Challenges to Viticulture in Montenegro under Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

The authors state that the temperature will be X degrees in summer. The Winkler index will be between I think the authors should use terms like: “studies estimate that values may reach..., the tendency is for values to reach...” These are future assumptions, not a statement.

Keywords: The authors repeat three key words that are in the title. Primary error. Choose new words that are not in the title of the work.

Introduction

In the introduction, the authors report the predicted climate changes for Montenegro. However, the authors do not describe the importance of wineries for the country. How much is produced? Is it an important culture for generating jobs? Report more about the importance of culture in the country.

MM

2.1 Study Area

An initial part, highlighting the winery's economic importance for Montenegro, should be in the introduction.

The authors present the models used in Table 1. However, the authors do not clearly describe how they validated future climate prediction estimates. Was an average taken of the models used? Was the best model chosen for the data? Were the best three selected? What criteria??? Methodology needs to be more detailed.

3.2. Montenegro Climate Change

The authors very strongly highlight future climate claims. Future affirmative language is a problem. It may not happen.

Authors should use terms of future projections as possible. The outlook indicates that .... Calculations show that temperatures could reach around ....

Line 490 – “Selection of new crops” is the “only answer to guarantee the socioeconomic sustainability of farmers”. Once again the authors are very radical. Very shocking, impactful statements. I believe that everything must adjust, and farmers, over the years, will adapt to the new climatic conditions. If there really are going to be new climate conditions that are so altered...

Line 494 – 506 – The authors are very radical. The way the text is describing, farmers should pack their bags and leave for other places. It's not like this. In life, everything adapts. Farmers will also adapt.

Conclusion

The authors only presented future climate problems. As a solution, they presented that farmers will have to go to other places to produce.

 

I believe that the line of writing should encourage farmers to develop new techniques, implement new technologies, better irrigation management, greater cultivation efficiency, more training, studies. Everything adapts.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear reviewer, the authors are grateful for the careful review. Below, all the comments are addressed, and all the subsequent changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.

Abstract

• The authors state that the temperature will be X degrees in summer. The Winkler index will be between I think the authors should use terms like: “studies estimate that values may reach..., the tendency is for values to reach...” These are future assumptions, not a statement.

Responding to 1.1, 1.6 and 1.7:

It is quite uncertain if the projections are realistic or not, due to the discrepancies between models, and the uncertainty of which path society will take. The authors agree to not use expressions that express a high degree of certainty.  In this sequence, changes were made in the manuscript .

Abstract:

“. The average summer summer temperature might reach around 29.5 °C, and the growing season average temperature can become higher than 23.5 °C, advancing phenological events. The Winkler index is estimated” lines 25 -27

Results and discussion, it were made multiple changes, here are some examples:

 “In general, is estimated a temperature increase” lines 313-314

“Regardless of the SSP scenario, the warmest quarter temperatures across Montenegro are expected to increase to a range from 11.6” lines 317-319

“Particularly for the MVAs, is expected a GDD10 increase of at least 500 °C. lines 341-342

“This heat sum would extend out of the growing season, as the annual heat sum can increase from 2530 (…)“°lines 474-475

“Future scenarios show that the difference between GDD10 and the WI is likely to increase”  lines 477-478

“However, is estimated to increase between 286 or 305 days” lines 482

 “For a clear understanding of the possible consequences,” lines 484-485

In the conclusion:

“In Podgorica’s vineyards, the mean annual temperature of 16.2 °C is estimated to increase up to 19.0 °C. During the growing season, the average temperature can reach between 23.6 to 24.6 °C. Increasing temperatures will be also felt in the colder season, at a point where the growing season might expand in over 1 month, and so is expected the advancement of phenological development, among more consequences”. lines 647-651

However, the authors would like to infer that the used SSP scenarios, SSP1—2.6 (lower climate change) and SSP5—8.5 (higher climate change) allow a valid interval, and so it is very likely that the climate normals of the bioclimatic indices, will reach values between SSP1—2.6 and   SSP5—8.5.

 

• Keywords: The authors repeat three keywords that are in the title. Primary error. Choose new words that are not in the title of the work.

The authors agree with this change and are thankful for this correction. As the journal allows to have up to ten keywords in the manuscript and so the previous keywords that were included in the title were removed, and replaced by others as follows:

Viticulture-> grapevine, winegrowing

Climate change -> Bioclimatic indices, Socio-Economic Pathways, Projections, Climate impacts

Adaptation; -> No  change

Montenegro;  Montenegrin viticulture, Western Balkans

CHELSA -> No change

 

Introduction

• In the introduction, the authors report the predicted climate changes for Montenegro. However, the authors do not describe the importance of wineries for the country. How much is produced? Is it an important culture for generating jobs? Report more about the importance of culture in the country.

In response to 1.3 and 1.4. The authors would like to describe the importance of the sector in the study area and not in the introduction. This was discussed among the authors and we agreed to describe the sector in an individual section, in the study area. This was chosen to have a more organized paper, and where the global state of the art of climate change and viticulture are addressed.  As the state of the art does not have enough information for Montenegro, the country is stated and so there is the need to write the presented paper. The details of the sector are then shown in a separate section to not enlarge the introduction.
In this sense, the authors respectfully request to describe Montenegro’s viticulture in the study area.  Placing this information in the introduction would make it very long and possibly confusing. Still, now in the introduction is mentioned briefly the importance of viticulture, please see lines 79-81:

“Nonetheless, there is still a lack of climate change impact studies focusing on viticulture in specific parts of the world. This is the case for Montenegro, where viticulture plays a significant role in the country’s economy”

With more detail to the socioeconomic context, changes were made in the study area, which are indeed relevant for the manuscript, please see lines 118-123:

“Viticulture has a rich heritage in grapevine growing and winemaking, contributing to its economic success [64]. Montenegro is among the top 50 wine-producing countries, however, exportation has been decreasing in the last decade from 17M $ down to 15M $ in 2023 [65], with an average production of 38 thousand tons per year [66]. Still, viticulture practice is increasing in Montenegro, with currently more than 500 grape producers [67] across the four defined viticulture regions [68]”

 

MM

Study Area .

• An initial part, highlighting the winery's economic importance for Montenegro, should be in the introduction.

According to the previous comment, changes were made in the manuscript. The response to this observation is included in the previous comment response.

• The authors present the models used in Table 1. However, the authors do not clearly describe how they validated future climate prediction estimates. Was an average taken of the models used? Was the best model chosen for the data? Were the best three selected? What criteria??? Methodology needs to be more detailed.

In the section “2.2 Datasets” the authors only mentioned the datasets and then in the section “ 2.3.2. Evaluation of Future Climate Changes” it was explained that they used the ensemble median of the climate data. Still, since this question might also occur for readers it is now included in 2.2 Datasets, that reported projections were ensembled among the 5 models for each of the 3 scenarios. Also, in section 2.3, the method explanation was improved. In addition, in figures 4 to 9, and also in the supplementary material, it was included in the description of the figures that were used in the ensemble by the median, which is more robust than the ensemble mean especially for small ensemble sizes, as it is less sensitive to outliers.

In the sequence of this pertinent observation from the reviewer, changes were made in the methodology, to make it more clear.

In the section 2.2 datasets, is briefly described the purpose of each datasets, here are the following changes found:

“also, the dataset is already bias-adjusted [83] using a trend-preserving bias correction [84]..” Lines 168-169

“For each future projection data from the 5 GCM was ensembled by median. “ Lines 174

“To further test the robustness of the CHELSA, historical period data was compared with observation-based gridded climate data (with a spatial resolution of 0.1° latitude × longitude) from ERA5-Land [88] and E-OBS [89], version 27.0e. Additionally, the 3 datasets were compared with observed data from 4 weather stations (WSs), provided by the Institute of Hydrometeorology and Seismology [90]. These contain daily temperature and precipitation data, in the cities of Podgorica, Bar, Cetinje, and Ulcinj Municipality [90], Figure 1.” Lines 176-182

In section 2.3.2:

“The next step was to estimate the climate of Montenegro’s Viticulture, calculating bioclimatic indices for the historical and future periods, using the 5 GCM for future SSP scenarios. Projections for each scenario were ensembled from the GCM, to capture the range of uncertainty in regional climate projections [92], providing better results than individual models [93]. Between the ensemble through average or median, it was selected the median to minimize the effect of outliers on the reported projections for Montenegro [94].”  Lines 199-205

“to understand the differences among GCM. While for the whole country, projections were ensembled by the median.” Lines 228-229

 

Montenegro Climate Change

• . The authors very strongly highlight future climate claims. Future affirmative language is a problem. It may not happen.

The response to this correction is addressed in 1.1, as our response goes in the sequence of comment 1.7.

• Authors should use terms of future projections as possible. The outlook indicates that .... Calculations show that temperatures could reach around ....

The response to this correction is addressed in 1.1, as our response goes in the sequence of comment 1.6.

1.8- Line 490 – “Selection of new crops” is the “only answer to guarantee the socioeconomic sustainability of farmers”. Once again the authors are very radical. Very shocking, impactful statements. I believe that everything must adjust, and farmers, over the years, will adapt to the new climatic conditions. If there really are going to be new climate conditions that are so altered...

Here the authors would like to rephrase. Relocation is a possible adaptation measure, which is an extreme measure as like changing the crop type. This might be the only answer for landowners , stakeholders, winegrowers, if climate change goes to worst-case scenarios such as the SSP5-8.5. These strategies should be included in the manuscript as these are possible measures. However, and according to this review, the authors have lessened these extreme adaptation measures, informing that other options are available. However, the authors would like to keep these extreme measures (less emphasized in the paper), since these are possibilities for the worst-case scenario, and from a scientific standpoint, these must be mentioned in the manuscript.

According to this comment the authors have rephrased the mentioned text:

“Under a worst-case scenario, the selection of new crops, better adapted to the anticipated conditions, is an answer to ensure socioeconomic sustainability.” lines 511-513

More changes were carried out in the sequence of this comment (1.8) and the following (1.9).

1.9- Line 494 – 506 – The authors are very radical. The way the text is describing, farmers should pack their bags and leave for other places. It's not like this. In life, everything adapts. Farmers will also adapt.

According to the previous comment (1.8) the authors have rephrased the first paragraph of parts of section 4.

Now, structure of section 4, goes as follows:

1^st paragraph: Describe the strategies on the worst-case scenario change crop. But when it is possible to maintain the same crop, there are two paths, relocate (worst case), and adapt (best case). Here it was improved the paragraph:

“Under a worst-case scenario, the selection of new crops, better adapted to the anticipated conditions, is an answer to ensure socioeconomic sustainability.” lines 511-513

 

2^nd paragraph, describe the appearance of new areas suitable for viticulture. This is not only in the scope of relocation but also in the scope of buying new lands and producing new wines, which is relevant for the sector. Now the word relocation was removed from this paragraph.  As follows:

“According to our projections, is likely that new vineyards will emerge.” lines 515

“However, to plant new vineyards, soil properties must be considered as well,” lines 519

“Montenegro’s complex orography challenges the settlement of new vineyards, due to the lack of flat land areas” lines 521

Removed:“Nonetheless, other concerns may arise after vineyard relocation to hillslopes”

3^rd paragraph, the introduction of adaptation strategies, now giving more emphasis to adaptation on site:

“Changing the crop and relocation are the most extreme adaptation measures in the  long-term, which should be adopted under the worst-case scenarios [62]. However, long- and short-term adaptation measures on site should be regarded [34]” lines 534

In the other paragraphs, the following adaptation measures are discussed, in terms of is done in Montenegro, and must be done:

-irrigation,

-vineyards management

-grape varieties suitable for warmer climates

-research and consumer adaptation,

- rootstocks,

- improvement of data collection,

then is recommended future research in the scope of adaptation and appeal to mitigation measures.

Conclusion

1.10- The authors only presented future climate problems. As a solution, they presented that farmers will have to go to other places to produce.

 I believe that the line of writing should encourage farmers to develop new techniques, implement new technologies, better irrigation management, greater cultivation efficiency, more training, studies. Everything adapts.

In the light of this pertinent suggestion and also previous, the authors updated the conclusion revealing more adaptation measures described in the manuscript:

“The future climate of Montenegrin viticulture was accessed in the presented study, using the CHELSA dataset, and a representative weather station located in the vicinity of the vineyards, in Podgorica. Three SSPs were used, and the results showed that regardless of the scenario, Montenegrin viticulture will be challenged by climate change impacts driven by the temperature increase.

Our results revealed that precipitation might decrease, but not below a concerning point. Nevertheless, the optimisation of the irrigation system will have to be conducted for the vineyards to adequately cope with higher evapotranspiration rates in the future, and guarantee water availability.

In Podgorica’s vineyards, the mean annual temperature of 16.2 °C is estimated to increase up to 19.0 °C. During the growing season, the average temperature can reach between 23.6 to 24.6 °C. Increasing temperatures will be also felt in the colder season, at a point where the growing season might expand in over 1 month, and so is expected the advancement of phenological development, among more consequences.

Montenegro is already applying adaptation measures, including the application of precision viticulture, usage of late-ripening varieties and rootstocks tolerant to higher temperatures. Furthermore, additional adaptation measures must be taken for the expected climate changes from 2041 to 2070 to maintain the viticultural heritage.

            Our results also revealed the suitability of new locations for the settlement of vineyards, which opens up a new opportunity for the development of viticulture, bringing new wines to the market.”

 

 

Best regards, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This study is giving a complex overview related to the influence of climate change on the growing of grapes which is important especially due to increase of temperature.

 

In this study were highlighted all aspects which influence on the climate change and prediction for the climate condition in future.

 

Manuscript is well written and figures give important information.

 

On what kind of soils are vineyards in different regions in Montenegro? Insert it in manuscript.

 

Give more information regarding agro-technical approach in vineyards in Montenegro.

 

How climate change influence on the soil in the vineyard?

 

Is it possible to overcome problems caused by climate change by application of proper irrigation system in the vineyard?

 

Line 57 lake Skadar, missing letter k.

 

In the paragraph which starts in line 547 highlight important of growing conditions for volatile profile of wines produced from autochthonous Montenegro grape varieties, Krstač and Žižak. Kindly consider to cite Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 2022, 88(1), pp. 11–23

You mentioned in manuscript possibility for relocation of vineyard region into the other areas. How this relocation will influence on the other ecosystems?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

• This study is giving a complex overview related to the influence of climate change on the growing of grapes which is important especially due to increase of temperature.

Dear reviewer, many thanks for the feedback and thorough review.  Here the authors are tracing climate change impacts on viticulture, and our results have pointed out that increasing temperatures are alarming for the region.

All the improvements of the manuscript are highlighted in yellow, and all the changes and responses to comments are addressed below.

 

• In this study were highlighted all aspects which influence on the climate change and prediction for the climate condition in future.

The authors are grateful for the positive comment, here the point is to report future consequences of climate change on Montenegrin viticulture. The consequences boarded three different future scenarios, to consider a wide range of possibilities. Also, adaptation measures are included in the manuscript, providing some insights for the sector in Montenegro.

• Manuscript is well written and figures give important information.

 Thanks for the positive feedback. The authors are aware that the manuscript might have a high volume of figures. However, this is necessary as there is a lack of climate change studies in the scope of viticulture for Montenegro, there is a need to portray bioclimatic indices for Montenegro, to properly address the impacts and subsequently necessary adaptation measures.

• On what kind of soils are vineyards in different regions in Montenegro? Insert it in manuscript.

The authors have not addressed the soil types for each region, which is indeed relevant for the viticulture sector in Montenegro. In this sequence, the authors have included information about the soil, according to the references:

Savić, S.; Vukotić, M. Viticulture Zoning in Montenegro. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture 2018, 75, 73, doi:10.15835/buasmvcn-hort:003917.

CRSFA Studija O Rejonizaciji Vinogradarskih Geografskih Proizvodnih Područja Crne Gore (A Study on Regionization of Wine Growing Geographic Production Areas of Montenegro); Locorotondo (Bari, Italy), 2017;

Spalevic, V. Pedological Characteristics of Montenegro. In Speleology of Montenegro; Barovic, G., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2024; pp. 85–97 ISBN 978-3-031-49375-1.

The part were soil types of each regions are mentioned in lines 125-128:

“In terms of soil types: the basin of Lake Skadar contains mostly red clays, eutric cambisols and alluvial; the coast also contains red clays, eutric cambisols but also includes rankers [61,69,70]. The region of Nudo is dominated by rendzina while, in the North Region, there are brown cambisols and also rendzina [69,70].”

• Give more information regarding agro-technical approach in vineyards in Montenegro.

The authors have included in the study area the following text, lines 149-156:

“In Montenegrin vineyards, agro-technical operations such as winter and green pruning, protection, reduction of the cluster and defoliation are applied. The space between rows varies from 0.6 to 1.2 meters, double and single Guyots and cordons are used. Montenegrin viticulture is moving towards the application of precision viticulture, with the installation of soil moisture and meteorological sensors, to support smart irrigation [77–79], and also the usage of digital pheromone traps. Towards the adaptation to climate change, rootstocks resistant to higher temperatures are being used and research is being performed to find autochthonous grape varieties, resistant to climate change [80].”

• How climate change influence on the soil in the vineyard?

There are numerous impacts of climate change in soil. This is indeed relevant in the scope of viticulture. The authors have recommended to further study the impacts of climate change on soil for viticulture as follows in lines: 618-627

           

“Future research should also address the impacts of climate change on soil for viticulture. Soil properties are essential for any cultivation and certainly soil quality is vulnerable to climate change [141]. Increasing temperatures accelerate biological processes in soil altering the nutrient cycles and also the soil microbiome [142]. With increased evapotranspiration soil moisture is expected to decrease and aridity to increase. This leads to a loss of soil’s carbon content, an increase in erosion, and a decrease in water and nutrient holding capacities, and so soils become less fertile [143]. Consequently, grass cover cropping in vineyards becomes harder to maintain, which is essential to limit erosion, stimulate microbial activity, and among other factors promote soil health and also carbon sequestration as a mitigation measure [144].

           

 

• Is it possible to overcome problems caused by climate change by application of proper irrigation system in the vineyard?

Proper irrigation as a single adaptation measure is not enough to overcome climate change impacts. Even assuming that water availability in future is not a problem, irrigation would only compensate for the increased evapotranspiration (due to higher temperatures), and avoid water stress.  Also, irrigation would reduce the impacts of aridity.

Irrigation is not enough to minimize the effect of increasing temperatures. Increasing temperatures bring challenges, such as sunburn damage, thermal and radiative stress, the incapability of cultivating less warm temperature-resistant grape varieties, and more. These are examples of consequences that cannot be suppressed with irrigation. 

In this sequence, to adopt a single adaptation measure is not enough, as adaptation should be combined with multiple adaptation measures. The authors have included the following sentence in the manuscript. Please check lines 612-615:

“Further studies should be devoted to the quantification of the adaptative potential of these strategies in response to climate change and risk reduction, to select the best to adopt, knowing that the usage of a single adaptation measure might not be enough, as the results from Fraga et al. [138] suggest. It is also important”

 

• Line 57 lake Skadar, missing letter k.

Thanks for noticing the error, it is now corrected and highlighted in yellow on the manuscript.

 

• In the paragraph which starts in line 547 highlight important of growing conditions for volatile profile of wines produced from autochthonous Montenegro grape varieties, Krstač and Žižak. Kindly consider to cite Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 2022, 88(1), pp. 11–23

Dear reviewer, thanks for the suggestion, the authors have included this citation in lines 146-148 .

“Alongside these prominent varieties, lesser-known indigenous cultivars such as Žižak, Krstač, Čubrica, and Bioka can be identified in Montenegro, with unique simple sequence repeat [73–76].”

The authors have not addressed here the volatility of wines, because it is not well fit in the sequence of the text, but it is in the scope of indigenous cultivars.

 

• You mentioned in manuscript possibility for relocation of vineyard region into the other areas. How this relocation will influence on the other ecosystems?

Relocation has high impacts in ecosystems as the implementation of a crop will disturb the ecosystem and so the number and species of will change. More drastically the impacts are much higher when forests are replaced by crops.

Relocation is one of the possible adaptation measures and also because climate conditions for viticulture will emerge in new sites, the impacts of changing the land use are now mentioned in the manuscript, in lines 530-533:

“As such, it is important to perform viticulture zoning under future climates in Montenegro, considering soil and landscape features, and specifically regarding soil erosion in steep slopes [119] and ecological impacts due to land use change [120].”

 

Best regards, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper revealed that all scenarios suppression the baseline conditions for viticulture. The results is logical, clear. However, some minor changes are necessary.

Q 1: Line 29: adaptation measure，  Added specific method cases in here.

Q2: Line 29: next year?  This may be a measure that needs to be taken on an ongoing basis, not only next year

Q3: Part 2.1. Study Area   can be properly streamlined

Q4: Part 3.2 Montenegro Climate Change is not the focus of this study and should be appropriately simplified (including some figures).

Q 5 Rewrite conclusion part: The conclusion is where you summarize your main points and reiterate your thesis statement in a clear and concise manner.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This paper revealed that all scenarios suppression the baseline conditions for viticulture. The results is logical, clear. However, some minor changes are necessary.

Dear reviewer, the authors are grateful for the careful review. All the improvements of the manuscript are highlighted in yellow, and all the changes and responses to comments are addressed below.

 

Q 1: Line 29: adaptation measure，Added specific method cases in here.

Here the authors have included more information. There are a lot of possible adaptation measures, which are not yet implemented in Montenegrin viticulture, and others that are under implementation, as shown in section “4. Adaptation Strategies”. In the abstract section, the authors have just included the need for adaptation measures due to high temperatures.  The authors agree that including the specific case of adaptation measures would improve the abstract. However, this cannot be done as the journal “Instructions for Authors “states that the abstract is restricted to a maximum of 200 words.
To resumely include added specific case methods, the authors have stated:

“Montenegrin viticulture requires the application of adaptation measures focused on reducing temperature increase impacts” in lines 28-29.

Q2: Line 29: next year?  This may be a measure that needs to be taken on an ongoing basis, not only next year

The authors fuly agree, that this is was a mistake. The authors have rephrased the last sentence of the abstract, lines 29-31:

“The implementation of adaptation measures shall start in the next years, to assure the lasting productivity and sustainability of viticulture.”

Q3: Part 2.1. Study Area can be properly streamlined

Some parts of the text were removed, in the new version:

“In terms of geomorphology, Frankl (…) and a glacial imprint”

“This topographical position of vineyards situated in lower but warmer areas of designated vineyard regions undoubtedly influences the overall quality and characteristics of Montenegro's wines, as well as the choice of cultivated grape varieties.”

The study area description can be considered as long. However, the authors respectfully request to keep this because the presented paper is one of the first to report the future of viticulture in Montenegro in the scope of climate change, and so we consider including information about the viticulture sector. Also, the other reviewers have requested more information.

Our point and organization of the study area is to:

-Overall describe the country, in the first paragraph.

-Introduce the viticulture conditions/history and socioeconomic context, in the second paragraph.

-Describe the grape varieties and wine production, in the third.

- mention the operations that are done in the vineyard, on the forth.

Q4: Part 3.2 Montenegro Climate Change is not the focus of this study and should be appropriately simplified (including some figures).

The main focus is indeed the impacts of climate change on Montenegrin viticulture. Section 3.2 is not large in terms of text, but it has a significant number of figures. The reason is that to properly address climate change impacts on viticulture, climate change must be shown across Montenegro, before reaching impacts in vineyards (Section 3.3). In this sequence, the authors could not let readers without being informed of the necessary adaptation measures and communication of measures that are already under application in Montenegro (Section 4)

Owing to the lack of studies on climate change impacts on Montenegrin viticulture, as reported in our Introduction,  the authors considered it necessary to keep section 3.2. Also, we would like to keep a wider perspective to support forthcoming research and increase interest in the manuscript for a larger audience. Furthermore, as Montenegrin viticulture will have to adapt to climate change, while one of the strategies would be the relocation of vineyards and microclimatic selection, we think that giving a broader coverage of the country would be useful in the scope of decision support for winemakers and viticulturists in selecting new suitable areas for viticulture, at least based on agroclimatic conditions under future climates.

In this sense, the authors respectfully request the reviewer to keep the actual structure of section 3.2, which allows the manuscript to have a sequence of ideas, that are supported from the section.

Also, to make clear for readers, the authors have reformulated the study objectives:

“ For this reason, the present study was accomplished to fulfil three main objectives: 1) to estimate future climate changes in Montenegro; 2) to assess potential impacts on local viticulture, and 3) to delineate adaptation strategies, to ensure the resilience of grape production in Montenegro..” in lines 90-94.

Q 5 Rewrite the conclusion part: The conclusion is where you summarize your main points and reiterate your thesis statement in a clear and concise manner.

The conclusion was restructured and improved, according to the reviewer's suggestions.

“The future climate of Montenegrin viticulture was accessed in the presented study, using the CHELSA dataset, and a representative weather station located in the vicinity of the vineyards, in Podgorica. Three SSPs were used, and the results showed that regardless of the scenario, Montenegrin viticulture will be challenged by climate change impacts driven by the temperature increase.

Our results revealed that precipitation might decrease, but not below a concerning point. Nevertheless, the optimisation of the irrigation system will have to be conducted for the vineyards to adequately cope with higher evapotranspiration rates in the future, and guarantee water availability.

In Podgorica’s vineyards, the mean annual temperature of 16.2 °C is estimated to increase up to 19.0 °C. During the growing season, the average temperature can reach between 23.6 to 24.6 °C. Increasing temperatures will be also felt in the colder season, at a point where the growing season might expand in over 1 month, and so is expected the advancement of phenological development, among more consequences.

Montenegro is already applying adaptation measures, including the application of precision viticulture, usage of late-ripening varieties and rootstocks tolerant to higher temperatures. Furthermore, additional adaptation measures must be taken for the expected climate changes from 2041 to 2070 to maintain the viticultural heritage.

            Our results also revealed the suitability of new locations for the settlement of vineyards, which opens up a new opportunity for the development of viticulture, bringing new wines to the market.”

 

Best regards, the authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Okay. The authors totally changed the tone. Now the text is smoother, without future statements, without scaring producers.

The term "projections" was inserted in the abstract.

Keywords changed.

Enriched introduction.

MM with more details. But still, I think that in line 152 the authors could insert more details about what types of soil sensors? Rods? Tensiometer? What depth of assessment?

The discussion was enriched.

The conclusion is now appropriate. Authors encourage farmers to qualify, study, introduce new technologies! That's right! Very good! This is the role of research. We are here to alert possible problems and present solutions for producers!

I believe the article can now be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

ok

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for revised version of manuscript and answers on my questions and suggestions, it is fine for me. 

Best regards,