Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Yong Jiang 1,
  • Jiaying Liu 2,3 and
  • Hui Li 2,3,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Tadeusz Kowalski

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Regarding the review of the manuscript entitled

‘’Changes in phyllosphere microbial communities of Pinus tabuliformis after infestation by the Bursaphelenchus xylophilus’’

All the work from the idea until running the experiment was a very nice piece of work and I would be happy to accept this paper for publication, but I have a few comments regarding this article

I would advise the authors to run another research study on the roots and microbial community to complete the full image of microbial community and plant interaction.

 

In the tables please make sure that the significant letters are superscript and explain the meaning of different letters under the tables. 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Changes in phyllosphere microbial communities of Pinus tabuliformis after infestation by the Bursaphelenchus xylophilus” (Manuscript ID: forests-2158176). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

 

Reviewers' comments:

 

Reviewer #1:

Regarding the review of the manuscript entitled

‘’Changes in phyllosphere microbial communities of Pinus tabuliformis after infestation by the Bursaphelenchus xylophilus’’

All the work from the idea until running the experiment was a very nice piece of work and I would be happy to accept this paper for publication, but I have a few comments regarding this article

  1. I would advise the authors to run another research study on the roots and microbial community to complete the full image of microbial community and plant interaction.

Answer: We have taken soil samples from the root system and are ready to sequence them for analysis next.

  1. In the tables please make sure that the significant letters are superscript and explain the meaning of different letters under the tables.

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

 

 

We tired our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the comment and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in revised paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours sincerely

Wenxu Zhu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented for review deals with an important problem, related to the infection of coniferous trees by parasitic nematodes. This is a growing worldwide problem. The authors sought to determine changes in the microbiome of the phyllosphere of Pinus tabuliformis infected by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The results obtained by the authors show differences in the groupings of bacteria and fungi.

The article has a normal structure. However, the introduction and discussion need to be substantially improved. The text is incomprehensible in many places.

The most important comments:

L18: “nematode infection during nematode infection” – repetition? Grammar? What did the authors mean by this?

L22: “potentially” - what did the authors mean by this?

L24: distinguished – change to different

L27: Deinococcus_Thermus – change to Deinococcus-Thermus

L31: particularly carbon and nitrogen - mental shortcut, explain

L49: detection – change to detected

L53-56 - out of context

L65: infection by beetles – explain

L75: tissues like leaves – what did the authors mean by this?

L93: hm2 – explain the abbreviation

L126-127: check grammar

L129-131: check grammar/style, briefly describe

L138-149: thoroughly correct the paragraph. This part of manuscript is incomprehensible, including methodologically.

L151: were pulverized to a constant weight – what did the authors mean by this?

L152: “soil sample” – soil???

Figure 3: Explain how the relative abundance was compared. Explain the meaning of the lowercase letters on the bars of the graph. Why were only some of the data compared? Which ones?

L305: Taxa names that differ significantly – what did the authors mean by this?

L336-341: incomprehensible, explain

Figure 6: illegible (too small)

L352-353: out of context

L356-357: check grammar

L381-470: most of the text is incomprehensible. The conclusions are too far-fetched and should be critically reviewed.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Changes in phyllosphere microbial communities of Pinus tabuliformis after infestation by the Bursaphelenchus xylophilus” (Manuscript ID: forests-2158176). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

 

Reviewers' comments:

 

Reviewer #2:

The work presented for review deals with an important problem, related to the infection of coniferous trees by parasitic nematodes. This is a growing worldwide problem. The authors sought to determine changes in the microbiome of the phyllosphere of Pinus tabuliformis infected by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. The results obtained by the authors show differences in the groupings of bacteria and fungi.

The article has a normal structure. However, the introduction and discussion need to be substantially improved. The text is incomprehensible in many places.

The most important comments:

  1. L18: “nematode infection during nematode infection” – repetition? Grammar? What did the authors mean by this?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L22: “potentially” - what did the authors mean by this?

Answer: “potentially” means possibly

  1. L24: distinguished – change to different?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have modified this word on the line 23.

  1. L27: Deinococcus_Thermus – change to Deinococcus-Thermus

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have modified this word on the line 26.

  1. L31: particularly carbon and nitrogen - mental shortcut, explain

Answer: We have changed particularly carbon and nitrogen into such as carbon and nitrogen.

  1. L49: detection – change to detected

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have modified this word on the line 49.

  1. L53-56 - out of context

Answer: We have removed.

  1. L65: infection by beetles – explain

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L75: tissues like leaves – what did the authors mean by this?

Answer: We have made correction.

  1. L93: hm2 – explain the abbreviation

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have explained it on the line 91.

  1. L126-127: check grammar

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L129-131: check grammar/style, briefly describe

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L138-149: thoroughly correct the paragraph. This part of manuscript is incomprehensible, including methodologically.

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have revised it.

  1. L151: were pulverized to a constant weight – what did the authors mean by this?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L152: “soil sample” – soil???

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Figure 3: Explain how the relative abundance was compared. Explain the meaning of the lowercase letters on the bars of the graph. Why were only some of the data compared? Which ones?

Answer: We have redrawn Figure 3.

  1. L305: Taxa names that differ significantly – what did the authors mean by this?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L336-341: incomprehensible, explain

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Figure 6: illegible (too small)

Answer: We have replaced the new Figure 6.

  1. L352-353: out of context

Answer: We have removed.

  1. L356-357: check grammar

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. L381-470: most of the text is incomprehensible. The conclusions are too far-fetched and should be critically reviewed

Answer: We have made correction.

 

We tired our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the comment and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in revised paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours sincerely

Wenxu Zhu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very valuable manuscript containing original research results on Bursaphelenchus xylophilus nematode, which causes pine wilt in some regions of the world. I am not an English native speaker, but I think that in some places the text needs minor language corrections. Manuscript should be reviewed for typographical errors. After considering the remarks, the manuscript should be published in Forests/MDPI.

 Line 13 ‘nematode infection is significantly influenced by phyllosphere microbial communities’ – this aspect needs rethinking. B. xylophilus infects through the wounds on the shoots caused by Monochamus. Is this process really affected by Phyllosphaere microorganisms ?

Line 18 - consider revising this sentence

Line 27 it should be rather Deinococcus-Thermus

Line 44 'trees [3,4].PWD' add space

Line 49 instead of ‘detection’ should be ‘detected’

Line 53  malformations are reduced? Is it really the case?

Line 65 ‘Streptomyces and Pseudomonas’ names should be in italic

Line 65 ‘Infection by beetles’ - it is not correct, infection is caused by fungi, bacteria but not insects

Line 72 ‘the phyllosphere (the portion of terrestrial plants that is above ground)’ the phyllosphere should be correctly and precisely defined (phyllosphere in pine trees concerns only needles)

Figure 4A  FBP - needs explanation

127 needs correction

138 consider revising this sentence

Line 291 ‘(B)communities’ – add  space

Line 145 0.22μm add space

Line 152 'soil sample' it is not clear, it requires a broader description, the purpose of the collection and the procedure. Why is this in section 2.3. Determination of leaf characteristics ?

Line 159 'Miseq' or rather ‘MiSeq’

Line 241, line 353 , line 392 'Chao1' requires space

Line 262 'Planctomycetes' - if we are talking about phylum level, should it be Planctomycetota?

Line 276, Line 416, ' Deinococcus_Thermus ' it should be rather Deinococcus-Thermus

Line 291 ‘(B)communities’ add  space

Figure 4 the given scale  -3 to +3 requires explanation

Line 313 'enriched in Pa' – it is not clear, should it be Ya?

Line 320 ‘(Figure. 4B).’ it should be (Figure 4B).

Line 321 ‘Septoriades’ it should be Septoriaides

Line 330 ‘Drought’  it is  not clear ?, consider revising this sentence

Line 346-347 ‘more than 5’  it is not clear, consider revising this sentence

Line 352 sentence lacks a verb

Line 407 ‘infected development’ rather: ‘infection development’

Line 422-423 it is advisable to tone down this thought. It is too exaggerated that with the help of bacteria in the phyllosphere the tree prevent B. xylophilus infection,

Line 425 Arabidopsis thaliana – it should be written in italic

 

Literature

- some literature items are not written in accordance with the guidelines of MDPI

- proper names of plants and microorganisms should be in italic

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Changes in phyllosphere microbial communities of Pinus tabuliformis after infestation by the Bursaphelenchus xylophilus” (Manuscript ID: forests-2158176). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

 

Reviewers' comments:

 

Reviewer #3:

This is a very valuable manuscript containing original research results on Bursaphelenchus xylophilus nematode, which causes pine wilt in some regions of the world. I am not an English native speaker, but I think that in some places the text needs minor language corrections. Manuscript should be reviewed for typographical errors. After considering the remarks, the manuscript should be published in Forests/MDPI.

  1. Line 13 ‘nematode infection is significantly influenced by phyllosphere microbial communities’ – this aspect needs rethinking. B. xylophilus infects through the wounds on the shoots caused by Monochamus. Is this process really affected by Phyllosphaere microorganisms ?

Answer: We have made correction.

  1. Line 18 - consider revising this sentence

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 27 it should be rather Deinococcus-Thermus

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 26.

  1. Line 44 'trees [3,4].PWD' add space

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have added space on the line 44.

  1. Line 49 instead of ‘detection’ should be ‘detected’

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 49.

  1. Line 53 malformations are reduced? Is it really the case?

Answer: According to the reviewer's suggestion, we have removed the sentence.

  1. Line 65 ‘Streptomyces and Pseudomonas’ names should be in italic

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 62.

  1. Line 65 ‘Infection by beetles’ - it is not correct, infection is caused by fungi, bacteria but not insects

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 72 ‘the phyllosphere (the portion of terrestrial plants that is above ground)’ the phyllosphere should be correctly and precisely defined (phyllosphere in pine trees concerns only needles)

Answer: We have made correction.

  1. Figure 4A FBP - needs explanation

Answer: The data obtained from DNA sequencing and PCR amplification of our samples showed that FBP is the genus name of ‘uncultured_bacterium’.

  1. 127 needs correction

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 127.

  1. 138 consider revising this sentence

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 138.

  1. Line 291 ‘(B)communities’ – add space

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 290.

  1. Line 145 0.22μm add space

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 142.

  1. Line 152 'soil sample' it is not clear, it requires a broader description, the purpose of the collection and the procedure. Why is this in section 2.3. Determination of leaf characteristics ?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 159 'Miseq' or rather ‘MiSeq’

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 149-150.

  1. Line 241, line 353 , line 392 'Chao1' requires space

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 262 'Planctomycetes' - if we are talking about phylum level, should it be Planctomycetota?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 260.

  1. Line 276, Line 416, ' Deinococcus_Thermus ' it should be rather Deinococcus-Thermus

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 291 ‘(B)communities’ add space

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 290.

  1. Figure 4 the given scale -3 to +3 requires explanation

Answer: The scale "-3 to +3" refers to the relative abundance of the corresponding taxonomic unit in each sample/group of the grouping scheme. We have added this sentence on the line 291.

  1. Line 313 'enriched in Pa' – it is not clear, should it be Ya?

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 314.

  1. Line 320 ‘(Figure. 4B).’ it should be (Figure 4B).

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 321.

  1. Line 321 ‘Septoriades’ it should be Septoriaides

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction on the line 322.

  1. Line 330 ‘Drought’ it is  not clear ?, consider revising this sentence

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 346-347 ‘more than 5’ it is not clear, consider revising this sentence

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have rewritten it.

  1. Line 352 sentence lacks a verb

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 407 ‘infected development’ rather: ‘infection development’

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

  1. Line 422-423 it is advisable to tone down this thought. It is too exaggerated that with the help of bacteria in the phyllosphere the tree prevent B. xylophilus infection,

Answer: We have made correction.

  1. Line 425 Arabidopsis thaliana – it should be written in italic

Answer: According to the Suggestions given by the reviewer, we have made correction.

We tired our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the comment and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in yellow in revised paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Yours sincerely

Wenxu Zhu

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering my comments on the manuscript.