Assessing Viticultural Parameters and Wine Quality in Relation to Climate Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor

I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript titled “Assessing Grapevine Adaptability and Wine Quality in Relation to Climate Conditions” (Manuscript ID: horticulturae-4148757). examines the adaptability of the Golia grape variety to climatic variability in Romania from 2020–2024, focusing on phenology, yield, grape composition, wine physicochemical properties, and sensory profiles. The study uses correlation analyses to link climatic parameters with viticultural and oenological outcomes. The topic is timely, given climate change impacts on viticulture in temperate regions like Eastern Europe, and Golia as a local hybrid offers potential insights into resilient varieties. Methods are standard, and results highlight warming trends advancing phenology by 11–13 days, with precipitation strongly influencing yield. Sensory variations are well-linked to climate via correlations. However, the manuscript has limitations in statistical depth, methodological detail, and novelty, warranting revisions for clarity and rigor. It contributes to regional viticulture but could better emphasize Golia's unique traits compared to international varieties.

Recommendation: Major revisions required.

Major Comments

1、Although Pearson correlations and R² values were applied (e.g., winter precipitation explaining 87.5% of unctuosity), the statistical approach remains relatively basic and does not account for interactions among climatic variables; incorporating multiple regression would allow evaluation of combined effects such as temperature × precipitation on yield and composition. Some relationships are weak (e.g., sugar vs. summer temperature, R² = 0.2985), suggesting the influence of confounding factors, and the lack of irrigation details in the Methods is notable since vine water status strongly modulates temperature effects on berry metabolism. In addition, p-values should be reported for all correlations to clarify statistical significance, and given the multidimensional climate–oenological dataset, PCA would help identify integrated patterns and dominant driving factors.

2、Viticultural methods (e.g., Guyot pruning, rain-fed management) are basic, but omit specifics like vine age. This limits interpretation of yield variations (e.g., low fertility in 2022). Expand methods to include this.

3、Conclusions emphasize Golia's "good capacity for adaptation," but are based on one site/variety without comparisons to benchmarks (e.g., Sauvignon blanc parent). Claims like "adaptive vineyard management strategies are essential" are vague—specify recommendations (e.g., rootstock changes for drought). Novelty is understated; while Golia research is limited, highlight unique findings (e.g., honey notes linked to alcohol, R²=0.8876). Add a limitations section (e.g., small sample, no molecular analyses like volatile compounds via GC-MS to validate sensory data).

4、The introduction reviews global climate impacts well, but results/discussion under integrate bioclimatic indices. Discuss implications for zoning (e.g., Iași's shift to warmer suitability) or adaptations (e.g., irrigation trials, as rain-fed may amplify drought effects in 2022). Consider to compare to similar hybrids in Eastern Europe for wider applicability.

Minor Comments

1、English is generally good, but some awkward phrasing .

Line 26: "higher acidity levels registered at lower values" ?;

2、Figs. 7–10, 15–16 need sub-labels (e.g., "a: Average") and legends for R² significance.；

3、References and citations consistent, but update with recent works.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is generally good.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have significantly helped us to improve the scientific rigor, clarity, and relevance of the study. All comments have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Detailed responses are provided below.

 

Comment 1: Although Pearson correlations and R² values were applied (e.g., winter precipitation explaining 87.5% of unctuosity), the statistical approach remains relatively basic and does not account for interactions among climatic variables; incorporating multiple regression would allow evaluation of combined effects such as temperature × precipitation on yield and composition.

R: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we expanded the statistical framework by incorporating multiple linear regression analyses to evaluate the combined and interactive effects of key climatic variables (air temperature, soil temperature, precipitation, and sunshine duration) on viticultural, physicochemical, and sensory parameters. These models allowed a more robust assessment of synergistic climatic influences (e.g., temperature × precipitation) on yield, berry weight, and selected sensory descriptors. The corresponding results, figures, and interpretations have been added to Sections 3.2–3.4.

 

Comment 2: Some relationships are weak (e.g., sugar vs. summer temperature, R² = 0.2985), suggesting the influence of confounding factors, and the lack of irrigation details in the Methods is notable since vine water status strongly modulates temperature effects on berry metabolism.

R: We agree with the Reviewer. Some of the correlations were removed from the Results and Discussion to avoid overinterpretation. Additionally, the Materials and Methods section has been expanded to explicitly state that the vineyard was managed under rain-fed conditions, without irrigation, throughout the study period. This clarification allows a more accurate interpretation of vine water status, particularly in drought-affected years such as 2022.

 

Comment 3: In addition, p-values should be reported for all correlations to clarify statistical significance, and given the multidimensional climate-oenological dataset, PCA would help identify integrated patterns and dominant driving factors.

R: We appreciate this comment. All reported correlations are now accompanied by corresponding p-values to clearly indicate statistical significance. Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was introduced and applied to integrate climatic, physicochemical, and sensory datasets. The PCA results are presented and discussed in Section 3.4, providing a comprehensive visualization of multivariate relationships and dominant climatic drivers.

 

Comment 4: Viticultural methods (e.g., Guyot pruning, rain-fed management) are basic, but omit specifics like vine age. This limits interpretation of yield variations (e.g., low fertility in 2022). Expand methods to include this.

R: Thank you for highlighting this omission. The Materials and Methods section has been revised to include information on vine age.

 

Comment 5: Conclusions emphasize Golia's "good capacity for adaptation," but are based on one site/variety without comparisons to benchmarks (e.g., Sauvignon blanc parent).

R: We acknowledge this limitation. To address it, we added some comparative discussion referencing published data on Sauvignon blanc and other varieties cultivated under similar climatic conditions in Romania and Eastern Europe.

 

Comment 6: Claims like "adaptive vineyard management strategies are essential" are vague—specify recommendations (e.g., rootstock changes for drought).

R: Wee agree with the reviewer, the text was modified to avoid vague affirmations.

 

Comment 7: Novelty is understated; while Golia research is limited, highlight unique findings (e.g., honey notes linked to alcohol, R²=0.8876).

R: Thank you for this important observation. The manuscript was revised to more clearly emphasize its novelty, particularly the statistically robust linkage between climatic conditions, wine physicochemical parameters, and sensory expression. Notably, the strong relationship between higher alcoholic strength/dry extract and the enhanced perception of honey and unctuous notes (Adjusted R² > 0.85) is now explicitly highlighted as a novel contribution for the Golia variety, which has been scarcely documented in the literature.

 

Comment 8: Add a limitations section (e.g., small sample, no molecular analyses like volatile compounds via GC-MS to validate sensory data).

R: As suggested, a dedicated Study Limitations section has been added, acknowledging constraints related to the single-site design, limited temporal scale, and the absence of instrumental aroma analyses (e.g., GC–MS) to complement sensory evaluation.

 

Comment 9: The introduction reviews global climate impacts well, but results/discussion under integrate bioclimatic indices. Discuss implications for zoning (e.g., Iași's shift to warmer suitability) or adaptations (e.g., irrigation trials, as rain-fed may amplify drought effects in 2022). Consider to compare to similar hybrids in Eastern Europe for wider applicability.

R: We thank the Reviewer for this insightful suggestion. The Discussion section has been expanded to address bioclimatic implications, including the progressive warming of the Iași vineyard and its potential shift toward warmer suitability classes. Additionally, the limitations of rain-fed systems under increasing drought frequency are discussed, alongside references to adaptation strategies and comparable varieties cultivated in Eastern Europe.

 

Comment 10: English is generally good, but some awkward phrasing . Line 26: "higher acidity levels registered at lower values" ?;

R: The text was carefully revised, and the indicated phrasing was corrected for clarity and grammatical accuracy.

 

Comment 11: Figs. 7–10, 15–16 need sub-labels (e.g., "a: Average") and legends for R² significance.;

R: Figures and legends were updated.

 

Comment 12: References and citations consistent, but update with recent works.

R: Recent and relevant literature has been added, and the reference list was updated accordingly to reflect the current state of research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript is generally well written, and the English language is clear and appropriate for scientific publication. The multi-year dataset (2020–2024) represents a strong point of the study, as it allows for the assessment of inter-annual climatic variability. The sample size is very good, and supports the robustness of the findings.

However, despite these strengths, the manuscript requires substantial improvement in terms of discussion depth and scientific contextualization. At present, the work is largely descriptive, with limited critical interpretation and insufficient integration with existing literature. This weakens the scientific impact of the study.

Specific Comments:

L135–139 – Please clarify whether the wines analyzed were produced from grapes harvested in the same experimental vineyard described in the study, or whether commercially available wines were used. This point is important for ensuring traceability and experimental consistency.

Section 2.4 (L151–162) – The title “Grapevine Adaptation” may not accurately reflect the parameters assessed. The section reports phenological, fertility, productivity and berry composition metrics, which characterize grapevine performance rather than adaptive mechanisms or resilience traits. Consider revising the title to something more precise such as "grapevine performance".

Figure 1 – The graph is difficult to read and interpret in its current format. Consider alternative approaches commonly used in climatological studies, such as plotting monthly values on the x-axis and representing minimum, maximum and average temperatures as distinct lines. This would improve clarity and facilitate interpretation of climatic trends.

Figures 2–5 – Similar concerns apply. The current graphical presentation makes interpretation difficult. I encourage you to consult other studies presenting multi-season climatic and agronomic data for clearer visualization strategies.

As previously mentioned, my main concern with the manuscript is the discussion section. The current version provides very limited critical analysis and relies heavily on descriptive reporting of results. Many statements are presented without adequate bibliographic support. Given the extensive literature available on climate–grapevine interactions and varietal behavior under warming conditions, the discussion could and should compare the results with findings from other grape varieties and regions, with mechanistic interpretation of observed trends, discuss whether the observed responses are typical, exaggerated, or cultivar-specific and critically evaluate the findings.

Strengthening this section with relevant references and more interpretation will substantially improve the manuscript.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the constructive evaluation of our manuscript and for highlighting both its strengths and areas requiring improvement. All comments have been carefully considered, and the manuscript has been revised to strengthen clarity, scientific contextualization, and depth of discussion. Detailed responses are provided below.

 

Comment 1: L135–139 – Please clarify whether the wines analyzed were produced from grapes harvested in the same experimental vineyard described in the study, or whether commercially available wines were used. This point is important for ensuring traceability and experimental consistency.

R: We thank the Reviewer for pointing out the need for clarification. The manuscript has been revised to explicitly state that all wines analyzed in this study were produced exclusively from grapes harvested in the same experimental vineyard described in Section 2.1 (Iași–Copou). The wines were obtained following the producer’s standard winemaking protocols to ensure technological consistency across vintages and minimize processing-related variability. This clarification has been added to Section 2.2 (Wine samples).

 

Comment 2: Section 2.4 (L151–162) – The title “Grapevine Adaptation” may not accurately reflect the parameters assessed. The section reports phenological, fertility, productivity and berry composition metrics, which characterize grapevine performance rather than adaptive mechanisms or resilience traits. Consider revising the title to something more precise such as "grapevine performance".

R: We agree with the Reviewer that the original title could be misleading. The section focuses on phenological development, fertility, productivity, and grape quality parameters, which describe grapevine performance rather than adaptive mechanisms per se. Accordingly, the section title has been revised to “Viticultural Parameters and Grape Quality”, which more accurately reflects the nature of the evaluated characteristics.

 

Comment 3: – The graph is difficult to read and interpret in its current format. Consider alternative approaches commonly used in climatological studies, such as plotting monthly values on the x-axis and representing minimum, maximum and average temperatures as distinct lines. This would improve clarity and facilitate interpretation of climatic trends.

R: We appreciate this suggestion. Figure 1 was revised to improve readability and interpretability by clearly distinguishing minimum, maximum, and average temperatures and by enhancing graphical clarity. The revised figure now allows a more intuitive visualization of thermal variability and trends across the studied years.

 

Comment 4: Figures 2–5 – Similar concerns apply. The current graphical presentation makes interpretation difficult. I encourage you to consult other studies presenting multi-season climatic and agronomic data for clearer visualization strategies.

R: We acknowledge the Reviewer’s concern. Figures 2–5 were revised to improve clarity by standardizing axes, labels, and legends, and by simplifying visual complexity. These changes facilitate easier comparison across seasons and enhance the readability of multi-season climatic and agronomic trends.

 

Comment 5: As previously mentioned, my main concern with the manuscript is the discussion section. The current version provides very limited critical analysis and relies heavily on descriptive reporting of results.

R: We agree with the Reviewer that strengthening the discussion was necessary. The Discussion section has been substantially expanded to provide deeper interpretation of the results, focusing on climatic drivers, physiological responses of the grapevine, and implications for wine typicity. The revised discussion now critically evaluates whether the observed responses are consistent with, or deviate from, those reported for other cultivars and regions under similar climatic conditions.

 

Comment 6: Many statements are presented without adequate bibliographic support. Given the extensive literature available on climate–grapevine interactions and varietal behavior under warming conditions, the discussion could and should compare the results with findings from other grape varieties and regions, with mechanistic interpretation of observed trends, discuss whether the observed responses are typical, exaggerated, or cultivar-specific and critically evaluate the findings.

R: We thank the Reviewer for this important observation. The Discussion section was revised to incorporate additional bibliographic references addressing climate-grapevine interactions, phenological advancement, acidity degradation, aromatic compound stability, and sensory shifts under warming conditions. Comparative discussion with other cultivars (e.g., Sauvignon blanc, Șarba, and other Eastern European varieties) has been added, alongside mechanistic explanations of the observed trends.

 

Comment 7: Strengthening this section with relevant references and more interpretation will substantially improve the manuscript.

R: We fully agree. As outlined above, the Discussion section has been significantly strengthened through deeper interpretation, broader contextualization, and integration of relevant literature. We believe these revisions substantially enhance the scientific impact and relevance of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic, evaluating the impact of climatic variability on grapevine performance and wine quality of a local variety. The five-year dataset provides useful information for a poorly studied cultivar.

 Correlation analyses should report p-values, and stronger statistical approaches (e.g., PCA integrating climate–grape–wine variables and mixed-effects models) would significantly improve the manuscript.

The discussion should be strengthened by incorporating physiological mechanisms and considering future climate scenarios. The results section could be simplified, reducing the number of similar regression figures. Additionally, the sensory analysis would benefit from multivariate analysis and statistical comparison between vintages.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions aimed at improving its statistical robustness and scientific depth. The comments were very helpful, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Detailed responses are provided below.

 

Comment 1: Correlation analyses should report p-values, and stronger statistical approaches (e.g., PCA integrating climate–grape–wine variables and mixed-effects models) would significantly improve the manuscript.

R: We thank the Reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, all correlation analyses are now accompanied by corresponding p-values to clearly indicate statistical significance. In addition, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) integrating climatic variables, grape composition, wine physicochemical parameters, and sensory descriptors has been implemented. This multivariate approach allowed the identification of dominant climatic drivers and their integrated effects on grapevine performance and wine typicity. Regarding mixed-effects models, we acknowledge their potential relevance for multi-year datasets. However, given the single-site experimental design and the limited number of vintages, we opted for multiple regression models and PCA, which are more appropriate and robust under the current experimental constraints. This limitation has been acknowledged in the Study Limitations section.

 

Comment 2: The discussion should be strengthened by incorporating physiological mechanisms and considering future climate scenarios.

R: We agree with the Reviewer. The Discussion section has been expanded to include physiological interpretations of the observed responses, particularly regarding phenological advancement under increased thermal accumulation, acidity degradation under elevated temperatures, and the modulation of sensory attributes by ethanol and dry extract. Additionally, the implications of ongoing warming trends for future climate scenarios in the Iași viticultural region are now discussed, with reference to adaptation strategies for cool-climate vineyards.

 

Comment 3: The results section could be simplified, reducing the number of similar regression figures.

R: We appreciate this suggestion. To improve clarity and avoid redundancy, the Results section was streamlined by removing repetitive or weak regression analyses and by retaining only the most statistically robust and biologically relevant models. This revision improved the readability of the Results section while preserving the key findings.

 

Comment 4: Additionally, the sensory analysis would benefit from multivariate analysis and statistical comparison between vintages.

R: We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion. A multivariate approach was applied to the sensory dataset through PCA, allowing discrimination among vintages and identification of key sensory drivers associated with climatic variability. Additionally, statistical comparisons between vintages were performed for selected sensory attributes, supporting the differentiation observed in the multivariate analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very satisfied with the revisions. The authors have adequately addressed all the issues raised in the previous review comments.

Author Response

(Checklist indication) Conclusions can be improved.

We have completely rewritten and restructured the "Conclusions" section in the revised manuscript. The new text is much more concise, impactful, and directly connected to our working hypothesis. It now clearly synthesizes the critical decoupling between technological and aromatic maturity caused by heat stress and emphasizes the necessary adaptive viticultural strategies. We believe these revisions significantly strengthen the final message of our study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the replies, I am satisfied with what has been improved.

Although I can tell that significant changes have been made to the manuscript, I still have concerns regarding the Figures 1 and 3, which are still presented in an unusual way compared to the scientific literature. Also, I reccommend exchanging the numerals (I-XII) for the name of the months in all figures.

Author Response

Although I can tell that significant changes have been made to the manuscript, I still have concerns regarding the Figures 1 and 3, which are still presented in an unusual way compared to the scientific literature.

We have completely redesigned the air and soil temperature graphs to align with standard climatological representations found in high-impact scientific literature. Instead of the previous format, the new Figures 1 and 3 now display the monthly average temperatures for each individual year as distinct colored lines with markers. Furthermore, we incorporated a grey shaded area in the background to visually represent the absolute multiannual thermal amplitude (the range between the absolute minimum and maximum temperatures recorded for each month over the five-year study period).

 

Also, I reccommend exchanging the numerals (I-XII) for the name of the months in all figures.

As explicitly recommended, we have replaced the Roman numerals (I–XII) with standard month abbreviations (Jan, Feb, Mar, etc.) on the horizontal axes across all figures in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, we removed the obsolete explanation regarding the Roman numerals from all figure legends in the text.

 

(Checklist indication) Are the conclusions supported by the results? Conclusions can be improved.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this critical observation. To ensure absolute alignment between our data and our final statements, we have completely rewritten and restructured the "Conclusions" section. Every statement in the revised conclusions is now strictly and explicitly supported by the presented results. The advancement of phenological stages is directly backed by the timeline data presented in Figure 6 and Section 3.2. The severe decoupling between technological sugar accumulation and aromatic maturity is explicitly supported by the PCA (Figure 10) and the strong negative correlations between heat stress and delicate primary aromas detailed in Section 3.4. The impact of climatic stressors on harvest potential is demonstrated by the actual yield data (Table 1) and the multiple linear regression models (Figure 7). By rooting every concluding remark directly in our statistical and observational data, we believe the final message of our study is now robustly supported by the results.

 

(Checklist indication) Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented? - Must be improved.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for better visual presentation.

As detailed in Response 1, Figures 1 and 3 were completely redesigned into standard climatological formats (incorporating grey shaded areas for absolute multiannual amplitude and individual lines for monthly averages). Additionally, the horizontal axes on all relevant figures (Figures 1–5) were updated from Roman numerals to standard month abbreviations (Jan–Dec).

To provide full transparency without cluttering the main manuscript, we have organized the extensive raw climatic data into clean, well-presented Supplementary Materials (Table S1 for monthly air temperatures and Table S2 for monthly soil temperatures). We are confident that these comprehensive updates have significantly improved the clarity, readability, and professional presentation of our data.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should synthesize the introduction and clearly formulate the hypothesis. They should also clarify whether the study was conducted in a single location or whether each location was considered a replication. The climatic report for each locality should be provided, and the reasons why the year was considered extremely hot should be justified. Finally, the discussion should be carried out critically.

Author Response

The authors should synthesize the introduction and clearly formulate the hypothesis.

We have synthesized the final paragraph of the Introduction and explicitly stated our working hypothesis. We clarified that the study tests the hypothesis that extreme interannual climatic variations (particularly elevated temperatures and fluctuating precipitation) significantly alter the phenology, productivity, and typical sensory profile of the local Golia variety (Section 1).

