Metarhizium dianzhongense sp. nov. and New Record of M. bibionidarum (Clavicipitaceae, Hyocreales) Attacking Insects from China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide a new species of Metarhizium and new record for another species. The manuscript is well written overall, and the authors have good figures. The main issue is that there is no clear statement (unless I missed it), that the new species is morphologically distinct from species that were not included within the phylogenetic analysis. This is a requirement of the code. 1) Check to see if it is different phylogenetically, 2) How is it different from its sister taxa, 3) How is this species different from all species not in the phylogenetic analysis. Step 3 does not appear to be complete. This means, the authors must show it is different from all previously described species, not just species that have molecular data. Therefore, I cannot accept the new species per the code.

Other minor suggestions:

Abstract

Line 24. Suggest removing the word "two" since it is redundant by using both.

Keywords

All words in the title are keywords and should not be repeated in the keywords section. Suggest removing Metarhizium and replacing it with another unique key word (line 27)

Methods

The authors will need to discuss the PCR amplification procedures either as a supplement to within the main body of the text. The manuscript should be stand-a-lone with the methods. It is ok to state the reference, you add. In short, .................    and describe briefly the settings so that it is repeatable by using the in short methods.

Results

Line 249: Although not the only difference, " moderately faster" as a difference is not very exact and a more exact definition of moderately would be best.

Importantly, this section is missing how the new species is different from those species not included with the phylogenetic analysis. This is a requirement of the code.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor corrections needed but can be adjusted later.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The manuscript presents isolation and characterization of two species from the genus Metarhizium. One of them, M. bibionidarum, is reported for the first time in China, whereas the other one, named M. dianzhongense, is a new representative of the genus.

The Abstract is informative and presents the main results and contributions of the study.

The Introduction is focused on changes in the taxonomy of the genus Metarhizium as a result of advances in phylogenetic analyzes over the years.

The Material and Methods are described in correct order and detailed.

The Results section is informative and well structured. After phylogenetic analyses of the collected isolates, determined as M. dianzhongense and M. bibionidarum, and other members of the genus Metarhizium based on multi-gene dataset, the new strains are characterized morphologically. Differences between the species that is reported for the first time in this study, M. dianzhongense, and closely related species M. ellipsoideum are clearly and in detail described (in the growth rate of colony, conidial size and the host species). In addition, the potential of M. dianzhongense and M. bibionidarum for the control of S. frugiperda larvae is presented indicating a practical benefit of the study.

The Discussion part summarizes the most important results of the study and makes linkage to other publications in the field. The contribution of this study to the phylogenetic update of the genus Metarhizium is highlighted and the value of the obtained data on the insecticidal activity of the two species for practice is emphasized.

The Figures are impressive and illustrate in detail the relevant stages of the study: the larvae from which the isolated strains originate, mycelia colonies of the both tested species on PDA and their morphological characteristics, infected larvae of S. frugiperda. Congratulations to the authors for the photos, as very often the figures are unclear, especially from pathogenicity tests in some papers. All Tables in the manuscript are informative.

References are up to date and focused on the topic of the research.

 

Specific comments and suggestions to the authors

Japan and France are mention as countries where M. bibionidarum has been found before (Page 8, Row 190). The role of Nishi et al. for Japanese isolates is evident, but there is no data/reference for the species distribution in France in the text. The information will be useful for researches that are interested in the genus Metarhizium and entomopathogenic fungi in general.

There are some small technical inaccuracies in the first paragraph of the Discussion – “seven-gene phylogenetic analyses of the M. dianzhongense” is repeated twice (in the beginning and on the row 270) and the second one could be omitted; the full name of the same species is redundant (row 270).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have clarified how the new species is different from other species within the clade and made the appropriate changes within the methods. Unless I missed something, the authors still have not clarified if their new species is different from all Metarhizium species that lack molecular data. If all known Metarhizium species have molecular data, then the authors should state that within the manuscript. Alternatively, please review species descriptions for Metarhizium species that lack molecular data and clearly state that the new species differs from all Metarhizium species that lack molecular data by X, Y, or Z. This is required by the code for describing new species.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added the required information to satisfy the code, thank you.