Control of Pathogen Erysiphe alphitoides Present in Forest Crops in Current Climatic Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are NO comments, suggestions and corrections have been satisfied.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The writing quality of this article is still not up to the requirement of publication, and the most obvious problem is the unclear writing logic. For example, the introduction is always a simple list of information, without considering the logical relationship before and after. There has been no significant improvement in issues such as poor picture quality.

I raised a time issue in the previous round of review comments, such as:

Figure 12. Medium and high affected seedlings during late August 2024 in Valea Iușului Nursery.

They provided pictures taken in August 2024, and I want to know why? You did not explain or respond to this question.

 

Therefore, I personally do not recommend publishing the article in our journal, and if the editor feels that the quality of the article is acceptable, it will need to be reviewed by another reviewer.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we tried, as much as possible, to reach the level required for publication in the journal, by adding in the introduction some information about the pathogen studied.

Regarding the photos in the text and the year, there was a typo, which has been corrected. These photos are from the year 2023 and were taken in the period before the appearance of the disease and towards the end of the vegetation period, when the disease was best observed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The aim of this study is to identify in forestry practice some last-generation biological antifungal substances with high efficiency in the control of oak powdery mildew (OPM), with oaks cultivated in nurseries. The motivations of the study are appropriate respect to the state of the art.

The study is well structured and each section is adequately discussed.

Figures and tables are comprehensive.

However, some minor revisions are suggested.

·         The abstract must be more focused on the specific topic of the work and the achieved results

·         In the abstract, please specify that Erysiphe alphitoides is a species of fungus which causes OPM

·         In the Introduction section, please cite the fungus (E.alphitoides)

·         In the Conclusions section the impact of the achieved results could be discussed

Furthermore,

·         A careful rereading is necessary, especially for the English form which is not always appropriate

·         Table of abbreviations at the end of the document is suggested

·         Please check the reference format -  https://www.mdpi.com/journal/microbiolres/instructions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we followed your suggestions exactly and updated the manuscript as follows:

• We rewrote the abstract to better reflect the content of the paper and we specified that Erysiphe alphitoides is a species of fungus which causes OPM
• In the Introduction section we added some informations and citations on pathogen Erysiphe alphitoides
• We added In the Conclusions section some informations about how our study affects the crops
• We rereaded the article and we improved the English
• We added an abbreviation table at the Appendix section and we cited in the text

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Recently, the use of fungicides to control Erysiphe alphitoides in oak forest crops and nurseries has been limited, causing the development and spread of this pathogen in many regions. The results presented in this article are relevant and necessary for preventive and therapeutic treatments of forest plantations.

There are some questions and comments:

1. The introduction covers well the importance of studying and controlling forest pathogens, but lacks information on the powdery mildew pathogen Erysiphe alphitoides. It would be good to add information about how common this pathogen is in the world and in the region where the research was conducted.

2. What method was used to assess the development of the disease? Is the rating scale presented? Who developed it? You need to add a link.

3. In the text on line 151, where the options are presented. It is better to add that these are variants of the experiment, or a scheme of the experiment for testing drugs against E. аlphitoides

4. In the experimental variants for each drug, it is better to indicate in words the rate of use and then in numbers, as indicated.

5. Provide a link where this formula was taken from:

DS(%) = (∑(n*v))/(N*V)*100, and why it is needed, it was previously written (lines 147 -150) that DS was determined on a scale.

6. The numbering of the figures is incorrect. Figures 4-8 are not shown in the text. There is no reference to Figure 9 in the text (there should be 4). It is necessary to add and correct the numbering of figures and text.

7. There are no references to tables 2-6 in the text or they are presented in the wrong place. It is necessary to correct and add the correct numbering of tables in the text before the tables.

Author Response

We agree with those comments. Therefore, we followed your suggestions exactly and updated the manuscript as follows:

1. In the Introduction section we added some information and citations on pathogen, regarding the appearance in Europe and Romania, as well as the impact on the vegetation and its development
2. The methodology was developed by the Forest Protection Collective within the National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry and adapted in order to obtain results that can be applied in production. Also we cited a recent work in which it appears described, and we added a link to the latest grant.
3. We rephrased it as: ”The experimental variants for testing antifungal substances are the following”
4. We added the quantities used in words and in brackets we also maintained with numbers. The quantity numbers that are not in parentheses are from the leaflets of the substances used
5. We have updated the bibliography with the source for the formula. In lines 147-150, the determinations were made on the field, and with the help of the Townsend-Heuberger formula: DS(%) = (∑(n*v))/(N*V)*100 the degree of attack was calculated for each variant and based on the results obtained, the effectiveness of the treatments was evaluated using the Abbot formula.
6. We have corrected the numbering of the figures both below them and in the text.
7. We have corrected the numbering of the tables both below them and in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. The experimental design of this paper is not rigorous enough.

 

2. The writing approach of the paper is unclear, and the writing logic is chaotic. For example, the introduction does not always around scientific issues, resulting in unclear logical presentation, and similar problems in discussions.

3. The quality of figures，such as Figures 2 and 6 are poor.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for updating the manuscript.

1. The experiments were designed according to the methodology applied in the project of which the data presented in the manuscript are part, with a slight deviation considering the location in the solarium, but the results of the experiments are suggestive
2. The entire paper has been re-evaluated taking into account your suggestions, including clarification of the introductory aspects and discussions.
3. Updated the figures, both those mentioned and the rest, where needed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting manuscript regarding the practical aspect of plant protection against pathogens. However, in my opinion, the presentation of the results is too poor. There is no information from which sites pathogens were isolated, with what frequency, and what was the percentage of infected plants. The authors presented an analysis of variance but did not present the primary results. We do not know how effective the forms of plant protection actually are. They did not provide information on how Pytium spp. was identified. In Figures 4 and 5 we do not know in what unit the bars of trial variants are presented. In figures 10 and 11 there is no explanation of the symbols: ua, w, m, h. Therefore, it is difficult to read the presented results.

Additionally, in the methodology, the authors inconsistently use italics for Latin names and drug names (sometimes italics is used, other times it is not). I would like to remind you that in the case of Latin species names, italics is obligatory. However, in the case of drugs, please use one form of writing.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for updating the manuscript.

It was completed with the percentage of affected seedlings, which correspond to the frequency of the damping off disease, in table no. 2.

The variance analysis was prepared based on the samples taken from the growth tenn presented in figure 5.

The efficiencies of the substances used resulted from the calculation of the percentage of seedlings affected in damping off respectively from figures 9 and 12 in the case of powdery mildew.

Pathogens of the Pythium spp. were identified by analyzing the material obtained following the inoculation of the culture medium with fragments of affected plants harvested from the cultures in the growth tent from Experimental Base Lechința. The biological material was successively lined out until pure cultures were obtained, which were analyzed under a microscope, in accordance with the specialized literature.

The analyzes were carried out in the Plant Protection Laboratory of INCDS "Marin Drăcea" Cluj.

In figures 4 and 5, the bars are a representation of sprouted and fallen seedlings.

The symbols have the following explanations: ua - uninfected, w– low: 1-24%, m – medium 25-74%, and h – high over 75%; the percent-ages mean the degree of mycelial coverage of the leaves, these being found under figures 9 and 12.

Updated the characters for the Latin names in italics, and those of the substances according to the general formatting of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title and topic of this article are of research significance. However, there are many basic errors in the format and the writing, e.g., spelling errors, symbol representation, and the pictures are not clear. Please see the "pdf" file for details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for updating the manuscript.

Watched the received PDF file and made corrections for spelling errors, including changing the images to make them clearer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research seems to be relevant, especially due to the importance in the control of plant diseases and the use of new antifungals.

Some corrections and suggestions for research are:

Check the title.

 

In the abstract section fill in the name of the abbreviations EU and FSC. Furthermore, I consider that the main pathogens involved in this study should be mentioned.

 

Lines 53-55 mention some of the pathogens.

Lines 69-71 ibidem

Lines 73-75: Complet this information; which are the levels?

In Fig. 1. It is not necessary first image.

The material and methods section needs to be more detailed. The products need some details as well as the method.

 

When entering the dates, also enter the year

 

Lines: 150-163. Correctly write the powers and abbreviations of the units.

l --> L

ml --> mL

gr --> g

The controls of the experimentation need to be better described in order to better analyze the results.

 

Were the fungi identified solely by taxonomy?

 

I consider it necessary to do a molecular characterization of these pathogenic isolates.

 

The Figures 6-9 need the metric bar.

 

The Fig. 10 and 11 need more details

I consider images of the seedlings that are treated and those controlled to be necessary to be able to support the conclusions.

The conclusion section is too long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and suggestions for updating the manuscript.

The title was checked and corrected.

The summary was completed with the names of the EU - European Union and FSC - Forest Stewardship Council abbreviations, as well as with the main pathogens from the genera Fusarium, Alternaria, Pythium and Erysiphe alphitoides.

Lines 53-55 were filled with some forestry latent and invasive pathogens Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, Ophiostoma novo-ulmi, Cryphonectria parasitican Neonectriaa faginata.

Lines 69-71 and 73-75 have been reformulated.

The first image from figure 1 was removed.

The material and method section was detailed with additions about the substances used and the type of method, respectively the experimental block.

The year 2023 was mentioned for each of the dates mentioned in the text.

The control of the experiment in the growth tent was updated better: ”Treatments were carried out every 7 days, until full emergence, simultaneously with the observation of the drop of seedlings, which led to the modification of the difference be-tween the treatments”.

Metric bars were placed in figures 7 and 8, figure 9 was removed because it could not be changed to be readable, and figure 6 did not require the metric bar.

Figures relating to the evolution of diseases have been inserted (Fig 10-11, 13-14).

Conclusions were reviewed.

Figures 10 and 11 currently 9 and 12 have been updated with character names: ua - uninfected, w– low: 1-24%, m – medium 25-74%, and h – high over 75%; the percent-ages mean the degree of mycelial coverage of the leaves and they were redone to be more readable.

Regarding the identification of pathogenic fungi, they were only done by taxonomy at the time of writing the manuscript, and molecular characterization analyzes will be done in specialized laboratories both in the country and abroad.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Author team:

                 After your minor revisions, there was no significant improvement in the quality of the revised paper compared to the previous one. For example:

1) the introduction only be minor adjusted, each paragraph is still just a simple list, with weak logical and novelty, and does not elaborate on the innovation and necessity of this study around scientific questions.

2) Materials and methods: The writing of the methods is unclear.

3) The pictures are simply pieced together and not clear. Figures 10, 11, 13, and 14 show that the experimental results were already in June and August 2024. Why?

4）Discussions need to revolve around experimental data, scientific questions to be solved.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking into account the suggestions made for your manuscript.

As you mention about the issue of molecular identification. I think it would be important for them to do it, because that will give them a strong conclusion about it.