Productivity and Physicochemical Properties of the BRS Isis Grape on Various Rootstocks under Subtropical Climatic Conditions
, Marco Antonio Tecchio 1, Daniel Callili 1, Marlon Jocimar Rodrigues da Silva 1, Leticia Silva Pereira BasÃlio 1, Sarita Leonel 1, Juan Carlos Alonso 1 and Giuseppina Pace Pereira Lima 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The topic of the study "Productivity and physicochemical properties of the BRS Isis grape on various rootstocks under subtropical climatic conditions" sounds interesting. the study expressed valuable outcomes regarding seedless variety of grape "BRS Isis" on three different rootstocks. however to be published some minor points should be considered by the authors that all mentioned below.
line 61, 96, 115, 140, 143, 155, 182, 191, 215, 225,263, 271 : reference guide
line 61-63:better to improve intro section by adding some more literature regarding previous reports regarding different rootstocks effects on quality attributes of scion cultivar ....
115-118: font space of units
116: better to mention at least modification
244-246: repeated sentence
261: greater biotic stress: ?
Please read the MS thoroughly for possible mistakes.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research paper is a valuable contribution to understanding the performance of 'BRS Isis' grape on different rootstocks in subtropical conditions. Expanding on the discussion and providing more detailed data make the paper more informative and impactful for researchers and grape growers.
Some suggestions are
The abstract provides a clear and concise overview of the research paper's objectives, methods, and findings. It effectively conveys the study's purpose and scope.However, it would be helpful to include some brief context or background information on the significance of studying the 'BRS Isis' grape in subtropical conditions and the relevance of rootstock choice.
Mentioning the number of years covered by the two production cycles would give a better perspective on the long-term impact of the rootstocks.
The experimental design, involving randomized blocks and the number of vines (63) used, is well-described. Please provide more specific details on the data collection methods for assessing income
components, physical qualities of bunches and berries, chemical profile, bioactive substances, and antioxidant activity. Mention the subtropical location where the study was conducted, as this could have an impact on the interpretation of the results.
The results are clear and well-structured, highlighting the differences in performance and properties of the 'BRS Isis' grape on different rootstocks. The use of the Tukey test and PCA is appropriate for comparing rootstocks and scion-rootstock pairings. However, provide more details on the specific results of these analyses, including significant differences and trends. In the table, the value are mentioned as 17,65 instead it should be 17.65. Why authors have used comma instead of period. Please check and correct accordingly.
The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the findings, linking them to the objectives and the practical significance of the study. Explain how the differences observed in the rootstocks can impact grape cultivation and commercial success. Consider discussing the potential reasons for the differences in phenolic compounds and flavonoids between rootstocks and how this may affect the grape's market value or health benefits.
The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings, but it should provide more context on the practical applications of the results. How can grape growers benefit from these findings in real-world scenarios? It would be helpful to offer some recommendations or suggestions for grape growers based on the results, such as which rootstock to choose for specific goals (e.g., higher yield or higher bioactive component accumulation).
General Comments:
The paper is well-written and organized but could benefit from additional details, especially in the methods and discussion sections. Including references or citations to previous research on similar topics can help to contextualize the study and provide readers with a broader perspective.
Ensure all figures, tables, and data are clearly labelled and referenced within the text. Proofread the paper for grammar, spelling, and formatting errors to enhance its overall readability.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The research paper is a valuable contribution to understanding the performance of 'BRS Isis' grape on
different rootstocks in subtropical conditions. Expanding on the discussion and providing more detailed
data make the paper more informative and impactful for researchers and grape growers.
Some suggestions are
The abstract provides a clear and concise overview of the research paper's objectives, methods, and
findings. It effectively conveys the study's purpose and scope.However, it would be helpful to include
some brief context or background information on the significance of studying the 'BRS Isis' grape in
subtropical conditions and the relevance of rootstock choice.
Mentioning the number of years covered by the two production cycles would give a better perspective
on the long-term impact of the rootstocks.
The experimental design, involving randomized blocks and the number of vines (63) used, is well-
described. Please provide more specific details on the data collection methods for assessing income
components, physical qualities of bunches and berries, chemical profile, bioactive substances, and
antioxidant activity. Mention the subtropical location where the study was conducted, as this could have
an impact on the interpretation of the results.
The results are clear and well-structured, highlighting the differences in performance and properties of
the 'BRS Isis' grape on different rootstocks. The use of the Tukey test and PCA is appropriate for
comparing rootstocks and scion-rootstock pairings. However, provide more details on the specific
results of these analyses, including significant differences and trends. In the table, the value are
mentioned as 17,65 instead it should be 17.65. Why authors have used comma instead of period. Please
check and correct accordingly.
The discussion should elaborate on the implications of the findings, linking them to the objectives and
the practical significance of the study. Explain how the differences observed in the rootstocks can
impact grape cultivation and commercial success. Consider discussing the potential reasons for the
differences in phenolic compounds and flavonoids between rootstocks and how this may affect the
grape's market value or health benefits.
The conclusion effectively summarizes the key findings, but it should provide more context on the
practical applications of the results. How can grape growers benefit from these findings in real-world
scenarios? It would be helpful to offer some recommendations or suggestions for grape growers based
on the results, such as which rootstock to choose for specific goals (e.g., higher yield or higher bioactive
component accumulation).
General Comments:
The paper is well-written and organized, but it could benefit from additional details, especially in the
methods and discussion sections. Including references or citations to previous research on similar topics
can help to contextualize the study and provide readers with a broader perspective.
Ensure that all figures, tables, and data are clearly labeled and referenced within the text. Proofread the
paper for grammar, spelling, and formatting errors to enhance its overall readability.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript title “Productivity and physicochemical properties of the BRS Isis grape on various rootstocks under subtropical climatic conditions” has scientific value but needs revisions. The authors accomplished a comprehensive study on productive performance, physical-chemical, and biochemical properties of grape grafted on different rootstocks; which will be beneficial for vine production in subtropical environments.
My suggestions for authors are as follows:
Reviewer Comments:
1- In abstract please add some background of this study; why you need to conduct this research? Mention some positive or raise some reasonable scientific questions or scientific gaps that need to be addressed by this research in first 2-3 lines.
2- The introduction section is very small and less background of this study is presented. I suggest authors to add more background and discuss about environment effects on productive performance, physical-chemical, and biochemical properties of fruits.
3- In Table 1 why authors written comma “,” in between numbers 18,42 ± 3,13 a it should be written as 18.42 ± 3.13 a. Please revise and correct this in all tables 1-5.
4- Also comment 3 mistake in figure 2 such as “F1 (78,15 %)” it should be “F1 (78.15 %)”.
5- In figure 2 why it is written as F1 and F2 ??? It should be PC1 and PC2.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is fine.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors revised the manuscript and now it can be published.
