Production of Bacillus velezensis Strain GB1 as a Biocontrol Agent and Its Impact on Bemisia tabaci by Inducing Systemic Resistance in a Squash Plant
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- The title of the manuscript should be corrected to highlight the plant species.
- L28~29: can be corrected to ' B. velezensis strain GB1 could significantly reduce the mean number of the attracted B. tabaci on squash plants'.
- L38: 'horticulture' should be corrected to 'horticultural'
- L74: inhibited insects?
- L79: delete 'and'
- L104~105: different typo size
- the title of the '2.3.1' should be corrected
- L143: the full latin name of the plant species should be provided
- L166: 'on'?
- replica?
- L215~216 and L225~227: these sentences should be rewritten
- L234: 'with' should be corrected to 'are with'
- L258: the first 'and' can be deleted
- The 'h.' in figure 7-9 should be corrected to 'h'
- Can you show some typical figures for the insects population density on plants?
- L450-451, L462~L463, L471-472, L536-539: these sentences are not very readable
- L484-487: references should be added.
- The discussion part is too long.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Notice
The results of enzymes were represented as tables instead of histogram figures according to the decision of reviewer 3. Histogram figures of enzyme results were added as supplementary materials.
Point 1: The title of the manuscript should be corrected to highlight the plant species.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. The plant species was added to the title of the manuscript. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 2: L28~29: can be corrected to ' B. velezensis strain GB1 could significantly reduce the mean number of the attracted B. tabaci on squash plants'.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. The sentence was corrected. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 3: L38: 'horticulture' should be corrected to 'horticultural'
Response 3: Thanks for your comment. The word was corrected. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 4: L74: inhibited insects?
Response 4: Thanks for your comment. The sentence was modified. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 5: L79: delete 'and'
Response 5: Thanks for your comment. The word was deleted. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 6: L104~105: different typo size
Response 6: Thanks for your comment. The font size was corrected. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 7: the title of the '2.3.1' should be corrected
Response 7: Thanks for your comment. The title of the '2.3.1' was modified. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 8: L143: the full Latin name of the plant species should be provided
Response 8: Thanks for your comment. The full Latin name of the plant species is found in line 86. So, the genus name of the plant species is abbreviated as C. pepo in line 143 (line 148 in final form).
Point 9: L166: 'on'?
Response 9: Thanks for your comment. The sentence was corrected. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 10: replica?
Response 10: Thanks for your comment. The word was deleted. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 11: L215~216 and L225~227: these sentences should be rewritten
Response 11: Thanks for your comment. All sentences were modified and rewritten. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Point 12: L234: 'with' should be corrected to 'are with'
Response 12: Thanks for your comment. The sentence was corrected. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 13: L258: the first 'and' can be deleted
Response 13: Thanks for your comment. The first 'and' is pointed to the relationship between optical density and biomass but the second 'and' is pointed to the second figure 3B.
Point 14: The 'h.' in figure 7-9 should be corrected to 'h'
Response 14: Thanks for your comment. Figures 7-10 were modified but these results were represented as tables instead of histogram figures according to the decision of reviewer 3. Histogram figures of enzymes results were added as supplementary materials. Please check them again in the revised MS and the supplementary materials.
Point 15: Can you show some typical figures for the insects population density on plants?
Response 15: Thanks for your comment. In the population density experiment, we convinced with recording the numbers of attracted whiteflies/cm2/plant, which is calculated as a mean of daily record and statistically analyzed that gives reliability to the results.
Counting was gently done in the early morning to avoid whiteflies escaping from the lower leaves’ surface, which makes it difficult to take pictures.
Point 16: L450-451, L462~L463, L471-472, L536-539: these sentences are not very readable
Response 16: Thanks for your comment. All sentences were corrected and rewritten. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Point 17: L484-487: references should be added.
Response 17: Thanks for your comment. Reference was added. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Point 18: The discussion part is too long.
Response 18: Thanks for your comment. The discussion part was modified and summarized as much as possible. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The main objective of the current study is the production of B. velezensis as a biocontrol agent using a batch fermentation process in the stirred tank bioreactor, and evaluating for the first time the effects of squash (Cucurbita pepo) root colonization by B. velezensis on B. tabaci population density, females fecundity, and the egg hatchability under greenhouse conditions by elucidation its underlying mechanism in terms of enhancing the expression
of pathogenesis-related proteins such as enzymes involved in the buildup a defense strategy against whitefly, which could be used through the integrated pest management programs.
Introduction is very well described and has all necessary information about present study.
Material and methods
Please describe more detailed information about the culture of B. tabaci.
I miss some more information about glucose estimation.
Line 144 which kind of soil?
Results
Correct units in line 268. Similar mistakes are in discussion also.
Results are described very well but discussion needs more detailed comparison with different studies. Is there a lot of general information which is unrelated to the present study.
Conclusion is very general.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Notice
The results of enzymes were represented as tables instead of histogram figures according to the decision of reviewer 3. Histogram figures of enzymes results were added as supplementary materials.
Materials and methods
Point 1: Please describe more detailed information about the culture of B. tabaci.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. More detailed information’s about the culture of B. tabaci were added to the materials and methods part. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Point 2: I miss some more information about glucose estimation.
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. More detailed information’s about glucose estimation were added to the materials and methods part. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Glucose is first oxidized in the presence of glucose oxidase to produce gluconic acid with the release of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). The formed hydrogen peroxide reacts under the catalysis of peroxidase with phenol and amino-4-antipyrine to form a red-violet quinoneimine dye which is used as an indicator for the determination of glucose concentration.
Point 3: Line 144 which kind of soil?
Response 2: Thanks for your comment. The kind of soil was added to the materials and methods part, section 2.4.1. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Results
Point 1: Correct units in line 268. Similar mistakes are in discussion also.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. The consumption rate of glucose is meaning the number of grams of glucose in the liter that consume in the hour. So, the unit of it is written as g L-1 h-1. Also, the production rate of biomass is meaning the number of grams of biomass in the liter that produce in the hour. So the unit of it is written as g L-1 h-1.
Discussion
Point 1: Results are described very well but discussion needs more detailed comparison with different studies. Is there a lot of general information which is unrelated to the present study.
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. Discussion part was modified and improved as much as possible. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Conclusion
Point 1: Conclusion is very general.
Response 6: Thanks for your comment. Conclusion part was modified and improved. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript " Production of Bacillus velezensis strain GB1 as a biocontrol agent and its impact on Bemisia tabaci by inducing systemic resistance in a squash plant" submitted to Horticulture has an interesting topic. The study of biotechnological alternatives with low impact on the environment and protection of human beings for the supply of food and feed is extremely important.
Although the methods were adequate, the authors did not explain their results well, as there is a large volume of data, tests and figures carried out, which does not allow to follow the development of the work in a clear way. In terms of technical quality and methodology there is nothing to question paper, but the way of presenting the results should be reformulated. Arrangements and combinations of some figures (enzyme results) as tables can increase the following the result section. Explanations of results should be summarized to increase the readability. The final conclusions should be include key findings and more specific, it should be revised.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Comments
Point 1: Moderate English changes required
Response: Thanks for your comment. The manuscript was revised linguistically.
Point 2: Although the methods were adequate, the authors did not explain their results well, as there is a large volume of data, tests and figures carried out, which does not allow to follow the development of the work in a clear way. In terms of technical quality and methodology there is nothing to question paper, but the way of presenting the results should be reformulated. Arrangements and combinations of some figures (enzyme results) as tables can increase the following the result section. Explanations of results should be summarized to increase the readability. The final conclusions should be include key findings and more specific, it should be revised.
Materials and methods
Response: Thanks for your comment. Materials and methods section was improved. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Results
Response: Thanks for your comment. Results were reformulated and summarized as much as possible. Enzymes results were represented as tables for development of the work in a clear way. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Discussion
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. Discussion part was improved. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Conclusion
Response: Thanks for your comment. Conclusion part was modified and improved. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors accpeted all sugestions.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors accpeted all sugestions.
Response: Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the authors performed arrangements in enzyme results as tables, explanations of results should be summarized to increase the readability. It has to be organized in such a way as to facilitate and make the reading clear.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Although the authors performed arrangements in enzyme results as tables, explanations of results should be summarized to increase the readability. It has to be organized in such a way as to facilitate and make the reading clear.
Results
Response: Thanks for your comment. Explanations of results were summarized to increase the readability. Please check them again in the revised MS.
Conclusion
Response: Thanks for your comment. Conclusion part was modified and improved. Please check it again in the revised MS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in the present form.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Accept in the present form.
Response: Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
