Possible Contribution of Corticular Photosynthesis to Grapevine Winter Hardiness
, Mikhail S. Khristin 2, Ulyana V. Gryaznova 2, Evgenij O. Lutskiy 1, Galina A. Semenova 3, Ilya A. Naydov 2 and Tatyana V. Savchenko 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors address an innovative topic that is of great interest. However, it is considered that there are some points that can enrich the manuscript. 1.- It is necessary to state more clearly the experimental design used, emphasizing the number of plants used, cultivation area, distance between plants, etc.
2.- Within the methodology section, the capture of data on different parameters such as temperature, solar radiation, etc., in different years is mentioned, but it is not indicated whether all the analyses carried out on the samples cover all years or only some. specifically or several of these. 3.- Both figures and tables must include data such as the year where the sample comes from if applicable, number of samples analyzed in the case of tables, as well as number of repetitions and type of statistical analysis used or indicate what the values mean. asterisks used in some of the values.
4.- The discussion of the results is well presented, however, confusion remains regarding the data taken in different years.
5. A review of grammar and language is recommended.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript addresses an attractive topic for readers of the journal, however, there are points that are suggested to be enriched with timely and necessary information to better understand the results presented. A further revision to the manuscript is recommended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for pointing to the innovative aspect of our study. Also, thank you for your fair comments. We have carefully analyzed all your comments and made appropriate corrections to the text. Below are answers to your questions.
- It is necessary to state more clearly the experimental design used, emphasizing the number of plants used, cultivation area, distance between plants, etc.:
We have added a considerable amount of information about the fields in which the study plants were grown, descriptions of varieties, times of analyses, and number of replicas in the experiments, both in the Materials and Methods section and in the Results section, in the text and figure captions.
- Within the methodology section, the capture of data on different parameters such as temperature, solar radiation, etc., in different years is mentioned, but it is not indicated whether all the analyses carried out on the samples cover all years or only some. specifically or several of these.
We have added explanatory information in the Materials and Methods section “Plant material and treatment”. Also the following information is added to the text “The data on the bud mortality for the grapevine cultivars Crystal, Dostoiny, Krasnostop AZOS, Zarif, TANA42 and TANA33 were obtained in 2006 and 2012 after extremely cold winter, that occur very rarely in the area. Laboratory analysis of Crystal, Dostoiny, Krasnostop AZOS, Zarif, TANA42 and TANA33 were carried out during winters of 2016-2018 on vines during the period of deep endodormancy. Field measurements of effective quantum yield (YII) of TANA42 and TANA33 CPA were carried out in 2019 and 2020”.
Explanations have also been made in the Results section, in the text before the description of experiments and in the figure captions.
- Both figures and tables must include data such as the year where the sample comes from if applicable, number of samples analyzed in the case of tables, as well as number of repetitions and type of statistical analysis used or indicate what the values mean. asterisks used in some of the values.
This requirement has also been fulfilled, and the relevant information has been added to the article.
- The discussion of the results is well presented, however, confusion remains regarding the data taken in different years
A summary of the work has been added to the discussion: “In the presented work, the freeze tolerance of grape varieties and hybrids was initially estimated based on the bud death rate in the field under extreme winter weather conditions, that occur very rarely in the area. Further, the activity of corticular photo-synthesis in grape varieties differing in freeze tolerance were studied under simulated low-temperature stress conditions in the laboratory. And finally, to confirm the possible connection between corticular photosynthesis and the plant adaptation to sub-optimal temperatures, we again turned to field experiments, and revealed the correlations between the values of effective quantum yield of PSII in the corticular chlorenchyma and environmental factors”.
A review of grammar and language is recommended.
The correctness of the English language has been verified.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript by Maria Sundyreva and colleagues cover an interesting topic. In general, the research work is correct and understanding to the readers. However, in my opinion, the work could be improve introducing a few minor changes in several points before a possible publication.
Line 62: introduce the year and not “current-year…”. However, authors show results from 2006, 2012. This is not clear.
Line 65-82: All the vine varieties used were red or white varieties. This is not clear.
Line 70: “… long-term studies”. Introduce references. This is not clear.
Line 91-92: December-January, but what year ?
Line 62-95: It is not clear the biological replicates of the study. Introduce more details about this topic. Howe much vine plants from each variety were used ? Vines age ? The greater or lesser resistance to cold may also depend on the age of the vines.
Line 155-160: Which statistical software was used ? and version ?
Table 1: A legend is necessary to introduce as a footnote, particularly for “*”.
Line 309-310: Correlations values such 0.617, cannot be considered as adequate or high. Rewrite the sentence.
Line 420-425: Conclusions should be rewrite. The main conclusions of the work should be introduced. At the same time, new perspectives for future work and the impact of this research should be included.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your comments, which help us to improve the manuscript. We have carefully analyzed all your comments and made required corrections to the text, figures and tables. Below are answers to your questions.
Line 65-82: All the vine varieties used were red or white varieties. This is not clear.
Information is added to Materials and Methods section “Plant material and treatment”.
Dostoiny, Krasnotop AZOS, TANA33, TANA42 are late-ripening red wine grape varieties. Crystal is early-ripening white wine grape variety. Zarif is early-ripening red table grape variety.
Line 70: “… long-term studies”. Introduce references. This is not clear
The commercial varieties described here are examined during the annual agronomic survey, however, permission from the breeding center is required to report these data. Therefore, we have excluded this information from the text.
Line 91-92: December-January, but what year ?
A more precise and detailed description of the chronology of the research is included throughout the article, in the Materials and Methods section and in description of each experiment.
Line 62-95: It is not clear the biological replicates of the study. Introduce more details about this topic. Howe much vine plants from each variety were used ? Vines age ? The greater or lesser resistance to cold may also depend on the age of the vines.
We have added a considerable amount of information about the fields in which the study plants were grown, descriptions of varieties and times of analyses, both in the Materials and Methods section and in the Results section, in the text and figure captions. Also, we have added the information about replicates to Material and Methods section and to figure captions.
Line 155-160: Which statistical software was used ? and version ?
The information is added to Material and Methods section “Statistical analysis”
309-310: Correlations values such 0.617, cannot be considered as adequate or high. Rewrite the sentence.
The sentence is re-written.
Line 420-425: Conclusions should be rewrite. The main conclusions of the work should be introduced. At the same time, new perspectives for future work and the impact of this research should be included.
The conclusion is re-written according to your recommendations.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors address the observations made, it is considered suitable material for the journal.
