Influence of Spray Technology and Application Rate on Leaf Deposit and Ground Losses in Mountain Viticulture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate all of you on an excellent paper. Your subject is very important and you have conducted first-class research with exceptional statistical analysis, have added to knowledge of the subject.  The methodology is very detailed.The paper is extremely well written, which is excellent for authors English is not their first language. 

I have only a few suggestions:

l.75   The use of the word orchard could be replaced by the word vineyard in this line and many other lines throughout the text. Whilst both words are applicable I would prefer to read vineyard in a paper on spraying vineyards.

l.82 You mention limited research on mountain spraying, I agree, but, you have omitted a recent paper which would enhance your review of the subject references. 

Testing a multi-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle for spray application in high slope terraced vineyard, Sarri,D., Martelloni, L.,Rimediotti,M, Lisci, R., Lombardo,S.Vieri, M.   Journal of Agricultural Engineering, April 2019

You refer to whiskers in your statistical analysis, they are also referred to as error bars in many publications. I suggest you double check with the journal editor to ascertain which is their preferred nomenclature. 

l.453 delete word sprayer, insert word spray

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

The study was designed to evaluate leaf deposit and ground losses generated from spray application in mountain viticulture. In my opinion, the paper fits with the aims of the journal. Despite the study is of local significance, I feel that such kind of papers could help in understanding the importance of the evaluation of volume rate and all appropriate working parameters at context level for reducing the environmental and financial costs of pest control.

From my point of view and for the approach that the paper suggests, the article is acceptable for publication but in my opinion, some modification could improve the quality of the overall work as decribed below.

2.2 Experimental design and spraying technique - Line 125  Table 1: please explain better (also in the text) why did you chose the volume rate for every technology

2.3 Characterization of the canopy - Line 152 Table 2 . Please explain how the LAI value are obtained

3.1 Characterization of the canopy - Line 253 This relationship is not related to canopy characterization. Authors developed this relationship to determine the leaf area for calculate the tracer deposit on leaves. I suggest to change the location of this information in the methodology chapter, not related with canopy characterization

3.2 Quantification of spray deposition on leaves - Line 268 How could be explained the important differences in deposition values between trellis and goblet system? Which effect could be assigned to canopy characteristics?

4. Discussion - Line 368 I suggest to include a comparative analysis of the three deposit values obtained (dN, dG and d100). All the three values have been calculated but not well discussed

Because of its potential, I hope the authors will have the opportunity to revise the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc