Potential of Phylloplane Fungi from Mangrove Plant (Rhizophora apiculata Blume) as Biological Control Agents against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense in Banana Plant (Musa acuminata L.)
Luke Jimu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We thank Reviewer 1 for his comment on the merit of our work and for providing constructive comments and suggestion to improve our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript by addressing all suggestions as follows:
|
No |
Part |
Comment/Question |
Response |
Page/Line |
|
1 |
Abstrack |
Analysis of the manuscript allows us to confidently say that a great and interesting work has been done. However, the quality of the manuscript preparation is low. The first thing that catches your eye is the poor quality of English. Even in Keywords there are mistakes in words! Only as a mistake should one consider the presence in the annotation of such sentences as: “There are no significant differences between the three potential fungi (p = 0.000), and in the severe case of rhizome discoloration, there are no significant differences between the three 30 potential fungi (p = 0.000) ». |
The writing of sentences in the abstract has been improved with more effective sentences. |
Page 1 |
|
2 |
Conclusion |
There are similar blunders in other parts of the manuscript, for example in Conclusions: «Of these 20 species, there are three types, namely Lasiodiplodia theobromae (67.43%), Trichoderma harzianum (66.65), and Nigrospora sphaerica (65, 33%), which have the potential to inhibit the growth of the fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc). The conclusion should also be considered unsuccessful, since the version presented in the manuscript does not contain a general conclusion on the data obtained. |
The conclusion has been improved to incorporate Reviewer’s suggestion. |
Page 16 |
|
3 |
Introduction |
There are clearly two contradictory statements here! In the introduction, in my opinion, the choice of the mangrove tree as a source of Fusarium antagonist fungi is not sufficiently substantiated. |
The reason for selecting mangrove as antagonist fungi has been included because apart from being an absorber of carbon dioxide emissions, mangrove also used as medicinal source because they have compounds that are antifungal so they have the potential to be used as biological control agents against fungal pathogen. |
Page 2 |
|
4 |
Materials and Methods |
In the Materials and Methods section, there is no rationale for sampling sites for phylloplane fungi - why were samples taken at these 3 locations? In subsection 2.2: what is the reason 3 times repeate “ ...PDA (Potato Dextrose Agar)”?. |
Samples were taken from 3 locations with the aim of repeating sampling. The reason for using repetition is to obtain a good distribution of data. PDA (Potato Dextrose Agar) is a fungi growth medium. |
Pages 2-3 |
|
4 |
Table |
There are questions and about table 4: how to explain that after 7 weeks in the K- variant with Trichoderma harsianum, 63.88% of the leaves of the tested plants were affected, and after another week their percentage is reduced by more than 2 times? |
There is an error in data input in table 4 and it has been corrected. |
Page 11 |
|
5 |
Section 4.2 and 4.3 |
I also find two sections (4.2 and 4.3) unsuccessful in the part of the manuscript where the results are discussed |
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 have also corrected |
Pages 12-13 |
|
6 |
Discussion |
Discussion. In fact, they present a review of known literature data without reference to the authors' own data. |
In the discussion, the authors have added data readings obtained from the study |
Pages 13-15 |
|
7 |
Section 4.1 |
section 4.1, which deals with the original DNA identification of phylloplana fungi, is unreasonably short. |
Explanation about DNA identification have been added more to meet Reviewer’s commnets |
Page 4 |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have carefully examined the manuscript for the manuscript “Potential of phylloplane fungi in mangrove plants (Rhizopora apiculata) as biological control agents against fusarium pathogen in banana plants (Musa acuminata L.)”. The topic of the work fits with the objective of the journal. However, I have to say that there are worrying shortcomings throughout the manuscript. There are so many grammatical errors and the manuscript is poorly written. Some scientific names are not italicised and the authors are not consistent in their referencing.
Topic: The topic needs revision, the authors talk of ‘mangrove plants’ when in actual fact it’s just one species. Linked to this, I wonder why the authors chose to focus only on one species out of so many mangrove plants. If there is justification for this, they must include it probably in the Introduction.
Abstract. The authors should re-write the abstract and make it compact, focusing on the major findings and major conclusions.
The introduction should provide some kind of justification for the choice of the mangrove species. Why did they choose this species and not others?
Materials and Methods: The sampling strategy is poorly written and needs revision. Why only three leaves, was this sample representative? How were the trees in each site selected and also, how were the three leaves sampled? Maps in figure 1 are of poor quality, the authors should re-do the maps. It’s not clear why the authors did a Koch postulates test. Furthermore, how many isolates on how many banana plants? If justified, the authors should describe what they did and how they collected their data in this test. For the molecular work, the authors should not describe the CTAB method; it suffices to say they used the CTAB method. The same applies for PCR (what is important is the gene region that was amplified and the primers used) and electrophoresis. Throughout the methods, it’s not clear how many isolates were used.
Results: Please refer to some published manuscripts on how to describe results. Scientific names must always be italicised. Authors should focus on major findings.
Discussion: The authors should focus on major findings in the discussion. The authors should discuss their findings and avoid speculation. They should also consider removing sub-topics for the discussion to flow.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
We thank Reviewer 2 for his/her critical reading on our manuscript and for providing us valuable suggestions. This has helped us greatly in improving this study, we have revised and addressed all of the suggestions and concerns. In the following pages we address the reviewers’ comments point by point
|
No |
Part |
Comment/Question |
Response |
Page/Line |
|
1 |
Topic |
Topic: The topic needs revision, the authors talk of ‘mangrove plants’ when in actual fact it’s just one species. Linked to this, I wonder why the authors chose to focus only on one species out of so many mangrove plants. If there is justification for this, they must include it probably in the Introduction.
|
Mangrove only refers to one species that has been corrected. Rhizopora apiculata is the species chosen because this species has a wide distribution so it is easy to find. This reason has been added. |
Page 2 |
|
2 |
Abstrack and conclusion |
Abstract. The authors should re-write the abstract and make it compact, focusing on the major findings and major conclusions |
Abstract and conclusion have been corrected |
Page 1 and 16 |
|
3 |
Materials and Methods |
Materials and Methods: The sampling strategy is poorly written and needs revision. Why only three leaves, was this sample representative? How were the trees in each site selected and also, how were the three leaves sampled? |
3 leaves samples are used to represent the ages of young, medium and old leaves. Trees are randomly selected at each sampling point |
Pages 2-3 |
|
4 |
Maps |
Maps in figure 1 are of poor quality, the authors should re-do the maps. |
Maps had been replaced to the more HD version |
Page 3 |
|
5 |
Postulate Koch |
It’s not clear why the authors did a Koch postulates test. |
The purpose of Koch's postulate is to see that the pathogenic fungi isolated from the field is a pathogen that causes fusarium wilt banana plant to be used in research |
Page 4 |
|
6 |
Method |
how many isolates on how many banana plants? If justified, the authors should describe what they did and how they collected their data in this test. |
There were 20 isolated and identified by molecular but only 3 isolates use to banana plants. It had been explained on method point 2.6. Greenhouse Test of Phylloplane Fungal vs. Foc
|
Page 5 |
|
7 |
Method |
For the molecular work, the authors should not describe the CTAB method; it suffices to say they used the CTAB method. The same applies for PCR (what is important is the gene region that was amplified and the primers used) and electrophoresis. |
Moleculer method had been corrected |
Page 4 |
|
8 |
Results |
Please refer to some published manuscripts on how to describe results. Scientific names must always be italicised. Authors should focus on major findings.
|
Results had been improved to incorporate Reviewer’s suggestions |
Pages 7-12 |
|
9 |
Discussion |
The authors should focus on major findings in the discussion. The authors should discuss their findings and avoid speculation. They should also consider removing sub-topics for the discussion to flow.
|
The discussion have been corrected in the manuscript and deleted sub-topics |
Pages 12-16 |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is good.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have re-examined the manuscript the manuscript “Potential of phylloplane fungi in mangrove plants (Rhizopora apiculata) as biological control agents against fusarium pathogen in banana plants (Musa acuminata L.)”. Although the manuscript has been improved significantly, there are still some grammatical errors that have to be fixed before the manuscript can be published. I recommend that the authors seek the services of an academic english editor.
