Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I attach the detailed review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the constructive and insightful comments you provided. We carefully considered each of your observations, and we hope that our revisions and explanations address your concerns in a thorough and precise manner. The manuscript has also undergone a complete language revision. In the attached file, you will find our point‑by‑point responses to all comments, along with the certificate confirming the linguistic editing. Thank you once again for your time and for the valuable contribution you have made to improving the quality of our work. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work compared three widely contrasting rootstocks, 1103 Paulsen, 420 A, and M2, grafted with Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot, to elucidate their hydraulic, morphological, and physiological responses under controlled conditions. The research results have direct practical implications for grapevine cultivation, as they provide targeted rootstock selection guidelines for water-limited environments, bridging the gap between basic research and agricultural application. There are some suggestions that can improve the work and increase the quality of the manuscript.

 

Major comments:

1. ‘Materials and Methods’section: In the ‘1. Plant Material and Experimental Design’ in ‘Materials and Methods’ section, the study was conducted under controlled pot conditions with a single soil moisture gradient (–30/–40 cbar). Generally, to better simulate field drought scenarios and verify the drought response thresholds of different rootstocks, it is recommended to add multiple soil moisture gradients (e.g., mild, moderate, and severe drought) to explore the adaptive plasticity of rootstocks under varying water stress intensities. Why the study was only conducted under conditions with a single soil moisture gradient (–30/–40 cbar).
2. ‘Discussion’section: The current discussion focuses on phenotypic traits but lacks in-depth exploration of the underlying molecular mechanisms
3. ‘Reference’section: There are only 13 references, and includes several 2025 publications, but some classic or highly relevant recent studies (e.g., key findings on grapevine rootstock hydraulic regulation in the past years) may be missing. It is recommended to supplement and cite these literatures to contextualize the current study within the latest research progress.

 

Minor comments:

1. Line 79-82 and line 429, The Latin names of grape varieties should be italicized.
2. Line 105 ‘△is’, there should be a space between the two.
3. Line 149, ‘Farquhar et al., 1980’, it should be revised to the correct citation format.
4. Table 1, 2, 3, 5: units should be uniformly enclosed in parentheses, consistent with the format in Table 4.
5. Line 407, ‘Figure 1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Biplot of Morphological and Physiological Traits,’not all words in the sentence need to have their initial letters capitalized.
6. Language and grammar of the manuscript should be improved throughout the text.
7. Reference style is inadequate, need to prepare in an unified form, such as citation 3 and 11.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, we would like to express our sincere gratitude for the constructive and insightful comments you provided. We carefully considered each of your observations, and we hope that our revisions and explanations address your concerns in a thorough and precise manner. The manuscript has also undergone a complete language revision. In the attached file, you will find our point‑by‑point responses to all comments, along with the certificate confirming the linguistic editing. Thank you once again for your time and for the valuable contribution you have made to improving the quality of our work.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my comments and answering all of my questions. Despite your serious scientific work, I am doubting whether strong conclusions can be drawn from 3 L potted experiments on the grapevine rootstock's hydraulic behavior and root architecture. Even though the mentioned facts in the author's work are important for understanding the grapevine rootstock's root physiology. In my opinion, I suggest accepting the revised manuscript for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful evaluation of our revised manuscript and for addressing all aspects of our previous responses. We greatly appreciate the time and attention you have dedicated to reviewing our work. We fully acknowledge your concern regarding the limitations associated with conducting experiments in 3 L pots, particularly with respect to drawing strong conclusions about rootstock hydraulic behavior and root architecture. As you rightly point out, controlled pot experiments cannot fully reproduce the complexity of field conditions. To address this important methodological consideration, we have now explicitly incorporated a statement acknowledging this limitation in the Discussion section. Specifically, at line 543, we have added the following sentence:

“It is important to acknowledge that the use of 3 L container‑grown vines represents an inherent limitation of this study, and field‑scale validation will be required to determine whether the physiological and hydraulic patterns observed here are maintained under real vineyard conditions.”

We believe that this addition helps to more clearly frame the scope of our conclusions and appropriately contextualizes the findings. We are grateful that, despite this limitation, you recognize the scientific relevance of the results and their contribution to understanding grapevine rootstock physiology. Your positive recommendation for acceptance is sincerely appreciated. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback, which has contributed to further strengthening the manuscript.

Kind regards, Antonio Dattola

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the paper is significantly improved in comparison to original one. The paper can be accepted after some minor corrections will be made:

Line 165, ‘Farquhar et al., 1980’, the citation has not been revised to the correct format. 

Line 219, ‘Figure 1. Root analysis with WinRHIZO’, it should not be in italics.

Line 617 and 618, the citation 11 is not standardized.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your careful re‑evaluation of our revised manuscript and for acknowledging the improvements made. We appreciate your constructive feedback and have addressed all the minor corrections you indicated.

• Line 165: The citation “Farquhar et al., 1980” has now been corrected to conform to the journal’s required formatting style.

• Line 219: The caption “Figure 1. Root analysis with WinRHIZO” has been updated and is no longer in italics.

• Lines 617–618: Citation 11 has been standardized according to MDPI formatting guidelines.

We have also performed an additional check of the entire manuscript to ensure consistency in formatting and citation style. Thank you once again for your valuable comments and for recommending the manuscript for acceptance after minor revisions. Your feedback has helped us further refine the quality of the work.

Kind regards, Antonio Dattola