Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General remarks:

The authors studied the biochemical changes in three grapevine varieties during dormancy and bud burst, specifically those related to oxidative stress, carbohydrate metabolism and the hormone gibberellic acid. Additionally, the site from which the specimens originated were also taken into account for the analysis.

Overall, I have a good impression of the manuscript. The introduction provides the most necessary information without being lengthy; methods are clearly described and encompass a solid statistical analysis; results are described clearly and concise. However, the discussion is mostly a repetition of the results and can be improved greatly, I will give a few suggestions in the end of this review. Additionally, I think the motivation and the importance of the study could be presented more clearly. Apart from this, I have only minor questions and suggestions for improvement (see below).

The language needs some revision, e.g. distinction between superlative and comparative, syntax, correct use of nouns vs. verbs (e.g. “the decrease in…”, not “the decreased in…”).

Abstract:

• If possible, please give a small outlook and/or why the study is important for the field

Introduction:

• As different varieties and different sites are studied, could you give a few examples, maybe from other plant species, how variety and/or sites (climate, elevation, etc) influence bud burst or the described chemical processes?
• Line 62-64: what might be these “potential severe impacts”?
• As stated above, the motivation for the study is not very clear; what follow-up studies could build on the presented results? What could be the advantage for agriculture?

Materials and Methods:

• Plant material and growth conditions: I would appreciate to get more information about the varieties and the sites they were taken from. What are differences, what do they have in common? Also a map and a few pictures might be a great supplemental.
• Biochemical determinations: even though the material was used fresh, many units are given in “… per g DW”. How was the dry weigh assessed? When and how was the tissue dried?

Results:

• Line 216: the text reads “65.9%” of bud burst, whereas the table says “69.4%” – which one is correct?
• Table 1: please explain the abbreviations used in the table in its caption
• Line 226 and following text: please use only 3 decimal places in statistical indications
• Table 2: I assume a P-value of “0.000” actually means “< 0.001”? Please correct
• Enzymatic antioxidant activity: it might be more clear for the reader when first single factors are discussed and interaction effects (line 260 - 267) are moved to the back
• Line 280: results of GST activity have to be presented in the publication if mentioned here; either in the main manuscript or in the supplementals. The fact that it appears even in the abstract speaks for a presentation in the main text
• Line 317 – 318: this is in contrast to Fig. 4, in which not all differences between dormancy and bud burst are indicated to be significant
• 2c: are these values low or at zero? Please indicate if CAT was not detectable (n.d.)
• 4: please correct the unit (y-axis)
• General comments to all figures:
  • the font size should be increased
  • please give some information about the statistics in the caption (what exactly do the different letters indicate: comparison between phenological state, varieties or site?)

 

Discussion:

• Line 359: carbohydrates are focused on in a later paragraph, here they just confuse; consider deleting this information here
• Line 370: what is “GR”?
• Line 378: “increase of GA3 (…) at dormancy and bud burst” – what is compared here? In the results, only dormancy vs. bud burst is given, and there are no or only small changes visible
• Line 400: do you mean “meet (..) the needs” instead of “suppress”?
• Here are a few impulses for the content-related improvements of the discussion:
  • What were differences between the sites? They should be stated in the beginning and discussed for all results, similar to line 361 – and even here I miss an argumentation: how does a warmer summer explain higher MDA and proline contents?
  • What were differences between the varieties? How could those explain the differences in the biochemical parameters?
  • What was expected for the biochemical parameters in relation to the different sites and varieties and why?
  • What is known in the literature about the biochemistry during bud burst in other plant species? Do these support or contradict your findings?
  • How do you interpret the differences in bud burst (%)?
  • Proline: given the fact that proline plays a role in ROS removal, could it also be a “trouble shooter” against the increasing oxidative stress, instead of a “promoter of dormancy release”?
  • CAT: can you speculate about the patterns seen in Fig. 2c? Why are some values low or even zero, especially in the given combinations of varieties and sites?

Author Response

Upload as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Agronomy Manuscript

General comments:

- In general, this manuscript has a valuable topic. The manuscript is well written. The English language and style are fine except for moderate English language check required. The experimental design is adequate.

-There are some MINOR comments.

Detailed comments:

In general please avoid using the personal pronouns such as we , our, … and use the third party in active voice if needed.

For example line 378 our results

Line 384 we found

409 our study and more

Title:

The title is ok.

Abstract:

This section is ok and the aim of the study was clearly stated.

Keywords:

The keywords were accurately chosen.

Introduction:

This section DOEN’T provide enough background about the topic. I see that the introduction is very poor. This section needs to be enriched and provided with more background about the topic.

Materials and Methods:

The experimental design was appropriate to the current study. The methodology was adequately described

Results:

In general, The results section is well presented, and the data was very interesting.

Just some minor comments:

Table1: please add this sentence Different letters in the same column indicates significant difference.

Table2: Please explain and clarify the statistical analysis that was done for the data in table 1 and indicate that in the table

Figure 1 Line 248:  please add A and B panel as following:

Malondialdehyde (MDA) content (A) and proline content (B) at dormancy

Discussion:

This section is poorly written. It lacks the argument discussion in relation to the previous studies

• Also please relate to the data in figure 2 (A-D). Discuss the data thoroughly and in relation to the corresponding previous studies.

Conclusion:

This section provides a good conclusion for the study and includes the significant findings. Although little results were provided, this section was supported by the provided results.

-Only the author is advised to add some suggestions for further work based on the most significant findings from the current study.

References:

The authors is advised to provide enough UpToDate citations (from the last 5 years researches).  

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Upload as a PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf