Quality Responses of Table Grapes ‘Flame Seedless’ as Effected by Foliarly Applied Micronutrients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Physiological  responses of grape cv flame seedless as effected by foliarly applied micronutrients” presents interesting  results about the application of Fe, B and Zn and their effects on post-harvest parameters and quality of fruits of grapevine. The work is great useful for the development of crop in semiarid regions, as that of Pothwar region in Pakistan. However, the authors not showed information about climate characteristics and soil type during the 2018-2019. In my opinion, these informations are important for understanding of the work relevance.

The results can be presented in a form more concise. The authors should observe that in spite the highest  responses were observed when high dose of Fe, B and Zn are applied, these are manifested also with lower doses. In several cases, there were not significant differences between 200 and 150 ppm of these micronutrients.

The authors should explain why they choose these nutrient concentrations?  Why they do not used higher dose? Why the salts ZnSO4 and Boric acid were directly applied i.e. no addition of some substance that facilities their absorption on foliar surface.         

 

I suggest a review of the following points:

1. Please revise the phrases on lanes 85, 164, 241,415-429, 459-460.
2. The application times should be better described. Include information about the volume of micronutrient applied on the leaves. What leaves were used? How many applications were made out? Five? The descriptions are imprecise.
3. The formulas on pages 3 should be improve. Indicate the units, what means N of NaOH?
4. Please, indicate the methods used for quantification of carbohydrates and improve the description of organoleptic analysis.
5. Line 122: AOAC (1990). Include in the section bibliography.
6. Bunch compactness is a parameter commercially positive or negative for the production?
7. Please revise the data on lanes 299 in relation to sugars.
8. Revise the following terms: fructose 1 and 6 phosphatase, lower carbohydrate, higher nutrient?
9. On line 376…inverse relation?
10. How ascorbic acid acts as coenzyme, what enzymes used this molecules as coenzymes?
11. Explain how the synergistic effects are developed by the micronutrient? Lines 415-428.
12. on line 449: please include other references.
13. The authors should give one justification for the final recommendation in section conclusion.

With kind regards.

Author Response

Dated: 15^th October 2021

 

Dear Editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (horticulturae-1402959). Our manuscript “Physiological Responses of Grapes cv. ‘Flame Seedless as Effected by Foliarly Applied Micronutrients” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments. We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript highlighted with red colour.

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the efforts of the reviewer are highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Dr. Abdul Qayyum

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Haripur 22620 Pakistan

 

****************************************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

Comments

• The manuscript “Physiological responses of grape cv flame seedless as effected by foliarly applied micronutrients” presents interesting results about the application of Fe, B and Zn and their effects on post-harvest parameters and quality of fruits of grapevine. The work is great useful for the development of crop in semiarid regions, as that of Pothwar region in Pakistan. However, the authors not showed information about climate characteristics and soil type during the 2018-2019. In my opinion, these informations are important for understanding of the work relevance.
• Answer: The climatic and soil data is now provided (100-117)
• The results can be presented in a form more concise. The authors should observe that in spite the highest responses were observed when high dose of Fe, B and Zn are applied, these are manifested also with lower doses. In several cases, there were not significant differences between 200 and 150 ppm of these micronutrients.
• Answer: The reviewer has raised valid point that many times the highest results were non-significant with some lower dozes. But in general more were results were significantly higher in the higher dozes as compared to the lower dozes.
• The authors should explain why they choose these nutrient concentrations?  Why they do not used higher dose? Why the salts ZnSO4 and Boric acid were directly applied i.e. no addition of some substance that facilities their absorption on foliar surface.  
• Answer: The dozes were selected on the basis of previous published literature. The dozes were kept on lower sides to avoid the excessive spray of chemicals. While the number of sprays were increased to have maximum availability of the nutrients. Tween-20 was used as surfactant in the sprays and now is mentioned in the methodology section (Line No. 113).     

 

 

• I suggest a review of the following points:

• Please revise the phrases on lanes 85, 164, 241,415-429, 459-460.
• Line 85 has been rephrased which is now line 86 and 87.
• Line 164 is revised which is now line 172.
• Line 241 is revised accordingly and now it is on line 246.
• Line 415 is revised which is now on line 410.
• Line 415-429 have been revised which are now 410-415.
• Line 459-460 has been revised which is now line No. 443-444.
• The application times should be better described. Include information about the volume of micronutrient applied on the leaves. What leaves were used? How many applications were made out? Five? The descriptions are imprecise.

• Answer: The description in now provided (Line No. 110-115)

• The formulas on pages 3 should be improved. Indicate the units, what means N of NaOH?
• Provided as directed (Line No. 137)
• Please, indicate the methods used for quantification of carbohydrates and improve the description of organoleptic analysis.
• Provided 143-168)
• Description of organoleptic analysis has been revised 199-211.
• Line 122: AOAC (1990). Include in the section bibliography.
• Done accordingly (Line No. 518)
• Bunch compactness is a parameter commercially positive or negative for the production?
• To some extent bunch compactness in not harmful yet it is undesirable if the bunch is more compact.
• Please revise the data on lanes 299 in relation to sugars.
• On line 299 there is no data related to sugars.
• Revise the following terms: fructose 1 and 6 phosphatase, lower carbohydrate, higher nutrient?
• Not clear please mention the line number
• On line 376…inverse relation?
• There is nothing as such mentioned on line 376. Please mention if any.
• How ascorbic acid acts as coenzyme, what enzymes used this molecules as coenzymes?
• Ascorbic acid is a coenzyme for dopamine β-hydroxylase that catalyzes the conversion of dopamine to norepinephrine. Ascorbate is needed in severe stress when the adrenal store is rapidly depleted of ascorbate, and consequently it plays a role in the formation of cortisol.
• Explain how the synergistic effects are developed by the micronutrient? Lines 415-428.
• Explained on Line 444-449.
• On line 449: please include other references.
• Done (Line No. 471-473)
• The authors should give one justification for the final recommendation in section conclusion.
• Done as directed (Line 479-484)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Some changes are required, as follow:

Row 20: yield instead yiled

Row 44: european instead of europian

Row 45: harmony instead of hormony

Row 161: Organoleptic instead of Organolaptic

Row 172: Morphological instead of Morphologicl 

Row 182: You wrote: “However lowest amount of bunches were produced in untreated grape vines…” I think the term "However" is not well used here because there is no causal link between the two statements. Maybe it would be more appropriate the expression "at the same time" or maybe "while".

Row 225: I don't know the expression “as folii.e.”

Paragraph 258-259: Please rephrase: “The table shows that at low concentration of nutrients, non-reducing sugar have no any significant effect with respect to control.”

Maybe:  “The table shows that at low concentration of nutrients, the foliar treatment have no any significant effect on the non-reducing sugar with respect to control.”

Row 289: Foliar instead of Folair

Paragraph 307-326: These comments should be included in the subchapter “3.4 Organoleptic Evaluation”. In fact, the whole subchapter should be reorganized, because repetitions occurred in the comments.

Row 362: photosynthate instead of photosythate

Row 461: obtained instead of obtsained

Author Response

Dated: 15^th October 2021

 

Dear Editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (horticulturae-1402959). Our manuscript “Physiological Responses of Grapes cv. ‘Flame Seedless as Effected by Foliarly Applied Micronutrients” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments. We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript highlighted with orange colour.

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the efforts of the reviewer are highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Dr. Abdul Qayyum

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Haripur 22620 Pakistan

 

****************************************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

Comments

• Some changes are required, as follow:
• Row 20: yieldinstead yiled

• Done as directed (Line 24)

• Row 44: europeaninstead of europian

• Done as directed (Line 48)

• Row 45: harmonyinstead of hormony

• Done as directed (Line 49)

• Row 161: Organolepticinstead of Organolaptic

• Done as directed (Line 196 )

• Row 172: Morphologicalinstead of Morphologicl 

• Changed (Line No. 241)

• Row 182: You wrote: “Howeverlowest amount of bunches were produced in untreated grape vines…” I think the term "However" is not well used here because there is no causal link between the two statements. Maybe it would be more appropriate the expression "at the same time" or maybe "while".

• Replaced (Line No. 223)

• Row 225: I don't know the expression “as folii.e.”

• (Corrected Line No. 264)

• Paragraph 258-259: Please rephrase: “The table shows that at low concentration of nutrients, non-reducing sugarhave no any significant effect with respect to control.”

• Corrected (Line No. 291-293)

• Maybe:  “The table shows that at low concentration of nutrients, the foliar treatmenthave no any significant effect on the non-reducing sugar with respect to control.”
• Row 289:Foliar instead of Folair

• Replaced (Line No. 325)

• Paragraph 307-326: These comments should be included in the subchapter “4 Organoleptic Evaluation”. In fact, the whole subchapter should be reorganized, because repetitions occurred in the comments.

• Done accordingly (Line No. 343-362)

• Row 362: photosynthate instead ofphotosythate

• Replaced (Line 371)

• Row 461: obtained instead of obtsained

• The conclusion has been revised by the reviewer one so the word has been replaced already.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

• Please - extensive improvement of the text and English
• It is: cvar. Flame Seedless OR 'Flame Seedless'
• redundancies in the text; e.g. 2018 - 2019
• Conclusions need a major revision - one should have at first glance of the experiment und prominent results
• point out whether for fresh-fruit-consumption or wine-making. Actually most of the grape-crop is produced for wines.
• Statistic analysis is missing in methods
• Shorter texts, more tables and graphs (it is REALLY hard to read - and almost no one has sufficient time!)
• Please check authors! Every reference has to be found in the text and vice versa!
• Make clear - are you talking about physiology or about quality?
• How do the soil-conditions you describe permit viticulture? I more would assume, that low yields are correlated with improper site-conditions
• How old were the plants in the vineyard?
• Generally - concentrate on your aim of the work! Is it more the quality or is it more the fertilization?
•  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dated: 15^th October 2021

 

Dear Editor,

Greetings,

Thank you very much for your time and comments regarding our manuscript (horticulturae-1402959). Our manuscript “Physiological Responses of Grapes cv. ‘Flame Seedless as Effected by Foliarly Applied Micronutrients” has been revised carefully and here we are giving our response to the reviewers’ comments. We have improved the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. All the revisions can be easily identified from manuscript highlighted with green colour.

Once again thanks for your co-operation and valuable comments and suggestion. Moreover, the efforts of the reviewer are highly appreciated. We are hoping for pleasant response and further good comments (if any) from your side.

 

Dr. Abdul Qayyum

Department of Agronomy,

The University of Haripur 22620 Pakistan

 

****************************************************************************************

We are thankful to editor and reviewers for timely completion of review process and providing us with valuable feedback.

 

 

Comments

• Please - extensive improvement of the text and English.

• Improvement in manuscript is done and highlighted with various colors. If you need more modifications let me know.

• It is: cvar. Flame Seedless OR 'Flame Seedless'

• Corrected in the text (Line No. 1)

• Redundancies in the text; e.g. 2018 – 2019

• These are suggested by other reviewers so are placed in the text.

• Conclusions need a major revision - one should have at first glance of the experiment und prominent results

• Revised accordingly (Line No. 454)

• Point out whether for fresh-fruit-consumption or wine-making. Actually most of the grape-crop is produced for wines.

• Now it is mentioned (Line 1)

• Statistics analysis is missing in methods

• Statistics analysis is now provided in methodology section.

• Shorter texts, more tables and graphs (it is REALLY hard to read - and almost no one has sufficient time!)
• Done as directed in the manuscript
• Please check authors! Every reference has to be found in the text and vice versa!
• Done as directed
• Make clear - are you talking about physiology or about quality?
• Changed to quality in the title
• How do the soil-conditions you describe permit viticulture? I more would assume, that low yields are correlated with improper site-conditions
• Climate of the region is suitable for viticulture. But in some areas the soils are poor and eroded so the purpose of the experiment was also to improve the yield by providing foliar application of micronutrients where efficiency through soil is poor.
• How old were the plants in the vineyard?

• Four year old plants were used in the study. See line no. 105.

• Generally - concentrate on your aim of the work! Is it more the quality or is it more the fertilization?

• We are focusing the effect of fertilization on quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx