Decreased Leaf Potassium Content Affects the Chemical Composition of Must for Sparkling Wine Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Dear authors, thank you for your replies to my previous comments. Thank you also for incorporating my comments into the manuscript. I note that you have worked extensively on the manuscript. In my opinion, the manuscript is of much higher quality now than after the first review. As I mentioned in my first review, these types of studies usually require several years of results to be published. However, I think that the topic is so interesting that when it is published in its current state, it can be useful for several growers and researchers around the world. I therefore recommend the manuscript for publication. Before doing so, however, I ask the authors to correct minor formal shortcomings in the manuscript, such as in line 177 (žproduction).

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we would like to thank you for your positive recommendation and your appreciation of our efforts and commitment to improve the work. Your comments helped us greatly in the initial review, and now we have corrected the technical errors you pointed out.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

The manuscript entitled “Decreased leaf potassium content affects the chemical composition of must for sparkling wine production” has improved with the incorporation of the proposed indications and the effort made by the authors should be acknowledged, but in my opinion, the work continues to present certain weaknesses.

As I commented in the previous review, the experiment in the vineyard was appropriately carried out, although my main concern is the short set of data that has been collected for a single growing season with "special" meteorological characteristics compared to the multiyear average. In the original manuscript, only investigates the potassium, phosphorus and magnesium levels in the leaf and basic physicochemical parameters of the must. Although the authors have included in this new manuscript version certain data related to meteorological data and yield components, in my opinion, essential data such as the vegetative growth and potassium content of the musts are still missing. On the other hand, although the authors have highlighted the need to carry out new studies under different meteorological conditions, it remains difficult to obtain robust conclusions under the circumstances of the present work.

I think that this work can serve as a basis for future work, but I am sorry to say that the article, nowadays, will be difficult for a publication in the Horiculturae journal in its present form.

Best regards.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

first, we would like to thank you for your comments and advice on how to improve our work and for your appreciation of our efforts.

We agree with your thoughts on the data on vegetative growth and potassium content in must, which would certainly contribute further to our work. However, the subject of research in our case was not vegetative growth or potassium content in must, but potassium content in leaves and this influence on basic chemical parameters in must that are easily measurable and as such available to a wider audience, not just for research purposes. The weather conditions in the research year differed from the multi-year average, but we also studied the effects in 2013, the results of which we have already published and cited in the paper itself. We believe that under the influence of climate change, it is unlikely that there will be any specific years in the coming years that differ from multi-year averages such as the year in which the survey was conducted.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved and the results could provided important information for wine production. So I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your positive recommendation of our work for publication. We believe that with the help of your comments and recommendations during the first review, we have succeeded in revising our work, supplementing it with important information, and making significant changes so that it can be accepted. We thank you for all your comments so far and will make spelling corrections to the paper in accordance with your current recommendation.

Kind regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

I acknowledge the authors for considering all the suggestions which improved the quality of the manuscript. The article can now be published in its present form.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for reconsidering our work and positively evaluating all the modifications and additions we have made. You have recognized our efforts, and your comments so far have helped us greatly to improve this work. In accordance with your current recommendation, we will subject the work to a spelling/grammatical review.

Kind regards.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results of the manuscript titled “Decreased leaf potassium content affects the chemical composition of must for sparkling wine production” written by Peršurić Palčić et al. show that foliar fertilization significantly reduced leaf potassium content, especially when treated with magnesium alone. The manuscript is well prepared with logically arranged chapters, adding value, good statistical methods and extensive discussion. Nevertheless, I have some well-meaning comments about the manuscript that could increase its quality and develop some ideas:

1. Chapter 1: There is no recent information on sparkling wine production.
2. Chapter 2.1: The hypothesis of why this variety was chosen is missing. Maybe greater predisposition to accumulate K in leaves?
3. Chapter 2.1: As soil properties significantly affect the content of chemical elements in the leaves, the methodology lacks a more detailed description of the nutrient content in the soil, including nitrogen. The method of soil nutrient analysis should be supported by citations.
4. Chapter 2.1: The course of the weather conditions also affects the content of chemical elements in the leaves, so I would like to kindly ask the authors to supplement the course of weather conditions in each month in the form of a clear graph and add a citation from where and how the meteorological data were obtained. A detailed description of the weather conditions will allow to understand the broader context in terms of the results achieved.
5. Chapter 2.2: All used material, machines and devices must be specified (production name, company name, city, country of origin). All used methods should be supported by citations.
6. Chapter 3: The article will be published online. So in my opinion, I see no reason why the graphs could not be prepared in color. It would clarify readability, the current gray colors are converging. Figure 4 - missing units.
7. Chapter 5: The experiment was performed for only one year on one variety. Nevertheless, the statements in the conclusion are very clear and convincing. It would be better to talk about indications that should be verified in the following seasons, other areas and on several varieties. Do the authors plan such research in the future?

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

I am enclosing a document with my comments. 

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuscript ID: horticulturae-1670978

The manuscript entitled “Decreased leaf potassium content affects the chemical composition of must for sparkling wine production” authored by Peršurić Palčić et al. aimed to determine the influence of applying foliar fertilizers on the chemical composition of must for sparkling wine production.

The design of the experiment is reasonable and the results are significant. However, there are three weaknesses in the manuscript which I think challenge its publication.

1. The article only reports the results of a single growing season, so it is impossible to assess whether the evidenced effects are stable over time and if, and to what extent, they could depend on seasonal weather trends. Besides, as mentioned in the manuscript, the experiment was performed in a special year (2014) with higher precipitation than the multi-year average (1981-2010) in all months, which prevented the reliability of the results.
2. The manuscript only investigates the phosphorus, potassium and magnesium levels in the leaf and basic physicochemical indicators of the must. The evidence is too little to support the conclusion of the experiment. So many aspects could be explored, such as the physiological indicators of vines (photosynthesis, growth vigor and yield), which are crucial to the investigation. Besides, except for the basic physicochemical parameters of the must, the authors could also determine the secondary metabolites which are crucial to the must or wine quality.
3. A lot of information is missing in the Materials and Methods section. The authors must explain in detail how the study is done. Which year is the white cultivar 'Istrian Malvasia' planted? What’s the altitude and row orientation of the vineyard? What’s the irrigation of the vineyard or is it rainfed. The detailed method of leaf analysis and must chemical analysis should be included.

Some specific aspects:

Line 137: the Vitis Vinifera should be italic.

Line 143: „terra rossa“? The left double quote should be in the upper left corner.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript horticulturae-1670978 describes the effects of supplementary foliar fertilization with Mg, P and biostimulant mixtures on the leaf content of potassium and must quality parameters. The authors concluded that the TMg and TMgP were the most suitable treatments for preserving must acidity (which should be clarified in the discussion section). The topic is interesting, but it should have had included some topics mentioned by the authors throughout the manuscript, but the results are not presented (alcohol content and K/Mg ratio). Moreover, the author should have collected more data, such as gas exchange parameters and yield, to provide some information regarding the physiological behaviour of the vines. In addition, some issues must be clarified regarding the statistical analysis presented in the article in order to be published in horticulturae. Recommendation: accept after major revisions. Please see the attached file for further details and suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf