Evaluation of Pollination Potential in ‘Jinfeng’ Kiwifruit Seedling Male Plants Based on Floral Traits and Pollen Viability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The headline of the manuscript points out dealing with pollen viability, but lacks in vivo pollination trials, which is a big disadvantage.
2. Moreover, trying to breed and introduce a male kiwifruit cultivar that will serve 'Jinfeng' cultivar is better to be genetically distinct and not a seedling. 

Despite those 2 comments, the paper is well written and the relation between flower traits and pollen viability is well described and analyzed. 

I  only have comments regarding the manuscript visibility:

1. The long table 1 should be moved to the supplementary data.
2. In Figure 1, I believe A and  B (as well as C and D) are the same seedling. It should be stated.  
3. As for Table 1, Table 3 can be moved, while Table 4 is the summary means of that data. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the relationship between floral traits, pollen viability, and morphology in Actinidia chinensis ‘Jinfeng’ male progeny. The work is methodically executed and provides novel insights into the relationships between pollen morphology and viability. However, the manuscript requires clarification in methodology, data presentation, and discussion 

Specific Comments:

In the abstract: 

Consider adding specific numerical ranges for morphological traits and explicitly mentioning the main correlation result (r = 0.622).

Replace “offering a theoretical basis” with “providing a theoretical and practical basis for male selection".

Introduction: Expand citations to include recent global studies on Actinidia pollen

Material and Methods:

Indicate the number of biological replicates for each measurement (e.g., n = 3 or n = 10?).

Specify the criteria for flower selection (age, position, developmental stage).

Clarify whether boric acid concentrations were tested sequentially or factorially.

Add SEM details: accelerating voltage, vacuum conditions, and fixation method.

Clarify whether correlation analyses were based on mean values per individual or pooled data.

Results: 

Compress Table 1 by summarizing means ± SD instead of listing all 120 accessions (move full dataset to Supplementary Material).

Increase resolution and label panels clearly (A–D). Include scale bars.

Add magnification details and an inset showing pollen ornamentation.

Ensure statistical results (p-values, r values) are reported consistently.

Discussion: 

Expand on the biological mechanism linking P/E ratio and viability (hydration kinetics, geometric advantages).

Discuss environmental influences on pollen morphology.

Clarify contrast with cherry results [10] — why might Actinidia behave differently?

Explain implications for breeding decisions (e.g., selecting high-viability pollinizers).

Merge correlation analyses (Tables 5 and 6) into a visual summary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses the morphological characteristics of pollen from different individuals of an Actinidia chinensis variety. The authors conduct a morphological characterization of the pollen and evaluate its viability, finally presenting the correlation between pollen viability and the morphological traits analyzed.

The manuscript has potential for publication due to the relevance of its topic to the journal, the importance of the studied plant species, and the practical value of morphological characterization. The references are adequate, and the results are acceptable. However, the authors should make significant changes and include additional analyses to strengthen the scientific importance of the work, improve the statistical understanding of the results, and reinforce the discussion section.

Major comments:

In the objectives, the authors state that they aim to clarify the genetic variation in floral traits; however, no analysis related to genetic variation is actually performed. The study focuses solely on morphological analysis of pollen. They could still justify that these traits are genetically conserved by performing multivariate analyses that identify group separation and the variables contributing most to that separation among the analyzed individuals. A principal component analysis (PCA) would be particularly suitable. Otherwise, the study remains mostly descriptive and lacks the appropriate analyses to support the claim of investigating genetic variation.

Furthermore, the authors should justify whether these morphological traits are stable across individuals or generations. It would be advisable to suggest, in the discussion, conducting additional analyses to determine if the morphological characters assessed are conserved in subsequent generations.

Additionally, since the dataset contains numerous quantitative variables (means, standard deviations, etc.), it would be valuable to perform an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether there are significant differences among the collected individuals. A post hoc test is not strictly necessary, but such an analysis would indicate which variables show significant differences and which do not, providing a useful contrast with a principal component analysis.

 

Finally, the discussion should more clearly highlight the relevance and potential applications of the findings. What could these data be used for in the future? What further analyses could be conducted? Addressing these questions would considerably improve the discussion and emphasize the broader significance of the work.

 

Minor comments:

Ensure that all scientific names (e.g., Actinidia) are italicized throughout the text (lines 11, 64, 84, 240, etc.).

In the sentence between lines 57 and 59, please add a reference to justify why these are considered “key metrics for assessing pollen.”

In Figure 1A, consider marking viable pollen with a white arrow and non-viable pollen with a black arrow to help readers easily distinguish them.

Due to its length, Table 1 should be moved to the Supplementary Material.

Table 3 could also be moved to the supplement, since Table 4 already summarizes the key data.

With these revisions and additional analyses, the manuscript would be significantly improved and would have strong potential for publication in Horticulturae.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript again, I noticed that the authors addressed the suggestions made by the reviewers. I consider that the manuscript has improved and can be published after making a minor correction on line 38, where the genus name Rubus should be italicized.