Management of Chrysanthemum Verticillium Wilt through VIF Soil Mulching Combined with Fumigation at Label and Reduced Rates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper's title does not reflect the main objective, which is "to compare the efficacy of metam sodium and dazomet-for the latter also at sublabeled rate-combined with VIF application to soil." This objective does not accurately consider what the paper was really about. The specific objectives are unclear or in line with the main objective or the title. There is little supporting evidence in the introduction that would justify the design of experiments and the selection of treatments. For example, the effect of temperature on dazomet and metam sodium's efficacy and why the authors would consider reducing the doses are not addressed with conclusive data from other experiences.  

 

In the materials and methods section, it is not clear that two experiments were performed in two seasons or two spans of the same greenhouse. In figure 1, there is no reference to the VIF and bare soil experiment. Although the authors explained that there was evidence of Verticillium from previous years, they did not measure the natural distribution of microsclerotia on each span, nor the presence or absence of other fungal diseases, which can cause similar symptoms. Unfortunately, this means that it is hard to prove that the results are due to the effects of the treatments.

Author Response

Q1: The paper's title does not reflect the main objective, which is "to compare the efficacy of metam sodium and dazomet-for the latter also at sublabeled rate-combined with VIF application to soil." This objective does not accurately consider what the paper was really about. The specific objectives are unclear or in line with the main objective or the title. There is little supporting evidence in the introduction that would justify the design of experiments and the selection of treatments. For example, the effect of temperature on dazomet and metam sodium's efficacy and why the authors would consider reducing the doses are not addressed with conclusive data from other experiences.

A1: the title of paper was modified according to the aim of the paper considering also your and other reviewer suggestions. Therefore, the specific objectives of the paper fit well with the newt title. Regarding to the design of experiments and selection of fumigation treatments the reasons of choice including VIF soil mulching are included in Introduction section. This latter choice was tested to see if VIF application to soil allow lower application rates of dazomet maintainaing the same efficacy of label rate of dazomet and metam sodium. The authors believe to have adequately explained in the introduction and discussion as the effect of temperature induced by VIF into soil have played an important role in maintaining/enhancing DZ fumigation performances. However, the authors performed some modifications in the introduction to improve readability as you required and about comparison with data of other experiences by using low permeability film and low rate of DZ (see modified manuscript).

 

Q2: In the materials and methods section, it is not clear that two experiments were performed in two seasons or two spans of the same greenhouse. In figure 1, there is no reference to the VIF and bare soil experiment. Although the authors explained that there was evidence of Verticillium from previous years, they did not measure the natural distribution of microsclerotia on each span, nor the presence or absence of other fungal diseases, which can cause similar symptoms. Unfortunately, this means that it is hard to prove that the results are due to the effects of the treatments.

A2: Thank you for the first comment. Two trials were performed in two spans of the same greenhouse in two different crop seasons (July-October 2012 and July-October 2013) (see revised text and Fig.1 caption). The choise of greenhouse has made based on hystoric data confirmed once to once by laboratory analysis that we allow to ascertain only the presence of Verticillium dahliae. Since a similar frequency of Verticillium-infected plants with a homogeneous distribution through entire greenhouse was always ascertained, the authors considered the measurement of natural distribution of microsclerotia was not necessary  However, at the end of experiments the aethiology of symptoms was always determined on representative number of infected plant samples (see subsection 2.3 line 163-164) and only colonies of V. dahliae were conspicuosly retrieved (e.g. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. chrysanthemi that induce similar symptoms was not isolated) (see  paragraphs 2.3 and 3.2).

Reviewer 2 Report

The trials were carried out in 2012 and 2013,  almost 10 years ago. The bibliography cited is quite old (e.g 2017).

Author Response

Q1: The trials were carried out in 2012 and 2013, almost 10 years ago. The bibliography cited is quite old (e.g. 2017).

A1: Thank you for the comment but we believe that these findings of 2013 nowadays are current and relevant because they fit very well with GND goals about reduction of pesticides and emissions and other pollution from agriculture (the findings can represent short and medium term options). Although there are other more recent references (also 2018, 2020, 2021) in the manuscript another reference was added in the text and bibliography. In authors’ opinion, it would be a real shortcoming not to share these findings with scientific community.

Reviewer 3 Report

My revision report is attached below.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Q1: Title. …Sublabeled Rate of… Are these words really necessary? However, the title should be conveniently modified according to the aim of the work.

A1: Thank you for the comment. The title was modified according to your and other reviewer suggestions.

 

Q2: L.73. …has been ?????? in the last two decades….Please complete the sentence.

A2: Thank you, Done (see revised MS).

Q3: L.152-157. It seems that the authors used an empirical 5-class scale rating to calculate the Disease Incidence index rather than the Severity Index. Please, rephrase it and specify the formulas of SS for calculating it for more clearness (this is an index or simply a rating scale?).

A3: Thank you for the comment. The sentences was rephrased according to our useful suggestions

Q4: L.182, 185, 172, etc. Italicize “V. dahliae” throughput the text when needed.

A4: We checked entire manuscript but we did not find “V. dahliae” no-italicized.

Q5: L.231. Remove the full stop after Table 2.

A5: Sorry, full stop not found.

Q6: L.248. Remove “in”.

A6: Done

Q7: L.315-317. Please quote the sentence “…..any crop rotation.”

A7: Thank you for the comment. Done (see revised MS)

Q8: L.316. “many European producer countries” Which ones for example?

A8: Ok, added (see modified MS)

Q9: References. If exist, please upgrade the reference list with the more recent ones.

A9: Authors believe the bibliography is updated. However, another reference dealing the topics was added in the paper (see modified text).

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is overall well presented, some flaws have to be addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Q1: In the present Manuscript the possibility to use the FIV film along with Dazomet is tested as management practice of Verticillium Wilt and Cut Flower Production of Chrysanthemum. The two years experiment is clearly presented as well as the methodology applied. Introduction section offers sufficient background to support the hypothesis although it can be improved by reporting non-chemical methos for soilborne diseases.

A1: Thank you for positive comments. According to your suggestion, I add a new sentence in the introduction about non chemical method (about natural substance for biofumigation of soil.

Q2: The manuscripts is “understandable” although English check for grammar and structure is strongly encouraged before the acceptance. Here, some specific comments:

A2: Thank I check and re-read entire manuscript and I do some modifications in the text including yours below.

Q3: Line 72: plural

A3: Ok

Q4: Line 80: loss

A4: Ok, Done

Q5: Line 103: and

A5: Ok

Q6: Line 128: use abbreviation where possible for liters

A6: Ok, done

Q7: Line 132: June 21st and July 8th

A7: Done throughout entire manuscript.

Q8: Line 140: no need of capital letter “Air”

A8: Ok, done.

Q9: Line 248: uncountable

A9: Sorry, but I don’t find it and I don’t understand.

Q10: Table 2: check bold in the table

A10:

Q11: Figure 3: change the font according to the journal’s guidelines and increase quality

A11: Colour figure was replaced with the font of Journal (see revised MS).

 

Q12: In line 85 authors state that the current manuscript will provide evidence on the sustainability of using metam sodium and dazomet combined with VIF, but the methodology to assess it is not reported, nor the the related results. Authors should provide evidence on this matter or remove it from the goals of the paper.

A12: we deleted “sustainable” for the goals of paper.

 

Q13: Discussion section should be improved by increasing the comparison with literature. I also suggest Authors to refer to non-chemical strategies for controlling soil pathogens.

A13: We have added a sentence about the comparison with other similar findings in literature. Authors refer also to the eco-sustainable biofumigants already mentioned in the inroduction section

Q14: In Conclusions section Authors should also report the main results of their work, not just the possible future investigations.

A14: The Conclusion section was strongly shortened eliminating redundant sentence and words.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The situation that led to the rejection of the article initially remains, i.e. the trial was carried out almost 10 years ago. If there is no conflict on the part of the editor in this respect, I think that the article is appropriate to be accepted.