Application of Plant Growth Regulators During Early Fruit Development Stage Increased Perceived Sweetness of Mango Fruit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although this manuscript is not so original, it is clearly justified and interesting. However, some observations are made below that must be addressed by the authors.

On lines 29-299 it says: “Overall, A1B3 was selected as the optimal treatment combination for enhancing 'Renong-1' mango sweetness, followed by A1B2, and A2B2 as an alternative treatment combination”. However, apparently in Fig. 1 the opposite is observed, that is, higher contents of sugars and the SV indicator were obtained with the treatments A1B2, and A2B2 than to those obtained with treatment A1B3. I think this needs to be clarified by authors.

In the Results section, on line 187 it says “…processing. the G content…”. I think it should say: “…processing. The G content…”.

The manuscript presents the results obtained, but there is no discussion section indicating the meaning of these results with possible explanations based on cause-effect relationships. I believe that including this section would improve the quality of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract indicates abbreviations as SBP. Could you explain this?

Introduction

Line 58-29. Could you mention other technologies or research to improve sugars in mango fruits?

 

Methodology

Line 102: What were the different ratios and stages of fruit growth of the treatments?

What conditions (temperature, relative humidity, water content, and light) were the plants exposed?

At what harvest times was the content of total soluble solids, sugar and starch, in the pulp of the fruits determined?

Could you give reference or more information on the determination of enzyme activities and units?

Could you indicate the meaning of the letters in Tables 3, 4 and 5?

Table 6. What units does enzymatic activity have?

Why do tables 6 and 7 not present statistical analysis?

The results do not present discussion and comparison with other works.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript titled “Application of plant growth regulators during early fruit devel- 2 opment stage increased sweet value of mango fruit” addresses a timely and important topic, focusing on enhancing the quality and sweetness of mango fruits via innovative biotechnological interventions. The study employs a randomized block design to investigate the effects of various plant growth regulators on sugar biosynthesis during fruit development and ripening stages. Key physiological and biochemical indicators, including enzyme activities related to sugar metabolism, are comprehensively analyzed to identify optimal treatment combinations.

While the research presents a novel and valuable contribution to the field of fruit physiology and sustainable agriculture, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer articulation of its methodology and underlying hypotheses.

Abstract

Lines 14-15: The sentence "The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal strategy for improving sugar biosynthesis of mango fruits" could be reformulated to be more specific and direct. For example: "This study investigated strategies to optimize sugar biosynthesis in mango fruits."

Lines 17-20: The description of growth regulators is lengthy and lacks clarity. Consider using abbreviations for each regulator.

Lines 22-24: A list of enzymes this extensive can be overwhelming in an abstract. Grouping the enzymes by their functions or their impact on the results could improve readability.

Lines 25-26: The term "sweetness value" is vague and should be defined or replaced with a scientifically standardized term (e.g., "perceived sweetness" or "sucrose equivalent").

Lines 30-31: The abbreviations "A1B3," "A1B2," and "A2B2" are not defined in the abstract, which may hinder comprehension without referring to the main text.

 

Introduction

Ensure that all abbreviations used in the manuscript are clearly defined upon their first occurrence. This will improve the readability and accessibility of the manuscript for a broader audience. Additionally, consider including a list of abbreviations at the end of the manuscript for quick reference.

Lines 40, 41 It is imperative that the full reference of 'FAO, 2022' be included in the list of references. Authors must ensure that all citations in the text correspond to the full entries in the reference section in order to maintain academic rigour and the traceability of information.

The authors are recommended to revise the introduction to clearly and systematically articulate the following elements:

• The novelty of the work (novum), emphasizing its unique contributions to the field.
• The research problem, highlighting the specific gap or challenge addressed by the study.
• The purpose of the work, detailing the primary objectives and goals of the research.
• The research hypothesis, presenting the assumptions or propositions tested in the study.

This structured approach will strengthen the introduction and provide a clear context for the research.

  Materials and Methods

add CHEMICALS AND REAGENTS section, and please ensure that all reagents used during the study are listed. Use the following format for consistency and clarity: name (catalog number, manufacturer, city, country). This will provide comprehensive and standardized details about the materials used.

Line 102-106: The authors should specify the period and year during which the study was conducted to provide context and relevance to the findings.

Additionally, when reporting experiments and field studies on wild plants (i.e.uncultivated), authors must provide the following information in their manuscript:

• If plant(s) have been collected, a statement that relevant permits/permissions/licenses were obtained.
• A statement in the manuscript naming the person who identified the plant.
• A statement in the manuscript saying that a voucher specimen was stored and where it was stored. The authors should also provide the voucher ID number for the voucher specimen if this is available.”

This will ensure accurate identification, reproducibility of the study, and compliance with standard scientific practices

Line 108-110: The authors describe SBP as "a new environmental-friendly-efficient plant growth regulator" but do not provide specific justification or supporting evidence to substantiate this claim. It is recommended that the authors include detailed experimental results, literature references, or data on the environmental safety, efficiency, and regulatory impact of SBP. This will enhance the credibility of the statement and provide a robust basis for its characterization as an environmentally friendly and efficient regulator.

Line 113-123: The authors are encouraged to provide references for the preparation methods of the various solutions described, including SBP solution, S-potassium dihydrogen phosphate-microelement fertilizer mixture solution, taurine-potassium dihydrogen phosphate-microelement fertilizer, potassium fulvic acid solution, and seaweed oligosaccharide peptide solution. Including appropriate citations will substantiate these protocols, indicate their basis in established practices, and enhance the reliability and reproducibility of the study. If these preparations were developed as part of this research, the authors should clarify this and provide detailed justifications or prior experimental validation.

Table 1: The authors should include a footnote below each table in the manuscript specifying the meaning of all abbreviations, such as 'A1B1,' to ensure clarity and understanding for the readers. Providing definitions of abbreviations directly beneath the tables will enhance the accessibility and interpretability of the presented data.

Line 136: For the equipment ((HPLC-MS), please use the following notation for consistency and precision: name (model, manufacturer, city, country).

 Results

Section “3.1. Variations in sugar contents under different treatments of 'Renong-1' mango fruits at the physiologically maturity stage”:

·                 The results are detailed and provide important insights into the effects of various treatments on sugar content and other quality parameters of the fruit. However, restructuring this section for better readability would be beneficial. For instance, grouping the findings by parameter type (TSS, TS, S, etc.) before discussing specific treatments would enhance the flow and comprehension.

·                 The authors could strengthen the discussion by explaining why certain treatments, such as A1B2 and A2B2, had the most pronounced effects on soluble sugars and sweetness value.

·                 The results indicate that starch content and TSS in the control group did not differ significantly from those in the 20 treated groups, leading the authors to conclude that these indices are not relevant for selecting the optimal treatment. However, it would be insightful to discuss why these parameters were unaffected, despite the observed impacts on other sugar contents.

·                 The findings demonstrate that different treatments variably affect sugar content (e.g., increases in S, G, and F). The authors could recommend further studies to evaluate the long-term effects of these treatments or analyze other quality compounds, such as organic acids or volatile aroma compounds.

Section “3.5. Selection of the optimal treatment combination”

The application of multiple regression analyses to identify key enzyme activities influencing sweetness value (SV) is a strong methodological approach. However, the authors should provide more details about the regression model, including the specific enzymes considered, statistical metrics (e.g., R², p-values), and how positive and negative relationships were determined.

 

Conclusion:

The conclusion section should address the following points to provide a more comprehensive summary of the study:

    Limitations: Clearly outline the limitations of the study, such as sample size, scope of analysis, or methodological limitations, to provide readers with a balanced understanding of the findings.

    Future work: Suggest specific areas for further research or experimentation to build on the findings and address the limitations of the study.

In the conclusion section also, the language in the conclusion is clear but could be further polished to reduce redundancy, particularly in sections describing the treatment groups and their effects. Some sentences, such as the description of treatments A1B1 and A1B2, are lengthy and could be broken down for better readability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering the comments. Some details with words are need in the document. 

In tables 3, 4 and 5 is necessary check "Lowercase letters in the same cloumn".

Line 350 "soluable sugars"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf