Biological Control Potential of Bacillus subtilis Isolate 1JN2 against Fusarium Wilt on Cucumber

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Fungi are among the important groups that cause diseases in plants. Therefore, the fight against this disease causes various negativities such as intensive input use and environmental pollution. Cucumber is among the important vegetables produced and consumed in the world. This study is about an important issue that creates important problems in cucurbits. The article is visually well prepared. It is written in a modern and fluent language. Modern analyzes were used. References are relevant. Significant revisions are needed in order to be published in a quality publishing house such as MDPI;

Title

The title is long and sloppy. The Latin version of the studied plant species is missing. Take these into consideration and rewrite.

Summary

The summary is written briefly. Additionally, there is a lot of numerical data in the study results. Why didn't you add some to the summary?

30-31. In the line 2020 is used in Fao data. Fao data is 2 years behind. Update according to 2021 data.

Also, add a sentence or two about some important plants, such as the benefits of cucumber to human health, in the introduction.

Are these bacteria present in the soil in the area where the study was carried out in the materials and methods department? Has it been analyzed?

Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease based on what reference? (reference)

Write the PCR components and PCR cycle in detail.

Please explain in detail with which program Figure 3 was made.

Only 8-9 sources are given in the discussion section? Compare with more studies.

Conclusion section

In such a good study, the conclusion section is written quite briefly. Please elaborate. Provide suggestions for the future.

 

My general comment: The article contains important conclusions. I am of the opinion that it can be published after revisions are made.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Fungi are among the important groups that cause diseases in plants. Therefore, the fight against this disease causes various negativities such as intensive input use and environmental pollution. Cucumber is among the important vegetables produced and consumed in the world. This study is about an important issue that creates important problems in cucurbits. The article is visually well prepared. It is written in a modern and fluent language. Modern analyzes were used. References are relevant. Significant revisions are needed in order to be published in a quality publishing house such as MDPI;
Title
The title is long and sloppy. The Latin version of the studied plant species is missing. Take these into consideration and rewrite.
Summary
The summary is written briefly. Additionally, there is a lot of numerical data in the study results. Why didn't you add some to the summary?
30-31. In the line 2020 is used in Fao data. Fao data is 2 years behind. Update according to 2021 data.
Also, add a sentence or two about some important plants, such as the benefits of cucumber to human health, in the introduction.
Are these bacteria present in the soil in the area where the study was carried out in the materials and methods department? Has it been analyzed?
Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease based on what reference? (reference)
Write the PCR components and PCR cycle in detail.
Please explain in detail with which program Figure 3 was made.
Only 8-9 sources are given in the discussion section? Compare with more studies.
Conclusion section
In such a good study, the conclusion section is written quite briefly. Please elaborate. Provide suggestions for the future.
My general comment: The article contains important conclusions. I am of the opinion that it can be published after revisions are made.

 

response :

Title

The title is long and sloppy. The Latin version of the studied plant species is missing. Take these into consideration and rewrite.

 

We have tried to make the title more concise and added the Latin scientific name of cucumber.

 

Summary

The summary is written briefly. Additionally, there is a lot of numerical data in the study results. Why didn't you add some to the summary?

 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added some key data from the results to the summary.

 

30-31. In the line 2020 is used in Fao data. Fao data is 2 years behind. Update according to 2021 data.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. The data has been updated to 2021.

 

Also, add a sentence or two about some important plants, such as the benefits of cucumber to human health, in the introduction.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. The relevant statement has been added.

 

Are these bacteria present in the soil in the area where the study was carried out in the materials and methods department? Has it been analyzed?

 

The bacteria in the soil where the study carried out were analyzed in another manuscript which published already in Frontiers in Microbiology in 2024.

 

Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease based on what reference? (reference)

 

Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease was followed the National Technical Regulations (NY/T 1857.3-2010), and the reference was added to the manuscript.

 

Write the PCR components and PCR cycle in detail.

 

In fact, in the first version of the manuscript we submitted, the components and reaction conditions of PCR were written out. However, due to the high similarity rate of these mature methods during plagiarism check, we changed it to the current version at the suggestion of the editor.

 

Please explain in detail with which program Figure 3 was made.

 

This chart is drawn using R language based on the species composition and relative abundance of each sample at different taxonomic levels. Analysis of the abundance and drawing the chart was conducted on the platform of Major Cloud (https://cloud.majorbio.com).

 

Only 8-9 sources are given in the discussion section? Compare with more studies.

 

More studies that related to our topic were added to the section.

 

Conclusion section

In such a good study, the conclusion section is written quite briefly. Please elaborate. Provide suggestions for the future.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have elaborated this section and suggestions for the future study were added. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.             The two sentences in lines 12-13 seem to be not connected. Moreover, these two sentences are not adequate to be a background leading to the following objective statement. Please rewrite.

2.             The objective statement is too general and ambiguous. Please rewrite.

3.             There should be a place for the methodology in the abstract. Please add a concise methodology of the study because the lack of methods makes the results meaningless. For instance, “biocontrol efficacy” was based on what?, where did the 1JN2 isolate come from?

4.             How much were the genera decreased or increased?

5.             “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” why are these capitalized?

6.             The main subject “cucumber” has not been mentioned until the end of abstract. I believe this is not acceptable.

7.             More results should add in the abstract

In my opinion, the current version of the abstract is not acceptable. Please rewrite it. One question: because of the addition of 1JN2 isolate, the soil microbial community changed dramatically. Would this change the nature of the soil? and If the soil’s nature changes too much, would the local ecosystem be damaged? For example, these enzymes “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” are catalytic enzymes which can degrade the soil structure. I concern the negative effects of this application. Please discuss this in the discussion. Please update the latest references

1.             “According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)” please cite with a literature or a direct link.

2.             “Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum Owen is one of the most serious 36 soil-borne diseases in cucumber cultivation, causing the greatest economic losses.” this is exactly the same as the abstract. Moreover, the whole arguments in lines 45-56 are cited with a single literature and the whole introduction contains only 10 references.

Please write the introduction again.

1.             This statement “B.subtilis strain 1JN2 was isolated in our previous work and identified as an effective biocontrol agent towards several plant diseases [11-12].” is not accurate at all. One literature shows the application of Volvariella volvacea while the other literature still controlled Fusarium wilt by the B.subtilis strain 1JN2. Please check the references and the contents in the text.

2.             “LB”? Please define an abbreviation at first use. The others should be checked.

3.             The details of method for experiment should be added

4.             How were the “Rhizosphere soil samples” collected?

5.             What is the basis of this “Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease”. Please cite the sources or which is criteria for the disease index

6.             Please make this section “Enzyme Activities Analysis of the Soil Samples” and the PCR protocol more detailed.

The quality of the materials and methods is not qualified. Please rewrite.

1.             Please add coefficient of variation in each Table that was subjected to statistics.

2.             There are only two treatments, the experiment should have a positive control.

3.             “In our preliminary research, we found that the antagonistic activity of biocontrol bacterium 1JN2 against the pathogen of Fusarium oxyporum was not significant [12].” this is the result, not discussion. Please relocate this statement. The same happens throughout the results. Please revise this section.

4.             The Figures should be subjected to statistics as well.

5.             In lines 224-225, why underlined?

The result is not qualified. Please rewrite.

1.             Because literatures have been already cited in the result, the discussion contains only 9 references.

2.             More comparisons with other works should be made instead of your own works.

3.             Many statements are not certified by proper literatures.

The result is not qualified. Please rewrite.

The conclusion is too general and fails to show the importance and the significance of the study.

There is no reference from 2023 or 2024. The reference list is too outdated. Please update it with newer ones and remove the old references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

1. The two sentences in lines 12-13 seem to be not connected. Moreover, these two sentences are not adequate to be a background leading to the following objective statement. Please rewrite.
2. The objective statement is too general and ambiguous. Please rewrite.
3. There should be a place for the methodology in the abstract. Please add a concise methodology of the study because the lack of methods makes the results meaningless. For instance, “biocontrol efficacy” was based on what?, where did the 1JN2 isolate come from?
4. How much were the genera decreased or increased?
5. “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” why are these capitalized?
6. The main subject “cucumber” has not been mentioned until the end of abstract. I believe this is not acceptable.
7. More results should add in the abstract
In my opinion, the current version of the abstract is not acceptable. Please rewrite it. One question: because of the addition of 1JN2 isolate, the soil microbial community changed dramatically. Would this change the nature of the soil? and If the soil’s nature changes too much, would the local ecosystem be damaged? For example, these enzymes “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” are catalytic enzymes which can degrade the soil structure. I concern the negative effects of this application. Please discuss this in the discussion. Please update the latest references
1. “According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)” please cite with a literature or a direct link.
2. “Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum Owen is one of the most serious 36 soil-borne diseases in cucumber cultivation, causing the greatest economic losses.” this is exactly the same as the abstract. Moreover, the whole arguments in lines 45-56 are cited with a single literature and the whole introduction contains only 10 references.
Please write the introduction again.
1. This statement “B.subtilis strain 1JN2 was isolated in our previous work and identified as an effective biocontrol agent towards several plant diseases [11-12].” is not accurate at all. One literature shows the application of Volvariella volvacea while the other literature still controlled Fusarium wilt by the B.subtilis strain 1JN2. Please check the references and the contents in the text.
2. “LB”? Please define an abbreviation at first use. The others should be checked.
3. The details of method for experiment should be added
4. How were the “Rhizosphere soil samples” collected?
5. What is the basis of this “Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease”. Please cite the sources or which is criteria for the disease index
2
6. Please make this section “Enzyme Activities Analysis of the Soil Samples” and the PCR protocol more detailed.
The quality of the materials and methods is not qualified. Please rewrite.
1. Please add coefficient of variation in each Table that was subjected to statistics.
2. There are only two treatments, the experiment should have a positive control.
3. “In our preliminary research, we found that the antagonistic activity of biocontrol bacterium 1JN2 against the pathogen of Fusarium oxyporum was not significant [12].” this is the result, not discussion. Please relocate this statement. The same happens throughout the results. Please revise this section.
4. The Figures should be subjected to statistics as well.
5. In lines 224-225, why underlined?
The result is not qualified. Please rewrite.
1. Because literatures have been already cited in the result, the discussion contains only 9 references.
2. More comparisons with other works should be made instead of your own works.
3. Many statements are not certified by proper literatures.
The result is not qualified. Please rewrite.
The conclusion is too general and fails to show the importance and the significance of the study.
There is no reference from 2023 or 2024. The reference list is too outdated. Please update it with newer ones and remove the old references.

 

response:

1. The two sentences in lines 12-13 seem to be not connected. Moreover, these two sentences are not adequate to be a background leading to the following objective statement. Please rewrite.

 

All the abstract was rewritten according to all the reviewer’s suggestions.

 

2. The objective statement is too general and ambiguous. Please rewrite.

 

Thank you for your suggestion, the abstract was rewritten.

 

3. There should be a place for the methodology in the abstract. Please add a concise methodology of the study because the lack of methods makes the results meaningless. For instance, “biocontrol efficacy” was based on what?, where did the 1JN2 isolate come from?

 

The methodology that involved and the background of the isolate 1JN2 were added in the abstract. The biocontrol efficacy was evaluated based on the field experiment against Fusarium wilt on cucumber.

 

4. How much were the genera decreased or increased?

 

The detail data of the results were added.

 

5. “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” why are these capitalized?

 

The first letter of the enzyme was changed in lower-case.

 

6. The main subject “cucumber” has not been mentioned until the end of abstract. I believe this is not acceptable.

 

Yes, the whole abstract was rewritten and the background of the study was explained clearer in the top of the abstract.

 

7. More results should add in the abstract.

 

Yes, more detail data was added in the abstract.

 

In my opinion, the current version of the abstract is not acceptable. Please rewrite it. One question: because of the addition of 1JN2 isolate, the soil microbial community changed dramatically. Would this change the nature of the soil? and If the soil’s nature changes too much, would the local ecosystem be damaged? For example, these enzymes “Catalase, Dehydrogenase, Alkaline phosphatase and Polyphenol oxidase” are catalytic enzymes which can degrade the soil structure. I concern the negative effects of this application. Please discuss this in the discussion. Please update the latest references

 

I think your concern about the entire experimental design and whether the results are accidental or naturally occurring is understandable. Our experiment was conducted under field conditions, and the changes in microbial diversity around cucumber roots are certainly influenced by natural factors. However, by comparing the microecological changes around cucumber roots before and after the addition of biocontrol strains over a considerable period of time, I believe the results should objectively reflect the factors of the experimental treatment.

The second point I think you mentioned about damaging the ecology may not be appropriate, but I think changing the ecology is more appropriate. The primitive soil ecological environment has become a soil ecological environment that is no longer suitable for continued planting due to a series of problems such as reduced soil microbial diversity, increased pathogens, and weakened soil activity caused by long-term planting. Therefore, actively changing the soil ecology through crop rotation, addition of biocontrol strains, and other methods is a more proactive measure.

 

1. “According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)” please cite with a literature or a direct link.

 

OK, we have updated the data from FAO and the relative reference was added (reference number 3).

 

2. “Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum Owen is one of the most serious 36 soil-borne diseases in cucumber cultivation, causing the greatest economic losses.” this is exactly the same as the abstract. Moreover, the whole arguments in lines 45-56 are cited with a single literature and the whole introduction contains only 10 references.

Please write the introduction again.

 

Thank you for your suggestions, the introduction was rewritten and more latest and relative references were added.

 

1. This statement “B.subtilis strain 1JN2 was isolated in our previous work and identified as an effective biocontrol agent towards several plant diseases [11-12].” is not accurate at all. One literature shows the application of Volvariella volvacea while the other literature still controlled Fusarium wilt by the B.subtilis strain 1JN2. Please check the references and the contents in the text.

 

The wrong reference was added in the list and now the mistake was corrected.

 

2. “LB”? Please define an abbreviation at first use. The others should be checked.

 

Thank you, we have checked all the abbreviations in the whole manuscript.

 

3. The details of method for experiment should be added.

 

I am not sure which experiment method need more details? The field experiment against Fusarium wilt was written in details. But the methods for enzyme activities and PCR are routine methods. In fact, in the first version of the manuscript we submitted, the components and reaction conditions of PCR and the detail method for enzyme activities were written out. However, due to the high similarity rate of these mature methods during plagiarism check, we changed it to the current version at the suggestion of the editor.

 

4. How were the “Rhizosphere soil samples” collected?

 

The specific methods for soil collection have been added to the manuscript.

 

5. What is the basis of this “Classification criteria for the disease index of cucumber wilt disease”. Please cite the sources or which is criteria for the disease index 2.

 

The reference for the disease index was added.

 

6. Please make this section “Enzyme Activities Analysis of the Soil Samples” and the PCR protocol more detailed.

 

As I mentioned above, due to the high similarity rate of these mature methods during plagiarism check, we have deleted the details of the routine method in this section.

 

The quality of the materials and methods is not qualified. Please rewrite.

 

 

1. Please add coefficient of variation in each Table that was subjected to statistics.

 

I believe that the mean and standard deviation calculated from repeated experimental results can already reflect the authenticity and objectivity of the results. So, I don't think it's necessary to add a coefficient of variation. Of course, we can discuss this issue further. If we add it, do we need to add a column in the table?

 

2. There are only two treatments, the experiment should have a positive control.

 

Since the experiment was conducted under field conditions, we want to compare the biocontrol efficacy of the biocontrol strain treatment group with the blank control group without any additional treatment. In order to reduce the risk of pathogen transmission in the environment, field experiments can only choose natural fields with previously severe disease outbreaks and cannot be inoculated with pathogens.

 

3. “In our preliminary research, we found that the antagonistic activity of biocontrol bacterium 1JN2 against the pathogen of Fusarium oxyporum was not significant [12].” this is the result, not discussion. Please relocate this statement. The same happens throughout the results. Please revise this section.

 

Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed all similar expressions from the results section.

 

4. The Figures should be subjected to statistics as well.

 

Thank you, we have added standard deviation in figure 4.

 

5. In lines 224-225, why underlined?

 

The underline may have been caused by an error during input and has been modified.

 

The result is not qualified. Please rewrite.

1. Because literatures have been already cited in the result, the discussion contains only 9 references.

 

Some relevant and updated references have been added to the discussion section.

 

2. More comparisons with other works should be made instead of your own works.

 

Thank you, now more comparisons were made with other works in the discussion section.

 

3. Many statements are not certified by proper literatures.

 

Now the statements without literatures were modified.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Manuscript titled “Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt on Cucumber with Bacillus subtilis Isolate 1JN2 and Its Impacts on the Rhizosphere Fungal Diversity and Soil Properties “examines the effect of bacterial inoculation of cucumber by Bacillus subtilis strain 1JN2 on suppression of Fusarium oxysporum and rhizosphere fungal diversity under filed conditions. The Manuscript covers the current problematic regarding the use of biological control agents in agriculture. The experimental part has a good structure, and the obtained results are useful for further research. Figures are informative and they present the results in a good way. However, the Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects of Bacillus spp. on Fusarium oxysporum. Also, some more recent literature should be added, as some of the used references are older. Some other suggestions are provided bellow:

1. Add B. subtilis everywhere where 1JN2 is mentioned through the text.

2. Introduction section – Replace the paragraph where you state about Trichoderma with some literature about the same effects of Bacillus spp.

3. Line 92 – was this strain identified in your previous work based on DNA sequence? If yes then adding an accession number of strain (NCBI base) could be useful.

4. Line 100 – what was used as blank control – was it water?

5. Table 1 – What is CK – blank control? Double check the letters for statistics in the table (0.26a±0.02bbc).

6. Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects of Bacillus spp. on Fusarium oxysporum suppression. Add some recent literature about using different Bacillus species in suppressing this pathogen in different plant species besides cucumber (eg. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104444, 10.3390/microbiolres14030062, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100353, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1205894).

7. Line 272 – Add reference.

8. Line 288 - Add reference.

9. Have you measured the yield of the treated cucumber in comparison to the untreated control? This could also make sense if the used strain has some PGP traits. This could be an idea for future research, or if this kind of results exists then I suggest adding it to the Manuscript also.

10. I suggest the authors to rephrase the sentences which have been marked by iThenticate report.  

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

The Manuscript titled “Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt on Cucumber with Bacillus subtilis Isolate 1JN2 and Its Impacts on the Rhizosphere Fungal Diversity and Soil Properties “examines the effect of bacterial inoculation of cucumber by Bacillus subtilis strain 1JN2 on suppression of Fusarium oxysporum and rhizosphere fungal diversity under filed conditions. The Manuscript covers the current problematic regarding the use of biological control agents in agriculture. The experimental part has a good structure, and the obtained results are useful for further research. Figures are informative and they present the results in a good way. However, the Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects of Bacillus spp. on Fusarium oxysporum. Also, some more recent literature should be added, as some of the used references are older. Some other suggestions are provided bellow:

1. AddB. subtiliseverywhere where 1JN2 is mentioned through the text.
2. Introduction section – Replace the paragraph where you state aboutTrichodermawith some literature about the same effects of Bacillus spp.
3. Line 92 – was this strain identified in your previous work based on DNA sequence? If yes then adding an accession number of strain (NCBI base) could be useful.
4. Line 100 – what was used as blank control – was it water?
5. Table 1 – What is CK – blank control? Double check the letters for statistics in the table (0.26a±0.02bbc).
6. Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects ofBacillusspp. on Fusarium oxysporum suppression. Add some recent literature about using different Bacillus species in suppressing this pathogen in different plant species besides cucumber (eg. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104444, 10.3390/microbiolres14030062, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100353, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1205894).
7. Line 272 – Add reference.
8. Line 288 - Add reference.
9. Have you measured the yield of the treated cucumber in comparison to the untreated control? This could also make sense if the used strain has some PGP traits. This could be an idea for future research, or if this kind of results exists then I suggest adding it to the Manuscript also.
10. I suggest the authors to rephrase the sentences which have been marked by iThenticate report.

response:

The Manuscript titled “Biological Control of Fusarium Wilt on Cucumber with Bacillus subtilis Isolate 1JN2 and Its Impacts on the Rhizosphere Fungal Diversity and Soil Properties “examines the effect of bacterial inoculation of cucumber by Bacillus subtilis strain 1JN2 on suppression of Fusarium oxysporum and rhizosphere fungal diversity under filed conditions. The Manuscript covers the current problematic regarding the use of biological control agents in agriculture. The experimental part has a good structure, and the obtained results are useful for further research. Figures are informative and they present the results in a good way. However, the Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects of Bacillus spp. on Fusarium oxysporum. Also, some more recent literature should be added, as some of the used references are older. Some other suggestions are provided bellow:

1. Add subtilis everywhere where 1JN2 is mentioned through the text.

 

OK, thank you for your suggestion.

 

2. Introduction section – Replace the paragraph where you state about Trichoderma with some literature about the same effects of Bacillus spp.

 

Ok, we have replaced the paragraph about Trichoderma with some new literatures about Bacillus spp.

 

3. Line 92 – was this strain identified in your previous work based on DNA sequence? If yes then adding an accession number of strain (NCBI base) could be useful.

 

Thank you for your reminding, the accession number was added in the text.

 

4. Line 100 – what was used as blank control – was it water?

 

Yea the blank control means equal amount of water.

 

5. Table 1 – What is CK – blank control? Double check the letters for statistics in the table (0.26a0.02bbc).

 

Yes, CK means blank control. The data in the table has been double checked. The first number such as 0.26 represents the average of three repeated experiments, and the following data such as 0.02 is the standard deviation, the normal letter such as “b” means the significance between the different groups, the superscripted letter means the table notes.

 

6. Discussion section should be enriched with more literature, especially on the previously recorded effects of Bacillus spp. on Fusarium oxysporum suppression. Add some recent literature about using different Bacillus species in suppressing this pathogen in different plant species besides cucumber (eg. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104444, 10.3390/microbiolres14030062, 10.1016/j.rhisph.2021.100353, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1205894).

 

Ok, thank you for your information, the references were added.

 

7. Line 272 – Add reference.

 

The reference was added.

 

8. Line 288 - Add reference.

 

The reference was added.

 

9. Have you measured the yield of the treated cucumber in comparison to the untreated control? This could also make sense if the used strain has some PGP traits. This could be an idea for future research, or if this kind of results exists then I suggest adding it to the Manuscript also.

 

In this experiment, we mainly tested the incidence of cucumber wilt disease and the changes in microbial diversity around cucumber roots during a period of time after transplantation. Due to the long growth period of cucumber, we did not count the yield of cucumber throughout the entire growth period. Thank you for your suggestion. In future research, we will summarize the results of biocontrol strains in promoting growth and increasing yield.

