Dynamics of Pyricularia oryzae Population Race Structures from 2003 to 2017 in Jiangsu Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript agronomy-1672561 reports results on the study of Pyricularia oryzae population dynamics in Jiangsu province (China). The authors studied the pathogen's occurrence from 2003 to 2017 and determined the pathogen's race diversity, common and dominant race structures, and resistance profiles.
The new version of the study has been improved from the previous submission. However, it still presents serious flaws related to data handling and manuscript preparation.
Introduction: The introduction section is suitable. The authors must revise the scientific names in italics (also all over the document).
Material and methods: The material and methods section contains all the elements. I would add some other details:
- L79, add a description of the surface sterilization step.
- L92, revise superscript for "104".
- L93, add details of the rice cultivar used.
Results
The statistical analysis carried out was not expressed properly in the tables. For example, in Table 1, if the case letters were assigned from lower values, 8.57 should start from the "a" case letter. Please correct it in all the tables. For ranges with many consequential case letters, I would use an interval (e.g., a-g).
The statistical analysis carried out was only reported in the tables. However, the text must be modified accordingly based on the findings obtained.
Supplementary material was cited in the text but was not provided for evaluation.
Dicussion
The authors correctly discussed the results obtained. I would remove the references to tables and figures. Results have already been presented, so it is an unnecessary repetition.
The English language needs moderate improvements.
Author Response
please kindly check reply in the pdf file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have response to all my suggestions and comments. I am satisfied with the current version of revised manuscript. I would recommend this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
please kindly check the reply in the pdf file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors correctly addressed my suggestions and responded to all my comments appropriately. I have no further suggestions.
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
The manuscript agronomy-1543984 reports results on the study of Pyricularia oryzae populations dynamics in Jiangsu province (China). The authors studied the pathogen occurrence from 2003 to 2017 and determined the pathogen's race diversity, common and dominant race structures, and resistance profiles.
The study could be interesting, unfortunately, the manuscript presents serious flaws related to data handling and manuscript preparation. I provided my specific comments on the pdf file attached. Generally, authors must improve manuscript clarity and carry out statistical analysis to support the findings presented. Beyond these essential aspects, the discussion section is not relevant and some important details are missing in the materials and methods section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reported the pathogenicity screening of the 1,583 rice blast fungus singal conidial isolates collected between 2003 - 2017 in Jiangsu province, China with 7 Chinese differential cultivars. The result was used to identify race and race diversity, common race structure, dominant race structure and resistance gene structure were examined. The work shows an interesting results revealing high level of genetic diversity of rice blast fungi in Jiangsu, China.
The results are valuable and the manuscript is worth publishing. However, the manuscript could be improved by adding the indepth interpreting of the experimental results.
The comments and suggestions are listed below.
- Pyricularia oryzae should all be in italic
- Line 49-54 is not necessary to be described in the manuscript, but authors should provide detail information about the P. oryzae race in general. What is the difference of races ZA - ZF? What readers should know about all these races?
- Line 83, 85, 98 "H2O" should be "H2O" and "104" change to "104".
- Line 112-120: Puting each formular in box with its description might be easier to ubnderstand than tthe current version.
- Table 2 is missing information about ƒpcri, ƒcri and ∑/ƒtpcri in Table name ans footnote.
- Figure 2 Title is not completed. Please include the important information in the Title.
- Line 183 there are two "of", should delete one, and there is no information about ftri in footnote of Table 3.
- Any discussion about why the race frequency and diversity were not consistent?
- Any discussion about why ftri decreases after 2006?
- Line 198-199 need to be refer to the data from supplement?
- Line 219 HLJ = ?
- Line 244-245 "the main varieties in Jiangsu are high susceptible to race ZG1, and the main varieties" should be "the main rice varieties in Jiangsu are highly susceptible to race ZG1, and the main rice varieties".
- Line 245 any supportive document on this claim "the main varieties contained same resistance genes".
- Line 255-256 "which are primarily responsible for resistance against P. oryzae in indica (Pid3, Pi54, Pi5 and Pi1) and japonica-type (Pita and Pia) accessions" What does it mean by "P. oryzae in indica" and "P oryzae japonica-type".
- Line 280-284 is not the results or summary from this work. It is the discussion about the results.
- Finally, I would suggest the authors to mention about what should be done in the future like using monogenic lines to identify the individual spectrum of each rice blast resistance gene.
