Spatial Distribution of Citrus Pseudocercospora Leaf and Fruit Spot Disease and Shade Effect on Disease Intensity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper reports an interesting research on the spatial distribution of citrus Pseudocercospora leaf and fruit spot disease and influence of shade on disease intensity. Results have an utility value for the agricultural practice. The paper is very well written, which shows very good organization, readability and grammar. Methods used are correct. I have noticed some editorial mistakes, which should be corrected before publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your corrections. We accepted the corrections proposed
Reviewer 2 Report
I have gone through the manuscript titled as 'Spatial Distribution of Citrus Pseudocercospora Leaf and Fruit Spot 1 Disease and Impact of Shade on Disease Intensity' and I noted some serious concerns regarding the volume of data, plan of study and quality of the write up.
The breakdown of my assessment is here as under:
1. Correct grammatical issues throughout the manuscript and phrasing of the sentences can be improved as well.
2. Novelty of the study is questionable, while objectives were not properly narrated.
3. Methodology section is full of redundant information.
4. Another major issues is the identity of the pathogen, which was never confirmed by any molecular assay. Moreover, the experiment was totally reliant on filed conditions for the development of the disease and can be influenced many un-noticed factors.
5. Authors should have replicated the trials under controlled conditions to quantify the impact of each factor.
I my opinion, the study is incomplete and can not be considered for publication in the current stage.
Author Response
- The English language was checked
- The objective was specified. This study was conducted in order to determine the effect of shade-trees on the development of PLFSD.
- Methodology section is full of redundant information. We have tried to simplify.
- This is a work in epidemiology, for a disease whose symptoms are well known by field researchers.
- This is a study based on real-world observations. This step is necessary before considering experiments to specify and quantify the effects of the identified factors.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a manuscript in which the incidence of Pseudocercospora leaf spot is evaluated under the shade effect of other crop species. In tropical areas those growing systems is rather common. Although the manuscript is interesting, is limited by the fact that there is no solid experimental design; hence the increased deviations on the average values. Furthermore, the manuscript needs substantial language editing, because it interferes with the ability of the reader to understand what exactly was done in the experiment. Towards this direction, the results should be presented in a way that is clear (in more detail) to the average reader.
Author Response
We have revised the paper in the proposed direction
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript aims to Spatial Distribution of Citrus Pseudocercospora Leaf and Fruit Spot Disease and Impact of Shade on Disease Intensity. The manuscript needs extensive revision for language and grammar and should be reviewed carefully by English language expert.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed sufficiently.
Specific comments are as follows:
Title: The title description is too vague. Revise the title.
ABSTRACT section: Please focus the abstract on introduction and your problem statement. In particular the start two sentences are ambiguous.
ABSTRACT section: “Information in which the study was conducted or the problem study seeks to address, is missing
ABSTRACT section: The method is not clear.
Abstract is confusing and fail to achieve their aims. I suggest re-write the Abstract.
INTRODUCTION section: Line 25-30 sentences feel like crap. Please be more specific.
INTRODUCTION section: Numerous sentences must cite the references and please correct the format of citation, choose one format, either mention the names of authors or mention the numbers only???
INTRODUCTION section: “line 31-50” Sentences are vague, understandable??
INTRODUCTION section: The introduction may be all revised. It is a so confusing
MATERIALS AND METHOD section: the methods for the determination of some indexes are not detailed enough. In addition, please add the units of some indicators. A lot of basic information is missing. I suggest that this section needs to be thoroughly rewritten
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section: Please add the results of statistical analysis in the appropriate places. In particular, the significant level results must be added throughout this section. Some of the data were not analyzed for significance.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section: The authors must fully account for the most important results.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section: This section did not provide a good illustration of the results presented in this MS. The depiction in this section must be closely connected to the results of this manuscript and the results of previous investigators.
Table 1: “Incidence ± SDx (%)??? In formula SD is not mentioned?? How to measure this indicator??? Units??? .
Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4: detailed caption is missing in the figures mention the software??
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section: This section did not provide a good illustration of the results presented in this MS. The depiction in this section must be closely connected to the results of this manuscript and the results of previous investigators. There is a little discussion in this section, in most just describing the results. There are several areas in the manuscript that deserve improvements
CONCLUSIONS: This section is missing. I suggest write this section and focus on answer the paper's objective.
REFERENCES section: The reference does not meet the format requirements. The citation format of references is not uniform throughout this MS. Please delete the numerous ancient references and cite the updatedl references throughout this MS.
Author Response
The title was modified. The abstact was re-written .
Introduction was corrected. We specified the objective.
The ârt Results was modified as well as the part Discussion
A conclusion was added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the study still has a room of improvement.
Changes made are acceptable.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Although, I've noticed some improvement on the overall presentation of the data, my major concern lies with the experimental design. The small number of the sample size (trees) does not allow to draw safe conclusions regarding the disease incidence on those different eco-systems. In my opinion, the respective statistical analysis (including spatial analysis), is not enough to explain the variance. Finally, the present manuscript has still language style issues that should be addressed.
Reviewer 4 Report
Agreed with the revision.
