Multiple Introductions of Moniliophthora roreri from the Amazon to the Pacific Region in Ecuador and Shared High Azoxystrobin Sensitivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors presented a study of two geographical subpopulations of Moniliophthora roreri, a pathogen of cacao, in Equador in relation to their geographical diversity and azoxystrobin resistance. The study has a good design and a strong statistical treatment of data, and the obtained results allowed authors to make conclusions concerning the diversity of the pathogen population within the country and the relations between its different parts as well as concerning the potential of azoxystrobin use to control the FPR disease. The manuscript will be interesting for readers dealing with cacao production and the M. roreri pathogen.

Below there are several minor comments:

Line 46: Add a comma after "Equador".

Line 56: does your phrase mean that Equador cacao producers almost did not use chemical treatments for FPR prevention? Or did you mean global cacao production? Please, specify.

Line 117: I suggest "was evaluated" to be better suit than "was carried out".

Line 164: please, remove extra “in the medium” phrase.

Fig. 1: please check the figure caption and correct. “Inhibition values > than zero”… It seems that growth stimulation means inhibition values <0, not >0.

Fig. 5: the caption mention numbers, but the graph does not contain any numbers. Please, check.

Author Response

1. The six suggestions of referee one were taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript.
2. They were all in a way that makes the text clearer.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript studied the genetic diversity of Moniliophthora roreri from Ecuador and tested their sensitivity to fungicide azoxystrobin.  Here are my comments.

1. I am thinking maybe the authors can reorganize the structure of this manuscript. Based on the title and abstract, I expected to see the genetic analysis of different isolates at the beginning of the results then the fungicide test. But the authors put the fungicide test in Figure 1. So, I feel if it is possible, could the authors reorganize it?
2. The labeling of Figure 1 is too blurred. I can’t read the label on Y-axis. I hope the high-resolution figures will be used to replace this one. One more thing is why the growth inhibition percentage can be minus? I noticed the Gr3 isolate’s growth inhibition under 0.0001 ug/ml fungicide is around -50%. Does that mean the fungicide treatment activated the germination?
3. The title of this manuscript is a little too long, I suggest shorting it.

Author Response

The three suggestions were taken into account in the revised version of the manuscript.

Suggestion 1. The manuscript was reorganized so that there is consistency in the presentation of the abstract-methods-results-discussion, first the genetic analysis and then the fungicide analysis.

Suggestion 2. I have improved the resolution of Figure 1 by replacing the previous image. I have also clarified in the text what is related to the isolate of the Gr3 group.

Suggestion 3. I have shortened the title.