Comparison of the Effects of Prohexadione Calcium and Uniconazole on Sweet Potato Storage and Texture Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I hope my comments will help you enhance your manuscript.

Abstract

Lines 15-16 This sentence is incomplete. A similar idea was presented in the third sentence as well. Please consider restructuring or deleting it for better clarity and to avoid repetition.

Lines 26-28 According to the results presented in Table 1, this is not true for all the samples. Soluble sugar is significantly increased in Z13-2023 and W10-2024, while amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Please correct this.

Introduction

Lines 41-42 Please provide adequate reference for this statement.

Lines 47-48 Please explain why you used UCZ, considering that it is environmentally hazardous?

Could you add references that support that Pro-Ca is environmentally safe? (in the next paragraph)

Line 60  Please provide adequate reference for this statement – for apples.

Materials and Methods

Paragraph 2.3 Please include more details on filtration – grade, type, as well as on the instrument used for absorbance determination. All equipment used in the study should include type/model, manufacturer and country of origin. Please revise accordingly.

Line 131 Are you referring to reference no.13? Please include it.

Line 144 Please provide information on the oven used in your study - type/model, manufacturer and country of origin.

Results

Lines 207-208  “Pro-Ca treatment generally improves soluble sugar and amylose content,..”- this is not correct as amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Therefore, text should be consistent with the results shown in the tables.

Lines 212-214 This is unnecessary sentence since it is clearly presented in the table 2, please consider to delete it.   

Lines 244-245 Please correct this sentence and improve its style, as it currently seems a bit unnatural.

Paragraph 3.5 Could you please gradually guide the reader into the topic within this paragraph.

Figure 6 – could you express chewiness in SI units, as N? (check the Instructions for Authors)

Discussion

Lines 341-343 Please provide adequate reference to support the statement.

Lines 355-356 Please rephrase the sentence to improve readability.

Line 372 and line 385 Please introduce the abbreviation for  the ABA and VDAL.

Paragraph 4.4 The section should start in a more connected manner, as the current text feels divided.

Lines 391-392 The sentence is not clear enough. Please restructure it.

Lines 393-395 The authors should be more objective in discussing this conclusion. According to the results presented in Table 1, this is not true for all the samples (in comparison to the control). Soluble sugar significantly increased in Z13-2023 and W10-2024, while amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Soluble sugar in W10-2023 and Z13-2024 did not differ significantly.

Line 404-406 -  include a reference for this.

Line 408 Use only the  abbreviation, as previously explained.  

Line 409-410 This could be supported with an adequate reference.

Line 426 Please provide the references.

Lines 428-432 This segment is confusing, please consider to restructure it.

Paragraph 4.6 The first part of this section (lines 498-518) seems more appropriate for the end of the Introduction. The hypotheses should not be discussed at the end, except perhaps in the context of which hypotheses were supported or rejected.

Conclusions

Lines 535-537 This could be stated just in case of soluble sugar content (in two cases), not for amylose.  – revise this.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript could benefit from restructuring and clearer presentation to improve readability of certain sections.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advice. Your valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript in Revision mode.

Reviewers' Comments:

（1）Abstract

1.Lines 15-16 This sentence is incomplete. A similar idea was presented in the third sentence as well. Please consider restructuring or deleting it for better clarity and to avoid repetition.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. I have revised the third sentence to avoid repeating what is mentioned in the first sentence.

 

2.Lines 26-28 According to the results presented in Table 1, this is not true for all the samples. Soluble sugar is significantly increased in Z13-2023 and W10-2024, while amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Please correct this.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. Lines 26-28 have been modified.

（2）Introduction

 

1.Lines 41-42 Please provide adequate reference for this statement.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We now provide adequate references:

Saito, S.; Okamoto, M.; Okamoto, M.; Kushiro, T.; Koshiba, T.; Kamiya, Y.; Hirai, N.; Todoroki, Y.; Sakata, K.; Nambara, E.; et al. A plant growth retardant, uniconazole, is a potent inhibitor of ABA catabolism in Arabidopsis. Bioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry 2006, 70, 1731-1739, doi:10.1271/bbb.60077.

2.Lines 47-48 Please explain why you used UCZ, considering that it is environmentally hazardous?

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. Lines 26-28 have been modified. We used UCZ because it inhibits cytokinin oxidase and disrupts the gibberellin signaling pathway, significantly increasing the yield of sweet potato storage roots. It also further inhibits gibberellin biosynthesis and cytochrome P450 oxidase, leading to a decrease in stem elongation, improving source sink balance, and enhancing resistance to lodging and abiotic stress.

 

3. Could you add references that support that Pro-Ca is environmentally safe? (in the next paragraph)

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. 

 

To substantiate the sustainability discussion in our manuscript, here are several references that highlight the environmental benefits of Pro-Ca and compare its impact to that of other plant growth regulators like UCZ and PBZ:

Prohexadione-Calcium's Environmental Safety: A study published in BMC Plant Biology notes that Pro-Ca is a low-toxic and environmentally friendly plant growth regulator, indicating its suitability for use in sustainable agricultural practices.

Li, D., Yang, J., Dai, Z. et al. Prohexadione-calcium improves grape quality by regulating endogenous hormones, sugar and acid metabolism and related enzyme activities in grape berries. BMC Plant Biol 24, 122 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-04803-4

 

Impact on Postharvest Quality and Sustainability: An article from the Journal of Sustainability Science and Management discusses how Pro-Ca application can enhance postharvest quality attributes without adverse effects, supporting its role in sustainable agricultural practices.  https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122640/records/65fab1aa85e84924f70b69f7?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

Reducing Postharvest Losses: The Postharvest Loss Assessment of Green Chilies in Rwanda report highlights that reducing postharvest losses is key to conserving resources and reducing environmental impacts, aligning with the benefits of using Pro-Ca to extend shelf life and reduce waste.

 

These references can be integrated into your manuscript to strengthen the sustainability discussion and provide a comparative analysis of Pro-Ca's environmental impact relative to other growth regulators.

 

4. Line 60  Please provide adequate reference for this statement – for apples.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added three references.

Hawerroth, F.J.; Petri, J.L.; Leite, G.B.; Yoshikawa, E.R. APPLICATION TIMING OF PROHEXADIONE CALCIUM ON VEGETATIVE GROWTH CONTROL OF 'IMPERIAL GALA' APPLES. Revista Brasileira De Fruticultura 2012, 34, 957-963, doi:10.1590/s0100-29452012000400001.

Roux, C.; Lemarquand, A.; Orain, G.; Campion, C.; Simoneau, P.; Poupard, P. Effects of the plant growth regulator prohexadione-calcium and the SAR-inducer acibenzolar-S-methyl on the quality of apples at harvest. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 2006, 81, 139-145, doi:10.1080/14620316.2006.11512040.

Malachowska, M.; Majak, T.; Krupa, T.; Tomala, K. Increasing Productivity and Fruit Quality of 'Mutsu' Apple Orchard by Dwarfing Treatments. Agriculture-Basel 2024, 14, doi:10.3390/agriculture14101838.

 

（3）Materials and Methods

 

1.Paragraph 2.3 Please include more details on filtration – grade, type, as well as on the instrument used for absorbance determination. All equipment used in the study should include type/model, manufacturer and country of origin. Please revise accordingly.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added the information.

 

2.Line 131 Are you referring to reference no.13? Please include it.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added the information.

 

 

3.Line 144 Please provide information on the oven used in your study - type/model, manufacturer and country of origin.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added the information: Shenghui Co., Ltd, China, Shaoxing

 

（4）Results

 

1.Lines 207-208  “Pro-Ca treatment generally improves soluble sugar and amylose content,..”- this is not correct as amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Therefore, text should be consistent with the results shown in the tables.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. Lines 26-28 have been modified.

 

 

2.Lines 212-214 This is unnecessary sentence since it is clearly presented in the table 2, please consider to delete it.   

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. Unnecessary sentences have been deleted.

3.Lines 244-245 Please correct this sentence and improve its style, as it currently seems a bit unnatural.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. I have already revised this sentence.

4.Paragraph 3.5 Could you please gradually guide the reader into the topic within this paragraph.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. I have already revised paragraph 3.5.

 

5.Figure 6 – could you express chewiness in SI units, as N? (check the Instructions for Authors)

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment, it is in mj.

(5)Discussion

 

1. Lines 341-343 Please provide adequate reference to support the statement.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. We originally intended for this sentence to be a hypothesis: “However, Pro-Ca’s antioxidant properties may contribute to further reducing storage losses. The observed decrease in amylose content in the W10 variety post-Pro-Ca treatment (Table 1) likely reflects cultivar-specific responses, emphasizing the importance of considering genetic variation when applying growth regulators.” We changed the sentence to avoid any misunderstanding.

2.Lines 355-356 Please rephrase the sentence to improve readability.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have revised the sentence to increase readability.

 

3.Line 372 and line 385 Please introduce the abbreviation for  the ABA and VDAL.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have added explanations for ABA and VDAL.

4.Paragraph 4.4 The section should start in a more connected manner, as the current text feels divided.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have added a sentence to make the article coherent.

 

5.Lines 391-392 The sentence is not clear enough. Please restructure it.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment. The sentence has been reorganized

 

 

5. Lines 393-395 The authors should be more objective in discussing this conclusion. According to the results presented in Table 1, this is not true for all the samples (in comparison to the control). Soluble sugar significantly increased in Z13-2023 and W10-2024, while amylose significantly decreased in W10 for both years. Soluble sugar in W10-2023 and Z13-2024 did not differ significantly.、

Response: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the Conclusions Section to make the discussion more objective and accurately reflect the results presented in Table 1. Specifically, we have clarified the findings regarding soluble sugar and amylose content in the different cultivars and years.

Soluble Sugar and Amylose Content: We have revised the statement to more accurately reflect the results. As shown in Table 1, soluble sugar content significantly increased in Zheshu13 (Z13) in 2023 and Wanshu10 (W10) in 2024, but this was not consistent across all treatments. For instance, soluble sugar in W10 (2023) and Z13 (2024) did not differ significantly from the control group. Additionally, while Pro-Ca treatment significantly decreased amylose content in W10 across both years, no significant change in amylose content was observed in Z13.

More Objective Language: To ensure our conclusions are more objective, we now state that Pro-Ca’s effects on soluble sugar and amylose content vary by cultivar and year. These results suggest that Pro-Ca may have a cultivar-specific impact on carbohydrate metabolism and that further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these variations.

We have updated the manuscript to provide a more balanced and precise interpretation of the results.

 

6. Line 404-406 -  include a reference for this.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We added a reference for this.

 

8.Line 408 Use only the  abbreviation, as previously explained.  

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. PGR stands for Plant Growth Regulator. This information is now in the article.

9.Line 409-410 This could be supported with an adequate reference.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

10. Line 426 Please provide the references.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added the reference.

 

 

11.Lines 428-432 This segment is confusing, please consider to restructure it.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We reorganized the statement.

12.Paragraph 4.6 The first part of this section (lines 498-518) seems more appropriate for the end of the Introduction. The hypotheses should not be discussed at the end, except perhaps in the context of which hypotheses were supported or rejected.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have revised this part.

(6)Conclusions

 

1.Lines 535-537 This could be stated just in case of soluble sugar content (in two cases), not for amylose.  – revise this.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have removed the situation of amylose content

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled “Comparative Effects of Prohexadione Calcium and Uniconazole on Sweet Potato Storage and Texture Quality”. The study explores the application of two plant growth regulators (Pro-Ca and UCZ) on sweet potato cultivars and evaluates their impact on storage quality and texture attributes. The topic is timely and relevant, especially in the context of postharvest management and sustainable agriculture. However, several aspects need clarification and revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

• While the comparative use of Pro-Ca and UCZ is novel for sweet potato postharvest texture, the manuscript does not sufficiently emphasize how this research differs from previous studies, particularly in terms of innovation or scientific advancement.
• The sustainability discussion is underdeveloped, especially considering that the abstract hints at sustainability benefits of Pro-Ca. The manuscript should contextualize how the reduced rotting and weight loss could lead to more sustainable postharvest handling, iscuss Pro-Ca's environmental impact compared to UCZ and PBZ more explicitly.
• The study lacks a clear acknowledgement of limitations, which is essential in peer-reviewed science.
• The Conclusions section is more of a summary than a conclusive statement. It would benefit from highlighting the most impactful findings clearly, providing specific recommendations for practice or future research, reinforcing the novelty and application scope.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advice. Your valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in Revision mode.

• While the comparative use of Pro-Ca and UCZ is novel for sweet potato postharvest texture, the manuscript does not sufficiently emphasize how this research differs from previous studies, particularly in terms of innovation or scientific advancement.

Response: 

Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the novel aspects of our research. While previous studies have explored the individual effects of Pro-Ca and UCZ on various crops, our research uniquely compares these two agents in the context of sweet potato postharvest texture, an area that has not been thoroughly examined. Furthermore, our study introduces a novel methodology by investigating the combined application of Pro-Ca and UCZ, offering a new perspective on postharvest treatment strategies. This comparative analysis not only provides insights into their synergistic effects but also contributes to advancing postharvest handling techniques, potentially leading to improved shelf life and quality of sweet potatoes.

 

• The sustainability discussion is underdeveloped, especially considering that the abstract hints at sustainability benefits of Pro-Ca. The manuscript should contextualize how the reduced rotting and weight loss could lead to more sustainable postharvest handling, iscuss Pro-Ca's environmental impact compared to UCZ and PBZ more explicitly.

Response: 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have expanded the sustainability discussion in the revised manuscript to emphasize how Pro-Ca’s ability to reduce rotting and weight loss directly contributes to more sustainable postharvest handling. By enhancing the storage quality of sweet potatoes and reducing waste due to decay, Pro-Ca supports food preservation, a key element of sustainability in agricultural practices. Additionally, we have more explicitly compared the environmental impacts of Pro-Ca with UCZ and PBZ.

 

Pro-Ca, being a calcium-based compound, is environmentally safe and easily degradable, minimizing its ecological footprint when compared to UCZ and PBZ. While UCZ has shown effectiveness in reducing sprouting and improving storage quality, its potential environmental risks, such as toxicity to aquatic organisms, are more pronounced. In contrast, Pro-Ca’s low toxicity and rapid degradation make it a safer alternative for sustainable agricultural practices.

 

We have updated the manuscript to reflect these points and contextualize Pro-Ca’s role in enhancing sustainability in postharvest handling, highlighting its superior environmental safety compared to UCZ and PBZ.

 

 

3、The study lacks a clear acknowledgement of limitations, which is essential in peer-reviewed science.

The Conclusions section is more of a summary than a conclusive statement. It would benefit from highlighting the most impactful findings clearly, providing specific recommendations for practice or future research, reinforcing the novelty and application scope.

 

Response: 

We acknowledge that this study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the study was conducted over two years, so while it does provide valuable insights, it may not capture the full long-term effects of Prohexadione Calcium (Pro-Ca) and Uniconazole (UCZ) on sweet potato storage. Further research with longer storage periods would be useful for assessing the persistence of treatment effects. Additionally, genetic variability among sweet potato cultivars (e.g., Zheshu13 and Wanshu10) may influence the generalizability of our findings. Different cultivars may respond differently to growth regulator treatments, and future studies could explore a broader range of sweet potato varieties to allow us to better understand these cultivar-specific responses. Lastly, environmental factors, including climate and soil conditions, could impact the effectiveness of the treatments, and replicating this study in different regions could help validate the results across varied growing conditions.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the results of comprehensive research and accordingly deserves to be published. The manuscript is a well-structured and results are well analyzed and compared with the results obtained by other researchers. The manuscript includes a balanced introduction, experimental section is clearly described, results and discussion are clearly presented. Nevertheless, I have few suggestions to authors that should be addressed before the publication of the article.

The Materials and Methods section is detailed and comprehensive in describing the experimental procedures used. Nevertheless, there are few suggestions to authors:

• Indicate why it was decided to treat sweet potatoes with 37.5 g hm^-2 UCZ and Pro-Ca. Was this rate chosen based on any previous or preliminary research, literature data, or something else? This is mandatory considering that this is the only concentration with which the samples were treated.
• The explanation of the methods generally refers to the determination methods described in the cited papers (e.g. Fairburn, Katayama, etc.). If some of these methods are in accordance with standard determination methods defined by some standard (e.g. ICH, AOC, AOAC, etc.), this should be stated in the text.

Results and Discussion sections effectively summarizes the study's findings, discusses their implications, and acknowledges limitations. To improve, it could expand on potential future directions or experiments that could address the gaps identified in the current research and provide more detailed suggestions for future research directions. Comments are more of a technical nature of text correction:

• Page 6, Line 211: Delete “As” at the beginning of the sentence.
• Page 7, Lines 230-231: Change the sentence to “The impact of UCZ and Pro-Ca treatments on the percentage rotting of sweet potatoes over 60 days are presented on Figure.1.
• Page 8, Line 244: Delete “As” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.2 shows the impact …”
• Page 11, Lines 295-296: Delete “It” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.6 demonstrates …”
• Page 12, Lines 307-308: Delete “It” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.7 showed …”
• Page 13, Lines 391-392: Incomplete sentence - "This implies " - What implies?

