How to Improve a Successful Product? The Case of “Asproudi” of the Monemvasia Winery Vineyard
, Georgios Tsimbidis 3, Polydefkis Hatzopoulos 4 and Yorgos Kotseridis 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors!
This paper is interesting but with the consideration of the following concerns:
1. The work contains a rich statistical and taxonomic arsenal. Please check the method of separating the groups shown in Figures 2 and 3. For example, figure 3, elements of group C may be in groups A or D. Please check what cut-off point was adopted for separating the groups. Figure 5. may suggest that groups A and C do not differ significantly.
2. It will be good if the Authors explain clearly the criteria for classifying elements into groups and then clearly show that they applied them. Taxonomic methods appear to have been used (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Please describe the cluster analysis, distances, method, etc. in more detail.
3.There is no need to highlight colors in the lines: 75-104, 513-525, 538-546, 577-579.
4. Please edit the text carefully.
Best Regards
Author Response
This paper is interesting but with the consideration of the following concerns:
1) The work contains a rich statistical and taxonomic arsenal. (i) Please check the method of separating the groups shown in Figures 2 and 3. For example, figure 3, elements of group C may be in groups A or D. Please check what cut-off point was adopted for separating the groups. (ii) Figure 5. may suggest that groups A and C do not differ significantly.
Answer
(i) In Figure 3, Groups A, C, D, and G, are all parts of the same large clade. We, however, based on their molecular profile shown in Table 1, considered them as four distinct elements (called them Groups). As long as separation could be done using the allele sizes, the cut-off point values were left at the default settings.
(ii) The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied due to the fact that it is a rank-based test that is similar to the Mann–Whitney U test, but can be applied to one-way data with more than two groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test does not address hypotheses about the medians of the groups. Instead, the test addresses if it is likely that an observation in one group is greater than an observation in the other (Table 5). The outcome of the Kruskal–Wallis test tells us if there are differences among the groups, but doesn’t tell us which groups are different from other groups. In order to determine which groups are different from others, post-hoc Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon testing was applied (Table 5). From this, it is shown that Groups A and D share three common values (at “Aroma Intensity”, “White Flowers / Fruits” and “Acidity” but differ in the remaining three values (“Color Intensity”, “Vegetal Aroma”, and “Taste Balance” (Table 5).
Table 5. The Kruskal–Wallis test and, when significant, (p < 0.05) the Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon Test were applied for multiple comparisons to the results of the sensory scores for the wines produced by the different fertilization treatments. Test statistics; the Kruskal–Wallis test was statistically significant when p < 0.05. Different letters in each row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) among different samples
|
Sensory Descriptors |
Kruskal–Wallis Test p-Value |
|
Post-Hoc Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon Test |
|||||||
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F |
|
H |
|||
|
Colour Intensity |
2.004×10-8 |
b |
d |
ab |
c |
d |
a |
|
ab |
|
|
Aroma Intensity |
0.007 |
a |
a |
a |
a |
a |
a |
|
b |
|
|
White Flowers/ Fruits |
0.004 |
a |
b |
a |
a |
a |
a |
|
a |
|
|
Vegetal Aroma |
0.03 |
a |
ab |
b |
ab |
ab |
b |
|
b |
|
|
Taste Balance |
0.0124 |
a |
b |
b |
ab |
a |
ab |
|
a |
|
|
Acidity |
0.02 |
a |
a |
a |
a |
ab |
ab |
|
b |
|
|
Aftertaste |
0.04 |
ab |
a |
b |
a |
ab |
ab |
|
a |
|
2) It will be good if the Authors explain clearly the criteria for classifying elements into groups and then clearly show that they applied them. Taxonomic methods appear to have been used (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Please describe the cluster analysis, distances, method, etc. in more detail.
Answer
The last lines of Section 2.2 were modified as follows:
"GenAlEx 6.5 program [24] was used for statistical analysis (Genetic Distance – Codom Genotypic). Data was then exported to the MEGA4.1(Beta) program [25] as a Tri-Matrix using the default options. Dendrograms were constructed using the UPGMA method in the MEGA4.1(Beta) program."
3) There is no need to highlight colors in the lines: 75-104, 513-525, 538-546, 577-579.
Answer
Text dehighlighted.
4) Please edit the text carefully.
Answer
The text was carefully checked regarding editing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe issue addressed in the paper discusses the case of "Asproudi" of the Monemvasia Winery vineyard. The authors considered how to improve a successful commercial product.
First of all, I find that an important topic, compatible with the journal's scope, was considered. please note, that some such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature (please complete section 1).
Secondly, I recommend a clear presentation of the methodological part. Although the analysis scenario is described, but in general. Where the main questions / hypotheses are indicated? Is there a procedure for verification of hypotheses - step by step? It is not enough to indicate the analytical tools used. Why? Because the methodological part of the article should be clear and allow the reader to repeat (replicate) the procedure proposed by the authors. This should be completed (sections 2.1-2.6.).
The study's statistical analysis needs clarification (please complete section 2.7.). Please also improve the readability of the tables and figures. Also needed is a supplemental discussion of the results.
Please remember the formulated objectives. They should find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the case? Does the conclusion answer all the questions raised at the beginning of the paper (expressed in the objectives and hypotheses)? It is also a great idea to present these most important [already sorted, synthetic] results in a clear way. Please perform this (section 4).
I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 5).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language of this paper is relatively correct, however some descriptions would benefit from being more concise.
Author Response
First of all, I find that an important topic, compatible with the journal's scope, was considered. please note, that some such studies are partially analysed in literature. It would be worth presenting the state of the art in a broader way. I suggest a more dilligent, comparative description of other scientific research from the literature (please complete section 1).
Answer
The following paragraph was inserted in Section 1 (Introduction):
“The revival of autochthonous grape varieties emphasizes the necessity of evaluating the produced wine, particularly due to the lack of previous research data. Molecular identification of the plant material that is used for the production of wine or related products together with their chemical analysis are needed to ensure authenticity Purwidyantri et al., 2023). A novel and more extensive approach involving molecular identification of the plant material used, together with chemical analysis of the produced must and the wine, followed by sensory analysis of the final product have been introduced recently (Miliordos et al., 2021) on the study of two minor Greek grapevine varieties, Karnachalades and Bogialamades. Previously, a multidisciplinary approach was used for the accurate ampelographic description of four Albanian varieties ultimately aiming to improve local economies (Kullaj et al., 2015).”
Kullaj, E., Bacu, A., Thomaj, F., Fiku, H., & Argyriou, A. (2015). Albanian grapevine cultivars: preliminary results of molecular, phenolic and ampelometric profiles and relatedness. VITIS-Journal of Grapevine Research, 54, 111-113.
Miliordos, D.E; Merkouropoulos, G.; Kogkou, C.; Arseniou, S.; Alatzas, A.; Proxenia, N.; Hatzopoulos, P.; Kotseridis Y. Explore the rare - molecular identification and wine evaluation of two autochthonous Greek varieties: “Karnachalades” and “Bogialamades”. Plants, 2021, 10, 1556–1574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10081556.
Purwidyantri, A., Azinheiro, S., García Roldán, A., Jaegerova, T., Vilaça, A., Machado, R., ... & Prado, M. (2023). Integrated Approach from Sample-to-Answer for Grapevine Varietal Identification on a Portable Graphene Sensor Chip. ACS sensors, 8(2), 640-654. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.2c02090
Secondly, I recommend a clear presentation of the methodological part. Although the analysis scenario is described, but in general. Where the main questions / hypotheses are indicated? Is there a procedure for verification of hypotheses - step by step? It is not enough to indicate the analytical tools used. Why? Because the methodological part of the article should be clear and allow the reader to repeat (replicate) the procedure proposed by the authors. This should be completed (sections 2.1-2.6.).
Answer
The initial intention and aim of this study was to reveal the molecular profile of an autochthonous variety of Greece. As soon as we realized the complexity of the issue, the project was built step-by-step. Therefore, the following paragraph, which is a short description of our study, replaced the last paragraph of Section 1, providing a thorough summary of the work:
“Herein, we describe our involvement with the “Asproudi” grapevines of a commercial vineyard in Peloponnese: initially, we were interested to reveal the molecular profile of this autochthonous Greek variety. Interestingly, however, we found out that it is a population of distinct genotypes. To evaluate their oenological potential we performed targeted microvinifications of each of these genotypes; must and wine chemical analysis were carried out and followed by the sensory analysis on the final products. At later stages, when the molecular profile of the grapevine varieties maintained in the Greek reference collection became available, the molecular profiles of the genotypes found in the “Asproudi” population were compared to them: some genotypes of the “Asproudi” population identified as varieties maintained and conserved in the reference collection while some others still remain unidentified.”
3) The study's statistical analysis needs clarification (please complete section 2.7.). Please also improve the readability of the tables and figures. Also needed is a supplemental discussion of the results.
Please remember the formulated objectives. They should find a clear answer in the conclusion of the study. Is this really the case? Does the conclusion answer all the questions raised at the beginning of the paper (expressed in the objectives and hypotheses)? It is also a great idea to present these most important [already sorted, synthetic] results in a clear way. Please perform this (section 4).
Answer
Section 2.7 was modified as follows:
“Small scale vinifications were performed in triplicates. All values are presented as the mean ± standard error. All values are presented as the mean and standard deviation. Statistical analyses were performed using the Statgraphics Centurion application (version 1.0.1.C). The significance of the results was determined with an unpaired t-test or one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test. One-way and multivariate statistical data analysis A multivariate statistical data analysis (MVA) of the samples were carried out with was performed with XLstat (XLSTAT 2017: Data Analysis and Statistical Solution for Microsoft Excel; AddinSoft, Paris, France, 2017).
The sensory evaluation data was analyzed by a non-parametric Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance using Statgraphics Centrurion. The Kruskal–Wallis Non-Parametric Hypothesis Test is used when a variable does not meet the normality assumptions of one-way ANOVA When the p-values were <0.05, a Post-Hoc Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon Test was applied to compare, one by one, the wines for each variable.”
Moreover, the paragraph below was added in Section 3.3 with the results in order to be explained better.
“The Kruskal–Wallis test was applied due to the fact that it is a rank-based test that is similar to the Mann–Whitney U test, but can be applied to one-way data with more than two groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test does not address hypotheses about the medians of the groups. Instead, the test addresses if it is likely that an observation in one group is greater than an observation in the other (Table 5) The outcome of the Kruskal–Wallis test tells you if there are differences among the groups, but doesn’t tell you which groups are different from other groups. In order to determine which groups are different from others, post-hoc Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon testing was applied(Table 5).”
At Figure 5 the scale was changed to 1-8 and differences are more visible. Moreover, in Figure 6a and 6b same scale was used for both figures, as well as the same font (size) was used.
4) I also strongly suggest that recommendations for specific, practical, not only general (and not entirely clear) applications of this research shall be provided (section 5).
Answer
In order to provide specific and practical recommendation a paragraph added in the section 5- conclusion:
“The multidisciplinary approach incorporated in the current study managed to distinguish a population of varieties that are known as “Asproudi” to the constituting genotypes. Each of these genotypes was evaluated in terms of vinification by chemical and sensory analysis.
Therefore, to answer the initial question, “How to improve a successful product”, our suggestion would be to use scientific research as an essential tool in everyday practice. This, although may be considered as a self-evidenced assumption, it is still not the main issue in many cases. Application of modern scientific research could be an important advantage to the primary sector representing a two-way communication and cooperation between the scientists and the people of the primary sector (viticulturists, farmers, nurseries etc): the common goal would be to improve agricultural production, and ultimately the national economy, and the private income. Our current work, aims to serve as a first step towards this perspective.”
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis investigation focuses on a local grapevine genotype, namely "Asproudi," and furnishes an analysis of its molecular characteristics, as well as the chemical and sen sory descriptors, with the ultimate aim of generating an exemplification of cultivar classification for the sustainable exploitation of genetic resources.
1. To adjust the structure of the abstract and define the research methods;
2. Figure 1 suggested for section 2.1; can field photos of the study area be included?
3. The last paragraph of the introduction focuses on objectives rather than research methods;
4. The subtitle of 3.3 can be changed;
5. The conclusion is more like a discussion, and should be closely related to the topic, properly simplified to highlight the key points.
Author Response
1) To adjust the structure of the abstract and define the research methods;
Answer
i) The structrure of the Abstract has been partly modified: the last two sentences were moved to an earlier position.
ii) We believe that the research methodology is comprehensively described in Section 2 (Materials and Methods). If however there would be specific topics to be improved we are happy to perform such modifications.
2) Figure 1 suggested for section 2.1; can field photos of the study area be included?
Answer
i) Regarding the place of Figure 1: We followed the "Instructions to authors" according to which: "All Figures, Schemes and Tables should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation..."
ii) There are no field photos of that particular project.
3) The last paragraph of the introduction focuses on objectives rather than research methods;
Answer
The last paragraph of Section 1 (Introduction) was replaced by the following paragraph:
"Herein, we describe our involvement with the “Asproudi” grapevines of a commercial vineyard in Peloponnese: initially, we were interested to reveal the molecular profile of this autochthonous Greek variety. Interestingly, however, we found out that it is a population of distinct genotypes. To evaluate their oenological potential we performed targeted microvinifications of each of these genotypes; must and wine chemical analysis were carried out and followed by the sensory analysis on the final products. At later stages, when the molecular profile of the grapevine varieties maintained in the Greek reference collection became available, the molecular profiles of the genotypes found in the “Asproudi” population were compared to them: some genotypes of the “Asproudi” population identified as varieties maintained and conserved in the reference collection while some others still remain unidentified."
4) The subtitle of 3.3 can be changed;
Answer
The title has been modified to: "Sensory analysis confirmed that different wines are produced by different genotypes".
5) The conclusion is more like a discussion, and should be closely related to the topic, properly simplified to highlight the key points.
Answer
Section 5 (Coclusions) has been modified as follows:
"The multidisciplinary approach incorporated in the current study managed to distinguish a population of varieties that are known as “Asproudi” to the constituting genotypes. Each of these genotypes was evaluated in terms of vinification by chemical and sensory analysis.
Therefore, to answer the initial question, “How to improve a successful product”, our suggestion would be to use scientific research as an essential tool in everyday practice. This, although may be considered as a self-evidenced assumption, it is still not the main issue in many cases. Application of modern scientific research could be an important advantage to the primary sector representing a two-way communication and cooperation between the scientists and the people of the primary sector (viticulturists, farmers, nurseries etc): the common goal would be to improve agricultural production, and ultimately the national economy, and the private income. Our current work, aims to serve as a first step towards this perspective."
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper “How to improve a successful product? The case of “Asproudi” of the Monemvasia Winery vineyard” describes a holistic approach in viticulture towards wine production, applying a multidisciplinary methodology.
The paper is well-written, and the introduction is clear and well-explained. Material and methods describe perfectly the experiment and the results are well developed.
Just some minor aspects before the publication of the paper.
In the Statistical analysis section, “Small scale vinifications were performed in triplicates. All values are presented as the mean ± standard error. All values are presented as the mean and standard deviation” Something is wrong. Please, correct it
The scale of Figure can be changed to 1-8 and differences will be a little more visible
Figure 6. Use the same scale for both figures. Use the same font (size)
Congratulations, I think it is a good work.
Author Response
1) In the Statistical analysis section, “Small scale vinifications were performed in triplicates. All values are presented as the mean ± standard error. All values are presented as the mean and standard deviation” Something is wrong. Please, correct it
Answer
The sentence was replaced bythe following:
"Small scale vinifications were performed in triplicates. All values in tables are presented as the mean ± standard error"
2) The scale of Figure can be changed to 1-8 and differences will be a little more visible
Answer
The scale in the present Figure was modulated accordingly.
3) Figure 6. Use the same scale for both figures. Use the same font (size)
Answer
The Scale and the font sizes were modulated accordingly.
