An Effective Melon Fly Control Strategy Based on Disinfection and Soil Productivity Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author, 

Greetings!

Thanks for your efforts for this paper. as per my suggestion. The paper does not seems to fit this quality jounal.  Please highlight the novelty of work in right manner. Clearly discuss outcomes and what research gaps it covers. Please show how this paper has a strong correlation with environmental/cleaner production/sustainability concerns. 
Grammar and syntax must be improved. Revision with the help of a native English speaker is highly recommended.

 The paper is not suitable with this present data that are very less to present scientific facts.

Thanks

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The agrochemical properties of the Sierozem soils used in the study were as follows: pH (KCl) was 5.90-6.50;	244
hydrolytic acidity was 2.38-2.76 mEq./100 g soil; mobile phosphorus (P) content was 25.0-31.0 mg kg-1; total nitrogen	245
(N) was 0.095-0.117%; exchangeable potassium (K) content was 120-130 mg kg-1; total absorbed bases were 13.6-14.0	246
mEq./100 g soil. Calcium (Ca) cations predominated in all horizons, with a concentration of 7.5 mEq. or ~54.3% in a	247
layer of 0-40 cm.	248
An investigation of the soil aqueous extract was carried out to gain information on the composition and amount	249
of easily soluble salts, as well as the degree and type of salinisation. Carbonates, bicarbonate, chlorides, and sulphates	250
of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sodium (Na) are the most prevalent salts that induce soil salinisation and harm	251
plants. When the salts concentration reaches 0.1% soil dry soil weight they begin to have a negative impact on the	252
quality and volume of crop yields. Table 1 shows the results of the chemical analysis of the aqueous extract obtained	253
from absolutely dry soil before treatment with fertilizer - ameliorant.

Check the sections

Author Response

Thank you for your time to improve the article.
All comments were removed.

Attached are the point-to-point responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "An effective melon fly control strategy based on disinfection and soil productivity management" was designed well and has several good and novel results. However, there are some items that should be revised before acceptance, as follows:

1- The introduction section is very long and there are some sentences that could be deleted. Also, it is needed to clearly mention the hypothesis of the study.

2- The methods and Materials section needs to be revised well, sectioned properly, especially in the first paragraphs, and rewritten clearly. Lines 137-156 should be especially revised. There are more sentences that are not necessary to be written and can be deleted since they are mostly general sentences not methods or materials used in the study.

3- The metagenome analysis also has some problems and should be clearly described. DNA extraction method? Target gene or gene regions that amplified? The primers used in the study? The phylogenetic and bioinformatic analysis process?

4- The graphs, especially the metagenome analysis graphs, are not so clear and should be modified in resolution. Also, most of the microorganisms identified in the study are not species and are from the phylum, class, or genus. So, in the description, it should be clarified and not mention the species.

Overall, the findings are good and novel, but the manuscript needs to be polished and revised well by the authors that would be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs to be edited and rewritten by native English language experts. There are several sentences with unclear meanings and there are several typos and grammatical mistakes that should be revised and polished well.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time spent improving the article. All comments have been redone.

Attached are the point-to-point responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This draft is well-written and valuable in soil research. However, I think this study should recognize in paper structure, more sentences should add in melon growing indicators and process. I support it published in this journal. Some suggestions as list:

1.       Line 16: remove ‘(VC)’.

2.       Lines 30-34: Insert the related citations.

3.       Line 36: Are you sure these reference is necessary?

4.       Lines 37-52: Suggesting combine these pargraphs, it is too short as one paragraph.

5.       Lines 56-97: Inserting the citations in draft.

6.       Lines 98-101: Showing more details about figure 1.

7.       Lines 137-138: Exploring the reason these three varities were applied in this study.

8.       Line 162: Unifying the unit applied in this darft. E.g., t/ha in abstract, t ha^-1 in line 162.

9.       Line 256: The format of table should improve. Check it in total darft.

10.    Line 366: The conclusions is too short, please adding more novel results in this section.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time spent improving the article. All comments have been redone.

Attached are point-to-point responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted now. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the comments were considered. It could be accepted for publication