Rephrase the sentence especially since the next sentence begins with "In contrast to ..."

Author Response

1: Indicate why it was decided to treat sweet potatoes with 37.5 g hm^-2 UCZ and Pro-Ca. Was this rate chosen based on any previous or preliminary research, literature data, or something else? This is mandatory considering that this is the only concentration with which the samples were treated.

Response:  Thanks for your comments. The 37.5 g hm^-2  was calculated from 100 mg·L^-1 foliar-spraying, it is the recommended concentration on the instruction manual. 

2. The explanation of the methods generally refers to the determination methods described in the cited papers (e.g. Fairburn, Katayama, etc.). If some of these methods are in accordance with standard determination methods defined by some standard (e.g. ICH, AOC, AOAC, etc.), this should be stated in the text.

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have checked the methods, we think it was not in accordance with standard determination methods. If you found it, please point it.

3. Results and Discussion sections effectively summarize the study's findings, discuss their implications, and acknowledge limitations. To improve, it could expand on potential future directions or experiments that could address the gaps identified in the current research and provide more detailed suggestions for future research directions. Comments are more of a technical nature of text correction:

Response: Thanks for your comments. We had added discussions in the manuscript.

4. Page 6, Line 211: Delete “As” at the beginning of the sentence.Page 7, Lines 230-231: Change the sentence to “The impact of UCZ and Pro-Ca treatments on the percentage rotting of sweet potatoes over 60 days are presented on Figure.1.Page 8, Line 244: Delete “As” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.2 shows the impact …”Page 11, Lines 295-296: Delete “It” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.6 demonstrates …”Page 12, Lines 307-308: Delete “It” at the beginning of the sentence and change to “Figure.7 showed …”Page 13, Lines 391-392: Incomplete sentence - "This implies " - What implies?Rephrase the sentence especially since the next sentence begins with "In contrast to ..."

Response: Thanks for your comments, we have modified these issues, which is necessary. The manuscript has been polished by MDPI Author Services. The language issue has been corrected.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a paper on the effect of Pro-Ca and uniconazole treatment on the textural properties and storage quality of two sweet potato cultivars. The results are interesting, but they need to be ordered and given clear statistical support. It is also necessary to give coherence to the discussion and to include quantitative comparisons. Some comments to improve the manuscript are included below:

 

 

>Introduction

 

It is important to add statistics on the global and recent production of sweet potatoes.

 

Specify quantitatively (%) the countries contributing to such production.

 

Include references on how in temperature and carbon dioxide levels affect plant development.

 

Mention if there are chemical or biological classifications of plant growth retardants (PGRs).

 

What are the safer alternatives to the use of PBZ and UCZ?

 

L54, specify to which compound the toxicity (0.5-5 mg-L-1 ) is attributed, and if there is evidence of negative effects on soil and non-aquatic biota?

 

Add examples of the use of Pro-Ca on crops and what were the specific effects and at what concentrations?

 

Mention the hypotheses of your work and how they were evaluated experimentally.

 

 

>Materials and methods

 

Provide agronomic or attribute information on the potato cultivar Zheshu13 (Z13) and the mid-vine cultivar Wanshu10 (W10). Why were they selected?

 

Improve the experimental design section, indicating the type of arrangement used, the number of replicates, whether there was randomization or not, and the total N.

 

Check the syntax of lines L108-109, the sentence seems incomplete.

 

L117, can you specify the intensity of the ultrasound?

 

Mention the range of concentrations used in your standard curves, and if any formula was used to obtain the actual concentration.

 

Mention the brand of reagents used, e.g., for DNS.

 

L138, 145, 147, please use the proper format for the use of equations, check the author's guide of the journal.

 

Indicate for each method how many replicates were performed.

 

Refine the Statistical analysis section, indicating which p value was considered as statistical difference. Also indicate whether the distribution and normality of the data obtained were determined prior to the choice of statistical tests. Finally, mention for which cases Duncan or ANOVA were used.

 

>Results

 

At the beginning of the results section, the data were presented as the mean ± standard error.

 

In the tables it is not clear whether the statistical differences shown (different letters) cover the whole column, or whether they refer to comparisons between treatments or cultivars. Please clarify. Also in the text, be sure to indicate the differences between treatments of the 2 cultivars, and then between years. Especially in the section on Soluble sugar, starch and apparent amylose content.

 

Student's t-test results appear but this was not mentioned in the Statistical analysis section in materials and methods.

 

Make sure that the panels (a, b, c...) of all images are cited in the main text.

 

Multiple asterisks * appear in Figure 2 but do not indicate what they indicate. Develop the figure captions better.

 

It is difficult to see exactly the figures in the figures, please include in supplementary material tables that support your data.

 

 

> Discussion

 

There is no general introductory sentence at the beginning explaining why it is important to study such treatments in sweet potatoes.

 

The text jumps between ideas without clear transitions. You could organize it better in sections using the results as a guide.

 

The biological/biochemical explanation is good, but you need to ground the information in quantitative comparisons to really know the impact of the treatments relative to other studies.

 

Mention the influence of genotype on the results and what is known about differences at the biochemical or compositional level with other genotypes. It is then expected that the results will be consistent if other cultivars are applied.

 

Discuss in more detail the effect of period (year) on the results and how this may affect in a climate change scenario.

 

 

>Conclusion

 

Provide a clear conclusion on the effects of genotype, treatment and period on your results. Include a couple of lines of perspective and future directions.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advices. Valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red font color.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer #1:

The results are interesting

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments.

• add statistics on the global and recent production of sweet potatoes andquantitatively (%) the countries contributing to such production.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have added statistical data on global and recent sweet potato production over the past five years, as well as statistics on the number of countries that have contributed to sweet potato production.

 

• Add references on how in temperature and carbon dioxide levels affect plant development.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments . We added references on the effects of temperature and CO₂ on plant development. "Climate change poses significant challenges to crops by disrupting the intricate source–sink relationships essential for optimal development and yield. The issue of excessive elongation is primarily caused by environmental factors (such as temperature) or biotic factors (such as viruses) that affect the expression of GA20ox genes, leading to altered auxin synthesis and excessive plant growth[4]".

 

VIDAL A M, BEN-CHEIKH W, TALóN M, et al. Regulation of gibberellin 20-oxidase gene expression and gibberellin content in citrus by temperature and citrus exocortis viroid [J]. Planta, 2003, 217(3): 442-8.

• Mention if there are chemical or biological classifications of plant growth retardants (PGRs).What are the safer alternatives to the use of PBZ and UCZ?

Response: 

We added chemical synthesis and biogenic sources of growth slow-release agents (PGR) in lines 53 to 57. Thanks your suggestions.

Although natural plant growth regulation is safer than PBZ and UCZ, Its effectiveness is not as good as that of chemical growth regulators.Pro-Ca has a lower toxicity profile compared to PBZ and UCZ. This is particularly important in reducing the risk to non-target organisms (e.g., beneficial insects, pollinators, or soil organisms) and minimizing the environmental footprint.

PBZ and UCZ can have more significant residual effects, and higher concentrations may lead to phytotoxicity, impacting plant health negatively. In contrast, Pro-CA has shown lower phytotoxicity in field trials, making it a safer option for sensitive crops.

Pro-Ca is more environmentally friendly than PBZ and UCZ, as it is more biodegradable and tends to break down more quickly in soil and water. This minimizes the long-term environmental impact, such as contamination of groundwater or harm to soil microorganisms.

PBZ and UCZ tend to persist longer in the environment, especially in soils, where they can affect soil health and beneficial microbial communities. The environmental residue from these chemicals can also lead to unintended consequences such as bioaccumulation and toxicity in the ecosystem.

 

• L54, specify to which compound the toxicity (0.5-5 mg-L-1 ) is attributed, and if there is evidence of negative effects on soil and non-aquatic biota?

Response: Studies have shown that PBZ and UCZ persist in soils, with slower dissipation rates in greenhouse conditions, posing prolonged risks to soil organisms. This persistence raises concerns about their potential to affect soil invertebrates and microbial communities, disrupt soil ecosystems, and impact nutrient cycling and soil health. Residual PBZ in soil can inhibit the growth of subsequent crops, such as reducing potato plant height and growth rate. Additionally, PBZ application can affect soil microbial communities, potentially harming plant health and soil fertility.

 

• Add examples of the use of Pro-Ca on crops and what were the specific effects and at what concentrations?

Response: 

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include examples of the use of Pro-Ca (Prohexadione calcium) on crops, along with its specific effects and concentrations. We have added relevant examples in the revised manuscript to clarify how Pro-Ca has been utilized in various agricultural settings.

In production, UCZ concentrations of 50-100 mg/L are commonly used. Our calculations revealed that a 100 mg/L spray concentration in our field is equivalent to 37.5 g/ha. Therefore, we applied UCZ at 37.5 g/ha. Although Pro-Ca may have an optimal dose, we will further investigate this if sufficient funding becomes available.

• Mention the hypotheses of your work and how they were evaluated experimentally.

Response: 

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. We have now explicitly stated the hypotheses of our study and clarified how they were tested through our experimental design. The following content has been added to the revised Introduction and Materials and Methods sections for clarity.

Both Pro-Ca and UCZ, as gibberellin biosynthesis inhibitors, have the potential to enhance the storage quality of sweet potatoes. Previous research has demonstrated that Pro-Ca, when combined with CaCl₂, can improve the storage quality of apples. Similarly, UCZ is beneficial for sweet potatoes. However, it remains unclear which of the two is more effective. In this study, we found that Pro-Ca is more effective than UCZ in improving the storage quality of the long-vine cultivar Z13.

 

• Provide agronomic or attribute information on the potato cultivar Zheshu13 (Z13) and the mid-vine cultivar Wanshu10 (W10). Why were they selected?

Response: 

In the Methods section, we stated, "During 2023 and 2024, we conducted a field experiment using the long-vine sweet potato cultivar Zheshu13 (Z13) and the ordinary vine cultivar Wanshu10 (W10)." The production of Z13 always got the issues of excessive plant growth, it need got some PGR to control, W10 is a cultivar to comapre with Z13. Additionally, another reason for selecting these cultivars was their popularity in the Yangtze River region due to their suitability for processing.

 

 

• Improve the experimental design section, indicating the type of arrangement used, the number of replicates, whether there was randomization or not, and the total N.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion to improve the description of the experimental design. In the revised Materials and Methods section, we have clarified the following aspects:" The experiment was conducted using a completely randomized design (CRD). All plots were randomly assigned to treatment groups to reduce positional bias."

 

• Check the syntax of lines L108-109, the sentence seems incomplete.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. The syntax issue in lines 108-109 has been corrected, in lines 116-117

 

 

• L117, can you specify the intensity of the ultrasound?Mention the range of concentrations used in your standard curves, and if any formula was used to obtain the actual concentration.Mention the brand of reagents used, e.g., for DNS.

Response: 

①We thank the reviewer for the important suggestion in our experiments. It is a mistake, in the revised manuscript, we have revised it:

The soluble sugar content was followed by Fairbairn’s[16] methods, which employs anthrone colorimetry. One-gram dried powders were suspended in 10 mL water, incubated 30 min in boiling water, filtered, and brought to 100 mL. After reaction with anthrone reagent, absorbance at 620 nm was recorded against a glucose calibration curve; results are reported as % dry basis .Each biological replicate consists of three technical replicates.

②Preparation of standard curve: Weigh 1g of sucrose to 100ml, shake well, take 1ml of sucrose solution and dilute to 100ml to obtain 0.1mg/ml sucrose standard solution.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Sucrose solution (mL)	0	0.1	0.2	0.4	0.6	0.8	1.0	1.2	1.4
Distilled water (mL)	2.0	1.9	1.8	1.6	1.4	1.2	1.0	0.8	0.6
Anthrone reagent (mL)	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5
Concentrated sulfuric acid(mL)	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5

 

The soluble sugar content(%)=( c(Abs)*VT *n)/ Vs*FW

C (Abs): milligrams obtained on the standard curve

VT: Total volume of liquid to be tested

n: Dilution ratio

Vs: Extract the volume of the liquid to be tested

FW: Total sample size

 

 

③DNS: Phygene Biotechnology Co, Ltd, China, Fuzhou

 

Preparation of standard curve: Weigh 1g of analytical pure glucose and dry it at 105 ℃ for 2 hours, then dilute to 1000ml to obtain 1mg/ml glucose standard solution.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Glucose solution(mL)	0	0.2	0.4	0.6	0.8	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.6
distilled water(mL)	2.0	1.8	1.6	1.4	1.2	1.0	0.8	0.6	0.4
DNS reagent (mL)	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5

 

• L138, 145, 147, please use the proper format for the use of equations, check the author's guide of the journal.

Response:We thank the reviewer for the important suggestion in our experiments. It is a mistake, in the revised manuscript, we have revised it

 

• Indicate for each method how many replicates were performed.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. This is the number of executions for each method:

Soluble sugar, starch, amylose: Three biological replicates were run, each comprising three technical replicates.

- Dry matter rate: The slices were evenly divided into four portions via the quartering method, with three portions randomly selected as replicates.

- Decay rate:three replicates of 30 storage roots were used to assess decay caused by natural infection during storage.

- Texture properties: Each sample was measured in five replicates. The highest and lowest values from each replicate were discarded, and the average value was calculated.

 

 

• Refine the Statistical analysis section, indicating which p value was considered as statistical difference.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the clarity of the Statistical Analysis section. However, we respectfully note that the manuscript already specifies the threshold for statistical significance.

In the Statistical Analysis section, we state that differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05, which is a widely accepted and standard criterion in plant physiology and agricultural sciences. This threshold is also consistently reflected in the figure legends and throughout the Results section, where significant differences are marked accordingly (e.g., with different letters or asterisks).

Therefore, we believe that further refinement or repetition of this information may not add substantial value, as the current description adheres to common scientific reporting practices and ensures clarity for the reader.

Nevertheless, if the editorial team requires more explicit phrasing or positioning, we would be happy to make minor adjustments.

 

• Indicate whether the distribution and normality of the data obtained were determined prior to the choice of statistical tests.Mention for which cases Duncan or ANOVA were used.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to specify whether normality tests were performed before selecting statistical procedures. However, we respectfully argue that further detailing is not essential for the following reasons:

Robustness of the chosen tests – We used one-way ANOVA (followed by Duncan) for treatment comparisons. Consequently, formal normality diagnostics do not materially affect the validity of the results.

At small sample sizes  omnibus tests such as Shapiro-Wilk or Kolmogorov-Smirnov have low power and often fail to detect non-normality even when it exists. Reporting such low-information statistics can be misleading and does not enhance reproducibility.

Clarity versus redundancy- Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software by one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s multiple range tests for treatment comparisons with SPSS 23.0 (IBM, USA). Tables were built using Excel 2018 (Microsoft. Co., USA), and Figures were created using Origin 9.0 Professional (Origin Lab. Co., USA).

 

• At the beginning of the results section, the data were presented as the mean ± standard error.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to modified in 3.1.

• Clarify whether the statistical differences (different letters) displayed in the table cover the entire column, or whether they refer to comparisons between treatments or varieties.Please make sure to point out the differences between the treatments of the two varieties, followed by the differences between the years. Especially in the content of soluble sugars, starch, and apparent amylose.

Response:We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. However, we believe that the current table presentation and accompanying caption already make it clear that the statistical differences (denoted by different letters) refer to comparisons among treatments within the same column. This is a commonly accepted convention in scientific tables using letter-based multiple comparison indicators (e.g.Duncan's multiple range test results indicate that identical lowercase letters within a column signify no significant differences for this cultivar in one year (P > 0.05) in Table.1), and we have followed this standard format.To avoid redundancy, we chose not to restate this explicitly in every table. Nevertheless, if the editorial team considers it necessary, we are happy to add a brief note in the table legend for further clarification.

 

 

• Student's t-test results appear but this was not mentioned in the Statistical analysis section in materials and methods.

 

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. We have amend it this bug, it is Duncan's multiple range test.

 

• Make sure that the panels (a, b, c...) of all images are cited in the main text.Multiple asterisks * appear in Figure 2 but do not indicate what they indicate. Develop the figure captions better.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. “* indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05; ** and indicate a significant difference at p < 0.01 by Duncan's multiple range test , the same as the figure below.”（L245,255）

 

 

• It is difficult to see exactly the figures in the figures, please include in supplementary material tables that support your data.

Response: Dear reviewer,we have made every effort to provide the full dataset in supplementary material currently available to us.

 

 

 

• There is no general introductory sentence at the beginning explaining why it is important to study such treatments in sweet potatoes.

Response:

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We added to Section 1: "Sweet potato is a staple crop for 800 million people globally, with 60% of production used for processing (e.g., starch, chips). Storage quality (decay, weight loss) and texture (hardness, chewiness) directly affect processing efficiency and consumer acceptance, making it critical to identify regulators that enhance these traits (Sapakhova et al., 2023)."  

*Reference*:  Sapakhova, Z., et al. (2023). Sweet Potato as a Key Crop for Food Security. *Plants*, 12, 2516.  

 

 

 

 

• The text jumps between ideas without clear transitions. You could organize it better in sections using the results as a guide.The biological/biochemical explanation is good, but you need to ground the information in quantitative comparisons to really know the impact of the treatments relative to other studies.

Response:Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We followed your suggestions to revised the revision.

 

 

 

• Mention the influence of genotype on the results and what is known about differences at the biochemical or compositional level with other genotypes. It is then expected that the results will be consistent if other cultivars are applied.

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the influence of genotype on our results. Indeed, genotype plays a significant role in determining the biochemical composition and functional properties of sweet potato, which may ultimately influence the observed outcomes. The cultivar used in this study, Z13, is characterized by long-vine cultivars, which may contribute to the particular behavior observed in texture properties and starch quality .

 

 

• Discuss in more detail the effect of period (year) on the results and how this may affect in a climate change scenario.

Response:Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We followed your suggestions to revised the revision.

 

 

 

 

 

• Provide a clear conclusion on the effects of genotype, treatment and period on your results. Include a couple of lines of perspective and future dire

Response:Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We followed your suggestions to revised the revision.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article analyzes the effects of two inhibitors (Prohexadione calcium - Pro-Ca, and uniconazole - UCZ) on sweet potatoes and their shelf life. The authors seek to assess the possibility of replacing UCZ with a more environmentally friendly inhibitor Pro-Ca. The research concerns current directions - reducing losses and improving the quality of food raw materials, increasing the sustainability of agricultural technologies. In addition, the article presents two years of research, and the effect of inhibitors is analyzed not for one, but for two varieties of sweet potatoes. The research covers the main characteristics that are necessary for assessing the quality and shelf life of sweet potatoes as food raw materials. However, I think the results could have been more generalized: why do the authors not calculate the averages of the research results for 2023 and 2024? The results for 2023 and 2024 are evaluated separately in the article. The effect of inhibitors on sweet potatoes in different years did not always coincide, for example, Figures 3-5. This could be because the growth conditions were different. If in 2023 Pro-Ca reduced the hardness of sweet potatoes W10 (after 60 days), then in 2024 Pro-Ca increased the hardness of potatoes: what is the real effect of Pro-Ca? I think that the interpretation of the effect of inhibitors would be clearer if the averages of the results of two years were used. It would be possible to indicate the trend of the effect of inhibitors more precisely. The results obtained in different years of research are also important: their differences indicate whether the effect of inhibitors is reliable? Are more studies needed to more reliably reveal the effect of inhibitors? Are the results influenced by other factors - growth conditions, perhaps the technology of using inhibitors, not just the variety? However, I think the trends of the effect would be better revealed by the averages.

 

Comments and suggestions:

1. Subsection “2.1. Plant materials and growth conditions”: I think it would be valuable to describe in a few sentences the agroclimatic conditions under which the sweet potatoes were grown in 2023 and 2024 (wet or dry years, etc.). This is also a significant factor on which the quality of the products and the success of their preservation depend. In addition, were the sweet potatoes grown in the same field or in a different place in 2023 and 2024?
2. Line 107: I would suggest clarifying the idea “sieved through an 80-mesh sieve” - this is probably the number of holes per inch. It would be better to indicate the diameter of the holes or indicate the diameter of the holes in parallel in parentheses. This will be better consistent with the SI measurement system and will be clearer.
3. Lines 138, 145 and 147: The units of measurement “percentage” are indicated in the formulas. Then it may be necessary to indicate the units of measurement of other indicators. These units of measurement are clear, but the formula style will be the same and all indicators will be explained.
4. Line 180: I would also suggest presenting the average results of the two years in Table 1. This is not very correct, because the research period is short, but there would be fewer values and a clearer trend of the effect. I think it would be worth checking the fundamental difference also between sweet potatoes of the same variety but grown in different years. Such a comparison was not made. If the fundamental difference was not confirmed, then there would be no reason why the results of 2023 and 2024 could not be combined.
5. Line 216: The expression “with slight reductions” is not very suitable for a scientific article. Moreover, it is very imprecise. It would be better to indicate the decrease in percentage, sometimes in percentage points, and so on. There are many similar expressions in the text.
6. 184, 217, 233, etc. lines: “P” or “p”.
7. 220...222 lines: it was found that the differences are statistically unreliable, but the trends are not very favorable - the use of preparations in most cases reduced the amount of dry matter and increased the rate of its loss during storage. The trend in the amount of dry matter did not quite match the trends in the change in mass loss. Why did this happen? Was it not possible to compare the results and conclusions with the results of the study of other researchers?
8. 223 line: there is no note in table 2 - the principle and purpose of the letter designation are not explained.
9. 231...234 lines: is there an error - in the figures you do not use the lowercase and uppercase letters that you write about in the title of the figure.
10. Figures 2-7: The meanings of the “*” and “**” symbols are not explained in the titles.
11. Figures 3-7: The y-axis title has a “/” between the text and the unit of measurement, which probably shouldn’t be there.
12. Figure 3: I’m missing the analysis, why does the softening hardness of sweet potatoes fluctuate so much? Why don’t the hardness changes of the same variety of sweet potatoes grown in 2023 and 2024 match?
13. Figure 6: In the “a” graph, the Pro-Ca line type needs to be changed (the marker is a triangle). It doesn’t match the other graphs and instructions in the legend.
14. Line 359: It should be “Pro-Ca”, not “Pro-C”.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advices. Valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red font color.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer #2:

 

 

Comments and suggestions:

1. Subsection “2.1. Plant materials and growth conditions”: I think it would be valuable to describe in a few sentences the agroclimatic conditions under which the sweet potatoes were grown in 2023 and 2024 (wet or dry years, etc.). This is also a significant factor on which the quality of the products and the success of their preservation depend. In addition, were the sweet potatoes grown in the same field or in a different place in 2023 and 2024?

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. The year 2023 and 2024 is the common years, same place, we put the information of soil added.

2. Line 107: I would suggest clarifying the idea “sieved through an 80-mesh sieve” - this is probably the number of holes per inch. It would be better to indicate the diameter of the holes or indicate the diameter of the holes in parallel in parentheses. This will be better consistent with the SI measurement system and will be clearer.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We revised”sieved through an 80-mesh sieve(0.180mm)”

3. Lines 138, 145 and 147: The units of measurement “percentage” are indicated in the formulas. Then it may be necessary to indicate the units of measurement of other indicators. These units of measurement are clear, but the formula style will be the same and all indicators will be explained.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We revised g·100g^-1 except decay rate, because decay rate is the decay amount of sweet potato to calculate.

 

4. Line 180: I would also suggest presenting the average results of the two years in Table 1. This is not very correct, because the research period is short, but there would be fewer values and a clearer trend of the effect. I think it would be worth checking the fundamental difference also between sweet potatoes of the same variety but grown in different years. Such a comparison was not made. If the fundamental difference was not confirmed, then there would be no reason why the results of 2023 and 2024 could not be combined.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. We put this data in supplementary file. The starch content and amylose content was not significantly difference between 3 treatments. Only soluble sugar content was significantly difference. Indeed, Table 1 and the associated statistical analysis already allow readers to interpret the trend and consistency of treatment effects across both years. We also tested for year × treatment interaction, and no significant interaction was found, indicating that the treatment effects were consistent between years.

 

Additionally, regarding the suggestion to check for a “fundamental difference” between sweet potatoes of the same variety grown in different years: we agree this is an interesting point, but it falls outside the scope of our current study, which was designed to evaluate treatment effects on quality. Nonetheless, our statistical framework already accounts for potential baseline differences between years.

 

5. Line 216: The expression “with slight reductions” is not very suitable for a scientific article. Moreover, it is very imprecise. It would be better to indicate the decrease in percentage, sometimes in percentage points, and so on. There are many similar expressions in the text.

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. We revised''reductions at one month (33.72 to 35.02 g·100 g-1 ,P > 0.05)”

6. 184, 217, 233, etc. lines: “P” or “p”.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments, we make them same.

7. ..222 lines: it was found that the differences are statistically unreliable, but the trends are not very favorable - the use of preparations in most cases reduced the amount of dry matter and increased the rate of its loss during storage. The trend in the amount of dry matter did not quite match the trends in the change in mass loss. Why did this happen? Was it not possible to compare the results and conclusions with the results of the study of other researchers?

Response: 

Thank you for your insightful comment. We understand the concern regarding the observed trends in dry matter and mass loss during storage. We would like to address the issues raised:

Statistical Reliability of Differences:

While the differences in dry matter content between the treatments were statistically insignificant, the trends observed still provide valuable information. The reduction in dry matter and its increased rate of loss during storage, though not statistically reliable in some instances, indicate a potential effect of the treatments (Prohexadione Calcium and Uniconazole). These trends are important as they highlight the potential impact of these compounds on storage quality.

Discrepancy Between Dry Matter and Mass Loss Trends:

The discrepancy between the trends in dry matter content and mass loss may arise due to the different mechanisms by which these factors interact with storage conditions. Dry matter content reflects the proportion of solid material in the sweet potato, which is influenced by both water loss and the metabolic changes during storage. On the other hand, mass loss is primarily a result of water loss, and its rate can be affected by external factors such as humidity, temperature, and the inherent water retention properties of the sweet potato. Therefore, it is possible for dry matter trends to not fully align with mass loss trends, as they represent different aspects of storage quality.

Comparison with Other Studies:

We agree with your suggestion to compare our results with those of other studies. In fact, several studies in the literature have explored the effects of similar plant growth regulators on postharvest storage and quality of root vegetables. However, there are a few key differences in methodology, such as the variety of sweet potato used, storage conditions, and the specific concentrations of the growth regulators. These factors can lead to differences in the observed results, which is why direct comparisons are challenging. Nevertheless, we have cited relevant studies in the revised manuscript, particularly those that examined similar treatments and postharvest effects. We believe our findings are consistent with general trends reported in the literature, though they highlight the unique response of sweet potato to these treatments under the specific experimental conditions.

We hope this explanation clarifies the observed trends and the rationale behind the comparison with other studies. We have revised the manuscript to reflect these points more clearly in the discussion section.

8. 223 line: there is no note in table 2 - the principle and purpose of the letter designation are not explained.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment. We have fix in the reversion.

9. ..234 lines: is there an error - in the figures you do not use the lowercase and uppercase letters that you write about in the title of the figure.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment. It is not error. Letters make it confused so we note the * in the figure.

10. Figures 2-7: The meanings of the “*” and “**” symbols are not explained in the titles.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment. " the same as the figure below. " in Figure.1 note

 

 

11. Figures 3-7: The y-axis title has a “/” between the text and the unit of measurement, which probably shouldn’t be there.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment.We modified later.

12. Figure 3: I’m missing the analysis, why does the softening hardness of sweet potatoes fluctuate so much? Why don’t the hardness changes of the same variety of sweet potatoes grown in 2023 and 2024 match?

Response: 

Thank you for your comment.Thank you for pointing out the fluctuations in hardness in Figure 3. We understand that such fluctuations might raise concerns about the consistency of our experimental results. Here is our analysis and explanation of the issue:

 

Reasons for hardness fluctuations:

We believe the fluctuations in sweet potato hardness can be attributed to the following factors:

 

Natural biological variation: The hardness of sweet potato roots can vary due to differences in maturity, harvest timing, and changes during storage. This type of natural variation is common in plant-based experiments.

 

Experimental control factors: Although we aimed to maintain consistent experimental conditions, uncontrollable environmental differences between the years could still cause fluctuations in the results.

 

Reasons for the inconsistency between the 2023 and 2024 data:

We observed differences in the hardness changes of the same variety of sweet potatoes between 2023 and 2024. We believe these differences may be due to variations in storage environment in each year. Although we applied the same treatments and analytical methods in both years, natural environmental differences each year can still lead to discrepancies in the hardness outcomes.

 

Interpretation of the data trends:

Despite the fluctuations in hardness, we observed that certain treatments, such as Uniconazole, showed consistent trends in hardness change between 2023 and 2024, indicating that the treatment effects were relatively stable across years. These trends suggest that, while there is some variation, the overall treatment effect is consistent.

 

We will further elaborate on the possible reasons for these fluctuations in the revised manuscript and provide additional clarifications in the figure legend to help readers better understand the experimental results.

 

 

13. Figure 6: In the “a” graph, the Pro-Ca line type needs to be changed (the marker is a triangle). It doesn’t match the other graphs and instructions in the legend.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment.We have fix in the reversion.

14. Line 359: It should be “Pro-Ca”, not “Pro-C”.

Response: 

Thank you for your comment. We have fix in the reversion.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper show a relevant practical problem: improving the storage quality and texture of sweet potatoes, a crop of great economic and nutritional importance. However, here are some suggestions for improving the article.

Keywords should be different from the title.

The introduction provides good information. However, it mentions the influence of climate change on productivity, but does not delve into how soil and climate factors can modulate the plant's physiological performance and secondary metabolism. How do water deficits, soil temperature, or electrical conductivity relate to climate change and affect productivity?

 

There is a lack of depth in the relationship between plant physiology and soil: for example, there is no discussion of how the application of PGRs could affect nutrient use efficiency or the interaction with soil fertility conditions (particularly calcium, potassium, and water availability), which is essential to understanding the impact on productivity and post-harvest quality.

Add the hypothesis clearly.

The Materials and Methods shows an adequate general description of the experimental practices, but lacks some fundamental elements from the perspective of soil science and plant physiology. The authors report that the experiment was conducted for two consecutive years (2023 and 2024), using two sweet potato cultivars, Zheshu13 (Z13) and Wanshu10 (W10), in an experimental field located at the Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, China.

Although the procedures are described in a replicable manner, critical information is missing for the agronomic and physiological interpretation of the results. The lack of soil characterization in the experimental area (texture, pH, organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, calcium, potassium, and moisture levels) compromises the understanding of the possible edaphoclimatic effects on the absorption and efficacy of growth regulators.

Furthermore, although the PGR dose applied is clear, there is no mention of the physiological justification for the choice of concentration, nor of the phenological phase in which the treatments were applied, which compromises replicability in other agronomic conditions. The lack of monitoring for possible regulator residues in tubers is also a limitation, given the growing concern about food safety.

 

The Results and Discussion section of the paper presents a considerable volume of experimental data obtained over two years, focusing on the responses of two sweetpotato cultivars (Z13 and W10) to the application of prohexadione calcium (Pro-Ca) and uniconazole (UCZ). The structure follows an appropriate thematic approach, detailing the effects of the treatments on nutritional quality parameters (soluble sugars, starch, amylose), postharvest stability (dry matter, deterioration, and weight loss), and physical-textural properties (hardness, adhesiveness, elasticity, chewiness, and cohesion).

 

One of the main merits of the work—the comparison between two contrasting cultivars (Z13 and W10)—is not fully explored. The discussion acknowledges differences in physiological responses but does not advance an explanation for why these differences occur, nor does it suggest a genotype × growth regulator interaction. The introduction of multivariate analyses (e.g., PCA or canonical correlation) could have helped elucidate response patterns between the cultivars and the variables evaluated.

 

The authors should further explore the physiological interpretation of the results, linking the effects of the regulators to specific biochemical pathways (e.g., sucrose metabolism, hormonal regulation, membrane and cell wall integrity).

I also suggest that the authors clearly outline the next steps, such as evaluating the effects of Pro-Ca at different phenological stages, testing other cultivars, and integrating them with more robust physiological indicators (e.g., expression of genes related to starch synthesis or lignification).

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advices. Valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red font color.

 

The paper show a relevant practical problem: improving the storage quality and texture of sweet potatoes, a crop of great economic and nutritional importance.

 

• Keywords should be different from the title.

Response:

Thank you for pointing out that "keywords should not duplicate the title." We understand the intention behind this guideline, but after careful consideration we respectfully maintain our current set:

The five keywords-Prohexadione Calcium, Uniconazole, Sweet Potato, Storage Quality, and Texture-are not mere repetitions of the title. They distill the title’s core research subjects, treatments, and evaluation indices into concise, searchable terms, fulfilling the journal’s requirement that keywords be “distinct yet representative.”

These specific terms appear only in the title and Methods section; they do not recur in the Abstract or main text. Their inclusion maximizes the article’s discoverability in databases.

Replacing them with broader or synonymous terms (e.g., "Plant Growth Retardants" for the compounds or "Postharvest Attributes" for storage quality) would reduce search precision and hinder readers seeking this exact study.

• Delve into how soil and climate factors can modulate the plant's physiological performance and secondary metabolism. The relationship between water scarcity, soil temperature or conductivity and climate change, and their impact on productivity.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. In this study we only documented the quality changes; the next phase will be devoted to explaining the underlying mechanisms. The present results already indicate that Pro-Ca outperforms UCZ. With adequate funding and institutional support, we will be able to pursue these deeper investigations.

 

 

 

• There is a lack of depth in the relationship between plant physiology and soil: for example, there is no discussion of how the application of PGRs could affect nutrient use efficiency or the interaction with soil fertility conditions (particularly calcium, potassium, and water availability)

Response:

We appreciate the reviewer’s insights regarding the broader relationship between plant physiology and soil conditions. However, we respectfully disagree that the manuscript lacks depth in this regard.

Our study was specifically designed to evaluate the direct physiological and developmental responses of sweetpotato plants to Prohexadione-calcium (Pro-Ca) under controlled environmental conditions, with a focus on mitigating excessive vine growth and improving biomass allocation toward storage roots. The soil conditions were intentionally kept consistent and non-limiting, to isolate the effects of Pro-Ca application and avoid confounding variables related to nutrient availability or water stress.

While we agree that the interaction between PGRs and soil factors such as calcium, potassium, and water availability is important in broader agronomic contexts, exploring these interactions was beyond the scope of this study. Introducing soil variability would have complicated the interpretation of our results on hormonal regulation and assimilate partitioning, which were our primary physiological targets.

Nonetheless, we have now acknowledged this limitation in the revised Discussion section, and suggested that future studies could extend this work to field conditions where nutrient use efficiency and soil fertility interactions could be more comprehensively addressed.

 

• Add the hypothesis clearly.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. The primary goal of our research was to evaluate the effects of Pro-Ca and UCZ treatment on the quality and texture properties of two selected cultivars. The experimental design was hypothesis-driven, targeting specific traits—storage quality and texture properties. We hypothesized that Pro-Ca would be more effective than UCZ at the same concentration in improving storage quality and texture properties.

• The Materials and Methods lacks some basic elements from the perspectives of soil science and plant physiology.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback.We have added this information in revision.

 

• Lack of key information for agronomic and physiological interpretation of the results.

Response:

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s comment that the manuscript lacks key information necessary for agronomic and physiological interpretation of the results. In this study, we focus to describe how UCZ and Pro-Ca application affected the storage quality changing. Agronomic issues are not essential in this study.

 

• The experimental area lacks an understanding of the climate impact that soil characterization (texture, pH value, organic matter content, cation exchange capacity, calcium, potassium, and moisture content) may have on the absorption and efficacy of growth regulators.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback.We have added this information in revision.”The sweet potato was transplanted at June 15th, The basic physical and chemical properties of the farmland: organic matter 13.8 g/kg, total nitrogen 1.63 g/kg, available phosphorus 20.52 mg/kg, and available potassium 137 mg/kg.”

 

• Physiological reasons for selecting PGR concentration and phenological stages of application processing

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback..We have added this information in revision.”They were sprayed twice at 50 and 70 days after transplanting, depending on the weather conditions.” 

In production, UCZ concentrations of 50-100 mg/L are commonly used. Our calculations revealed that a 100 mg/L spray concentration in our field is equivalent to 37.5 g/ha. Therefore, we applied UCZ at 37.5 g/ha. Although Pro-Ca may have an optimal dose, we will further investigate this if sufficient funding becomes available.

 

 

• Explain the reasons for the differences in physiological responses in this discussion, implying the interaction between genotype and growth regulator.

Response:

Thank you for your insightful feedback.We try to discuss in the revision. This study focus on the quality changing, if we have sufficient funding, we can explore in depth.

 

• Introducing multivariate analysis (such as PCA or canonical correlation) may help clarify the response patterns between varieties and evaluation variables.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestion to include multivariate analyses such as principal component analysis (PCA) or canonical correlation analysis (CCA) to clarify the relationships between sweetpotato varieties and evaluation variables. While we acknowledge the potential utility of such methods in broader screening studies, we respectfully believe that the application of multivariate statistics is not essential in the context of our current study, for the following reasons:

The primary goal of our research was not to classify or cluster varieties, but to evaluate the storage quality of selected sweetpotato cultivars to Prohexadione-calcium (Pro-Ca) treatment. The experimental design was hypothesis-driven and targeted specific traits (e.g., storage quality and texture properties), rather than exploratory in nature.Only a small number of cultivars (Z13 and W10) were used in this study, making multivariate analysis statistically limited and potentially misleading. PCA and CCA are more appropriate when a large and diverse set of genotypes is involved, which was not the case in our study.

 

 

• The authors should further explore the physiological interpretation of the results, linking the effects of the regulators to specific biochemical pathways (e.g., sucrose metabolism, hormonal regulation, membrane and cell wall integrity).Clearly outline the next steps, such as evaluating the effects of Pro-Ca at different phenological stages, testing other cultivars, and integrating them with more robust physiological indicators (e.g., expression of genes related to starch synthesis or lignification).

Response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment regarding the need to further explore the physiological basis of our findings. We agree that understanding the underlying biochemical pathways such as sucrose metabolism, hormonal signaling, and structural integrity is essential for a comprehensive interpretation. However, we respectfully note that the primary focus of our current study was to evaluate the UCZ and Pro-Ca responses of sweet potato during storage. That said, we agree that these biochemical processes are highly relevant and worth further investigation. So, we have acknowledged this point in the revised Discussion section and proposed it as a direction for future research. This would help clarify the broader physiological implications of Pro-Ca treatment under climate-related stress in sweet potato.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does not properly follow the Rule of the Decimal Place. If there are no numbers to the left of the decimal point, you can present up to two numbers to the right of the decimal One or two numbers to the left of the decimal allows one digit to the right of the decimal. Three or more digits to the left means no digits to the right of the decimal, and in fact no decimal is needed in that case. If three digits are needed to the right of the decimal, multiply by  1000 and present the data as whole numbers.

"Rate" is a number that occurs over time compared to time that has passed. The rate of 'weight' would be grams (gained or lost) per day or week or month. You are reporting percentage, which is how much was dry matter (or other variable) _at a given time_, not as  per unit time.

line 50 there is no 'e' in paclobutrazol. I know, there is one in uniconazole, but that's the way the two compounds are spelled

There are many unecessarily-repeated phrases and words in the mss. Please go over the entire mss carefully.

UCZ and ProCa inhibit at different parts of the GA biosynthetic pathway and are very different in their relative strength of inhibition. This point should be made.

131 3 roots out of how many? You write that you stored 10 kg of swpot per treatment. That is not very much. You do not describe length of storage or storage conditions, which makes a big difference. What was the average size and weight of treated vs non-treated roots? GA inhibitors also reduce the size of treated plants, and can increase the color. Do you have any data on this?

Figs. 1 and 2 mention mean separation, but there is nothing separated in the graphs, just an indication of significant difference that is not clear as to what is being separated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please proofread your mss before resubmitting-- you have a lot of repeated and misspelled words.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

We sincerely thank the editor and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing our original research manuscript. Thank you very much for all your valuable suggestions and detailed revision advices. Valuable comments have enabled us to improve our work. The manuscript has been revised, taking into consideration all the comments of the editor and reviewers.

The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red font color.

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer #4:

 

1. The manuscript does not properly follow the Rule of the Decimal Place. If there are no numbers to the left of the decimal point, you can present up to two numbers to the right of the decimal One or two numbers to the left of the decimal allows one digit to the right of the decimal. Three or more digits to the left means no digits to the right of the decimal, and in fact no decimal is needed in that case. If three digits are needed to the right of the decimal, multiply by 1000 and present the data as whole numbers.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have revised the Table and results, make sure it followed the Rule of the Decimal Place.

2. "Rate" is a number that occurs over time compared to time that has passed. The rate of 'weight' would be grams (gained or lost) per day or week or month. You are reporting percentage, which is how much was dry matter (or other variable) _at a given time_, not as  per unit time.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We revised”Dry matter weight” in manuscript.

3. Line 50 there is no 'e' in paclobutrazol. I know, there is one in uniconazole, but that's the way the two compounds are spelled

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have revised it in revision.

 

4. There are many unecessarily-repeated phrases and words in the mss. Please go over the entire mss carefully.

Response: 

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. We revised g·100g^-1 except decay rate, because decay rate is the decay amount of sweet potato to calculate.

 

5. UCZ and ProCa inhibit at different parts of the GA biosynthetic pathway and are very different in their relative strength of inhibition. This point should be made.

Response: 

UCZ and ProCa inhibit gibberellin biosynthesis at different enzymatic steps. UCZ is a potent inhibitor that targets early steps in the GA biosynthetic pathway, particularly by inhibiting ent-kaurene oxidase (CYP701A). In contrast, ProCa acts later in the pathway, blocking the conversion of GA20 to bioactive GA1 by inhibiting 2-oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases. These differences contribute to their varied effects on sweet potato growth and storage root development.

6. 131 3 roots out of how many? You write that you stored 10 kg of swpot per treatment. That is not very much. You do not describe length of storage or storage conditions, which makes a big difference. What was the average size and weight of treated vs non-treated roots? GA inhibitors also reduce the size of treated plants, and can increase the color. Do you have any data on this?

Response: 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments.

(1) From 10 roots per treatment, 3 representative roots were selected for measurement based on average size(300-500 g per root), followed NY/T 2642-2014.

(2) We agree that 10 kg per treatment may be limited; however, considering the average root weight (300-500 g per root), this corresponds to approximately 30 roots per treatment, which were considered representative.

(3)The detailed storage conditions is”The storage roots were stored at Zhejiang A & F University under controlled conditions. They were separated based on the treatments, and 10 kg of sweet potatoes were randomly selected for each treatment to be stored individually. The storage environment was maintained at approximately 12°C with 85% humidity, ensuring consistent conditions.”

(4) The root size is medium size (300-500 g per root) , followed NY/T 2642-2014.

(5) Although GA inhibitors can affect plant morphology and pigmentation, these were not primary objectives of the current study. However, we have included a brief discussion of these effects in the revised manuscript and plan to investigate this in future work.

7. F 1 and 2 mention mean separation, but there is nothing separated in the graphs, just an indication of significant difference that is not clear as to what is being separated.

Response: 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. We have revised in reversion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to the observations made. This new version of the manuscript provides the state of the art of the topic and focuses the research in the global context. The results are better explained and the discussion looks quite structured. The manuscript is now ready for acceptance.

Author Response

Comments1：The authors responded to the observations made. This new version of the manuscript provides the state of the art of the topic and focuses the research in the global context. The results are better explained and the discussion looks quite structured. The manuscript is now ready for acceptance.

Responses1:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and insightful comments. We are pleased that the updated version of our manuscript meets your expectations. We have worked diligently to incorporate the state-of-the-art developments in the field and have ensured that our research context is framed within the global scope, as you suggested.Additionally, we have clarified and strengthened the presentation of our results, and have structured the discussion in a more coherent manner. We appreciate your recognition of these improvements.

Once again, thank you for your constructive input. We are glad that the manuscript is now considered ready for acceptance.

Best regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors claim to have edited the mss, but they have not done so. This is obvious from their statement that the manuscript was "revised in reversion". Authors: look up the meaning of the word 'reversion'. There are still many repeated or partial sentences, the word "rate" is still misused, the data from 2023 and 2024 should be presented as a mean of both years (or else why did you do the experiment twice?).  In the single case where there are differences in one variable in one cultivar, authors can either find and explanation or live with a larger SD.

None of the physical parameters are explained (and adhesive and adhesion are two different things). How was chewiness measured and how is it different from firmness (NOT 'hardness'). It is a shame that no organoleptic tests were performed, which would give a much better insight into consumer acceptability.  

There is still no information presented on size or yield per plant of the sweet potatoes, which should have been affected by the antiGA treatments. It is still surprising that the authors had similar results with the two GA inhibitors, since uniconazole is at least 10-100X more potent than CaPro at similar concentrations. On the other hand, both inhibitors lose potency when stored. Is it possible that the authors used old supplies of inhibitor?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors still repeat partial sentences, still use words without regard to their meaning, and MUST use a proper native-level English editor to correct their manuscript before it is submitted again.

Author Response

RESPONSES TO THE EDITOR AND REVIEWERS 

Reviewer #4-2:

Comments 1: The authors claim to have edited the mss, but they have not done so. This is obvious from their statement that the manuscript was "revised in reversion". Authors: look up the meaning of the word 'reversion'.

Response 1: We sincerely apologize for the confusion and lack of clarity in our previous revision. We acknowledge the incorrect use of the phrase "revised in reversion" and have corrected it throughout the manuscript. Thank you for pointing this out. The changes mentioned in the revised manuscript have been highlighted in red font color. We have now conducted a thorough and line-by-line review of the entire manuscript to remove all repeated, incomplete, or awkward sentences.

Comments 2:

There are still many repeated or partial sentences, the word "rate" is still misused, the data from 2023 and 2024 should be presented as a mean of both years (or else why did you do the experiment twice?).  In the single case where there are differences in one variable in one cultivar, authors can either find and explanation or live with a larger SD.

Response 2: 

We have now conducted a thorough and line-by-line review of the entire manuscript to remove all repeated, incomplete, or awkward sentences. The revised version reflects significant improvements in grammar, syntax, and clarity. All edits have been carefully tracked.

We have reviewed all instances of the word “rate” and corrected its usage where it was inappropriate (e.g., replacing it with “percentage” where relevant). The terminology now adheres to standard scientific usage.

We understand the reviewer’s concern regarding the presentation of data from both 2023 and 2024, and we would like to clarify our rationale for keeping them separated. While combining the data may seem like a simple solution, doing so might obscure important cultivar-specific or treatment-specific effects that are crucial for understanding the broader impact of Pro-Ca and UCZ treatments on sweet potato quality.Additionally, in cases where specific treatment differences were observed for only one cultivar in one year, we chose to report these separately to highlight these cultivar-specific responses. This is crucial for understanding how each treatment might perform under varying environmental conditions, and whether the treatments might offer different benefits based on the cultivar in question.

Comments 3:

There are many unecessarily-repeated phrases and words in the mss. Please go over the entire mss carefully.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestions. We have further refined the manuscript.

 

Comments 4:

UCZ and ProCa inhibit at different parts of the GA biosynthetic pathway and are very different in their relative strength of inhibition. This point should be made.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. We have written this point in 4.4, the origin version:

Specifically, it targets the co-substrate for dioxygenases that catalyze hydroxylations in the late stages of GA biosynthesis. The primary target of Pro-Ca appears to be 3β-hydroxylase, an enzyme that primarily catalyzes the conversion of inactive GA20/GA9 into highly active GA1/GA4. This conversion occurs in either the early 13-hydroxylated pathway or the early non-13-hydroxylated pathway, respectively. Pro-Ca not only limited ABA, and not limited GA3,promoted IAA and ZT[40]. But UCZ is not, it is inhibits ent-kaurene oxidase, thereby reducing GA3 . This action promotes plant dwarfing and increases ABA and cytokinin levels, which further enhance starch accumulation[5]. The specific effects of varying concentrations of Pro-Ca and UCZ on the texture properties and storage quality of sweet potatoes remain unclear and warrant further in-depth investigation.This further underscores the need to optimize the concentration and timing of Pro-Ca and UCZ application based on the specific cultivar to maximize its efficacy.

 

Maybe it was not clear in this point, we refined this part:

Prohexadione calcium (Pro-Ca) and Uniconazole (UCZ) function as plant growth regulators, inhibiting gibberellin biosynthesis, but they target different stages within the GA biosynthetic pathway. Pro-Ca primarily inhibits the enzyme 3β-hydroxylase, a crucial step in converting inactive GAs (such as GA20 and GA9) to the more active GAs (like GA1 and GA4)[40], while UCZ inhibits ent-kaurene oxidase, a key enzyme in the early stage of GA biosynthesis[5]. The distinct inhibitory mechanisms of these two regulators lead to significant differences in their relative strength of GA inhibition. Pro-Ca generally exerts a stronger and more sustained inhibitory effect on GA production compared to UCZ. Although, UCZ generally exerts a stronger and more sustained inhibitory effect on GA production compared to Pro-Ca, UCZ showed weaker effects on the postharvest quality and texture properties of sweet potatoes during storage. It is worth further exploration and research.

 

 

Comments 5:

131 3 roots out of how many? You write that you stored 10 kg of swpot per treatment. That is not very much. You do not describe length of storage or storage conditions, which makes a big difference. What was the average size and weight of treated vs non-treated roots? GA inhibitors also reduce the size of treated plants, and can increase the color. Do you have any data on this?

 

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion.

The storage roots were stored at Zhejiang A & F University under controlled conditions. They were separated based on the treatments, and 10 kg of sweet potatoes were randomly selected for each treatment to be stored individually. The spindle-shaped tuberous root without pests and diseases, mechanical damage and medium size (weigh between 300 and 500 g, approximately 10 cm in width and 20 cm in length) was selected. The storage environment was maintained at approximately 12°C with 85% humidity, ensuring consistent conditions. The samples consisted of intact storage roots, which were washed, dried, cut into small cubes, thoroughly mixed, and sealed in ziplock plastic bags before being placed in a freezer at -80°C.

This manuscript does not directly mention color because it is not significant when observed with the naked eye.

 

Comments 6:

Figs. 1 and 2 mention mean separation, but there is nothing separated in the graphs, just an indication of significant difference that is not clear as to what is being separated.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We have write before “Different letters indicate a significant difference at P < 0.05 by Duncan's multiple range test in the same DAS; If the symbols overlap,it indicates no significant difference, only one letter is retained; the blank means no significant difference between three treatments, the same as the figure below.” 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf