Correlation of the Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Leaf Chlorophyll Concentration with RGB Color Indices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Bodor-Pesti et al., aimed to find those RGB based vegetation indices which could be applied in field investigations according to digital cameras to predict chlorophyll concentration of the canopy.   Authors found that most of the indices had significant correlation with the pigmentation. monitoring the whole canopy would be more beneficial than the individual organs. Considering the importance of the nutrient element for plants and monitoring the entire canopy would be more beneficial than individual organs, the results seem important for viticulture. However, the manuscript has many deficiencies that do not make it publishable in its current state. It is written in a chaotic and disordered way. Many concepts reported in the manuscript are superfluous and should be eliminated. The manuscript needs substantial changes and additions to aspire to be published. The form of the English language also needs to be improved.

Abstract

The abstract 's structure is somewhat unbalanced: the part on how the study was conducted is very lengthy, while reporting little information on the results obtained. This part needs to be completely rewritten. The purpose of the abstract is to briefly illustrate the objective and the salient concepts of the research.

Introduction

The introduction is excessively verbose. Furthermore, it reports many concepts of a general nature related to predict chlorophyll concentration of the canopy that has very little to do with what is the objective of this study.  The introduction should show the current situation for estimating the chlorophyll concentration of the canopy, aslo be limited to highlighting the limitations and advantages that vine cultivation can achieve with the new method. The objective of the study (and consequently the title of the paper) should be better defined. In the near future (especially in the light of the climate change and the physiology of the grapevines) the agronomic characteristics required of the new grape cultivars could also be different. Also, most importantly, 9 references (Kupe et al. 2021) are unnecessary and it is recommended to be removed.These concepts need to be explained better.

Materials and methods

The materials and methods should be written more clearly. Some methodological aspects need to be better explained. In particular, information must be provided regarding the age, vegetative productive conditions and health status of the vines from which the cuttings were taken, as well as the agronomical management of the experimental field.  It is necessary to report the dates in which the various steps of the experiment were carried out (this part is unclear). Furthermore, the measurements conducted on the the chlorophyll concentration mode of growing vines should be better described. In particular, the environmental conditions of the vineyard must be indicated (e.g. temperature, relative humidity, hours of light, etc.) and the daily water and nutrient supply to the plants.

Results and Discussion

Many parts of the results are written in a very articulate and somewhat muddled way. This way of presenting of results penalizes the quality of the paper. To enhance the results obtained and improve their comprehensibility to the reader, the authors should use a streamlined presentation of the results, trying to minimise the use of numerical values. Discussion session is quite long-winded. In many parts of this paragraph, concepts of a general nature onthe chlorophyll concentration of the canopy and not connected with the results obtained in this study are reported. In this session only the results obtained in this study need to be discussed (with the support of the existing literature on the subject). All superfluous parts (not directly connected with the results obtained) must be eliminated.

Conclusions

In this paragraph, instead of reporting the conclusions of this study, a summary of the work carried out is reported. This part needs to be completely rewritten. This section should highlight the new knowledge that has been acquired with this study regarding the chlorophyll concentration of the canopy and the contribution that this new knowledge can give to the development of grapevine cultivation.

The form of the English language also needs to be improved.

Author Response

Budapest, 16^th of July, 2023

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank for the evaluation of our manuscript and the helpful contribution that improves the quality of our study.

 

Below we answer all questions and comments:

1. The abstract 's structure is somewhat unbalanced.

We modified the Abstract of the paper to be more balanced.

 

2. Introduction

We modified the structure of the chapter and removed more of the citations (for example: Kupe et al. 2021) to limit the chapter to the chlorophyll concentration measurements and limitations of that. We consider that the objective of the study is detailed, while if you could give us any further suggestion, we would be grateful. 

 

 

3. Materials and Methods

All required information were included in the chapter. Concerning the “dates in which the various steps of the experiment were carried out” were gave the dates and steps carried out after each other. Concerning “the measurements conducted on the chlorophyll concentration mode of growing vines should be better described” we were using a digital Chlorophyll meter with 3 replications for each leaf discs, these details are included in the manuscript. Concerning the “daily water and nutrient supply to the plants” samples were collected in a commercial vineyard where water was not added, and yearly regular plant nutrient supply was carried out instead of daily supply. Details about the vineyard microclimate added to the chapter.

 

4. Results and Discussion

The chapter was significantly modified according to your valuable suggestions.

 

5. Conclusions

We modified the chapter.

 

 

I hope we answered all questionable parts of our study, and it fits to your requirements.

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good paper in which I can find no problems other than some minor English use issues.  It can be published with text editing only.  I have attached a copy of the paper with a few changes noted.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Budapest, 16^th of July, 2023

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank for the evaluation of our manuscript and the helpful contribution that improves the quality of our study. According to your valuable suggestions we corrected the manuscript.

 

I hope we corrected all questionable parts of our study, and it fits to your requirements.

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript under the form of a Brief report its interesting and the topic covered is relevant. However, I have a few suggestions to contribute for the increase of the paper quality.

The first time that RGB is mentioned, it must be presented with the full name followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.

The abstract should present only the most important results. So, I suggest rewriting the summary between lines 24 and 32. Similar comments for the remaining abbreviatures (SLR, GLI, ….).

Line 87: Authors used a red or white grapevine ? include this information.

Line 86-88: include more relevant details: vineyard with our without irrigation, plants density, grapevine age. Also, data from the weather (values per day for temperature, solar radiation, rainfall, ….), this could be very important to related with chlorophyl.

Line 114-116: These sentences should be introduced in results and discussion.

Line 147-188: In my opinion, all this part should be rewritten and linked to the discussion of the results. From the way it is presented, it seems that this is a review paper.

Author Response

Budapest, 16^th of July, 2023

Editorial Board of Horticulturae

 

Dear Reviewer,

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I would like to thank for the evaluation of our manuscript and the helpful contribution that improves the quality of our study.

 

Below we answer all questions and comments:

1. The abstract should present only the most important results. So, I suggest rewriting the summary between lines 24 and 32.

Thank you, we modified the Abstract.

2. Similar comments for the remaining abbreviatures (SLR, GLI, ….).

Thank you we corrected it.

3. Line 87: Authors used a red or white grapevine ? include this information.

The ’Hárslevelű’ is a white cultivar, we included it in the study.  

4. Line 86-88: include more relevant details: vineyard with or without irrigation, plants density, grapevine age. Also, data from the weather (values per day for temperature, solar radiation, rainfall, ….), this could be very important to related with chlorophyl.

We included all information what was available according to the meteorological station in the vineyard.

5. Line 114-116: These sentences should be introduced in results and discussion.

We removed this sentence from the chapter.

6. Line 147-188: In my opinion, all this part should be rewritten and linked to the discussion of the results. From the way it is presented, it seems that this is a review paper.

We modified the chapter according to your and the Reviewer 1 suggestions.

I hope we answered all questionable parts of our study, and it fits to your requirements.

 

 

Your sincerely,

Péter Bodor-Pesti, PhD

corresponding author

Department of Viticulture

Institute for Viticulture and Oenology

Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form 

Accept in present form 

Reviewer 2 Report

I was relatively happy with the original ms. and I don't feel I can contribute further to any revisions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript was revised according to the previous comments and their quality was improved. So, in my opinion the paper can be accepted. I only suggest that a final English-style review be carried out, because some corrections may need to be made.