Evaluation of Storage Quality of Hardy Kiwifruit (Actinidia arguta): Effect of 1-MCP and Maturity Stage
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. “2.1. Outline of the Experiment” part:
Many test details in this manuscript are not presented clearly. Management level of the orchard? Row spacing? Which part of the tree did the fruits pick from? Which year did the experiment conduct? Which date did the fruit reach mature stage? How many fruits did the authors picked from the trees? Why did the authors choose 0.65 μL/L as the suitable concentration (Reference?)?
2. Figure 1~6: The Newman-Keuls range test should be conducted twice (the same treatment with different storage technology; the same storage technology with different treatment).
3. Table 2-7: The tables could be converted to figures to make the data look more intuitive.
4. Only 3 physicochemical indices (FF, SSC, TA) are not enough to explain the points raised in this manuscript. More indices should be used in this experiment.
5. Line 120: The word “content” should be deleted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I don´t understand the experimental design used in the study. A two way analysis of variance was used, according to the Statistical Analysis section. However, a comparison between all the studied factors are mentioned in the Results and Discussion. I propose to clarify the experimental design and the factors under study, analyzing and informing the significance of the interactions, and based on these the results and discussion of the work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript explains the effects of fruit maturity and 1 methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) application on fruit quality of hardy kiwi fruit during storage in air, ULO, and CA storage. The authors have concluded that the application of 1-MCP decisively inhibits the softening of mini-kiwi even under air storage.
The manuscript might enrich the literature of kiwifruit storage. However, there are some comments and suggestions should be addressed to enhance the manuscript and make it more digestible for readers.
1- It is not clear why you did not measure the ethylene production since you applied 1-MCP? Please, more explanation is needed.
2- In the keywords: add the cultivar name and the scientific name, delete phase after maturity, and add “fruit quality” instead of “firmness, TA, SSC”.
3- In line 57: spell out the MAP.
4- in line 69 use “effects” instead of “effect”.
5- In line 72: use “air storage” instead of “conventional cold storage”.
6- In line 100: it is not clear how you considered 1.5% O2 is ultra-low O2. Please, more clarification is needed.
7- You selected two cultivars; one is local and the other is global. It is not clear why you did not compare the response of the two cultivars to the applied treatments in the effects on fruit quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was well revised. It can be accepted now.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and positive acceptance of the article for publication in Agriculture
Sincerely yours,
Tomasz Krupa (Ph.D)
Department of Pomology and Horticultural Economic
Warsaw University of Life Science, Poland
Reviewer 2 Report
I consider that the work lacks application of statistical principles. The experimental design is unclear. This point was remarked in the fisrt review report and unfortunetly, it was not improved in the new version of the manuscript.
Several results not statistically supported were reported. For instance, "...fruit stored in NA, irrespective of the harvest date, had the lowest firmness, while the highest firmness was observed for minikiwi stored in CA and treated with 1-MCP, on average for the storage period" (Lines 153-155)....this result is impossible to verify in Figure 1 or 2, or in Tables 2 or 3; this result implies that you found significant interaction gas composition x 1-MCP treatment, for each variety, but the significance of this interaction was not reported.
In the author response, you mentioned "...in accordance with the hypothesis, we focused on describing the effect of 1-MCP treatment of fruit in interaction with other factors". The article is a scientific manuscript and the results need statistical evidence to support these. Therefore, it is important to study the interactions between factors and all the reported results must be based on the statistic evidence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for the clarifications, explanations, and responding to all comments and suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and positive acceptance of the article for publication in Agriculture
Sincerely yours,
Tomasz Krupa (Ph.D)
Department of Pomology and Horticultural Economic
Warsaw University of Life Science, Poland
