Hydric Behavior: Insights into Primary Metabolites in Leaves and Roots of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache Grapevine Varieties under Drought Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

All my observations and recommendations can be seen on the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper provides new data on two grape varieties. All results have scientific and practical significance and are well presented. However, for work in such a magazine, such as Horticulture, it is necessary to examine several more parameters (eg activity of defense enzymes, content of pigments, especially carotenoids, content of total proteins, etc.).

Also, the conclusion of the paper is not clearly highlighted, neither as a separate part, nor as part of the Discussion. The practical application of the results of the work was not emphasized, which grape variety is recommended for growing, according to the conditions of the external environment, which is more resistant to stress. I believe that this needs to be emphasized, because these are varieties that are used for commercial purposes.

In the Materials and Methods section, lines 86-90, it is stated that one group of plants was exposed to drought conditions, which was caused only by a lack of water and not by an increase in temperature. What temperature "imitating" drought.

Regarding the literature, the first 25 references are older.

Best regards

Author Response

This paper provides new data on two grape varieties. All results have scientific and practical significance and are well presented. However, for work in such a magazine, such as Horticulture, it is necessary to examine several more parameters (eg activity of defense enzymes, content of pigments, especially carotenoids, content of total proteins, etc.).

RE: We thank the reviewer for such a nice review. We understand the suggestions about parameters. However, the study is well focused on water relations and primary metabolite. Further studies might examine some of this parameters. We are including this suggestion in the discussion. 

Also, the conclusion of the paper is not clearly highlighted, neither as a separate part, nor as part of the Discussion. The practical application of the results of the work was not emphasized, which grape variety is recommended for growing, according to the conditions of the external environment, which is more resistant to stress. I believe that this needs to be emphasized, because these are varieties that are used for commercial purposes.

RE: We agree and we are now including  a conclusion section at the end. 

In the Materials and Methods section, lines 86-90, it is stated that one group of plants was exposed to drought conditions, which was caused only by a lack of water and not by an increase in temperature. What temperature "imitating" drought.

RE: Temperature remained the same for well-watered and drought stressed plants (16ºC to 28ºC). The experiment was performed under controlled conditions.

Regarding the literature, the first 25 references are older.

RE: Right, this is a long-standing topic in the literature. Important studies might be old.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript «Near-isohidricity: insights into primary metabolites in leaves and roots of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache under drought stress» of Tamayo M. et al. described the changes in sugar content in two varieties of grape as well as some physiological reaction to drought.

Some questions and remarks listed below:

1.      The conclusion in abstract session is common and describes the common knowledge. It is better intensify and specificate according  data of present study

2.      The introduction seems short maybe added common information about mechanisms of tolerance to drought of the role of sugars in adaptation

3.      In discussion described the changes in sugar content in dependence of variety, it will be interesting to added information (if it is possible) about how these changes could be positive or negative for further production (for example wine). Also sugars are important nutrients for food sources perhaps the short-term drought stress maybe useful for sugar accumulation and further wine (not only) production?

Author Response

 

1. The conclusion in abstract session is common and describes the common knowledge. It is better intensify and specificate according  data of present study

RE: We have changed the abstract completely.

2. The introduction seems short maybe added common information about mechanisms of tolerance to drought of the role of sugars in adaptation

RE: We have expanded the introduction.

3. In discussion described the changes in sugar content in dependence of variety, it will be interesting to added information (if it is possible) about how these changes could be positive or negative for further production (for example wine). Also sugars are important nutrients for food sources perhaps the short-term drought stress maybe useful for sugar accumulation and further wine (not only) production?

RE: Even though this suggestion is interesting, it was quite difficult to incorporate these ideas in the context of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

The submitted manuscript, horticulturae-2315763, determined the hydric behavior of Grenache and Cabernet Sauvignon varieties under drought stress. Although the experimental set-up was simple, the generated data might be useful for understanding the hydric behavior or metabolite changes in these two varieties. Overall, the work appears to have been performed in an acceptable manner, although some minor improvements are required.

L71: It would be great if the authors could briefly explain the rationale of performing “three cycles of severe water stress” to the readers. Also, in L73, why the authors analyzed the primary metabolites and not together with secondary metabolites? 

L77: Capital letter for “growing conditions”.

L92: Just wondering why the authors did not conduct other biochemical assays, such as chlorophyll contents or MDA, etc.?

L137: “(mmol s-1 m-2)” -1 and -2 should be in superscript. Please check throughout the manuscript. Also, “80,4” should be “80.4”. Please check for others as well.

L168: Insert “Fig 3” after “…control treatment”.

L166: No need for capital letters for metabolites, e.g., Fructose, Methylfructoside, etc.

L172: “In roots of….” Please split it into a new paragraph. 

L246: Suggest including a conclusion to highlight the major findings and prospect/research direction.

I think the journal format is to insert a number for each section. Please check the author’s guidelines.

Author Response

The submitted manuscript, horticulturae-2315763, determined the hydric behavior of Grenache and Cabernet Sauvignon varieties under drought stress. Although the experimental set-up was simple, the generated data might be useful for understanding the hydric behavior or metabolite changes in these two varieties. Overall, the work appears to have been performed in an acceptable manner, although some minor improvements are required.

RE: We thank the reviewer. We have included several changes in the paper and we think it has improved a lot.

L71: It would be great if the authors could briefly explain the rationale of performing “three cycles of severe water stress” to the readers. Also, in L73, why the authors analyzed the primary metabolites and not together with secondary metabolites? 

RE: We have included briefly the idea behind the three drying cycles. We analyzed primary metabolites because we were trying to relate to stomata physiology and hydric behavior. However, we probably missed an opportunity here.

L77: Capital letter for “growing conditions”.

RE: Corrected.

L92: Just wondering why the authors did not conduct other biochemical assays, such as chlorophyll contents or MDA, etc.?

L137: “(mmol s-1 m-2)” -1 and -2 should be in superscript. Please check throughout the manuscript. Also, “80,4” should be “80.4”. Please check for others as well.

RE: Corrected.

L168: Insert “Fig 3” after “…control treatment”.

RE: We have included several modifications here.

L166: No need for capital letters for metabolites, e.g., Fructose, Methylfructoside, etc.

RE: Corrected.

L172: “In roots of….” Please split it into a new paragraph. 

RE: Corrected with substantial modifications.

L246: Suggest including a conclusion to highlight the major findings and prospect/research direction.

RE: We have added a conclusion.

I think the journal format is to insert a number for each section. Please check the author’s guidelines.

RE: Checked

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

All corrections, according to my suggestions, were done satisfactorily. I consider that in this way, the paper gained in quality and scientific importance. 

Best regards