Phenology Based Variability of Tissue Nutrient Content in Mature Muscadine Vines (Vitis rotundifolia cv. Carlos)
Stephen J. Stringer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I have no aditional suggestions
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors have incorporated almost all the suggestions given in first round of review. The authors have done a good job and I would like to congratulate them for bringing their research to the target readers in good shape.
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
See attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1 Comments
Line 12
Reviewer Comments: remove "muscadine" ; redundant.
Author Comments: We have removed “muscadine” to reduce redundancy
Line 13:
Reviewer Comments: remove hyphen
Author Comments: Hyphen has been removed in “phenology-based”
Line 25
Reviewer Comments: remove hyphen
Author Comments: It looks like MS Word may be adding these hyphens when converted to PDF as our original word document does not show one but the PDF does.
Line 26
Reviewer Comments: add “that”
Author Comments: “That” has been added
Line 26
Reviewer Comments: add “the”
Author Comments: “the” has been added
Line 35
Reviewer Comments: remove "a grape species, (redundant)
Author Comments: Removed “a grape species”
Line 35
Reviewer Comments: I suggest deleting the period and continuing the sentence with "and have been utilized for processing juice, wine, and jellies as well as for fresh berry consumption for centuries."
Author Comments: We have combined the first two sentences
Line 37-38
Reviewer Comments: Delete entire sentence (redundant)
Author Comments: This sentence has been deleted
Lines 39-50
Reviewer Comments: Although interesting, I don't see how the rest of the discussion in this paragraph is really pertinent to nutrient testing. I suggest you delete it and tie in to the next paragraph.
Author Comments: We have deleted this section and tied it directly to the next paragraph on nutrition.
Line 52
Author Comments: delete "plant"
Reviewer Comments: “plant” has been deleted
Line 61
Reviewer Comments: remove “the”
Author Comments: removed
Line 72
Reviewer Comments: remove "of knowledge on the"
Author Comments: removed
Line 73
Reviewer Comments: remove "and recommendation"
Author Comments: removed
Line 75
Reviewer Comments: remove “mostly”
Author Comments: Removed
Line 77
Reviewer Comments:
Author Comments: These sentences have been adjusted to “Research to develop nutrient sufficiency ranges for muscadine production is mostly based on those of Jones and Mills from 1996 [3,31]. These are limited to macro and micronutrient ranges during bloom only. The need for additional research to establish tissue nutrient concentration thresholds for fertilizer application timing has been suggested (27).”
Table 3
Reviewer Comments: add superscript “w”
Author Comments: This has been added
Line 219
Reviewer Comments: change "demand" to "necessity"
Author Comments: This has been adjusted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In abstract, the importance of work needs to be concise and the result part need to be described elaborately.
Introduction: The 1st and 2nd paragraphs are required to be made into one paragraph describing about the importance of the crop in the national economy.
Materials and Methods
Methodology part is well written. However, the authors need to mention the procedures followed for digestion and estimation of elements with references and instruments used for estimation with model and make.
Results
The result part is required to be elaborated. And criteria for selecting the right stage for sample collection is not justified. The authors need to use some indices kind of things to judge the sampling period. Only variability of nutrient concentration is not enough to judge the suitability of sampling leaf tissue. Rather it should be based on plant response to fertilizer application.
Discussion
This part needs thorough revision on explaining the results with the support of scientific facts and findings and references. At the introduction part, the authors hypothesized that there is no proper guidelines for sampling plant tissues for nutritional status assessment. But after studying the full article I could not get any concrete guidelines for sampling plant tissues for nutritional status assessment. So, please justify the importance of work on the light of advancement of science.
Author Response
Abstract
Reviewer Comments: In abstract, the importance of work needs to be concise and the result part need to be described elaborately.
Author comments: We removed some discussion points to make the abstract more concise and included more specific examples of macronutrient differences based on tissue type to provide more specific results. We also changed the paper title!
Introduction
Reviewer comments: The 1st and 2nd paragraphs are required to be made into one paragraph describing about the importance of the crop in the national economy.
Author comments: Based on Reviewer 1 comments, we eliminated some of the background information on muscadines not pertinent to the paper and combined paragraphs 1 and 2.
Materials and Methods
Reviewer comments: Methodology part is well written. However, the authors need to mention the procedures followed for digestion and estimation of elements with references and instruments used for estimation with model and make.
Author comments: We initially included an abbreviated summary of the methods to measure nutrient content which was carried out by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture Agronomic Division. Their detailed procedures are outlined in a 10 page document (cited in the manuscript). This document is available here: https://www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/documents/NCDACS_Plant_Analysis_Methods.pdf. We believe that the citation of this document is sufficient, as it is detailed, freely available. A detailed description of the methods (as requested by reviewer 2) would only consume an incredible amount of space.
Results
Reviewer comments: The result part is required to be elaborated. And criteria for selecting the right stage for sample collection is not justified. The authors need to use some indices kind of things to judge the sampling period. Only variability of nutrient concentration is not enough to judge the suitability of sampling leaf tissue. Rather it should be based on plant response to fertilizer application.
Author comments:
While we agree with reviewer #2, the work presented here was not a fertilizer study. We report on nutrient variability in different tissue types across several growth stages. A fertilizer study was not part of this work. However, we agree with Reviewer #2 on the limitations of this study, which we discussed more broadly in the discussion.
Discussion
Reviewer comments: This part needs thorough revision on explaining the results with the support of scientific facts and findings and references. At the introduction part, the authors hypothesized that there is no proper guidelines for sampling plant tissues for nutritional status assessment. But after studying the full article I could not get any concrete guidelines for sampling plant tissues for nutritional status assessment. So, please justify the importance of work on the light of advancement of science.
Author comments:
Agreed. I reworked the discussion in a broader light of the importance of our work, and how it can make an impact on current practices in this specific crop. Thanks for the advise.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
