Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Consortia of Beneficial Microorganisms on the Growth and Yield of Aquaponically Grown Romaine Lettuce
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Corn Varieties and Moisture Content on Mechanical Properties of Corn
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Land Suitability Analysis of Six Fruit Tree Species Immune/Resistant to Xylella fastidiosa as Alternative Crops in Infected Olive-Growing Areas

Agronomy 2023, 13(2), 547; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020547
by Salem Alhajj Ali, Gaetano Alessandro Vivaldi, Simone Pietro Garofalo, Leonardo Costanza and Salvatore Camposeo *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Agronomy 2023, 13(2), 547; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020547
Submission received: 10 December 2022 / Revised: 3 February 2023 / Accepted: 9 February 2023 / Published: 14 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review report is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the attached file.

Morover, in lines 195-202 we clarly reported that:

-Fig, Hazelnut, Kiwifruit and Pomegranate are fruit tree species IMMUNE to Xylella fastidiosa pauca;

-Almond and Pistachio are fruit ree species considered as RESISTANT to this pathogen

Therefore, we think the title is correct and so on in the text.

 

Many thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Dr. Salvatore Camposeo,

The manuscript "Land Suitability Analysis of Six Fruit Tree Species Immune/Resistant to Xylella fastidiosa as Alternative Crops in Infected Olive Growing Areas" is well prepared. The general idea is to find an alternative plant to the Xylella fastidiosa outbreak. Although Xylella fastidiosa is a vector-transmitted bacterial plant pathogen associated with serious diseases in a wide range of plants, numerous species of xylem sap-sucking insects are known to be vectors of the bacterium. It means there is no specific plant host for the bacteria, and there is no specific vector for transmission. This limitless is make the disease an uncontrolled problem. But as it is indicated in the introduction Monoculture is one of the main problems. And the solution is to advise alternative plants for the region. So the paper's target and advice are well properly addressed. I have two minor objections to the calculation of the area suitability first one is; in the last five years each month, we had a new record for high temperature, low precipitation, and a few chilly days. Therefore taking into account from 1994 to 2020 is not valid. The second one is water, some plants such as pomegranates, and kiwis need more water than current ones, and very few sentences about it were addressed in the text.

Some minor corrections or advice are yellow marked in the text.

Best regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Land Suitability Analysis of Six Fruit Tree Species Immune/Resistant to Xylella fastidiosa as Alternative Crops in Infected Olive Growing Areas” deals with the analysis of Xylella fastidiosa infestation on the different economic fruit tree species which has high value in terms of their economical part. The idea of the manuscript is very well illustrated, which is highly suitable for the farmers and policymakers to go for plantation of tree species in the infected olive growing regions. However, there are concerns that need to be addressed before the final decision is made.

 

Comments:

·       Ln 22-23: Please rewrite the line.

·       LN 47: Please provide the latitude and longitude of this place mentioned in the manuscript.

·       LN 107: Please provide the latitude and longitude of this place mentioned in the manuscript.

·       Kindly prepare the manuscript in accordance with the guidelines of MDPI Agronomy. The whole manuscript needs to be formatted.

·       LN 166-176: Please provide proper reference.

·       Section 2.3.1; What was the basis for taking these climatic data? Please clarify.

·       LN 316-319: Please rewrite the line for better clarity.

·       LN 351: What is the temperature range for the better growth of kiwi crop?

·       Fig. 6: Please see the legends in the figure. It seems to be reformatted.

·       Kindly check the formatting and numbering of the result and discussion section. 3.1 is repeated two times.

·       The number of the conclusion should be 4 instead of 5

 

·       The conclusion section is well written. 

Author Response

see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has done significant changes in the manuscript.

Back to TopTop