Variation in Fruit and Seed Morphology of Selected Biotypes and Cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. in North-Eastern Europe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript contains important information for the cultivation of E. multiflora in Poland. However, I consider that the statistical tests used (correlations test) are not enough to support the objective of the work and the conclusions, a principal component analysis should be considered. The results are extensive but the discussion has serious shortcomings. The discussion must explain each result and must compare with other studies, in some cases there is no discussion and in other cases the discussion is very general. Therefore, I consider that the manuscript in this form cannot be accepted. In the pdf of the article I include my suggestions
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No1.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the observations, and below we present the responses to individual comments. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the following text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. In the following, we have submitted responses to this report:
|
Remark |
Replay
|
|
I consider that the statistical tests used (correlations test) are not enough to support the objective of the work and the conclusions, a principal component analysis should be considered. |
We have changed the methods of statistical analyses, because as noted by Reviewer, previous statistical elaboration of the results was not sufficient. These methods are described in the Chapter 2.4 and highlighted in yellow. |
|
The results are extensive but the discussion has serious shortcomings. The discussion must explain each result and must compare with other studies, in some cases there is no discussion and in other cases the discussion is very general. |
We have corrected the discussion. We have added the new items of literature. The text in these chapters of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
Reviewer’s comments in the pdf of the article |
Replay
|
|
The introduction is extensive, but it is a bit messy, I suggest that you start with topic of climate change and their importance of introducing new species and then wheather to include all the information on E. multiflora |
We have corrected the introduction. We start with topic of climate change and their importance of introducing new species and then whether to include all the information on E. multiflora. We have added the new items of literature and we deleted unnecessary text. |
|
Comments on the description of the methodology in chapters 2.4 and 2.5 |
In the current version of our work, these are Chapters 2.3 and 2.4. That have been revised and the changes are marked in yellow. |
|
Expanded the discussion in points indicated in the pdf by the reviewer |
We have added the discussion of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
Figure 3: Is this information the same as in Table 1? If yes, I suggest removing the figure |
Referring to the reviewer's comment on the presentation of morphological data in Table 1 and Figure 3 (now Figure 2), we explain that the table presents meteorological data for 12 months in individual years of the research. Meteorological data for 2018 was also added to the table to assess the impact of climatic conditions in the year preceding the production. These data helped to clarify whether the temperatures in winter and autumn could have affected the freezing of shoots and flower buds, as the goumi is a species that enters its winter dormancy late. Figure 2 shows the climate diagram representing climate condition in Olsztyn (northeast Poland) from January to August in 2019-2022 and the multiannual period 1981-2010, before the plants reach the winter dormancy.
|
|
Figure 5: include statistics to compare between biotypes and cultivars. Is the vertical bar the standard error? I think they did not… |
Figure 5, currently Figure 4 presents the cumulative yields of E. multiflora biotypes and cultivars in 2019-2022. The vertical bars are standard errors, according to calculation from Excel 2019. We include statistics to compare between biotypes and cultivars in Table 6. |
|
Figure 8: Is the same information that is in in previous tables? If so, I suggest removing it. What are the vertical bars… |
We have removed Figure 8 with TSS contents. |
|
Figure 9: What are the vertical bars in each column? The standard error? Did they calculated it? |
The vertical bars are standard errors, according to calculation from Excel 2019. |
|
Shape index was not described in methodology |
We have changed shape index on Shape Factors and we described it in methodology, Chapter 2.2. (is highlighted in yellow) |
|
In conclusions: The statistical test do not support this conclusion: Due to the highest fruit weight for cultivation in Poland, the following biotypes can be recommended: cultivar ‘Jahidka’ and biotypes B1 and B11. |
We have been corrected conclusions. |
|
We have added the following items to Reference which we included in Introduction and Discussion. |
Rutkowski, K.; Łysiak, GP. Weather Conditions, Orchard Age and Nitrogen Fertilization Influences Yield and Quality of ‘Łutówka’ Sour Cherry Fruit. Agriculture, 2022 , 12 (12), 2008. Bieniek, A.; Dragańska, E. Content of macroelements in fruits of Ukrainian cultivars of hardy kiwifruit and Actinidia charta depending on the weather conditions during the phonological phases. Journal of Elementology, 2013, 18 (1): 23–38 . Christensen, JH.; Christensen, OB. A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of changes in European climate by the end of this century. Climate Change, 2007, 81: 7–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9210-7 Christensen, JH.; Hewiston, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; Kolli, RK.; Kwon, WT.; Laprise, R.; Magana Reuda, V.; Mearns, L.; Menedez, CG.; Raisanen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A.; Whetton, P. Regional Climate Projections, In: S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller, Eds., Climate Change, 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. Proebsting, EL.; Mills, HH. Low Temperature Resistance of Developing Flower Buds of Six Deciduous Fruit Species. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1978, 103(2): 192-198. Rodrigo, J.; Herrero, M. The onset of fruiting in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.). J. Appl. Bot. 2002, 76, 13-19. Ashworth, EN.; Wisniewski, ME. Response of fruit tree tissues to freezing temperatures. Hort. Science, 1991, 26, 501-504. Rodrigo, J. Spring frosts in deciduous fruit trees - morphological damage and flower hardiness. Sci. Hortic. 2000, 85, 155-173. Heide, O.M.; Rivero, R.; Sønsteby, A. Temperature control of shoot growth and foral initiation in apple (Malus×domestica Borkh.). CABI Agric Biosci, 2020. 1:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-020-00007-6 Chawla, R.; Sheokand, A.; Rai, M; Sadawarti, RK. Impact of climate change on fruit production and various approaches to mitigate these impacts. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 2021, 10(3): 564-571. Mech-Nowak, A.; Kruczek, M.; Kaszycki, P.; Bieniasz, M.; Kostecka- Gugała, A. Polyphenols, carboxylic hydroxyacids and carotenoids in berries of blue honeysuckle (Lonicera coerulea var. kamtschatica). Przemysł Chemiczny. 2014, 93 (6): 948-953. DOI. 10.12916/przemchem.2014.948 Rutkowski, K.; Łysiak, G. Thinning methods to regulate sweet cherry crops—A review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 1280. |
Thank you once again
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
1. Concise the sentence “Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. (E.m.) has been … part of the United States and Europe, including Poland” or shift it to the introduction section, line no. 13-16
2. What want to say here “However, more planting material is needed” line no. 16
3. Rewrite for better clarity “The cultivar ‘Jahidka’ and biotypes B1 and B11 can be recommended for due to the greatest weight of fruits” line no. 26-27
4. Give the global scenario of Elaeagnus multiflora production, and economic value and briefly mention its importance in food and nutrition security
5. The introduction section is written nicely but it seems lengthy so may be modified
6. Re-prepare figure 1 for better clarity, do not mention the biotype name on the figure as already mention at the bottom
7. Figure 2 may be removed as it does not representing all the biotypes with suitable tagging and the description of the biotype is already mentioned in the method and material section. It is better to give the figure of individual biotypes if there is variation in morphology.
8. The method and material section described and written nicely
9. Table 1-5 and figure 3 is ok
10. If, it is possible give the picture of all biotype shoot during the flowering period in place of figure 4
11. For better visibility remove the background of figure 5 and unbold the figure 6 and 7 captions
12. Table 6-9 are ok
13. Figure 8-9 and table 10 are ok
14. The result and discussion section is written nicely and the interpretation of results in the discussion is ok
15. Rewrite the conclusion section for better soundness. It is very lengthy and may be concise.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No2.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the observations, and below we present the responses to individual comments. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the following text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. In the following, we have submitted responses to this report:
|
Remark |
Replay
|
|
1.Concise the sentence “Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. (E.m.) has been … part of the United States and Europe, including Poland” or shift it to the introduction section, line no. 13-16
|
These sentence has been moved to Introduction and modified: ”Today, cherry silverberry is grown in the eastern part of the United States as not only an ornamental plant but also a plant that can be used for home processing” |
|
2.What want to say here “However, more planting material is needed” line no. 16
|
These sentence has been removed from manuscript. |
|
3.Rewrite for better clarity “for due to the greatest weight of fruits” line no. 26-27 |
We have corrected this sentence: Due to the greatest weight of fruits the biotype B11 and can be recommended to cultivation in north eastern Poland. |
|
4.Give the global scenario of Elaeagnus multiflora production, and economic value and briefly mention its importance in food and nutrition security |
There is no information in the world literature about the commercial cultivation and economic value of E. multiflora so far. However, its health value is known, as shown in Introduction. |
|
5.The introduction section is written nicely but it seems lengthy so may be modified |
The introduction section has been modified. |
|
6.Re-prepare figure 1 for better clarity, do not mention the biotype name on the figure as already mention at the bottom
|
Figure 1 has been left unchanged as this version has been accepted by Academic Editor. |
|
7.Figure 2 may be removed as it does not representing all the biotypes with suitable tagging and the description of the biotype is already mentioned in the method and material section. It is better to give the figure of individual biotypes if there is variation in morphology.
|
Figure 2 has been removed. |
|
8. The method and material section described and written nicely
|
Thank you. |
|
9. Table 1-5 and figure 3 is ok
|
Thank you. |
|
10. If, it is possible give the picture of all biotype shoot during the flowering period in place of figure 4
|
Figure 4 has been left unchanged, because clearly shows the shoot of Elaeagnus multiflora during the flowering period, which are described in the text of this chapter |
|
11. For better visibility remove the background of figure 5 and unbolt the figure 6 and 7 captions.
|
We have removed the background of figure 5 and unbolt the figure 6 and 7 captions. |
|
12. Table 6-9 are ok
|
Thank you. |
|
13. Figure 8-9 and table 10 are ok
|
Thank you. |
|
14. The result and discussion section is written nicely and the interpretation of results in the discussion is ok |
Thank you. |
|
15. Rewrite the conclusion section for better soundness. It is very lengthy and may be concise. |
We have been corrected conclusion. |
Thank you once again
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript had evaluated performances of selected nine biotypes of Elaeagnus multiflora and two cultivars ’Jahidka’ and ‘Sweet Scalret’. In this study, authors analyzed the yield and morphological quality of fruit and correlated these fruit traits with climatic condition in Poland. They found that temperatures and precipitation of vegetative season were negative correlation with yield in some biotypes and cultivars. They also recommended few biotypes and cultivars for production. The manuscript could be interesting for sweet cherry growers in Poland.
There are few comments. I suggest authors should provide genetic background of the studied materials. Are these biotypes genetically related? Where did these biotypes and cultivars originally come from? Experimental design is not clear. What type of experiment design was? What were these four replications? Were four trees replicated randomly in the field? Authors need to provide statistical method (such as ANOVA) to test the significant difference among measured phenotypical traits, or climatic condition.
Line 25, Ttemperatures should change to Temperature.
Line 106, “several dozen seedlings to select”. Are these selected seedlings from nature stands, or breeding program? What were the parentages?
Line 192: variance (SD) may not be correct. SD is normally used as standard deviation.
Figure 1, some biotype fruits in Figure 1 are phenotypically similar. It seems the phenotype for seeds were different among biotypes. But, some were presented with only one seed, B7 and B8 with two seeds, only B11 with three. It is hard to tell, because seeds may varies in the same biotype. Therefore, genetic background information is needed.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No3.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the observations, and below we present the responses to individual comments. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the following text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. In the following, we have submitted responses to this report:
|
Remark |
Replay
|
|
I suggest authors should provide genetic background of the studied materials. |
The study used three biotypes: B1, B2 and B3 obtained from the Institute for Fruit Growing in Samokhvalovitchy in from the E-2 breeding form and six biotypes B0, B4, B5, B7, B8, B11 obtained from the seeds of the biotype which was obtained from a shrubs growing in gardens in Olsztyn (latitude: 53°50 N, 20°31 E). The tested biotypes were selected from over 1000 population of seedlings. The biotypes assessed are plants that have been obtained through 12 years of selection of a population of 40 seedlings with desirable features from the point of view (fruit’s size, shape and taste, their ripening date and number on bushes) of potential cultivation. |
|
Are these biotypes genetically related? |
The biotypes B1, B2 and B3 are genetically related, because they were grown from seeds that came from a common mother (E-2 breeding form from Belarus). The Biotype B0, B4, B5, B7, B8, B11 are genetically diverse because they come from various shrubs growing in Olsztyn, Poland |
|
Where did these biotypes and cultivars originally come from? |
The study used three biotypes: B1, B2 and B3 obtained from the Institute for Fruit Growing in Samokhvalovitchy from the E-2 breeding form and six biotypes B0, B4, B5, B7, B8, B11 obtained from the seeds of the biotype which was obtained from a shrubs growing in gardens in Olsztyn (latitude: 53°50 N, 20°31 E). |
|
Experimental design is not clear. |
We have added information about experimental design. Added text in these chapters of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
What type of experiment design was? |
It was the split plot design arranged as a CRD |
|
What were these four replications? |
Pomological characteristics were conducted with 4 replications on a total 100 fruits per biotype/cultivar. |
|
Were four trees replicated randomly in the field |
It was the split plot design arranged as a CRD |
|
Authors need to provide statistical method (such as ANOVA) to test the significant difference among measured phenotypical traits, or climatic condition. |
We have changed the methods of statistical analyzes, because as noted by Reviewer, previous statistical elaboration of the results was not sufficient. These methods are described in the chapter 2.4 and highlighted in yellow. |
|
Line 25, Ttemperatures should change to Temperature. |
We have corrected it. |
|
Line 106, “several dozen seedlings to select”. Are these selected seedlings from nature stands, or breeding program? What were the parentages? |
These selected seedlings are from nature stands. |
|
Line 192: variance (SD) may not be correct. SD is normally used as standard deviation. |
We have corrected it. Added text in these chapters of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
Figure 1, some biotype fruits in Figure 1 are phenotypically similar. It seems the phenotype for seeds were different among biotypes. But, some were presented with only one seed, B7 and B8 with two seeds, only B11 with three. It is hard to tell, because seeds may varies in the same biotype. Therefore, genetic background information is needed. |
Unfortunately, the quality of the attached photos in Figure 1 is not the best, because they were taken in a big hurry. We hope that the attached description, both in the text of the manuscript and in submitted above answers will allow to showed genetic background information. |
Thank you once again
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors evaluated the yield and morphological quality of the fruit of 9 Elaeagnus multiflora biotypes and two cultivars to determine its suitability for Elaeagnus multiflora. Also, they investigated variations of biotypes and cultivars from season to season due to climatic conditions. Considering to effect of climate conditions on yielding, the investigation of biotypes and the selection of adapted genotypes are valuable and useful. However, the manuscript has the following concerns before acceptance of the article for publication.
Line 28: Mention the full name for the first time
Line 31: There should be an alphabetical order to keywords, and they should differ from title words.
Line 131: What were the sources of these biotypes? should be mentioned.
Line 190: What was the experimental design in your work? ANOVA? In order to determine significant differences, why was not a mean comparison (such as Tukey, etc...) performed?
According to the statements in material and methods Maybe your experimental design was Split Plot in time with CRD? However, it should mention the detail of your experimental design.
Line 355: Statistical tests, such as Tukey's method, and statistical ranking seem necessary for comparing mean
Line 367: According to the chart and regression model, Temperature and Precipitation are dependent variables and yield is the independent variable! is it logical?? It should be the opposite.
Line 538: According to scientific writing rules, one well-developed paragraph is sufficient for a conclusion. Avoid multiple paragraphs. Avoid merely repeating your findings. Prospects for future research should be identified
Please also reply the comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No4.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the observations, and below we present the responses to individual comments. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the following text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. In the following, we have submitted responses to this report:
|
Remark |
Replay
|
|
Line 28: Mention the full name for the first time
|
We have added it. Added text in these chapters of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
Line 31: There should be an alphabetical order to keywords, and they should differ from title words.
|
We have corrected it. Added text in these chapters of the attached version is highlighted in yellow. |
|
Line 131: What were the sources of these biotypes? should be mentioned.
|
We have added it: The study used three biotypes: B1, B2 and B3 obtained from the Institute for Fruit Growing in Samokhvalovitchy in from the E-2 breeding form and six biotypes B0, B4, B5, B7, B8, B11 obtained from the seeds of the biotype which was obtained from a shrubs growing in gardens in Olsztyn (latitude: 53°50 N, 20°31 E). The tested biotypes were selected from over 1000 population of seedlings. The biotypes assessed are plants that have been obtained through 12 years of selection of a population of 40 seedlings with desirable features from the point of view (fruit’s size, shape and taste, their ripening date and number on bushes) of potential cultivation. |
|
Line 190: What was the experimental design in your work? ANOVA? In order to determine significant differences, why was not a mean comparison (such as Tukey, etc...) performed?
|
We have corrected it: All data included in this study related to the measurements of yield, TSS contend, morphological features of fruits and seeds of the studied biotypes and cultivars are presented as the mean value ± standard deviation. Statistical analyzes, one -way ANOVA were conducted using STATISTICA software version 13.3. Significant differences (P<0.05) between mean values were evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple range. Pearson’s correlations were determined using Microsoft Excel 2019. |
|
According to the statements in material and methods Maybe your experimental design was Split Plot in time with CRD? However, it should mention the detail of your experimental design.
|
We have added in chapter 2.1, that our experimental design was the split plot arranged as a CRD. |
|
Line 355: Statistical tests, such as Tukey's method, and statistical ranking seem necessary for comparing mean
|
We have added Tables with statistical test. Significant differences (p<0.05) between mean values were evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple range test.
|
|
Line 367: According to the chart and regression model, Temperature and Precipitation are dependent variables and yield is the independent variable! is it logical?? It should be the opposite.
|
We apologize for this mistake, of course it should be the opposite. We have fixed it. |
|
Line 538: According to scientific writing rules, one well-developed paragraph is sufficient for a conclusion. Avoid multiple paragraphs. Avoid merely repeating your findings. Prospects for future research should be identified.
|
Thank you for these comments, of course, they were included in the presentation of our conclusions. We have added prospects for future in the last sentence of conclusions. |
Thank you once again
Best regards
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript “Variation in Fruit and Seed Morphology of Selected Biotypes and Cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. In North-Eastern Europe” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2190009) gives the evaluation of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb.: 1) phenotypic variability of fruit weight, fruit length to width ratio, seed length to width ratio, fruit weight to seed weight ratio for 2019-2022 period, total soluble solids content for 2021-2022 period; 2) correlations between yield, length of fruit, width of fruit, fruit length to width ratio, fruit weight, width of seeds, seed length to width ratio.
The manuscript’s major short-comings include:
· The English is very poor and misleading because it changes the connotation of the sentence to opposite meaning among others.
· The ANOVA which can quantify and show the significance of different sources of variation (genotype, year, interaction) on studied traits is missing.
· In the correlations analysis the some traits are not shown.
· Phenotypic variance is showed for only 5 traits.
· Variability of TSS content is shown only for 2 instead 4 years.
· The conclusion is written with general statements about climate. It should be more specific. The Results and Discussion are better written.
· Abstract should be improved because of poor English and should take the most relevant findings.
· The climatic conditions during 2021 year which influenced mean fruit weight, fruit weight to seed weight ratio, TSS content to be the highest for 4 year period should be emphasized.
The manuscript “Variation in Fruit and Seed Morphology of Selected Biotypes and Cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. in North-Eastern Europe” (Manuscript ID: agriculture-2190009) can be published after major corrections.
Reviewer’s remarks
Page 1 Title: Please change the “In“in the title to “in”: “Variation in Fruit and Seed Morphology of Selected Biotypes and Cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. In North-Eastern Europe” to “Variation in Fruit and Seed Morphology of Selected Biotypes and Cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. in North-Eastern Europe”.
Page 1 lines 16-18: Please rephrase sentence “The aim of this study was to evaluate the yield and morphological quality of the fruit of 9 E.m. biotypes and two cultivars ‘Jahidka’ and ‘Sweet Scarlet’ to determine its suitability for of E.m.”. “E.m. for of E.m?!”
Page 1 lines 18-19: Please delete “In June” in “In June, a highly significant negative influence of temperature on yield was observed in June.”.
Page 1 lines 20-21: The biotypes have not been stated in the sentence: “Due to the highest crop yields in Poland, the following biotypes can be recommended for cultivation under the climatic conditions of Poland”.
Page 1 lines 25-26: Please correct the sentence “Ttemperatures and precipitation of vegetative season were significant negative correlation with yield of biotypes and cultivars: B11, B0 and B1” to “Temperatures and precipitation of vegetative season were significantly negatively correlated with yield of biotypes and cultivars: B11, B0 and B1”, and give the exact values of the coefficient of correlation in the parenthesis.
Page 1 line 33: Please give the full term for abbreviated “TSS”.
Page 2 lines 65-66: Please delete “evaluation of” in the sentence “In some cases, studies on the phenotypes of fruit trees have shown great reference value for accurate irrigation [14,18,19], disease control [14,20,21], and evaluation of the quality evaluation [14,22].”
Page 5 lines 152-154: Please specify how many years, how large population of seedlings, and what are desirable features in the sentence: “The biotypes assessed are plants that have been obtained through many years of selection of a large population of seedlings with desirable features from the point of view of potential cultivation.”
Page 6 line 192: “SD” is the abbreviation for the standard deviation not for variance. What have you calculated: the variance or standard deviation?
Page 7 lines 232-234: In the sentence please correct untrue number from Table 2: “Analogously in subsequent years, i.e. 2020, 2021 and 2022, the number of days with ground frosts in April and May were respectively: 20 and 6; 16 and 6; 14 and 7.” to “Analogously in subsequent years, i.e. 2020, 2021 and 2022, the number of days with ground frosts in April and May were respectively: 20 and 6; 16 and 4; 14 and 7.”
Page 9 line 272: Please insert statistically significant (P < 0.01) before “a negative influence”.
Page 4 line 274: Please insert (P < 0.05) before “positive effect”.
Page 4 lines 278-279: Please correct “A positive influence of precipitation during the vegetation period on the width of the seeds was found” to “A statistically significant (P < 0.01) positive influence of precipitation during June and July on the width of the seeds was found.”
Page 9 lines 280-281: Please delete was in the following sentence: “Precipitation in April was significantly positively influenced by the seed length to width ratio (Table 4).”
Page 9 lines 284-285: Please correct this sentence: ”A highly significant negative influence on the yield had temperatures in June (Table 3) and precipitation in May (Table 4)” to “A highly significant negative influence on the yield had temperatures in June (P < 0.001) and July (P < 0.01) (Table 3) and precipitation in May (P < 0.001), June and July (P < 0.01) (Table 4).”
Page 10 lines 294&298&303: In the Table 3 and Table 4 and Table 5 titles please change “coefficient” to “coefficients”.
Page 11 lines 321-322: Please correct the part of the sentence: “an insignificant effect of precipitation were found (Table 5).” to “statistically significant (P< 0.05) effect of precipitation (r = 0.36) were found (Table 5).”
Page 11 line 349: Please delete “while”.
Page 13 line 379: Please insert “precipitation” after “amount of”.
Page 19 lines 541-542: “Olive”?! Future varieties? Please explain.
Page 19 lines 542-544: “It was shown that both the variety and the climatic conditions during the growing season had a significant impact on the morphological characteristics of the fruit”. It can be only hypothesis because the ANOVA is missing from the analyses.
Page 19 lines 544-546: With a climate?! Everywhere is climate please specify this vague sentence: “The obtained results confirm the possibility of growing E.m in the region of North Poland with a climate, which makes it possible to assume that the neighboring cultivation of this species should be successful?”
Page 19 line 552: Please correct: “and” after biotypes to “of”.
Page 19 lines 555-559: “The correlation analysis shows that the effect of temperatures from August to October had a significant negative impact on yielding in the next year. The correlation analysis also shows that the temperatures in the winter months from December to February had a significantly negative impact on the yielding of the tested biotypes and cultivars of E. multiflora grown in the conditions of north-eastern Poland.” The effect of temperatures cannot have negative impact but effect of specific values or range of temperatures. Please specify.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No5.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the observations, and below we present the responses to individual comments. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the following text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. In the following, we have submitted responses to this report:
|
Remark |
Replay
|
|
· The English is very poor and misleading because it changes the connotation of the sentence to opposite meaning among others. |
English has been improved as much as possible |
|
· The ANOVA which can quantify and show the significance of different sources of variation (genotype, year, interaction) on studied traits is missing. |
All data included in this study related to the measurements of yield, TSS contend, morphological features of fruits and seeds of the studied biotypes and cultivars are presented as the mean value ± standard deviation. Statistical analyses, one -way ANOVA were conducted using STATISTICA software version 13.3. Significant differences (P<0.05) between mean values were evaluated by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple range. Pearson’s correlations were determined using Microsoft Excel 2019. |
|
In the correlations analysis the some traits are not shown |
We have not showed in the correlations analyzes only 5 traits, because for others the correlations were not significant. |
|
Phenotypic variance is showed for only 5 traits. |
In the assessment of phenotypic traits, we focused on fruits and seeds as the material determining the selection of cultivars and biotypes due to the appearance of fruits. |
|
Variability of TSS content is shown only for 2 instead 4 years |
We have added TSS content also for 2019 and 2020. |
|
The conclusion is written with general statements about climate. It should be more specific. The Results and Discussion are better written. |
We have corrected conclusion. |
|
AbAbstract should be improved because of poor English and should take the most relevant findings. |
We have corrected abstract. |
|
Th The climatic conditions during 2021 year which influenced mean fruit weight, fruit weight to seed weight ratio, TSS content to be the highest for 4 year period should be emphasized. |
We have emphasized influence of the climatic conditions during 2021 year on mean fruit weight, fruit weight to seed weight ratio, TSS content |
|
Reviewer’s remarks
|
Reviewer’s remarks have been corrected in the lines that the reviewer pointed out. In the current text, they have been marked in yellow along with other reviewer’s corrections. |
Thank you once again
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The authors incorporate most of the suggestions, they also justified the suggestions that they did not include. I think the manuscript improved considerably. I suggest improving the aesthetics of the figures a bit (background, axes, etc.), in figure 7 it seems that all the error bars have the same size, I leave these suggestions to the editor's consideration. I consider that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after reviewing these small suggestions
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No1.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have corrected figure 7, and introduced linguistic and spelling corrections as well as other minor comments.
Thank you once again
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Authors addressed my comments in the manuscript. I think the paper is now acceptable for publication.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No 3.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. Thank you very much for accepting for publication.
Thank you once again
Best regards
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Line 146: Planting may be performed only as a "CRD" experimental design. Please note when you collected data (such as yield) over several years, your experimental design to analyze data would be the split-plot in time with two factors, genotype and time. It should be corrected here.
Author Response
Answer for reviewer 4
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We have introduced changes in the methodology in the indicated place, we have corrected figure 7, and introduced linguistic and spelling corrections as well as other minor comments.
Thank you once again
Best regards
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
Accept after minor revision (corrections to minor methodological errors and English text editing by the Journal professional)
Author Response
Answer for reviewer No 5.
Thank you for your efforts and for taking a review of our work. We introduced linguistic and spelling corrections as well as other minor comments.
Thank you once again
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Differentiation of Morphometric Parameters of Fruits and Yielding of Two Cultivars and 9 Goumi Biotypes (Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb.) under Climatic Conditions of Poland” describes the yield and morphological parameters of the fruit of Elaeagnus multiflora cultivated under Poland climatic conditions. The topic might have some interest in the spread of the cultivation of this species in Poland, however, this is not enough for the publication of this manuscript.
The manuscript presents flaws in the methodology and the presentation of the results. The collection of fruit from one plant only does not provide a representative sample for either the yield per plant or the biometric data, even if these data have been collected for two or three years.
The presentation of the results is not adequate. It is not necessary to present the same results in tables and figures as in Table 1 and Figure 4. The authors should pay more attention to the presentation of the results: the standard deviation, for example, is missing in the tables and graphs, the graphs do not have a uniform style, and sometimes the names of the axes are missing (please see figure 5).
As far as quality analyzes are concerned, I think it is a bit restrictive to limit them only to the analysis of total soluble solids, even if important.
Finally, English should be deeply revised.
Author Response
The intention of the authors of this research was to evaluate several biotypes obtained from generative propagation. In generative reproduction of plants, there is a splitting of traits, which means that the offspring plants are not identical to the mother plants. The biotypes assessed are plants that have been obtained through many years of selection of a large population of seedlings with desirable features from the point of view of potential cultivation, therefore, single individuals were evaluated. This information has been added to the research methodology. Evaluation of yield and morphological characteristics of fruits of selected biotypes will allow the selection of individuals, which after vegetative propagation, will undergo further evaluation, allowing them to be classified as a cultivar recommended for cultivation under specific climatic conditions.
The analysis of yielding, morphological features of fruits and cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora in the temperate climate zone will allow us to understand how temperatures and precipitation in subsequent years affect the characteristics of the assessed plants. The work was supplemented with correlation coefficients, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. Figure 5 was removed, which, as the reviewer rightly pointed out, was incomplete and was a repetition of the data presented in the table, which was removed in the current version of the work. Currently, the yield results are presented in Figure 4, which also allows for the evaluation of the yield in cumulative terms. We added also Figure 5: Scatter plot with correlation coefficient between yield and temperature and Figure 6: Scatter plot with correlation coefficient between yield and precipitation. Referring to the reviewer's comment on the presentation of morphological data in Table 1 and Figure 4 (now Figure 3), we explain that the table presents meteorological data for 12 months in individual years of the research, with the exception of 2022, which has not yet ended, and at the time writing the work, the authors had data until August. Meteorological data for 2018 was also added to the table to assess the impact of climatic conditions in the year preceding the production. These data helped to clarify whether the temperatures in winter and autumn could have affected the freezing of shoots and flower buds, as the goumi is a species that enters its winter dormancy late. Figure 3 presents the climatic conditions from spring (April) to fruit harvest (July) for the study years in which the yield and morphological characteristics of the fruit were evaluated. The results presented in this document are pioneering and concern the assessment of the morphological features of fruits. The knowledge of the authors of the manuscript so far shows that Elaeagnus multiflora has great potential to become a plant cultivated in plantations, which can be seen from the interest of fruit growers who want to grow this plant on a commercial scale, but unfortunately they lack proven cultivars. This article does not include analyses of the chemical composition of goumi because it has already been published (except for the TSS content) in other articles, mainly by the first author. Content of the total soluble solids (TSS) is the basic characteristic determined to estimate the quality of fruit intended for direct consumption and processing. Therefore, the results of the TSS, in addition to the morphological characteristics of the fruit, such as weight and the ratio of the fruit weight to the seed weight, will help to assess whether a given biotype is suitable for processing or for direct consumption as a dessert. The work was improved in terms of language, and the results, discussion and conclusions were corrected in accordance with the comments contained also in the attached reviews of the other three reviewers. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the attached text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The present study aimed to evaluate the yield and morphological quality of the fruit of ‘Jahidka' and 'Sweet Scarlet' cultivars, and 9 goumi biotypes to determine its suitability for cultivation under the climatic conditions of Poland. Authors found that biotype B11 was distinguished by the highest yielding and biometric parameters of fruit among the assessed biotypes and they were slightly lower than the fruit of 'Jahidka'. The topic is interesting and also much meaningful, while it should be subjected to major revision before consideration for publication. My concerns are as follows:
1. The tittle contains too much detail information, e.g., two cv.; nine biotypes. I suggest revise it to make more briefly.
2. For the Abstract:
The background (line 12-15) should be shorten, no more than two sentences.
Line 15-20 describes the aim of this study, two much unnecessary words shorten them into one sentence.
Line 20-26 describes the results of this study. I feel the authors should rewrite this part, and more words and information should be added.
Last, there is no sentence at the end to conclude the key finding of this study, and also the significance of this finding is missing.
3. Key words: there eight keywords, not all of them are necessary, delete some.
4. Results: the main results are presented in Figure 5-7, while Figure 1-4 have very few information.
5. Further, the main parameters analyzed in this study were yield, weight of fruit and seeds (Figure 5-7). I am wondering that does these parameters are sufficient to support the aim of this study?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review that helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the attached text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. Below, we have submitted answers to this reporting:
- We changed the title of our manuscript to: „Differentiation of morphometric parameters of fruits and yielding of several biotypes and cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora ”
2. The abstract was revised as suggested by the reviewer, reducing the background, adding more information on the results and adding the key finding and significance of this study.3. The number of keywords has been reduced.4. Figure 4 with flowers was moved to the text describing the influence of meteorological conditions on the development of flowers. In E. multiflora, flower buds develop one or two at a time (occasionally) on the axils of the lower leaves of replacement shoots (Figure 4). Table 5 has been deleted and the results are shown in the figures 4-6.5. We have corrected the errors indicated in the text.6. Below, we have submitted answers to the question why the main parameters analysed in this study are sufficient to support the aim of study.These parameters can be used for the identification of the biotypes. Our research has shown that the yielding and morphological features of fruits of biotypes and cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora grown in Polish climatic conditions are significantly affected by weather conditions in the year preceding fruiting and in the growing season from April to July. Temperatures and precipitation of vegetative season were significant negative correlation with yield of biotypes an cultivars of E.m. A highly significant negative influence of temperature on yield was observed in June. Due to the highest crop yields in Poland, the following biotypes can be recommended: B11, B0 and B1. The cultivar ‘Jahidka’ and biotypes B1 and B11 can be recommended for due to the greatest weight of fruits. The group of dessert fruits with the highest TSS content includes biotypes B0, B1, B8 and cv. 'Sweet Scarlet'. The TSS results, in addition to the morphological characteristics of the fruit, such as weight and ratio of the fruit weight to the seed weight, will help to assess whether a given biotype is suitable for processing or for direct consumption as a dessert. The work was improved in terms of language, and the results, discussion and conclusions were corrected in accordance with the comments contained also in the attached reviews of the other three reviewers. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the attached text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper aims at describing the changes of morphometric parameters and yields of different goumi genotypes cultivated in Poland. A reader would expect not only a simple description of some analyzed parameters (yields, fruit weight – length -width, and seed weight – length -width for four years, and TSS for two of the four years), but a more deep discussion about why they observed some changes in different years. For example why yield in 2021 is greatly lower compared to 2019 and 2020, while in 2022 is strongly higher, or why fruits in 2021 had the highest values regarding morphometric parameters? How did the climate impact on this cultivation?
The manuscript is only descriptive without discussion and correlation between the observed results and the climatic conditions. At the end of the paper the reader does not understand why they observed this great variation and the only finding of this paper is that the yield and morphometric characteristics strongly vary between years. Moreover, the authors underline the importance of this fruit for its bioactive substances, without analysing any antioxidant metabolites or antioxidant activity of extracts.
Other comments
The abstract does not report any conclusions. What are the most interesting genotypes? Are the climatic conditions of Poland are suitable for Goumi cultivation?
There are too many tables. Moreover, some figures (like figures 5, 6 and 7 are a repetition of data already shown in tables, I suggest eliminating some tables and replace them with figures).
In material and methods, paragraph 1.4 is a description of climatic conditions and should be placed in the section of results.
In table 3, the explanation of the statistics must be improved. “Means for each column with different letters differ… “ is not correct for the interaction.
In Figure 5: put the harvest date in a separate table as it is not visible, and add the title and unit of measurement on the vertical axis.
Line 32: put quotation marks for “cherry silverberry”, “cherry Elaeagnus” and “goumi”
L. 35: cancel “other are” and change in “while the other were introduced..”
L. 46: why “however?” please rephrase
L. 81-82: delete “are being carried out” : it’s a repetition.
L.99: What is the correct name of the paragraph?
L. 128-129: delete “in g” and “in cm”.
L. 129-130: please rephrase.
L. 132: It’s number 2.3 (also correct the number of paragraph 1.4)
L. 136: The harvest date were…. Ecc.
L. 137: Why Figure 3? Figure 3 are flowers.
L. 160: I guess it is figure 4 not 1.
L. 168-171: rephrase
L. 180: Please change “In the experimental years” with “During the four-year experiment”; deleted “varied”.
L. 194: delete “appropriate”
L. 200: why “dangerous”?
L. 202: please eliminate reference 53.
L. 247: it is not Figure 2 but 5.
L. 247-248: delete the phrase.
L. 249: delete “also”.
L. 251-255: please rephrase.
L. 430: what is their extract content?
Conclusions are a summary of the results. Must be reorganized.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review that helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the attached text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. Below, we have submitted answers to this reporting:
- The Abstract was supplemented with information on the most interesting biotypes and the impact of climatic conditions on morphometric features. Our research has shown that the yielding and morphological features of fruits of biotypes and cultivars of Elaeagnus multiflora grown in Polish climatic conditions are significantly affected by weather conditions in the year preceding fruiting and in the growing season from April to July. Temperatures and precipitation of vegetative season were significant negative correlation with yield of biotypes an cultivars of m. A highly significant negative influence of temperature on yield was observed in June. Due to the highest crop yields in Poland, the following biotypes can be recommended: B11, B0 and B1. The cultivar ‘Jahidka’ and biotypes B1 and B11 can be recommended for due to the greatest weight of fruits. The group of dessert fruits with the highest TSS content includes biotypes B0, B1, B8 and cv. 'Sweet Scarlet'.
- A deeper discussion was conducted, which was helped by the correlation analyses on the influence of climatic conditions on the observed features.
3. The work was supplemented in terms of the presentation of results, additional statistical analyses were performed, correlation analysis was performed, coefficient of variation, and standard deviation were calculated.4. Conclusions have been corrected.5. The Tables and Figures have been corrected.6. This article does not include analyses of the chemical composition of goumi because it has already been published (except for the TSS content) in other articles, mainly by the first author. Content of the total soluble solids (TSS) is the basic characteristic determined to estimate the quality of fruit intended for direct consumption and processing. Therefore, the results of the TSS, in addition to the morphological characteristics of the fruit, such as weight and the ratio of the fruit weight to the seed weight, will help to assess whether a given biotype is suitable for processing or for direct consumption as a dessert.7. The chapter 1.4 describing climatic conditions was moved from the methodology to the section of results.8. Removed Figure 5 and all other defects that the Reviewer pointed out by referring to specific lines.9. Removed items from references that were not in English, and added new sources of literature:
Faust M. Physiology of temperate zone fruit trees. John Wiley & Sons, lnc., New York / Chichester / Brisbane / Toronto / Singapore Copyright, Published simultaneously
in Canada, 1989, pp. 338. ISBN 0-471-81781-3
Grygorieva, O.; Ilyniska, A.; Zhurba, M.; Klymenko, S.; Kalista, M. Phenological growth stages according to BBCH scale Elaeagnus multiflora Thunb. Agrobiodivers Improv Nutr Health Life Qual, 2022, 2: 229-241.
Westwood, M.,N. Temperate-zone Pomology : Physiology and Culture. Timber Press, Inc., Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 1993, ISBN 0-88192-253-6, pp.552.
10. The information in the methodology has been supplemented .11. According to the reviewer's comments, the presentation and analyses have been improved. The description of statistical analyses has been improved in the methodology as well as in tables and charts. Correlation analysis was performed, coefficient of variation and standard deviation were calculated.12. The yield of the Elaeagnus multiflora biotypes and cultivars is shown in Figure 4, which also shows the yield in cumulative terms. We added Figure 5 with the correlation coefficient between the yield and the temperature and Figure 6 with the correlation coefficient between the yield and the precipitation between the yield and the temperature in 2019-2022. 13. The ratio of fruit length to width and stone length to stone width was calculated, which replaced the tables in which these values were calculated separately.14. The standard deviation is given, and the CV% is calculated to determine the inter-sign variance.15. We have corrected the errors indicated in the text.16. Conclusions have been reorganized.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The study ‘Differentiation of Morphometric Parameters of Fruits ..’ provides important information to be published, but the presentation and analyses need to be improved.
-Although in the Materials and Methods a two-way ANOVA analyses was mentioned that was made, however this was not presented.
-Did the year effect was similar in all biotypes?
-In fruit species the ‘Cumulative yield/plant’ is calculated rather than the mean value.
-Analytical information on the meteological conditions are not needed
-It would be better to calculate the length/ width ratio as a measure on how elongated is the fruit. I don’t see why it is important to present length and width separately.
-CV% is important to be calculated so the variance among characters can be determined.
-It is confusing that through the text the terms cherry silverberry, cherry eleagnus and goumi are used for the same plant…
Lines 44-46 need rephrasing, why it is increasing biodiversity
Line 50 For a food producers, meaning grower attractive is considered only from an economical aspect, what is meant is not clear. Perhaps you mean that it nutritional values can be sold to special markets for the health interested consumers etc
Line 90 ….morphological parameters not quality of the fruit o
Do the fruit mature homogeneously and harvest was made once and not in successive harvest
Figure 5 and Table 3 present the same information.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review that helped us a lot to improve our manuscript. Due to the very large number of corrections, we do not show the tracking of changes because the corrected text would be difficult to read. In the attached text of our paper, we marked the text that was newly introduced in yellow. Below, we have submitted answers to this reporting:1. The presentation and analyses have been improved. The description of statistical analyzes has been improved in the methodology as well as in tables and charts. Correlation analysis was performed, coefficient of variation and standard deviation were calculated.2. In the discussion of the results, the effect of the year on the morphological features of the analyzed biotypes was explained.3. The yield of the Elaeagnus multiflora biotypes and cultivars is shown in Figure 4, which also shows the yield in cumulative terms. We added Figure 5 with the correlation coefficient between the yield and the temperature and Figure 6 with the correlation coefficient between the yield and the precipitation between the yield and the temperature in 2019-2022. 4. We include analytical information on the meteorological conditions to characterize the new growing area of E.m. We also added data from year 2018 to describe the effect of the previous year's condition on the yield and morphological characteristics of the analysed plants.5. The ratio of fruit length to width and stone length to stone width was calculated, which replaced the tables in which these values were calculated separately.6. The standard deviation is given, and the CV% is calculated to determine the inter-sign variance.7. In order not to be confusing, other names of the species were not used in the text, and the Latin name was retained.8. Reformatted text on lines 44-46 with information on why it increases biodiversity.9. We have corrected the errors indicated in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved, but I remain of the same opinion. I still think that one plant is not sufficiently representative even if it is the result of a long selection process. The correlations presented are calculated on four points only. These data are not robust enough and do not allow you to draw proper conclusions.
English was deeply improved but there are still several grammar mistakes and typos.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is much improved, it can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript was improved but still I think that it lacks the basis for a scientific paper, particularly because of the scarcity of data presented. There is lots of descriptions about climatic variation, but the discussion is based only on a few parameters regarding mostly the weight – length of the fruit and also the yield, that is evidently correlated to the previous parameters. I understand that they already published the data about chemical composition, but I do not think that these data are enough to support a scientific paper. Also, as I see from figures 5-6, correlations were made with just 4 data, and in one case (fig. 6) 1 of this data is a high-leverage point, thus the correlation does not have sense and is not statistically correct.
English was improved but the manuscript still has many errors and typos.
Line 134-137: “Quantity and Quality of Yield. The quality of fruit was analysed based on a representative sample of 100 fruits of each biotype and cultivar”: The quality of sampling is still a critical point. How do the Authors measure the yield? On just one shrub or more? From this manuscript, one can not understand how do they measured the yield, and so if it is a representative date or not. Mean and SD are not presented for each year.
Headings of table 4 and 5 are inverted.
Table 4 (or 5?) is not clear to what it refers to. What is the meaning of this table?
Line 341-42: “We found significant differences between different years and between analyzed biotypes (Figure 5-7).” Statistic is not shown, neither figure 7.
From a statistical point of view, correlation with 4 points have no sense. Particularly, the significance of the correlation shown in fig 6 is misleading, because there are only 4 points and 1 of them is a high-leverage point. The correlation does not have sense and is not statistically correct.
