First Report of Fusarium vanettenii Causing Fusarium Root Rot in Fatsia japonica in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. All the comments are given in MS itself

2. Already root rot in Fatsia japonica caused by Phtophthora was reported . How the authors have not encountered the same?

3. Discussion part is poorly written

4. The authors don not know about the pathogen identified. For Example they have mentioned as sporangia and zoospores. But the Fusarium does not produce these spores. They would have copied from earlier reports which mentioned about the sporangia and zoospores produced by Phytophthora

5. Not much data are provided. 

6. Material and methods followed not clearly mentioned 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English is very poorly written with lot of mistakes 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and various aspects need improvement:

-The manuscript lacks clarity. Many parts are hard to understand, and some ideas are repeated unnecessarily. I suggest revising the introduction and discussion sections to be more concrete and concise.

-Since the pathogen and the host both begin with the letter “F,” I suggest abbreviating one of the names consistently (for example, the pathogen) while writing the other name in full (the host).

-Please see the comments that have been made throughout the manuscript. The corrections that I made are only a guide, you need to really improve your manuscript in all the sections. 

-Results section are barely commented.

-Significant revisions are needed to improve the quality of your manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

There are numerous grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. Please revise the text for grammatical errors, and check that the writing style is appropriate. 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Manuskript First report of Fusarium vane Ĵenii causing root rot of Fatsia japonica in China by Xiaoqiao Xu, Tingting Dai, Cuiping Wu presents original data on the identification of fusarium in Fatsia japonica.

The article is formatted in accordance with the rules. However, the work does not contain statistics or data on the nature of the spread of the disease. It would be nice to fix this problem. There are a number of errors in the work: spaces are missing, for example in line 102), manufacturers and countries of production of equipment are not indicated (which is an MDPI requirement), and the research problem should also be highlighted in a separate paragraph at the end of the introduction.

If possible, Table 1 should be corrected to fit sequences on one row.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Though you have made some corrections based on my comments, still you have to modify your MS as given below

1. The title should be changed as already root rot caused by Phytophthora is reported 

2. It is mentioned in MS that F. vanettenii was isolated in 75% of the sample. What was isolated in the remaining 25% of the sample?

3. It is mentioned that dozens of fungal isolates were isolated. Mention the exact number of isolates obtained from the plant sample? 

4.  It is necessary that all the dozens of the isolates are to be tested for their pathogenicity and also for all the sequence and  phylogenetic analyses  etc

5. Selecting the Fusarium sample at random for analyses is not acceptable. 

6. Minor english correction is required

7. The line number 59 to 78 of page number 2 is not required

Minor english correction is required

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have once again revised the manuscript, and there is still much work to be done to ensure its suitability for publication in Forests.

Several pieces of information are currently situated within the results section that should instead be relocated to the materials and methods section. Moreover, the results section remains inadequately described, particularly with regards to the phylogenetic analysis, which lacks sufficient commentary. The pathogenicity assay lacks statistical analysis; it is imperative to incorporate some form of quantification for this assay.

Furthermore, it is advisable to deposit the phylogenetic tree in TreeBASE to ensure the accessibility of this information to other researchers.

Please consider the comprehensive feedback provided throughout the manuscript, as the comments provided here are general in nature. For specific comments, suggestions, and corrections, please refer to the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The authors are tasked with enhancing the English style of the manuscript. Please thoroughly revise the entire document, incorporating all the feedback provided on sentence structure and word choice to enhance clarity and readability.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report

Dear authors

Kindly make corrections as per the undermentioned suggestions otherwise the MS submitted may not be accepted for the publication

1. The title must be changed as already root rot caused by Phytophthora sp is reported. You can change it as Fusarium root rot etc 

2. It is mentioned in MS that F. vanettenii was isolated in 75% of the sample. What was isolated in the remaining 25% of the sample? Why Phytophthora sp. was not encountered in your samples collected for isolation of the pathogen

3. It is mentioned that dozens of fungal isolates were isolated. Mention the exact number of isolates obtained from the plant sample collected and the percent incidence of the disease with Map? 

4.  It is necessary that all the dozens of the isolates are to be tested for their pathogenicity and all these isolates are to be included for the sequences and for phylogenetic analyses

6. Minor English correction is required

It is OK 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have revised the manuscript once more, and while there's been improvement, there are still some refinements needed. Please refer to the attached file for detailed comments, suggestions, and corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please thoroughly review and refine the English style of the manuscript. There are still some sentences that lack clarity and need to be better understood.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf