Study on the Identification, Biological Characteristics, and Fungicide Sensitivity of the Causal Agent of Strawberry Red Core Root Rot
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEl manuscrito titulado "Estudio sobre la identificación, características biológicas y sensibilidad a fungicidas del agente causante de la pudrición roja de la raíz de la fresa" es apropiado para la revista. La investigación desarrollada por los autores es relevante en la búsqueda de alternativas para el control del “agente de la pudrición del corazón rojo de la fresa”. Algunos aspectos necesitan ser aclarados o revisados ​​y especificados en el manuscrito.
El manuscrito podrá ser aceptado luego de resolver los comentarios.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed information
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main topics in this research are causal agents of strawberry red core root rot Fusarium solani and Fusarium oxysporum using morphological and molecular methods. The research also includes pathogenicity tests and the evaluation of the susceptibility of detected fungi to selected fungicides.
This topic and the studied pathogens are of the importance for strawberry cultivation in different countries throughout the world. The paper gathers comprehensive study and presents a lot of information on detected F. solani and F. oxysporum isolates from China describing their characteristics.
However, I found some issues that should be resolved.
Abstract:
Word “respectively” repeated so many times. Rewrite these sentences in a better way.
Introduction:
This section covered basic information on strawberry and root diseases of this species.
Line 42: Phytophthora fragariae. Correct this on few occurrences in the text.
Material and methods:
Line 75: Samples collected in March 2024? Did you make a mistake on the year? Two months to finish the entire study and to prepare a paper?
The methodology section is well described and all segments are written in detail, somewhere in too much detail for already known and well documented data.
I have some remarks in this section:
Line 74: How many samples did you collect?
How many isolates of these two Fusarium species you isolated? One F. solani and one F. oxysporum?
References for the used primers are not correct [32-34]. You should cite the authors of the primers: ITS1/ITS4 - White et al. 1990; EF-1/EF-2 - O’Donnell et al., 1998.
Line 158-162: Not proper citation [41] for this statement.
Results and discussion:
Results are well presented in several figures and tables.
Lines 169 and 182: I suggest to use term isolate instead of strain (for F1 and F2)
Lines 209-210: you should present the result of this part as for isolate F1. Give the information on the isolates (NCBI accessions) with the highest sequence similarity with your F2 isolate.
I suggest to reconstruct one phylogenetic tree including both isolates F1 and F2, one for ITS region and one for TEF region including different Fusarium species.
Figure numbers: You duplicated figure 3.
Lines 227-228: …two strains of fungal strains. Correct this.
Line 294: Table 3
Conclusions:
Presented conclusions are consistent with results and given arguments answering the main asked question.
References:
Cited references are appropriate, but some remarks are given below.
References 18 and 19 are duplicated.
Check reference 41 and citation in methods section.
Additional comments:
Figures of symptoms, morphological characteristics, and pathogenicity tests are illustrative.
Tables are well presented.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome remarks are given to the authors.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment for detailed information
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
