Fruiting, Morphology, and Architecture of ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Calatina’ Olive Branches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

line 130: Calatina and 12 trees of the cultivar Arbequina correct to ‘Calatina’ and 12 trees of the cultivar ‘Arbequina’

Please explain origin of investigated cultivars (you told only Sicilian cultivar, but how old is this cultivar, some characteristic important for plant architecture and pruning...)

line 228: ‘Arbequina’

One more question: how many seasons you performed investigations? Only one? In this case, it is preliminary study or short communication.

Author Response

Q: line 130: Calatina and 12 trees of the cultivar Arbequina correct to ‘Calatina’ and 12 trees of the cultivar ‘Arbequina’

R: The general rule says that single quotes must be used for cultivar names only when words like cultivar or variety are not close by their proper name; this is done to avoid confusing cultivar names with other proper names; thus, in the sentence in line 130, Calatina and Arbequina go without single quotes

Q: Please explain origin of investigated cultivars (you told only Sicilian cultivar, but how old is this cultivar, some characteristic important for plant architecture and pruning…)

R: Some information on the cultivar Calatina has been added in the Introduction as well as 3 citations. Arbequina is widely used in all modern olive growing areas and I guess it does not need any presentation

Q: line 228: ‘Arbequina’

R: in my file, I already have ‘Arbequina’; I am not sure what I should do

Q: One more question: how many seasons you performed investigations? Only one? In this case, it is preliminary study or short communication.

R: We repeated the study over 2 seasons, and this was clearly stated in the 1^st paragraph of the Materials and methods: “A total of 24 two-year-old branches were collected from 12 trees of the olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivar Calatina and 12 trees of the cultivar Arbequina three times in two consecutive years, on 27 October 2020 and 29 October 2021, at veraison (right before harvest), and on 16 April 2021, during bloom”. Besides, deciding whether the study is of preliminary nature or a short communication CANNOT be based on the number of seasons of investigation. Indeed, there are thousands of complete studies that are conducted in less than 6 months. Our study deals primarily with canopy architecture at the 2-year-old branch level, which is mostly controlled by genetics. Two years should be enough to get conclusive results.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article compared the 'Calatina' olive tree cultivar with the 'Arbequina' cultivar (one currently used) for suitability in a high-density hedgerow system. This article was straightforward and well written. The methods were clear and easy to follow. The results are readily applied and would be helpful in industry.

Minor suggested edits:

Line 21 - Looks like there is an extra space between particularly and favors.

Figure 3 - The image looks like it is missing for Figure 3.

Figures 4 and 5 - spelling - Tukey.

Overall, enjoyed the study and the article. The results should be readily applicable to industry and the scientific community.

Author Response

Minor suggested edits:

Line 21 - Looks like there is an extra space between particularly and favors.

One space removed, thanks

Figure 3 - The image looks like it is missing for Figure 3.

It just shifted down below. It’s been fixed now

Figures 4 and 5 - spelling - Tukey.

Corrected

Overall, enjoyed the study and the article. The results should be readily applicable to industry and the scientific community.

I am glad you enjoyed reading the manuscript and really appreciate your sharing this positive comment

Reviewer 3 Report

In the submitted manuscript by Riccardo Lo Bianco entitled “Fruiting, morphology, and architecture of ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Calatina’ olive branches”, the author examined fruiting and branch architecture features of two different olive cultivars grown under a high-density hedgerow system. The author found that ‘Calatina’ is more efficient in terms of yield and harvesting than ‘Arbequina’. Overall, the manuscript is well-written, and generally, the author's data and statical analysis are clear. The aim and scope of the Horticulturae journal are in line with the current manuscript. However, there are some issues that should be carefully addressed.

Major and minor comments,

• Line 36: Please replace ‘cultural’ with ‘cultivate’
• Figure 3 is missing.

It is necessary, the authors should provide information about the dry weight of leaves and branches (at least).

The authors should incorporate much more references and discussion overall to their results.

Author Response

Major and minor comments,

Line 36: Please replace ‘cultural’ with ‘cultivate’

‘cultural’ is the adjective for ‘of cultivation’, similar to ‘growing’; ‘cultivate’ is a verb and does not fit the sentence

Figure 3 is missing.

It had just shifted down below; it’s been fixed now

It is necessary, the authors should provide information about the dry weight of leaves and branches (at least).

We didn’t record dry weights; however, trees were grown under identical conditions (pruning, fertilization, rain and irrigation) and were similar in size. So, I cannot see why dry weights would follow trends different from fresh weights. After all, this is not a carbon partitioning study. Can you provide a reason for your request, please?

The authors should incorporate much more references and discussion overall to their results.

I think the discussion of the results is well balanced with the rest of the paper and honestly don’t see what other comments could contribute to make the article more complete or the results more convincing. Please, provide detailed suggestions.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments

Line 51 – olive is traditionally grown in regions with a Mediterranean climate, where in some regions, lack of natural precipitation is a limiting factor

Somewhere between lines 51 and 62 indicate that SHD olive plantings are more suitable for olive oil production, highly dependent on water availability especially irrigation and reduces genetic diversity.

Line 86 – diameter of more than 3cms must be eliminated – needs to be rationalise with respect to Table 3

Line 159 – make it clear that all fruit sampled were in the veraison period i.e., partial skin pigmentation with no flesh pigmentation

Line 196 - need to note that fruit size and leaf shape can be a genetic attribute. In table 1

 Line 216 – if fruit maturation was more advanced Calatina cv. fruit then wood the fruit of Arbequina increased in size?

Fig 1 and 2–should include the architecture of Calatina cv. Why was it left out?

Fig 4 Does this fig repeat data in table 1. Justify or leave out.

References

These need to be tidied up

1. A number include another language – what is the policy of the journal Horticulture? Is this ok
2. A number are either incomplete, would be difficult to follow up,  inconsistent regarding capitalisation or abbreviation of reference .

3, 4, 5, 19, 20, 25, 27,28, 30, 32, 35, 41

Author Response

Thanks for your useful suggestions, replies to your comments are in Italics

Line 51 – olive is traditionally grown in regions with a Mediterranean climate, where in some regions, lack of natural precipitation is a limiting factor

Added

Somewhere between lines 51 and 62 indicate that SHD olive plantings are more suitable for olive oil production, highly dependent on water availability especially irrigation and reduces genetic diversity.

The loss of genetic diversity was already mentioned in those lines, I specified that intensive orchards are for the production of olive oil

Line 86 – diameter of more than 3cms must be eliminated – needs to be rationalise with respect to Table 3

I am not sure I understand this point; in table 3, we report average shoot diameters of 3 mm (average of current-year, 1-year-old, and 2-year-old wood) in bearing branchelets; on the contrary, the sentence in the Introduction (line 86) suggests the elimination of large branches (>3 cm) to avoid damages from and to the straddle machine during harvesting. These are two different concepts and are not related…

Line 159 – make it clear that all fruit sampled were in the veraison period i.e., partial skin pigmentation with no flesh pigmentation

Done

Line 196 - need to note that fruit size and leaf shape can be a genetic attribute. In table 1

I added a few words about fruit size being a genetic trait. On the contrary, we do not have leaf shape data, so nothing was added regarding leaf shape.

Line 216 – if fruit maturation was more advanced Calatina cv. fruit then wood the fruit of Arbequina increased in size?

There is no significant fruit size increase after veraison. Besides, oil olives are often harvested at veraison to get the best compromise between oil quality and quantity. The fact that differences in fruit sizes are not related to differences in maturation stage was mentioned in response to your comment in line 196.

Fig 1 and 2–should include the architecture of Calatina cv. Why was it left out?

Figures 1 and 2 are only examples to clarify the methodology, which was identical for the 2 cultivars. Differences in architecture between the 2 cultivars cannot be seen by eye and only by looking at a single photo/branch. Adding the same steps for Calatina would only take double the space without adding any new information.

Fig 4 Does this fig repeat data in table 1. Justify or leave out.

Table 1 shows the weight data in grams, fig. 4 shows the percentage distribution of each component within the branch. Data and interpretations are different.

References

These need to be tidied up

1. A number include another language – what is the policy of the journal Horticulture? Is this ok

The Journal does not give any specific indication on this matter

2. A number are either incomplete, would be difficult to follow up, inconsistent regarding capitalisation or abbreviation of reference .

3, 4, 5, 19, 20, 25, 27,28, 30, 32, 35, 41

All the references have been carefully checked for their format or missing information

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After corrections paper is significantly improved. I suggest acceptance in present form.

Author Response

We want to thank you for the constructive comments, which helped improve our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

We didn’t record dry weights; however, trees were grown under identical conditions (pruning, fertilization, rain and irrigation) and were similar in size. So, I cannot see why dry weights would follow trends different from fresh weights. After all, this is not a carbon partitioning study. Can you provide a reason for your request, please?

Of course, I want to examine if the ratio of dry weight and fresh weight of leaves (DW, %) between the two cultivars also differ or not and then what happens in branches according to dry weight percentage. 

I think the discussion of the results is well balanced with the rest of the paper and honestly don’t see what other comments could contribute to make the article more complete or the results more convincing. Please, provide detailed suggestions. 

Unfortunately, there is no balance, when the introduction count 100 lines and results and discussion only 54 lines. In this case, the introduction section should be shortened or the results and discussion section should be increased in lines. 

Author Response

Of course, I want to examine if the ratio of dry weight and fresh weight of leaves (DW, %) between the two cultivars also differ or not and then what happens in branches according to dry weight percentage.

We went back to the field and collected leaves and stems from the same plants in the experiment. We dried tissues to dryness (4 days at 60°C) and calculated the percentage of water (complement to DW/FW). Here is a table with results (t-test):

As you can see there is no significant difference in water content of leaves and stems between the 2 cultivars. Unfortunately we do not have fruits on the trees at this time but I am sure the water content would be very similar also in that case.

Unfortunately, there is no balance, when the introduction count 100 lines and results and discussion only 54 lines. In this case, the introduction section should be shortened or the results and discussion section should be increased in lines. 

I doubt counting lines is the only and best way to measure balance in a manuscript but you may be right. If you recognize that there is useless information to erase from the introduction or useful information to add to the discussion, please give us some details and we will do our best to improve the manuscript balance.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

DW percentage is a measure along with the fresh weight to determine the carbon storage in plants. To my opinion, you should add it to your next work.

You mention a balance among the sections, I recognize that there is a lack of references about intensive hedgerow plantings in olives.

So, Accept in present form.