 

They should also clarify whether the study was conducted in a single location or whether each location was considered a replication.

We apologize for the initial geographical description that caused confusion. We have revised Section 2.1 to explicitly state that the study was conducted in a single experimental location (a specific experimental plot within the Copou viticultural center). There were no replications across other towns. Consequently, the climatic data provided in our report strictly reflects the microclimate of this single experimental site.

 

The climatic report for each locality should be provided, and the reasons why the year was considered extremely hot should be justified.

In Section 3.1.1, we have added the requested justification. We clarified that 2024 was classified as an extremely hot year because its average annual temperature (12.6°C) exceeded the region's historical multiannual average by more than 2°C (e.g., compared to the 10.4°C historical baseline), and its absolute maximums frequently surpassed historical thresholds during the summer months.

 

Finally, the discussion should be carried out critically.

To ensure a critical approach to our findings, we have expanded the final paragraph of Section 3.4. We critically assessed Golia’s phenotypic plasticity, highlighting the severe decoupling between technological sugar accumulation and aromatic maturity induced by extreme thermal stress. We also discussed its pronounced vulnerability regarding rapid acid degradation and aroma volatilization compared to more resilient cultivars.

 

(Checklist indication) Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? - Can be improved.

We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. To improve the Introduction and provide a more focused background, we have synthesized the final paragraphs of this section. We ensured that the cited references logically funnel from the broader context of climate change impacts on European and Romanian viticulture down to the specific knowledge gap regarding the local Golia variety. Most importantly, we have now explicitly formulated the working hypothesis at the end of the Introduction. This addition provides a much clearer background and directly connects the literature review to the specific objectives of our study.

 

(Checklist indication) Is the research design appropriate? - Must be improved.

(Checklist indication) Are the methods adequately described? - Can be improved.

We understand the reviewer's concern, which we believe stemmed from an ambiguity in our initial description of the experimental setup in Section 2.1. The perceived issue with the research design was actually a lack of clarity regarding the study location. We have completely revised Section 2.1 to explicitly state that the research is a robust, 5-year longitudinal study conducted in a single experimental location (a specific plot within the Copou viticultural center), using a randomized sample of 100 permanently marked vines as biological replicates. By removing the confusing references to other geographical areas and clarifying the exact nature of the single-site monitoring, we believe the appropriateness and rigor of our experimental design are now unequivocally clear.

 

(Checklist indication) Are the results clearly presented? - Can be improved.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented? - Must be improved.

We appreciate the reviewer's feedback regarding the clarity of our results. To ensure our findings are presented as clearly and professionally as possible, we have implemented several significant improvements throughout the Results section. We completely overhauled Figures 1 and 3 to align with standard scientific representations and updated the horizontal axes across all figures to standard month abbreviations for immediate readability. To prevent the main text from being cluttered with raw data, we moved the extensive monthly temperature datasets into clearly formatted Supplementary Tables (Table S1 and Table S2). This allows the main text to focus on key trends and significant findings. Also, we expanded the discussion at the end of Section 3.4 to critically assess the results. By clearly explaining the physiological decoupling between sugar accumulation and aromatic maturity under thermal stress, we believe the implications of our results are now presented with much greater clarity and scientific depth.

 

 

Are the conclusions supported by the results? – Must be improved

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this critical observation. To ensure absolute alignment between our data and our final statements, we have completely rewritten and restructured the "Conclusions" section. Every statement in the revised conclusions is now strictly and explicitly supported by the presented results. The advancement of phenological stages is directly backed by the timeline data presented in Figure 6 and Section 3.2. The severe decoupling between technological sugar accumulation and aromatic maturity is explicitly supported by the PCA (Figure 10) and the strong negative correlations between heat stress and delicate primary aromas detailed in Section 3.4. The impact of climatic stressors on harvest potential is demonstrated by the actual yield data (Table 1) and the multiple linear regression models (Figure 7). By rooting every concluding remark directly in our statistical and observational data, we believe the final message of our study is now robustly supported by the results.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf