In Vitro Antifungal Activity and Chemical Composition of Piper auritum Kunth Essential Oil against Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium equiseti

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The use o essential oil in control phytopathogenic fungi and bacteria should be better introduced and related references added.

Lines 53-63 should be rewritten.

The aim and the novelty character of manuscript should be better presented. 

A graphical scheme of Plant material and essential oil production should be inserted.

The subparagraph Aerial part essential oil of P. auritum should be implemented.

Table 2 and 3 should be better described.

In Conclusion limits, advantages and future direction of research should be described, and also the use of nanotechnologies as innovative techniques applied to essential oil and related references reported such as:

Vieira  et al.  Sucupira Oil-Loaded Nanostructured Lipid Carriers (NLC): Lipid Screening, Factorial Design, Release Profile, and Cytotoxicity. Molecules. 2020, 25(3), pii: E685. doi: 10.3390/molecules25030685

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled „Chemical composition and antifungal activity of Piper auritum Kunth essential oil on three phytopathogens (Fusarium spp.) of Capsicum chinense.” submitted for review concerns the determination of fungistatic properties of EO from Piper auritum on three strains of two fungal species from genus Fusarium.

The authors investigated the composition of EO by use of mass spectrometry by direct analysis in real time (MS-DART). Further analyses were carried out in vitro studies by performing mycelium disk microdiffusion assay and poisoned food assay. Further analysis consisted in statistical processing of data from the in vitro experiment. I think that the presented research are interesting but but the experimental part of investigation requires some reflection. The in vitro tests were carried out only in one series in three replications on three strains of two Fusarium species. I thing that in vitro experiments should be repeated (twice). In addition, in the case of in vitro experiments, statistical analysis should be carried out at a level of significance of p-0.01. It is also worth extending the research material with other fungi species. The more so that the pathogenicity of Fusarium strains has not been studied, therefore the statement that the isolates used in the study are pathogenic to Capsicum chinense is not valid. I believe that the manuscript deserves to be published with major revision.

 

Comments

1. The title of the paper is not accurate - two pathogens were tested, not three, and in addition, the species F. oxysporum and F. equiseti are not exclusively pathogens of Capsicum chinense. I suggest you consider the title: In vitro Antifungal activity and chemical composition of Piper auritum Kunth essential oil against Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium equiseti.
2. L.108. The title: Biological material is not correct because both the Fusarium strain and the plant material are biological material.
3. L.111. The phytopathogens were isolated from the roots…. Fungi isolated from roots and rhizosphere often lack pathogenicity and may belong to endophytic fungi.
4. L116. Direct Real Time Analysis Mass Spectrometry- The order should be changed. The paragraph should be moved to line 108 and precede the description of the fungi used in the study. The correct order of the study is presented in the results section.
5. L. 133. Fusarium sp. - Please explain what strain was used in the study.

6.L. (prochloraz) prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions… Indicate the specific concentration used in the study.

7. L138. How many days were the measurements conducted?
8. L144, 146. Please list which strains were used in the study.
9. L.152. Indicate the specific concentration used in the study.
10. L.157. How many days were the measurements conducted?
11. L.216-221. The section presented describes other research and should be moved to the discussion of results chapter.
12. Table 4. Not sure at what time after setting up the experiment were photographs taken and mycelia measured? What species? What strain? The numbers under the photos are percentages? This information should be written correctly in the title and description..
13. L.144. If it is known which strains and species of fungi were used in the study, why the authors use the notation Fusarium spp.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised. The authors have clarified all doubts comprehensively. I recommend printing the paper after the corrections have been made:
1. l.81.In vtro- spelled in italics
2. l.286.Table 6. Change Phytopathogen to Fungal strains.
3. L.351-357. This is not the conclusion of the study. Please move the text to the discussion of results section. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx