Assessing the Aromatic and Quality Components of a Novel Peach Genotype (‘Sırrı’) Grafted onto Various Rootstocks in the Lapseki Area

Comments 1: The text states that peaches belong to the genus Prunus L. and the subfamily Prunoideae. However, in the current botanical systematics, Prunoideae is no longer considered a correct subfamily - peaches now belong to the subfamily Amygdaloideae.

https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/4N94F

It was mentioned that a subspecies of the genus Prunus is Amygdalus and classified in the section Euamygdalus, which is an outdated taxonomic approach. Currently, Amygdalus is treated as a section within Prunus.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Corrections have been made in the taxonomic and year updates on lines 37 and 38. Thank you for your awareness.

Comments 2: The 'Sirri' variety is not widely documented in available sources, and the lack of specific information about its characteristics (e.g. disease resistance, soil requirements) may lead to erroneous conclusions.

Response 2: Although we have mistakenly used “variety” in some instances, Sırrı is a genotype that has not yet been registered. Therefore, some of its characteristics are still undetermined and unpublished. 

Comments 3: There is no discussion of the main features of the primers. (Line 99)

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Consequently, general information about rootstocks has been added after line 102. 

Comments 4: From which part of the tree were the fruits taken for analysis?

Response 4: The following sentence has been included to enhance clarity.

The study involved 18 trees, with three replicates for each rootstock and two trees per replicate. Pomological measurements and biochemical analyses were carried out on 10 randomly selected fruits collected from various sides of the trees within the replicate.

Comments 5: The concentration of solvents by “centrifugation and concentrator” was mentioned, but the type of concentrator was not specified.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We use a centrifuge and purge and Trap concentrator.

Comments 6: There is no information on the exact method of normalizing these values – are they calculated based on the relative amount (%) in the entire profile of volatile compounds, or by weight?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The identified aroma compounds are represented by their relative amounts (%) in the overall aroma profile. This sentence is also added to the text (Line 248).

Comments 7: What is the correct nomenclature for Rootpac® R or Rootpack-R ? Please standardize.

Response 7: Thank you for highlighting this out. We agree with this comment. Some sections of the text were incorrectly autocorrected to 'Rootpack' instead of 'Rootpac.' These mistakes have been fixed in several areas of the manuscript.

Comments 8: Conclusions do not state the results already cited. They should contain only brief conclusions. The point needs revision.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The conclusion section has been simplified upon your suggestion.

Comments 9: No discussion in the results. The methodology only states that acidity will be determined by titration. Please add that the result is in terms of malic acid.

Response 9: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree with it comment. In the methodology section, we noted that titratable acidity is expressed in terms of malic acid. Also, we added 2 discussions for the malic acid content.

Comments 10: It is worth noting that the study was conducted in only one year, which makes it impossible to fully assess the long-term impact of rootstocks on fruit quality, and several years of research should be conducted.

Response 10: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We share your sentiment. However, this research was conducted as part of a project and, unfortunately, relied on one year of data due to budget limitations. We are also investigating various cultivation and post-harvest techniques for this genotype and their impacts on different biochemical characteristics. We will keep publishing our findings moving forward. This publication will greatly contribute to the registration of this promising genotype. As the Sırrı genotype has not yet been registered, we consider it crucial to publish this study to further promote scientific advancement.

Comments 11: This is a statement that requires more verification under national or international plant variety registration regulations.

Response 11: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We agree with this comment. We changed the statements.

Comments 1: Whether the environmental variables (e.g., soil composition, microclimate) was consistent?

Response 1: Agree. We have added the following sentence. In 2023, it was noted that the climate of the Lapseki region in Çanakkale province was roughly comparable to the climate data from many years.

Comments 2: The parameters of centrifugation and concentration?

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We use a centrifuge and purge and Trap concentrator.

Comments 3: Whether internal standards were used for quantitative analysis of volatiles?.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. 4-nonanol was used as the internal standard for quantitative analysis. This sentence was added to the manuscript.

Comments 4: The significant of all tables should be consistent.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made.

Comments 5: Added the discussion of rootstock-scion metabolic interactions?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We added some references for discussion.

Comments 6: The conclusion should be a brief summary and refined it.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The conclusion section has been simplified upon your suggestion.

Comments 1:

 Line 33. ʻRootstocksʼ, ʻGenotypeʼ- The usual recommendation is that the keywords should not be the same as those in the title of the paper.

Response 1: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We used "Landrace" instead of "Local genotype" and have removed "Rootstock" from the keywords.

Comments 2: Line 44. Maybe instead of grouping references after a paragraph (1-5), each cited sentence should have a separate reference

Response 2: Unfortunately, we do not agree with the reviewer. Many similar and repetitive sentences follow one after another. To avoid sentence repetition and maintain the integrity of meaning, we present a general summary of the referenced sources.

Comments 3:

Line 61-71. In this section, I would like to provide more details about the rootstocks ‘Seedling,’ ‘GF-677,’ and ‘Rootpac-R,’ their potential, compatibility, their resistance to diseases and pests.etc.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Consequently, general information about rootstocks has been added after line 102.

Comments 4:

Line 97. Considering that these are external, variable conditions that significantly affect the physical and chemical characteristics of the fruit, and that the journal where the paper would be published has an impact factor of 3.1, I believe the research should be repeated for at least one more year.

Response 4: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We share your sentiment. However, this research was conducted as part of a project and, unfortunately, relied on one year of data due to budget limitations. We are also investigating various cultivation and post-harvest techniques for this genotype and their impacts on different biochemical characteristics. We will keep publishing our findings moving forward. This publication will greatly contribute to the registration of this promising genotype. As the Sırrı genotype has not yet been registered, we consider it crucial to publish this study to further promote scientific advancement. 

Comments 5:

Line 107-180. Did the fruits on all three rootstocks ripen at the same time and were they ready for harvest at the same time

Response 5: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In the study, fruits on all three rootstocks were harvested at the commercial harvest maturity period determined by the producer.

Comments 6:

Line 120. Please explain which device was used to measure the fruit firmness, whether the fruit skin was removed before measurement, whether the firmness was measured on two opposite sides of the fruit? and the diameter of the puncture probe or needle.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The method was enriched.

Fruit peel was removed from the mid-plane of the fruit in two opposite regions and determined by a Chatillon® penetrometer (5.1 mm tip) for fruit firmness (kg/cm²).

Comments 7:

Line 120-121. Please explain whether the flesh color and firmness of the fruit were measured on two opposite sides at equatorial region of the fruit or only on one side?

Response 7: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The method was enriched.

The skin and flesh colors of the fruit were measured from two opposite sides in the equatorial region of the fruit.

Comments 8:

Line 120-121. Explain which method was used to determine the total phenolic content.

Response 8: We appreciate you highlighting this for us attention. The total phenolic content method was added in Method section

Comments 9:

Line 158. Maybe I would use a different expression instead of "The heaviest fruits," such as "fruits with the highest weight.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made.

Comments 10:

Line 161-168. Clearly relate the previously mentioned studies to your research and the obtained results.

Response 10: We appreciate you highlighting this for us attention. The following sentence is included in the text as well.

The variations in fruit weight observed among different rootstocks in their study align with the findings of current research, emphasizing the significant impact of rootstock selection on fruit size and weight.

Comments 11:

Line 171. Maybe I would use a different expression instead of "heaviest" such as highest weight of pits

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made. The following sentence is included in the text as well.

Fruits grown on ‘GF-677’ rootstock had the highest width (22.32 mm), length (45.95 mm), and weight (11.44 g) of pits

Comments 12:

Line 171-172. While those grown on Rootpac-R rootstock had the narrowest (15.62 mm), shortest (38.00 mm), and lightest (7.30 g) pits- I recommend that this part be written in a similar way: While those grown on Rootpac-R rootstock had the pits with smallest width, length and weight. Replace expressions such as "widest" and "longest" with the proposed alternatives, as well as "heaviest," throughout the text of the paper.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made.

Comments 13:

Line 200-201. Provide a more reference for the discussion. Based on previous research, we know that fruits with smaller mass and dimensions generally have higher firmness. However, this is not the case in your study, so I would ask you to mention other factors that justify these deviations, as there are references that support this as you done with parameters SSC and TA.

Response 13: Unfortunately, we do not agree with the reviewer. Several factors may effectively explain this difference. Fruit firmness not only relates to mass but also to cell structure, cell wall components, and the maturity level of the fruit. For instance, the highest soluble solid content (SSC) content was noted in fruit grown on 'Seedling' rootstock. Elevated SSC values typically indicate a more advanced level of ripeness, which may result in a decrease in fruit firmness.

Kader (1999) explains that a higher soluble solid content (SSC) is usually linked to advanced ripening, which subsequently results in decreased fruit firmness due to the breakdown of cell wall components. This supports the notion that the observed variation in firmness may not solely stem from fruit weight, but is also influenced by differences in biochemical composition and ripening stage.

Based on the above explanations, discussion has been added and clarification has been made.

Comments 14:

Line 219-225. Provide a reference for the discussion

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. The discussion has been added

Comments 15:

Line 228-229. Include the meaning of the abbreviations SSC (soluble solids content) and TA (titratable acidity), regardless of whether it was previously explained in the text.

Response 15: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The correction was made

Comments 16:

Line 232-242. Indicate in which table the data are presented.

Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made.

Comments 17:

Line 266-306. In this section, the cited references from previous studies are missing. I would kindly ask you to add a referenced paper so that the discussion is justified.

Response 17: Thank you for pointing this out. The discussion has been added

Comments 18:

Line 350-388. I believe that there is no need to present the values of the measured parameters in the conclusion, as they have already been shown in the results and discussion section. I would perhaps summarize the conclusion a bit by highlighting specific rootstocks based on certain parameters. Emphasize the rootstocks that exhibited good characteristics, as well as those that did not have a positive effect or were not significant for certain measured parameters.

Response 18: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The conclusion section has been simplified upon your suggestion.

Comments 19:

Line 387-388 Based on previous experiences from production orchards as well as the results presented in this study, it would be beneficial for the examined genotype to enter the registration and recognition process as cultivar.

Response 19: Thank you for pointing this out. The correction was made.

Comments 1: The changes of manucript was satified.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out.

Comments 1: I would kindly ask you to review once again the sections from lines: 313–353 and 399–423. You mentioned that you agreed with the suggestions and that the corrections had been made, but no changes were actually made in the text—it remains the same. Therefore, I would appreciate an explanation. 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. After the review, I realized that I had inadvertently forgotten a couple of corrections in the uploaded manuscript; one was to add references to the cited discussion, and the other was to simplify the Conclusion. References for discussion (29 and 39) have been added at the indicated line numbers on your suggestion.

Comments 2: Line 266-306. In this section, the cited references from previous studies are missing. I would kindly ask you to add a referenced paper so that the discussion is justified.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. References 26, 29, 35, 37 and 38 were added both in the text and in the bibliography.