Effects of Foliar Phosphorus Application at Harvest and Postharvest in Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.; cv. Regina) Produced in Southern Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am pleased to have been selected as a reviewer for an interesting paper such as yours.

The manuscript is well-structured, but I would still like to offer a few specific comments.

- The abstract is clearly written and sufficiently informative with regard to the results obtained. However, I would kindly ask the authors to restructure it and include the objectives of the study.

- I kindly ask the authors to consider replacing the keyword “Foliar phosphorus” with an alternative term, as the current one is already included in the title of the manuscript. This recommendation is intended to improve the discoverability of the article by other researchers after publication.

- At the beginning of the Introduction section, the authors provide a few general remarks about the subject of the study, namely sweet cherry as an important fruit species. However, referencing only a limited number of sources is not sufficient to highlight the significant value of sweet cherry production, nor to adequately inform readers about the biological characteristics of this species. Therefore, I kindly suggest that the authors expand the initial part of the introduction by including more comprehensive general and specific information about sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.).

 

- Although the introduction is thoroughly written, the specific objectives of the study are not clearly defined. For this reason, I kindly ask the authors to clearly and concisely state the aims of the research in a bullet-point format at the end of the Introduction section.

- I kindly ask the authors to include a graphical representation of the study area in the form of a geographical map in section 2.1 Experimental Site and Meteorological Measurements, as part of the Materials and Methods chapter.

- I kindly ask the authors, in the Results section, subsection 3.1 Fruit Physical Quality, to support the obtained results with photographs of the fruits, if possible. Since the parameters relate to fruit quality (fruit size, firmness, and color), visual documentation would help readers better appreciate the potential differences among the fruits from the various treatments.

- I kindly ask the authors to supplement subsection 3.3 Fruit Condition with clearer and more detailed explanations of the obtained results. I encourage the authors to use a variety of graphical representations in addition to tables, as the results are very interesting and it would be beneficial to present them visually as well.

- I would like to make the same comment regarding subsection 3.5 Fruit Quality and Conditions at Postharvest in Sweet Cherry cv. Regina. In other words, the tabular presentation of the results should be complemented with graphical representations such as histograms, dendrograms, or other similar visualizations.

-The conclusion summarizes the main findings effectively; however, I recommend the following improvements to enhance its clarity and relevance:

-Consider explicitly stating the practical implications of the findings, particularly how foliar phosphorus treatments can be implemented by growers to improve fruit quality and postharvest condition.

-Include concrete suggestions for future research

-It would also be beneficial to briefly mention any potential limitations of the current study to provide a balanced perspective.

 Best regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors,
I kindly ask you to have the English language of your manuscript professionally edited for grammar and style.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We attached a letter.

Best regards,

Jorge

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Effects of Foliar Phosphorus Supply on Quality, Condition, and Antioxidants of Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.; cv. Regina) Fruit in a Covered Orchard of Southern Chile” needs major revision.

The title does not fully reflect the scope of the study, as it includes postharvest aspects. Please revise the title.

Expand the abstract to include more details, particularly results related to postharvest data.

Use "fruit" instead of "fruits" throughout the manuscript, as "fruit" is the correct plural form in scientific contexts.

In Figure 3, TSS and TA show no significant differences; therefore, this graph is unnecessary and should be removed.

All parameters without significant differences should be excluded from the figures and the table.

Was soil mineral status assessed? If so, provide the data.

Were there any results on P status in the fruit? If available, these should be reported.

 

The discussion section needs improvement. It is currently too general and lacks mechanistic insight. Please elaborate on possible physiological mechanisms underlying the observed effects. Much of the discussion consists of comparisons with other studies.

Add DOIs for all references.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. We attached a letter.

Best regards,

Jorge

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work requires some adjustments to make it more appealing. A better approach to the data, including some correlation analysis, could considerably improve the article's quality.

The attached file contains a series of suggestions for improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank your very much for your comments and suggestions. We attached a letter.

Best regards,

Jorge

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing all of my suggestions. As a reviewer, I am satisfied with the improvements made to the paper and have no further comments.

I wish you every success.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank your very much for your comments and suggestions. We attached a letter.

Best regards,

Jorge

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the corrections were ignored by the author(s).

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank your very much for your comments and suggestions. We attached a letter.

Best regards,

Jorge

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made most of the requested corrections, so I suggest accepting the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form