The Quantity Index × Quality Index (Q×Q) Model for Ornamental Value Assessment in Garden Roses Based on Rose Hips, and the Evaluation of 704 Field-Grown Cultivars and Taxa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript entitled The Q×Q (Quantity Index × Quality Index) model for ornametal value assessment in plants; adaptation to fruiting garden roses (Rosa hybrida hort.), and the evaluation of 704 field grown cultivars and taxa “ presents a novel and methodologically rigorous approach to quantifying an often-overlooked ornamental trait in roses: the visual value of their hips (pseudo-fruits). The development of the Quantity × Quality (Q×Q) model is logical, well-supported by statistical analyses, and represents a significant contribution to the field of ornamental horticulture. The authors successfully address the challenge of balancing objective measurement with the practical constraints of large-scale field evaluation.

However the follwing points need to be adreese:

1. The statement "the number of classes must be as high as the conditions of field data collection allow" is somewhat vague. The rationale for choosing a 15-class system (0 to 7 in 0.5 increments) should be briefly explained. Was it arbitrary, or derived from pilot experiments?
2. The phrase "we found only one example of such an approach, but it was only in our own earlier publication [40]" is a bit self-referential and could be phrased more objectively, e.g., "The only previous attempt to quantify this trait was described by Boronkay [40]."
3. The section "2.2. Literature review of Q×Q model" is entirely composed of page numbers (316, 317, etc.) and is clearly a formatting error or a placeholder. This section is unreadable and must be corrected.
4. The authors should clearly state which naming convention they primarily used for the tables. The note about ARS commercial names vs. registered cultivar names is helpful, but it is not always clear which name appears first in the tables
5. I have found some spelling and typing mistakes, please check throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript.
Your comments have been very helpful and will significantly improve the quality of the paper.
Please allow me to respond to your specific comments:

Number of classes: The following explanation has been added to Section 3.2.1.1.: “The 7-category classification system was established on the basis of preliminary test assessments. Data collection initially employed five categories together with a sixth category representing exceptionally high rose hip coverage (production) values. However, it became apparent that the variability of rose hip coverage was greater than expected, requiring an increase in the number of classes.”

Phrase in 2.1: Thank you very much for the correction. We have adopted the suggested term: “To our knowledge the only previous attempt to quantify this trait was described by Boronkay [40].”

Section 2.2: The authors tested the text on several computers, but no visible compatibility issues occurred. The problem may possibly be related to the PDF format; however, we have not received any reports from others regarding the text becoming unreadable. If readability issues persist, we will attempt to convert the file to another PDF version.

Cultivar names: We replaced the table headers with the following text: “ARS trade name; registered name in parentheses if the two differ”

Spelling and typing mistakes: The manuscript was reviewed by a native English-speaking colleague, and any errors identified were corrected.

 

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.

Dr. Gábor Boronkay PhD

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The works try to provide a model of rose hips ornamental value assessment. 

The title is unclear and shouldn't consists of incomprehensible words which are the results of the project. It's to complicated for the readers.

Rosa hybrida hort. is not the species regards to the botanical nomenclature. it's colloquial language, phrases used in the past.

The 35000? I'm sure, the data are underestimated. This number is rewritten work to work without verification, [2003, today 2026]. Each of rose breders on whole world every year introduce a few or more new cultivars. 

Line 47: 700-700

This part about the history have not scientifc soundness and it is not needed for this work. 

However, the other method of assessment should be showed in introduction. Instead that, the literature part is written. It should be changed.

The work should be rewritten regards to the schema of scienfic works. Moreover, the most of assessed roses have the hips not expected and should be cut after flowering. The assessment of this roses is not needed.

Generally, this model is difficult to realization.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript.
Your comments have been very helpful and will significantly improve the quality of the paper.
Please allow me to respond to your specific comments:

Title: We have revised the title to the extent possible. The new title: “The Quantity Index × Quality Index (Q×Q) model for ornamental value assessment in plants; adaptation to fruiting garden roses (Rosa L. hybrids), and the evaluation of 704 field-grown cultivars and taxa”

Latin name of the rose: There is currently no scientific consensus regarding the appropriate Latin name for the garden rose. The garden rose is neither a species nor a genus. Accordingly, we have revised the terminology in the title and throughout the manuscript. Nevertheless, we have retained the Latin designation as a synonym, as it is customary for scientific names to be expressed in Latin.

Number of cultivars: We used the American Rose Society (ARS) Modern Roses Database as our primary reference, as it is considered an authoritative source. We have revised the value reported in the manuscript accordingly. The corrected text is: “The number of officially registered cultivars has now exceeded 37,000 [4], but if amateur breeding is also taken into account, the total number of cultivars ever created might be around 45,000. As an example, in the Carpathian Basin, both Rudolf Geschwind (1829-1910) and Gergely Márk (1923-2012) bred approximately 700 cultivars (707 and 710, respectively) [5], [6] while the majority of them are unregistered and missing from the database of the American Rose Society registration authority.”

Instead that, the literature part is written: Unfortunately, we did not find any comprehensive evaluation method in the available literature. Therefore, it was not possible to present such a method in either “1. Introduction” or “2. Literature”. However, Section 4.1 provides a detailed review of the published studies, enabling us to compare our findings with those reported in previous related work. The literature review is presented in a separate section (2.) rather than as part of “1. Introduction”.

Most of assessed roses have the hips not expected: Our results demonstrate that, for many cultivars, it is not worthwhile to leave the rose hips on the plant. Nevertheless, numerous rose cultivars have dual ornamental value, producing not only attractive flowers but also decorative hips after flowering. However, no such cultivars were included in the present study because their rose hips were smaller than the minimum size required for measurement. Consequently, the removal of rose hips is a realistic management option. However, it should also be taken into account that, in gardens designed to enhance biodiversity, rose hips play an important role as a winter food source for birds. Moreover, determining whether Hybrid Tea cultivars with decorative autumn hips exist is precisely the type of question that can be answered through studies such as the present one

Generally, this model is difficult to realization: Using our model, we have successfully evaluated the fruit-based ornamental value of roses in three years. In addition, we have assessed flowering and foliage ornamental value using appropriately adapted methods. Colour measurement proved to be a reliable and objective approach, while the conversion of the ranked production classes to quantitative values can be performed easily and automatically using the formula Y= 0.12792×X^3.00120. The authors hope that this manuscript demonstrates that even a seemingly subjective attribute such as ornamental value can be quantified, and that the resulting methodology may serve as a valuable tool for the objective comparison of similar cultivars. The authors believe that the method they developed is informative and can be readily applied in practice.

 

We sincerely appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.

Dr. Gábor Boronkay PhD

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The Quantity Index × Quality Index (Q×Q) model for ornamental value assessment in plants; adaptation to fruiting garden roses (Rosa L. hybrids), and the evaluation of 704 field-grown cultivars and taxa

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Unfortunately, the title hasn't been changed in principle. It's still far too long, unclear, and has errors. The first, the name is still not proper. Moreover, the hips have ornamental value, not fruits. It should be indicated. And you are assessed the hips, not fruits. Roses have hips (pseudo-fruits).

 

Dear Authors, this is genus! Rosa L. – this is the shortening of the name of Author or Authors and it should be written straight, not italicized. However, in the case of cultivars is not used! Latin names are unambiguous and are there to avoid any doubt. Scientific manuscripts should always include a Latin name. If it's missing, it's an oversight by the authors, publisher, reviewers, or someone else. Always. Interspecific and intergeneric hybrids also have Latin names!

In the case of cultivars you should use the registration names and it should be corrected. The market names can be other in each country and can be the same for a few various cultivars!

Moreover, not all cultivars are hybrids.

E.g. the names listed in all manuscript are written with many mistakes and contrary to generally accepted principles and nomenclature.

Rosa lucieae Franch. & Rochebr. (formerly R. wichuraiana Crép. ex Déségl.)?

 

Regarding fruit, in the case of most roses mentioned in the studies, their decorative feature in cultivation is the fruit. To achieve the most abundant flowering, pruning is performed.

 

Pruning is also performed in summer for other reasons, including improving the health and conditioning of the bush after flowering, which is definitely worth considering: fewer pesticides, or none at all. Fruit formation weakens the bush, and this has been known for centuries. From a garden perspective, because there are roses, for example, large-flowered roses, leafy flowering stems are better than leafless stems with fruit.

Has there been any research on birds' willingness to feed on them? 

Ornamental fruit, for many reasons, including ecological ones, should be carefully considered in roses that bloom once a year and in other groups of origin.

American Rose Society is not a scientific organization, so it's not an authority on this matter. This is a huge source of knowledge about roses, but in a scientific work the scientific source should be cited. It operates within a limited area, and these are estimates, not research data. The data provided about number of cultivars / varieties are still old, and this should be emphasized. You're questioning the Geschwind cultivars yourselves.

Have you done any research to find out that there are 45,000 cultivars? Or cited?

 

There are quite a few methods for evaluating roses, especially varieties, even if some of them are not scientific. This is necessary for registration and further evaluation of their suitability for cultivation, for the granting of certificates and other distinctions. Variety variations depending on rootstocks and growing conditions, including climate, are also problematic. Please refer to this.

 

Tables and graphs should be described in accordance with the rules, taking into account statistics, if is needed. It's completely unclear what this means, e.g., Table 7.

 

Author Response

Title: We have revised the title. The original one was intended to emphasize that the proposed method is applicable to quantifying the ornamental value of fruits in ornamental plants in general, rather than being limited to roses.

 Name of garden roses: We have removed the scientific name from the title. Unfortunately, cultivated roses do not have accepted scientific name because modern cultivars are complex hybrids. For example, the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) recommends the expression Rosa hybrid cultivar, while listing Rosa × hybrida, Rosa hybrida, and Rosa hybrid as synonymous names. In contrast, Plants of the World Online (POWO) does not recognize any of these names as accepted.

Cultivars name: In the tables, we have moved the registered cultivar name to the first position. However, the authors believe that the exhibition name recommended by the American Rose Society (ARS) is not country-specific and improves readability in cases where the registered name is a code name. The authors believe that the inclusion of the ARS-recommended exhibition name as supplementary information does not in any way compromise the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Not all cultivars are hybrids: The authors agree with this statement, with the additional observation that there are approximately a dozen ancient landrace cultivars that may not be of hybrid origin. After all, the major cultivar groups are themselves of hybrids, including the Damask, Alba, China, Tea, Bourbon, Portland, Noisette, and Hybrid Perpetual roses. Cultivars that originated through mutation are also have a hybrid background, as is the case for climbing Hybrid Tea cultivars.

Mistakes in names: We corrected the names. The sentence containing „Rosa lucieae Franch. & Rochebr. (formerly R. wichuraiana Crép. ex Déségl.)” has been revised. Nevertheless, we considered it essential to note that the former name of the cultivar group (Wichuraiana roses) is no longer valid and that no established alternative term currently exists.

 Fruit (hip): The authors believe that quantifying the rose hip-based ornamental value of garden roses provides a practical means of identifying cultivars for where the ornamental value provided by the rose hips outweighs the benefits associated with their removal.

Pruning is also performed in summer: This is undoubtedly standard practice. For this very reason, the authors consider the work presented in this manuscript to be valuable, as it allowed the evaluation of nearly 1,000 rose accessions without removing the hips, making it possible to assess a trait that is only rarely available for evaluation.

Rose hips as bird food: The authors found several references addressing this topic; however, these are largely based on individual observations rather than systematic studies. Owing to their tannin content, rose hips are generally not a preferred food source for birds. Nevertheless, they may become an important food resource, particularly for migratory species during snowy winters when alternative food sources are scarce. However, the bird-friendly characteristics of rose cultivars constitute a separate research topic that would require dedicated investigation.

Number of blooming: For the sake of clarity, we have indicated in the tables which cultivars are once-flowering. However, in our study, we did not distinguish between once-flowering and repeat-flowering cultivars. Repeat-flowering cultivars are likely to bear a higher proportion of immature rose hips at the time of assessment; however, this should not be regarded as a source of bias.

American Rose Society: We would like to quote the following passage from the American Rose Society (ARS) website (https://rose.org/modern-roses/): „The offices of The American Rose Society serve as International Cultivar Registration Authority - Roses (ICRA) by appointment of the International Society for Horticultural Sciences.” Accordingly, although the American Rose Society is not a scientific organization, it serves as an official authority. Therefore, its registration data should be regarded as authoritative.

Have you done any research to find out that there are 45,000 cultivars? The estimated number has been revised in the manuscript. Nevertheless, the authors consider it likely that the combined number of registered and unregistered rose cultivars is approximately of this magnitude. French reviewers considered even this number to be an overestimate.

Rootstocks and growing conditions: We have added a separate section (2.2) to the literature review discussing the factors that influence rose hip production. However, the available literature is limited, and the relationships described are, in most cases, difficult to apply to field-grown roses.

 Tables and graphs: We have expanded the figure and table captions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf