Evaluation of Host Resistance, Hydrated Lime, and Weed Control to Manage Clubroot in Canola

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Evaluation of Resistance, Hydrated Lime, and Weed Control to  Manage Clubroot in Canola" discribed the use of hydrated lime, weed control, and resistant cultivar to manage Clubroot. Because Clubroot is a worldwide disease causing sevious lost of Crusiferous crops, this topic will be interested to readers of this field. However, due to these methods were used for a long time and the knowledge in this manuscript is obvious, It is suggested that the author shorten the length of the article so that readers can get the main findings of the article in a shorter time.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The clubroot disease is serious disease in Brassicaceae family worldwide, managed mostly by planting clubroot-resistant cultivars. Compare resistance, hydrated Lime, andweed control, the genetic resistance in the host is the most effective tool for managing clubroot of canola in P. brassicae-infested soil. It is intresting. Some suggestions:

1. Can you provide some photos of clubroot symptoms in different treatments?
2. In the field plots, can you show how many plots you analysis? You conduct field trials in 2018 and 2019, but the table and figure didnot distinguish and label, please label it.
3. In Figure 2, the Differences in means are denoted by different letters, in the top picture, I saw the significant difference between RNLNW and RNLW samples, please check it.
4. In the abstract part, some numbers, such as 34-36%, 70-98%, 48-80% do not appear in results part, you need show them in the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I found the work interesting, well set up, and executed. Important results have been obtained from basic research with immediate applications and paving the way for further lines of research. I recommend accepting the manuscript with a minor revision concerning a few points:

L96. This resource seems to be not available, update

L336. The effect of rotation was not considered in “discussion” as a fundamental measure to be integrated for disease control as reported in https://doi.org/10.1080/07060661.2013.860398, already cited in the ms at 25. I recommend therefore developing this topic in “discussion”.

table 1: the caption is not clear. It is necessary to explain better the abbreviations shown. Moreover, "Two way anova .... on canola" which canola parameters?

Figure 2. the abbreviations in the abscissa are not very legible graphically and conceptually. I suggest dividing the treatments graphically, for example, R / NL / NW

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript evaluates the efficiency of different strategies alone and/or in combination to control clubroot disease in B. napus. The paper is well written. In methodology, the authors say that they couldn’t collect soil samples from site 1. In section 3.1, do the authors discuss results for the other two sites? Please make it clear to the reader.

And I suggest the authors change the title slightly as follows to be more meaningful.

‘Evaluation of Genetic Resistance, Hydrated Lime, and Weed Control to Manage Clubroot in Canola’

Please see the attached manuscript for a few suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx