Vermicompost and Its Derivatives against Phytopathogenic Fungi in the Soil: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is devoted to ecologically and agriculturally important topic – the use of earthworm bioproducts against soil phytopathogenic fungi. However, on my mind, the review should be substantially revised and corrected prior to be considered for publication.

The review is written rather chaotically, with insufficient systematization of the literature sources used, which leads to the unnecessary repetitions among eight sections of the manuscript. Besides that, the manuscript contains complicated and unclear expressions and statements and it is unclear how some of them are associated with the earthworm bioproducts (see the attached PDF file).

Page 7, lines 22-23: How is it known that CF namely enhanced the plant defense mechanisms but not directly killed the fungus?

Page 9, lines 13-14:  In which way spraying the vermiwash on the plant leaves enhanced the physicochemical soil properties?

Page 9, line 19: How can the vermicompost be derived from bacteria if this substance by definition should be derived from earthworms?

Additionally the authors made many mistakes in the spelling of fungal names (see the attached PDF file).

All other suggestions and corrections are inserted in the PDF version of the manuscript, which is attached.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have corrected your comments in Ms file and shown it in cover letter. Kindly, check it if we have addressed it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors are suggested to undergo the following minor correction so as to improve the quality of manuscript.

# The significance of the review should be mentioned clearly in abstract section.

# Pathogenic bacteria include human pathogenic bacteria, soil pathogenic bacteria and animal pathogenic bacteira. Please define the pathogenic bacteria in this study.

#Introduction should follow the state of the art of this field and review what has been done, for supporting the research gap and the significance of this study. Please improve the state of the art overview, to clearly show the progress beyond the state of the art. Also add more recent supporting data from the literature.

#The introduction of the paper must be extended and reformulated in order to provide a more comprehensive approach.

# Line no 8-9; Objectives should be properly discussed.

#Line no 10-20, please add the mechanism of Antibacteria agaist to pathogens stimulated by earthworms 

# Authors are advised to add new references while discussing vermiwash and vermicompost sections.  

# Conclude with more focus on the major outcomes of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer we have addressed your comments in Ms file as well in cover letter kindly check it 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The review looks a little bit better, but it still needs to be revised and improved in order to be published and to really "provide new dimensions on the application of the earthworms". One of the review major problem remains the hardly understandable language, which should be carefully checked and corrected, especially stylistically. Particularly, the authors should properly use the singular and plural through the text. Once again, the manuscript contains numerous unnecessary repetitions (see the attached PDF file). On the whole, the review written by nine(!) coauthors could definitely be prepared better.

All other suggestions and corrections are inserted in the PDF version of the manuscript, which is attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We have checked and corrected all comments. We have also edited it's English by English editing service and attached it's certificate. Kindly, check what we have corrected.

Best regards

Corresponding authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The review looks much better, but still some corrections should be made in order to consider the manuscript for publication (see the attached PDF version of the manuscript).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer 

We have made changes on the comments you have given all on Ms file, pdf and attachment as cover letter. Kindly, we request you to check what habe neen correctec upon your comments on our manuscript

Best regards

Kasahun Gudeta and Sartaj Ahmad Bhat

Author Response File: Author Response.docx