Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines During the Growing Season Under Experimental Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thanks for your good report. My comments and questions are in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that all the comments and suggestions provided by you and the other reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in blue.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. The abstract has a character limit, and the relevant details are provided in the main text.

Response 2. The experiment was conducted using three-year-old grapevines propagated from cuttings, as indicated in the manuscript (line 110).

Response 3. Content related to soil characteristics has been added (lines 111-112).

Response 4. Fruit quality was evaluated. It was determined that the 7-day soil moisture treatment was unlikely to have had a statistically significant impact. Your comments will be considered for future research.

Response 5. We acknowledge that controlling soil moisture in the field is challenging and that various cultivation and environmental factors may introduce interference. Given that the experiment was conducted under controlled conditions, we have made a slight modification to the manuscript title to better reflect this aspect.

Response 6. The temperature characteristics can be visually observed in Figure 2B. As the experiment was conducted under the same conditions, we believe that Figure 2B sufficiently conveys the necessary information, even without the provision of additional data.

Response 7. The word indicating a strong correlation when the r-value exceeds 0.7 has been included (lines 360-364).

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, this work can be accepted after reviewing some critical points.
Please, look at the notes reported in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that all the comments and suggestions provided by you and the other reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in blue.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. The experiment was conducted using three-year-old grapevines propagated from cuttings, as indicated in the manuscript (line 110).

Response 2. To provide a clearer overview of the experiment, we have included a schematic diagram (Figure 1) and have further refined the “Materials and Methods” section.

Response 3. The flooding treatment period has been added to the manuscript (line 136).

Response 4. The details regarding the type of electrical conductivity measurement equipment have been incorporated into the manuscript (lines 173-175).

Response 5. To reduce experimental errors, we utilized homogenized soil. However, the content presented in the main text primarily addresses the differences in comparison to similar previous studies.

Response 6. For the flooding treatment, measurements could not be taken due to a limitation of our equipment, as the sensor’s measuring area became submerged in water. As you kindly pointed out, we have incorporated this information into the “Materials and Methods” section (lines 194-196).

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

       In this manuscript, it examined rainfall patterns in South Korea over the past 30 years and quantified the duration of consecutive rainy days to establish a theoretical framework for subsequent experimentations. Based on these results, it further explored the physiological responses of the grapevine cultivars ‘Campbell Early’ and ‘Jinok’, as well as the dynamics of water move-ment within the plants under flooding or excess soil water conditions.  Through the experimental findings, it aimed to evaluate the physiological responses of grapevines under water stress conditions actively and directly. So this study was meaningful.

        However there were some debating issues needed modifying.

        1. In section materials and methods, please add the grapevines phynological periods in the field during the period from July 24 to 31 and point out what phynological period the potted grapevines were in.

      2. In section materials and methods, when determined the experiment indicators in this manuscript, how to take the samples of leaves and stems needed introduction.

       3. The tittle of the manuscript needs modification because the research objection was to construct the experiment research system of the soil moisture stress.

       4. Based on the research objection, in section conclusion, it needed focusing on the the experiment research system of the soil moisture stress, so the section conclusion needs modification.

       5. The data statistical analysis seemed wrong, and it needs reanalyzing according to the data of vertical orthogonal bifactoral experiment.

        6. As to there was no significant difference between the the two cultivars, meanwhile the interactive effect between the both wasn't significant too, it indicated the both had the same level of soil moisture stress tolerence. So these question needs adding to discuss.

 

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that all the comments and suggestions provided by you and the other reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in blue.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. The physiological stage of the grapevine during the experimental period was the fruit coloring stage, which was additionally indicated in the manuscript (line 126).

Response 2. The sampling method for leaves and stem has been additionally included in the main text (lines 148-149, 177-179).

Response 3. As you have kindly pointed out, given that this experiment was conducted under limited conditions, the title of the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

Response 4. A portion of the “Conclusions” section has been strengthened and revised.

Response 5. You have kindly pointed out the statistical analysis of the data. However, without a clear target, it has been challenging for us to make an informed judgment. If you could kindly specify the graph in question and provide details on the exact statistical method, we would greatly appreciate it and sincerely take your feedback into consideration for further revision.

Response 6. As you have kindly pointed out, no significant difference was observed between the two varieties. Accordingly, this has been explicitly mentioned in the main text (lines 419–422).

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In view of mine, this is a good and interesting study, but it needs some minor corrections before it is acceptable for publication. kindly see my suggestions below: 

Line no 92-94: Elevation should be in "m asl"

See line no 127, 241: Kindly avoid using abbreviations in titles 

All the equations need to be cited properly and given a number like Eq. 1, 2, 3....to make the equation clear to the readers 

Line no 350: delete "in conclusion"

The author needs to cite only the relevant citations (see line no 351) and delete the irrelevant ones.

Before the conclusion, the authors need to discuss the shortcoming  of the present work and its implications to global scenarios 

 

 

 

Line no 184:  average annual precipitation in South Korea (Figure 1A) was 184, approximately 1,357 mm, with a standard deviation of ±250 mm. ...rewritten like "annual precipitation in South Korea was approximately 1,357 ±250 mm"

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

nice 

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that all the comments and suggestions provided by you and the other reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in blue.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. Elevation has been indicated as ‘m asl’ in the manuscript (lines 110-111).

Response 2. Abbreviations have been removed from the subheadings and are indicated only in the main text.

Response 3. The equations have been explicitly cited in the text as Equation 1, 2, and so on.

Response 4. In conclusion" at line 386 has been removed.

Response 5. Unnecessary references have been removed (line 386).

Response 6. As you have thoughtfully pointed out, we have addressed the limitations of our study and its potential impact on global climate change in the manuscript (lines 425–429).

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the manuscript "Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Korean Rainfall Patterns " for possible publication in Horticulturae. The manuscript is very well written, idea of the manuscript is interesting, and it discusses a vital area.

Below are some of the suggestions:

1-    The introduction is well-written but can be improved. You reviewed many relevant papers in the introduction but should clarify the gap. The paper needs to clearly state the problems with the existing works, what problem(s) this paper will/is address, and the formation of the research questions. The novelty of the study should be highlighted.

2-    As you have mentioned Korean conditions, I have some questions, what was your data collection methodology because Korea is too big, as you have mentioned coordinates of two locations. Please clarify and revise for clarity. You used two different sources for climate data collections, is the period of data was same or different?

3-    It would be good to add study area map.

4-    Line 113 better to mention the year with dates.

5-    The tensiometers were installed at 115 a depth of 15-20 cm below the soil surface, and 1.0 L-1 of water was applied whenever the soil water potential fell below -5 kPa, -15 kPa, and -30 kPa, respectively.  How many tensiometers were used and please specify particular depths?

6-    I think, authors should carefully discuss the treatment section for clarity.

7-    Please add the complete information about data collection period in material and method section, such as data period mentioned in Figure 1, 2 3 and 4.

8-    Discussion can be improved.

9-    Most of the cited studies are old; I suggest, if possible, using the most recent studies and their results for justifications.

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that all the comments and suggestions provided by you and the other reviewers have been addressed in the revised manuscript, with changes highlighted in blue.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. As you have thoughtfully pointed out, we have clearly emphasized the issues we address and the objectives of our study in the introduction (lines 88–93).

Response 2. As indicated in lines 96–107, the meteorological data from 1995 to 2024 were graciously provided by the Korea Meteorological Administration. The selection of the two regions was based on their significant grape production. Furthermore, during the experimental period, dedicated sensors were installed to accurately collect meteorological data at the experimental site.

Response 3. As you have thoughtfully pointed out, we have added a schematic diagram to Figure 1 to provide a clearer overview of the entire experiment.

Response 4. The year has been indicated (line 126).

Response 5. One tensiometer was used for soil moisture control, while the other was used for measurement and verification. The burial depth has been specified in the manuscript (lines 126-140).

Response 6. We have carefully reexamined and further strengthened the Materials and Methods section.

Response 7. We have added a schematic diagram (Figure 1) to provide a comprehensive overview of the experiment.

Response 8. Most reports related to soil moisture have focused on drought. We have additionally cited some recent studies and revised the reference list accordingly.

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thanks for the revision. Regarding your reply to the following question:

Response 4. Fruit quality was evaluated. It was determined that the 7-day soil moisture treatment was unlikely to have had a statistically significant impact. Your comments will be considered for future research.

So, the seven days stress just had an impact on vegetative traits. So, please add it to your text or conclusion.    

Regards

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your meticulous and professional suggestions regarding our submitted manuscript, titled “Analysis of Korean Rainfall Patterns and the Effects of Excess Soil Moisture on Water Transport in Table Grapevines during the Growing Season under Experimental Conditions”

We would like to inform you that the suggestions you provided have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, with the changes highlighted in red for you reference.

Below is our response to your comments:

 

Response 1. We have incorporated the statement you pointed out in the “Conclusion”, acknowledging that fruit quality was not considered in this manuscript and highlighting the need for further related research (lines 429-432).

 

We sincerely appreciate your insightful feedback and dedication.

Your contributions have been invaluable to the improvement of our manuscript.

 

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the manuscript has been improved.

Best regards.

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

After the "minor revisions" decision, the revised manuscript includes a statement in the "Conclusion" noting that fruit quality analysis was not considered, in accordance with the suggestion of another reviewer, and highlighting the need for further related research.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again for your insightful feedback and dedication, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

     Thank you for your hard work!

      I have no other suggestion on the modification because you basically had modified the manuscript according to my suggestions. You didn't have to take my advice on the data statistical analysis method because I only reminded you checking it.

      I feel honoured my suggestions could help you.

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

After the "minor revisions" decision, the revised manuscript includes a statement in the "Conclusion" noting that fruit quality analysis was not considered, in accordance with the suggestion of another reviewer, and highlighting the need for further related research.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again for your insightful feedback and dedication, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations 

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

After the "minor revisions" decision, the revised manuscript includes a statement in the "Conclusion" noting that fruit quality analysis was not considered, in accordance with the suggestion of another reviewer, and highlighting the need for further related research.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again for your insightful feedback and dedication, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated all suggestions. The quality of the manuscript is improved and can be considered for possible publication.

Author Response

To the Reviewer,

After the "minor revisions" decision, the revised manuscript includes a statement in the "Conclusion" noting that fruit quality analysis was not considered, in accordance with the suggestion of another reviewer, and highlighting the need for further related research.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude once again for your insightful feedback and dedication, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable time and effort.

Best regards.