Developmental Changes in Raceme Carbohydrates and Nutrients During Flowering and Fruit Set in Macadamia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript " Developmental Changes in Raceme Carbohydrates and Nutrients During Flowering and Fruit Set in Macadamia" (horticulturae-4296623) presents the influence of mineral content, starch content and sugar content in flowers, fruitlest and rachis of macadamia on fruit setting was studied. The research results have significant practical significance. It is recommended to accept after addressing some details and making minor revisions..

 

First of all, Please author to explain clearly. Several sampling periods were conducted after the flowers had bloomed. Then, how come there are still indicators such as the weight of the flowers at this time?

 

Second, the significant differences shown in the figure have only been described in the text. This is not clear enough and needs to be marked in the figure.

 

Third, It would be beneficial to incorporate various physiological indicators and correlation analyses of fruit setting rate into the result analysis. This would help to more clearly explain the relationship between the low fruit setting rate and minerals and other nutrients.

 

A few other minor revions suggested:

-line 24-26: The key words are too numerous. Just three to five will suffice.

-line 142-144: Since it is 35 days after the flower, at this point it should no longer be a raceme but rather young fruits.

-line 149: (P<0.001), “P” should be italics. Attention should also be paid in other areas. Furthermore, significant differences need to be marked with asterisks in the graph. It is impossible for all the sampling points to have significant differences.

-line 234: Since it's after the flower has bloomed, how can one measure the nutrient content within the flower?

-line 301: Scientific papers usually use three-line tables.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important issue in macadamia reproductive physiology, namely the poor fruit set of cv. Daddow. The temporal monitoring of raceme growth, carbohydrates and nutrient dynamics across cultivars is valuable. However, several interpretations are currently overstated, and some methodological/statistical clarifications are required before publication.

1. Overinterpretation of causality
   The central conclusion states that early fruitlet abscission in Daddow was caused by inadequate maternal carbohydrate supply rather than low sink strength, with additional contribution of low K.
   However, the presented data are correlative. The study measured concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients, but did not directly assess:
   photosynthetic performance, assimilate transport rates, pollen viability, fertilization success, embryo development, hormone signaling, actual sink strength.
   Therefore, causative statements should be softened. Terms such as “was the result of” should be replaced by “may be associated with” or “is consistent with”
2. The manuscript reports significance of cultivar, date, and interaction effects, but lacks:
   F values
   degrees of freedom
   exact P values where possible
   post hoc comparisons among cultivars at key dates
3. Thirty racemes per row were bulked for analysis. Please clarify:
   Was each row considered one true replicate?
   Were bulked racemes composited into one sample per row per date?
   How many analytical replicates were then performed?
4. Environmental context should be better integrated
   Weather data are shown in Supplementary Figure A1, including substantial rainfall events. Since resource allocation and abortion may respond to climate, the manuscript should better discuss whether environmental conditions influenced the observed cultivar responses.
5. Units formatting
   Several units need formatting consistency:
   mg g⁻¹
   flowers raceme⁻¹
   fruitlets raceme⁻¹
   
   

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form