Potential and Actual Bud Fruitfulness: A Tool for Predicting and Managing the Yield of Table Grape Varieties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is interesting to research the potential and actual bud fruitfulness of 17 table grape varieties. I believe this research could impact the local industry's table grape management. The paper can be improved if the author can reorganize some of the sentences which are not very clear.
I would suggest the acceptance of this article based on further revision. I have enclosed some comments for the authors to improve the paper's content.
Dear Authors,
It is impressive to learn how to use stereomicroscope to study the potential bud fruitfulness. I would suggest adding some illustrations to explain the primary buds and secondary buds. It could be easier for other readers to understand this research better. Below are my comments for you, and I hope it is helpful toward improving this paper:
Line 10 &20: it does not make sense to mention twice of "need qualified and trained personnel." It seems this research still needs to be applied by trained personnel.
Line 32-35: Please reorganize this sentence; for example, you can use the following sentence: Different factors could determine the low bud fruitfulness: the varieties, environmental conditions (temperature, light intensity, shade), and management systems (pruning, irrigation, nutrition, and hormone application).
Line 39-41: The grapevine yield formation is spanned over two consecutive years—the floral induction occurred in the first year, followed by flower initiation and differentiation at around the flowering time in the second year.
Line 46-47: Authors have reported grape seasonal yield varied greatly, ranging from 15% up to 35% and even higher.
Line 55-58: Shade on buds during the vegetative season reduces inflorescence formation, which may be due to lower carbon status and assimilate supply to the buds. The shaded canes often occur in some vineyards with vigorous table grape varieties, resulting in negative consequences on bud differentiation.
Line 65-68: It is a bit interrupted to mention "water stress," you may need 1-2 sentences to explain this paragraph further.
Line 76: I would suggest adding 1-2 sentences to describe what PBN looks like.
Line 112: How many hours will the vines be stored in the fridge? I have no experience observing a cut bud using a stereomicroscope, but it seems you have ice inside the buds. Is that correct?
Line 129: I would suggest to add some letters or arrows in the picture and illustrate where are the primary and secondary buds. Showing what PBN looks like.
Line 313-317: not very clear; please reorganize this paragraph. You can break it into 2-3 sentences.
Line 361: It is interrupted to mention cytokinin; you may need 1-2 sentences to explain the cytokinin's function on bud differentiation.
Line 363-366, 395-398: I would suggest combining these two paragraphs into one paragraph.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1
It is interesting to research the potential and actual bud fruitfulness of 17 table grape varieties. I believe this research could impact the local industry's table grape management. The paper can be improved if the author can reorganize some of the sentences which are not very clear. I would suggest the acceptance of this article based on further revision. I have enclosed some comments for the authors to improve the paper's content.
We appreciate the general positive comments of the reviewer and we improved the sentences as required.
It is impressive to learn how to use stereomicroscope to study the potential bud fruitfulness. I would suggest adding some illustrations to explain the primary buds and secondary buds. It could be easier for other readers to understand this research better. Below are my comments for you, and I hope it is helpful toward improving this paper:
We thank the Reviewer for his comment. In the new revised version of the ms we improved the illustrations of primary and secondary buds as required.
Line 10 &20: it does not make sense to mention twice of "need qualified and trained personnel." It seems this research still needs to be applied by trained personnel.
We agree with the reviewer and we deleted the sentence at line 20 accordingly.
Line 32-35: Please reorganize this sentence; for example, you can use the following sentence: Different factors could determine the low bud fruitfulness: the varieties, environmental conditions (temperature, light intensity, shade), and management systems (pruning, irrigation, nutrition, and hormone application).
We reorganized the sentence in the way as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 39-41: The grapevine yield formation is spanned over two consecutive years—the floral induction occurred in the first year, followed by flower initiation and differentiation at around the flowering time in the second year.
We reorganized the sentence in the way as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 46-47: Authors have reported grape seasonal yield varied greatly, ranging from 15% up to 35% and even higher.
We reorganized the sentence in the way as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 55-58: Shade on buds during the vegetative season reduces inflorescence formation, which may be due to lower carbon status and assimilate supply to the buds. The shaded canes often occur in some vineyards with vigorous table grape varieties, resulting in negative consequences on bud differentiation.
We reorganized the sentence in the way as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 65-68: It is a bit interrupted to mention "water stress," you may need 1-2 sentences to explain this paragraph further.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We better arranged this sentence in the revised version of the ms.
Line 76: I would suggest adding 1-2 sentences to describe what PBN looks like.
We better described the PBN in the new revised version of the ms.
Line 112: How many hours will the vines be stored in the fridge? I have no experience observing a cut bud using a stereomicroscope, but it seems you have ice inside the buds. Is that correct?
The canes can be stored in the fridge for several hours at 4-6 °C and there is no ice at all inside the buds.
Line 129: I would suggest to add some letters or arrows in the picture and illustrate where are the primary and secondary buds. Showing what PBN looks like.
We added letters in the figures to better understand the different buds.
Line 313-317: not very clear; please reorganize this paragraph. You can break it into 2-3 sentences.
We have better arranged this paragraph as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 361: It is interrupted to mention cytokinin; you may need 1-2 sentences to explain the cytokinin's function on bud differentiation.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We better arranged this sentence in the revised version of the ms adding some more information.
Line 363-366, 395-398: I would suggest combining these two paragraphs into one paragraph.
As suggested by the reviewer we better arranged the paragraph on the cultural practices, combining some sentences in the revised ms.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of manuscript: Agronomy-1124774
Title: Potential and actual bud fruitfulness: a tool for predicting and managing the yield of table grape varieties
In this paper, the authors employed a microscopic bud dissection technique to assess the bud fruitfulness in several table grape cultivars. Such information is essential to guiding winter pruning decisions and predicting yield for the following season. The research methods are sound, and the paper is generally written well; however, the following points need to be addressed before it is accepted for publication in Agronomy:
- Lines 108. How old were the vines, and what is the geographical location of the vineyard? Were these own-rooted or grafted vines? What type of pruning was performed on the vines during the winter and summer seasons? Also, what was the trellis/training type? These details need to be incorporated into the materials and method section. What are the typical production practices adopted to maintain the health of the vine?
- Lines137. Figure 3 caption should be renamed as Transverse stereomicrographs of (A) compound bud showing primary and secondary bud …..and (B) primary, secondary, and tertiary buds. Label these buds in the micrographs (showing primary, secondary, tertiary buds, inflorescence primordia, etc.,) and include the scale bars. Follow this pattern for all figures with stereomicrographs.
- Lines 124-128. Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 should be renamed as a photograph of vineyard before winter pruning …… and Figure 2 as a photograph of vineyard at…..
In summary, the research is interesting and improves our understanding of how bud fruitfulness assessment can predict yield and make pruning decisions.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #2
In this paper, the authors employed a microscopic bud dissection technique to assess the bud fruitfulness in several table grape cultivars. Such information is essential to guiding winter pruning decisions and predicting yield for the following season. The research methods are sound, and the paper is generally written well; however, the following points need to be addressed before it is accepted for publication in Agronomy.
In summary, the research is interesting and improves our understanding of how bud fruitfulness assessment can predict yield and make pruning decisions.
We appreciate the general positive comments of the reviewer and we improved the manuscript as suggested b the reviewer.
Lines 108. How old were the vines, and what is the geographical location of the vineyard? Were these own-rooted or grafted vines? What type of pruning was performed on the vines during the winter and summer seasons? Also, what was the trellis/training type? These details need to be incorporated into the materials and method section. What are the typical production practices adopted to maintain the health of the vine?
The information required ha been added the revised ms.
Lines137. Figure 3 caption should be renamed as Transverse stereomicrographs of (A) compound bud showing primary and secondary bud …..and (B) primary, secondary, and tertiary buds. Label these buds in the micrographs (showing primary, secondary, tertiary buds, inflorescence primordia, etc.,) and include the scale bars. Follow this pattern for all figures with stereomicrographs.
All the figure captions have been improved as suggested by the reviewer.
Lines 124-128. Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 should be renamed as a photograph of vineyard before winter pruning …… and Figure 2 as a photograph of vineyard at…..
Figures have been renamed as suggested by the reviewer.
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
In this manuscript authors investigated the possibility to use microscopic bud dissection technique in order to predict the potential yield of table grape varieties in the following growing season. The manuscript has several major flaws, and it is not worth publishing in Agronomy journal. First, the study lacks novelty; the thematic is quite old and this technique was investigated and used several decades ago, and authors do not provide some specific novelties which would make this study worth publishing in some renowned scientific journal. Consequently, this thematic is not interesting to the readers, and do no not provide a step forward in the scientific knowledge. The references used are quite old, and there are only few references from the last decade (which is an additional confirmation that this thematic is quite old and inappropriate for a scientific journal). There is an evidence of some ethical problems in the study; in the Introduction section (line 12) it is stated that research was performed in 2018 and 2019, in the Materials and Methods (line 103) it is stated that research was performed in 2019 and 2020, while in the Discussion section (line 351) it is stated this same research was performed in 2015 and 2016. Such discrepancy and inconsistency pose a doubt on the authenticity of the results which are presented in the study. Also, the whole manuscript (and especially the Introduction section) is written as a 20 years old textbook for students, and not as a scientific paper which is aimed to be published in 2021. I recommend to the authors to send this manuscript for publication in some professional (not scientific) journal which is oriented to the practical viticulturists or agronomists.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents information related to the use of bud microscopic examination to predict fruit cluster generation by table grape varieties in Italy. The predictive nature of the bud examination clearly depended on variety with high prediction for some and low prediction for others. Overall the study appears sound - there are a few comments in the pdf file for the manuscript where I believed the authors interpretation may be too far reaching for the data but no comments jeopardize the overall paper.
I have made some moderate English corrections throughout the manuscript to improve clarity.
Some specific comments follow:
Placing variety names inside single quotation marks (for example 'Shiraz' instead of Shiraz) - most journals require this format and I note that no variety names are formatted in this way. I yield to the editors for this journal to make a final call but I prefer the use of single quotation marks to denote variety names.
Table footnoting - the clarity of tables 1 and 2 could be improved with footnoting. For table 1 briefly defining the fertility parameters used would improve clarity. For table 2 defining the abbreviations would improve clarity.
Variety descriptions after table 2 - precede these with a section indicator - these notes could useful but they need to be clearly identified as such.
The use of the term "affordable" in the later part of the discussion is unwarranted based on the data presented.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
