Effect of Organic Farming Techniques on the Quality of Almond Fat

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 46-71 could be significantly reduced since this is a well known part.  

Also, common knowledge regarding the Krebs cycle is redundant. 

This part is not convincing for the well planed trial: All the almond trees were in the productive phase, with an age greater than ten years. Please add details regarding the maturity. 

Lines 236-242 are unnecessary and not applicable for the results section. Avoid discussion here and referencing.  

Table 3: explain why two same AI values  (0.078) have different designation letters (ab and a).

Chapter 3.1. Seasons effect - were the treatments mixed here, if yes how many nuts from each one?

Was the same number obtained for specific treatments in the subsequent chapter 3.2?

Lines 334-350 belong to the discussion section. 

Lines 351-368 are written in the form of a conclusion not reporting the results. 

Please provide a clear figure 3b.

Results are difficult to follow due to the absence of a full explanation of statistical analysis. When trying to understand the table 4 footnote, I couldn't comprehend whether you compared only organic with a conventional system, or did you compare those along with an irrigation system and plant cover. 

I also did not find the appropriate information did you obtain these values as an average from studied years? 

If opted to highlight the eicosanoic acid it should be introduced as a significant in the introduction section. 

Line 473: [50]. but - correct punctuation.

In the conclusion section please provide the comprehensible recommendations on a stand-alone basis. Amounts of irrigation, plant coverage and so on... 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the contributions that will undoubtedly contribute to improving its quality. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file. In addition, the writing and English have been revised in the new version.

Comments 1: Lines 46-71 could be significantly reduced since this is a well known part.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have simplified this section. Lines 65-73.

Comments 2: Also, common knowledge regarding the Krebs cycle is redundant.

Response 2: A part has been removed from the introduction to avoid redundancy. Lines 96-99.

Comments 3: This part is not convincing for the well planed trial: All the almond trees were in the productive phase, with an age greater than ten years. Please add details regarding the maturity.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, including new text to emphasize this point. Lines 144-147.

Comments 4: Lines 236-242 are unnecessary and not applicable for the results section. Avoid discussion here and referencing.

Response 4: Agree. Removed from the results section.

Comments 5: Table 3: explain why two same AI values  (0.078) have different designation letters (ab and a).

Response 5: It's a mistake. Corrected in table 3. The authors apologize for the error and appreciate the review that allows these errors to be removed.

Comments 6: Chapter 3.1. Seasons effect - were the treatments mixed here, if yes how many nuts from each one?

Response 6: The study was possible because a group of farmers needed results on their agricultural practices, since the climatic conditions are very harsh, and their objective is to keep the territory alive with almond cultivation.

This condition means that as researchers we have not been able to intervene in the design of the experiment. In each season, the almonds from the plots indicated in table 2 were studied. It is an unbalanced design, and in the analysis of the results we planned to evaluate the parameters in a simple way for each factor. Therefore, the first factor evaluated is the effect of the season.

Even in possible cases we carried out the multifactorial statistical study, but due to the unbalanced variability the information was not significant. This reaffirmed our decision to carry out the statistical study of a single variable. This determines the significance levels that appear in tables 3, 4 and 5.

It is true that in the manuscript it is not clear what is studied in each season and a paragraph has been included where the situation is clarified, with the combinations of the three factors that are studied in each campaign and the number of plots that are in each combination. Lines 205-215.

As for the number of nuts analyzed, they were from the 5 kg plot and that has been uniform throughout the study.

Comments 7: Was the same number obtained for specific treatments in the subsequent chapter 3.2?

Response 7: Solved with response 6.

Comments 8: Lines 334-350 belong to the discussion section.

Response 8: Agree.

Comments 9: Lines 351-368 are written in the form of a conclusion not reporting the results.

Response 9: Agree. The wording has been changed.

Comments 10: Please provide a clear figure 3b.

Response 10: Done.

Comments 11: Results are difficult to follow due to the absence of a full explanation of statistical analysis. When trying to understand the table 4 footnote, I couldn't comprehend whether you compared only organic with a conventional system, or did you compare those along with an irrigation system and plant cover.

Response 11: Solved with response 6.

Comments 12: I also did not find the appropriate information did you obtain these values as an average from studied years?

Response 12: Agree. Solved by incorporating the average and deviation values ​​in the title of the tables.

Comments 13: If opted to highlight the eicosanoic acid it should be introduced as a significant in the introduction section.

Response 13: In the introduction we have not focused on the importance of each fatty acid. But we find the observation very interesting and have included some information in the discussion.

Comments 14: Line 473: [50]. but - correct punctuation.

Response 14: Done.

Comments 15: Line 473: [50]. but - correct punctuation.

Response 15: Done.

Comments 16: In the conclusion section please provide the comprehensible recommendations on a stand-alone basis. Amounts of irrigation, plant coverage and so on...

Response 16: Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggest that the entire manuscript is reread/worked for common English usage and grammar and norms. of scientific writing.

Line 12-14. Please remove or reword.

Line 15. Need a sentence here to better describe the experimental design/treatment. Before talking about the key finding.

Line 15-25. Please also provide stats. For key finding here. Not just %.

Figure 1. Line 49-50. Please adjust the figure title/description to better explain what is being shown in the 3 images. Suggest labelling the 3 images as A, B, and C and then including this in the figure title/description along with a more detailed explanation.

Line 112, Suggest adding in a GPS location for the plots in (….).

Line 114-120. Please provide more detail on replication, study layout, etc.

Line 132-139. Suggest providing figures (panel graphs) of temp, precipitation, etc. with the climatic information for the study period (multiple years).

Table 1. Please provide footnotes at the bottom of the table which describe how these numbers were generated, replication and ± if this is standard error etc. Please use superscripted numbers/letters to link the footnotes with the content of the table.

Line 144. Please provide a more detailed description of the irrigation method used, what this actually meant for the treatments, how it was created and monitored. What was the actual soil water restriction over the study period. Please provide a figure? How was subsurface flow of water accounted for, etc. etc.

Line 157. Suggest adding in the abbreviation for these nutrients and then using them going forward in the rest of the manuscript.

Line 165, Suggest adding in the scientific name and authority for all plant species on first usage in (…). Please check throughout the manuscript.

Table 2. Please add a footnote to provide more information. Tables and figures are considered as standalone documents, i.e. the table or figure should be able to be seen and understood without reading the manuscript. Please check throughout the manuscript.

Line 177-213. Please provide a better description of numbers and replication etc. here. Please do this for every parameter tested.

Line 215. Please provide the (Company, City, State, country) for the g Statgraphics® Centurion 18.

Results. Line 224-424. In general, there is a lot of discussion in this entire section. Please remove all discussion from this section and put in the discussion section. Alternatively combine the results and discussion section into 1.

Line 226-227. This looks like methods, please remove from the results and put in methods.

Line 271-273. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table.

Line 328-329. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table.

Line 331-332. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table.

Line 344. Please expand and provide more information.

Line 422-424. Please expand and adjust as above.

Line 425-594. Please combine with the results section. It currently has a lot or results and could be expand further to include more discussion of the finding/what they mean.

Line 590-611. Please adjust this section to better reflect the main findings of the study and what this means in the ‘real-world’.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Suggest that the entire manuscript is reread/worked for common English usage and grammar and norms. of scientific writing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments Title: Effect of organic farming techniques on the quality of almond fat Authors: María Dolores García-Martínez, Patricia Esteve Ciudad, Miguel Ángel Gómez Tenorio, and María Dolores Raigón Jiménez

