Macronutrient Status in Grapevine Leaves and Soil in Response to Fertilizers and Biostimulants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an important topic and provides valuable data on grapevine fertilization under Polish conditions. However, the manuscript would benefit from revisions to improve clarity, organization, and depth of discussion. The introduction could be more concise and focused on the research gap, while the discussion should interpret the results rather than simply describe them, linking findings to underlying mechanisms, relevant literature, and practical implications. Data presentation could also be improved by using consistent units and figures to display correlations, reducing the density of numerical tables. Finally, a concluding section reflecting on the study outcomes and suggesting future research directions would strengthen the manuscript and provide a clear synthesis of the work. More detailed comments and suggestions are marked directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Revise the English for improved reading fluency.

Author Response

29 October 2025

Response to the Reviewer's 1 comments

The authors wish to thank the Reviewer for your valuable comments that will improve the quality of the reviewed manuscript "Macroelements concentration in ‘Solaris’ and ‘Regent’ grapevine leaves and in vineyard soil in response to fertilizers and biostimulants application”

(Proposed title after revision: „Macronutrient Status in Grapevine Leaves and Soils in Response to Fertilizers and Biostimulants”)  (ID: agriculture-3944018).

We have completed the manuscript  according to the Reviewers comments. The text has been corrected or supplemented to take into account the comments of the Reviewer.

Reviewer: The study addresses an important topic and provides valuable data on grapevine fertilization under Polish conditions. However, the manuscript would benefit from revisions to improve clarity, organization, and depth of discussion. The introduction could be more concise and focused on the research gap, while the discussion should interpret the results rather than simply describe them, linking findings to underlying mechanisms, relevant literature, and practical implications. Data presentation could also be improved by using consistent units and figures to display correlations, reducing the density of numerical tables. Finally, a concluding section reflecting on the study outcomes and suggesting future research directions would strengthen the manuscript and provide a clear synthesis of the work. More detailed comments and suggestions are marked directly in the text.

Response to general comments: I believe that is advisable to provide a comprehensive description of the topic of fertilization and the use of broadly defined biostimulants that influence grapevine physiological processes, including nutrition. Regarding the number of cited articles, I don't think the few numbers in brackets will pose any difficulties for the reader. With the current linking, interested readers have easy access to almost all of the cited references. It also facilitates the systematization of knowledge for less advanced readers. Regarding numerical tables, I believe they are a consistently used, simple, and effective way to present data. For data on plant mineral status, differences in font color facilitate interpretation of results. Tables with correlation data are significantly smaller than the matrixes containing such data found in other articles. Using only tables unifies the style of the article.  

Ad. Discussion Remarks

I agree with the Reviewer's comments and have made changes to the text. Sentences that duplicated results were removed from the Discussion. Organizing the text into separate topics is difficult because they are interconnected. I tried to divide the Discussion into three main sections: on leaf mineral status, soil parameters, and a summary with the most important findings and a brief proposal for future research. Because leaf mineral status depends on certain soil parameters, for example - pH, connections to these parameters are unavoidable. The first part, considering the mineral status of plants also includes content considering biostimulants use, to clarify their ambiguous effects.     Due to the large number of comments, each response was provided in a PDF file, which was received from Reviewer_1. A file in track changes mode and a file with accepted corrections (revised version) were attached. Language proofreading was performed by a professional linguist and a native speaker (Englishman) - scientist, specialist in chemical analysis.  

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author or Authors,
Warm greetings,
I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable scientific efforts in preparing this research, which reflects a high level of academic rigor and refined language.
Following a thorough review, we would like to inform you that all the suggested comments and observations have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. These improvements enhance the overall scientific quality of the paper and align it more closely with the publication standards of the journal.
Wishing you continued success and academic excellence.
With kind regards and utmost respect,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

29 October 2025

Response to the Reviewer's 2 comments

The authors wish to thank the Reviewer for your valuable comments that will improve the quality of the reviewed manuscript "Macroelements concentration in ‘Solaris’ and ‘Regent’ grapevine leaves and in vineyard soil in response to fertilizers and biostimulants application”

(Proposed title after revision: „Macronutrient Status in Grapevine Leaves and Soils in Response to Fertilizers and Biostimulants”)  (ID: agriculture-3944018).

We have completed the manuscript  according to the Reviewers comments. The text has been corrected or supplemented to take into account the comments of the Reviewer.

Reviewer_2: I would like to express my sincere appreciation for your valuable scientific efforts in preparing this research, which reflects a high level of academic rigor and refined language.
Following a thorough review, we would like to inform you that all the suggested comments and observations have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. These improvements enhance the overall scientific quality of the paper and align it more closely with the publication standards of the journal. Wishing you continued success and academic excellence.
With kind regards and utmost respect.

Response: On behalf of both authors, I'd like to thank Reviewer_2 for his kind words and helpful comments. The title change suggestion has been accepted. Due to the large number of comments, each response was provided in a PDF file, which was received from Reviewer_2. A file in track changes mode and a file with accepted corrections (revised version) were attached.

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The experiment is well thought out and relevant, but several parts of the manuscript need to be clarified or slightly reworked so that readers can follow the results more easily and reproduce the work.
1. Describe the liming treatment more precisely: what type of lime was used (e.g., CaCO₃ or dolomitic), how much was applied per hectare, and in which year. It is mentioned only briefly, yet this information is important to interpret the pH changes that you report later.
2. The statistical section also needs clarification. It is not clear whether the “year” factor was treated as part of the ANOVA or if each year was analyzed separately. Make this explicit and, if possible, include F, df, and p values (or a short summary table) in the Supplementary material. In the correlation tables, it would help to include the r and p values together with the number of observations.
3. Throughout the tables and text, unify the units – for example, change “mg 100 g of soil” to “mg 100 g⁻¹ soil” or “mg kg⁻¹.” Correct small typographical errors such as “Corellation” and “1rst.” Confirm that all nutrient concentrations in leaves are given on a dry-weight basis and mention this once in the Methods.
4. The paper would benefit from a few simple figures to summarize the main results, for example, one showing the changes in leaf N, P, K, Mg, and Ca between treatments, another showing soil pH and Mg (with the clear effect of BF-Ecomix), and one illustrating the weak relationship between soil P and leaf P.

Author Response

29 October 2025

Response to the Reviewer's 3 comments

The authors wish to thank the Reviewer for your valuable comments that will improve the quality of the reviewed manuscript "Macroelements concentration in ‘Solaris’ and ‘Regent’ grapevine leaves and in vineyard soil in response to fertilizers and biostimulants application”

(Proposed title after revision: „Macronutrient Status in Grapevine Leaves and Soils in Response to Fertilizers and Biostimulants”)  (ID: agriculture-3944018).

I have completed the manuscript  according to the Reviewers comments. The text has been corrected or supplemented to take into account the comments of the Reviewer.

The experiment is well thought out and relevant, but several parts of the manuscript need to be clarified or slightly reworked so that readers can follow the results more easily and reproduce the work.

1. Describe the liming treatment more precisely: what type of lime was used (e.g., CaCO₃ or dolomitic), how much was applied per hectare, and in which year. It is mentioned only briefly, yet this information is important to interpret the pH changes that you report later.

Response 1. As recommended by the Reviewer, information on liming was placed at the end of the section 2.2. Experimental design and treatments.

2. The statistical section also needs clarification. It is not clear whether the “year” factor was treated as part of the ANOVA or if each year was analyzed separately. Make this explicit and, if possible, include F, df, and p values (or a short summary table) in the Supplementary material. In the correlation tables, it would help to include the r and p values together with the number of observations.

Response 2. Each year were analyzed separately. Relevant information is included in section 2.4. Statistical analysis and in the comments below the tables. Regarding additional material - the authors would like to avoid adding more data, as the article is already very long. This is especially true since the other reviewers did not require it. The data distribution was normal, which results from the experimental design - pairs of treatments with and without NPK were tested. Correlation coefficients were of secondary importance in the current study and generally were not necessary for the discussion of the results. 

3. Throughout the tables and text, unify the units – for example, change “mg 100 g of soil” to “mg 100 g⁻¹ soil” or “mg kg⁻¹.” Correct small typographical errors such as “Corellation” and “1rst.” Confirm that all nutrient concentrations in leaves are given on a dry-weight basis and mention this once in the Methods.

Response 3. Agree. The units have been unified (mg kg⁻¹). Typographical errors have been corrected. All nutrient concentrations in leaves are given on a dry-weight basis,  what is mentioned in the Methodology and results tables. 

4. The paper would benefit from a few simple figures to summarize the main results, for example, one showing the changes in leaf N, P, K, Mg, and Ca between treatments, another showing soil pH and Mg (with the clear effect of BF-Ecomix), and one illustrating the weak relationship between soil P and leaf P.

Response 4. According to the authors, the best way to precisely present so many numerical data is tables. A description of the most important results is also provided. The conclusions are clear. Visualization won't make it easier to interpret the results. 

Corresponding author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript and addressed most of the suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been appropriately revised and is now satisfactory. No further comments.