Beneficial Microbes and Basal Fertilization in Antagonism of Banana Fusarium Wilt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Lin and Ho presented their findings concerning the ameliorating effect of specific microorganisms against Fusarium wilt in banana plants. The work is interesting but lacks in its presentation. In this state the article is unfit for publication in Agronomy but it should be re-considered after a major revision by the authors. My comments can be found below.
General comment: The use of the English language needs substantial revision throughout the manuscript. The manuscript is sometimes difficult to follow and some claims (i.e. (only in the Abstract) Banana is the domain food corps in the world; Explore the banana leaf content in the infected area and the infected area, and compare the element content in the treatment group on these two areas; indicating that the nitrogen and potassium content of macronutrients in banana leaves limit the growth of banana plants)
Line 33-35 this is a contradiction, please use “also” in line 34
Line 46 provide reference
Line 53 revise “cultural”
Line 74 revise for clarification
Line 105 provide reference for the methodology
2.4 this paragraph seems like a guideline for fertilization selection. Please revise appropriately.
2.5 the addition of photographs would have been greatly beneficial for the manuscript.
2.8 please describe in detail the methodology for micro-macro nutrient determination
Materials and methods: please describe the statistical analysis used for this paper.
Line 203 Please describe the methodology for quantification. Figure 1c I do not understand this part of the figure, please explain the results.
Line 208 Please define the “infected area” and describe the way to determine the infestation.
Line 266-269 revise
Line 273 define “severity index”, why do healthy leaves exhibit a lower index than infected ones?
Figure 8. Why were not analyzed for NPK (and micronutrients), plants with combined treatments (as the previous treatments), such applications are described and commented in the discussion.
The authors present findings of heavy metal concentrations in plants which in my opinion are irrelevant, on the other hand, critical micronutrients such as Mn, Mg are missing.
The PCA analysis can be transferred to the supplementary data part of the manuscript.
Line 514 this argument is not supported with results or reference
In general, the discussion part must be organized more efficiently: a) anti-fungal properties, effects on growth, mineral uptake, future prospects and possible applications.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer1
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Lin and Ho presented their findings concerning the ameliorating effect of specific microorganisms against Fusarium wilt in banana plants. The work is interesting but lacks in its presentation. In this state the article is unfit for publication in Agronomy but it should be re-considered after a major revision by the authors. My comments can be found below.
General comment: The use of the English language needs substantial revision throughout the manuscript. The manuscript is sometimes difficult to follow and some claims (i.e. (only in the Abstract) Banana is the domain food corps in the world; Explore the banana leaf content in the infected area and the infected area, and compare the element content in the treatment group on these two areas; indicating that the nitrogen and potassium content of macronutrients in banana leaves limit the growth of banana plants)
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the abstract.
Line 33-35 this is a contradiction, please use “also” in line 34
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added this word.
Line 46 provide reference
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the reference.
Line 53 revise “cultural”
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revise the sentence.
Line 74 revise for clarification
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revise the sentence.
Line 105 provide reference for the methodology
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a reference for the methodology.
2.4 this paragraph seems like a guideline for fertilization selection. Please revise appropriately.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a reference for the methodology.
2.5 the addition of photographs would have been greatly beneficial for the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your comment. Method 2.5 Fusarium wilt inoculation, we have no photos.
2.8 please describe in detail the methodology for micro-macro nutrient determination
Response: Thank you for your comment. Micronutrient determination methods, we describe various methods in Supplementary File S2.
Materials and methods: please describe the statistical analysis used for this paper.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a new section “2.10. Statistical Analysis” in manuscript.
Line 203 Please describe the methodology for quantification. Figure 1c I do not understand this part of the figure, please explain the results.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revise sentence to explain the results.
Line 208 Please define the “infected area” and describe the way to determine the infestation.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have described the way to determine the infection.
Line 266-269 revise
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the sentence.
Line 273 define “severity index”, why do healthy leaves exhibit a lower index than infected ones?
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the sentence and explained it in detail.
Figure 8. Why were not analyzed for NPK (and micronutrients), plants with combined treatments (as the previous treatments), such applications are described and commented in the discussion.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The previous treatment was not included in this experimental design. We will consider your valuable suggestions in our next project.
The authors present findings of heavy metal concentrations in plants which in my opinion are irrelevant, on the other hand, critical micronutrients such as Mn, Mg are missing.
Response: Thank you for your comment. The Mn and Mg in this experiment are not analyzed in this project, we will design in the next project.
The PCA analysis can be transferred to the supplementary data part of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have moved the PCA analysis to the supplementary data section.
Line 514 this argument is not supported with results or reference
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added references.
In general, the discussion part must be organized more efficiently: a) anti-fungal properties, effects on growth, mineral uptake, future prospects and possible applications.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We reorganized the discussion according to the instructions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript presented for review with title: “Application of beneficial microbes and basal fertilization on antagonism banana Fusarium wilt” is really interesting and very important. The experiment was planned very carefully. I’m impress of excellent work made by authors. The Introduction section includes all necessary information about examined objects and problems.
The collected experimental material and used methods do not raise any objections.
I have some comments to authors:
page 4, line 191 used statistical tools and methods should be described in separated sub-section, as well more detailed. Please change it.
page 6, line 215: name of title head should by written by capital letter. Please change it.
page 11 Similar remark as previous. Section names should be written by capital letter. Please change it.
The discussion section presents a very good comparison of the obtained results with other results available in the data basis.
The obtained conclusions are clear but their presentation is too long.
General opinion: I think, that presented manuscript is a very valuable and should be published after little correction according my remarks in Agronomy.
Author Response
Manuscript presented for review with title: “Application of beneficial microbes and basal fertilization on antagonism banana Fusarium wilt” is really interesting and very important. The experiment was planned very carefully. I’m impress of excellent work made by authors. The Introduction section includes all necessary information about examined objects and problems.
The collected experimental material and used methods do not raise any objections.
I have some comments to authors:
page 4, line 191 used statistical tools and methods should be described in separated sub-section, as well more detailed. Please change it.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a new section “2.10. Statistical Analysis” in manuscript.
page 6, line 215: name of title head should by written by capital letter. Please change it.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have changed to capital letter.
page 11 Similar remark as previous. Section names should be written by capital letter. Please change it.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We have changed to capital letter.
The discussion section presents a very good comparison of the obtained results with other results available in the data basis.
Response: Thank you for your comment.
The obtained conclusions are clear but their presentation is too long.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We partially rewritten and shortened the description.
General opinion: I think, that presented manuscript is a very valuable and should be published after little correction according my remarks in Agronomy.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved their manuscript. An improvement in the use of English language is still required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Our manuscript was revised again, and we rewritten the abstract and conclusion. Revise the introduction and conclusions, especially thanks to Professor Maurice S. B. Ku (Wassenton University, USA) for his important suggestions to clarify our results.
Best Regards
Yi-Cheng Ho
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
Although this amended version is an improvement it is still not of sufficient quality.
The authors were advised to get this proofread to improve the English but this does not seem to have been done. The English is still not satisfactory, there are many typos, it is poorly structured and because of the poor English it is difficult to follow the points being made in many places.
The abstract needs to be improved. As do the methods these have been updated but not all of the concerns raised in the previous review have been addressed. In lines 222-229 the description of the number of treatments is really confusing, are there 10, 12, 22 or 32 treatments? The number of treatments should include the combinations.
The results of the combination treatments not included in the original paper have now been submitted in a supplementary file. But some of these combination treatments have significant effects and are discussed in the text, therefore this data should be presented in the main text. e.g. in the description of Figures 2 and 3 the combination treatments F1 & F2 are described as significant but not shown in the figures themselves.
What is the rationale for including only some of the replicates in the PCA diagrams? In Fig. 7, I can see 27/150 replicates for the uninfected site and in Fig. 11, I can see only 8 values in total for the uninfected site. (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C1, C3). I did not count the data points for the infected site but these does not seem to include all data.
There is still no evidence of ethical approval, this was noted in the first review, but these is still no mention of ethical approval in the manuscript and for this reason I am rejecting this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments on the paper” Application of beneficial microbes and basal fertilization on 2 antagonism banana Fusarium wilt”
General comments:
The work concerns research on the prevention of the growth of Fusarium fungi on Cavendish bananas through the use of Bacillus mycoides NP02 (BM), Bacillus amyloliquefaciens BaPD1 (BA) with the addition of basic nutrients. The effects of bacteria and basal nutrients were measured taking into account various parameters, incl. in banana leaves. The work is very extensive and the issues discussed are important not only from a cognitive point of view, but are of significant practical importance because they indicate the direction of preventing the development of Fusarium fungi that reduce the yield of bananas, but also threaten the health of consumers through mycotoxins secreted by them.
The manuscript may be published after minor corrections.
Specific comments:
line 16-17: "This combination can promote the growth of bananas in infected fields instead of control fields" The abstract should contain conclusions from the research. Accordingly, the statement 'can promote' is inappropriate. Please clarify in relation to the tests performed and use a different time.
line 164, statement"filamenous bacteria" is incorrect in relation to this bacteria
line 365 "in the title of heading should be" leaves " instead" leaf "
Fig. 7 and Fig. 11 please enlarge the markings in the figures because they are hardly visible
