Changes in the Composition of Flavonols and Organic Acids during Ripening for Three cv. Sauvignon Blanc Clones Grown in a Cool-Climate Valley

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

In this study, the influence of the geographical location and clone type on the contents of flavonols and organic acids of Sauvignon blanc grapes ( (Clone 242, Clone 107 and Clone 1- 16 Davis) over the ripening process was investigated  in two zones (referred to as low and high zones) in Casablanca Valley, Chile. The results showed that grapes of different qualities can be grown in two geographical subunits into the larger area of Casablanca Valley. Also, although the use of clones is  quite widespread in modern viticulture,  this study is one of few in which the chemical composition of Sauvignon blanc grapes has been investigated in depth, which may be very important for obtainingn grapes that produce wines with different characteristics that appeal to wine consumers.

The research is written in a very good academic language. However, the fact that the study is only one year is an important shortcoming. Since the study was conducted in two different places, I see no harm in it as a one-year study only. I conducted a few suggestions on the main text. You can see the suggestions below.

line 39; Replace grapevine canopy with vine canopy

line 155; ,where each replicate corresponded to seven consecutive plants, replace plants with vines

Author Response

In this study, the influence of the geographical location and clone type on the contents of flavonols and organic acids of Sauvignon blanc grapes ( (Clone 242, Clone 107 and Clone 1- 16 Davis) over the ripening process was investigated  in two zones (referred to as low and high zones) in Casablanca Valley, Chile. The results showed that grapes of different qualities can be grown in two geographical subunits into the larger area of Casablanca Valley. Also, although the use of clones is  quite widespread in modern viticulture,  this study is one of few in which the chemical composition of Sauvignon blanc grapes has been investigated in depth, which may be very important for obtainingn grapes that produce wines with different characteristics that appeal to wine consumers.

The research is written in a very good academic language. However, the fact that the study is only one year is an important shortcoming. Since the study was conducted in two different places, I see no harm in it as a one-year study only. I conducted a few suggestions on the main text. You can see the suggestions below.

Response: Unfortunately, the pandemic of Covid-19 meant that this work, which was intended for two years of study, could only be done in 1 year. For the same reason, we would like to thank the reviewer for his interest in this work.

line 39; Replace grapevine canopy with vine canopy

Response: Suggestion accepted and change was done.

line 155; ,where each replicate corresponded to seven consecutive plants, replace plants with vines

Response: Suggestion accepted and change was done. Please check line 115

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper authors analyzed the influence of the geographical location and clone type on the contents of fundamental compounds of grapevine, such as flavonols and organic acids. The topic covered in the paper is very interesting; results, that was presented in a clear manner using graphical and table means, are supported by appropriate methods and experimental procedures, which are described with enough detail. The significance of results obtained was interpreted and discussed with due reference to previously published studies. I really appreciated this work, but I have some concerns, which needs clarification from authors.

Major revisions

Section 2 “Materials and Methods”

Paragraph 2.6 – Statistical analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Turkey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test and the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) assume that data are normally distributed (Gaussian distribution) and have equal variance/covariance. With what statical tests did the authors verify these assumptions? Please explain in the text.

Section 3 “Results”

Table 2

Reading of Table 2, as set by the authors, is confusing. I suggest creating two independent tables, in which the authors report separately the differences between the clones found in the same cultivation area and the differences between the clones found in the different cultivation areas.

Section 5 – Conclusions

Since the synthesis of the compounds studied in this paper are strongly influenced by environmental conditions (as amply explained by the authors in the Introduction), I suggest inserting a sentences that highlights the importance of repeating the analyzes in the future, in order to confirm he achieved results.

Minor revisions

Line 31: I suggest eliminating “that”

Figure 1

I suggest replacing the uppercase letters whit asterisks, as the authors did for the Figure 2 and 3

Figure 2 – Lines 279

I suggest replacing “Different uppercase letters” with ^*  

Author Response

In this paper authors analyzed the influence of the geographical location and clone type on the contents of fundamental compounds of grapevine, such as flavonols and organic acids. The topic covered in the paper is very interesting; results, that was presented in a clear manner using graphical and table means, are supported by appropriate methods and experimental procedures, which are described with enough detail. The significance of results obtained was interpreted and discussed with due reference to previously published studies. I really appreciated this work, but I have some concerns, which needs clarification from authors.

Major revisions

Section 2 “Materials and Methods”

Paragraph 2.6 – Statistical analysis

The analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Turkey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test and the Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) assume that data are normally distributed (Gaussian distribution) and have equal variance/covariance. With what statical tests did the authors verify these assumptions? Please explain in the text.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We incorporate a better explanation in statistical section. Please check lines 177-178.

Section 3 “Results”

Table 2

Reading of Table 2, as set by the authors, is confusing. I suggest creating two independent tables, in which the authors report separately the differences between the clones found in the same cultivation area and the differences between the clones found in the different cultivation areas.

Response: Although we appreciate the suggestion made by the reviewer, we believe that making two tables could be duplicate the data and taking up more space in the text. The text in the bottom of the table can help to the reader to separate the effect from the zone of the clones.

Section 5 – Conclusions

Since the synthesis of the compounds studied in this paper are strongly influenced by environmental conditions (as amply explained by the authors in the Introduction), I suggest inserting a sentences that highlights the importance of repeating the analyzes in the future, in order to confirm he achieved results.

Response: suggestion accepted and change as done. Please check lines 455-456.

Line 31: I suggest eliminating “that”

Response: Suggestion accepted and change was done.

Figure 1

I suggest replacing the uppercase letters whit asterisks, as the authors did for the Figure 2 and 3

Response: suggestion accepted and change was done

Figure 2 – Lines 279

I suggest replacing “Different uppercase letters” with ^*  

Response: Suggestion accepted and change was done