Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title:

1) The authors could consider including the genus (Fragaria) in the title. Additionally, the mention of "18" could be omitted to make the title more concise, although its presence is not an error.

Abstract:

2) The authors state that the 12 indicators were selected across four dimensions: flowering period, floral morphology, leaf characteristics, and disease resistance. Shortly after, in lines 20-22, when presenting the results of the constraint layers, they divide the weights into only three groups: morphological traits (60.66%), flowering period (27.71%), and disease resistance (11.63%). Floral morphology and leaf characteristics were grouped under "morphological traits" in the AHP model. The authors should correct the text to indicate "three dimensions" so that the abstract is perfectly consistent with the results and the AHP structure.

3) The authors conclude that the elite accessions serve as priority candidates for cultivation "in Southern China." The reader is caught off guard, as at no prior point in the abstract are the experimental location or climate (subtropical conditions, which justify the focus on fungal disease resistance) mentioned.

Keywords:

4) The authors should diversify the keywords to avoid repeating terms from the title.

Introduction:

5) The transition from the sentence discussing plant form (posture of branches and stems) to the problem of fungal diseases in subtropical greenhouses is very abrupt: "Plant habit, canopy structure, posture of branches and stems serving as core evaluation criteria. Furthermore, high-temperature and high-humidity environments...".

6) The authors mention the collection of 18 accessions from 4 different countries. It would be interesting (though not mandatory) if they added a brief sentence explaining the selection criteria for these specific 18 accessions (Were they chosen based on commercial availability, genetic diversity, or prior popularity?). This would enrich the justification for the selected genetic material.

Materials and Methods:

7) The authors state that the plants were potted, but they do not mention the type of substrate used (e.g., peat, perlite, coconut coir, and their proportions). Furthermore, the phrase "managed according to standard horticultural practices" does not comply with the scientific method's requirement for reproducibility.

8) In Section 2.1, it is stated that the plants were grown in a "temperature-controlled greenhouse." However, in Section 2.2, the authors meticulously describe the external climatic conditions (1500 to 2000 mm of precipitation, monsoon winds, etc.). If the trial was conducted in a greenhouse, external precipitation is irrelevant to the leaves and flowers.

9) In Table 2, the authors evaluate the leaf area covered by powdery mildew, anthracnose, and gray mold. However, nowhere in the text is it explained how this infection occurred. Was it a natural infection in the greenhouse? Was artificial inoculation performed? If so, what was the spore concentration?

Results and Discussion:

10) The authors state they observed that 'Pink Panda' has "a potentially low fruiting rate." They present this as a landscaping advantage, claiming it prevents rot and diseases in the bed. However, in the following paragraph (lines 475-478), they admit that the fruiting rate was not actually evaluated in the study and is merely a "preliminary qualitative observation." This needs to be removed or modified.

Conclusion:

11) For an international journal like Horticulturae, "southern regions" is a vague term (South of which country? Southern Hemisphere?). Since the study was conducted in Fujian and focuses on the local hot and humid climate, the authors must be specific.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thorough and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we provide our point‑by‑point responses. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

 

Response to Comment 1 (Title):

Comments 1: The authors could consider including the genus (Fragaria) in the title. Additionally, the mention of "18" could be omitted to make the title more concise, although its presence is not an error.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the title to include the genus name and have omitted the number “18” for conciseness, as the reviewer suggested. The new title is: “Comprehensive Evaluation of Ornamental Traits and Elite Germplasm Screening in Red‑Flowered Strawberry (Fragaria spp.) Accessions via the Analytic Hierarchy Process”

 

Response to Comment 2 (Abstract):

 

Comments 2: The authors state that the 12 indicators were selected across four dimensions: flowering period, floral morphology, leaf characteristics, and disease resistance. Shortly after, when presenting the results of the constraint layers, they divide the weights into only three groups: morphological traits (60.66%), flowering period (27.71%), and disease resistance (11.63%). The authors should correct the text to indicate “three dimensions” so that the abstract is perfectly consistent with the results and the AHP structure.

Response 2: This is an excellent catch. We have revised the abstract to state that the 12 indicators were selected across three dimensions, which correspond exactly to the three constraint layers of the AHP model: flowering period, morphological traits, and disease resistance. The revised sentence now reads: “Twelve core ornamental indicators were selected across three dimensions: flowering period, morphological traits, and disease resistance. And the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was employed to construct a multi‑level ornamental value evaluation model.”

We have also ensured that “morphological traits” is clearly defined as encompassing both floral and leaf characteristics.

 

Response to Comment 3 (Abstract):

 

Comments 3: The authors conclude that the elite accessions serve as priority candidates for cultivation “in Southern China.” The reader is caught off guard, as at no prior point in the abstract are the experimental location or climate mentioned.

 

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer. We have added the experimental location and climatic context to the abstract. The revised sentence now reads:

“These can serve as priority candidates for landscape design and home potted cultivation in subtropical southern China.”

 

This brief addition provides the necessary climatic context (subtropical, justifying the focus on fungal disease resistance) without overburdening the abstract.

 

Response to Comment 4 (Keywords):

Comments 4: The authors should diversify the keywords to avoid repeating terms from the title.

 

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this correction. We have revised the keywords to ensure they do not simply repeat terms from the title, while adding searchable terms that reflect the core contributions of our study. The revised keywords are: ornamental value; breeding trait prioritization; disease resistance; AHP model; subtropical cultivation; phenotypic evaluation

These terms more accurately represent the substantive contributions of our work: identifying ornamental value determinants, prioritizing breeding traits through weight analysis, highlighting disease resistance as a key factor, applying the AHP methodology under subtropical conditions, and conducting phenotypic evaluation. They do not repeat the title terms (Comprehensive Evaluation, Ornamental Traits, Elite Germplasm Screening, Red‑Flowered Strawberry, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Accessions) but remain strongly relevant to the study’s content, thereby enhancing discoverability in relevant databases.

 

Response to Comment 5 (Introduction):

 

Comments 5 : The transition from the sentence discussing plant form to the problem of fungal diseases in subtropical greenhouses is very abrupt.

Response 5: We have revised this transition to improve the logical flow. A new bridging sentence has been added:

“For plants grown for their form, the overall shape and silhouette of the plant are the primary aesthetic features. Plant habit [10], canopy structure [11, 12], and posture of branches and stems [13] serve as core evaluation criteria. In addition to these morphological considerations, environmental conditions also play a decisive role in ornamental performance. Furthermore, high-temperature and high-humidity environments are highly conducive to common strawberry diseases such as powdery mildew, anthracnose, and gray mold…”

This addition explicitly links the discussion of plant morphology to environmental factors, making the transition smoother.

 

Response to Comment 6 (Introduction):

 

Comments 6: The authors mention the collection of 18 accessions from 4 different countries. It would be interesting if they added a brief sentence explaining the selection criteria for these specific 18 accessions.

Response 6: We appreciate this suggestion. We have added the following sentence to the introduction to clarify the selection rationale:

“These accessions were selected based on their commercial availability, representativeness of diverse ornamental traits (including flower color, petal type, and plant habit), and reported performance in subtropical cultivation from previous studies and nursery records. ”

This provides readers with a clear justification for the genetic material chosen.

 

Response to Comment 7 (Materials and Methods):

 

Comments 7: The authors state that the plants were potted, but they do not mention the type of substrate used. Furthermore, the phrase “managed according to standard horticultural practices” does not comply with the scientific method’s requirement for reproducibility.

Response 7: We fully agree and have provided the missing details. The revised Section 2.1 now reads:

“On October 8, 2023, runners from each genotype were individually potted in plastic containers measuring 15 cm in upper diameter, 11 cm in lower diameter, and 15 cm in height, with 30 replicates per accession. The potting substrate consisted of peat moss, perlite, and coconut coir in a 3:1:1 (v/v/v) ratio. All plants were grown in a temperature‑controlled greenhouse at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. Fertilizer was applied as a controlled‑release compound fertilizer (N:P:K = 15:15:15) at a rate of 3 g per pot every two weeks. Plants were irrigated to field capacity using tap water as needed, and pest management followed an integrated pest management (IPM) protocol with chemical applications only when thresholds were exceeded. ”

 

Response to Comment 8 (Materials and Methods):

Comments 8: In Section 2.1, it is stated that the plants were grown in a “temperature‑controlled greenhouse.” However, in Section 2.2, the authors describe the external climatic conditions. If the trial was conducted in a greenhouse, external precipitation is irrelevant to the leaves and flowers.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for this valid observation. We agree that external precipitation does not directly affect the plants grown under greenhouse cover. To address this, we have revised Section 2.1 by adding the actual greenhouse cultivation conditions (temperature and humidity ranges) that were maintained during the experimental period:

“During the experimental period, the greenhouse temperature was maintained at 22–28°C during the day and 15–20°C at night, with relative humidity ranging from 60% to 85% depending on weather conditions. Temperature and humidity were monitored daily using a hygrothermograph.”

Regarding Section 2.2, we respectfully note that describing the external climate of the trial site remains a standard practice in horticultural research, as it provides readers with the regional environmental context in which the study was conducted. This helps international readers understand the broader setting of the research location (subtropical Fujian). We have, however, revised the text to clarify that the climatic data presented in Section 2.2 refer to the external environment of the trial site, not to the conditions inside the greenhouse.

We believe these revisions address the reviewer’s concern by providing the actual greenhouse growing conditions while appropriately contextualizing the trial location.

 

Response to Comment 9 (Materials and Methods):

 

Comments 9: In Table 2, the authors evaluate the leaf area covered by powdery mildew, anthracnose, and gray mold. However, nowhere in the text is it explained how this infection occurred. Was it a natural infection in the greenhouse? Was artificial inoculation performed?

 

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. We have added the following clarification to Section 2.4.2:

“Disease resistance was assessed based on natural infection that occurred in the greenhouse during the growing season, without artificial inoculation. The greenhouse environment naturally favors fungal disease development due to high temperature and humidity conditions typical of subtropical summer months. Disease severity was recorded as the percentage of leaflet area covered by fungal colonies for each of the three diseases (powdery mildew, anthracnose, and gray mold), following the scoring criteria in Table 2. ”

 

 

Response to Comment 10 (Results and Discussion):

 

Comments 10: The authors state they observed that ‘Pink Panda’ has “a potentially low fruiting rate” and present this as a landscaping advantage, but later admit that the fruiting rate was not actually evaluated and is merely a preliminary observation. This needs to be removed or modified.

Response 10: The reviewer is correct. We have removed the definitive statement about ‘Pink Panda’ having “a potentially low fruiting rate.” The relevant sentences have been revised to avoid overinterpretation:

“Among these, ‘Pink Panda’ not only features abundant blooms, vibrant flower color, a long flowering period, and strong disease resistance under the experimental conditions, but was also noted informally during cultivation to have appeared to set fewer fruits than other varieties—a characteristic that would require dedicated quantification to confirm. If verified, this trait could allow it to maintain consistent ornamental appeal when used as a landscape groundcover or in flower beds by potentially reducing issues associated with excessive fruiting.”

We have also explicitly acknowledged that fruit set rate was not an evaluated parameter in our study and suggested it as a direction for future research. The observation is now appropriately framed as a preliminary, informal note rather than a conclusion.

 

Response to Comment 11 (Conclusions):

Comments 11: For an international journal, “southern regions” is vague. Since the study was conducted in Fujian and focuses on the local hot and humid climate, the authors must be specific.

Response 11: We agree completely. We have revised all instances of “southern regions” to specify “subtropical southern China” or “southern China’s subtropical zone” throughout the manuscript, including the conclusion. The revised conclusion now reads: “These accessions can serve as priority choices for landscape design in subtropical southern China and for home potted plants.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The images presented of the red-flowered strawberry plants are unclear.
The discussion emphasizes ornamental potted varieties, and the study was conducted under controlled conditions; it remains unclear whether the defined descriptors would be applicable to landscaping. According to the narrative, the descriptors for variety selection highlight the importance of fruiting in red-flowered strawberries, as fruit production could decrease plant vigor, even in pots.
In the materials and methods section, the AHP analysis process is confusing because some of the applied formulas do not describe the variables.
The discussion suggests describing previous studies and relating them to the defined descriptors and the varieties identified as the best red-flowered strawberries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's repetitive, no comment on the handling of the English language.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we provide our point‑by‑point responses. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript.

 

Response to Comment 1 (Figures):

 

Comment 1: The images presented of the red‑flowered strawberry plants are unclear.

 

Response 1: We apologize for the poor image quality in the original submission. We have replaced Figure 4 with higher‑resolution images that clearly show the flowers and foliage of the three representative varieties (‘Pink Panda’, ‘245’, and ‘246’). The new images have been adjusted for brightness and contrast to ensure clarity. We trust that the revised figures now meet the journal’s publication standards.

 

Response to Comment 2 (Applicability to landscaping):

 

Comment 2: The discussion emphasizes ornamental potted varieties, and the study was conducted under controlled conditions; it remains unclear whether the defined descriptors would be applicable to landscaping. According to the narrative, the descriptors for variety selection highlight the importance of fruiting in red‑flowered strawberries, as fruit production could decrease plant vigor, even in pots.

 

Response 2: This is an important point. We acknowledge that our evaluation system was developed under protected cultivation conditions, and its direct applicability to open‑field landscaping requires further validation.

 

To address this, we have made two revisions:

 

Throughout the manuscript, we have tempered our language regarding landscaping applications, making it clear that our recommendations are primarily for protected cultivation and container gardening, while noting that landscape applications would require further testing. For example, in the Abstract and Conclusions, we have revised “landscape design” to “protected landscape applications and container gardening” where appropriate.

 

In the Discussion, we have added a new paragraph addressing this limitation:

 

“It should also be noted that the evaluation descriptors developed in this study were derived from plants grown under protected cultivation conditions. Their applicability to open‑field landscaping scenarios—where plants are exposed to full sun, variable rainfall, and different pest pressures—remains to be validated. Future studies should test the same descriptor set under field conditions to assess its robustness and adaptability for landscape applications. Additionally, the potential trade‑off between ornamental performance and fruit production, which may affect plant vigor in long‑term landscape plantings, warrants further investigation.”

 

We believe these revisions appropriately frame the scope and limitations of our study while acknowledging the reviewer’s valid concern.

 

Response to Comment 3 (AHP formulas):

Comments 3: In the materials and methods section, the AHP analysis process is confusing because some of the applied formulas do not describe the variables.

 

Response 3: We apologize for this lack of clarity. We have revised Section 2.4.6 to clearly define all variables in each formula. The revised text now reads:

 

“The geometric mean method (square root method) [42] is used to calculate the weights of the unique ensemble matrix. The weight Wi for the i‑th indicator is calculated as:

 

Wi = (∏ⱼ₌₁ⁿ aᵢⱼ)¹/ⁿ / Σₖ₌₁ⁿ (∏ⱼ₌₁ⁿ aₖⱼ)¹/ⁿ , i = 1, 2, 3, …, n

 

where aᵢⱼ represents the element in the i‑th row and j‑th column of the judgment matrix, n is the number of indicators in the matrix, and Wi is the weight of the i‑th indicator.”

 

Similarly, for the consistency test formulas, we have added the following variable definitions:

 

“The Consistency Index (CI) is calculated as:

 

CI = (λₘₐₓ − n) / (n − 1)

 

where λₘₐₓ is the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix, and n is the order of the matrix.”

 

“The consistency ratio (CR) is then calculated as:

 

CR = CI / RI

 

where RI is the average random consistency index, the values of which are provided in Table 4 for matrix orders 1 through 14 [43].”

 

These additions ensure that all variables are explicitly defined, making the AHP methodology fully transparent and reproducible.

 

Response to Comment 4 (Discussion linkage to previous studies):

Comments 4: The discussion suggests describing previous studies and relating them to the defined descriptors and the varieties identified as the best red‑flowered strawberries.

 

Response 4: We agree that the discussion would benefit from a more explicit linkage between previous studies, our descriptor set, and the top‑performing varieties. We have revised the Discussion accordingly. The following paragraph has been added to connect these elements:

 

“The high weights assigned to flower color, flowering period, and corolla diameter in our study are consistent with findings from previous AHP evaluations of ornamental plants, including herbaceous peony [4], Rhododendron [6], and potted chrysanthemum [44]. This convergence suggests that these three traits represent universally prioritized ornamental characteristics across diverse flowering species. Our top‑performing accessions—‘140’, ‘Pink Panda’, ‘Summer Breeze‑Cherry’, and ‘Summer Breeze‑Rose’—all scored highly on these core traits. Notably, ‘Pink Panda’ and the two ‘Summer Breeze’ cultivars also exhibited strong disease resistance, which aligns with the high weight (7.74%) assigned to powdery mildew resistance in our model. This underscores the importance of integrating both aesthetic and health‑related traits in ornamental strawberry breeding programs.”

 

This addition directly links the previous literature to our descriptor framework and explains why the identified elite varieties scored highest.

 

 

Response to Comment 5 (English language quality):

Comments 5: It’s repetitive, no comment on the handling of the English language.

 

Response 5: We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding repetitiveness. We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to eliminate redundancy and improve conciseness. Key revisions include:

(1) Streamlining repetitive transitions in the Introduction;

(2) Consolidating overlapping statements in the Discussion;

(3) Removing redundant descriptions of the AHP methodology that appeared in multiple sections.

(4) We have also undergone English language editing by MDPI (Certificate: english-112855). We believe the revised version is now more readable and avoids unnecessary repetition.