Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

My general impression is that the manuscript „Characteristics of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) genotypes in 2 situ collected“ indeed presents original and significant results that should be useful for future breeding strategies and pomology scientists

The research was extensive and involved the comparison of wild-collected sweet cherry genotypes, and the results show the influence of genotype on physical characteristics and biochemical content

My suggestions are included directly in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggest that the authors recheck the English language in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your suggestions.

Corrections to the suggestions are included in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the work is basic and quite simple; however, it is presented in a clear and well-written manner.

I did not find any major shortcomings, except for minor details such as in situ not always being italicized.

However, the premise is that the genotypes of fruit species are an important source of genetic variability for breeding and provide valuable material for the development of new cultivars. Nevertheless, the study does not provide specific indications or suggestions on how some of the identified genotypes could actually contribute to achieving modern breeding objectives.

Furthermore, simply including genotypes with particular fruit characteristics as parental lines is not sufficient; agronomic performance, yield, and disease resistance are crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable cultivars for profitable orchards.

In lines 234–236, the authors state that the high diversity among the 39 sweet cherry genotypes makes them a valuable germplasm collection that could be used in breeding programs and strategies to enhance qualitative traits. However, it would be beneficial to clarify in both the introduction and discussion that the study primarily focuses on biodiversity conservation/germplasm preservation or population studies and to better explain how wild population germplasm can be effectively used in breeding. In fact, to date, no commercially released fruit tree cultivar has originated from crosses involving wild genotypes.

• Line 33: I suggest replacing sweet cherry in the keywords, as it is already present in the title.
• Line 171: Can we actually refer to wild cultivars? Do they exist?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your suggestions. Responses are detailed below and corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the work is basic and quite simple; however, it is presented in a clear and well-written manner.

I did not find any major shortcomings, except for minor details such as in situ not always being italicized.

Response and Revisions: Thank you! I have corrected throughout the text.

However, the premise is that the genotypes of fruit species are an important source of genetic variability for breeding and provide valuable material for the development of new cultivars. Nevertheless, the study does not provide specific indications or suggestions on how some of the identified genotypes could actually contribute to achieving modern breeding objectives.

Furthermore, simply including genotypes with particular fruit characteristics as parental lines is not sufficient; agronomic performance, yield, and disease resistance are crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable cultivars for profitable orchards.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for your suggestions. Indeed, agronomic performance, yield and disease resistance are crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable cultivars for profitable orchards and the pursuit of these characters is certainly of interest for my future research. In this one I focused only on the genetic variability of fruits of some genotypes from the spontaneous flora.

In lines 234–236, the authors state that the high diversity among the 39 sweet cherry genotypes makes them a valuable germplasm collection that could be used in breeding programs and strategies to enhance qualitative traits. However, it would be beneficial to clarify in both the introduction and discussion that the study primarily focuses on biodiversity conservation/germplasm preservation or population studies and to better explain how wild population germplasm can be effectively used in breeding. In fact, to date, no commercially released fruit tree cultivar has originated from crosses involving wild genotypes.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for your suggestions. The statement that the high diversity among the sweet cherry genotypes makes them a valuable germplasm collection that could be used in breeding programs and strategies to enhance qualitative traits was written more to suggest the value for enriching the cherry gene pool and improving horticultural traits important for increasing production and thus nutrition.

The statement has been adjusted (Lines 235-238).

 

Line 33: I suggest replacing sweet cherry in the keywords, as it is already present in the title.

Response and Revisions: Thank you! I replaced it with another keyword.

Line 171: Can we actually refer to wild cultivars? Do they exist?

Response and Revisions: Thank you! In truth, I don't think it is really known what the wild cultivars are. The term wild cultivar has also been found used in the literature for bitter cherry (Prunus avium var. sylvestris), either indigenous or from the spontaneous flora.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: In this paper the study was conducted during 2018-2022 to evaluate the fruit characteristics of different genotypes of sweet cherries, including physical characteristics such as fruit weight, fruit length, stone weight, and chemical composition such as soluble solids, polyphenols, and flavonoids. The results showed that the physical and chemical characteristics of 39 sweet cherry genotypes were diverse. However, there are many problems with the manuscript:

 

1. “genotype 10” and “G11” in the abstract should be expressed in the same way.
2. The object of the experiment is sweet cherry, and the ranking of keywords can be considered again.
3. In lines 56-60, “The main component of conservation strategies and subsequent valorization aimed at preventing the loss of genes of cultivars in different growing and cultivation areas is the morphological evaluation and characterization of the germplasm fund using in situ collection methods.” This sentence lacks a logical relationship to the context, and the sentence itself is too long to understand.
4. In line 66, “etc.” needs italics.
5. In line 76, the citation of the figure should precede the citation of the reference.
6. There is ambiguity in the interpretation of “red dots” in the note in Figure 1. Does it really represent the genotype and not the sampling location?
7. In lines 114 and 118, the abbreviations already mentioned above do not need to be repeated here. In addition, the same problem exists elsewhere in the article.
8. In line 148, make sure the expression “the fruit weight (FW) is quite small” is correct.
9. The “Distance” data in Figure 2 seems to have a display problem, please check it.
10. If I understand you correctly, Figure 3 should be a table, and the “p” in the comment needs to be capitalized in italics.
11. The conclusion of the article is a little short, which of the different genotypes of sweet cherries analyzed are more necessary for genetic breeding? In addition to the genotypes in the article, what are the implications for the study of other genotypes of sweet cherry?
12. In addition, the article lacks some logic, the language expression is not clear enough, and the tenses used in the article are also confused.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your suggestions. Responses are detailed below and corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper the study was conducted during 2018-2022 to evaluate the fruit characteristics of different genotypes of sweet cherries, including physical characteristics such as fruit weight, fruit length, stone weight, and chemical composition such as soluble solids, polyphenols, and flavonoids. The results showed that the physical and chemical characteristics of 39 sweet cherry genotypes were diverse. However, there are many problems with the manuscript:

 

1. “Genotype 10” and “G11” in the abstract should be expressed in the same

Response and Revisions: Thank you! A single expression of the genotype was chosen: „G10”, „G11”, etc.

 

2. The object of the experiment is sweet cherry, and the ranking of keywords can be considered again.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for the suggestion. I have taken it into consideration. A new keyword „cherry germplasm” has been added.

 

3. In lines 56-60, “The main component of conservation strategies and subsequent valorization aimed at preventing the loss of genes of cultivars in different growing and cultivation areas is the morphological evaluation and characterization of the germplasm fund using in situ collection methods.” This sentence lacks a logical relationship to the context, and the sentence itself is too long to understand.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been rephrased (lines 57-59)

 

4. In line 66, “etc.” needs italics.

Response and Revisions: It has been corrected. Thank you!

 

5. In line 76, the citation of the figure should precede the citation of the reference.

Response and Revisions: Thank you! It has been corrected.

 

6. There is ambiguity in the interpretation of “red dots” in the note in Figure 1. Does it really represent the genotype and not the sampling location?

Response and Revisions: Thank you for the suggestion. The red dots suggest the location of each genotype chosen. It has also been corrected in the text.

 

7. In lines 114 and 118, the abbreviations already mentioned above do not need to be repeated here. In addition, the same problem exists elsewhere in the article.

Response and Revisions: With the exception of the „material and method” chapter, only the abbreviation was kept. Thank you!

 

8. In line 148, make sure the expression “the fruit weight (FW) is quite small” is correct.

Response and Revisions: This expression has been removed. Thank you!

 

9. The “Distance” data in Figure 2 seems to have a display problem, please check it.

Response and Revisions: I checked. I hope it's okay. Thank you!

 

10. If I understand you correctly, Figure 3 should be a table, and the “p” in the comment needs to be capitalized in italics.

Response and Revisions: Figure 3 is a table, but being very large, it did not fit the page format. I have corrected the comment. Thank you!

 

11. The conclusion of the article is a little short, which of the different genotypes of sweet cherries analyzed are more necessary for genetic breeding? In addition to the genotypes in the article, what are the implications for the study of other genotypes of sweet cherry?

Response and Revisions: Thank you for your suggestions. Additions have been made to the conclusions, taking into account your remarks. The genotypes that stood out were G10 and G11, due to their physicochemical properties.

 

12. In addition, the article lacks some logic, the language expression is not clear enough, and the tenses used in the article are also confused.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for your suggestions. Some changes have been made to the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the authors agree with me that agronomic performance, yield, and disease resistance are crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable cultivars aimed at establishing profitable orchards — and since they themselves acknowledge that these traits will be of interest in their future research — I believe that this aspect should be clearly highlighted and discussed, at least in the Introduction or Discussion sections. At the very least, the title should explicitly state that this is an evaluation of "Fruit characteristics of in situ collected sweet cherries," to avoid misleading the reader into expecting a broader assessment that includes agronomic and adaptive traits.

Furthermore, I would like to draw the authors' attention to the careful use of the term "genetic variability" (see line 16 and line 18). In this context, the parameters analyzed are phenotypic, and thus also influenced by environmental factors. This is not a study on genetic variability, which would require a completely different experimental design and methodological approach. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to refer to "phenotypic variability" rather than "genetic variability" throughout the manuscript.

I leave it to the editor to decide on these aspects!

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your suggestions. Responses are detailed below and corresponding revisions and corrections highlighted in the resubmitted files.

Since the authors agree with me that agronomic performance, yield, and disease resistance are crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable cultivars aimed at establishing profitable orchards — and since they themselves acknowledge that these traits will be of interest in their future research — I believe that this aspect should be clearly highlighted and discussed, at least in the Introduction or Discussion sections. At the very least, the title should explicitly state that this is an evaluation of "Fruit characteristics of in situ collected sweet cherries," to avoid misleading the reader into expecting a broader assessment that includes agronomic and adaptive traits.

Response and Revisions: Thank you for your suggestions. I have changed the title („Fruit characteristics of in situ collected sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) genotypes”), taking into account your recommendation, and I have completed the conclusions and recommendations section for aspects of future research related to the topic.

Furthermore, I would like to draw the authors' attention to the careful use of the term "genetic variability" (see line 16 and line 18). In this context, the parameters analyzed are phenotypic, and thus also influenced by environmental factors. This is not a study on genetic variability, which would require a completely different experimental design and methodological approach. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to refer to "phenotypic variability" rather than "genetic variability" throughout the manuscript.

Response and Revisions: Thank you! I have replaced the expression “genetic variability” with “phenotypic variability” throughout the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Thank you!