Impact of Root Rot Disease of Zanthoxylum armatum on Rhizosphere Soil Microbes and Screening of Antagonistic Bacteria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The aim of this study was to isolate and characterize the pathogen of the root rot disease (Z. armatum) and investigate the interactions among the disease, the rhizosphere soil microbes and the antagonistic bacteria. The experimental design of the study is acceptable. The study contains some valuable results that can be considered for publication after suitable revisions. 

Comments/Suggestions:

Abstract: The introduction in the abstract is quite long. Please reduce the length to 4-5 rows. Please give a conclusive sentence at the end of the abstract.

L153: Z. armatum - give in full for the first mention in the title as the title has to be self-explanatory and also use italic.

L304-324: Formatting of the text different form the pervious sections

Figs 2-3. Latin names should be given in full for the first mention in the title.

Please increase the quality of Figure 3.

Fig 4. i) and j) figures are to small to read. Increase the size and the quality of these figures.

Figs 5 and 6 c) and d) unreadable text in these figures. Please increase visibility.

Fig 7. Totally unreadable. Please increase picture quality and readibility.

 Fig 8 b) Significance numbers are too small.

L620-644: Long discussion section without any citation. Please improve it.

L735-736: Latin names of the pathogens should be in italic.

In reference section, it seems that page numbers of the cited papers are missing in several cases.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Shan Han & Zhenlei Zheng

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript addresses an interesting problem and deserves to be published in Forests. It has been confirmed by isolations from diseased plant roots and a pathogenicity test that Fusarium solani is the causal agent of the root rot of Zanthoxylum armatum. Fungal and bacterial microorganisms in rhizosphere of healthy plants and diseased plants were determined and bacteria with antagonistic properties towards Fusarium solani in vitro and in vivo were identified. However, there are many vague and imprecise wording in the manuscript. I believe that the authors are able to correct the text in a short time according to the following guidelines.

In attachment - a pdf version of the paper with numbered lines.

Line 2 The title is unclear, possibly due to English. It is not clear what do the authors want to uderline in the title. Shouldn’t it be rather ‘Impact of root rot disease of Zanthoxylum armatum on rhizosphere soil microbes and screening of  antagonistic bacteria’

Line 30 ‘Fusarium solani is the pathogenic bacterium’.  Fusarium solani is not a bacterium but fungus

Lin 32 Fusarium sp. rather Fusarium solani or Fusarium spp. (if many species involved)

Line 36 rather ‘three bacterial species’ instead of strains

Line 52 you cite paper [3], which is about ‘Root Knot Disease Complex of Tomato’. Here  an appropriate paper must be cited, concerning Zanthoxylum armatum,

Line 52 in Introduction a paragraph concerning  root  rot disease of Z. armatum must be added: descriptions of symptoms and factors, causing this disease. It is essential, because the reader must know if the authors are writing about a disease caused by bacteria or  fungi.

Line 79 ‘occurrence[14–17]’ space should be put. Mistakes of this kind appear throughout the manuscript

Line 96 ‘two. [15].’ Dot has to be deleted.

Line 114  ‘We isolated and identified the pathogenic bacteria from the infected Z. armatum root tissues’. Line unclear. Why are you planning to study only bacteria, if an imporant causal factor of root disease of Z. armatum is fungus Fusarium solani. Besides, in line 168 you wrote that you isolated  fungal pathogens,

Line 120 ‘biocontrol strains’ – it should be added what kind of microorganisms do you have in mind

Line 129– the presentation of coordinates has to be corrected

Line 136-139  This sentence requires correction

Line 153  Z. armatum – all Latin proper names should be written in italic

Figure 1  please check explanation – it seems that on (a) there is  diseased plant and on (b) there is a healthy plant

Line 166  Chapter 2. 3 has to be extended. Firstly, describe methodology of isolations of microorganism, then the method of their identification and then the pathogenicity test. Number of strains and plants used for these tests should be presented. Number of performer isolations and reisolations should be given.

Line 245  - this sentence  requires correction  

Line 332-333 ‘Conidia produced on lateral hyphae  were simple to branch, measuring 69.80 μm (length) × 2.4 μm (width).’ This statement is unclear. What are ‘lateral hyphae’? Probably you mean  conidiophores or eventually a conidiogenous cell. It has to be clarified what does the given dimension refer to. On fig. 2C  conidiophores are visible  (while you write  hyphae)

Line 338 – it should be given whether chlamydospores were created apical  or intercalary, singularly or in chains

Line 328 – ‘Eight strains’ were these strains of one species ? or were there also isolates of other fungal species?

Line 386 ‘Figure 3. Figure 3’  remove

Line 372-376 please cite, where are these data presented

Line 392 paragraph 3.3 I can’t find any reference to Fig 4cd and Fig 4gh

Figure 5, Figure 6 , Figure 7 – I couldn’t find these figures cited in the text

Line 448   ‘Penicllifer.’ Or do you mean Penicillifera ??

Figure 5 c,d  Figure 6 c,d  genera of Fungi and Bacteria are illegible

Figure 7 a,b   illegible descriptions

Line 487-488  check throughout the text that Latin proper names are in italic

Line 518 Cardiovascular disease ?

Line 562  ‘was investigated’  this phrase should be removed

Line 543  ‘lesion size  of F. solani’  - in Material & Methods it should be written what do you understand by  ‘lesion” – is it  mycelium growth reduction?

Line 599 text needs correction

Table 1  are these GenBank accession Number of identified strains? – make it more precise

Figure 9, 10 – legibility should be improved

Line 636  ‘(Fig. 2b).’  wrong citation

Line 650 Bacillus sp.  – do you mean Bacillus spp. ? it is unclear

Line 655 ‘within the  Bacillus sp.’  rather within genera Bacillus

Line 666 ‘Bacillus sp.inhibit’ it needs correction

Line 736  text needs correction

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See remarks listed above.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Sincerely,

Shan Han & Zhenlei Zheng

Author Response File: Author Response.docx