 

10. I suggest the authors to rephrase the sentences which have been marked by iThenticate report.

 

Sorry I don’t know what is iThenticate report and I never seen such document, may be I can communicate with the editor.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the first revision, the quality of the manuscript has been much improved. However, modifications should be highlighted for reviewers to follow. Moreover, there are some suggestions:

1.      In the last paragraph of the introduction, the authors should state the objectives or the hypothesis of the study instead of listing what you were going to do.

2.      I suggest using a different symbol to indicate footnotes of tables. In the current version, using alphabetical letters sometimes makes it confused with the letters of significance which are also alphabetical letters. Moreover, what does “/” mean? it should be explained in the footnote as well.

3.      Please check the word font. Some words are not correct.

4.      I suggest applying statistical analysis to Figure 1 to compare the decreases. Moreover, figures sometimes stand alone. Thus, “FOC” should be explained in the caption. The same should be applied to other figures.

5.      Results should not contain citations though this has been raised in the previous peer-review.

6.      Conclusion should make rules from highlight results

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

1. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the authors should state the objectives or the hypothesis of the study instead of listing what you were going to do.
2. I suggest using a different symbol to indicate footnotes of tables. In the current version, using alphabetical letters sometimes makes it confused with the letters of significance which are also alphabetical letters. Moreover, what does “/” mean? it should be explained in the footnote as well.
3. Please check the word font. Some words are not correct.
4. I suggest applying statistical analysis to Figure 1 to compare the decreases. Moreover, figures sometimes stand alone. Thus, “FOC” should be explained in the caption. The same should be applied to other figures.
5. Results should not contain citations though this has been raised in the previous peer-review.
6. Conclusion should make rules from highlight results.

 

Response:

1. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the authors should state the objectives or the hypothesis of the study instead of listing what you were going to do.

 

Thank you, now the last paragraph of the introduction was revised to state the objective of this study. The objective of this study is to elucidate the mechanism of biocontrol of cucumber wilt disease by Bacillus subtilis 1JN2 from the perspective of rhizosphere microecology, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the practical application of this strain and the screening of biocontrol strains for plant soil borne diseases.

 

2. I suggest using a different symbol to indicate footnotes of tables. In the current version, using alphabetical letters sometimes makes it confused with the letters of significance which are also alphabetical letters. Moreover, what does “/” mean? it should be explained in the footnote as well.

 

Ok, I agree with your opinion, now the different symbol was used to indicates the footnotes of the table.

Because the biocontrol efficacy was calculated as (control group disease index - treatment group disease index)/control group disease index x 100%. So “/” means there is no biological efficacy of the control group, now we changed to “0”, maybe 0 is more suitable.

 

3. Please check the word font. Some words are not correct.

 

The spelling of the words was checked throughout the manuscript again.

 

4. I suggest applying statistical analysis to Figure 1 to compare the decreases. Moreover, figures sometimes stand alone. Thus, “FOC” should be explained in the caption. The same should be applied to other figures.

 

Now we have added specific numerical values for each bar chart in Figure 1, and described the differences between each time point in the corresponding text, so that readers can easily obtain all the information. Thank you for your suggestion. We have also added the specific meaning of FOC to the caption.

 

5. Results should not contain citations though this has been raised in the previous peer-review.

 

Ok, there are no references in the results section now, only statements of experimental results. All comparisons with the results have been moved to the discussion section.

 

6. Conclusion should make rules from highlight results.

 

I think all the important results have been stated in the conclusion section. The reason for adding some plans and suggestions for future research is based on the suggestion of another reviewer in the first round. I have reservations about this suggestion. If you insist that the conclusion section only needs to highlight the results, I can move the plans and suggestions for future research to the discussion section.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

 

We will use English Language Editing Services from MDPI to perform English editing on the manuscript after its content is confirmed. Because the content of the manuscript has not yet been confirmed by you, all modified parts are marked in revision mode, and the word count of the manuscript has not been finalized, so the manuscript is currently not suitable for English editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx