Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

The manuscript entitled “Deciphering Ecological Adaptation and Quality Regionalization of ‘Taishuu’ Persimmon Fruit” presents a valuable study that analyzes the cultivation distribution of the sweet persimmon variety ‘Taishuu’ across China, as well as the fruit quality from 13 provinces. Based on collected data, including geographic and meteorological parameters, the study investigates the correlation between fruit quality and environmental factors. The results further highlight areas suitable for cultivation and high-quality fruit production. This research is highly relevant for guiding future decisions by persimmon growers and for optimizing the regional distribution of production.

The study is well-conceived, and the research design is appropriate. However, one of the major issues affecting the clarity of the manuscript is the low quality of English, which makes it difficult at times to understand the authors’ intentions or results without guessing.

I strongly recommend a thorough revision of the English language throughout the manuscript. Many sentences are unclear and overly complex, there are recurring grammatical errors, and the terminology is sometimes inappropriate or imprecise. Phrases such as "mouthfeel quality", "taste quality", "samples… tended to be denser, harder", "general suitable areas", "quality regionalization", "climate-ecological adaptability", "the distribution trends of taste quality", "taste quality suitability zoning map", and "Regionalization Results of Quality Suitability", among others, are linguistically unnatural and fail to clearly convey the intended meaning. Incorrect verb tenses also appear in some places.

The references are relevant to the topic and most are from recent years.

Specific comments are provided below, organized by section.

Even in the title and abstract, the need for language revision is noticeable. The phrase “Quality Regionalization” is vague and unnatural, and does not clearly reflect the focus of the study. A title such as “Deciphering Ecological Adaptation and Regional Suitability for High-Quality Production of ‘Taishuu’ Persimmon” would more clearly represent the content of the paper. I recommend considering a more appropriate alternative.

In the abstract, the Latin name of the species should be followed by the author upon first mention, both in the abstract and the main text. Additionally, when referring to the “potential suitable distribution regions”, it is not immediately clear that the study is focused on China. The keywords are too general and largely repeat the title; I suggest replacing them with more specific terms—e.g., “main influencing factors” is too broad.

The Introduction is well-structured, but could benefit from additional background on the variety studied. For example, it is only mentioned at the end of the Discussion that the variety originated in Japan; this should be stated earlier, in the Introduction, along with a note on where else it is cultivated outside China.

Line 62: The sentence “Taste quality is a key factor in defining fruit quality” should be softened, e.g., to say it is one of the main factors.

Line 72: Did you mean “critical growth phases”?

Lines 78–79: The phrase “principles and methods of ecological theory” is vague—please clarify what is meant here.

The objectives, especially the first, are not clearly articulated and should be more specifically defined. Although I understood your intention while reading further, I recommend revising the objectives to clearly state the aims of your study.

The Materials and Methods section needs to be elaborated in more detail, as several important elements are currently missing. It would be helpful to include a graphical representation of the study area at the beginning of this section, alongside Table 1. For readers unfamiliar with the region, it is quite abstract and difficult to imagine where exactly this area is located on the Asian continent.

In addition to the geographical factors already listed in the table, there is no mention of the specific meteorological (climatic) parameters used in the analysis. In line 152, you mention that 19 eco-climatic factors were considered, but the reader cannot get a sense of how much the ecological and climatic conditions differ across the studied regions. I suggest including a full list of all parameters used, along with a few representative ones presented in detail with actual values (e.g., annual precipitation sum, average annual and monthly air temperature, etc.) to help the reader understand how these environmental factors potentially affect fruit characteristics. It is also unclear what time period the climatic data refers to—this should be clearly stated.

Regarding geographical coordinates, expressions like “longitude 111.00, latitude 35.02” are not sufficiently precise because they lack directional indicators. Please revise all coordinates to include N/S and E/W designations.

In the subheadings, there is no need to repeatedly add “of ‘Taishuu’ Persimmon”, since it is already clear that the entire study is focused on that variety.

Please also specify how the samples were transported, stored, and preserved until sensory and instrumental analyses were performed, and how much time passed between harvesting and testing.

Line 104: I recommend replacing “comprehensive taste” with “overall taste”, as it is a more natural term.

Line 105: Instead of “scored the samples on three occasions”, consider using “three repetitions” or “in triplicate”, as “occasions” may imply that the repetitions were spread out over a longer period.

For both sensory and texture analysis, clearly specify which parameters were measured.

The section title “Results” is sufficient—there is no need to add “Analysis” according to the journal’s guidelines.

The results are generally well-structured, but some improvements are needed:

The order in which the analyses are described in the Methods section should ideally correspond to the order in which the results are presented. For example, if sensory analysis appears last in the results, it is preferable not to place it first in the methods. Likewise, the order of the objectives should correspond with the structure of the results and discussion sections.

Additionally, in the results section, it is not always immediately clear which findings are based on sensory data and which come from instrumental measurements—this distinction should be made clearer.

Many figure captions are not detailed enough to make the figures self-explanatory, and in some cases, essential elements are missing from the figures themselves. Please specify the statistical methods used in each figure directly in the caption.

Units of measurement are missing in both figures and text. If the device outputs relative indices without physical units, this should be explicitly stated in the text.

The habitat suitability index is not mentioned in the Materials and Methods section, yet it appears in the results. It would be beneficial to define it earlier in the manuscript. Also, during the classification of regions, please clarify what is meant by “general suitable area”, or consider replacing it with a more precise term. The phrase “general suitable area” is somewhat ambiguous and may lead to misinterpretation.

Line 187: Please clarify which average temperature is being referred to — is it the annual average temperature?

Also, Figure 1 is not referenced anywhere in the text; please correct this. The figure includes an inset of the base map, but it is still too small, and the inset area is not clearly marked on the main map. Please enlarge this section and clearly indicate what part is zoomed in. It should also be explicitly stated that the map refers to China.

Line 196: The word repetition seems redundant here, as it should already be clear what was examined. This issue also appears at the beginning of subsection 3.3.

Line 197: This is the first time the parameters fruit weight, transverse diameter, and longitudinal diameter are mentioned. These should be properly described in the Materials and Methods section.

Lines 199–202: There is no need to list all parameters again in parentheses — this is repetitive.

Figure 2: There is a labeling error in the panels from A to P — panel O should be labeled N, and P should be O. Please review and correct accordingly (a similar issue is present in Figure 5).

In panel 2P, it is unclear what exactly is being shown, and parts of the graph are difficult to see (similar issues exist in the last graph of Figure 5).

Figure 3: It is not entirely clear how this figure was derived or what it is based on. Also, the abbreviations used are not explained in the caption. Please include clear explanations of all abbreviations in all figure captions.

Lines 324–326: These sentences seem better suited for the Introduction or Discussion.

The phrase "sensory evaluation indexes" is unclear — please explain how these indexes were calculated in the Methods section.

In Figure 8, it is not clear what the numerical ranges represent.

Additionally, you refer to this map as a prediction — however, if it is based on measured values, then it is not technically a prediction. Please clarify how the map was generated, and whether any predictive modeling was actually performed.

The discussion is logically organized.

Line 342: The verb "was" should likely be replaced with "is" to avoid implying that you are referring to your specific results rather than making a general statement.

Line 355: What exactly are the special climate conditions of Yunnan Province that caused it to stand out as an exception? Please elaborate.

In the subheading of 4.2, it may be misleading to use the singular form "factor", since multiple factors appear to influence fruit taste.

Lines 368–369: This sentence reads as if you are referring to your own results; however, this particular finding does not appear to be presented in your study. Please clarify.

The Conclusion highlights the main findings of the study and is supported by the results. However, I recommend adding a brief suggestion of future research directions, which would strengthen the final section and provide a forward-looking perspective.

Kind regards

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I strongly recommend a thorough revision of the English language throughout the manuscript. Many sentences are unclear and overly complex, there are recurring grammatical errors, and the terminology is sometimes inappropriate or imprecise. Phrases such as "mouthfeel quality", "taste quality", "samples… tended to be denser, harder", "general suitable areas", "quality regionalization", "climate-ecological adaptability", "the distribution trends of taste quality", "taste quality suitability zoning map", and "Regionalization Results of Quality Suitability", among others, are linguistically unnatural and fail to clearly convey the intended meaning. Incorrect verb tenses also appear in some places.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in revisions mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Dyospiros kaki: add botanical authorship
- Abstract: no title words repetition
- lines 84-86: despite this sentence, you are not showing the horticultural practices from where the samples were collected (irrigation regime, fertilization, etc) the heavily affects fruit quality; this might heavily hamper your results
- line 69: combined, not combine
- line 79: what does it mean 'ecological theory'?
 - line 104 and following: flesh texture, not fineness
- lines 173-178: please explain why you take into account ecological  factors with such a poor influence (below 3%)
- line 247, and following: firmness, not hardness
- lines 310-311: please explain the meaning of: Metabolites had a significant negative correlation with fruit texture
- Discussion 4.1: this is just repetition of Introduction and Results
- lines 358-367: to Introduction
- lines 413-415; 432-440: too generic; please provide a table summarizing the optimal ecological factors ( the range, in numbers, for each factor ) positively influencing fruit quality
- line 442:  not: can widely cultivate, but: can be widely cultivated
- line 442-446: repetition from the Discussion  section
- line 450, 457: not agronomic, but horticultural practices
- lines: 452-453: you show no data to confirm the sentence

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in revisions mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript Deciphering Ecological Adaptation and Quality Regionalization of ‘Taishuu’ Persimmon Fruit is a research report on the ecological factors that influence the quality of 'Taishuu' persimmons across different regions of a Chinese province. Its main objective is to identify ecologically suitable areas for cultivating 'Taishuu' persimmon and to analyze how environmental factors influence its fruit quality, and taste.

An unspecified munber of fruit samples were taken from 35 locations throughout the province. Yield components and analytical characteristics of the fruits were obtained from lab analysis and organoleptical characteristics were assessed by a panel of tasters. The results were correlated with climatic conditions of the sampled region. All data were collected during a single production season.

However, the yield and quality of fruit from perennial plants like persimmon in a given season reflect not only the meteo conditions of that specific season but also, to a lesser extent, those of previous seasons. The fluctuation of production is a well known phenomenon that affects all orchards. Moreover, weather variations are now more intense and unpredictable because of climate change. For these reasons, this experiment should span several seasons. Conducting this type of experiment over a single season introduces uncertainty and reduces the reliability of the findings. I think that this experiment that has clear objectve, it is well designed, it is still not ready to be reported and published.

Additional observations:

Table 1 should be replaced with a map showing the sampling locations to provide a clearer spatial representation.

Table 4 is challenging. I struggle to interpret it.

The panel of tasters was not much helpul because high variability in their assessments. The case in point is fig. 2; while objectivelly measured yield components had low variability and significant differences could be found among different areas, the opposite was true for the variables assessed by the tasting panel. Maybe the individuals in the panel were not adequatly trained.

The manuscript clearly states that the samples were taken from 35 locations but the number of samples are not mentioned.  I assume that a composite sample of taken from each location, though this is not clearly specified. If the sampling density is adequate, given the total area of study, can't be assessed; the co-kriging variogram and the goodness of fitting metrics would help to make that evaluation.

Correct verb tenses, several cases like "were investigate" (Abstract) should be "were investigated".

Review the choice of words like "innovative fruit" (Abstract). It sounds better "novel fruit cultivar". Taste classified as denser and harder might convey the same meaning.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please, see comments for Authors.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in revisions mode.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editors and Authors,

In the revised version, all of my previous comments have been addressed, and I can see a significant improvement after the revision. The English is now much clearer, and the expressions are more precise. However, I believe there is still room for improvement, so I am attaching a PDF with highlighted words or parts of sentences that, in my opinion, require further grammatical and stylistic revision. Additional comments are listed below.

I appreciate the inclusion of Figure 1 showing the sample locations, but I am not sure why Table 1 was removed. This may have been at the request of another reviewer, which I respect. However, I believe it is essential to provide not only the location abbreviations now shown in Table S1, but also the full names, as in the original version of the manuscript. As it stands, the abbreviations are undefined. Please revise accordingly.

In addition, for Figure 1, please clarify in the caption which region is highlighted in the inset map, as this is currently not explained. Also, it is not necessary to include the word “Captions” before the description in the figure legend.

Units of measurement are still missing, I have not seen them added. Please check carefully and include them where necessary.

The explanation you provided: “Mean temperature of the coldest quarter refers to the consecutive 3-month period with the lowest average temperature throughout the year. In China, it refers to December, January, February. Mean temperature of the wettest quarter means the average temperature of the consecutive three-month quarter that is the wettest (has the highest precipitation) in a year. In China, it refers to June, July, August.” is excellent, and I recommend integrating it into the manuscript, as it appears to relate to lines 629 and 632. However, my original comment referred specifically to the word ‘average’ in line 642, so please clarify what average is being referred to in that sentence.

Please also make sure to refer to Figure 2 directly in the main text.

Regarding your response: “We have repainted Figure 2O and Figure 5L. Also, we added the descriptions of Tas, Fla, Cri, and Fin.”, I still do not see these abbreviations explained. Kindly check again and ensure they are properly defined.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend a revision of certain expressions, verb tenses, and some overly complex sentence structures.

Author Response

1.In the revised version, all of my previous comments have been addressed, and I can see a significant improvement after the revision. The English is now much clearer, and the expressions are more precise. However, I believe there is still room for improvement, so I am attaching a PDF with highlighted words or parts of sentences that, in my opinion, require further grammatical and stylistic revision.

Response：We are very appreciate for the reviews good comments. We have improved our language according to the suggestions in the PDF.

 

2. I appreciate the inclusion of Figure 1 showing the sample locations, but I am not sure why Table 1 was removed. This may have been at the request of another reviewer, which I respect. However, I believe it is essential to provide not only the location abbreviations now shown in Table S1, but also the full names, as in the original version of the manuscript. As it stands, the abbreviations are undefined. Please revise accordingly.

Response：We added the the full names of each location site in Table S1 as original version.

 

3. In addition, for Figure 1, please clarify in the caption which region is highlighted in the inset map, as this is currently not explained. Also, it is not necessary to include the word “Captions” before the description in the figure legend.  

Response：We explained the region highlighted in the inset in Figure 1. And also, we deleted the word “Captions” in all figures.

 

4. Units of measurement are still missing, I have not seen them added. Please check carefully and include them where necessary.

Response：We have added some units of the measurements such as hardness, spring, chewiness, adhesiveness. The electronic tongue detects taste-related substances in liquid samples via a sensor array, producing electrical signals. These signals are subsequently translated into interpretable taste profiles by a data processing system. The output, rather than being expressed in units with distinct physical meanings.Cohesion is a relative value, representing the proportion of energy change between two compression processes. As it is not an absolute measure of force or energy, it is unitless. And also, Fin, Cri, Fla, Tas are rated outcomes and thus have no units.

 

5. The explanation you provided: “Mean temperature of the coldest quarter refers to the consecutive 3-month period with the lowest average temperature throughout the year. In China, it refers to December, January, February. Mean temperature of the wettest quarter means the average temperature of the consecutive three-month quarter that is the wettest (has the highest precipitation) in a year. In China, it refers to June, July, August.” is excellent, and I recommend integrating it into the manuscript, as it appears to relate to lines 629 and 632. However, my original comment referred specifically to the word ‘average’ in line 642, so please clarify what average is being referred to in that sentence.  

Response：We have added the descriptions of  “Mean temperature of the coldest quarter, Mean temperature of the wettest quarter” and so on. “average  temperature” in line 642 means “average annual temperature” and we have added in the manuscript.

 

6. Please also make sure to refer to Figure 2 directly in the main text.  Regarding your response: “We have repainted Figure 2O and Figure 5L. Also, we added the descriptions of Tas, Fla, Cri, and Fin.”, I still do not see these abbreviations explained. Kindly check again and ensure they are properly defined.

Response：We have refer to Figure 2 directly in the main text.  We added the descriptions of Tas, Fla, Cri, and Fin in section 2.5 Sensory Evaluation, which are“ pulp fineness (Fin, tightness and graininess of the pulp cells),crispness (Cri, evaluated by slow compression between molars), flavor (Fla, the combined sensory experience of taste (sweetness, acidity, bitterness) and aroma (volatile compounds)), and overall taste (Tas, Composite experience that integrates multisensory inputs such as taste, smell, and texture). ”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

lines 30-31: please avoid words already in title; alphabetical order please
lines 159-161: the grammar is not correct

Discusison section: please try to shorten it avoiding repetition of results (not commented) and general sentences
lines 419-429: looks like a repetition , may be move it to the beginning of the Conclusions section

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. lines 30-31: please avoid words already in title; alphabetical order please

Response：We revised the paragraph to avoid repeating the title. Since the magazine has no requirement for alphabetical order please, we have not change the orders of the keywords.

2.lines 159-161: the grammar is not correct

Response：We are sorry for out mistakes and have corrected the sentence.

 

3.Discusison section: please try to shorten it avoiding repetition of results (not commented) and general sentences.

Response: We have shorten the discussion to make it more concise.

4.lines 419-429: looks like a repetition , may be move it to the beginning of the Conclusions section

Response: We have shorten the paragraph and move some of the sentence to the section of Conclusions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time and effort the Authors put into revising the original manuscript. However, the fundamental flaw I previously mentioned was not—and could not be—corrected. As stated earlier, the research must be extended to include additional seasons; therefore, I maintain my previous decision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are sorry that our modification fail to meet your expectations.

We fully understand the importance of including multi-year data to enhance the robustness and generalizability of our findings, and we appreciate your insight in pointing this out.

 

However, the original dataset we accessed only covers the specific years reported in the manuscript. Collecting additional multi-year data would require substantial new experiments and fieldwork, which is beyond the scope of the current study and cannot be completed within a reasonable timeframe given the constraints of funding and seasonal limitations.

 

To address this limitation, we have revised the Conclusion section to explicitly acknowledge that the findings are based on the available years and note that future research could expand the analysis by incorporating multi-year data. We believe this clarification helps contextualize the scope of our work while respecting the constraints we faced.

 

We hope this explanation is satisfactory, and we are happy to make further adjustments as needed to improve the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,
Yang Xu