Sustainability of Vine Cultivation in Arid Areas of Southeastern Spain through Strategies Combining Controlled Deficit Irrigation and Selection of Monastrell Clones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript aimed to carry out a comparative economic and environmental evaluation, using the LCC and LCA methodology, of the organic cultivation of seven Monastrell clones under two irrigation strategies for 2018-2021. The result is proper to published on the journal of Agronomy. However, some writing mistake and deficiency should be revised and added.

 

1. section 2 Materials and Methods can use some flow diagram to replace the long step expression (Line 181-197, 205-232)

2. please clarify the system boundary of LCA

3. Table 4, please keep the decimal point the same as other tables all over the manuscript.

4. table 7 and 8, please clarify the abbreviation “C” and “S”.

5. some tables and figures can be put together, for example table 10 and figure 2 can be combined.

6. table 7 and 8 should be the supplementary materials.

Author Response

1. Section 2 Materials and Methods can use some flow diagram to replace the long step expression (Line 181-197, 205-232)

Authors: We believe the text between lines 181-197 is necessary to be able to explain in detail to the reader the accounting items that define the production process. We consider the same with the text between lines 205 and 232 in relation to the structure of costs and income. This presentation of information on material and methods is used in various papers published in Sustainability and Agronomy (MDPI editions).

 

2. Please clarify the system boundary of LCA.

Authors: In line 250 we indicate: The functional unit (FU) is 1 kg of grapes harvested in the field. The scope of the 251 LCA, therefore, focuses solely on the cultivation phase of the grapes for winemaking.

We think that the system boundary are clearly defined. In addition, lines 257 to 268 describe the system components that are evaluated in the LCA.

 

3. Table 4, please keep the decimal point the same as other tables all over the manuscript.

Authors: We believe that the figures in Table 4 need greater precision. For this reason we have used four decimal places, as in other previous works published in Agronomy and Sustainability.

 

4. Table 7 and 8, please clarify the abbreviation “C” and “S”.

Authors: The reviewer is right. To clarify the contents of tables 7 and 8, we add the following to the table footers:

C: Control treatment; S: Stress treatment

 

5. Some tables and figures can be put together, for example table 10 and figure 2 can be combined.

Authors: We have considered it necessary to disaggregate the information so that it is clearer for the reader, as we have exposed in previous papers published in Agronomy.

 

6. Table 7 and 8 should be the supplementary materials.

Authors: We consider it essential to expose the structure of costs and income, essential to reach the result indicators, in the text to facilitate its understanding.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

line 105 - replace orchard by vineyard

lines 109-113, please add soil classification, TAW and root depth.

lines 120 to 128: The Kc values used appear to be too high for conditions as arid as those in this study. Can you characterize the vigour, pruning wood weight or NDVI of the experimental plot to assess the suitability of the FAO 56 paper coefficients?
If you had a weather station in the experimental vineyard why did you use 12 -15 year averages to calculate ETo?
Campbell mod. CR10X is not a weather station but a datalogger. What was the criterion for Ks in the irrigation strategies used?

line 129 - why high frequency irrigation? With that you are increasing losses by direct evaporation from the soil

line 137 - Despite indicating Romero's reference, I believe that the experimental design should be explained.

line 356 - Were there no differences in vigor that would justify differences in summer pruning costs between the 2 irrigation strategies?

The difference in cost accounting is mainly with harvesting, it would be interesting to have a reference to mechanical harvesting

Table 7 - check the thousands separator in the "operational cost" line, in some cases you use the dot instead of the comma

In tables 8 and 9 use irrigation strategy and not irrigation method                                                                                                                 line 503 - You have not studied rootstocks, it is better to rewrite the sentence.

Line 512 - You only evaluated the production and sugar content, which is not enough for a qualitative evaluation.

 

Author Response

Line 105 - replace orchard by vineyard

Authors: Agree with the reviewer. We replaced orchard with vineyard

 

Lines 109-113, please add soil classification, TAW and root depth.

Authors: The soil of the plot is clayey (>40% clay, 36%–38 silt) and has an organic-matter content between 0.82–1.05%. It is classified like calcisol (more abundant soils in Region of Murcia) with high calcium carbonate. We do not have measurements of soil water content during the experimental period. Root depth was approximately 60-80 cm depth (hard work sole was observed below this depth), due to several extractions of vines that we did on the ground at the end of the experiment.

 

Lines 120 to 128: The Kc values used appear to be too high for conditions as arid as those in this study. Can you characterize the vigor, pruning wood weight or NDVI of the experimental plot to assess the suitability of the FAO 56 paper coefficients?

Crop coefficients were taken from FAO 56 paper coefficients adapted to the Mediterranean area and are between 0.3 and 0.8 during growing season. These Kc are similar to those used in other semi-arid winegrowing areas such as Washington State in different grapevine varieties…

Data of vigor and pruning wood weight of different clones are showed in other paper (Romero et al., Agronomy 2023, 13, 433. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020433.    

If you had a weather station in the experimental vineyard why did you use 12 -15 year averages to calculate ETo?

In this experiment we used historical data of ETo in the experimental place and besides, the data of the current year to calculate ETc (2018-2020). 

Campbell mod. CR10X is not a weather station but a datalogger. What was the criterion for Ks in the irrigation strategies used?

We did not use Ks in this experiment because we did not have data of available soil water. The estimation of Ks requires a water balance computation for the root zone. Hence the importance of having the necessary information regarding the water content in the soil (average soil water content for the effective root zone [θi-1, m3 m-3], the water content at field capacity [θFC, m3 m-3], and the water content at wilting point [θPC m3 m-3]) (Allen et al., 1998).

 

Line 129 - why high frequency irrigation? With that you are increasing losses by direct evaporation from the soil

In this experiment, all irrigation events occurred when the solar radiation and the air temperature decrease (during late evening, 20:00-23:00), to avoid the water losses by direct evaporation. The traditional ‘high frequency irrigation’ method that implies the supply of water as frequently as plants need it, where soil water content and therefore matric potential are continuously high, is not the same that we have used in this experiment. We supplied irrigation water only 2-5 times per week (depending of the time of the year), and with this irrigation frequency, soil water content decreased between two consecutive irrigation events. Effectively in other experiments we are doing lower frequency irrigation events (1-2 times per week) to further reduce soil evaporation and to evaluate the vine response under these irrigation conditions.

 

Line 137 - Despite indicating Romero's reference, I believe that the experimental design should be explained.

We agree with the referee. A short description of the experimental design has been introduced in line 136.

“A completely randomized design was used in the vineyard with two factors: Clone (7 clones) and Irrigation conditions (control and stress treatments), with 15 repetitions per combination. Therefore, each clone had 15 control vines and 15 stressed vines arranged in the same trellis row. Due to its small size and to the high soil homogeneity (there were no significant differences in soil characteristics, such as texture, organic matter, pH, or cation exchange capacity), the experimental design was elaborated without repetitions of complete blocks. To cut off irrigation in plants with stress treatment, a key in the drip line was provided to open or close when irrigation or drought had to be applied. Inter-row and under-vine weeds were removed mechanically during the season, soil management was no tillage, and vineyard management and all of the phytosanitary treatments were applied following the rules of organic production.”

 

Line 356 - Were there no differences in vigor that would justify differences in summer pruning costs between the 2 irrigation strategies?

Authors: The differences in vigor are little or nothing relevant in relation to pruning times, at least in vineyards and in our agroclimatic conditions. Thus, we have not considered differences in cost.

The difference in cost accounting is mainly with harvesting, it would be interesting to have a reference to mechanical harvesting.

Authors: Mechanized harvesting is non-existent in red grapes intended for quality wines in southeastern Spain; it is somewhat more common in white grapes intended for young wines. In any case, the comparison between manual and mechanized harvesting would be interesting in other wine-growing areas.

 

Table 7 - check the thousands separator in the "operational cost" line, in some cases you use the dot instead of the comma

Authors: OK, we corrected the errors in table 7.

 

In tables 8 and 9 use irrigation strategy and not irrigation method  

Authors: OK, we make the proposed change in Tables 8 and 9.

 

Line 503 - You have not studied rootstocks, it is better to rewrite the sentence.

Authors: In response to the reviewer's request, the beginning of the conclusions has been rewritten as follows:

The combination of selected clone of the variety, with the application of controlled deficit irrigation programs is a strategy with relevant economic and environmental effects on the sustainability of wine grape cultivation, especially in semi-arid areas with limited water resources

 

Line 512 - You only evaluated the production and sugar content, which is not enough for a qualitative evaluation.

Authors: The authors' statement does not go into detail about quality parameters. The sugar content is a parameter still used mainly for the payment of grapes, therefore we believe that the statement is correct:

A balance between quality and productivity must be sought to guarantee the sustainability of viticulture for the production of quality wines.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx