Yield Performance and Quality Assessment of Brazilian Hybrid Grapes Influenced by Rootstocks and Training Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is very interesting, the content is very comprehensive, and the work is carried out very systematically. I have a small question, what is the purpose of using rootstock in this study, and what problems in the industry of these two grape varieties of  ‘IAC 138-22 Máximo’ and ‘BRS Violeta’ g are to be solved? Why not use self-rooted seedlings as the control in the experimental design, or use common rootstocks such as 5BB and SO4 as the control.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing is very good, just a little revision.

Author Response

This manuscript is very interesting, the content is very comprehensive, and the work is carried out very systematically. I have a small question, what is the purpose of using rootstock in this study, and what problems in the industry of these two grape varieties of  ‘IAC 138-22 Máximo’ and ‘BRS Violeta’ g are to be solved? Why not use self-rooted seedlings as the control in the experimental design, or use common rootstocks such as 5BB and SO4 as the control.

 

 

Dear,

Thank you for your positive feedback and insightful questions regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your careful consideration of our work.

The use of rootstock in this study is primarily aimed at evaluating the potential benefits of grafting for improving the performance of the grape varieties 'IAC 138-22 Máximo' and 'BRS Violeta'. These two varieties are hybrid cultivars developed in Brazil, and our research is focused on their expansion in the viticulture industry. Specifically, rootstocks can provide several advantages, such as enhanced resistance to soil-borne pathogens, improved tolerance to abiotic stresses (e.g., drought and salinity), and better adaptation to varying soil conditions, which are critical for optimizing vineyard productivity and fruit quality.

In the industry, these two grape varieties are widely cultivated, but they can encounter challenges such as susceptibility to specific soil conditions or diseases that might limit their full potential when grown as self-rooted vines. By using rootstocks, we aim to address these limitations and explore the possibility of improving their overall performance in different environmental conditions, thereby supporting their broader adoption in the industry.

As for the choice of control in the experimental design, we opted not to use self-rooted seedlings as the control because our focus was on evaluating the interaction between these specific grape varieties and the selected rootstocks. Furthermore, if we had used non-grafted seedlings as the control, the plants would not have been of the same age, due to the differing production times required for grafted versus non-grafted seedlings. This difference in age could introduce additional variables, potentially confounding the results. Additionally, we considered that the use of common rootstocks like 5BB and SO4 might not provide the same level of specificity in addressing the unique challenges these varieties face in commercial production. However, we acknowledge the value of your suggestion and agree that including these common rootstocks as controls could provide further insights, which could be considered in future studies.

We hope this explanation clarifies our approach and the rationale behind our experimental design. We look forward to any further feedback you might have.

Best regards,

Dr. Francisco José Domingues Neto

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to harmonize the text with the comments.

The results of the work are original and interesting.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language in which the work is written is easy to read and understand. It is necessary to introduce minor changes that are listed in the suggestions.

Author Response

It is necessary to harmonize the text with the comments. The results of the work are original and interesting. The English language in which the work is written is easy to read and understand. It is necessary to introduce minor changes that are listed in the suggestions.      

Dear,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and kind words regarding our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the originality and interest of our work, as well as your positive comments on the clarity of the English language used.

We have carefully reviewed and harmonized the text with your comments, and we have implemented the minor changes as suggested.

Thank you once again for your suggestions, which have undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Best regards,
Dr. Francisco José Domingues Neto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The results from your experiment are valuable for the scientific community and answer important questions concerning the vine-growing. I would like to say that your article is very well written and interesting to the reader. 

The abstract is very concise and easy to read! The introduction fully represents data from research conducted by other scientists around the globe. The results and the discussion sections are well organized and the text is well arranged! The conclusions are precise and well written!

I have a few remarks concerning only technical mistakes in the paper:

- Section "Materials and methods", Row 139 and Row 143 - The digit 2 in CO2 and H20 should be written as superscript.

- Section "Results"- When you explain the results from one table, there is no need to repeat its number for each indicator. Remove the text "Table 1,2,3" etc. from rows 207, 246, 287, 300, 312, 351, 361, 387, 468.

All remarks are highlighted in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Section "Materials and methods", Row 139 and Row 143 - The digit 2 in CO2 and H20 should be written as superscript.

Section "Results"- When you explain the results from one table, there is no need to repeat its number for each indicator. Remove the text "Table 1,2,3" etc. from rows 207, 246, 287, 300, 312, 351, 361, 387, 468

 

Dear,

Thank you very much for your positive comments and valuable suggestions regarding our article. We truly appreciate your thorough review and are pleased to know that you found our work well-written and of interest to the scientific community.

We have carefully considered your remarks and made the suggested corrections in the manuscript. Specifically, we have adjusted the digit formatting for CO₂ and H₂O in the "Materials and methods" section, and we have removed the repeated table numbers in the "Results" section as advised.

Thank you once again for your insightful feedback. We believe these changes have further improved the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

Best regards,
Dr. Francisco José Domingues Neto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf