Exploring Diversity among Grapevines Varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) in Ibiza and Formentera (Balearic Islands, Spain) Using Microsatellite Markers, Ampelographic Methods and an Ethnobotanical Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work investigated the Vitis cultivars cultivated in Eivissa and Formentera islands through an Ethnobotanical Approach and provided novel insights for grapevine research. However, I found several points of this manuscript that needed to be improved for publication in Horticulturae. Firstly, the selection of plots should be representative. We have not seen this representativeness from this study, such as being able to cover all islands, which might be done in future. Therefore, this study may serve as a pilot trial. Moreover, as a research article, Figure 6 is a bit arbitrary, for example, the format is inconsistent, lacks scale, etc. I hope the author can update it. In line 251, the yellow label should be removed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and the research has been done accordingly. It provides important information on the conservation and utilization of local germplasm. Appropriate methodology is used in the research, it is described in detail and comprehensibly. A detailed description of the results and their discussion is given. The conclusions are consistent with the results obtained.

Therefore, the publication of the manuscript is supported. From my side, there would be only a few, more technical suggestions for its improvement (they are provided in the attached manuscript file, marked or added as comments).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There were a couple of sentences in the manuscript, the structure of which seemed not very understandable, maybe they could be improved and made more attractive (see comments in the attached manuscript file).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript authors investigate the local grapevine germplasm of Ibiza and Formentera islands using microsatellite markers, ampelographic methods and ethnobotanical interviews. The manuscript is well written and it is suitable for publication in Horticulturae journal, although it should be revised according to the comments given below.

The manuscript is too long and the text should be reduced as much as possible.  For example, in ‘Results’ section lines 226-234 are not necessary and are more appropriate for ‘Materials and Methods’ section, whereas lines 235-246 are more appropriate for ‘Introduction’ section (although it is not appropriate just to move there this text, because also these sections are quite long). Similarly, ‘Discussion’ section is also excessively long, and lines 416-437 are more appropriate for ‘Introduction’.

Line 2-3: In title rather use the term ‘Grapevine Varieties’ than ‘Grapevines’.

Line 3: Revise ‘trough’ to ‘through’.

Line 3: It is not appropriate that only ‘Ethnobotanical Approach’ is mentioned in the title, as this was not the only method used. One option is to delete ‘through an Ethnobotanical Approach’ from the title, and the second option is to write: ‘using Microsatellite Markers, Ampelographic Methods and Ethnobotanical Approach’.

Line 15: Use the same name for the island Ibiza (or Eivissa) here, in the title and in the rest of the text. Of course, the synonym could still be indicated.

Line 478 (Table 5): The reference García-Muñoz, 2010 is not mentioned in ‘References’, or is wrongly mentioned here.

Line 524: The reference ‘García de los Salmones’ is number 85 in ‘References’ (and not 86). Carefully check all the other numbers of references.

Lines 978-981: These references have two numbers, please correct.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The mauscript has been improved accordnig to the given comments and I recommend to accept it.