ggplot2.” »» However, the analysis of variance used is parametric, so the null hypothesis is based on a parameter (which in this case is the mean), so boxplots are not the graphs indicated to represent the results achieved (since these represent the median). Authors must graphically represent the results using bar diagrams, reporting the mean ± SD. Alternatively, graphs with confidence intervals will also be a good option;

·         “Concerning the analysis of post-harvest data, heatmap displays the average firmness value of 25 fruits samples (in Kgf) along with the statistical significance of differences compared to the control group by t-test at p < 0.05.” »» However, with a control group, this test is not suitable. Authors must present the results of multiple comparisons with the control, using an appropriate test (for example, Dunnett's test). Once again, it is important to note that the significance level used must be standardized.

All results of multiple comparison tests must be included in supplementary material (such as a table).

 

Results

Table 1 must be redone, as it cannot only indicate symbols. The p-values ​​must be presented, as well as the mean ± SD. Furthermore, in the same analysis, authors cannot be using different significance levels.

Additionally, if there is a statistically significant effect of interactions, the interpretation must focus on these (as the results of the factors alone may be masked by the statistical significance of the interactions).

Does figure 1 represent a boxplot? If yes, it should be changed to the correct graphical representation (as previously mentioned). Graphs should always reflect statistically significant differences (through a symbol, for example).

Similar considerations are made for the following figures and tables (2 and 3).

The caption to table 4 should be reviewed, as it does not explain what "ns" and "*" mean. On the other hand, table captions must appear before them.

I believe that carrying out a multifactorial anova with 3 factors may not be the most appropriate, given the complexity of the results and the fact that they may be masked by interactions. Did the authors perform the study with a 2-factor analysis of variance, separated by years? Couldn't the results be clearer and more enlightening?

Finally, I believe that authors should present an analysis of main components, as this will allow them to find patterns that really help and complement the univariate analysis presented.

Author Response

Thank you, please see the attached word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is valuable as it addresses the multiyear impact of forchlorfenuron on fruit quality parameters of Kiwi fruits, which has important implications for agricultural productivity and quality enhancement. Below are my comments and suggestions for the improvements of the manuscript.

Minor concern:

There are several typos throughout the manuscript. Please correct them.

Title: Okay and smart.

Abstract: Line 2-5, please maintain same font size. It is highly suggested to add some numerical data in the abstract.

Introduction: Please add linking words among paragraphs.

The last line of second paragraph is incomplete.

There are too many complex sentences. Please try to use simple sentences so that it could be easily understandable for the non-specialist readers.

Result: 2.1 Sub-heading, this is not the style of represent the result.

Figure 1, figure 2, and table 4- resolution is very poor.

2.5 It is better to spell out the abbreviation on it’s first appearance.

Discussion: It’s highly recommended to add subheadings.

Conclusions: It’s too short.

5.2 It is better to use different paragraphs to show the methods for different biochemical analysis.

Major concern:

Materials & Methods: Is it feasible to use Forchlorfenuron on ‘Zespri®Sungold’ before getting the permission from the concerned authority?

Were environmental variables such as soil type, irrigation, and fertilization, standardized across years to minimize confounding effects?

The manuscript should address the long-term implications of CPPU application on plant health, fruit storage quality, or potential consumer health concerns.

While the results are well documented, further discussion on the potential physiological mechanisms by which CPPU impacts fruit firmness, size, and sugar content is warranted.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you, please see the attached word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, I have gladly reviewed the article titled "A Multi-Year Study of Forchlorfenuron Effects on Physical Fruit Quality Parameters in A. chinensis var. chinensis" and find it engaging and pleasant to read despite some evident flaws.

 The research provided may be regarded as novel, and despite some parts that has to be revised, it remains sufficiently consistent and comprehensible. The conceptualization meet a satisfactory standard. Also presentation of results seems proper with some minor flaws. The introduction part is well-written, effectively highlighting the problems that should have been addressed. Methodology is reasonable, but I have found some parts that were unclear for me and that require some corrections to enhance clarity. The layout of pictures and graphs fits well with the descriptive part of the results, resulting in overall coherent presentation.

Summarizing, there are some corrections that should be implemented prior to recommending the manuscript for publication. However I strongly believe that Authors can address them during the revision process.

 

 Introduction:

The authors have done well introducing the context and providing background information that is relevant to the investigated topic. They have managed to articulate, in a clear and straightforward way, the reasons for undertaking this research, as well as the motivations that underpin their decision to explore this particular area of study. This ensures that readers can readily understand the significance of the research and its relevance within its broader field.

However, it is my view that the aims and goals of the study could have been more thoroughly and explicitly defined. Specifically, the authors could have included a more detailed explanation of the specific objectives that the research seeks to accomplish and the precise research questions it aims to address. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of emphasis on clearly identifying and highlighting the core research problems that the study intends to investigate. The same applies to the hypotheses being tested, which were not sufficiently emphasized or clearly presented. I feel that this omission detracts from the overall clarity and focus of the study.

To address these shortcomings, I would strongly recommend that the authors place greater emphasis on defining the key aims of the research in a way that is both specific and detailed. They should outline the main objectives with precision, ensuring that readers are left with no ambiguity about what the study is attempting to achieve. 

Also I strongly advice to revise the first line of second paragraph’s beginning as some ambiguous citations are noticeable there.


Results:

Upon analysing the results section, I am convinced that the presentation of the content aligns well with the scientific standards. The manner in which the descriptive portion of the section is structured and articulated adds substantial value to the accompanying data.. The clarity and logical flow of the narrative ensure that the information is conveyed effectively, adhering closely to the accepted practices in scientific communication.

In my perspective, the overall quality of the results section is proper, and no substantial revisions seem necessary, with just one notable exception. I observed that the tables—specifically Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3—appear to deviate from the formatting requirements prescribed by the Agronomy Journal template. Ensuring consistency with the journal's formatting standards (journal template) would improve the ease with which the tables are perceived and interpreted by readers. I strongly suggest revising the format of these tables to comply fully with the template specifications.

 

Additionally, I recommend modifying the phrasing in one specific instance to improve clarity and adherence to common scientific reporting practices. Instead of the current wording, “Significant codes: *** […], I propose using the phrase “Symbols “***”, “**”, “*”, and “.” correspond to the significance level of p-values 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively” This phrasing is not only clearer but also more consistent with how significance levels are conventionally reported in scientific literature.

Moreover, it appears unnecessary to provide an explanation for the significance level of p-values less than 0.1 (denoted as ‘.’) in Table 3, given that this specific symbol is not used within that table. Including such an explanation in this context might lead to confusion or redundancy, and therefore, omitting it would maintain focus on the data that are directly relevant to the table.

 

 Discussion:

The discussion part of this document is written in a clear, thoughtful, and organized manner. It successfully maintains a sense of continuity and logical progression throughout, which makes it easy to follow the ideas being presented. It establishes a meaningful connection between the results that have been shared and the goals or objectives of the study, as well as the findings or insights from previous research in the same area. I therefore do not see the necessity for any corrections.

 
Conclusions:

The conclusions outlined in the study are strongly based on the evidence and findings gathered by the authors during their research process. These conclusions are well-supported and thoroughly derived from the data and results obtained, ensuring that they align closely with the insights and implications emerging from the study's outcomes. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the authors have adequately and appropriately addressed the need for future research in the field. They have clearly identified areas where further investigation could be valuable, which I find essential.  I do not see the reason to correct this section.

 

Materials and Methods:

 This section is generally well-written, but there are a few areas that may need further explanation. Specifically, there is no mention of climate details. To improve the scientific credibility of the article, it would be helpful to include a well-known climate classification, such as the Köppen climate system. This would provide a standard way of describing the climate in the study area, making it easier for readers to understand the climate conditions. The same applies to the soil classification. It is important to include information on the type of soil, using systems like the WRB or USDA classification, to show the conditions in which the orchards were grown.

Author Response

Thank you, please see the attached word file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved in accordance with the proposed recommendations.