Disease Susceptibility of Interspecific Cold-Hardy Grape Cultivars in Northeastern U.S.A

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find my remarks and recommendations on the pdf file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Line 13: is it really necessary since you are listing the nine cultivars?

Edit made.

38: "of at least 3-4 years. "

Corrected.

81: so only 6 were indeed analyzed! change this sentence! 

Corrected.

90: what is the objective of your work ? Add few sentences here!

Hypothesis statements added.

97: Is there a reference? If not describe it.

Website to the multistate project updated and referenced. Description of project was added to text.

100: why such details in density ?

Changed to describe vine planting distance. This is important as a component of the overall planting system- in many regions, vines are planted at greater density / closer vine spacing.

102: I do not understand. similar proximity to what ?

Wording changed to indicate that these cultivars were immediately adjacent to the other cultivars.

Table 1: The name of the cultivar is Marechal Foch, so please use the whole cultivar name.

Updated globally throughout the paper.

158: from 95 to 22.5 %

Corrected

255: in table S2, indicate the total  precipitation in the growing season. It is not to the reader to do the calculation.

Calculation made in the table.

256: How did you arrive to this conclusion ?  The average of mildew incidence for leaves in 2018 is 59 % and for fruit is 72% averaged aver all cultivars while it is 78% for elaves and 100 % for fruits in 2019!

Incorrect statement deleted.

323: was there any innoculum for downy mildew ? Symptomes on non resistant cultivars ?

Statement added that leaves in adjacent vineyard and wild grapevines within 50 m of the planting exhibited DM symptoms in both years.

422: this reference is too vague: identify one of the reports and cite it with the year and authors! (as ref 7)

Reference updated to reflect the newer trial. This is the first published research under the new coordinated trial, so no prior paper can be referenced. More details on the project protocols and collaboration were added to the text.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are presented in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Line 32: line indent.

Corrected

Line 139: Authors wrote “Marquette’ fruit cluster samples were not collected in 2019.” The reason is not mentioned in the manuscript.

A technician mistakenly skipped sample collection for this cultivar. We did not feel that that error was germane to the discussion.

Line 158: Range is generally used from lower to higher values (22.5-95.0%).

Corrected

 Lines 177-179, 204:“Phomopsis” is not in italics in contrast to the rest of manuscript –should be uniformed or clearly differentiated.

Corrected

Line 187: The year should be added for the clarification. The previous sentence is related to 2019, this one is 2018.

This sentence refers to both years. Clarification was added to the text.

Line 196: The values should be “1.7 and 3.3%”, there is no other value in the context.

Corrected.

Line 200-201: Based on the values, it should be: followed by Verona and St. Pepin.

Corrected

Lines 209 and 212: Botrytis fruit rot and Botrytis bunch rot –is there a mistake or authors presented different diseases?

Correction made.

Line 249: In the discussion, there is not mentioned the Phomopsis disease observation. Is Phomopsis serious pathogen of grapevine in USA or with low incidence as the results from studied area suggested?

Discussion of Phomopsis was added to the text.

Line 306: Should be “...Vitis species’ susceptibility...”

Corrected this embarrassing typo.

Line 342: What is the meaning of the word “anecdote” in this sentence?

Anecdote refers to casual, non-professional observation. Slight change made in text to improve clarity.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Disease susceptibility of interspecific cold-hardy grape cultivars in Northeastern U.S.A.".

The paper needs minor revision.

The paper refers about susceptibility of 9 cultivars to the main grapevine disease in Vermont. The experiment is well set and conducted even if is just a preliminary study on this topic; as Authors declare in the conclusions, more investigations are needed to better evaluate the disease resistance. I would suggest to improve this experiment introducing one or more Vitis vinifera cultivars (if the GDD - Growing Degree Days - are suitable) to compare the incidence and try to evaluate the number of treatments that are necessary to control the different diseases, as it’s clear that it’s not possible to manage the grapes without treatments. One big environmental improve by using this cultivar could be in fact the reduction of spraying. Here below some observation in the text 

Line 34: better to use the international system unit where the agricultural surface is ha (hectare) and not acre
Line 36: surface instead of acreage
Line 57: the latin name of Black rot has changed several years ago, now is Phyllosticta ampelicida.
Line 58: the latin name of powdery mildew is Erysiphe necator
Line 58: Plasmopara and not Plasmopora.
Line 84: surface instead of acreage
Line 256-259: powdery mildew incidence was higher in 2018 than in 2019? From table 2 seems the reverse. Is there something I don’t understand? Please explain.
Line 306: Vitis and not Vitus.

Author Response

The paper refers about susceptibility of 9 cultivars to the main grapevine disease in Vermont. The experiment is well set and conducted even if is just a preliminary study on this topic; as Authors declare in the conclusions, more investigations are needed to better evaluate the disease resistance. I would suggest to improve this experiment introducing one or more Vitis vinifera cultivars (if the GDD - Growing Degree Days - are suitable) to compare the incidence and try to evaluate the number of treatments that are necessary to control the different diseases, as it’s clear that it’s not possible to manage the grapes without treatments. One big environmental improve by using this cultivar could be in fact the reduction of spraying.

Not only are GDD insufficient to ripen most V. vinifera in Vermont, but the annual minimum temperature is too cold for those vines to survive. A prior cultivar evaluation included two less-hardy ‘cool’ climate cultivars, Traminette and Vignoles, and they had to be removed early due to winter kill.

We agree that the increased disease resistance of these and other hybrid cultivars is a key consideration in the sustainability of their production over V. vinifera, despite of and in addition to the limiting factor of winter temperature.

Here below some observation in the text 

Line 34: better to use the international system unit where the agricultural surface is ha (hectare) and not acre

Correction made- the calculation was correct, but we wrote ‘acre’ out of habit.
Line 36: surface instead of acreage

Correction made
Line 57: the latin name of Black rot has changed several years ago, now is Phyllosticta ampelicida
Line 58: the latin name of powdery mildew is Erysiphe necator
Line 58: Plasmopara and not Plasmopora.

Corrections made

Line 84: surface instead of acreage

Correction made
Line 256-259: powdery mildew incidence was higher in 2018 than in 2019? From table 2 seems the reverse. Is there something I don’t understand? Please explain.

This mistaken entry was removed.
Line 306: Vitis and not Vitus.

Correction made to this typo.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript titled “Disease susceptibility of interspecific cold-hardy grape cultivars in Northeastern U.S.A.” describe the susceptibility of Vitis hybrids to the major fungal disease. The manuscript is very descriptive, with a poor attempt to understand the mechanisms underlying different sensitiveness to pathogens. Furthermore, as acknowledged also by the Authors, results were largely dependent upon the year and the weather condition that determined the disease pressure.

However, thought the overall poor scientific approach (no mechanistic hypothesis and very descriptive data), data deserve publication because of potential interest for the horticultural sector.

Author Response

The manuscript titled “Disease susceptibility of interspecific cold-hardy grape cultivars in Northeastern U.S.A.” describe the susceptibility of Vitis hybrids to the major fungal disease. The manuscript is very descriptive, with a poor attempt to understand the mechanisms underlying different sensitiveness to pathogens. Furthermore, as acknowledged also by the Authors, results were largely dependent upon the year and the weather condition that determined the disease pressure.

However, thought the overall poor scientific approach (no mechanistic hypothesis and very descriptive data), data deserve publication because of potential interest for the horticultural sector.

Thank you for highlighting this general shortcoming of the paper. As mentioned within and acknowledged in this review comment, this is a preliminary evaluation of disease susceptibility on emerging winegrape cultivars. The non-sprayed management program could not be applied over the long-term and still yield comprehensive horticultural evaluation of the germplasm. Because some of these cultivars are rapidly increasing in popularity, it is important to publish as much useful data as possible in order to inform growers on best management practices. We do not purport to identify specific defense mechanisms that would affect disease susceptibility in this paper, just as prior work from well-published authors cited in the paper did not (see references 21, 24, 28, 30).