Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript of Tomasi et al. investigated the effect of winter pruning on the root system of the field-grown cultivar Pinot Gris by comparing pruning versus non pruning vines analysing the effect on root distribution, density, and root index in relation to canopy.

In my opinion, before publication, the manuscript needs some adjustment and addition. For example, in the introduction, you reported that Comas et al 2005 already studied the topic. Can you draw some comparisons either in the results or in the discussion, if possible?

In the previous studies reported in the literature, which rootstock was used? This will clear if the behaviour is similar or dissimilar to the one observed here with SO4. You wrote that in Line 50 53 (rootstock can influence root growth and distribution).

Conclusion is not so incisive as the abstract where the critical results are well reported. I suggest to change a bit the conclusion section.

Line 17. the sentence is more readable if ‘in’ in removed.

Line 20. the sentence is more readable if you can add ‘and’ field agronomic practises

Line 49. I do not think ‘being’ is the most appropriate. Try replace it with ‘their’ or ‘the’

Line 51. the word ‘species’ does not seem correct in regard to rootstock

Line 63. Line 388. I suppose the right world is affect(ed)

Line 75. the sentence is more readable if you can add ‘the’ root system

Line 99. remove the comma

Line 100 107. please remove template explanation!!!! Again in line 305 307 please read the manuscript before final submission.

Line 219. Add a point after established. Start a new sentence after.

Line 169 please define technological maturity. Was it based on Brix? Which values? 

Line 222 223. The reported sentence is not correct. At 1m distance, in NP, the most abundant roots were found between 2-5mm, then >5mm and finally <2mm.

Line 241 XXX missing lines. Sentence at 241 is not completed. I cannot evaluate figure 1

Line 300. Specify the alcohol soluble sugars measured

Line 332 which index did you applied? Archer and Hunter or Vrsic? Can you report it in a table in the result? Therefore, you do not assume but you state.

Line 357 358 I do not think the explanation is exhaustive, since also NP vines receive the same amount of water of P

Line 359 360 why this is not valid also for 2012?

Line 390 391 higher Brix does not necessary correlates with higher-lower yield. please rephrase. Also in table 6 brix are reported not significant between treatments

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Point 1

In my opinion, before publication, the manuscript needs some adjustment and addition. For example, in the introduction, you reported that Comas et al 2005 already studied the topic. Can you draw some comparisons either in the results or in the discussion, if possible?

Response: We add this part in the discussion and briefly in the introduction

Point 2

In the previous studies reported in the literature, which rootstock was used? This will clear if the behaviour is similar or dissimilar to the one observed here with SO4. You wrote that in Line 50 53 (rootstock can influence root growth and distribution).

Response: In the study by Morano et al. the roostocks used were: AXR1,110R, and St. George. This information has been added in the text.

Point 3

Conclusion is not so incisive as the abstract where the critical results are well reported. I suggest to change a bit the conclusion section.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We rewrote the conclusion section and tried to make it more incisive.

Line 17. the sentence is more readable if ‘in’ in removed.

Removed.

Line 20. the sentence is more readable if you can add ‘and’ field agronomic practises

done

Line 49. I do not think ‘being’ is the most appropriate. Try replace it with ‘their’ or ‘the’

done

Line 51. the word ‘species’ does not seem correct in regard to rootstock

Changed with “genotypes”.

Line 63. Line 388. I suppose the right world is affect(ed)

done

Line 75. the sentence is more readable if you can add ‘the’ root system

done

Line 99. remove the comma

done

Line 100 107. please remove template explanation!!!! Again in line 305 307 please read the manuscript before final submission.

We apologize for our inattention. This part was removed.

Line 219. Add a point after established. Start a new sentence after.

done

Line 169 please define technological maturity. Was it based on Brix? Which values?

This information was reported in the test. Harvest date was defined as total soluble solids (TSS) >18 Brix and titratable acidity (TA) <9 g/L of tartaric acid, as this thresholds are commonly adopted in the study-area in order to produce quality wines.

Line 222 223. The reported sentence is not correct. At 1m distance, in NP, the most abundant roots were found between 2-5mm, then >5mm and finally <2mm.

The sentence has been corrected.

Line 241 XXX missing lines. Sentence at 241 is not completed. I cannot evaluate figure 1

The missing part has been added.

Line 300. Specify the alcohol soluble sugars measured

done

Line 332 which index did you applied? Archer and Hunter or Vrsic? Can you report it in a table in the result? Therefore, you do not assume but you state.

We applied the Index by Archer and Hunter. We explained it better in the text and added a table.

Line 357 358 I do not think the explanation is exhaustive, since also NP vines receive the same amount of water of P

We agree with your observation. The fact that we did not observe differences between P and NP in 2012 might be due to the fact that high water availability might have promoted a great vegetative growth in both treatments, thus levelling the differences observed the year before.

Line 359 360 why this is not valid also for 2012?

We observed a slightly similar trend in 2012, but differences were not statistically significant. This might be related with the fact that, as explained above, a high water availability might have promoted a great vegetative growth in both treatments, thus levelling the differences in 2011.

Line 390 391 higher Brix does not necessary correlates with higher-lower yield. please rephrase. Also in table 6 brix are reported not significant between treatments

Thank you, you are right. I erased the sentences.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

The authors developed an interesting and original work about the effect of winter pruning on the root system and root/canopy ratio of Vitis vinifera cv Pinot gris grafted onto SO4 rootstock.

The results reported are based only on a single combination of grapevine variety/rootstock/environment. Anyway, the data about the vines’ behavior are statistically significant in the experimental system in which they were collected. Thus, this research work contains useful information and seems to be commensurate for the publication after a proper revision.

Please note that the manuscript has little care in the layout: some typos deriving from the journal template file (in both Introduction and Results paragraphs) are present, the page numbers are messed up and a part of the text is even missing (Results - line 242-253). This should not have happened, perhaps the corresponding author submitted a non-definitive file or omitted the final check.

We apologize for this inconvenience. We suppose some parts got messed up and lost during the upload of the manuscript, as the original word file we submitted was mostly corrected in the layout.

We checked all the text and removed and adjusted it.

Referring to NP treatment, in some points the extended wording is “non-pruned” while in others “no-pruning” or “non-pruning”. Please uniform the name along the manuscript.

Moreover, the literature cited in References is not accurately listed. There are multiple cases of double citations (i.e. References 3 and 18 are identical; References 16 and 47 are identical), as well as formatting errors and missing information.

Thank you for this observation. We uniformed the NP treatment’s name across the whole text.The cited literature was checked, and mistakes corrected.

In addition to fixing the problems mentioned, I suggest making some corrections as described below.

Specific comments:

• Abstract is well written and refers suitably to the main topics in a clear
• The Introduction has a proper opening and provides a good background but later on much space is left to all general factors that influence the development dynamics of the root system and is little focused on the literature regarding the influence of winter pruning on the root system and root/canopy ratio. I suggest to shorten and focus on the main

The introduction has been revised, trying to reduce some sentences and focusing more on pruning

As already stated, please note that in the last paragraph there is a typo from the Agronomy template file to be removed.  The paragraph has been removed.

• In M&M the setup and procedures, including statistical analysis, are well described, but some parts need to be completed and/or

At line 124 please add more information about pest management and fertilization; the word “standard” is not exhaustive.

Information about the vine management has been added.

The sentence at lines 129 – 131 should be moved to the Introduction or Discussion paragraph (if the Authors consider it informative) or deleted.

Done.  

The same goes for the sentence at lines 139-140 and at lines 185-187.

We removed the sentence at lines 139-140, as we agree it is not very essential. However, we consider that lines 139-140 explain why we decided to perform the carbohydrates analysis in this study, and we would like to maintain this sentence.

At line 136 please indicate which climate data were collected (GDD, Rainfall, Temperatures) and in which timeframe of the year (eventually, move here the sentence written at lines 207-210).

Done

At line 169 please specify what you mean for "same technological maturity", how it was assessed and how the date of harvest was established, also adding the different dates in both the years considered.

Done

At line 177 please add some details about the method of pruning wood weight measurement (e.g. portable scale) and the date (not only “in winter”).

Information added in the text.

Please correct “0.1n NaOH” with “N” capital letter.

Done

• In the Results paragraph, a set of valid results is shown but, in some points, they could be improved.

Table 1 should be transformed into a graph showing climatic data; it would be more intuitive for the readers.

Probably the reviser refers to Table 2. A graphical display is quite difficult as data refers to different time-periods (some are annual data, other monthly, other refers to the vegetative period). If the reviser agrees, we prefer to maintain the display of climate result in this form.

In the figure and table captions, I suggest to better explain the statistical analysis used and to uniform the sentences used. In some Tables, both the significance of the ANOVA and the different letters given by the post-hoc test are indicated. In others, no. Please make the display of the results more uniform.

We tried to better describe the statistical analysis and made the display more uniform throughout the text.

Table 6 contains not only the data about yield and yield components but also the data about technological maturity. Please correct the caption and the nomenclature of the parameters/unit of measures (see below).

Done

As already told, please note that in the last paragraph there is a typo from the Agronomy template file to be removed.

Done

• The Discussion is well-developed, reports good arguments for the results, and has appropriate bibliographic references.

At line 354-355 please rephrase the sentence “As for the canopy structure, and to explain the bigger vegetative volume in NP than P, we also performed the Point Quadrat Analysis”.

Thanks for your appreciation. The sentence at line 354-355 has been rephrased.

The last sentence about “qualitative measures” (on grapes, to be specified) contains some mistakes and inappropriate definitions. “Brix degree”, which is a unit of measure and not a parameter, should be mentioned as “sugar content (°Brix)” or total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix), here and along the whole manuscript (e.g. in Table 6).

The sugar content was not “higher in 2011 in P than in NP” according to the statistics shown in Table 6 (not significantly different). Moreover, since the grapes were harvested “at the same technological maturity” no differences between treatments should have been expected nor detected. Please revise the data and, possibly, rewrite the sentence.

Thank you for this careful observation. The term “Brix degree” has been corrected with “sugar content” throughout the whole manuscript. Moreover, we agree the last sentence reported incorrect observations and removed it.

• The Conclusions paragraph is excessively long and repetitive. I recommend leaving only a few general concluding sentences and moving more specific considerations (and references) in the Discussion or just eliminating if already argued.

The paragraph has been shortened and made more concise.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The publication presented for review is very interesting and exhausts the issue assumed for the study.

I believe that the work is worth publishing, but I present a list of comments that I would ask the authors to take into account and make corrections or additions.

Abstract

Text seems very general to me, I propose to include here selected numerical information, most important in the authors' opinion, relating to the obtained results.

Introduction

It is exhaustive and the information it contains based on extensive literature.

The last paragraph (lines 95 107) should be amended. I propose to include only research hypotheses.

Material and Methods.

2.1

1. Would ask for information about the date of winter pruning (lines 117-120)
2. Line 121 .... Light mechanical trimming..... was not performed in the P... variant?
3. Form Line 123 .... Local standard practices were followed .... this fragment, as I understand it, applies to both variants, I would ask you not to leave any doubts in this regard

2.2 How were samples taken (intact? measuring cylindres?) At what mass of samples ?

2.3 How was trench made? manually?

Line 147 is ....0.2x0.2 inner.....missing "m"?

How and with what instrument were the diameter ? length? measurements made

Results

Generally: I would suggest that you omit the information what the individual tables contain in the text, this information is included in the table captions.

Table 4; 5; 6 what does "a" refer to?

Conclusions

After reading the conclusions, it is difficult to judge whether the authors are supporters of the winter cut or opponents, am I right?

Literature.

I would ask you to check the literature for items 4 and 12 - no date 4, 12 no boldface for item 2; 9; 10; 24; 35; 40; 44; 52; 56.

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The publication presented for review is very interesting and exhausts the issue assumed for the study.

I believe that the work is worth publishing, but I present a list of comments that I would ask the authors to take into account and make corrections or additions.

Abstract

Text seems very general to me, I propose to include here selected numerical information, most important in the authors' opinion, relating to the obtained results.

Thank you for the suggestion. We tried to be more concise and summarise our results adding a numerical list.

Introduction

It is exhaustive and the information it contains based on extensive literature.

The last paragraph (lines 95 107) should be amended. I propose to include only research hypotheses.

We thank the reviewer for his appreciation. We revised the last paragraph and made some changes.

Material and Methods.

2.1

1. Would ask for information about the date of winter pruning (lines 117-120)

Information added

1. Line 121 .... Light mechanical trimming..... was not performed in the P... variant?

In P the canopy was trimmed two or three times during the vegetative period, as common practice for free cordon training systems, in order to promote an upward oriented growth and stimulate lateral’s growth. This information was added in the text.

1. Form Line 123 .... Local standard practices were followed .... this fragment, as I understand it, applies to both variants, I would ask you not to leave any doubts in this regard.

We made it clearer.

2.2 How were samples taken (intact? measuring cylindres?) At what mass of samples ?

Information added in the text.

2.3 How was trench made? manually?

Information added.

Line 147 is ....0.2x0.2 inner.....missing "m"?

Yes, thank you. We added it.

How and with what instrument were the diameter ? length? measurements made

We only measured root diameter, and it was done by visual inspection when size differences were clear, and by measuring root diameter with a portable calibre when there were uncertainties between two adjacent root categories.

Results

Generally: I would suggest that you omit the information what the individual tables contain in the text, this information is included in the table captions.

Thank you, we tried to remove redundant parts describing the table/figures in the text.

Table 4; 5; 6 what does "a" refer to?

That was a mistake thank you. It has been corrected.

Conclusions

After reading the conclusions, it is difficult to judge whether the authors are supporters of the winter cut or opponents, am I right?

We tried to make our idea more clear in the conclusions.

Literature.

I would ask you to check the literature for items 4 and 12 - no date 4, 12 no boldface for item 2; 9; 10; 24; 35; 40; 44; 52; 56

Literature checked.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered to all the questions raised by the three reviewers and modified the text accordingly.

Author Response

please see the attach

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf