Modulating ‘Xinomavro’ (Vitis vinifera L.) Vine Growth and Berry Composition: A Comparative Analysis of Rootstock Effects
, Theodoros Gkrimpizis 1, Christina Karadimou 1, Anastasios Alatzas 2, Stefanos Koundouras 1 and Dimitrios Taskos 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I wanted to congratulate you for the work presented which I have had the opportunity to read and review. In the attached word document I send you my objetive review of your article, expressing my respect and looking forward to your next publication.
Greetings
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, the authors report on a two-years study on the impact of four rootstock varieties on the viticultural performance of 'Xinomavro' vines, a Greek red winegrape variety.
Results show that rootstock selection significantly influences vine development, particularly in terms of berry size and secondary metabolite concentration. The study emphasizes the importance of rootstock variety in managing grapevine characteristics.
The title and abstract are appropriate to the content of the text. The introduction provides useful information for the reader and explains the context of the research.
The paper is of practical interest to the wine sector as it provides information on the role of rootstock.
In my opinion, some minor issues need to be addressed before publication.
Material & Methods:
It would be beneficial to include a brief overview of the main climatic data for the area over the two years of trials.
It is critical to specify whether the vines are irrigated or rainfed.
It is important to note that 3309 and 101-14 are drought susceptible and of lower vigour, while 110 and 140Ru have a higher level of drought resistance. These informations are reported in Results and Discussion, but it might be helpful to reiterate it here as well.
Line 188: Do you use Duncan’s (Multiple Range Test) or the Tukey (Honest Significant Difference) test?
Other minor comments:
Line 53: some Greek characters before 101CU. According to original reference the rootstock name to use is 101CU.
Line 319: in addition to the less vigorous 101-14MGt consider also the 3309C.
Line 599: reference 28: It might be preferable to use the original reference:
Lopes CM and Pinto PA (2000). Estimation de la surface foliaire principale et secondaire d’un sarment de vigne. Progrés Agricole et Viticole, 117(7), 160-166.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper titled 'Modulating 'Xinomavro' (Vitis vinifera L.) Vine Growth and Berry composition: A Comparative Analysis of Rootstock Effects' shows very interesting work about complicated interactions rootstock-scion. I recommend this paper for publishing after some minor revisions.
The paper presented is informative with detailed materials and methods section. The conclusions are well drawn since this kind of complicated interactions should be monitored through much longer timespan. The information lacking is the weather conditions (temperature, rainfall) during the experimental years- these informations are important since the climate and weather conditions have major influence on the metabolism and vine growth. The authors themselves say that the berries were shrivelled in 2017, as well as having atypical berry growth.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
