Phenological Study of 53 Spanish Minority Grape Varieties to Search for Adaptation of Vitiviniculture to Climate Change Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1) Title of the article

How does the content of the article respond to the title? How is viticulture adapting to climate change? Which of the considered varieties is more suitable for which region of Spain? Which ones don't fit? And most importantly - how the authors justify it. In my opinion, you need to add in the title what exactly the adaptation is for

 

2) Introduction

“By 2050, in some regions, harvesting may be a few days earlier [5]”

What does this information give? What measures need to be taken?

 

3) “The aim of this paper is to evaluate the phenological behavior of 53 Spanish minority varieties for their possible utility in the face of climate change. The study will be completed with a phenological study of some of these varieties in local collections from other regions of Spain.”

What exactly is the result? Evaluation and study are not the aim and objectives of the work. The goal may be to increase yields, increase profits, etc. - due to the proposed measures obtained as a result of your research. Do you appreciate the study of grape varieties and their behavior for what? This will be your goal.

Next, write down the tasks that you solve - 1,2,3 ..., and in accordance with them there should be conclusions, by points

 

4) Table 1, column 4 - on the basis of what were promising areas identified? Is this the source material or the result of your research?

 

5) clause 1.1. “The Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov methods were used to check the normality of the data.” Give your graph of normal distribution, histograms, formulas.

 

6) Fig. 2. These graphs are not informative. It is better to plot the other way around - along the X axis, years (1957-2021 + forecast for 20-30 years), and select months with lines of different colors (maybe not all, but selectively). Then there will be a warming trend. You can make several graphs for different regions - with different climates.

 

7) clause 2.1. The K-means method was used to classify grape varieties, why did you choose this method? It is necessary to provide the formulas of the method used, make a link, provide a diagram of the algorithm, screenshots from the software product.

 

8) clause 3.4. Did you use SPSS software for statistical calculations? Perhaps it is better to take screenshots instead of tables.. And show graphically the correlation dependence of phenological stages and ripeness.

 

9) clause 3.5. What does this give us? You have classified the varieties by yield and what next, what actions?

10) Conclusions - draw in accordance with the tasks of the work (see clause 3)

General remark. I assume that as a result of your research, it is necessary to build a model that determines in which regions of Spain it is appropriate to grow certain vineyard varieties due to climate change. Build, please, a structural diagram of your research to understand the cause and effect relationship. You can use smart cards.

You have:

1) Map of Spain indicating the regions for the study of varieties + table 1;

2) Time dependence of temperature by months (add forecast)

3) Diagrams of phenological stages of different varieties

4) Normal distribution

5) Cluster analysis - breakdown of varieties into clusters

6) Correlation between ripeness and GDD

7) Diagrams of titratable acidity of grapes

8) The last column of Table 1 is the prospect of growing grapes, you can add a map and you need a justification - why it is advisable to grow certain varieties of grapes in those regions, this should follow from your research (points 2-7).

It is necessary to link points 1-8 into one whole, into a single study. While the article looks like a set of unrelated statistical data processing methods, it is not clear why they were performed. The absence of mathematical formulas is also very noticeable, an article in journals of this level should contain mathematical models, at least the statistical ones that you describe.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study showed information about the phenological stages of 53 Spanish minority grape varieties in three consecutive years (2019-2021) to search the adaptation to the climate change conditions. The aims of the work are well defined, and the methodology used in the assay responds in good form to the objectives. The assay is very simply but is very interesting and offer novel information about these varieties that form part of the viticultural heritage of Spain. There is some issues that need revision before acceptance.

 

Material and methods section

 

Line 101. Why the authors use Tempranillo and Moscatel as controls? Are these varieties the most planted varieties in Spain or there are other reasons. Please clarify as possible.

 

Lines 115-117. Maybe it is necessary any phrases that explain the cultural practices in the different varieties explained that the study uses the same viticultural practices (such as pruning, cluster thinning, shoot thinning).

 

Line 125. Is the day of harvest the same for all cultivars? Is the day the same date in the three years? Please clarify as possible. In lines 159 to 162 the authors compared the different time of phenological stage with the controls, but maybe the same comparison between years could be useful for this assay and demonstrate the differences in a short period of time.

 

Results section

Figure 2. Is it possible a better resolution for the image presented? The same for the other images presented

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this manuscript. despite it being rather descriptive rather than analytical. I was surprised the work wasn't clearly linked to previous studies: e.g. Benito, A. et al. (2017): Ex situ ampelographical characterisation of wild Vitis vinifera from fifty-one Spanish populations. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 23 (1), pp. 143–152.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper shows the agronomical properties of 43 indigenous varieties in Spain. Although indigenous varieties are one of the potentials in adaptation to climate changes, I found the paper not relevant and not attractive to the readers/winemakers.

Since you monitored phenology, yield, and grape total acidity of 43 indigenous varieties grown in the same region (Madrid), I found this information not completely accurate, since these varieties were not grown in their original region and would not have shown their original characteristics. Also, harvesting all of them at 20-22 Brix doesn`t mean that they are all ripe and ready for harvest. Monitoring phenology, yield, and grape acidity of 43 indigenous varieties and comparing them to Control varieties, is too simple. Are these varieties interesting from the ecological (aroma and phenolic composition) or agronomical (drought and disease resistance) point of view?

How many vines per variety did you monitor? Could you specify in which regions are these varieties usually grown in, and then you can compare it to the prospection regions? You also have to explain how did you acquire Prospection regions, since it is not explained in the Materials and methods part of the paper.

 

One of the premises of the paper is that growing late ripening varieties to adapt to climate changes, since they will be less suspect to high temperatures, which is too simple and should be avoided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered my questions, I can agree with some arguments. Also interesting are the additional materials that the authors provided in response to my comments.

The authors write that statistical research, including verification of the distribution law, would be cumbersome for the main body of the article. I can agree with this, but I recommend making an appendix (supplement) to the article in the form of Appendix or additional files, and show statistical graphs there.

The results of cluster analysis can also be added there. The rationale given in the answer (why the k-means method was used) should be included in the main part of the article.

The results of the SPSS program can also be provided in additional files.

Examples of graphs of GDD variables at the stages of ripeness and ripeness in 2019 are recommended to be included in the main text of the article.

However, I did not see an answer to the last remark: “Please, build a block diagram of your research in order to understand the causal relationship. You can use smart cards. The authors formulated the purpose of the work in a new way, which is good. However, there is a lack of work on the items of tasks and the corresponding conclusions.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Since my concern about choosing to monitor 43 varieties in the same region to study their phenology can not be changed, I found the paper not relevant for publishing in this Journal.

Author Response

We highly appreciate your comments but we are sincerely sorry that our answers have not made the work of interest to you.