Insights into Medieval Grape Cultivation in Al-Andalus: Morphometric, Domestication, and Multivariate Analysis of Vitis vinifera Seed Types

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your study is giving very interesting point of view regarding grape cultivation in Medieval. Grape seeds excavated from different archeological sites give information regarding morphometric and information regarding growing of grape. Beside horticulture this study could contribute to the ethno botany so it is also suitable for publications from this field.

Please find my suggestions below.

Highlight in introduction importance of mountain Caucasus as a zone from which grapevine was introduced in different parts of Europe.

In the section 2.1. highlight where in all archeological sites mentioned in this manuscript were discovered grape seeds.

In the same subsection highlight conditions for grapevine growing in this area. What are climate conditions during vegetative period of grapevine?

Insert in the same subsection if grapevine and what kind is growing today in the areas where are located archeological sites mentioned in this manuscript.

Wish you all the best in the future work,

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Your study is giving very interesting point of view regarding grape cultivation in Medieval. Grape seeds excavated from different archeological sites give information regarding morphometric and information regarding growing of grape. Beside horticulture this study could contribute to the ethno botany so it is also suitable for publications from this field.

Please find my suggestions below.

Highlight in introduction importance of mountain Caucasus as a zone from which grapevine was introduced in different parts of Europe.

Done, lines 59 to 64

In the section 2.1. highlight where in all archeological sites mentioned in this manuscript were discovered grape seeds.

Done, supplementary information on environmental characteristics and

In the same subsection highlight conditions for grapevine growing in this area. What are climate conditions during vegetative period of grapevine?

Done, supplementary information on environmental characteristics and prevalent cultivars is included at the end of this subsection

Insert in the same subsection if grapevine and what kind is growing today in the areas where are located archeological sites mentioned in this manuscript.

Done, supplementary information on environmental characteristics and prevalent cultivars is included at the end of this subsection

Wish you all the best in the future work

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Valera et al. found 19 seeds in 9 different sites on the Iberian peninsula. Although I am not qualified to judge the quality of the English language, the manuscript is easily readable. 

The authors have carried out this study to morphometrically analyse these 19 seeds, compare them with other grapevine seeds, and distinguish raisin seed types from other grape types.

The introduction is clear and well-organized. 

Materials and Methods must be improved.

The description of site samples (2.1 paragraph) should be simplified. 

I suggest supporting the first sentence (rows 136-138) and the second sentence (rows 138-139) of this section with appropriate literature.

Replace rows 142-233 with a table with the following elements: 

Site, name of the seed sample, historical age, and images of the seed (for example, as reported in Figure 3).

The sentences reported in rows 242-250 are unclear. Your database comprised 4029 rows (one row is one single seed?) from 783 samples (what is a sample? Is it a single cultivar?). In rows 253-254 it is reported that, “on average” there were 10 seeds per sample (= 10 seeds x 783 samples = 7830 seeds = 7830 rows?) It seems that 3801 rows are missing from the database (7830-4029). Moreover, the value of N in equation 2 (row 334) is 786 (samples, rows). 

In your primary data (see rows 243-244), there were 37 variables (12 quantitative, 22 allometric, and 3 qualitative). I suggest adding a table in the supplementary material that adequately describes all these variables. 

In the supplementary, there are only 11 quantitative and two qualitative descriptors.

I suggest to reformulate all these parts.

Section 2.5.1 describes the variables included in the multivariate analysis. The data set consists of 783 samples (not 786?) and 227 columns. 

It is unclear what value (mean, median, ... ?) was used when one sample has more than 1 seed.

Needs to be clarified is the means of intervals (for example: row 315, Length (25 intervals), width (21) and so on).

Volume (12) How was this value obtained? If it was obtained from previous values of Length x Width x Thickness, it should be excluded from the multivariate analysis.

Sentences reported in rows 388-389 should be supported by the literature.

Results

Figure 2 is not readable. Add a readable copy in the supplementary.

I suggest to add a table with all variables values measured or calculated for the 19 seeds.

Row 435 delete )

In Figure 5, not clear which seed is indicated with the numbers 3, 4, and 5.

Table 4 add (%)

Needs to be clarified how the classification reported in tables 5 and 6 has been assessed. 

Row 584, the name Planchon should be without outline.

Author Response

Valera et al. found 19 seeds in 9 different sites on the Iberian peninsula. Although I am not qualified to judge the quality of the English language, the manuscript is easily readable.

Thanks!

The authors have carried out this study to morphometrically analyse these 19 seeds, compare them with other grapevine seeds, and distinguish raisin seed types from other grape types.

Thanks!

The introduction is clear and well-organized.

Thanks!

Materials and Methods must be improved.

We tried to improve the section in the revised manuscript

The description of site samples (2.1 paragraph) should be simplified.

We tried to be as succinct as we could. We improved information on precise place from where the seed samples were collected, following instructions of Reviewer 1.

I suggest supporting the first sentence (rows 136-138) and the second sentence (rows 138-139) of this section with appropriate literature.

Done, Thanks!

Replace rows 142-233 with a table with the following elements:

Site, name of the seed sample, historical age, and images of the seed (for example, as reported in Figure 3).

The use of this table with embedded images seems not be from our viewpoint appropriate for the structure of the journal

The sentences reported in rows 242-250 are unclear. Your database comprised 4029 rows (one row is one single seed?) from 783 samples (what is a sample? Is it a single cultivar?).

We corrected the sentence to clarify that rows are single seeds and seed samples involve several rows

In rows 253-254 it is reported that, “on average” there were 10 seeds per sample (= 10 seeds x 783 samples = 7830 seeds = 7830 rows?) It seems that 3801 rows are missing from the database (7830-4029).

You are right! Sorry. We corrected the sentence to clarify.

 Moreover, the value of N in equation 2 (row 334) is 786 (samples, rows).

Thanks! Done corrected to 783

In your primary data (see rows 243-244), there were 37 variables (12 quantitative, 22 allometric, and 3 qualitative). I suggest adding a table in the supplementary material that adequately describes all these variables.

You are right. There was a confusion, we corrected the numbers

with 32 columns of observations. These columns include 13 quantitative, 12 allometric indices, and 3 qualitative variables (divided in 11 categories).

In the supplementary, there are only 11 quantitative and two qualitative descriptors.

You are right! We added Supplementary Tables 1 to 3 to explain the variables (columns) considered. In the case of qualitative each category is represented as present in the corresponding column. Radial furrows were not present in medieval seeds.

I suggest to reformulate all these parts.

Done

Section 2.5.1 describes the variables included in the multivariate analysis. The data set consists of 783 samples (not 786?) and 231 columns.

Yes 783 samples but 231 columns corresponding to categorical variables. We introduced an explanation in the section

It is unclear what value (mean, median, ... ?) was used when one sample has more than 1 seed.

Not, it is the frequencies distribution Quantitative and allometric variables are divided into intervals, and for each interval or category, the percentage of seeds from the sample that fall within it is calculated. For each sample, the ordered set of the 231 categories and their relative frequencies based on the observed values in the seeds of that sample constitute a descriptive spectrum, such that two exactly identical samples would present the same spectrum (probability distributions), with identical frequencies, and therefore, the calculated dissimilarity indices would have a value of zero. The spectrum of variables is structured as follows:

Quantitative continuous characters transformed into 137 categorical variables.

• Length (25 intervals or categories), Width (21), Thickness (9)
• Volume (12)
• Beak length (dorsal 9, ventral 9), width (at base 11, at junction 11), thickness (6)
• Chalaza length (18) and width (6)

Allometric continuous transformed into 83 categorical variables.

• Width/length (29), Width/thickness (10)
• Beak length/seed length (16), Beak width/length (9)
• Chalaza width/thickness (9), Chalaza apex to seed apex distance (10)

Qualitative categorical characters, accounting for 11 variables.

• Outline (5)
• Fossettes (4)
• Dorsal radial grooves (2).

Needs to be clarified is the means of intervals (for example: row 315, Length (25 intervals), width (21) and so on).

Explained above and within the manuscript

Volume (12) How was this value obtained? If it was obtained from previous values of Length x Width x Thickness, it should be excluded from the multivariate analysis.

Volume is a variable generated by multiplying the length, width, and thickness of the seed, representing the volume of the prism into which the seed would fit. Therefore, it is derived from these primary data, but it is not redundant (several seeds with the same estimated volume may have different measurements) and provides information, which, however, was not particularly relevant in generating the clusters.

Sentences reported in rows 388-389 should be supported by the literature.

Done

Results

Figure 2 is not readable. Add a readable copy in the supplementary.

Done, submitted a file with higher resolution as Supplementary Figure 2

I suggest to add a table with all variables values measured or calculated for the 19 seeds.

Relevant variables are represented in table 2, we added stalk length in mm,together with the indexes

Row 435 (delete)

Done

In Figure 5, not clear which seed is indicated with the numbers 3, 4, and 5.

Done corrected

Table 4 add (%)

Done corrected

Needs to be clarified how the classification reported in tables 5 and 6 has been assessed.

Explanation added as a footer in the table; Data from Table 3. Domesticated: OC, Proles Occidentalis; OR, Proles Orientalis; PO, Proles Pontica; Hybrid and Feral: HY, hybrids between "proles" or with wild western populations; FER, feral grapevines escaped from cultivation; CH, hybrids with wild eastern populations; CF, feral grapevines originating from cultivation; Wild: VS, Vitis sylvestris wild grapevine of Western and Central Europe; AM, wild American species; ASI, wild Asian species; CV, Vitis caucasica wild grapevine of South Caucasus. Stenospermocarpic: two samples.

Row 584, the name Planchon should be without outline.

Done corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for revised version of your manuscript. You have given answer on all my questions nd suggestions. It is fine for me. 

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your help to improving our paper.

Best regards, on behalf of the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript, and now it is suitable for publication after making some corrections in Table 4, where I believe there was a misunderstanding.

I suggest changing the Percentages of samples to Sample (%) and adding (%) after Only Andalusian samples (e.g., Only Andalusian samples (%)), then eliminating % after the numerical values shown in the table.

Moreover, high-resolution Figure 2 was not reported in supplementary materials. This figure should be added before publication.

 

Author Response

Many thanks for your help to improving our paper.

We proceeded to introduce the suggested changes in Table 4 and the Supplementary Figure 2 is uploaded in a truly readable version. Sorry for the previous inconvenience.

Best regards, on behalf of the authors