Spatial Variability of Production and Quality in Table Grapes ‘Flame Seedless’ Growing on a Flat Terrain and Slope Site
, Emilio Villalobos-Soublett 1, Gastón Gutiérrez-Gamboa 2,* and Miguel Araya-Alman 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents interesting and useful research about the effects of spatial variability on yield and grape quality. Important information about the usefulness of the measured variability is also provided. Some comments:
Introduction
Line 35 - (...) the main planted cultivar is ....
Line 37 - (...) that vary from 15 to 40% slope (remove slope)
Line 58 - (...) few available studies quantify
Line 61 - (...) the main goal of this report (is this a report?)
Material and methods
Line 115 - (...) above the ground using a metric tine?
Results
Line 177 - Can you explain how the differences in the variability of the measured parameters in both plots weren't reflected by Levene's test result?
Line 177 - Were CV differences really based on the observed variability (or only)? Please rewrite
Line 186 - Table 2, replace Standar by Standard (also in Table 3 and Table 4)
Line 210 to 214 - Can you explain this better. Wasn't it expected a higher vigour in the flat plot?
Line 234 - Table 5, can you add the calculated values of CI to the table?
Line 273 - Replace truck by trunk
Line 277 to 280 - Please rewrite. Don't start with caliber that isn't a physicochemical parameter
Line 280 - Replace truck by trunk
Discussion
Line 306 - Replace tan by than
Line 309 - Rewrite (several reports have reported)
Author Response
The paper presents interesting and useful research about the effects of spatial variability on yield and grape quality. Important information about the usefulness of the measured variability is also provided. Some comments:
Response: Thank you very much for your time and consideration in the revision of our humble manuscript. We really appreciate the revisions performed that evidently improved the quality of the manuscript. We have tried to edit the manuscript according to the suggestions.
Introduction
Line 35 - (...) the main planted cultivar is ....
Response: We have edited this sentence according to the suggested by the reviewer (line: 35).
Line 37 - (...) that vary from 15 to 40% slope (remove slope)
Response: We have edited this sentence removing slope (line: 36).
Line 58 - (...) few available studies quantify
Response: We have edited this sentence according to the suggested by the reviewer (line: 62).
Line 61 - (...) the main goal of this report (is this a report?)
Response: Thank you for your suggestion, we have edited this sentence (line: 65).
Material and methods
Line 115 - (...) above the ground using a metric tine?
Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have edited this, we have used a measuring tape (line: 123).
Results
Line 177 - Can you explain how the differences in the variability of the measured parameters in both plots weren't reflected by Levene's test result?
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Indeed, in some cases, the homoscedasticity assumption was not met. In those cases, a non-parametric test was used for the analysis. The above was added in the methodology (lines: 145-147) and in the corresponding tables.
Line 177 - Were CV differences really based on the observed variability (or only)? Please rewrite
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, we have edited this sentence (lines: 145-147).
Line 186 - Table 2, replace Standar by Standard (also in Table 3 and Table 4)
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have replaced “Standar” by “Standard” in Tables 2, 3 and 4.
Line 210 to 214 - Can you explain this better. Wasn't it expected a higher vigour in the flat plot?
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Between the vigor parameters measured, only pruning weight was statistically different in slope and flat plots and trunk circumference did not show statistical differences.
Line 234 - Table 5, can you add the calculated values of CI to the table?
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have added the CI values in Table 5.
Line 273 - Replace truck by trunk
Response: We have replaced “Truck” by “Trunk” (line: 300).
Line 277 to 280 - Please rewrite. Don't start with caliber that isn't a physicochemical parameter
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have edited this sentence (line: 302).
Line 280 - Replace truck by trunk
Response: We have replaced “Truck” by “Trunk” (line: 306).
Discussion
Line 306 - Replace tan by than
Response: We have replaced “tan” by “than” (line: 337).
Line 309 - Rewrite (several reports have reported)
Response: We have edited this sentence based on the suggestion (line: 339).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment
The manuscript is interesting and provides new information on spatial variability of growth and yielding of table grapevine growing on a flat and sloping site. The research was carried out correctly in terms of methodology. The results are carefully compiled statistically and visually well presented. As the authors rightly point out, the article provides the basis for further research and suggests some questions. One of these issues is the development of a sampling strategy for spatial variability studies. In the present research, each site of the grid was represented by one plant. According to the authors and to the cited literature, this was enough to avoid intra-plot variability. It is worth verifying this view. Perhaps the determination of parameters as a mean for a few centrally located plants in a micro-plot (site of the grid) would provide more reliable data. Knowing the realities of field experiments, it is worth considering the role of soil variability, which is particularly common in sloping terrain. Soil information is very perfunctory and a brief comment is recommended, as to whether, the authors exclude the role of soil variability in the experiment. The orientation of the rows may also play a role. It is close to North - South for slope plots and East-West (potentially more conducive to uniformity) for flat plots.Regarding the statement in the discussion, “several reports (rather authors) have reported that the percentage of variability in the parameters measured in grapevines cultivated for winemaking is higher than those observed in this study”. Perhaps this is due to the size of the assessed vineyards (blocks). In smaller vineyards, with the careful manual pruning, as in the experiment described, the pruning is better suited to the growth strength of the individual vines. It seems that the variability in elevation above sea level, which is the easiest to document, is only one of the causes of spatial variability, potentially the most important. The above comments are not critical, but indicate opportunities for broadening the discussion.
Detailed comments
The habit of preceding a cultivar epithet by the abbreviation cv. is now abandoned (since 1996, ISHS - International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (briefly: Cultivated Plant Code). This applies to the title and other places in the text, e.g. l. 62. Instead of "cv. Flame Seedless ", it is recommended to use" table grapes 'Flame Seedless' ".
The statement, "which may be associated to the fact that the vines were planted at the same season" (l. 318, 319) is unnecessary. ”This is not an explanation of the results described, but a fundamental condition of the experiment.
The text requires careful correction for minor typos, e.g. l. 306, it should be „than”.
Author Response
The manuscript is interesting and provides new information on spatial variability of growth and yielding of table grapevine growing on a flat and sloping site. The research was carried out correctly in terms of methodology. The results are carefully compiled statistically and visually well presented. As the authors rightly point out, the article provides the basis for further research and suggests some questions. One of these issues is the development of a sampling strategy for spatial variability studies.
Response: Thank you very much for your time and consideration in the revision of our humble manuscript. We really appreciate the revisions performed that evidently improved the quality of the manuscript.
In the present research, each site of the grid was represented by one plant. According to the authors and to the cited literature, this was enough to avoid intra-plot variability. It is worth verifying this view. Perhaps the determination of parameters as a mean for a few centrally located plants in a micro-plot (site of the grid) would provide more reliable data.
Response: Thank you very much for the comment. In materials and methods, the methodology used and the limitations of the sampling are justified (lines: 149-168). We will consider the comment for future trials to establish.
Knowing the realities of field experiments, it is worth considering the role of soil variability, which is particularly common in sloping terrain. Soil information is very perfunctory and a brief comment is recommended, as to whether, the authors exclude the role of soil variability in the experiment. The orientation of the rows may also play a role. It is close to North - South for slope plots and East-West (potentially more conducive to uniformity) for flat plots.
Response: Thank you very much for the comment. A paragraph was added in the discussion section (lines: 366-370).
Regarding the statement in the discussion, “several reports (rather authors) have reported that the percentage of variability in the parameters measured in grapevines cultivated for winemaking is higher than those observed in this study”. Perhaps this is due to the size of the assessed vineyards (blocks). In smaller vineyards, with the careful manual pruning, as in the experiment described, the pruning is better suited to the growth strength of the individual vines. It seems that the variability in elevation above sea level, which is the easiest to document, is only one of the causes of spatial variability, potentially the most important. The above comments are not critical, but indicate opportunities for broadening the discussion.
Response: Thank you very much for the comment. Generally, the vineyard surface for table grape production in Elqui Valley is lower than 5 hectares. Thus, to our experience, we think that the plots under study are representative to the Northern Chilean viticulture for table grape production.
Detailed comments
The habit of preceding a cultivar epithet by the abbreviation cv. is now abandoned (since 1996, ISHS - International Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (briefly: Cultivated Plant Code). This applies to the title and other places in the text, e.g. l. 62. Instead of "cv. Flame Seedless ", it is recommended to use" table grapes 'Flame Seedless' ".
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have edited the text according to suggestion.
The statement, "which may be associated to the fact that the vines were planted at the same season" (l. 318, 319) is unnecessary. ”This is not an explanation of the results described, but a fundamental condition of the experiment.
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer and we have deleted the text according to suggestion.
The text requires careful correction for minor typos, e.g. l. 306, it should be „than”.
Response: We appreciate the suggestion performed by the reviewer. The text was completely revised, correcting errors in words.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
