The Effect of Irrigation on the Vineyard Canopy and Individual Leaf Morphology Evaluated with Proximal Sensing, Colorimetry, and Traditional Morphometry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Find the following comments/suggestions to improve the manuscript:

- Start the abstract with a brief introduction before the objective

- It will be better to start the introduction section without subheadings. (I do not think the subheadings are necessary in this section)

-  The discussion about Figure 1 is not clear

- It is unclear if figures 2a and 2b are extracted from the previous paper or from the author. Kindly clarify this

- The legend for Table 1 must be included in the paper to make it more understandable and easily comprehended. Same as Table 2

- Some of the statements in the "Discussions section need to be substantiate with adequate citations from previous studies

- The conclusion section is too short and doesn't really justified the present presented in the paper

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English Language editing is required

 

Author Response

Budapest, 20^nd of June 2024

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

Special Issue: Application of Remote Sensing Technology in Orchard Precision Management

 

Dear Reviewer 1,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank the evaluation of our manuscript entitled:

 

The effect of the irrigation on the vineyard canopy and individual leaf morphology evaluated with proximal sensing, colorimetry and traditional morphometry by

 

Peter Lepej, Dóra Taranyi, Jurij Rakun, Balázs Nagy, Szabina Steckl, György Lukácsy, Nárcisz Mikóczy, Diána Ágnes Nyitrainé Sárdy, Péter Bodor-Pesti for.  

 

According to the Reviewers request we did significant changes in the manuscript and some of the comments are can’t be answered caused by the structural change.

Below we would like to refer to the comments and suggestions.

 

- Start the abstract with a brief introduction before the objective

We modified the Abstract

- It will be better to start the introduction section without subheadings. (I do not think the subheadings are necessary in this section)

We removed the subheadings

-  The discussion about Figure 1 is not clear

We modified the Figure and explained in more detail

- It is unclear if figures 2a and 2b are extracted from the previous paper or from the author. Kindly clarify this –

The Figure2a and b are original, designed by the authors of the present study

- The legend for Table 1 must be included in the paper to make it more understandable and easily comprehended. Same as Table 2

Thank you, we included them in the text and implemented the tables

- Some of the statements in the "Discussions section need to be substantiate with adequate citations from previous studies

Discussion was significantly changed according to the requirements

- The conclusion section is too short and doesn't really justified the present presented in the paper

We corrected the Conclusions

- Minor English Language editing is required

English Language editing was done

 

I hope our corrections fit the requirements and will be acceptable.  

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Line 19-20. This sentence should summarize the background and significance of the research, not simply explain the content of the research.

Line 31-32. What was the reason for the high water potential of rain-fed stems?

 

Keywords

It was suggested to use stem water potential as one of the key words.

 

Introduction

Line 41 Drop the title.

The introduction needs to be rewritten, and the current version does not make sound scientific assumptions, nor does it show that the paper is innovative and necessary.

What was the significance of analysis based on these methods? Did other researchers not combine multiple approaches or did they analyze for a specific topic?

 

Method

Line 146-152, Whether it is the leaf water potential or the stem water potential that is tested, the test time needs to be accurately stated.

Irrigation systems and meteorological data should be described in detail.

 

Results

Line 234-235. This result is obviously inconsistent with Figure 3, in which the water potential value under rain-fed conditions is the smallest.

There is no in-depth analysis on whether there is an intrinsic relationship between the relevant indicators.

The data is only one year old and cannot meet the publication demand,

 

Discussion

In the discussion, the credibility of the existing results should be discussed on whether there is an internal relationship between soil water, environmental factors and structural parameters under different treatments. The current version cannot reflect the novelty of the results of the paper.

Author Response

Budapest, 20^nd of June 2024

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

Special Issue: Application of Remote Sensing Technology in Orchard Precision Management

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank the evaluation of our manuscript entitled:

 

The effect of the irrigation on the vineyard canopy and individual leaf morphology evaluated with proximal sensing, colorimetry and traditional morphometry by

 

Peter Lepej, Dóra Taranyi, Jurij Rakun, Balázs Nagy, Szabina Steckl, György Lukácsy, Nárcisz Mikóczy, Diána Ágnes Nyitrainé Sárdy, Péter Bodor-Pesti for.  

 

According to the Reviewers request we did significant changes in the manuscript and some of the comments are can’t be answered caused by the structural change.

Below we would like to refer to the comments and suggestions.

 

Abstract

Line 19-20. This sentence should summarize the background and significance of the research, not simply explain the content of the research.

Line 31-32. What was the reason for the high water potential of rain-fed stems?

Thank you we corrected the Abstract.

Keywords

It was suggested to use stem water potential as one of the key words.

Thank you we included it

Introduction

Line 41 Drop the title.

The introduction needs to be rewritten, and the current version does not make sound scientific assumptions, nor does it show that the paper is innovative and necessary.

What was the significance of analysis based on these methods? Did other researchers not combine multiple approaches or did they analyze for a specific topic?

Thank you we did significant modifications on the Introduction where suggestions were taken into consideration.  Compared to former reports our study gives a more detailed analysis about the effect of the water management on both canopy-level and individual leaf.

 

Method

Line 146-152, Whether it is the leaf water potential or the stem water potential that is tested, the test time needs to be accurately stated.

Thank you we included it

Irrigation systems and meteorological data should be described in detail.

Thank you we included it

Results

Line 234-235. This result is obviously inconsistent with Figure 3, in which the water potential value under rain-fed conditions is the smallest.

Thank you we corrected it.

There is no in-depth analysis on whether there is an intrinsic relationship between the relevant indicators.

The data is only one year old and cannot meet the publication demand,

Thank you we corrected it.

 

Discussion

In the discussion, the credibility of the existing results should be discussed on whether there is an internal relationship between soil water, environmental factors and structural parameters under different treatments. The current version cannot reflect the novelty of the results of the paper.

Thank you, we were focusing on these aspects during the correction of the Discussion.

 

I hope our corrections fit the requirements and will be acceptable.  

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the attached document

Author Response

Budapest, 20^nd of June 2024

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

Special Issue: Application of Remote Sensing Technology in Orchard Precision Management

 

Dear Reviewer 2,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank the evaluation of our manuscript entitled:

 

The effect of the irrigation on the vineyard canopy and individual leaf morphology evaluated with proximal sensing, colorimetry and traditional morphometry by

 

Peter Lepej, Dóra Taranyi, Jurij Rakun, Balázs Nagy, Szabina Steckl, György Lukácsy, Nárcisz Mikóczy, Diána Ágnes Nyitrainé Sárdy, Péter Bodor-Pesti for.  

 

According to the Reviewers request we did significant changes in the manuscript and some of the comments can’t be answered caused by the structural change.

Below we would like to refer to the comments and suggestions.

 

1. Experimental design seems imperfect, 3 treatments, only one replication and one year assessment would probably induce immense errors in the statistical evaluation. Authors should explain how they overcome this drawback while evaluating the test of significance for different measurements.

Thank you for the comment. We consider that the repetition of the measurements provides an appropriate statistical evaluation:

• 50 insertion (10 in 5 repetitions) during the point quadrat, repetitions randomly along the row
• 100-meter continuous LiDAR records, resulting 143 data (about canopy width, canopy volume, canopy area coverage index) for each row
• 15 leaf samples collected randomly along the 100-meter section of the row (same as in the LiDAR) for colorimetric (5 regions per each leaf), and ampelometric evaluation.
• The above numbers follow international standards, for example the OIV (2009) Descriptor list, where at least 10 leaves is suggested to collect for genotype identification.

 

2. How irrigation was scheduled under different irrigation systems, is it a normal practice to apply irrigation in the study region, include some data on climate parameters, what was the dripper discharge rate and how subsoil irrigation was applied.

Irrigation is explained. As in Hungary the wine grape plantations are not frequently irrigated the program is not a standard but more an individual decision by the grower. In Hungary we are in the initial phase to collect information about the irrigation needs of the different genotypes.

 

3. Clarify how images were taken for canopy analysis, provide some details how area coverage index estimated from the leaf area/volume, include an image/s which was/were used to estimate the leaf area.

LiDAR run was explained in the text. The equipment was run with a moving vehicle in the row for both sides of the canopy. Area coverage index was calculated in 70 sections, with delimitating the point cloud to a 160 cm height.

 

4. Authors should clarify how they run the LiDAR measurements, how the sensor was kept stationary while moving along the row, how it impacted the temporal observation and how it was calibrated.

During the run we were focusing on low speed to keep the equipment stationary as much as it is possible. The middle of the row was used for the calibration.

 

5. Section 3.3, authors report significant difference in the mean canopy width among different treatment but report similar area coverage index, explain what lead to this inconsistency in the two measures. Explain what row volume indicate here, is it vine canopy (leaves/tree/branch) area or something else.

The results are discussed now in more detailed. We found that the canopy width is higher, in the irrigated rows, while the number of leaves (point quadrat results) were not changing. We consider that this is caused by the individual leaf increasing and possibly the increasing of the petiole length (data not verified). Area coverage index show the percentage (or value from 0 to 1) of pixel/point coverage of the 0.7 m × 1.6 m area of each. This value is not the leaf area index, but mor like the photosynthetically active canopy. Row volume includes everything belong to the canopy. Volume of all the points in the 3D space.    

 

6. provide some discussion how your measurements relate with the extent of chlorophyll (L465-466) which should, probably be the primary goal for leaf colour attribute measurements.

Thank you, we added further information about it.

 

7. Conclusion section seems incomplete, provide some description on major inference points accomplished in your study.

Conclusion detailed

 

Other comments

Concerning the other comments, we were focusing to answer all questions and comments in the text. In the same time we did significant changes and in some cases the questions are not in the text anymore, or changed.

L19 what are the ‘traditional viticultural investigations?

We wanted to differentiate innovative solution (RGB imaginary, LiDAR) from manual measurements: point quadrat. We use other expression in the text.

L20 was, check the sentence.

L27 define area coverage index, not sure what authors estimated here. I assume Leaf area index is more appropriate term. We explained above

L29 either define these variables or delete them.

L32 ‘plants in all dates’, what does this mean, rewrite

L61 what is UPOV, elaborate it.

L95 section 1.3 is missing

L96-103 there are numerous inconsistencies in this description, probably delete it. We did

L106-109 this sentence seems incorrect, rewrite it and provide a valid reference. Next sentence is also needs to be rewritten, what you mean by ‘trials by farmers’ here.

L118 delete resulting

L125-126 In sentence ‘Summarizing their results, it can be said that the irrigation the yield increased and the composition of the berries changed’ explain how berry composition changed as a result of irrigation.

L127 Again, the aim of the study is unclear, probably rewrite the objectives pointwise.

L136 subsoil irrigation in not clear how water was applied, is it subsurface drip, why there is variable depth, explain.

L139 what was the length of row or how many vines/ treatment, did authors replicated the treatments, clarify.

L141 How the irrigation was scheduled, what was the irrigation event depth, did authors applied similar irrigation depths across irrigation systems? We explained it

L149 10 leaves across the row? Yes.

L158 what does ‘3 height of the canopy mean here, clarify. We did.

L166 not clear how you run along the row with LiDAR, explain? We explained.

L172 elaborate FieldSLAM, not clear We explained.

L196 prove the horizontal axis measurement. Which layer of leaves picture b indicate We explained, the sum of the widest points are represented.

L203 is it 200 or 200000 pixels, 200 pixels are too low the entire row canopy assessment? 200000 pixel

L205 explain what these variables indicates here. We did.

L214 what is GRA.LE.D., elaborate. We did.

L233 what you mean by ‘plant physiological difference, how it was estimated with stem water potential measurement.

L245 clarify 3 heights, their respective widths. We did.

L248-249 provide canopy porosity data which could substantiate your observations.  

L261 figure legend is not clear, specify the length of basal, middle and top row

L291 delete tree

L389 rewrite the sentence.

L391 is it mean or main? Mean

L393 precipitation

L397 previous not former

L411 is it similar to area coverage index in your study

L465-466 provide some discussion how your measurements indicate the impact on chlorophyll which should, probably be the primary goal for these measurements. We explained

L486 what does LA indicate here Leaf Area

 

I hope our corrections fit the requirements and will be acceptable.  

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the manuscript quite comprehensively in light of the comments and suggestions. Revised manuscript looks fine, I do not have any further comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe English of the revised version can be improved further. For example, opening sentence of the Abstrat is long and complicated and can be rewritten as: A large number of grapevines  grown world wide are described and identified ...... list. Among different grapevine organs, leaf has the highest importance.....

Author Response

Budapest, 29^th of June 2024

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

Special Issue: Application of Remote Sensing Technology in Orchard Precision Management

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank the evaluation of our manuscript entitled:

 

The effect of irrigation on the vineyard canopy and individual leaf morphology evaluated with proximal sensing, colorimetry and traditional morphometry by

 

Peter Lepej, Dóra Taranyi, Jurij Rakun, Balázs Nagy, Szabina Steckl, György Lukácsy, Nárcisz Mikóczy, Diána Ágnes Nyitrainé Sárdy, Péter Bodor-Pesti.

 

We would like to thank you for your valuable time and kind efforts that improved our study. We did the English editing with the help of a professional editor who did modifications on the text.

 

We hope our corrections fit the requirements and will be acceptable.  

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences