The Impact of Training Systems on Productivity and GHG Emissions from Grapevines in the Sughd Region in Northern Tajikistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main objective of the present research was to study not only the effect of a vineyard training system on the vegetative and productive parameters of Husain White variety but also the environmental pressure of vineyard production expressed by GHG emission in northern Tajikistan.

Three training system was compared:

1. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a 90 low height trunk (80 cm) “Multi-arm fan” system;
2. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a high height trunk (120 cm), “Umbrella Kniffin” type;
3. spacing 4 m x 3.7 m + 0.6 m, trained on a high trunk (140 cm), “One side multi arms systems.

The experiment was conducted in the years 2015-2018.

The statistical model used is cited in the text but in the tables and figures, there is no clear separation of the three growing seasons. A two-way ANOVA model with interaction or a separate one-way ANOVA for each growing season would be appropriate.

In line 57-59: confused sentences

In Line 86: What is the meaning of “total temperature ranging from 2.000 to 5.000°C”?

In line 108, Figure 1: The experiment was conducted in the years 2015-2018 but Figure 1 show meteorological data from 2016 to 2018

In line 116-120: unclear sentences.

In line 189: rewrite the sentences.

In line 195-196: rewrite the sentence.

In line 281: rewrite the sentence and explain the correct phosphorus application dose

In line 198 Table 2, in line 245 Table 3 in line 248 Table 4: in all tables you have indicate value + standard deviation or standard error?

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for the attention and their valuable comments. The quality of our manuscript was improved, and now we hope that our manuscript fulfils the standards for publication.

We have included all the corrections indicated by the reviewers and below have provided responses to the comments they made. Changes have been marked in the manuscript in regards to the answers presented below e.g. A1, A2, A3….

General description:

Text in the manuscript was professionally edited (British English, editing certificate attached).

Manuscript was reconstructed, all chapters were improved according comments. The introduction and aim were developed

In chapter Materials and methods, new descriptions were added e.g.: soil physical and chemical analysis, description of objects.

Tables and figures were changed, new tables with data for all seasons were prepared and presented.

Tables and figures were properly matched to the text.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main objective of the present research was to study not only the effect of a vineyard training system on the vegetative and productive parameters of Husain White variety but also the environmental pressure of vineyard production expressed by GHG emission in northern Tajikistan.

Three training system was compared:

1. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a 90 low height trunk (80 cm) “Multi-arm fan” system;
2. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a high height trunk (120 cm), “Umbrella Kniffin” type;
3. spacing 4 m x 3.7 m + 0.6 m, trained on a high trunk (140 cm), “One side multi arms systems.

The experiment was conducted in the years 2015-2018.

[A1] The statistical model used is cited in the text but in the tables and figures, there is no clear separation of the three growing seasons. A two-way ANOVA model with interaction or a separate one-way ANOVA for each growing season would be appropriate.

[ANSWER]:  New tables with data for all seasons were prepared and presented, one-way ANOVA was used for each growing season, seasons were not compared because it was not an aim of research.

[A2] In line 57-59: confused sentences

[ANSWER]:  Sentence was rebuilded and was checked by professional  english editing service (MDPI). 

[A3] In Line 86: What is the meaning of “total temperature ranging from 2.000 to 5.000°C”? [ANSWER]:  It was changed to „2.000 to 5.000  of total annual heating degree days (°C)” and its represents accumulated heat energy over a period of time.

[A4] In line 108, Figure 1: The experiment was conducted in the years 2015-2018 but Figure 1 show meteorological data from 2016 to 2018

[ANSWER]:  The experiment started in november 2015, evaluation of yield and productivity parameters was conducted during the periods of vegetation in 2016, 2017 and 2018. All tables captions were changed and text in manuscript was improved

[A5] In line 116-120: unclear sentences.

[ANSWER]:  Sentence were changed, manuscript was checked by professional  english editing service.

[A6] In line 189: rewrite the sentences.

[ANSWER]:  Sentence was changed. manuscript was checked by professional  english editing service.

[A7] In line 195-196: rewrite the sentence.

[ANSWER]:  Sentence was checked once again, all manuscript was checked by professional  english editing service, we decide to not change sentence

[A8] In line 281: rewrite the sentence and explain the correct phosphorus application dose. , [ANSWER]:  Manuscript was checked by professional  english editing service, correct phosphorus application dose was explained.

[A8] In line 198 Table 2, in line 245 Table 3 in line 248 Table 4: in all tables you have indicate value + standard deviation or standard error?

[ANSWER]:  We indicate standard deviation and now it was marked in the tables.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the effects of different training system on the production of vineyards in the area of Northern Tajikistan。Three training schemes were set up, and the growth parameters, yielding, yield quality and GHG emission were evaluated. The final conclusion shows that the cultivation of grapes in training system “C” resulted in the obtainment higher values of parameters such as Practical Bud Fertility coefficient and Fruiting shoots pcs and higher yields. This manuscript carries out a multi-dimensional detailed evaluation of three different training schemes, and the relevant evaluation data are relatively sufficient. However, more consideration should be given to the innovation and preciseness of the experimental design. Some suggestions are as follows.

Major problem：

1. The three training schemes provided in the manuscript are only set on the basis of the actual production and application training schemes, and lack of exploratory and innovative research. If more gradient changes can be set on a single variable, it will be better to discuss the optimal setting range of cultivation conditions.
2. In the part of introduction, the content of the discussion is lack of primary and secondary importance and clear research highlights. It only lists the importance of a series of cultivation conditions related to plant yield and environmental impact. At the end of the introduction, the main research content is explained, but the meaning is less described.
3. The variables in the "A", "B" and "C" groups include frame height and various spacing Settings. Except that the comparison between A and B is one single variable, there are multiple variables in the pairwise comparison of other groups. The results obtained between the control group and the experimental group in this way did not indicate who was the main influencing factor. Therefore, the control setting of this manuscript is not rigorous enough.

Minor problem：

1.  The climate data in figure 1 suggest an average error for each month for three years.
2.  The manuscript should properly describe the methods for the determination of data on climate indicators, soil physical and chemical properties, etc.
3.  Proper noun abbreviations should be marked when they appear for the first time in the manuscript, such as "GHG", so as to facilitate readers' reading and understanding.
4.  The content of "3.1. Development and growth" in the manuscript is not reflected in table 1, and the relevant results should be those in table 2.
5.  The pie chart in figure6 cannot intuitively see the proportion of each component, and the distribution of values is messy, so it cannot correspond to each other. The presentation of this part of the data needs to be improved.
6.  The writing structure of the manuscript needs to be strengthened, especially the induction and segmentation of the content of each part. Large paragraphs are not conducive to the reader's understanding.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for the attention and their valuable comments. The quality of our manuscript was improved, and now we hope that our manuscript fulfils the standards for publication.

We have included all the corrections indicated by the reviewers and below have provided responses to the comments they made. Changes have been marked in the manuscript in regards to the answers presented below e.g. B1, B2, B3….

General description:

Text in the manuscript was professionally edited (British English, editing certificate attached).

Manuscript was reconstructed, all chapters were improved according comments. The introduction and aim were developed

In chapter Materials and methods, new descriptions were added e.g.: soil physical and chemical analysis, description of objects.

Tables and figures were changed, new tables with data for all seasons were prepared and presented.

Tables and figures were properly matched to the text.

.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes the effects of different training system on the production of vineyards in the area of Northern Tajikistan. Three training schemes were set up, and the growth parameters, yielding, yield quality and GHG emission were evaluated. The final conclusion shows that the cultivation of grapes in training system “C” resulted in the obtainment higher values of parameters such as Practical Bud Fertility coefficient and Fruiting shoots pcs and higher yields. This manuscript carries out a multi-dimensional detailed evaluation of three different training schemes, and the relevant evaluation data are relatively sufficient. However, more consideration should be given to the innovation and preciseness of the experimental design. Some suggestions are as follows.

Major problem：

[B1] The three training schemes provided in the manuscript are only set on the basis of the actual production and application training schemes, and lack of exploratory and innovative research. If more gradient changes can be set on a single variable, it will be better to discuss the optimal setting range of cultivation conditions.

[ANSWER]:  The introduction and aim were developed, we pointed that  innovative element of this research is evaluation the environmental efficiency of vineyard training systems which base on both producitivity and GHG emmision, and this kind of evalutaion is first for that region (with presented new training system for region and withouth them too)

[B2] In the part of introduction, the content of the discussion is lack of primary and secondary importance and clear research highlights. It only lists the importance of a series of cultivation conditions related to plant yield and environmental impact. At the end of the introduction, the main research content is explained, but the meaning is less described.

[ANSWER]: Introduction was reconstructed, we added more information and problem has been better described and highlighted.  We described importance of  evaluation of the environmental efficiency of vineyard training systems but still left some description of fundamental factors affecting yield and its quality.

[B3] The variables in the "A", "B" and "C" groups include frame height and various spacing Settings. Except that the comparison between A and B is one single variable, there are multiple variables in the pairwise comparison of other groups. The results obtained between the control group and the experimental group in this way did not indicate who was the main influencing factor. Therefore, the control setting of this manuscript is not rigorous enough.

[ANSWER]: The chapter materials and methods was reconstructed, we agree that in previous version that chapter was not properly described, object A should not be named as control, and it was changed. This paper was focused on evaluation the environmental efficiency of vineyard training systems.  This research has allowed a thorough evaluation of the environmental and production aspects of the process and creating recommendations for newly established plantations.

Minor problem：

[B4] The climate data in figure 1 suggest an average error for each month for three years.

[ANSWER]: It was changed, table with data for all seasons was prepared.

[B5] The manuscript should properly describe the methods for the determination of data on climate indicators, soil physical and chemical properties, etc.

[ANSWER]: The data related to climate description was prepared on the base of own research and it was cited, information about determination of soil physical and chemical properties were added.

[B6] Proper noun abbreviations should be marked when they appear for the first time in the manuscript, such as "GHG", so as to facilitate readers' reading and understanding.

[ANSWER]: It was improved.

[B7]  The content of "3.1. Development and growth" in the manuscript is not reflected in table 1, and the relevant results should be those in table 2.

[ANSWER]: It was changed.

[B8] The pie chart in figure6 cannot intuitively see the proportion of each component, and the distribution of values is messy, so it cannot correspond to each other. The presentation of this part of the data needs to be improved.

[ANSWER]: Figure 6 was changed, now its presents average data for all systems with standard deviation, there were no significant differences between systems.

[B9] The writing structure of the manuscript needs to be strengthened, especially the induction and segmentation of the content of each part. Large paragraphs are not conducive to the reader's understanding.

[ANSWER]: Manuscript was checked by professional  english editing service (MDPI), text was rebuilded, changes were marked in text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The main objective of the present research was to study not only the effect of a vineyard training system on the vegetative and productive parameters of Husain White variety but also the environmental pressure of vineyard production expressed by GHG emission in northern Tajikistan.

Three training system was compared:

1. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a 90 low height trunk (80 cm) “Multi-arm fan” system;
2. spacing 3 m x 2 m, trained on a high height trunk (120 cm), “Umbrella Kniffin” type;
3. spacing 4 m x 3.7 m + 0.6 m, trained on a high trunk (140 cm), “One side multi arms systems.

The experiment was conducted in the years 2016-2018.

Line  114 Correct the word: Productuction

Line 214 Correct the term: Emision

Line 262, 314, 320:  insert the comma after significantly different …...

Mean with different letters within column are significantly different. according to Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05), ± 262 standard deviation.

Line 382. Correct the word:  Stucture

Reference. Review the exact correspondence between reference number  in the text and  Reference order

Author Response

We thank the referee once again for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript. The quality of our manuscript was improved, and now we hope that our manuscript fulfils the standards for publication.

We have included all the corrections indicated by the reviewers and below have provided responses to the comments they made. Changes have been marked in the manuscript in regards to the answers presented below e.g. A1, A2, A3….

[A1] Line  114 Correct the word: Productuction [ANSWER]: It was changed.

[A2] Line 214 Correct the term: Emision [ANSWER]: It was changed.

[A3] Line 262, 314, 320:  insert the comma after significantly different …... [ANSWER]: It was changed for all tables.

[A4] Mean with different letters within column are significantly different. according to Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05), ± 262 standard deviation. [ANSWER]: It was checked.

[A5] Line 382. Correct the word:  Stucture [ANSWER]: It was changed.

[A6] Reference. Review the exact correspondence between reference number  in the text and  Reference order [ANSWER]: It was checked, mistakes were improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is greatly improved.

Author Response

We thank the referee once again for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript.