Next Article in Journal
Multi-Locus Microsatellite Typing of Colonising and Invasive Aspergillus fumigatus Isolates from Patients Post Lung Transplantation and with Chronic Lung Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Diversity of Mycorrhizal Fungi in Temperate Orchid Species: Comparison of Culture-Dependent and Culture-Independent Methods
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hyphal Growth and Conidia Germination Are Induced by Phytohormones in the Root Colonizing and Plant Growth Promoting Fungus Metarhizium guizhouense
 
 
Brief Report
Peer-Review Record

Entomopathogenic Fungi as Dual Control Agents against Two Phytopathogens and the Lepidopteran Pest Rachiplusia nu in Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr)

J. Fungi 2024, 10(2), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10020093
by María Leticia Russo 1,2, María Florencia Vianna 1,3,*, Ana Clara Scorsetti 1,2, Natalia Ferreri 1,2, Juan Manuel de Abajo 1,2, María Inés Troncozo 1,2 and Sebastián Alberto Pelizza 1,2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
J. Fungi 2024, 10(2), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof10020093
Submission received: 22 September 2023 / Revised: 9 October 2023 / Accepted: 16 October 2023 / Published: 24 January 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Over all manuscript is well written and well presented. I have no major problems with the manuscript,  My comments are for improvement of the precision and clarity of wording. Some specific  comments are on the hard copy:

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors appreciate reviewer comments that have improved the ms.

All comments made by the reviewer were incorporated in the ms and were highlighted in red. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript presents the effect of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae on the management of the phytopathogenic fungi Fusarium oxysporum and Macrophomina phaseolina and on the lepidopteran Rachiplusia nu. The results are interesting and very important in a context of integrated pest and disease management.

The introduction clearly presents what motivated the research, using literature and updating it. The topic material and methods are robust and widely described in the literature. The results are appropriate to the topic material and methods. The discussion is relevant and appropriate to the results.

In order to contribute to the text, I recommend that the authors revise the text to adapt the scientific names (example L. 114, the fungus B. bassiana is not in italics).

L. 79 replace “Methods” with “Material and methods”.

L 209-237 – Long text where data from other authors are presented instead of discussing the research results in a more appropriate way.

Author Response

Authors appreciate reviewer comments that have improved the ms.

All comments made by the reviewer were incorporated in the ms and were highlighted in red. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop