Modifications Induced by Rootstocks on Yield, Vigor and Nutritional Status on Vitis vinifera Cv Syrah under Hyper-Arid Conditions in Northern Chile
, Gastón Gutiérrez-Gamboa 2,*, Irina Díaz-Gálvez 3, Antonio Ibacache 4 and Andrés Zurita-Silva 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, see the Review Report, the suggestions in and the manuscript and the supplementary file.
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Review Report
Manuscript “Modifications induced by rootstocks on yield, vigor and nutritional status on Vitis vinifera cv Syrah under hyper-arid conditions in Northern Chile”
Summary
A trial was run in a hyper-arid climatic area of Chile, over five consecutive seasons, on Syrah own-rooted vines and vines grafted onto eight rootstocks. The aim of trial was to evaluate vine performance in terms vigor and the nutritional status, in order to individuate most suitable rootstocks for that growing area.
Comments
Strengths
- The paper report results of a long period of trial.
- It provides information on the behavior of the rootstocks which are not common in that growing area.
- The introduction is clear and fits with the topic.
- The aims are clear.
Weaknesses
- Several sentences are not clear.
- The interpretation of statistical results needs some improvements.
- There is a contradiction in the Conclusions.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and consideration in the revision of our manuscript. We really appreciate the revisions performed that evidently improved the quality of the manuscript. We have tried to edit the manuscript according to the suggestions and we have edited the conclusions. In this sense, the number of bunches, bunch weight, budburst and fruitfulness were not affected by rootstocks despite that they modified yield as is show in Table 3 (please, see lines: 774-775).
Specific comments
Specific suggestions to improve the text are directly reported in the manuscript.
Response: We have edited all the suggestion performed into the attached document.
Here are some full comments.
General comments.
- You could preferably use the term “grapevine” to indicate the species; in order to indicate the plant, you could use more often the term “vine”.
Response: We have edited the manuscript according to the suggestion performed by the reviewer.
- When you compare the results, please take always into account the statistic (Tukey test). Be careful to say that a value is higher of others when they have a letter in common (since the difference is not statistically significant).
Response: We really appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have edited all the sentences that did not account the statistic interpretation (please, see lines: 434-442).
Several parts of the manuscript should be “streamlined” (I suggest revision by a native speaker).
Response: We agree and apologize for this problem. We are not native people and the new revision of the manuscript was performed by a bilingual.
Introduction
- Lines 58-59. Please clarify this sentence.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Based on this, we have deleted this sentence since does not contribute to the understanding of the paragraph.
Materials and Methods
- Lines 98-99. 80. Please clarify this sentence
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have edited this sentence (please, see lines:104-105).
- Line 100. “30 m from the field”: it seems that the soil was only sampled out from the field. Please, clarify this point.
Response: We agree, and we have edited this sentence for a better understanding (please, see lines: 168). In addition, we apologize for this mistake.
- Line 124. These ETo annual values are similar to those we have in the Mediterranean areas, thus I expected much higher values for a hyper-arid area! Please clarify this basic aspect.
Response: The ET0 stated into the manuscript corresponds to the values from September to April (growing season ET0). In this way, as suggested, we have added annual ET0 into MyM section (please, see lines: 193-194).
Results
General comment: after you start analyzing data within a table, you can avoid recalling the same table over and over as you analyze the other data that it contains.
Response: We agree, and we really appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer. For these reasons, we have edited all the manuscript according to the proposition.
- Lines 191- 193. “According to this …”: the classification reported in this sentence does not seem related to what is written before, but rather to what is written in the following sentence! Please check this point.
Response: We agree and thank you very much for your appreciation. Based on this, we have edited the sentence (please, see lines: 319).
- Lines 197-198. This sentence should be rewritten more correctly.
Response: We really appreciate the suggestion and we have edited this sentence (please, see lines: 331).
- Lines 277-278. “…the rest of the interactions between rootstocks and seasons”: this sentence should be rewritten more clearly.
Response: Thank you so much for the suggestion. Based on the reviewer’s proposition we have edited this sentence (please, see lines: 434-442, 460).
- Lines 254-256. Most of the comparison that you mention for N, and one of those you mention for P have one letter in common with “own-roots”, thus those values are not statistically different. You should rewrite the sentence considering this fact.
Response: We agree, and we really appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer. For these reasons, we have edited the sentences that did not account the statistic interpretation (please, see lines: 434-442).
- Lines 257-259. Same comment listed above.
Response: We have edited this sentence (please, see lines: 434-442).
- Line 265-267. Values were higher in the first two seasons.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, we have edited this sentence (please, see lines: 450).
- Lines 275-277. “… Salt Creek (all seasons, except 2006-07), Freedom (all seasons) and SO4 (all seasons) showed lower Mg petiole content than …..”: same comment to lines 254-256.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, we have edited this sentence (please, see lines: 460).
- Lines 291-292. Other variables, besides those mentioned, are (+) closely associated with PC1 and PC2. Please, check this point.
Response: We have checked this point and we have added the lacked variable (please, see lines: 569).
.
- Lines 297-298. Other variables, besides those mentioned, are negatively correlated to Salt Creek, according to PC2. Please, check this point.
Response: We have checked this point. As proposed, we have edited the sentence (please, see lines: 574).
- Lines 322-323. Since PC2 divides the graph into upper (+) and lower (-) quadrants, variables in the upper quadrants are (more or less strictly) positively associated to PC2; variables in the lower quadrants are (more or less strictly) positively associated to PC2. Please check your comments.
Response: We have checked this point. However, we mentioned only the relationships with a high degree of correlation.
- Citation n. 59 is not present in the text.
Response: We have edited this citation in the text (please, see lines: 722).
Discussion
- Line 384. P deficiency may decrease (not increase) root hydraulic conductivity.
Response: We have edited this sentence in the text (please, see lines: 636-637).
- Lines 387-388. You should report (with literature) which is the range of Ravaz values that you assume as corresponding to a good balance.
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer. We think that this information could be not interesting since it is of technical knowledge.
- Line 392-393. You should report (with literature) which optimal concentration you refer to.
Response: We have added this information in the text (please, see lines: 646).
Conclusions
- Lines 473-476. “Rootstocks and season affected yield components, …” … “Rootstocks did not affect yield components …”: there is a contradiction.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, we have edited this sentence to avoid contradictory ideas (please, see lines: 768-769).
- Line 485. In the Result section, you did not mention any micronutrient toxicity, according to your nutritional standards for viticultural management. Thus the fear of microelement toxicity does not seem well founded. Please, check this point.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, we have edited this sentence according to the suggested by the reviewer (please, see lines: 819).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Table 3 do not show for yeld components (e.g. n° bunches per vine) the letters of the ANOVA.
Author Response
Thank to the reviewer for his/her suggestion. However, in table 3 non of the viticultural parameters showed statistical differences and only yield was modified by rootstocks. In this way, the table foot indicate the above mentioned.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors are to be commended for writing a manuscript that is largely free syntax problems and it is easy to follow. To me, the experimental setup and the sample size is sufficient. I have only two comments which would, in my opinion, improve this paper.
- A description of rootstocks and current knowledge of their features and usage should be included in the introduction, perhaps in the format of a table.
- Adding some images of experiments and results would greatly improve the manuscript.
Author Response
The authors are to be commended for writing a manuscript that is largely free syntax problems and it is easy to follow. To me, the experimental setup and the sample size is sufficient. I have only two comments which would, in my opinion, improve this paper.
- A description of rootstocks and current knowledge of their features and usage should be included in the introduction, perhaps in the format of a table.
Response: We really appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have added the most important roostocks feature in the Table 1. Please, see the modifications performed into the manuscript.
- Adding some images of experiments and results would greatly improve the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, but we do not have figures with a high resolution of the experiment since the project was developed some years ago. We really regret not being able to comply with the suggestion made by the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, it was my pleasure to help improve your manuscript, and I thank you for appreciating my efforts. However, some points remain to be reviewed.
Table 2. Please change "Rootsock features" to "Rootsock features assessed in Chile", as the ratings reported for some genotypes differ in part from those found in other Countries.
Table 2. See the footnote in the revised manuscript.
Line 155. See the revised manuscript.
PCA analysis. Looking at Figure 1 and 2, several variables seem to be "strongly" associated to PC1 or to PC2, hence, I assume the they have a “high” correlation coefficient. In this case, if you mention only the one (or those two) with the closest correlation to the PC, it is clearer to write, "most closely correlated".
Lines 319-320. With respect to PC2, what it is represented in Figure 2, the signs (+) and (-) are reversed. Please check this point.
Lines 470-473. Number of bunches and bunch weight are yield components. Thus, the contradiction apparently persists. Please, in the revised manuscript see my version to clarify this point.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Authors, it was my pleasure to help improve your manuscript, and I thank you for appreciating my efforts. However, some points remain to be reviewed.
Response: Dear reviewer, for us it is an honor that you have reviewed our manuscript with care and dedication. We think that your considerations have allowed us to improve the manuscript extensively. We would like to thank you for your contribution and your time more under the current difficult moments in our lifes.
Table 2. Please change "Rootsock features" to "Rootsock features assessed in Chile", as the ratings reported for some genotypes differ in part from those found in other Countries.
Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have edited this error (Table 2) and we think that the sentence is more understandable than what was previously described.
Table 2. See the footnote in the revised manuscript.
Response: We have edited the sentence according to the suggested by the reviewer.
Line 155. See the revised manuscript.
Response: We have replaced "petiole" by "petioles". We apologize for this mistake.
PCA analysis. Looking at Figure 1 and 2, several variables seem to be "strongly" associated to PC1 or to PC2, hence, I assume the they have a “high” correlation coefficient. In this case, if you mention only the one (or those two) with the closest correlation to the PC, it is clearer to write, "most closely correlated".
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion and we agree. We have edited it according to the proposion (Please, see 289-290; 321-322).
Lines 319-320. With respect to PC2, what it is represented in Figure 2, the signs (+) and (-) are reversed. Please check this point.
Response: Thank you very much for this clarification since it seems that in the first instance we did not understand it. Thanks to this suggestion, we have edited this error (please, see line 323).
Lines 470-473. Number of bunches and bunch weight are yield components. Thus, the contradiction apparently persists. Please, in the revised manuscript see my version to clarify this point.
Response: We really appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer. As in the last suggestion, it seems that in the first instance we did not understand it. Thank you very much for suggest a phrase to improve this paragraph, which we incorporate into the writing (please, see lines 477-481).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
