Plant Morphology and Fruit Quality Traits Affecting Yield and Post-Harvest Behavior of Two Highbush Blueberry Cultivars in Central Chile
, Gustavo A. Lobos 2, Felipe Calderon 1 and Sergio Espinoza 3,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides a detailed and well-structured investigation into the factors influencing yield and fruit quality in two highbush blueberry cultivars, 'Duke' and 'Brigitta', grown in Central Chile. The study employs a combination of statistical methods, including ANOVA, PCA, and path analysis, to explore the relationships between plant morphology, yield components, and fruit quality traits. The results offer valuable insights into optimizing blueberry production and improving post-harvest fruit quality. However, there are several areas where the manuscript could be improved to enhance clarity and robustness.
Specific Comments:
1. The authors mention the impact of branch orientation on blueberry yield in the introduction, but according to the results presented in Tables 3 and 4, branch orientation only affects the yield of the 'Brigitta' variety, and this finding is inconsistent with previous studies. The authors do not explain the differences in the impact of branch orientation on yield between the two varieties in this study, nor do they provide a detailed explanation for the inconsistencies with previous results. Given that the authors mention the influence of microclimate on the results but did not record relevant data, the reliability and scientific validity of these results are questionable. It is recommended that the authors carefully revise the sections of the manuscript that involve these findings.
2. The title of Section 4.2 in the Discussion is "Relationship Between Yield and Quality Traits," however, the authors discuss the relationships between plant morphology and yield, as well as between quality traits. Additionally, they mention the relationship between storage temperature and time and fruit firmness, which is entirely unrelated to the main topic. The content of the discussion does not align with the title and is overly simplistic and superficial. It is recommended that this section be rewritten.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo further language editing is required
Author Response
Curicó-Chile, Dic 6, 2024
The Editorial Office of MDPI Plants
Dear Editor,
We have received comments on our manuscript “3341971 Plant morphology and fruit quality traits affecting yield and post-harvest behaviour of two Highbush blueberry cultivars in Central Chile”. The authors appreciate the valuable suggestions and the time invested by the Editor and the Reviewers in the manuscript. Their rigorous observations of the original manuscript have enriched the quality of the paper and have been included in the new manuscript. All the modifications have been highlighted in yellow here and in the new version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 1:
“The authors mention the impact of branch orientation on blueberry yield in the introduction, but according to the results presented in Tables 3 and 4, branch orientation only affects the yield of the 'Brigitta' variety, and this finding is inconsistent with previous studies. The authors do not explain the differences in the impact of branch orientation on yield between the two varieties in this study, nor do they provide a detailed explanation for the inconsistencies with previous results.”
Answer: In the present study, preliminary research with previous results is considered, which only partially coincides with the results obtained in this study. Likewise, the authors consider that it is part of the discussion to show the results of previous research, and they do not necessarily have to coincide with the results of the present study. However, the comment is accepted and included in the discussion in point 4.1, line 392-419.
“Given that the authors mention the influence of microclimate on the results but did not record relevant data, the reliability and scientific validity of these results are questionable. It is recommended that the authors carefully revise the sections of the manuscript that involve these findings.”
Answer: Dear reviewer, following your suggestions, the microclimatic justification was removed from the discussion and conclusion, as we did not present microclimatic data. The phrase “Even though we do not record microclimatic conditions, these differences might be associated with the light intensity and temperature that reaches the plant at each of the four quadrants [18, 19, 20].” was replaced with “FBC, which was higher in the south-oriented canes of both cultivars, whereas FSP was higher in the northwest-oriented canes of ‘Brigitta’. This suggests that microclimatic conditions of the growing season also impacted our results [18, 19, 20], but this needs further research.” Lines 406-408.
The title of Section 4.2 in the Discussion is "Relationship Between Yield and Quality Traits", however, the authors discuss the relationships between plant morphology and yield, as well as between quality traits.
Answer: The title of section 4.2 is changed, and the discussion of that section is modified in lines 465 to 476, clarifying the effect of morphology on yield and, separately, fruit quality traits at harvest on fruit firmness in postharvest. The title is now “Plant Morphology and Fruit Traits Affecting Yield and Postharvest Firmness”.
Additionally, they mention the relationship between storage temperature and time and fruit firmness, which is entirely unrelated to the main topic.
Answer: This sentence was removed from the discussion between lines 463 and 465.
The content of the discussion does not align with the title and is overly simplistic and superficial. It is recommended that this section be rewritten.
Answer: The title of this section was changed to “Plant morphology and fruit traits affecting yield and postharvest firmness”, and the overall discussion was improved, according to the reviewer’s suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 15-17: Rephrase this sentence as it is not grammatically correct
Line 57-58: Briefly mention techniques used to determine fruit quality and yield
Figure 1: I can’t understand plant architecture/growth type due to the depiction of direction boxes on a figure. Add direction box on side rather than on plant image
Table 1: Are these yield parameters taken from plant descriptors? If yes, then mention that as reference
Yield potential/estimated yield and other general fruit yield parameters (length, width, weight) have to be added for both cultivars for better interpretation of results
Line 131-132: Why were fruits stored at -40 oC for analysis of TSS and TA? The best assessment of these parameters is after harvest. These storages of fruits were also for post-harvest (cold storage for 40 days)?
Line 125-135: The methodology written in these lines is not clear. It’s not possible for me to understand harvest and post-harvest treatment. Rewrite them in a clear and precise manner.
Line 124: Postharvest evaluation was done after 40 days, while in Table 4 it is written after 30 days. What’s the exact duration for measurement of post-harvest data?
Where is data related to post-harvest fruit weight and fruit size?
