Biological Control Efficacy of Indigenous Antagonistic Bacteria Isolated from the Rhizosphere of Cabbage Grown in Biofumigated Soil against Pythium aphanidermatum Damping-Off of Cucumber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very scientific article. The research is very rich and the results are interesting. The results of this paper have guiding significance for the prevention and control of soil-borne diseases of production crops. The overall writing is more standardized, and it is recommended to receive and publish this article. The following are a few minor questions.

L53-55, Please add the reference.

L73-76, Please reduce the number of references to about 5.

L101-104, The step of soil biofumigation is very similar to the method of reductive soil disinfestation (RSD) or anaerobic soil disinfestation, or biological soil disinfestation. Can you explain the difference about these methods?

L266, 500 g wet biomass/pot, please explain why this concentration is used. Also, how much the soil is used?

L569-571, this explanation is not convincing enough. Because you're using cabbage as a material, the host is cucumber, and you've reported in your introduction that these material used in biofumigation are effective in reducing plant disease. Please explain this result clearly, as it will affect the willingness of readers to adopt this measure.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s comments- Reviewer 1

 

This is a very scientific article. The research is very rich and the results are interesting. The results of this paper have guiding significance for the prevention and control of soil-borne diseases of production crops. The overall writing is more standardized, and it is recommended to receive and publish this article. The following are a few minor questions.

 

Comment

L53-55, Please add the reference.

Response

Done

 

Comment

L73-76, Please reduce the number of references to about 5.

Response

Done

 

Comment

L101-104, The step of soil biofumigation is very similar to the method of reductive soil disinfestation (RSD) or anaerobic soil disinfestation, or biological soil disinfestation. Can you explain the difference about these methods?

Response

The term “Anaerobic soil disinfestation” refers to incorporation of easily decomposable carbon sources into the soil, irrigate the soil to saturation levels, and covering with plastic sheets to create anaerobic conditions. During decomposition of carbon sources, microbial activities increase and organic acids and volatile compounds are released, which results in significant changes in soil pH, metal ion availability, and microbial community composition (Khadka and Miller, 2021).

“Soil biofumigation” refers to suppression of soil pests and soil-borne pathogens by volatile poisonous isothiocyanates (ITCs), released in the soil after incorporation of glucosinolate (GSL)-containing plant tissues through hydrolysis”. Soil biofumigation can be done by soil incorporation of fresh plant materials from members of the Brassicaceae family including cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, kale, and various mustards, which contain high concentrations of GSLs in their tissues. The steps involved in both the processes are the same. But the materials used are slightly different.

 

Khadka, R.B. and Miller, S.A., 2021. Synergy of anaerobic soil disinfestation and Trichoderma spp. in Rhizoctonia root rot suppression. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, p.645736.

 

 

Comment

L266, 500 g wet biomass/pot, please explain why this concentration is used. Also, how much the soil is used?

Response

There was a mistake in the manuscript. Cabbage leaves were added at the rate of 10 g wet biomass/pot filled with 500 g sterilized soil (Rios et al., 2016).

Rios P, Obregon S, de Haro A, Fernandez‐Rebollo P, Serrano MS, Sanchez ME (2016) Effect of Brassica biofumigant amendments on different stages of the life cycle of Phytophthora cinnamomi. Journal of Phytopathology 164: 582-594.

Corrections were made in the revised manuscript and the reference was added (line 436).

 

 

Comment

L569-571, this explanation is not convincing enough. Because you're using cabbage as a material, the host is cucumber, and you've reported in your introduction that these material used in biofumigation are effective in reducing plant disease. Please explain this result clearly, as it will affect the willingness of readers to adopt this measure.

Response

Discussion was modified as per the suggestions of the reviewer (lines 871-945).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article titled: “Efficacy of Indigenous Antagonistic Bacteria Isolated from The Rhizosphere Of Cabbage Grown In Biofumigated Soil In The Biological Control of Pythium aphanidermatum Damping-Off Of Cucumber”, addresses a topic that, although it has been widely studied, requires new findings to be applied to regional economies.

The title can be shortened as follows: Biological control efficacy....against Pythium….

The  article has been well structured and coherently written. The aims although wide, it had been explored in the work.

In the Results, some descriptions of M&M must be deteled; and other descriptions (highlighted in the attached archive) add as foot of Tables o followed to tithe of Figures.

Conclusions are not entirely those that emerge from the study carried out. Please rewrite.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer’s comments- Reviewer 2

The article titled: “Efficacy of Indigenous Antagonistic Bacteria Isolated from The Rhizosphere Of Cabbage Grown In Biofumigated Soil In The Biological Control of Pythium aphanidermatum Damping-Off Of Cucumber”, addresses a topic that, although it has been widely studied, requires new findings to be applied to regional economies.

 

Comment

The title can be shortened as follows: Biological control efficacy....against Pythium….

Response

Done

 

Comment

The article has been well structured and coherently written. The aims although wide, it had been explored in the work.

In the Results, some descriptions of M&M must be deteled; and other descriptions (highlighted in the attached archive) add as foot of Tables o followed to tithe of Figures.

Response

Done

 

Comment

Conclusions are not entirely those that emerge from the study carried out. Please rewrite.

Response

Done

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf