Development of a “0-Pesticide Residue” Grape and Wine Production System for Standard Disease-Susceptible Varieties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript “Development of “0-residue” Grape and Wine production System for Standard Disease-Susceptible Varieties” presents relevant information and can be considered for publication in AGRONOMY journal with Major Revision. 

The authors deal with a very topical and interesting topic: reduction of the Plant Protection Products (PPP or pesticides). The European Commission has established the Green Deal, and two strategies to implement the objectives: “Farm to Fork Strategy” and the “Biodiversity Strategy”. The Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies set two key targets for pesticides: i) Target 1, to reduce by 50% the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030; ii) Target 2, to reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides by 2030.

The target 1 will be measured based on: i) the quantities of active substances contained in the pesticides which are placed on the market (sold), and therefore used, in each Member State, and ii) the hazard properties of these active substances.

The Target 2 will be measured using data on the quantities of more hazardous active substances, the so called ‘candidates for substitution’, contained in the pesticides which are placed on the market (sold), and therefore used, in each Member State. 

The possibility of wine production with “0-residue” program can serve as a reduction of active substances (target 1). The authors put the "0-residue" program for wine production in this legislative framework, but the program alone cannot be enough if not considered in a broad framework of sustainable production.

  Authors are encouraged to review the manuscript following instructions: 

“The results of four trials demonstrate that the ZRP system provided a comparable diseases and pest control to the IP system.” (Lines 21-22). Four trials are too few to write this sentence. 

“conventional pesticides” what does it mean? Please rewrite (Line 34); 

“more efficiently” what does it mean? Efficiently or sustainably? Please rewrite (Line 36); 

“The request to reduce pesticide use by 38 50% in the near future, was presented in the revision of the Directive on sustainable use 39 of pesticides (2009/128/EC) in 2022”. The request to reduce chemical (target 1) and hazardous (target 2) pesticides use by 50% was presented in the Farm to Fork strategy. Please rewrite the sentence (Lines 38-40); 

“The pest attack rate was very low, so the pest attack rate data are not presented. Small populations of the fallowing pests were detected: Drosophila suzukii Matsumura, Lobesia botrana Denis & Schiffermüller and Panonychus ulmi Koch. Only data from the last evaluations directly prior to the harvest are presented in this manuscript.” (Lines 104-108). The sentence reports results and should not be reported in the Materials and Methods section. 

“The seasonal amount of pesticide a.s. at IP Pinot Gris spray program was 31.34 kg ha⁻¹ and 26.77 kg ha⁻¹ at ZRP (-14.58%). Amounts of a.s. (kg ha⁻¹) for Sauvignon, Rebula and Merlot spray programs were (IP 33.71 vs. 24.03 ZRP (-28.72%)), (IP 26.61 vs. 21.00 ZRP (-21.01%)) and (IP 35.37 vs. 28.24 ZRP (-20.15%)) respectively.” (Lines 117-121). The sentence reports results and should not be reported in the Materials and Methods section. 

It is not clear which are targets (fungi, oomycetes, insects, mites, etc) to be contained in vineyard. The codes of the EPPO standards are reported, but not the targets. .Authors must clearly indicate in MM section which targets to contain. 

What reasoning was followed for the choice of active substances to be used in ZRP? This is not clear but it is a very important aspect of the manuscript (see Target 1 and Target 2 FtoF strategy) 

“The spring growing period in 2021 was unusually wet, with a low temperature pe-193 riod from the end of February ………………………………” (Lines 193-220). The sentences and graphs reports results and should not be reported in the Materials and Methods section. 

Table 6 (Line 290). To better understand the effects of ZRP against pathogens (DM, PM and GM), I ask the authors to report the data with AUDPC (area under the disease progress curve). 

I ask the authors not to use subjective expressions (quite suitable - line 282; not very severe – line 284; pretty good protection – line 462; small increase in disease infestation rate – line 463, etc) but refer to objective data. 

“We think that our results show a comparable efficacy of disease control in ZRP to other well performed integrated productions commonly presented in research reports.” (Lines 466-468). ZRP proposed in this manuscript is a program NOT A PRODUCTION METHOD (like IPM and Organic). The production method integrates several components, including crop protection. The difference between the IPM and Organic methods lies precisely in the use or otherwise of synthetic substances and in the permitted practices. Please review 4.1 section. 

“We think that the ZRP concept is a kind of transitional concept to a more advanced future production systems and provides a good balance between reduction of pesticide use and good economical results.” (Lines 521-524). The deductions must be supported by scientific data and not opinions, please review. 

“We believe that growing disease-susceptible grape varieties in ZRP is competitive to organic production concepts which rely a lot on frequent applications of copper and sulfur products.” (Lines 544-546). The authors cannot write (Lines 544-546) that the ZRP is better than other methods if they first wrote “The ZRP system is in its early stages of development”. 

Biostimulants are not PPPs but are classified as fertilizers (see Regulation (EU) 2019/1009). Biostimulants should not be mentioned as crop protection alternatives! (Line 67; 112; 623)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Development of “0-residue” Grape and Wine production System for Standard Disease-Susceptible Varieties” discusses the zero-residue pesticide production system, which was compared to the standard Integrated Grape Protection Program (IP) system and found to be comparable to the IP in terms of disease and pest control and did not result in a significant reduction in yield or quality. It reduced the concentration of 27 applied pesticides by 20 to 99%. The article is a good example of a commercial-scale study of pesticide reduction in grape and wine production. The article has merit as a contribution to the field of viticulture. The trials appear to have been well conducted, and the results were presented and discussed. Overall, the article provides valuable information on the efficacy of the ZRP system in controlling diseases and pests in grapevines. In my opinion, the article deserves to be published. However, major revisions are needed to improve its quality and understanding.

Title

The title should be related to “pesticide” residues. Please include this word in the title.

Abstract.

·       Should define the acronym (ZRP) as zero pesticide residue.

·       Should include a clearly defined objective in the abstract.

·       Must include a short statement of conclusion closely related to the objective.

Introduction

·       The introduction would benefit from information on the advantages and disadvantages of zero pesticide residue production.

·       There is a lack of market background and production costs associated with the zero pesticide residue production strategy.

·       The objective of the work is not clearly described. It seems to be more related to evaluating the effect of integrated (IP) and zero residues (ZRP) grape production systems on pesticide residues in grapes and wine.

Materials and Methods

·       The sample preparation (QuEChERS) for pesticide analysis should be explained in detail.

·       The limit of quantification for pesticides is 0.003 mg kg-1 as it explains minor quantitative results in the results section. For example, fluxapyroxad (0.00183), please review this and other quantitative results carefully.

·       The fermentation conditions in the production should be more detailed.

·       The methodology section should include the analysis of pathogens. These are then described with their scientific names at the species level. How this identity was demonstrated?

Results.

·       Scientific names in the Results section, tables, and throughout the paper must be spelled correctly. The first time the genus and species are given, e.g., Plasmopara viticola, in subsequent appearances the genus is abbreviated, e.g., P. viticola; please revise and correct.

·       The statistical information in the tables should be at the bottom of each table, not in the header.

Discussion    

·       The article needs to provide more information on the long-term consequences of a significant reduction in the use of classical pesticides, as mentioned in the Discussion section.

·       The authors should provide a clearer comparison of their results with other studies in this area to support the validity of their findings. 

Conclusions

·       The conclusion section should be rewritten. It should directly address the purpose of the study once it has been clarified in the abstract and introduction sections. As written, it seems more like an extension of the discussion than a conclusion in and of itself. 

·       The conclusion provides a general overview of the ZRP concept but could be improved by providing more specific and evidence-based information to support the claims made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should write out in full the genus and species only at the first mention of an organism in the manuscript (eg. Line 144, 151, 384 etc). It is advisable to consult specific databases to check the current name with the relative classifiers (e.g., Uncinula necator (Schwein.) Burrill  > species Fungorum current name: Erysiphe necator Schwein.) (e.g., Line 144)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the article considerably. In my opinion, it is now ready for publication in its current format.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for kind comment.