Rootstocks Alter the Seasonal Dynamics and Vertical Distribution of New Root Growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz grapevines

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, the subject of the article is relevant to the journal’s scope.

This research presents some new findings in the viticultural area.

The data are presented scientifically sound

More over the research has a very high practical and importance.

The paper is clearly written.

The abstract is adequate and presents all the important information.

Both keywords and abbreviations are adequate.

The introduction presents the state of art in the area and the objective of the research.

The section of the materials and methods describes precisely experimental material, procedures and statistical analyses.

All the tables and figures are clearly presented.

The discussion s adequate.

The conclusions are justified by the data presented.

All the relevant literature has been cited.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. No further actions were required based on the comments from Reviewer 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Kare Mahmud,

I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to provide some feedback on your manuscript titled "Rootstocks alter the seasonal dynamics and vertical distribution of new root growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz grapevines." Firstly, I'd like to commend you on your work, as it addresses a relatively understudied area and presents some intriguing findings.

However, I believe there is room for improvement, particularly in the discussion of the results. I suggest reading the following works for reference:

Mezzatesta et al. 2022

Roig et al. 2021

I recommend expanding Section 4.2 (line 380) and incorporating references to recent publications that are relevant to this topic.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to enhance the practical implications of your findings in the conclusions section and in the abstract as well. By doing so, you can align the outcomes of your research more closely with the objectives of the journal and suggest concrete applications for your research.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful in improving your manuscript.

Author Response

Summary                    

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Comments 1: I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to provide some feedback on your manuscript titled "Rootstocks alter the seasonal dynamics and vertical distribution of new root growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz grapevines." Firstly, I'd like to commend you on your work, as it addresses a relatively understudied area and presents some intriguing findings.

Response 1: Thanks for your comment.

Comments 2: However, I believe there is room for improvement, particularly in the discussion of the results. I suggest reading the following works for reference:

Mezzatesta et al. 2022

Roig et al. 2021

I recommend expanding Section 4.2 (line 380) and incorporating references to recent publications that are relevant to this topic.

Response 2: Agreed section 4.2 is expanded and the reference used in section 4.4 (line 397 to 400 and 438 to 442).

Comments 3: Additionally, it would be beneficial to enhance the practical implications of your findings in the conclusions section and in the abstract as well. By doing so, you can align the outcomes of your research more closely with the objectives of the journal and suggest concrete applications for your research.

Response 3: Very good point. Thanks. The abstract and conclusion is improved and updated (line 38 to 41, line 452 to 464).

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Understanding the root growth dynamics have a high importance in the vineyard maintenance and choosing the optimal rootstock to a certain terroir. The manuscript submitted by the authors have significant results and the experiment is well established.

Nevertheless, there are some gaps that should be explained.

The title and abstract suggest a paper about the root growth dynamics, on the contrary the result includes long description about the different microclimatic observations and those interaction. For example, Figure 4 introduces the seasonal dynamics of temperature, while this data is not linked to the root growth and not concluded later. I’m not sure if this data has importance concerning the study. Same for the figure 3.  

Introduction:

The paper introduces several studies linked to the grapevine root growth, but many important papers are missing, but a presentation of these would be important for example:

Hunter, J. J. (1998). Plant spacing implications for grafted grapevine I. Soil characteristics, root growth, dry matter partitioning, dry matter composition and soil utilisation. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 19(2), 25-34.

Southey, J. M. (1992). Root distribution of different grapevine rootstocks on a relatively saline soil. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 13(1), 1-9.

Swanepoel, J. J., & Southey, J. M. (1989). The influence of rootstock on the rooting pattern of the grapevine. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 10(1), 23-28.

Materials and Methods:

Please explain the method of irrigation and the frequency of water supply. This would also influence the soil moisture and root growth.

Please give more information about the soil moisture measurements as Measurement Engineering Australia website provide little information about the products.

Title of the 2.4 and 2.5 is the same, please check it.

Please explain why the weather station was 1.5 km from the experiment. This distance could cause significant differences in the climatic conditions.

Results:

Is the Table 4 including the data of 1 single year or the new roots developed during the 7 years. If the latest, it would be important to show the average and standard deviations of each of the years to explain the effect of the yearly climatic differences. According to the Figure 5 there were differences in the root growth dynamics among the years for example in the case of the own rooted Syrah. Please add statistical evaluation to the table.

There is a contradiction in the text and table: “Overall, when considering the significant interactions between new root production with direct or indirect related factors, we found that new root growth was significantly affected by genotype (p < 0.01), air temperature (p < 0.001), season (p < 0.001), development stage (p < 0.001), year (p < 0.001) and observation date (p < 0.001) (Table 2).” compared to this Year have no significance in the Table. Please explain it.

My general opinion is that the paper is too lengthy and includes many information that is not essential. Materials and Methods introduce a very complex modelling at the same time for example the Table 4 provide general information about the root growth.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 Comments 1: The title and abstract suggest a paper about the root growth dynamics, on the contrary the result includes long description about the different microclimatic observations and those interaction. For example, Figure 4 introduces the seasonal dynamics of temperature, while this data is not linked to the root growth and not concluded later. I’m not sure if this data has importance concerning the study. Same for the figure 3.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Figures 3 and 4 are used for the correlation analysis in Figure 2. We disagree with this comment. Therefore, we have not made any changes.

Comments 2: Introduction

The paper introduces several studies linked to the grapevine root growth, but many important papers are missing, but a presentation of these would be important for example:

34. Hunter, J. J. (1998). Plant spacing implications for grafted grapevine I. Soil characteristics, root growth, dry matter partitioning, dry matter composition and soil utilisation. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 19(2), 25-34.
35. Southey, J. M. (1992). Root distribution of different grapevine rootstocks on a relatively saline soil. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 13(1), 1-9.
36. Swanepoel, J. J., & Southey, J. M. (1989). The influence of rootstock on the rooting pattern of the grapevine. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 10(1), 23-28.

Response 2:

Agree. I have added Swanepoel, J. J., & Southey, J. M. (1989) to references [10] in line 55. I added a sentence and used Hunter, J. J. (1998) as reference [12] in line 57. Southey, J. M. (1992) was used as a reference [23] in line 82 to emphasize this point.

 Comments 3:

 Materials and Methods:

1. Please explain the method of irrigation and the frequency of water supply. This would also influence the soil moisture and root growth.
2. Please give more information about the soil moisture measurements as Measurement Engineering Australia website provide little information about the products.
3. Title of the 2.4 and 2.5 is the same, please check it.
4. Please explain why the weather station was 1.5 km from the experiment. This distance could cause significant differences in the climatic conditions.

  Response 3:

1. Good point. The vineyard is irrigated regularly on time. We did not collect the irrigation data as it is not our treatment.
2. Agreed. More information was added in line 151.
3. Thanks a lot for picking this mistake. I deleted the duplication and updated 2.4 to 2.6.2 (lines 159 to 213)
4. Thanks. That was the only weather station close to the experiment. It does not cause any significant differences in the climatic conditions as it was the same geographic location and altitude.

Comments 4:

 Results:

1. Is the Table 4 including the data of 1 single year or the new roots developed during the 7 years. If the latest, it would be important to show the average and standard deviations of each of the years to explain the effect of the yearly climatic differences. According to the Figure 5 there were differences in the root growth dynamics among the years for example in the case of the own rooted Syrah. Please add statistical evaluation to the table.
2. There is a contradiction in the text and table: “Overall, when considering the significant interactions between new root production with direct or indirect related factors, we found that new root growth was significantly affected by genotype (p < 0.01), air temperature (p < 0.001), season (p < 0.001), development stage (p < 0.001), year (p < 0.001) and observation date (p < 0.001) (Table 2).” compared to this Year have no significance in the Table. Please explain it.
3. My general opinion is that the paper is too lengthy and includes many information that is not essential. Materials and Methods introduce a very complex modelling at the same time for example the Table 4 provide general information about the root growth.

 

Response 4:

Thanks for the comments. But I disagree. Table 4 including the data of the new roots developed during the 7 years. This extra data set was to show total fine root numbers that occurred over the 7 years. The data was analyzed, and it was explained at the 3.4.

Very good point. Agreed. I updated Table 2 to Table 1 (line 321) and Table 1 to Table 2 (line 325).

This research was done under a real field condition and the data was extremely important to the vine industry we believe the information provided will help growers make necessary decisions based on seasonal root growth patterns.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, 

Some comments were provided: 

Arrange the keywords in alphabetic order. 

The rational of your work should be well presented. 

The aim of the work should be rewritten. 

Sub-titles 2.4 and 2.5 are the same, please revise. 

The references section are too old, you most update. 

The conclusion should be improved. 

 

Need to be improved.

Author Response

Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Comments 1: Arrange the keywords in alphabetic order.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Keywords are arranged in alphabetic order. Line 42 to 43.

Comments 2: The rational of your work should be well presented.

Response 2: Disagreed. The authors believe the rational work of the work is well presented.

Comments 3: The aim of the work should be rewritten.

Response 3: Agreed. Changed made in row in lines 94 to 109.

Comments 4: Sub-titles 2.4 and 2.5 are the same, please revise.

Response 4: Thanks a lot for picking this mistake. I deleted the duplication and updated 2.4 to 2.6.2 (lines 159 to 213)

 

Comments 5: The references section are too old, you most update.

Response 5: Agreed. Some changes made through the document. Reviewer 3 also recommended several references and all the changes is highlighted as Red color.

 

Comments 6: The conclusion should be improved.

Response 6: Agreed. The conclusion improved (line 452 to 464).