Table 2: Is the harvesting period factor also kept to measure yield, etc.? As the harvesting period progresses, low fruit production with smaller berries is usually associated with the last harvesting.
Three harvesting fruits of Duke and five harvesting fruits of Brigitta were bulk, and data were taken or fruits from each harvesting were analysed separately. If yes, where is the data?
If light interception is a dominant factor in affecting yield in four quadrants, then provide data about light intensity, etc. for each quadrant.
Author Response
Curicó-Chile, Dic 6, 2024
The Editorial Office of MDPI Plants
Dear Editor,
We have received comments on our manuscript “3341971 Plant morphology and fruit quality traits affecting yield and post-harvest behaviour of two Highbush blueberry cultivars in Central Chile”. The authors appreciate the valuable suggestions and the time invested by the Editor and the Reviewers in the manuscript. Their rigorous observations of the original manuscript have enriched the quality of the paper and have been included in the new manuscript. All the modifications have been highlighted in yellow here and in the new version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2:
Line 15-17: Rephrase this sentence as it is not grammatically correct.
Answer: “An experiment was carried out to investigate the relationship between yield components and i) plant yield, ii) fruit quality traits, and iii) fruit firmness at post-harvest in two Vaccinium corymbosum L. blueberry cultivars (‘Duke’ and ‘Brigitta’)”.
Line 57-59: Briefly mention techniques used to determine fruit quality and yield.
Answer: Different techniques (1.5.6.7.15.16.17), such as linear regressions, path analysis, and clustering analysis, have been used to determine factors affecting yield and fruit quality in blueberries.
Figure 1: I can’t understand plant architecture/growth type due to the depiction of direction boxes on a figure. Add direction box on side rather than on plant image.
Answer: We appreciate this comment, but Figure 1's purpose is to show the location of the quadrants, not the architecture of the plant.
Table 1: Are these yield parameters taken from plant descriptors? If yes, then mention that as reference
Answer: These descriptors come from the experiment designs and have not been obtained from other research. For example, the descriptors of age and first segment length were part of the original design of this research.
Yield potential/estimated yield and other general fruit yield parameters (length, width, weight) have to be added for both cultivars for better interpretation of results.
Answer: We appreciate this suggestion. However, Tables 3 and 4 present the total quadrant yield, fruit weight, and diameter. Furthermore, the study does not aim to generate a predictive model of yield (estimated yield) but to analyze the relationships between yield components and total yield, as well as fruit quality traits at harvest with firmness in post-harvest.
Line 131-132: Why were fruits stored at -40 °C for analysis of TSS and TA? The best assessment of these parameters is after harvest. These storages of fruits were also for post-harvest (cold storage for 40 days)?
Answer: Because we did not have the capacity to measure soluble solids and acidity for all the fruit simultaneously, since for Duke, there were 229 canes, and for Brigitta, there were 289. It was not possible to measure all the variables at harvest since, in addition, the diameter, weight and firmness of each fruit were recorded.
The storage conditions for the fruit measured in post-harvest were 2°C and 95% relative humidity for 40 days.
Line 125-135: The methodology written in these lines is not clear. It’s not possible for me to understand harvest and post-harvest treatment. Rewrite them in a clear and precise manner.
Answer: Harvest and post-harvest are when the measurement was made and do not correspond to treatments. Harvest means that the fruit was measured immediately after being harvested, and post-harvest means that the fruit was evaluated after 40 days of storage at 2°C and 95% relative humidity.
Line 124: Postharvest evaluation was done after 40 days, while in Table 4 it is written after 30 days. What’s the exact duration for measurement of post-harvest data?
Answer: Thanks for the suggestion; Table 4, line 256 has been corrected. 30 has been replaced by 40 days.
Where is data related to post-harvest fruit weight and fruit size?
Answer: Table 4 presents data on fruit diameter and weight measured at harvest. Data on fruit diameter and weight measured postharvest were not included in the analysis since the intention was to relate fruit quality at harvest to fruit firmness after cold storage. Fruit firmness is one of the final quality factors for consumers and can be most affected during storage.
Table 2: Is the harvesting period factor also kept to measure yield, etc.? As the harvesting period progresses, low fruit production with smaller berries is usually associated with the last harvesting.
Answer: Yes, it corresponds to the average of all the harvests. There are three harvests for Duke, and for Brigitta, there are five. The averages in Table 2 consider the fruit from all the harvests together.
Three harvesting fruits of Duke and five harvesting fruits of Brigitta were bulk, and data were taken or fruits from each harvesting were analysed separately. If yes, where is the data?
Answer: Indeed, it was bulk. Another article deals separately with the effect of harvest intervals, so it was not incorporated into this work. (Moggia, C., Peñaloza, O., Torres, J., Romero-Bravo, S., Sepulveda, D., Jara, R., ... & Lobos, G. A. (2022). Within-plant variability in blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) II: Is a shorter harvest interval always the ideal strategy to maximize fruit firmness? Postharvest Biology and Technology, 186, 111815).
If light interception is a dominant factor in affecting yield in four quadrants, then provide data about light intensity, etc. for each quadrant.
Answer: Indeed, this work did not include such an assessment, but there is previous research that supports this (references 8, 22, 25 in the bibliography of this article). In any case, the discussion has been modified. Section 4.1.
We are looking forward to your comments.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Miguel Araya-Alman
Universidad Católica del Maule
Curicó-Chile
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has revised manuscript according to the comments. Therefore, I am now in favor of accepting the article for further consideration in the publication process.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor,
I appreciate the efforts put in by the authors to address all my concerns.
Good luck!
