Determination of Olive Maturity Stage and Optimal Harvest Interval of ‘Kalinjot’ Cultivar Using Destructive and Non-Destructive Methods

Comments 1: Abstract: Some of the findings are described in vague terms such as “high levels of oil and total polyphenols” without providing numerical values.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We revised the Abstract to include specific data. The sentence now reads:

“The optimal harvest interval was determined at which olives achieve high oil content (up to 25.42%) and high total polyphenol levels (up to 1820.89 mg GAE/kg FW), ensuring technological and nutritional quality.”

Comments 2: Lines 72–81: Please clearly highlight the novelty of the study.

Response 2: We agree and have clarified the novelty by adding:

“To our knowledge, this is the first study applying IAD-based non-destructive maturity indices (using Kiwi- and DA-Meter®) to the ‘Kalinjot’ cultivar in the Vlora region of Albania.

Comments 3 Avoid redundancy in expression (e.g., Line 79: "one of the first to test these methods in this context" could be simplified)

Response 3 We agree and have simplified the sentence to avoid redundancy. The revised sentence now reads:

“the first to test these methods in this context.

Comments 4 Please check if the format of Equation 1 is correct? Should it be the sum of A0–H7 and then divided by 100?

Response 4 Thank you. Equation 1 has been corrected to:

MI = (A×0 + B×1 + C×2 + D×3 + E×4 + F×5 + G×6 + H×7) / 100

Comments 5 In addition to Equation 1, Equation 2 and Equation 3 should also be labeled.

Response 5 We have now labeled both Equation 2 (Detachment Index) and Equation 3 (Moisture Content Determination) accordingly.

Comments 6 Lines 113 & 123: “of± 0.01 g” “of0 to 1000 g” are missing a space.

Response 5 We have corrected both issues to read “of ± 0.01 g” and “of 0 to 1000 g”.

Comments 7 Line 134: Please provide additional specifications for the IAD instruments (e.g., model settings, number of fruits tested per reading, environmental conditions).

Response 7 Instrument Models: The measurements were conducted using the DA-Meter® (Model FRM04-F) and Kiwi-Meter® (Model FRM04-AP), both calibrated according to the manufacturers’ guidelines prior to data collection.

Measurement Settings: The instruments were set to the standard mode for fruit maturity assessment with automatic averaging of readings per fruit.

Sample Size per Reading: For each harvest date, 30 randomly selected fruits were measured to ensure representative data. Each fruit was measured three times, and the average value was used for analysis.

Environmental Conditions: Measurements were performed under consistent ambient temperature (20 ± 2°C) and relative humidity (60 ± 5%) conditions to minimize variability.

These details have been added to the Materials and Methods section (Line 134) for clarity.

Comments 8 Some formatting issues: for example, (1) in line 117, the format used in the reference is incorrect: [15, 16 and 17] should be [15-17]; in line 141, [18,11] should be [11,18]; (2) in line 144, there should be a space between the number and the unit; (3) in lines 158 and 162, “g/l” and “μg/l” should be “g/L” and “μg/L

Response 8These have all been addressed:

References: [15, 16 and 17] is now [15–17]; [18,11] is now [11,18]

Spacing corrected (e.g., "3.00 g" instead of "3.00g")

Units revised: “g/l” → “g/L”, “μg/l” → “μg/L”

Comments 9 Tables1 & 2: Please include statistical significance indicators (e.g., different letters for groups with significant differences)

Response 9 Tables 1 and 2 have been updated to include superscript letters indicating statistically significant groupings based on Tukey HSD test (p < 0.05).

Comments 10 The header content in Table 1 is not fully displayed.

Response 10 We have reformatted Table 1 so that all column headers are fully visible and properly aligned

Comments 11 All images need to be redrawn and the font size of the text in the images needs to be adjusted. The resolution of the existing images is very low.

Response 11 All figures have been redrawn in high resolution (300 dpi minimum), and font sizes have been increased to ensure legibility.

Comments 12 Include loading plot details to show which variables drive PC1 and PC2 more clearly.

Response 12 We expanded the PCA section to describe the loading plot:

PC1 is mainly driven by Color Index and total phenols, while PC2 is influenced by oil content and fruit size. The loading plot is now included in Figure 2b.

Comments 13 Reference [24] is similar to [22] and needs to be checked for duplication or confusion.

Response 13 We reviewed both references and confirmed [24] is a duplicated version of [22]. We removed [24] and corrected all in-text citations accordingly.

Comments 13 The formats of some references are not unified and the information is incomplete. It is recommended to unify the format and supplement the complete information.

Response 13 All references have been reviewed and standardized according to the journal’s guidelines. Missing elements (e.g., DOIs, full author names, journal titles) have been added where applicable.

Comments 1: Abstract: Some of the findings are described in vague terms such as “high levels of oil and total polyphenols” without providing numerical values.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We revised the abstract by summarizing the experimental methods and highlighting the key results more clearly. The revised abstract now includes precise numerical data on oil content and polyphenol levels, as well as the identified optimal harvest window.

Comments 2: The latain name of plant must use italic letters.

Response 2: We agree. The Latin name Olea europaea L. and the cultivar name ‘Kalinjot’ have been italicized consistently throughout the manuscript according to the journal style

Comments 3 Notice the details of the full text format such as the gaps between two words

Response 3 Thank you for pointing this out. We have reviewed the full manuscript and corrected spacing inconsistencies between words and units (e.g., "of0" to "of 0"). A final format check was performed to ensure consistency..

Comments 4 All tables didn't need the statistics such as mean, sd, variance and so on at the bottom, and the means of the different treatment levels followed by the English letters to reflect the significance of the difference among the multiple comparisons.

Response 4 We appreciate the clarification. We revised all tables to remove unnecessary statistics at the bottom (e.g., mean ± sd rows), and we maintained superscript letters to indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05), as appropriate.

Comments 5 The words in the figures are too vague..

Response 5 All figures have been updated with larger font sizes and improved resolution (≥300 dpi). Text within the figures is now clearly legible in print and digital formats.

Comments 6 Whether the correlation analysis or the principal components analysis, the key issues aren't the results but the professional explanations of the statistical analysis results, so add the professional analysis and discussions of the statistical results.

Response 5 Thank you for the valuable suggestion. We expanded the discussion of the PCA and correlation analysis sections to include a more in-depth interpretation of the statistical outputs. For PCA, we explained how PC1 and PC2 reflect ripening-related traits and physical maturity, respectively. For the correlation analysis, we clarified the implications of the strong relationships between ripening indices and maturity markers.

Comments 7 The section conclusions needs rewriting because it needs answering the scientific questions stated in the section introduction based on the results and discussions, and it can't replicate the results or display the results.

Response 7 We agree and have rewritten the Conclusion section to directly address the scientific questions posed in the Introduction. The new version synthesizes the main findings, highlights the implications for harvest timing and quality, and avoids repeating detailed results. It focuses on how the combined use of destructive and non-destructive indices contributes to improved decision-making for olive harvest practices.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1 Thank you very much for your valuable comment regarding the English language quality. To address this concern, we will send the manuscript to a professional author service recommended by the journal for thorough language editing and proofreading.

We believe this will ensure that the manuscript meets the high linguistic standards required by the journal. We appreciate your understanding and constructive feedback.

Comments 1: It would be advisable to update the references with more recent ones, as most of those included are too outdated.

Response 1: We appreciate this observation. The reference list has been carefully revised and updated. Several older references have been replaced with more recent and relevant publications from the last 5–10 years, especially those addressing olive fruit ripening, non-destructive maturity assessment, and olive oil quality.

Comments 2: Species names should be written in italics, and the species name Olea europaea L. should be checked and corrected throughout the text. Also, verify the formatting of the cultivar name, as it is not used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. The species name Olea europaea L. has been italicized consistently throughout the manuscript. Additionally, the formatting of the cultivar name ‘Kalinjot’ has been reviewed and standardized in accordance with journal guidelines.

Comments 3 Do not paste formulas as images; instead, write them out in the text. Moreover, they should be fully explained.

Response 3 We agree. All formulas that were previously inserted as images have now been rewritten using the equation editor or text, and each has been accompanied by a clear explanation in the text. The terms used in each formula have also been defined for clarity.

Comments 4 A separate paragraph should be dedicated to the statistical analysis in the Materials and Methods section.

Response 4 We appreciate the clarification. We revised all tables to remove unnecessary statistics at the bottom (e.g., mean ± sd rows), and we maintained superscript letters to indicate significant differences based on Tukey’s HSD test (p < 0.05), as appropriate.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response 1 Thank you for the recommendation. A separate subsection titled "Statistical Analysis" has now been included in the Materials and Methods section. This paragraph details the software used (e.g., Statistix 9.0), the statistical tests applied (ANOVA, Tukey HSD, Pearson correlation), the significance level (p < 0.05), and how the data were presented. This ensures transparency and reproducibility of the analysis.