Recommendations for Planting Sites and Cultivation Modes Suitable for High-Quality ‘Cuiguan’ Pear in Jiangxi Province

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below are a series of suggestions for the article:
1. The scientific names of the species should be in italics.
2. The legends in Figure 1 are not clearly visible, making it difficult to interpret the figure correctly.
3. The same occurs in Figure 2.
4. The words and numbers on the coordinate axes in Figure 3 are not clearly visible. The font is very small. The same occurs in Figures 4, 5, S1, S2, and S3.
Overall, the article is very good, as it establishes relationships that are not always well studied between cultivation systems, agrometeorological conditions, chemical components, and sensory analysis.
Although I do not consider it necessary for this work, it would have been interesting to compare the chilling requirements of this pear variety with the meteorological conditions in the different locations. Winter chilling in this species is a determining factor in its phenological stages, production, and quality. It would be good to introduce this variable in future work. But the work is very interesting and quite comprehensive.

Author Response

Comment 1: The scientific names of the species should be in italics.

Response: The scientific name of the species is presented in italics.
Comment 2-4. The legends in Figure 1 are not clearly visible, making it difficult to interpret the figure correctly; The same occurs in Figure 2; The words and numbers on the coordinate axes in Figure 3 are not clearly visible. The font is very small. The same occurs in Figures 4, 5, S1, S2, and S3.

Response: To ensure the correct interpretation of the figures, the legends of all the figures have been redescribed. And to ensure the clarity of the figure, all original figures and tables have been re-uploaded in the attachment.

Comment 5: Although I do not consider it necessary for this work, it would have been interesting to compare the chilling requirements of this pear variety with the meteorological conditions in the different locations. Winter chilling in this species is a determining factor in its phenological stages, production, and quality. It would be good to introduce this variable in future work. But the work is very interesting and quite comprehensive.

Response: There is no doubt about the Winter chilling in this species is a determining factor in its phenological stages, production, and quality. Comparing the chilling requirements of this pear variety with the meteorological conditions in the different locations is very interesting and quite necessary. However, this research has basically come to an end and we will consider Introducing this variable in future work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Recommendation of Suitable Planting Sites and Cultivation Modes for High Quality ‘Cuiguan’ Pear in Jiangxi Province" presents interesting findings with advanced analytical techniques. The work is publishable and is within the scope of Horticulturae - MDPI. However, there are certain aspects that require improvement to meet the publication standard of the journal. These include clarifying methodological details, improving the presentation of results (with better figure presentation and statistical support), refining the discussion and conclusion to fully leverage the findings, and polishing the language.

 

I recommend Major Revision since the work is novel, and the information is helpful, yet there are many things to do to make it more understandable, complete, and placed in context.

 

Authors have created a nice dataset on ‘Cuiguan’ pear quality under different cultivation modes and ecological regions, and their findings will be helpful to the horticultural research community and pear growers. The purpose of my remarks is to enhance the manuscript's clarity and significance. I appreciate the considerable effort invested in this manuscript and urge the authors to carefully respond to every comment mentioned below:

 

General Comments

 

The research explores how ecological regions together with cultivation practices affect ‘Cuiguan’ pear quality in order to determine best planting locations and cultivation techniques throughout Jiangxi Province. The study evaluated two cultivation methods in different county-scale ecological zones over two periods (2020 and 2024) through analysis of physicochemical attributes and phytochemical profiles as well as sensory properties. The results indicate major differences between the two cultivation methods and their respective effects on different planting locations where low-latitude areas with cultivation mode 1 achieved better overall scores and mode 2 appears more appropriate for high-latitude sites. The research offers specific guidance about choosing exact cultivation areas and cultivation methods to enhance the cultivation potential of 'Cuiguan' pears. The research stands out because it combines ecological region assessment with cultivation techniques and physical quality indicators and chemical composition analysis alongside consumer perception tests. The study achieves novelty and practical value through its analysis of county-level precision together with its focus on consumer-oriented quality assessment.

 

Specific Comments

 

1. Quality of English Language
   • The scientific material remains clear to readers despite the occasional grammatical mistakes and awkward sentence structure along with typos and inconsistencies that lower the paper's professionalism and readability. A native speaker or professional editing service should conduct an English language edit before resubmitting the paper.
   • Abstract (lines 16-18) - The phrase "training and texting" is unclear and likely a typo. It should probably be "training and testing" or "experimentation". Also, the descriptions of the cultivation modes here contradict those in the Methods section (lines 108-110). This needs to be corrected.
   • Abstract (line 20) - "increase in soluble solids content were strongly associated" - "were" should be "was".
   • Abstract (line 21) - "the level of stone cell, was negatively associated to consumer acceptance." - "to" should be "with" or "to the" and there is an extra comma after "cell".
   • Similarly, I noticed many mistakes in following lines, Abstract (line 25-26), Introduction (line 32-35, line 39-42, line 49-51, line 63-65, line 78-79), Materials and Methods (line 103- 104, line 118, line 152, line 161. Not only that but entire manuscript needs to be revisited for the correction.

 

2. Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?
   • Yes, the introduction (Section 1, lines 33-87) provides a sufficient background for the study and includes relevant references. It effectively introduces ‘Cuiguan’ pear, its importance, and the challenges related to quality and yield, setting the stage for the research objectives.
   • However, please ensure that each reference directly supports the specific claim it is cited for. If not, additional specific references might be needed.

 

3. Is the research design appropriate?
   • The research design matches the objectives which are stated. The study examines environmental interactions and agricultural effects on pear quality through a two-year comparative analysis of two cultivation modes across multiple ecological regions from 2020 to 2024. The findings' generalizability and reliability increase when the study spans different locations and extends across multiple years.

 

4. Are the methods adequately described?
   • The methods are generally adequately described to allow for understanding of the experimental procedures. However, several major points require clarification or more detail to ensure full reproducibility and rigor.
   • Contradiction in Cultivation Modes
     • The most critical issue is the contradictory description of cultivation modes between the Abstract and Section 2.1 (lines 16-19 vs. 107-111). This must be corrected for clarity and accuracy. (Major Issue)
   • Specifics of Agricultural Protocol
     • While a "pre-agreed protocol" is mentioned (lines 104-105), more specific details on routine orchard management (e.g., fertilization, pest/disease control) would be beneficial.
   • Targeted Analytes
     • For pesticide residues and heavy metals (Section 2.2.1), specifying the exact components targeted for quantification would improve clarity.
   • Metabolite Profiling Detail
     • Clarification is needed on which specific phytochemicals beyond total phenolics, and primary metabolites were analyzed, and by which methods, in Section 2.2.2.
   • Sensory Scale Descriptors
     • Some descriptors in the sensory evaluation scales (lines 155-164) could be refined for better clarity and consistency.
   • Multivariate Statistical Methods
     • The specific multivariate statistical methods used (e.g., PCA, OPLS-DA) should be explicitly stated and briefly described in the methods section (Section 2.2.4), including the software or packages used.

 

5. Are the results clearly presented?
   • The results are generally clearly presented, with a logical flow. The organization of the results section by themes is effective. The results could be more understandable with additional clarity.
   • While significant differences are mentioned, consistent reporting of statistical tests (e.g., p-values, F-statistics) in the text or clearly indicated in the tables/figures would improve clarity and allow readers to fully assess the strength of the findings.
   • While Table S1 provides the standardized data for PCA, the actual results of the PCA (e.g., score plots, loading plots, explained variance) should be explicitly presented in a figure within the main manuscript or as a supplemental figure.
   • For complex data sets, such as metabolomic profiles, a more explicit interpretation of the findings in the text, linking them directly to the presented data, would be beneficial.

 

6. Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?
   • The figures together with tables in this study effectively present data from the research while being easily understood by readers. The study's clarity and impact would improve by enhancing image resolution for Figure 1 and improving labeling consistency and readability of supplemental figures and presenting PCA results explicitly.

 

7. Are the conclusions supported by the results?
   • The conclusions align with the data collected in the study. The research establishes meaningful quality differences between planting locations and cultivation approaches, and the sensory evaluation reveals consumer-perceived quality features. The study successfully links meteorological factors to phytochemical accumulation which supports its main purpose.
   • However, it needs to ensure that all claims of significant differences or associations are backed by clear statistical evidence. The discussion should include more detailed analysis of biological and physiological aspects while addressing study constraints.

 

8. Novelty and Contribution to the Field
   • The manuscript makes a valuable contribution by integrating ecological region analysis with cultivation modes, physicochemical quality attributes, phytochemical profiles, and consumer sensory evaluation. The county-scale precision and focus on consumer preferences are particularly novel. The study fills a knowledge gap for ‘Cuiguan’ pear in the Yangtze River basin.

 

9. Ethical Compliance
   • No overt ethical concerns were identified. The provision of raw data enhances transparency. The authors should consider including a statement about the consent process for sensory panelists as a best practice.

 

The authors' responses to these comments will substantially improve the manuscript's clarity and rigor and its impact on readers. The revisions you make will undoubtedly improve the way this research contributes to horticultural science. The manuscript would be ready for publication in MDPI Horticulturae after proper revisions. I appreciate the chance to review this compelling study while wishing you success with your revisions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many grammatical mistakes and complex sentences

Author Response

Comment 1: Quality of English Language

Response: To ensure the readability and fluency of the article, we revisited the entire manuscript and made corrections, and invited professional editing service to polish the language before resubmitting the paper.

Comment 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Response: We have re-examined all the references and guaranteed each reference is directly relevant to the content of the manuscript.

Comment 3: Is the research design appropriate?

    Response: No problem

Comment 4: Are the methods adequately described?

Comment 4.1: Contradiction in Cultivation Modes

Response: Cultivation modes between the Abstract and Section 2.1 have been corrected and unified.

Comment 4.2: Specifics of Agricultural Protocol

Response: More specific details on routine orchard management of the ‘’pre-agreed protocol" (e.g., fertilization, pest/disease control)  are summarized in Table S1.

Comment 4.3: Targeted Analytes

Response: The exact components targeted for quantification of pesticide residues and heavy metals have are summarized in Table S3.

Comment 4.4: Metabolite Profiling Detail

Response: Specific phytochemicals beyond total phenolics, and its analytical methods have been supplemented in the manuscript (Section 2.2.2).

Comment 4.5: Sensory Scale Descriptors

Response: The numerical indices of sensory evaluation have been supplemented in the manuscript (Section 2.2.3).

Comment 4.6: Multivariate Statistical Methods

Response: The specific multivariate statistical methods used (e.g., PCA, OPLS-DA) has been explicitly stated and briefly described in the methods section (Section 2.2.4), including the software or packages used.

Comment 5: Are the results clearly presented?

Response 5.1: For significant differences, the tables or figures clearly indicated the consistent reporting of statistical tests (such as p-values).

Response 5.2: The actual results of the PCA (e.g., score plots, loading plots, explained variance) have been explicitly presented in a supplemental figure (Fig. S6).

Response 5.3: For the metabolic profiles, we have provided a more explicit explanation in the text and have directly linked them to the provided data.

Comment 5: Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Response: To enhance the clarity and impact of the research results, and to improve the image resolution of the pictures, we will package and upload all the original pictures required for the manuscript, and re-arrange the legends. We will also supplement the PCA results explicitly.

Comment 7: Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Response: For the discussion profiles, we conducted a more detailed analysis of biological and physiological aspects while addressing study constraints.

Comment 8: Novelty and Contribution to the Field

Response: No problem

Comment 9: Ethical Compliance

Response: In the acknowledgments section, we added a statement about the consent process for sensory panelists.

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for revision. These have significantly enhanced the scientific nature and completeness of the manuscript！

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors chose an economically important topic for the subject of their research, and presented the results in the attached manuscript.

The manuscript is quite confused and does not contain all the relevant facts.
Namely, they compare the parameters from two methods of cultivation in two years at several localities, with the fact that the parameters are observed separately. In the first year, one set is evaluated in a smaller number of localities, and in the second year another set is evaluated in a larger number of localities. In conclusion, the investigated parameters are observed only in one year, which is not enough variation to avoid the influence of the year, i.e. meteorological conditions. In addition, only one method of packaging per model was applied, so the question arises as to how the method of cultivation would affect the parameters if both methods of packaging were applied.
Also, meteorological data are presented only for the year 2020, and soil analysis is missing as one of the important conditions that affect quality. 

In the manuscript, there is inconsistency in the use of terms, which makes it difficult to follow the text, as well as a lot of spelling mistakes. The literature in the list is not uniform.

The discussion is the weakest point of this manuscript. Namely, a lot of text is repeated from previous chapters, and the conclusions are too general. The authors do not discuss, i.e. they do not justify their results in relation to the results of other authors. Most often, they refer to meteorological conditions.

All in all, they mostly just repeated the results of previous research, and did not prove their goals, so the claim "Furthermore, based on principal component analysis and sensory evaluation, we have initially determined the best combination of planting locations and cultivation methods for producing high-quality 'Cuiguan' pears, and may be helpful in the design of guidelines for agricultural practices" is not appropriate and can be misleading.

Other comments are in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript is quite confused and does not contain all the relevant facts.
Namely, they compare the parameters from two methods of cultivation in two years at several localities, with the fact that the parameters are observed separately. In the first year, one set is evaluated in a smaller number of localities, and in the second year another set is evaluated in a larger number of localities. In conclusion, the investigated parameters are observed only in one year, which is not enough variation to avoid the influence of the year, i.e. meteorological conditions. In addition, only one method of packaging per model was applied, so the question arises as to how the method of cultivation would affect the parameters if both methods of packaging were applied.
Also, meteorological data are presented only for the year 2020, and soil analysis is missing as one of the important conditions that affect quality.

Response 1.1: The last paragraph of Section 2.1 of the manuscript explains the research design. Based on the analysis of fruit quality and metabolite differences of the first year, we expanded the scope of the experiment as much as possible in the second year, with the aim of exploring the optimal cultivation modes and combinations of planting sites for ‘Cuiguan’ pears in the entire Jiangxi Province. This results in many parameters having only one year's worth of data. And in our future work, we will design the research ideas and methods with greater rigor.

Response 1.2: The topography of Jiangxi province is dominated by hills and mountains, with red soil. The meteorological conditions vary greatly at the county scale, but the composition of the soil does not differ much. Moreover, for a long time, under the same planting mode, the water and fertilizer management of pear orchards has been basically similar. This is the main reason why we focus on analyzing the agricultural climatic parameters.

 

Comment 2: In the manuscript, there is inconsistency in the use of terms, which makes it difficult to follow the text, as well as a lot of spelling mistakes. The literature in the list is not uniform.

Response 2.1: In the methods section of the manuscript, we have, in accordance with the suggestions of the second reviewer, provided detailed descriptions of the operation procedures for each indicator as well as the references.

Response 2.2: To ensure the readability and fluency of the article, we revisited the entire manuscript and made corrections, and invited professional editing service to polish the language before resubmitting the paper.

 

Comment 3: The discussion is the weakest point of this manuscript. Namely, a lot of text is repeated from previous chapters, and the conclusions are too general. The authors do not discuss, i.e. they do not justify their results in relation to the results of other authors. Most often, they refer to meteorological conditions.

Response 3: The conclusion and discussion sections have been revised according to your suggestions, and the specific details can be found in the newly uploaded manuscript.

Thank you very much for your numerous valuable suggestions for revision. These have greatly enhanced the scientificity and completeness of my manuscript. Your rigorous and conscientious working attitude as well as your rich scientific knowledge have enabled me to gain a lot during the revision process. More detailed corrections are reflected in the revised version. Once again, I would like to express my gratitude for your hard work.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors made substantial improvements to the manuscript after receiving the previous comments. The authors resolved the main problems which included inconsistent cultivation mode descriptions and missing PCA results and unclear methods. The manuscript now provides detailed information about orchard protocols and metabolite analyses and statistical tools. The PCA results are now explicitly described and visualized through Figure 5 which supports the geographic and cultivation mode-based findings. The sensory evaluation section receives better explanation but minor terminology discrepancies such as "Suite sweet" need correction. The figures and tables present well with improved resolution and better labeling. The English language quality shows significant improvement but a final proofreading is necessary.    Remaining Suggestions:   The Methods section should include an explicit statement about PCA.   The paper requires correction of small typos together with standardization of sensory scale measurements ("Suite sweet" thing).   The manuscript requires only minimal adjustments to become ready for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The Methods section should include an explicit statement about PCA. 

Response 1: More explicit statement about PCA have been provided in the methods section.

 

Comment 2: The paper requires correction of small typos together with standardization of sensory scale measurements ("Suite sweet" thing).

Response 2: Some small typos in the paper have been corrected, and the "Suite sweet" has been replaced by "Quite sweet".

 

Thank you very much for your numerous valuable suggestions for revision. These have greatly enhanced the scientificity and completeness of my manuscript. Your rigorous and conscientious working attitude as well as your rich scientific knowledge have enabled me to gain a lot during the revision process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made an effort to improve the manuscript and to provide adequate answers. 

I am of the opinion that, in relation to the shortcomings of the experiment itself, they got the most out of this manuscript.

Correct typos in subtitle names. Also, in the case of Latin names, L is written with a period and without italics.

Author Response

Comment 1: Correct typos in subtitle names. Also, in the case of Latin names, L is written with a period and without italics.

Response 1: Some small typos in the paper have been corrected. For more detailed revisions, please refer to the re-uploaded manuscript.

 

Once again, I would like to express my gratitude for the time and effort you have devoted to revising and improving the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf