Can Comparable Vine and Grape Quality Be Achieved between Organic and Integrated Management in a Warm-Temperate Area?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Minor comments

1)Abstract It is necessary to indicate the differences between Org1 and Org2.

2) Table 1 – please use a dot ‘.’ instead of comma  ‘,’  for pH and total N- values’

3) Lines 85, 87, and below: change ‘t/ha’ to ‘t ha^-1 ’

4) Line 93: please explain, what is ‘biodynamic preparation 500’

5) Line 152: why only two acids (tartaric and malic) have been analyzed?

6) Table 4- please indicate the meaning of Q1-Q3  similar to Table 5

7) line 262 and Table 5 decipher ‘ABW, VPW and RI’ in Table notes to make it possible to understand the Table data without the text

8) Line 276 – decipher ‘YAN’

10) It is highly desirable to add the data on the antioxidant status of plants/grape

11) Table 2. Decipher Org1 and Org 2 in Table notes. And the same below for all Tables and Figures

 References

12) use bold letters for year and Italics for Volume (references 1,2,24, 21, 20, 14, 12,7)

13) Ref.46- there is no abbreviation of  ‘Agronomy’

14) Ref 41- ‘1134’- is not a page but a number of the article

15)Ref 8 - the same

16) Ref 7 delete ‘volume’

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestions. Below you can find our point-by-point responses to your comments. The attachment includes the article with visible corrections.

• Abstract It is necessary to indicate the differences between Org1 and Org2.

Done, please see the attachment

• Table 1 – please use a dot ‘.’ instead of comma ‘,’  for pH and total N- values’

Done, please see the attachment

• Lines 85, 87, and below: change ‘t/ha’ to ‘t ha-1 ’

Done, please see the attachment

• Line 93: please explain, what is ‘biodynamic preparation 500’

Done, please see the attachment

• Line 152: why only two acids (tartaric and malic) have been analysed?

In this study, we chose to analyse only tartaric and malic acids, as they are the most abundant primary organic acids in must and wine. Tartaric acid is involved in the tartrate stability of wines. Malic acid is involved both in the microbiological stability of wines and is used as a chemical marker of grape ripening, as it is degraded during grape respiration.

• Table 4- please indicate the meaning of Q1-Q3 similar to Table 5

Done, please see the attachment

• Line 262 and Table 5 decipher ‘ABW, VPW and RI’ in Table notes to make it possible to understand the Table data without the text

I decipher the acronyms in the legend of table 5, please see the attachment

• Line 276 – decipher ‘YAN’

I decipher the acronyms in the legend of figure 3, please see the attachment

• It is highly desirable to add the data on the antioxidant status of plants/grape

This study did not focus on the secondary metabolite production in grapes depending on the agronomic management. These molecules are the main compounds that influence the antioxidant status of grape/must.

• Table 2. Decipher Org1 and Org 2 in Table notes. And the same below for all Tables and Figures

Done, please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 In the paper authors  aimed to compare in  a vineyard of two  in northeast Italy, the integrated agronomic practices (INT) with two types of organic management (ORG1 and ORG2), in terms of production, grape quality, pest susceptibility and soil nutrient availability.

The construction of the work is correct, the scientific sound and assumptions of the experiment are good, the methodology is adequate. It is clear that the authors thought the manuscript well.

Nowadays, the availability of mineral fertilizers is more difficult due to the geopolitical situation. Therefore, results confirming effectiveness of organic fertilization in the cultivation of various species e.g. viticulture, is the most important conclusion of the paper.

I am pleased to accept the manuscript in the present form with two small suggestions:

Table 1 – dot instead of comma in pH values, Total N,

Table 4, 5 Put the explanation of n.s. in the footnotes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestions and thoughts about our article. Below you can find our point-by-point answers to your comments. The attachment includes the article with visible corrections.

• Table 1 – dot instead of comma in pH values, Total N

Done, please see the attachment

• Table 4, 5 Put the explanation of n.s. in the footnotes

Done, please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I found the paper to be interesting and generally well-written. 

However, I believe that improvements to the paper can be made concerning the review of the scientific literature in the introductory part (can be more deepened and updated) and on the discussion of the results, where some statements and findings can be more argumentized and detailed with more appropriate references to other similar works.

Please take also note of the following suggestions

LINE 16: Cvs. Names not in Italics (as well as for same other occurrences in the text)

LINE 35: This reported (old and partial) reference can conveniently be substituted by quoting OIV

LINE 39: These references (3-5) are related to vegetables. Are you sure that more viticulture-relevant references are not available?

LINES 50-54: Please, consider including more recent literature (e.g.: Keesstra et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009; Pisciotta et al. Cover Crop and Pruning Residue Management to Reduce Nitrogen Mineral Fertilization in Mediterranean Vineyards. Agronomy 2021, 11, 164).

LINES 59-60: Please specify Kopper classification code (Cfb?).

2.1. Site description and experimental design: Please, consider including temperature and precipitation average values.

LINE 86: Can you specify the amount of manure per hectare?

LINE 91: the initial letter of family names in uppercase (as well as for same other occurrences in the text).

LINE 93: a brief explanation of what biodynamic preparation 500 is? Consider adding quotation marks. Moreover in Table 2 is also reported for the first time a 501 preparation, not previously detailed! 

TABLE 1: Line 74 remove the brackets from 0-40.

LINES 83-97: Although information is provided in the text (in some case incompletely, e.g. lines 84-85 where only N is reported, but not P and K…), a summary table of the various mineral elements provided in the different theses could facilitate reading and comparisons.

TABLE 2: Organic manure (biannual). Change “biannual” (i.e. occurring twice a year) with “every two years” (as correctly reported in line 87).

TABLE 2: Change “Pneumatic leaf removing in flowering” with “Pneumatic leaf removing at flowering”.

TABLE 2: Correct “Lobersia” to “Lobesia”

LINE 123: Prefer “annual” instead of “vegetative”

LINE 125: Prefer “Ten grams of…” instead of “10 g of…”.

LINE 33: Prefer “grapevines” instead of “grapes”

LINE 160: Prefer “Incidence and severity percentages” instead of “Incidence % and severity %”.

LINES 190-194: Too long! Insert a full-stop after [21].

LINES 198-200: The reported data about vine mineral uptakes are desumed from the literature! Thus, these statements are perhaps too emphasized, and my suggestion is therefore to mitigate the resulting claims. The same is true also for lines 192-193. Furthermore mineral uptake exerted by the cover crops has not been evaluated or discussed.

LINE 204: prefer “INT” instead of “integrated”

FIG. 2: TITLE: “Mineral N dynamics (extractable N-NO3-) in soils of Rhine Riesling for INT, ORG1 and ORG2 theses from 2016 to 2018 (N=5)”. Consider changing to “Soil mineral N dynamics (extractable N-NO3-) in Rhine Riesling vineyards submitted to INT, ORG1 and ORG2 management treatments in 2016-2018 (N=5)”. Moreover, consider also changing Fig. 1 title accordingly! 

LINE 242: Prefer “among” instead of “between”.

LINE 244: Prefer “foliar P content” instead of “P in leaves” and apply contingent revision along the paragraph.

TAB. 4: TITLE: “Macro and micronutrient concentrations (d.w.) in leaves of the vines (median, minimum, maximum, first and third quartile in the three-year period for each cultivar and thesis, N=6)”. Consider changing to: “Foliar macro and micronutrient concentrations (d.w.) per cultivar and thesis in the three-year period (median, minimum, maximum, first and third quartile, N=6)” i.e. more similar to the title of Tab. 5.

LINES 307-308: Unclear. Please, rephrase.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your suggestions and thoughts about our article. Below you can find our point-by-point answers to your comments. The attachment includes the article with visible corrections.

• I believe that improvements to the paper can be made concerning the review of the scientific literature in the introductory part (can be more deepened and updated) and on the discussion of the results, where some statements and findings can be more argumentized and detailed with more appropriate references to other similar works.

Thank you for your suggestions. We integrated the introduction and the discussion of results with more references. Please, see the attachment in Introduction and Results and discussion paragraph (lines 35,40,44,47,54,56,59-64,208,237,275-278)

• LINE 16: Cvs. Names not in Italics (as well as for same other occurrences in the text)

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 35: This reported (old and partial) reference can conveniently be substituted by quoting OIV

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 39: These references (3-5) are related to vegetables. Are you sure that more viticulture-relevant references are not available?

We changed and integrated the references with others related to viticulture. Please see the attachment

• LINES 50-54: Please, consider including more recent literature (e.g.: Keesstra et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009; Pisciotta et al. Cover Crop and Pruning Residue Management to Reduce Nitrogen Mineral Fertilization in Mediterranean Vineyards. Agronomy 2021, 11, 164).

Thank you for your suggestions, we included the indicated literature and additional citations, please see the attachment

• LINES 59-60: Please specify Kopper classification code (Cfb?).

Done, please see the attachment

• 1. Site description and experimental design: Please, consider including temperature and precipitation average values.

The meteorological data are illustrated in Supplementary materials. We add the reference in the text of 2.1 paragraph

• LINE 86: Can you specify the amount of manure per hectare?

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 91: the initial letter of family names in uppercase (as well as for same other occurrences in the text).

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 93: a brief explanation of what biodynamic preparation 500 is? Consider adding quotation marks. Moreover in Table 2 is also reported for the first time a 501 preparation, not previously detailed!

Thank you for your suggestions. We add a description of both preparations in the text (paragraph 2.1)

• TABLE 1: Line 74 remove the brackets from 0-40.

Done, please see the attachment

• LINES 83-97: Although information is provided in the text (in some case incompletely, e.g. lines 84-85 where only N is reported, but not P and K…), a summary table of the various mineral elements provided in the different theses could facilitate reading and comparisons.

Thank you for your suggestion. We added in the text the amount of K and P provided by mineral fertiliser and manure.

• TABLE 2: Organic manure (biannual). Change “biannual” (i.e. occurring twice a year) with “every two years” (as correctly reported in line 87).

Done, please see the attachment

• TABLE 2: Change “Pneumatic leaf removing in flowering” with “Pneumatic leaf removing at flowering”.

Done, please see the attachment

• TABLE 2: Correct “Lobersia” to “Lobesia”

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 123: Prefer “annual” instead of “vegetative”

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 125: Prefer “Ten grams of…” instead of “10 g of…”.

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 133: Prefer “grapevines” instead of “grapes”

Done, please see the attachment

• LINE 160: Prefer “Incidence and severity percentages” instead of “Incidence % and severity %”.

Done, please see the attachment

• LINES 190-194: Too long! Insert a full-stop after [21].

Done, please see the attachment

• LINES 198-200: The reported data about vine mineral uptakes are desumed from the literature! Thus, these statements are perhaps too emphasized, and my suggestion is therefore to mitigate the resulting claims. The same is true also for lines 192-193. Furthermore, mineral uptake exerted by the cover crops has not been evaluated or discussed.

Thank you for your observations. We made less emphasised the data from literature both in line 198-200 and in line 192-193. Mineral uptake by the cover crops has not been investigated, as the chopping of green manure allows temporarily sequestered elements to return to the soil.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx