Protective Effects of Systiva® Seed Treatment Fungicide for the Control of Winter Wheat Foliar Diseases Caused at Early Stages Due to Climate Change
, Chris Cavalaris 1,*, Lefkothea Karapetsi 1,2, Charalambos Koukidis 3, Dimitris Servis 3 and Panagiotis Madesis 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting article on the use of a fungicide on wheat seeds to avoid diseases. To improve the article, I suggest the following changes:
-Line 13 (abstract): rewrite the abstract since the results of another campaign are mentioned and it is not clear whether the article deals with one or the other campaign.
-Line 20: italicize the names of the pathogens.
-Line 26: same as line 20.
-Line 27: add the meaning of the words UAV since it is the first time they are mentioned in the text.
-Line 31: sames as lines 20 and 26. Please revise throughout the manuscript.
-Line 32: same as line 20.
-Lines 33 and 34 (Keywords): alphabetical order.
Check that pathogen names are in italics throughout the text (lines 20, 26, 31, 32, 32, 53, 54, 57, 57, 74, 75, 82, 85, 103,140, 304,314,...etc).
-Line 82: I would suggest a short description of the fungicide Propiconazole.
-Line 90: remove traditional
-Line 91: I would suggest adding a brief explanation of the formulation of Systiva (if it is public), as well as its mode of action and why its use versus conventional fungicides. It would also be necessary to cite its price versus other products to know if its use is cost-effective, as well as its possible effects on the environment.
-Line 100 (2.1.): add the commercial house where the fungicide was purchased, as well as a brief explanation of how the different doses were obtained.
-Line 106: You have previously mentioned Systiva, but now it is BASF Systiva. Please put it evenly.
-Lines 156-170 (methods 2.3.2 and 2.3.3): both subsections are more appropriate for the results or discussion section, not for the materials and methods section.
-Lines 279-281 (2.6): it is not necessary to clarify that the results of the climatic conditions will be seen in Figures 7-10. I would suggest that you delete those 3 lines (279-281).
-Line 595: I would suggest adding the most effective dose of the fungicide.
-References do not follow the required format.
Regarding supplemental material, please follow Agronomy (mdpi) guidelines for formatting supplemental material.
On the other hand, I have some curiosities to ask:
-Have you assessed the possibility or do you know what effect this fungicide may have on the soil microbiome?
-Do you know if there can be traces of the fungicide in wheat and thus pass into the food chain?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Please find attached a document with all our responses to your comments. Thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors
The manuscript provides quite interesting results but it's flawed on the results part. The results section needs to be rewritten with a precise presentation and omitting unnecessary images.
my comments are as below:
1. Scientific names should be italicized across the manuscript.
2. Pls add the technical name of Systiva along with its classification according to FRAC in the methodology section
3. Pls rewrite the abstract section with precise results in brief.
4. Abstract it is mentioned that some experiments were done in 2016-18 and one in 2021-22. The methodology section describes only the 2021-22 experiment. You need to briefly describe the earlier experiment together. You need to rearrange the methodology part to adjust the MS or experimental description flow.
5. Why two headings for statistical analysis? Merge heading 2.5.2 and 2.7 and briefly rewrite bioinformatics analysis and statistical tools used.
6. From field sampling and/ or during field experiment (Fig.1) how the block effect was analyzed?
7. Fig 4 legends describe only 4 replicates where figure description says there are 6 replicates pls correct and rewrite the legends.
8. Fig 4 and 5 probably indicate the same data keep the best one.
9. Fig 6 is poor quality can you pls provide a better image, both field and microscopic image?
10. Use the °C symbol uniformly across the manuscript.
11. What is the difference between fig 7 and 8 presumably, it indicates the same data, keep either with the best presentation.
12. Fig 9 and 10 can be supplementary images to the MS
13. Figure 11 is not at all descriptive or convincing yes it indicates the increase in disease severity but not values.
14. Same with the figures 13 & 14, both figures need to be carefully assessed and either with the best presentation should be retained.
15. Figure 15 can be supplementary.
16. What does figure 17 indicate? Pls clarify with descriptive figure legends; the figure is not at all clear.
17. Figure 18 can you add the values on each bar to know the disease scores?
18. Line 446, is Drechslera tritici being used nomenclature yet? Or how pls confirm and rewrite.
19. Line 502-503 M. graminicola is Septoria tritici blotch fungus? pls check this again
20. What was the effect of the fluxapyroxad on the conidial germination of the Pyrenophora, Zymoseptoria and Septoria?
21. What is the status of the resistance of the fluxapyroxad pls discuss why this is being recommended over triazoles?
22. For disease estimation using a standard area diagram Pls refer to Del Ponte et al (2017) Phytopathology 107:1161-1174 and Bock et al (2020) Phytopathol Res 2, 9
Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer. Please find attached a document with all our responses to your comments. Thank you for your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for following the suggested comments.
