The Use of Temperature Based Indices for Estimation of Fruit Production Conditions and Risks in Temperate Climates
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript is written with clear understanding of the project addressed, but there are some problems. My specific comments are as follows:
1. The introduction is too simple. The research significance of the manuscript is not well reflected. It is recommended to increase the scientific and engineering significance of the research.
2. The research objective of review is too simple.
3. The 1.1-1.4 section shouldn't be the part of introduction.
4. The conclusion section must have a subsection on limitations and future research directions.
5. Please summarize the lengthy conclusion concisely.
Author Response
Thank you for undertaking the review and in-depth analysis of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the remarks and below we present the answers to all individual comments (Please see the attachment)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript “The use of different methods to analyse the spatial distribution of temperature conditions in fruit production” reviews the use of well-known and commonly used temperature-related indices, sum of active and effective temperatures.
Although these indices are widely used in fruit science, their value differs among spices, cultivars, locations, and methods used. It is often difficult to find adequate values of calculated indices within the literatures. Therefore, this study could provide benefits for future research in horticulture.
However, in order to be usable for future studies, the manuscript should be substantially improved. I suggest following:
1. Limit the study of the scope only to temperate climates.
2. Organize the manuscript in a way that first are given optimum temperature ranges for all considered fruits, then base temperatures and SAT and/or GDDs needed for maturing (or additionally other phenophases), then required chilling units, and at the end damaging temperatures (frost in vegetation, frost in dormancy, high temperatures). Tables with literature found values and relevant references, such as Table 1 and Table 2 should be compiled for every of these categories.
3. Provide formula and other relevant information on calculating chilling units.
4. For plant diseases and pests also a table with base temperatures and GDDs should be compiled from the literature for most relevant pests and diseases in considered fruits in temperate climates.
Minor comments:
GDD is the sum of effective temperatures.
Line 47: Exceeding min/max temperatures does not necessarily cause a disease of a plant, it most commonly damages it.
Lines 140-142: the definition of SAT is not precise enough. It should state that SAT is calculated as a “sum of mean daily temperatures above the base temperature, during the growing period”. The period from April to October is not universal at all, it is strongly depended on latitude, plant species, etc. It is rather determined by the base temperature. Vegetation for a certain plant starts when mean daily temperatures are above its base temperature for at least 6 consecutive days (from the beginning of the year) and it ends when mean daily temperatures are bellow the base temperature for at least 6 consecutive days (in the second half of the year).
Lines 156-161: air temperature depends on height above the ground of a measuring device, as well as of the soil cover bellow it. All indices used in this review are commonly created and calculated using temperatures measured in a shade, at height 1.5 or 2m above the ground (covered with grass), as prescribed by the WMO. The difference between soil and 2 m air temperature depends on soil characteristics and may differ a lot.
Line 165: reason for the fact that grapes in lower altitudes accumulate more sugars is that they mature in conditions of higher temperatures (especially important are minimum temperatures occurring during nights in the harvesting month). Therefore, LTI index does not explain excess sugars.
Subsection 3.2: Since the formulas for calculating SAT, GDD, LTI where provided, I suggest to include formulas and explanations for calculating chilling units.
Subsection 4.1:
· GDD in viticulture is call Winkler index, and it is one among many indices that are used to describe temperature conditions adequate for grape-growing. I suggest that authors include other viticultural indices that are commonly used for zoning in viticulture (degerming special distribution of temperate conditions), such as average vegetation temperature, Huglin helitothermal index, Biologically effective degree days, Cool nights index, etc.
· Sentences in lines 313-315 are not clear. If it should explain period in which these indices are calculated, it is fixed in Winkler index from April to October.
· I do not understand why Poland is singled out in the analysis of wine growing. There are a lot of excellent studies on observed and future shifts of climate regions suitable for grape-growing, across the world (among others US, Italy, Portugal, France, Europe, etc.)
· In Table 5 there is a mistake in GDD values in the last row.