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for the contributions that will undoubtedly contribute to improving its quality. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file. In addition, the writing and English have been revised in the new version. Comments 1: 12-14. Please remove or reword. Response 1: Done. Comments 2: Line 15. Need a sentence here to better describe the experimental design/treatment. Before talking about the key finding. Response 2: Done. Comments 3: Line 15-25. Please also provide stats. For key finding here. Not just %. Response 3: Done. Comments 4: Figure 1. Line 49-50. Please adjust the figure title/description to better explain what is being shown in the 3 images. Suggest labelling the 3 images as A, B, and C and then including this in the figure title/description along with a more detailed explanation. Response 4: Agree. Figure 1 title and description have been adjusted. And three images have been shown. Lines 59-61. Comments 5: Line 112, Suggest adding in a GPS location for the plots in (….). Response 5: We think that including the location of the plots is not important. In some seasons there are up to 21 plots and so much information is scattered. If there is a lot of interest in knowing the location of the plot through the Alvelal website, it could be obtained. Comments 6: Line 114-120. Please provide more detail on replication, study layout, etc. Response 6: Done. Lines 205-215. Comments 7: Line 132-139. Suggest providing figures (panel graphs) of temp, precipitation, etc. with the climatic information for the study period (multiple years). Response 7: Done. Comments 8: Table 1. Please provide footnotes at the bottom of the table which describe how these numbers were generated, replication and ± if this is standard error etc. Please use superscripted numbers/letters to link the footnotes with the content of the table. Response 8: Done. Comments 9: Line 144. Please provide a more detailed description of the irrigation method used, what this actually meant for the treatments, how it was created and monitored. What was the actual soil water restriction over the study period. Please provide a figure? How was subsurface flow of water accounted for, etc. etc. Response 9: Available information on irrigation systems has been included in the text (lines 195-198). No measurements or control of other water flows on the land have been carried out. Comments 10: Line 157. Suggest adding in the abbreviation for these nutrients and then using them going forward in the rest of the manuscript. Response 10: Done. Comments 11: Line 165, Suggest adding in the scientific name and authority for all plant species on first usage in (…). Please check throughout the manuscript. Response 11: Done. Comments 12: Table 2. Please add a footnote to provide more information. Tables and figures are considered as standalone documents, i.e. the table or figure should be able to be seen and understood without reading the manuscript. Please check throughout the manuscript. Response 12: Done. Comments 13: Line 177-213. Please provide a better description of numbers and replication etc. here. Please do this for every parameter tested. Response 13: Done. Lines 205-215. Comments 14: Line 215. Please provide the (Company, City, State, country) for the g Statgraphics® Centurion 18. Response 14: Done. Comments 15: Results. Line 224-424. In general, there is a lot of discussion in this entire section. Please remove all discussion from this section and put in the discussion section. Alternatively combine the results and discussion section into 1. Response 15: Done. Comments 16: Line 226-227. This looks like methods, please remove from the results and put in methods. Response 16: Done. Comments 17: Line 271-273. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table. Response 17: Done. Comments 18: Line 328-329. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table. Response 18: Done. Comments 19: Line 331-332. Please use super scripted letter or number to link the footnotes to the actual information in the table. Response 19: Done. Comments 20: Line 344. Please expand and provide more information. Response 20: Done. Comments 21: Line 422-424. Please expand and adjust as above. Response 21: Done. Comments 22: Line 425-594. Please combine with the results section. It currently has a lot or results and could be expand further to include more discussion of the finding/what they mean. Response 22: Done. Comments 23: Line 590-611. Please adjust this section to better reflect the main findings of the study and what this means in the ‘real-world’. Response 23: Done.   Clarification to the reviewer: The study was possible because a group of farmers needed results on their agricultural practices, since the climatic conditions are very harsh, and their objective is to keep the territory alive with almond cultivation. This condition means that as researchers we have not been able to intervene in the design of the experiment. In each season, the almonds from the plots indicated in table 2 were studied. It is an unbalanced design, and in the analysis of the results we planned to evaluate the parameters in a simple way for each factor. Therefore, the first factor evaluated is the effect of the season. Even in possible cases we carried out the multifactorial statistical study, but due to the unbalanced variability the information was not significant. This reaffirmed our decision to carry out the statistical study of a single variable. This determines the significance levels that appear in tables 3, 4 and 5. It is true that in the manuscript it is not clear what is studied in each season and a paragraph has been included where the situation is clarified, with the combinations of the three factors that are studied in each campaign and the number of plots that are in each combination. Lines 205-215.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing specific suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

N/A