Review Reports - Natural Oils and Decoctions Produced in the Vineyard as Plant Protection Products for Viticulture Under the Climatic Conditions of Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have already reviewed this paper and provided my comments on a previous occasion. I re-read the work very carefully and in detail, adding new comments.It appears that the authors have attempted to address some of these comments, but their efforts are unsatisfactory. Most of the paper has been resubmitted with the same text and errors as in the previous review. In my opinion, this is a major shortcoming, as the authors did not correct a significant number of issues, starting from the introduction, the incorrectly placed review, the poorly interpreted results, and the discussion, which does not adequately reflect the results from a scientific perspective. I believe the authors must, in accordance with the journal’s rules, make significant corrections to the paper.

Upon reviewing the revised paper, I have determined the following. The authors have made some effort to revise the paper and bring it up to the standards and requirements of Applied Science journal. A small portion of the paper has been appropriately corrected, while the remainder, in my opinion, has not been revised and requires further improvement in line with the comments. It is concerning that the authors responded to most comments by stating that corrections had been made, while the text remained unchanged with the same errors. It appears that the comments were addressed superficially, and the text was revised hastily, disregarding the existing comments and requests for correction. The paper still contains major shortcomings of both a technical and scientific nature. Scientific english it is problem. I will present some of these shortcomings.

As I have already reviewed the paper once, read it again, and made suggestions, I am repeating the same with the comments included in the text.

Given that the climatic conditions of the locality are fundamental to the paper, I suggested including the climatic parameters of the site where the experiment was conducted. The authors believe that, although climate is a factor in the experiment, they did not include the data or link the results with climatic factors. In the new version, the climatic parameters are not logically presented. They are carelessly divided between the beginning and end of the Materials and Methods chapter. Considering the topic and the importance of climatic factors, it is necessary to present them in a Results section, a sub-section, and analyze them in detail (especially precipitation and humidity) due to the potential development of abolest.

In the Materials and Methods section, there are still inconsistencies regarding the extremely high yields in the first and second years after planting (results in a table), as well as the methodology and treatment of the experiment itself. The tables are also unclearly designed is not clear separated control, standard and organic spraying. For most comments, no textual additions or explanations were made, although the authors stated that they accepted and implemented the suggestions.

The discussion has been significantly corrected and supplemented. However, there are very few references, which should be increased according to the topic of the paper and linked to other authors who have addressed the same or similar topics. Also, much of the discussion is generalized without scientific commentary appropriate to the journal’s rank.

The Conclusion section must be modified in accordance with the results; it is generalized and does not properly reflect the findings.

The list of references has not been expanded or adjusted as requested, although the authors claim in their response that they have done so.

Among the many technical omissions, I emphasize the order of presentation of qualitative parameters and pH, which the authors express in g/l, although pH is a value without a unit. The total amount of acids determined in the titration process is expressed in g/l. These are some of the comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language must be revised with significant corrections and the use of appropriate professional terminology. The lack of scientific content in the work is largely due to the improper use of phrases.

Author Response

I have already reviewed this paper and provided my comments on a previous occasion. I re-read the work very carefully and in detail, adding new comments. It appears that the authors have attempted to address some of these comments, but their efforts are unsatisfactory. Most of the paper has been resubmitted with the same text and errors as in the previous review. In my opinion, this is a major shortcoming, as the authors did not correct a significant number of issues, starting from the introduction, the incorrectly placed review, the poorly interpreted results, and the discussion, which does not adequately reflect the results from a scientific perspective. I believe the authors must, in accordance with the journal’s rules, make significant corrections to the paper.

Dear Reviewer, we have carefully read the latest comments from each of the reviews we received. The reviewers' conclusions and reservations were often contradictory, so we have made every effort to respond to all questions and comments.

We also benefited from the support of professional language proofreading recommended by the publishing house. A language certificate was issued for proofreading and is available on our MDPI portal.

As I have already reviewed the paper once, read it again, and made suggestions, I am repeating the same with the comments included in the text.

Information on precipitation and average temperatures has been added. Geographically, Poland is located in a moderate, transitional climate zone. From a viticultural perspective, we are classified as a country in climate zone B, or the so-called cool climate countries. This is confirmed by the significant number of Polish vineyards presented during the Cool Climate Summit in Copenhagen in January 2026 (https://coolclimatesummit.com/copenhagen-2026/). Climate is not a research factor in the experiment; it is a condition for conducting field cultivation experiments. It illustrates the conditions under which the experiment is conducted.

The title of the article has been changed, as suggested by a professional text editor.

The tables clearly indicate the type of combination. Each table provides data for chemical protection, no protection, and experimental factors, as required.

The Conclusion section must be modified in accordance with the results; it is generalized and does not properly reflect the findings.

The list of references has not been expanded or adjusted as requested, although the authors claim in their response that they have done so.

Of course, we've corrected the information regarding pH, which lacks eidnostics, for which we are grateful. We've also modified the conclusions based on suggestions from other reviewers and the language editor.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-conducted, field-based study evaluating homemade and commercial bio-based plant protection products in a real-world Polish viticultural setting. The research addresses a timely and relevant topic — sustainable, organic viticulture under cold-climate conditions — with clear practical implications for small-scale growers and organic producers. The manuscript is generally well-written, with solid experimental design and appropriate statistical analysis.

However, several significant issues related to clarity, methodology, data presentation, and interpretation must be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication.

1. Line 31–32: Improved the quality of the harvested grapes — too vague. Specify which quality parameters? Sugar, acidity, disease incidence? Be precise.

Line 36: No detectable fungicide residues — this is a major strength, but it’s not quantified. Did you use LC-MS/MS? GC-MS? State the detection limit. This is critical for organic certification claims.

Line 44–45: It’s spreading in all country grammatically incorrect. Replace with: It is spreading throughout the country.

Line 69–70: Various types of pathogens are used... This sentence is confusing. You likely mean various types of control agents (not pathogens).

Line 77–79: You state average annual rainfall = 457 mm and temp = 9.5°C, but no source or period is given. Is this 2023? 2024? 5-year average?

6.Line 135–136: Total participation were 457 mm (Figure 1) I think Participation is incorrect. Should be Total precipitation.

7.Line 118: 1 L of water... fermented for 3 days. What was the container? Sealed? Open? Temperature controlled?

8.Line 123: Fresh dried hot pepper — contradictory. Fresh and dried cannot both be true.

Line 125: Lavender oil — home-made in Island Vis, Croatia. Not a location. Island of Vis is correct. Correct to: lavender essential oil (Lavandula angustifolia), home-made on the Island of Vis, Croatia

Line 106–107: You list citric oil, orange oil, lavender oil as separate treatments — but are they diluted in water only, or with emulsifier? Essential oils are hydrophobic.

Line 131–133: Duncan test in MS Excel and Statistica 11. Duncan’s test is outdated and less robust than Tukey’s HSD or LSD with correction for multiple comparisons. I think replace Duncan’s test with Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference), which is standard in horticultural journals. Also: Clarify whether ANOVA was performed before post-hoc testing. This is implied but not stated.

Line 142-143 Standard chemical protection is mentioned repeatedly but not described in detail.
Line 216, 223, 231: pH unit is written as g·L⁻¹，this is incorrect. pH is unitless. TA (titratable acidity) is correctly expressed in g·L⁻¹ (tartaric acid equivalent).

Line 164 The author state HDT18 achieved the same yield as chemical protection, but Table 1 shows Chemical: 2.80 kg/trunk, HDT18: 2.40 kg/trunk, 14% lower, I think the sentence should revise as: HDT18 achieved 86% of the yield of chemical control, but significantly higher than the untreated control. Avoid overstatement.

In table 4: Wrotycz and no protection had higher pH, but higher pH is often associated with rot (such as Botrytis disease), which is a risk for winemaking. The authors should analyze potential measures in the discussion.

Line 255–256: Each preparation that reduced infected bunches could be useful for combine harvesting — this is a key finding, but needs emphasis.

Reference 20: OIV website — should be cited as:

OIV (2023). Compendium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/standards/compendium-of-international-methods-of-wine-and-must-analysis (accessed on 2024-10-15).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the work you put into reviewing our article

However, several significant issues related to clarity, methodology, data presentation, and interpretation must be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication.

Line 31–32: Improved the quality of the harvested grapes — too vague. Specify which quality parameters? Sugar, acidity, disease incidence? Be precise.

We corrected it

Line 36: No detectable fungicide residues — this is a major strength, but it’s not quantified. Did you use LC-MS/MS? GC-MS? State the detection limit. This is critical for organic certification claims.

We corrected it – add PN-EN number, both of them are used depending on substance analised. – line 155 in material and metohodes

Line 44–45: It’s spreading in all country grammatically incorrect. Replace with: It is spreading throughout the country.

We corrected it (line 39)

Line 69–70: Various types of pathogens are used... This sentence is confusing. You likely mean various types of control agents (not pathogens).

We corrected it

Line 77–79: You state average annual rainfall = 457 mm and temp = 9.5°C, but no source or period is given. Is this 2023? 2024? 5-year average?

It’s time during experiment – 2024 y.

6.Line 135–136: Total participation were 457 mm (Figure 1) I think Participation is incorrect. Should be Total precipitation.

We delete this Figure at all

7.Line 118: 1 L of water... fermented for 3 days. What was the container? Sealed? Open? Temperature controlled?

It was made in open container (glass), to the natural finish of fermentation.

8.Line 123: Fresh dried hot pepper — contradictory. Fresh and dried cannot both be true.

Dried hot pepper (we harvest it from our planting and dry), corrected

Line 125: Lavender oil — home-made in Island Vis, Croatia. Not a location. Island of Vis is correct. Correct to: lavender essential oil (Lavandula angustifolia), home-made on the Island of Vis, Croatia

Corrected

Line 106–107: You list citric oil, orange oil, lavender oil as separate treatments — but are they diluted in water only, or with emulsifier? Essential oils are hydrophobic.

We use it as a emulsion, we mix it all the time during application, corrected

Line 131–133: Duncan test in MS Excel and Statistica 11. Duncan’s test is outdated and less robust than Tukey’s HSD or LSD with correction for multiple comparisons. I think replace Duncan’s test with Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference), which is standard in horticultural journals. Also: Clarify whether ANOVA was performed before post-hoc testing. This is implied but not stated.

I was Tuckey/s test

Line 142-143 Standard chemical protection is mentioned repeatedly but not described in detail.

Standard chemical protection was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the grapevine protection program for 2024. Siarkol 800 SC was used twice a season, Ridomil Gold MZ Pepite 67.8 WG once a season, Miedzian 50 WP once a season.

Line 216, 223, 231: pH unit is written as g·L⁻¹，this is incorrect. pH is unitless. TA (titratable acidity) is correctly expressed in g·L⁻¹ (tartaric acid equivalent).

We corrected

Line 164 The author state HDT18 achieved the same yield as chemical protection, but Table 1 shows Chemical: 2.80 kg/trunk, HDT18: 2.40 kg/trunk, 14% lower, I think the sentence should revise as: HDT18 achieved 86% of the yield of chemical control, but significantly higher than the untreated control. Avoid overstatement.

HDT18 treatment of both grape varieties resulted in the same yield as untreated grapes, while tansy and lemon oil treatments reduced overall yield. HDT18 achieved 86% of the yield achieved by chemical treatment, but significantly higher than the untreated control, with a low percentage of grapes infected with fungal diseases.,

corrected

In table 4: Wrotycz and no protection had higher pH, but higher pH is often associated with rot (such as Botrytis disease), which is a risk for winemaking. The authors should analyze potential measures in the discussion.

Using of “wrotycz” causes higher pH in must what can causes problems with diseases stabilisation during fermentation time. We add this sentence

Line 255–256: Each preparation that reduced infected bunches could be useful for combine harvesting — this is a key finding, but needs emphasis.

We add: Reducing clusters damaged during mechanical harvesting can significantly alter the quality of the must when manual selection is not performed. In this case, eliminating defective clusters on the vine is crucial to the quality of the must and wine.

Reference 20: OIV website — should be cited as:

We corrected it

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After re-reading the paper, I noticed that the authors made most of the corrections and made an extra effort to improve the quality of the work. However, despite these corrections, some errors remain that can be easily rectified.

Furthermore, the climatic data are included in the Materials and Methods chapter, but according to the title, they should be presented as a subchapter in the Results section with a specific comment, as indicated by the title. The monthly temperature is reported, but it should actually be the average monthly temperature. The total annual precipitation is given as an incredible 5484 mm, with August, which the authors state is the rainiest month, receiving 1178 mm. However, when searching for climate parameters in Poland, I could not find data even close to these figures. Since the authors state that the data were taken from a nearby weather station, it is necessary to verify the accuracy of these data, as they deviate significantly from actual values. The authors state that climate is not a significant factor in conducting the experiment, yet they cite climate data without providing any reason for its influence on the experiment. In that case, the question arises: if the authors hold this view, why do they include climate data in the title and text of the paper if it has no significance for the experiment?

In the tables, the column shows the amount of grapes used for microvinification, but it is still expressed in kg/vine, which is illogical. The yield column can be in kg/vine, but in this column it should be expressed only in kg. The discussion has been expanded and corrected, and in my opinion, it is possible to add more references. Overall, the authors should correct the errors I have listed, as they are clearly visible and can be identified by anyone familiar with the topic.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2 expects weather in the methodology and it was not an experimental factor, but the weather conditions.

We apologize for the values in Table 1. These were data from completely different studies, mistakenly pasted into the table. This has been corrected.

Climatic data are provided to confirm the cool climate prevailing in the wine-growing areas and to support the selection of hybrid varieties for testing.

Vinification is about the size of the yield from a vine of fruit suitable for wine production.

In our research, yield was converted to stem lengths. Therefore, this is the unit used in the table.

Unfortunately, we didn't find any relevant articles for discussion. Perhaps our ability to browse world literature is limited. If the reviewer would be willing to point out such articles, we'd be happy to use them.

The text was translated by a native speaker at the MDPI publishing house.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All required revisions have been completed. and i have no further suggestions

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive review.

The publication was written by a native speaker selected by MDPI.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript well defined, easy to understand. The topic is compatible with the journal’s scope.

The abstract, in one paragraph, included the aim, method, results and conclusions and represents an objective presentation of the article.

Choose keywords that do not appear in the title of the manuscript.

The introduction briefly defines the purpose of the paper and its significance, as well as a overview of previous research, citing literature that may need to be supplemented.

Lines 53 54 - It is appropriate to use the term agriculture instead of horticulture.

Lines 60-61- Include a reference/references.

Line 66 - Why are Materials and Methods listed after Discussion? That's not according to the journal's propositions.

The results are significant and relevant. Tables are suitable, with the note that Tables 1 to 6 require a legend for abbreviations in the "Combination" column or entry of the full word.

In Table 3 and probably Table 6 (Table 3 is repeated in the Line 141), specify the meaning of “hot paprika”. "Hot pepper" can be both Habanero and Chilli, it is important to specify because you stated that there is a commercial preparation that contains Chili and a homemade one that contains Habanero. In your manuscript, you mention the terms “paprika” and “pepper”. It would be good if you agreed on the terminology because paprika (Capsicum annuum) belongs fam. Solanaceae while papper (Piper nigrum) belongs fam. Piperaceae which can lead to a wrong conclusion.

Line 124 - A sentence referring to the chapter Materials and Methods. Move the sentence.

Line 141 - the table in Line 122 is marked with the same number (3), probably it should have been written Table 6.

The discussion is in accordance with the presented results.

The Materials and methods section needs to be supplemented. this chapter complete with a sentence where you state the parameter (Total yield, etc. pH, etc.) that you examined and on the basis of which you reached conclusions. State whether the pH test applies only to the must.

Line 184 - Delete the period after the word diseases.

Lines 193 – 194 - Include a reference/references.

Line 200 - State the number under which the reference is located on the reference list.

Line 198 - Does the work include analyses of wine or just analyses of must? If you have analyzed both, data for Analyses of wine is missing. Please specify the parameter you specifically analyzed, as the Wine Analyzer Lysa 5000 measures more than 15 parameters.

Conclusions justified and supported by the results, consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Line 204 - Replace the specified term "synthetic" plant protection products with chemicals plant protection products or standard pesticides (fungicides).

Specify the reference according to the journal's propositions.

The results of this research are important in the development of integrated agricultural production. It was shown that combinations of biological preparations aimed at protecting the vineyard were less effective than commercial chemical preparations. The selected preparations had a different effect on the quality and size of crop production. It has been shown that plant protection products can also be natural products of own production in the cultivation system of the PIWI variety.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualified to comment on the quality of the English language as it is not my native language.

Author Response

Manuscript well defined, easy to understand. The topic is compatible with the journal’s scope.

The abstract, in one paragraph, included the aim, method, results and conclusions and represents an objective presentation of the article.

Choose keywords that do not appear in the title of the manuscript.

We change for: Vitis vinifera; grape; organic production; most quality; yield.

The introduction briefly defines the purpose of the paper and its significance, as well as a overview of previous research, citing literature that may need to be supplemented.

Lines 53 54 - It is appropriate to use the term agriculture instead of horticulture.

We changed for ‘agricuture”

Lines 60-61- Include a reference/references.

We added

Line 66 - Why are Materials and Methods listed after Discussion? That's not according to the journal's propositions.

We changed it, we set the correct order

The results are significant and relevant. Tables are suitable, with the note that Tables 1 to 6 require a legend for abbreviations in the "Combination" column or entry of the full word.

Probably it calls info about names of cultivars, we use full word.

We standardized the nomenclature for the hot pepper Capsicum annum 'Habanero orange', as that's what we used to make our homemade product. In the case of the commercial product, the description only included the term "Chili & Garlic," and it's difficult to determine the exact type of pepper used in its production, so we use the trade name.

Line 124 - A sentence referring to the chapter Materials and Methods. Move the sentence.

We moved it to Materials and Methods

Line 141 - the table in Line 122 is marked with the same number (3), probably it should have been written Table 6.

We changed for Table 6.

The discussion is in accordance with the presented results.

We add sentence: We test the influence of used tested factors for pH of must, total acidity and sugar content in most. We also check total yielding and yield useful to vinification.

Line 184 - Delete the period after the word diseases.

We did it

Lines 193 – 194 - Include a reference/references.

It is not references but equipment setting

Line 200 - State the number under which the reference is located on the reference list.

Position 20

We use in this publication only analyses of must. We compare only parameters used in tables 3-6 9pH, TA, sugar content)

Conclusions justified and supported by the results, consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Line 204 - Replace the specified term "synthetic" plant protection products with chemicals plant protection products or standard pesticides (fungicides).

We changed it for standard chemical plant protection products.

Specify the reference according to the journal's propositions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors demonstrated research based on the natural oils and decoctions produced on the farm as plant protection outputs in viticulture in the era of climate change, especially production and must quality on PIWI cultivars. The article is well presented with significant information. I have some specific comments, as stated below. It should be corrected before acceptance.

Authors' affiliations are incomplete, plz check it.

L16: Please mention clearly the 'Seven types of preparations" for readers

L17-18: Yeast name should be italic

L19: standard fungicides??? mention the names

L24: The self-produced preparations used reduced yield (???%)

L29: Key message of the study is missing, plz add it at the end of the abstract

L34-36: not clear??

Entire the introduction, some sentences are not very clear for better understanding. Please improve it with better clarity

The objective of the research should be improved.

L70, 91, 110: Cvs should be cultivars

Table 1: Valid yield means?? Total yield unit (??)

In all Tables: Statistical letters should be superscript

Results: Overall comment, the result findings are fine, but the language of the tested parameters is very confusing. It should be improved with better expression.

L148: Discussion section should be an in-depth analysis with more recent literature.

L177: grape varieties (????) in 2023

L186: Field studies were conducted in the form of strict field experiments, ??????? its incomplete

L187-188: Healthy plants were selected, without diseases, deficiencies, or other defects, for what???

L203: The Conclusion is not very clear, andthe future research gap is missing

Author Response

Authors' affiliations are incomplete, plz check it.

We checked and add

L16: Please mention clearly the 'Seven types of preparations" for readers

We wrote: Seven types of preparations on the grape farm were tested, as well as two commercial biological preparations and chemical standard protection (control 1), and no protection (control 2).

L17-18: Yeast name should be italic

We corrected

L19: standard fungicides??? mention the names

We add: preparations based on copper and sulfur, such as Siarkol extra, Miedzian 50 WP

L24: The self-produced preparations used reduced yield (???%)

Yes, probably it’s possible to. Yes, some of the home-made preparations will probably damage the flowers or cause burns to these organs.

L29: Key message of the study is missing, plz add it at the end of the abstract

We add: however, it may cause a reduction in the total yield, at the same time reducing the number of grapes unsuitable for vinification.

L34-36: not clear??

Entire the introduction, some sentences are not very clear for better understanding. Please improve it with better clarity

We changed for: Viticulture in Poland is still increasing dynamic. It’s spreading in all country, not only in the best regions with the best climatic and soil conditions, spread in west-south part of country [1], but at traditional region of apple cultivation too.

The objective of the research should be improved. - changed

L70, 91, 110: Cvs should be cultivars

We changed it

Table 1: Valid yield means?? Total yield unit (??)

Total yield means weight for all grapes harvested. Valid yield means weight of grapes without clear symptoms of fungal diseases, damaged, unsuitable for vinification.

In all Tables: Statistical letters should be superscript

?????

Results: Overall comment, the result findings are fine, but the language of the tested parameters is very confusing. It should be improved with better expression.

We changed according to information for other comments

L148: Discussion section should be an in-depth analysis with more recent literature.

L177: grape varieties (????) in 2023

We need to information which preparation will be not useful at all

L186: Field studies were conducted in the form of strict field experiments, ??????? its incomplete

We corrected

L187-188: Healthy plants were selected, without diseases, deficiencies, or other defects, for what???

Because the starting plant materials will be simiar

L203: The Conclusion is not very clear, and the future research gap is missing

We corrected it for: Replacing synthetic plant protection products with natural products of our own production is possible for PIWI varieties on vineyard. The use of such agents may reduce the total yield, but often also eliminates damaged fruit. On the bushes we have more useful grapes to vinification. Ready-made preparations, commercial, had a significant negative impact on the size of the good quality crop, and solutions prepared independently in the vineyard turned out to be more beneficial.

Very favorable results were obtained using HDT 18 yeast, mint and hot pepper decoction. The least favorable results in the study were obtained with orange oil, the preparation "wrotycz" and "chili&garlic", which is not recommended to use in vineyards wit tested cultivars.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the idea of the paper is topical and well founded. On the other hand, the authors have not elaborated the idea sufficiently well. The paper has a lot of shortcomings, all chapters are mostly short with extremely brief explanations. The introductory section is very short, in which the authors only inadequately outline the topic of the paper. The title refers to climatic conditions, but the text contains no climatic data. At least not any fundamental ones. The results are presented very briefly and in other places quite controversially and contradictorily. For example, the ratio of total acids to pH values and the content of accumulated sugars is completely inconsistent. It is necessary to check the data again and analyse it in detail. The lack of scientific tone with which the comments should be entered is problematic. The material and methodology are not presented well enough and contain many flaws. It is necessary to add more concret references. The general conclusion is that the paper needs to be significantly revised and supplemented to fit the category of the journal in which it is published. After correction, publication should be reconsidered.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor corrections required before acceptance, details as stated below:

L34: plant botanical name should be italic, and check the entire article

L112, 132, 157, 164, and so on: Table 1,2,3,4..... All table values should be corrected as "." not a comma, for ex. Table 1, values as 2.80^{c*, not}2,80c*, 2.80^c, not 2,80c...............

Author Response

Line 34 - corrected

all tables were corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

Having reviewed the corrected paper, I have determined the following. The authors have made some effort to revise the paper and bring it up to the level and requirements of the journal Applied Science. A small part of the paper has been appropriately corrected, while the remainder, in my opinion, has not been revised and requires further refinement in accordance with the comments. It is concerning that the authors responded to most of the comments by stating that corrections had been made, while in fact the text remained unchanged with the same errors. It appears that the comments were superficially addressed, and the text was revised very quickly, disregarding the existing comments and requests for correction. The paper still contains major shortcomings of both a technical and scientific nature. I will present some of these shortcomings.

The title of the paper is:
Natural Oils and Decoctions Produced on Vineyard as Plant Protection Products in Viticulture in the Climatic Conditions of Poland: Yield and Must Quality on PIWI Cultivars

Given that the climatic conditions of the locality are fundamental to the paper, suggestion was to include the climatic parameters of the site where the experiment was conducted. The authors believe that, although climate is one of the factors in the experiment, they did not include the data or link the obtained results with climatic factors.

In the Materials and methods section, there are still inconsistencies regarding the extremely high yields in the second year after planting, as well as the methodology and treatment of the experiment itself. For most of the comments, no textual additions or explanations were made, although the authors stated that they accepted the suggestions and implemented them.

Regarding the Discussion section, it is unacceptable that it is limited to one large and one small paragraph with only two cited references. It is expected that, in the discussion, the authors justify the aims of the study and relate them to the results of other authors.

The Conclusion section has not been modified in accordance with the obtained results; it is generalised and does not properly reflect the results.

The list of references has not been expanded or adjusted as requested, although the authors claim in their response that they have done so.

Of the many technical omissions, I emphasise the order of presentation of qualitative parameters, and pH, which the authors include in g/l, although pH has only a value and not a unit. In g/l, the total amount of acids determined in the titration process is expressed. These are some of the comments.

I suggest to the authors that, for the sake of the quality of the work and the reputation of the journal in which it would be published, they make additional efforts to address and eliminate the shortcomings I have mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviever - cool climate means in grape production that the location of viticulture. Unfortunatelly it's not a vlimatic conditions in the year of experiment (in this case information about temerature and humidity will be usefun). We add info about temperature and humidity, but in our opinion it is not a consensus of this article.

we have done all comments. Some of the reviewers' comments are mutually exclusive and it is impossible to improve them to satisfy the contradictory opinions.

High yields in the second year after planting, in crops allowed to fully bear fruit, are a fact. These are the results we achieved and we cannot change them based on the reviewer's comments. This is how the plants yielded this year, and unfortunately, we cannot alter this result. Please note that the study involved PIWI varieties, which are naturally characterized by higher yields. Due to the nature of the experiment, yields were not limited this season. we add one senteces about level of yielding in "results"