New Approaches in Viticulture: Different Rates of Net Shadow Applications to Yield, Must, Color and Wine Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the influence of different canopy materials on grape quality and wine quality was studied, which has certain significance for guiding grape quality production. However, in order to better improve the manuscript, there are several problems that need to be modified. Details are as follows:

1. In Line 28, Line 29 and Line 95, the word nets appears twice. Please check.

2. In Line 40, 2 in W/m2 should be modified as a superscript.

3. In Line 83-85, the authors need to supplement climatic conditions in detail, such as maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average temperature, average annual rainfall and length of frost-free period.

4. In Line 90-93, the authors need to detail the characteristics of the variety, such as plant characteristics, fruit characteristics, ear characteristics and botanical characteristics such as resistance to disease.

5. In Line 109, 2 in SO2 should be changed to superscript.

6. In Line 112, 3 in 1 g/cm3 should be changed to the subscript.

7. Change the Total Soluble Solid Contents to total soluble solid contents in Line 124-127. Total Phenolic Compound needs to be changed to Total phenolic compound. Total Antioxidant needs to be changed to Total antioxidant; Similar questions suggest authors to check the full text.

8. In Line 128, Line 129, and Line 163, the full name should be used for the first occurrence of an acronym. Examples include ABTS in the ABTS method and DPPH in the DPPH method and LSD in the "LSD multiple comparison test"; Similar questions suggest authors to check the full text.

9. In Line 148, for the 13 panelists who performed the sensory analysis of the wine, the author needs to supplement the details of these 13 members. For example, what is the ratio of men to women? Education level and so on.

10. In Lines 150-153, it is suggested that the author expand each grading criteria in detail, and it is not recommended to list only two extreme evaluation criteria.

11. For the Results section, it is recommended that the authors re-examine the differences between treatment and control in detail. For example, how much did grape yield and ear weight increase with different Canopy materials? Which treatment has the greatest effect on a particular trait.

12. For the discussion section, it is suggested that the author re-write this section. In particular, in Lines 285-293, authors should not simply list the results of references, but should discuss the differences and similarities between their own experimental purposes and similar experiments.

13. It is recommended that the author delete Lines 297-305.

14. In Lines 326-330, there are several numerals written incorrectly. For example, 19,20% should be changed to 19.20%.

Author Response

Responses to 1st Reviewer’s

Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. I would also like to thank you for your comment "In this study, the influence of different canopy materials on grape quality and wine quality was studied, which has certain significance for guiding grape quality production".

OF THE ARTICLE;

1. In Line 28, Line 29 and Line 95; corrected according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
2. In Line 40; “W/m2” was replaced by “W/m²” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
3. In Line 83-85; has been added “The monthly average highest temperature of the trial vineyard was 30.12°C in July, while the monthly average lowest temperature was 8.16°C in March. The minimum temperature was -0.26°C in March, while the maximum temperature was 42.15°C in July. The monthly average highest humidity was 65.08% in March, while the monthly average lowest humidity was 21.28% in August. The minimum humidity was 7.94% in June, while the maximum humidity was 99.76% in March” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
4. In Line 90-93; Sinceri grape cultivar is a local variety and has not been previously classified as ampelographic.
5. In Line 109; “SO2” was replaced by “SO₂” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
6. In Line 112; “1 g/cm3” was replaced by “1 g/cm³” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
7. In Line 124 and 127; “Total Soluble Solid Contents, Total Phenolic Compound and Total Antioxidant” were replaced by “total soluble solid contents, Total phenolic compound and Total antioxidant” according to the reviewer’s suggestion. All similar problems have been corrected.
8. In Line 128, Line 129, and Line 163; were replaced by “ABTS [2,2´-Azino-bis (3-Etilbenzotiazolin-Sulfonik asit)]; DPPH (1,1-Difenil-2-Pikril Hidrazil) and LSD (Least Significant Difference)” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
9. In Line 148; has been added “13 (7 female + 6 male) panelists” by according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
10. In Lines 150-153; using the No changes were made because the scoring method out of 20 points determined by International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV) was used. https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/3307/review-on-sensory-analysis-of-wine.pdf
11. For the Results section (between lines 175-178) has been added “In terms of yield parameters, 35%, 55% and 75% canopy material applications provided (respectively 7.67%; 61.93% and 22.44%) increase in grape yield compared to the control. Also 55% canopy material application 37.83% increase in cluster weight and 35.76% increase in 100 berry weight compared to the control” by according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
12. For the discussion section (between lines 285-293) has been added “As can be seen, when comparing both the previous studies conducted with the same variety and these previous studies with the control values of our study, quite different results were obtained in terms of yield parameters. This shows that grape varieties grown in different ecologies differ according to climate conditions, soil properties and vineyard management practices” by according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
13. Lines 297-305; This paragraph, which the reviewer's suggested to be deleted, was highlighted in many previous studies because it was explanatory information. In addition, the paragraph was not deleted because the another reviewer's did not suggest deletion of the paragraph.
14. In Lines 326-330; The spelling errors noted by reviewer’s have been corrected.

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point: The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response:  (Thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Zeki Gokalp (a Certified English Translator and an expert in Biosystems Engineering) for his critical reading and through syntactic corrections of the manuscript.)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Make changes according to comments and with more scientific "sound". 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Quality of English must be improve.

Author Response

Responses to 2nd Reviewer’s

Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

OF THE ARTICLE;

1. In Line 2; First of all, thank you for your suggestion. In recent studies on this subject, it has been observed that such titles attract more attention and are cited more. For this reason, a slight change has been made to the title. “New approaches in Viticulture: Different Rates of Net Shadow Applications to Yield, Must, Color and Wine Quality”
2. In Line 10; “ Four different treatments” was replaced by “Three aplications (35%, 55% and 75% canopy materials) and control” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
3. In Line 12; “the veraison period” was replaced by “at veraison” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
4. In Line 13; “in the berry” was replaced by “of berry skin” and deleded “some” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
5. In Line 14; has been added “[such as pH, ethyl alcohol (%), volatile acidity (mg/L), reducing sugar (g/L), density and total acidity (g/L)]” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
6. In Line 20; “wine” was replaced by “physicochemical wine analysis” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
7. In Line 24; The keywords have not been changed because they were created from words that do not appear in the title section.
8. In Line 29; has been added “(clusters and leaves)” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
9. In Line 30; “nets with varying levels of shading” was replaced by “photo-selective nets” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

 

10. In Lines 32-37; This paragraph has not been changed because it is cited from the literature.
11. In Lines 43 and 46; the words “winter” and “kept” were deleted according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
12. In Lines 69-72; This paragraph has been rewritten “For high quality wines grape production, canopy growth should be managed and in-season management practices should be used in combination with indirect methods that influence canopy size and vigor. Managing the canopy with vine balance in mind will both create a vine microclimate and improve cluster composition.” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
13. In Line 73-78; This paragraph has been rewritten “Once the basic vineyard management techniques such as soil moisture management, nutrient management or vineyard floor management have been identified, it is possible to fine-tune the canopy management methods for the vineyard and production objectives (to achieve the right balance). It is important to remember that no combination of management techniques will provide the best balance or fruit quality in all cases. A customized plan should be developed for each vineyard [14].” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
14. In Line 79-80; This paragraph has been rewritten “The aim of this study is to determine the most optimal canopy material for growing table and wine high quality Sinceri grape variety.” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
15. Between Lines 83 and 88; Both reviewers were asked to write more detailed information about the experimental vineyard. This paragraph has been rewritten “The coordinates of the vineyard where the experiment was conducted are 37º 57ˈ 33.5̎ N latitude, 41º 58ˈ 36.2̎ E longitude and 1117 m altitude (Figure 1). The monthly average highest temperature of the trial vineyard was 30.12°C in July, while the monthly average lowest temperature was 8.16°C in March. The minimum tem-perature was -0.26°C in March, while the maximum temperature was 42.15°C in July. The monthly average highest humidity was 65.08% in March, while the monthly average lowest humidity was 21.28% in August. The minimum humidity was 7.94% in June, while the maximum humidity was 99.76% in March.

Figure 1. Satellite image of the experimental vineyard (Google Earth, 2023)” according to both reviewer suggestion.

16. In Line 95-96; This paragraph has been rewritten “Nets made of polyethylene with 3 different shading rates (35, 55, 75%) were shade on the vines in the experimental vineyard on June 19, 2023 (during the veraison).” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
17. In Line 99; has been added “(on August 31, 2023)” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
18. In Line 105-115; Since the international spontaneous wine processing process is given as given in the article, no changes were made in this paragraph. https://www.oiv.int/standards/international-code-of-oenological-practices/part-ii-oenological-treatments-and-practices/wines
19. In Line 117; “Figure 2. Wine production” was replaced by “Figure 2. Microvinification process in laboratory condition” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
20. In Lines 121-129; “Grapes were squeezed by hand and must was extracted and analyses were made on the must in the sample taken. Parameters examined; pH, density, total acidity (g/L) and volatile acid (mg/L) [15]; Total Soluble Solid Contents (TSSC) (%) [16]; maturity index [17, 18]; must yield (%) [19]; ethyl alcohol (% v/v) [20]; reducing sugar (g/L) [21] were examined. Total Phenolic Compound (mg/mL) was determined as gallic acid at a wavelength of 760 nm (Figure 3) [22, 23]. Total Antioxidant (mg/mL) was determined as trolox at a wavelength of 734 nm (Figure 4) with ABTS method [24] and at a wavelength 517 nm (Figure 5) with DPPH method [25]” was replaced by “Grapes were crushed by hand and must was extracted. In must samples, pH [15], total soluble solid contents (TSSC) (%) [16], maturity index [17, 18], must yield (%) [19] density and total acidity (g/L) [15] parameters were examined. In wines, pH [15], ethyl alcohol (% v/v) [20], volatile acid (mg/L) [15], reducing sugar (g/L) [21], density and total acidity (g/L) [15] parameters were examined. In addition, in wines, total phenolic compound (mg/mL) was determined as gallic acid at a wavelength of 760 nm (Figure 3) [22, 23]. Total antioxidant (mg/mL) was determined as trolox at a wave-length of 734 nm (Figure 4) with ABTS [2,2´-Azino-bis (3-Etilbenzotiazolin-Sulfonik asit)] method [24] and at a wavelength 517 nm (Figure 5) with DPPH (1,1-Difenil-2-Pikril Hidrazil) method [25].” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
21. In Line 158-159; “ 4 treatments” was replaced by “3 aplications (35%, 55%, 75% shading rate polyethylene nets) and control” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
22. In Line 171. The suggested corrections in Table 1 have been made.
23. Between lines 175-178; has been added “In terms of yield parameters, 35%, 55% and 75% canopy material applications provided (respectively 7.67%; 61.93% and 22.44%) increase in grape yield compared to the control. Also 55% canopy material application 37.83% increase in cluster weight and 35.76% increase in 100 berry weight compared to the control” by according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
24. In Line 183-184. The suggested corrections in Figure 2 have been made.
25. In Line 186. I think it would be appropriate to give the color parameters of berry skin as a figure in the article. For this (that is, since the table is not given) the necessary explanations are given under the figure.
26. All article; “ canopy material” was replaced by “net shadow” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
27. All article; The words that were requested to be deleted in the whole article have been deleted according to the reviewer's suggestion.
28. In Line 205; The suggested corrections in Table 2 have been made. It is calculated with the formula "maturity index = TSSC(%) / Total acidity(%)" in Table 2. Therefore, there is no calculation error.
29. In Line 223; The suggested corrections in Table 3 have been made.
30. In Line 233; I think it would be appropriate to give the total phenolic compound and total antioxidant amounts of wine as a figure in the article. For this (that is, since the table is not given) the necessary explanations are given under the figure.
31. In Line 251; I think it would be appropriate to give the color parameters of wine as a figure in the article. For this (that is, since the table is not given) the necessary explanations are given under the figure.
32. In Line 269; I think it would be appropriate to give the organoleptic analysis of wine as a figure in the article. For this (that is, since the table is not given) the necessary explanations are given under the figure.
33. In Line 286-294; has been added “As can be seen, when comparing both the previous studies conducted with the same variety and these previous studies with the control values of our study, quite different results were obtained in terms of yield parameters. This shows that grape varieties grown in different ecologies differ according to climate conditions, soil properties and vineyard management practices” by according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
34. In Line 322; “is stimulated” was replaced by “is started” according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
35. In Line 444-445. “Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Figure S1: title; Table S1: title; Video S1: title.” deleted according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

 

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response:  (Thanks are extended to Prof. Dr. Zeki Gokalp (a Certified English Translator and an expert in Biosystems Engineering) for his critical reading and through syntactic corrections of the manuscript.)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your reply and modification! The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Horticulture.