Lines 361-362: it is left out what correlates to temperature.
Line 567: It was not explained what SET is. I suppose it is a sum of effective temperatures, which would be same as GDD, so one name should be used in the manuscript.
Line 595: climate warming was observed in many observations, not experiments.
Author Response
Thank you for undertaking the review and in-depth analysis of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the remarks and below we present the answers to all individual comments. All corrections in the text according to your suggestion have been marked in the text with a yellow background. We really appreciate it, it is incredible work. (Please see the attachment)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
It is recommend to accept.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time and attention to carefully study our manuscript and for the specific suggestions that helped to emphasize the importance of the topic we chose.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I’m sorry but I found too many flaws in your paper so that I’d suggest you carefully considering rewriting the paper taking into account consulting the attached list of additional references. I also suggest you to reorganize the paper, avoiding generic sentences (e.g. Lines 40-42; 53-54; 59-62; 145-146; 191-194; 200-202, etc., as well as the Conclusions), not supported by appropriate references. Please, consider also to pay attention describing the several available models since many reported statements are really not in line with reported results and/or definitions.
A non-exhaustive list of corrections is reported below:
LINES:
28: Mangifera
36: Reference #9 is a repetition of Ref. #4.
46-50: Fig. 1 Do you really think this 2-pages figure is essential and significant for the aim of the paper?
51: Ref. #12 is relative to Broccoli, not a real fruit tree species…
69: Please avoid using an acronym (SAT) before fully explaining it.
81: Réaumur not Reaumura
Table 2: -1 do 0; 0.5 do 0 (and so on). Do you mean “To”?
Table 3: The reported reference (59) is not relative to WMO guidelines.
187: Please avoid using an acronym (SET) before fully explaining it.
200: “model”, Which model?
240: the correct definition used by the Israeli Authors was “Chilling portions” not “Chilling Units” that, on the contrary, was used by (75) Richardson et al. (1974).
223-227: The term “Chilling Hours” and the correspondent model was developed by Weinberger (1950) (see below among suggested additional references) so that the reported reference (76) at the end of the sentence must be corrected, since it is referred to a review by Luedeling (2012) and not to the original work.
239-240: the Dynamic model refers to “Chilling portions” and not to “Chilling units”
247: What do you mean by “chilling batches”? This term is not in use in the specialized literature on this topic
255-256: This statement would be better accompanied by an appropriate citation.
265-266 and 267-268: Unclear: (accumulation of what?) Further, in the reported paper (White et al.) no mention is of “SAT” but instead of “growing-degree day summation”.
304: Unclear sentence: Processes considered in the cultivation of apple trees are extended over time (what does it mean?)
308: Flower insemination?
323: °C
333 and 531: Drought instead of draught
344: temperature instead of “t”
344-345: This statement quoting ref #50 is not correct: Naor et al (2003) in fact reported a temperature-response curve for vegetative bud-break of Golden Delicious ranging from 0°C to 15 °C, finding 0°C as the most effective (and not the sum of hours below 0°C…). The same for Thompson et al. (1975), being 2°C the most effective (and not the sum of hours below 2°C…).
358-359: This sentence regarding the paper by Ferlito et al (2021) is not correct. In fact, Ferlito et al. literally reported that “For all the accessions, the CU requirement was fulfilled after 700–900 h of cold exposition, except for ‘Gentile’ for which a lower chilling requirement between 500 and 700 h was evidenced”. Further, “Costia” must be “Coscia” and “Patharnakh” is a cultivar from Punjab not reported in the Ferlito’s paper!
714: Richardson, A…...
Suggested additional references:
Faust, M.; Erez, A.; Rowland, L.J.; Wang, S.Y.; Norman, H.A. Bud dormancy in perennial fruit trees. HortScience 1997, 32, 623–629.
Dennis, F.G. Dormancy — What We Know (and Don ’t Know). Hortscience 1994, 29, 1249–1255.
Fuchigami, L.H.; Wisniewski, M. Quantifying bud dormancy: Physiological approaches. HortScience 1997, 32, 618–623.
Campoy, J.A.; Ruiz, D.; Egea, J. Dormancy in temperate fruit trees in a global warming context: A review. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 2011, 130, 357–372.
Lang, G.A.; Early, J.D.; Martin, G.C.; Darnell, R.L. Endo-, Para-, and Ecodormancy: Physiological Terminology and Classification for Dormancy Research. HortScience 1987, 22, 371–377.
Erez, A.; Fishman, S.; Linsley-Noakes, G.C.; Allan, P. the Dynamic Model for Rest Completion in Peach Buds. Acta Hortic. 1990, 165–174.
Erez, A. (2000). Bud Dormancy; Phenomenon, Problems and Solutions in the Tropics and Subtropics. 10.1007/978-94-017-3215-4_2.
Kozlowski, T.T.; Pallardy, S.G. Acclimation and adaptive responses of woody plants to environmental stresses. Bot. Rev. 2002, 68, 270–334.
Weinberger, J.H., 1950. Chilling requirements of peach varieties. P. Am. Soc. Hortic.
Sci. 56, 122–128.
Author Response
Thank you for undertaking the review and in-depth analysis of our work. We have read carefully and tried to take into account all the remarks and below we present the answers to all individual comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Specific comments
As a researcher in the field of farming, I am very interested in your work. I have looked thoroughly at your article and I see that you did a lot of work on it.
However, There are some problems in the article that need to be solved, if I understand your description correctly. As far as I see, the paper can be accepted if the points below are dealt with appropriately.
Abstract
1. There are no conclusions summa rising parts 3 and 4 in the abstract, please add them.
2. The model of exploitation is mentioned in line 18, where the specific type of model should be written to simulate the cultivation of the species under warming conditions.
3. The full text mainly introduces the climatic conditions of temperature, and it is suggested to reconsider the title content.
4. In Abstract, authors are suggested to start broad in the general background, then narrow in on the relevant topic that will be pursued in the paper. Maybe this part can be improved.
5. Line 15, abbreviations in abstract is not recommended.
6. Line 15-16, it is suggested that the abstract and conclusion should not be repeated.
7. The content is too complicated and needs to be concise. At the same time, the abstract needs to add data results to prove it.
Keywords
8. Line 22, no number after keyword please delete.
9. Line 22. Consider supplementing keywords for retrieval.
Introduction
10. Line 28. Please note the writing format of Latin literary names.
11. Line31,‘flowers’ front insert ‘the’ Sum of active temperatures (SAT).
12. Line 37, 1.1 focuses on the effect of temperature on fruit trees and is lacking in relation to geographical location, please add.
13. Line 44,the picture is not clear enough, please provide a correction.
14. Line 46,“Figure 1” should be bolded.
15. Line 46. Please explain what SAT means in Figure 1 and explain the numbers under SAT.
16. Line 46-50, it is suggested to modify the font format. The content is mixed with the article, which is misleading.
17. Line 50, a part of the sentence is missing, please add.
18. Line 50, the statement is missing, please add.
19. Line 51, paragraph formatting error, not a new paragraph, should not be indented by two spaces.
20. Lines 51-52,this paragraph is more prominent and should be considered with other paragraphs.
21. Lines 51-52, paragraph should have 0 characters indented in the first line.
22. Line 69, “for apple tree 587 (434 + 153)℃”, this data is not very understand.
23. Line 69, 153°C is not represented in Figure 1.
24. Line 71, why is a set of data in Table 1 separated, e.g. "-11" and ".9", and if not a set of data, please indicate what each data represents.
25. Line 71. Please indicate the unit and the format of the data in Table 1.
26. Line 71,“Critical damage temperature ℃ for some deciduous fruit trees, grapevines, and several small fruits.”should be changed “Critical damage temperature( ℃) for some deciduous fruit trees, grapevines, and several small fruits.”
27. Line 72,the content before the number in the table is missing.
28. Line 72-73. Please unify the punctuation.
29. Line 89,What does 42°F mean?Please check and explain it.
30. Line 80-92. May need to adjust the position, please reconsider, and supplement the content of the cultivation conditions.
31. Line 93, this place only describes the prediction of the likelihood of temperature on apple tree diseases, without specifying the effect of factors such as LDT and GDD on apple diseases.
32. Lines 94-99,there is less content, so more relevant content should be added.
33. In table 1, it is suggested to explain the numerical representation in the table.
34. In 1.3, less content of plant diseases.
35. In table 1, BlackBerry's Swelled flower buds' data at 10% kill is not in the correct format.
Sum of active temperatures (SAT)
36. Line 118, the second part of the question is SAT, which contains three parts: SAT, LTI and GDD. The question is too small and we suggest that it be revised.
37. Line 118: Try to reduce abbreviations in the text to increase the readability of the article.
38. Line 119, please add specific references and years for SAT methods.
39. Lines 126-129, there is a problem with the paragraph format.
40. Line 126: “where TD is mean daily air temperature [39]”, please check whether the format is wrong and the spaces are deleted.
41. Line 129: The number format in Table 2 is wrong, and a space should be added between the number and the letter.
42. Line 129. What does “do” mean in Table 2, Please check.
43. Line 129, It is recommended to remove “:”.
44. Line 134, where it is necessary to add the scope of application of each calculation method and its differences.
45. Line 136: The formula of TD3 in Table 3 is inconsistent with other formats.
46. Line 136,the first time a WMO article appears you need to write the full name.
47. Line 147, the noun is wrong, ‘sugar’ should read ‘sugars’.
48. Line 156. Please use punctuation correctly.
49. Line 156, suggested formula modification format.
50. Line 161, the concept of “GDD” is different from the previous.
51. Line 166, there is a redundant punctuation.
52. Line 172,“Tbase -base temperature”should be changed “Tbase -base temperature”.
53. Table 2,“-2 do 5,5”should be changed “-2 do 5.5”.
54. It is recommended to arrange the formula by serial number.
55. In table 2, it is suggested to explain the numerical representation in the table. For example, what does "- 1 do 0" mean?
56. In table 3, for example, it is recommended to replace “t01” with “t01”.
57. Line 204, article deletion, ‘humid’ front insert ‘a’.
58. Table 3,check the list carefully for parenthesis errors.
Use of temperature data in fruit plant cultivation
59. Line 177, where the application of the species model to fruit trees is proposed, and no relevant application is mentioned in the text, please add.
60. Line 180, "simulation models" is a self-defined method or a reference to someone else's method, please indicate.
61. Line 187, “SET” please explain.
62. Line 210. Please use hyphen correctly.
63. Line 228, the sentence tense should be consistent with the paragraph.
64. Lines 229-230,“It assumes that temperatures from 0 to 16 ℃ promote discontinuation of dormancy”This sentence seems to conflict.It is suggested to be changed “It assumes that temperatures from 0 to 16 ℃ promote continuation of dormancy”.
65. Line 232. Note the format between numbers and units.
66. Line 233, "0 to 16°C" and "-2°C to 14°C" remain in the same format.
67. Lines 231-232: “The most effective for breaking dormancy is 7 °C.” Please check the format problem, the unit is wrong.
68. Lines 225,230,233 and 234, the temperature representation is inconsistent.
69. Line 245, “after exposure” should read “after exposuring.
Practical application of temperature indices in horticulture
70. Line 251, Part IV and Part III are both applications on fruit trees, what is the difference between them?
71. Line 275. Please use the hyphen correctly in Table 4.
72. Line 284, ‘base’ front insert ‘the’.
73. Line 285, ‘flowering’ should read ‘flower’.
74. Line 285, lack of sentence components.
75. Line 313, is the "C" in "10 C" incorrectly written, it should be "°C".
76. Line 313: “GDD10” Spaces should be added between numbers and letters.
77. Line 317, ‘cells’ should insert ‘,’.
78. Lines 313,323 and 325, the temperature representation is incorrect.
79. Lines 322-323: “He proposed 0 C as the base temperature in the conditions of central-west Poland”, please check whether the unit is correct, and check whether the full-text unit is correct.
80. Line 336, where the variety of apple mentioned is inconsistent with the preceding article.
81. Line 344, there is a redundant letter “t”.
82. Line 345, lack of sentence components.
83. Line 347, where the reference to the author is to the author himself or to the author of the citation.
84. Line 359, the “(” is missing.
85. Line 365, the temperature representation is incorrect.
86. Line 391. Please note the format of the references in the text.
87. Lines 394-395: “The dependency between SAT7 and bursting of flower buds (start of phenophase 01 according to BBCH) permits planning and scheduled spraying against peach leaf curl, even in seasons with different weather conditions.” Spaces should be added between numbers and letters.
88. Line 435, the meaning of the “causes” and “induces” is repetitive.
89. Lines 455-458: “sing a model of linear regression between GDD at a base temperature of 7°C and number of leaves in the crown of the strawberry, introduced the term phyllotherm expressed in ° day-1(degree day). The studied cultivars varied in terms of the phyllotherm values from 60.38° day-1 (cv. ‘Ventana’) to 199.96°day-1 (cv. ‘Al-bion’).”Please check whether the format of the whole paragraph is wrong and the unit is correct.
90. Line 457. Please verify “day-1”.
91. Line 457, the number of degrees is missing.
92. Line 464, the case of special nouns is incorrect, ‘blackberry’ should read ‘Blackberry’.
93. Line 492, there is a redundant letter “a”.
94. Line 496, the abstract refers to the impact of LTI on fruit trees and there is no relevant description of the impact of LTI on fruit trees mentioned in Part IV, please add.
95. It is recommended to add the Latin name of each plant.
96. The first row of the proposed table is formatted uniformly.
97. In 4.3, the discussion is not deep enough.
98. Line 507, 300<2600, please correct.
99. Line 507, temperature range is wrong, please correct.
Conclusion
100. The conclusions are too cumbersome and need to be refined.
101. It is suggested that what is the innovation point?
102. It is suggested to supplement some limitations or deficiencies, as well as prospects for future research.
103. Line 525, subject-verb agreement error, ‘pose’ should read ‘poses’.
104. Lines531-534, it is suggested not to use the words "can be", which is not rigorous.
References
105. References are formatted differently, e.g. references 6, 22, 27, 33, 46, 55, 56 etc. are not in the same format as other references.
106. Please note that the format of references is consistent with journal requirements.
107. Lines 613-684, there are several errors in the references, for example, the year of the research is not bold, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for undertaking the review and in-depth analysis of my work. I have read carefully and tried to take into account all the remarks and below I present the answers to all individual comments. I really appreciate it, it is incredible work.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
although I have noticed some attention regarding my observations and an appropriate change of the title, I must sadly note that the structure of the manuscript is the same and that flaws persist (e.g. Line 812, where once again an erroneous value for "Coscia" chilling requirement is attributed, or the non-inclusion of the works authored by Lang, one of the most cited Author on Dormancy, when trying to define the correct terminology for "Dormancy"), thus my major concerns are almost the same as in my first comments. This leads me once again to suggest carefully reconsidering a large and detailed revision of the manuscript and avoiding general and not enough proven statements.
Thank-you for your attention
Author Response
We very carefully reconsidered your comment and we tried to revise the manuscript trying to avoid general and not enough proven statements. We as well went back to your suggestions from the first review and we have included all the works proposed there. In addition, we removed inappropriate examples of e.g. cultivar from the text
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and recommend accept.
Author Response
Thank you very much for carefully reading, correcting and accepting the manuscript.
