Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is relatively well written, the experiments well performed, and the results well scored. However, before publication, some issues need to be addressed, as outlined below:

1-      Line 11: Please re-write to be “seedless is a highly valued commercial characteristic in the citrus industry, both for fresh consumption and processed markets.

2-      Line 12: please add the aim of this study.

3-      I recommend adding a sentence or two at the end of the abstract to briefly outline possible next steps or applications based on the study's findings.

4-      The introduction is relatively brief and requires expansion for a more comprehensive overview. I advise adding a paragraph about bud mutation and its role in the developed mutation.

5-      In the materials section please provide some information on the climate data, particularly focusing on day length and temperature.

6-      Figure 2 and Figures 3C, D, and E would benefit from improvements in their quality. Please consider enhancing the visual clarity and resolution of these figures.

7-      Try to discuss results with recent literature and highlight unique contributions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

Comment1:

Line 11: re-write to be “seedless is a highly valued commercial characteristic in the citrus industry, both for fresh consumption and processed markets.

Response1:

Thank you for pointing it out. We re-write to be “seedless is a highly valued commercial characteristic in the citrus industry, both for fresh consumption and processed markets on Line 11, highlighted blue color.

Comment2:

Line 12: add the aim of this study.

Response2:

Thanks for your positive and detailed comment (please kindly see L12-L14)

Comment3:

Adding a sentence or two at the end of the abstract to briefly outline possible next steps or applications based on the study's findings.

Response3:

Thank you for pointing it out. Let's delete this paragraph and redescribe it. We have revised it accordingly. (please see L25-27)

 

Comment4:

Adding a paragraph about bud mutation and its role in the developed mutation.

Response4:

Thanks for your positive and detailed comment. We have a revised it. (please see L37-L47).

Comment5:

Provide some information on the climate data

Response5:

Thank you for pointing it out, we have corrected it. (please see L85)

Comment6:

Figure 2 and Figures 3C, D, and E would benefit from improvements in their quality. Please consider enhancing the visual clarity and resolution of these figures.

Response6:

Thank you for pointing it out, we have corrected it.( please see L161 and L174)

Comment7:

Try to discuss results with recent literature and highlight unique contributions.

Response7:

Thank you for pointing it out, we have corrected it. ( please see L310-L320 and L417-L419)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response:

Special thanks for your suggestion, we have all followed your reminder to update in the new manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is suitable for the journal.

I have the following comments on the manuscript:

Can you replace the figure 1B with a better image?

Specify the type of equipment used (scanning electron microscope, light microscope, camera)

Assessment of the pollen viability is not sufficiently explained. How many flowers or buds were analyzed in total? What developmental stage does the term „a specific pollen bud“ represent? Whats more, I do not consider  50 pollen grains per flower to be a sufficient number to assess pollen viability.

The ornamentation of the exine is not precisely described. In my opinion, the pollen grains in the pictures have a reticulate, perforate exine.

Line 197 Correct the reference to the table. The mentioned data are in Tab. 2.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English Language is appropriate and scientificaly sounded, but minor revision of English grammar is required.

Author Response

Comment1:

Replace the figure 1B

Response1:

Thank you for pointing it out. (Please kindly see L157)

 

Comment2:

Specify the type of equipment used (scanning electron microscope, light microscope, camera)

Response2:

Thanks for your positive and detailed comment (please kindly see L97 and L100)

Comment3:

Assessment of the pollen viability is not sufficiently explained.

Response3:

Thank you for pointing it out. Let's delete this paragraph and redescribe it. We have revised it accordingly. (please see L95-100)

 

Comment4:

The ornamentation of the exine is not precisely described.

Response4:

Thanks for your positive and detailed comment. We have a revised it. (please see L188-L190).

Comment5:

Line 197 Correct the reference to the table. The mentioned data are in Tab. 2.

Response5:

Thank you for pointing it out, we have corrected it.( please see L209 and L206)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf