Novel Bioformulations with Trichoderma lixii to Improve the Growth Dynamics and Biocontrol of the Cowpea Damping-Off Disease

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study tested the effects of several agricultural wastes on biomass production rate, shelf life and viabilityof the biocontrol strain Trichoderma lixii, and aimed at identifying suitable bioformulation for potential biocontrol the cowpea damping-off disease. Results from this study provide new insights into disease control in cowpea and help improve the growth dynamics of cowpea plants. The manuscript is well written and methodology is reasonable. Results are clearly presented, and discussion is insightful. Figures and tables look fine. However, in the section of conclusion, it says “Despite the fact that the current investigation was done in a greenhouse, the study found that the creation and application of T. lixii must be duplicated in the field”. This study was mainly carried out in greenhouse, and it did not show sufficient information about field trail. Please indicate from what evidence, this conclusion “the creation and application of T. lixii must be duplicated in the field” was made, this conclusion should be drawn carefully. Moreover, a number of minor problems were detected throughout the ms, including grammar errors. Some have been listed below, please make modifications and double check the ms to make sure there is no language problem.

 Table 7, In terms of the 13 treatments, descriptions of some treatments are repetitive. For instance, T1 and T11, T7 and T10 etc. Please explain why.

 Line 262, error, (g plan-1), typo here.

 Line 269, “glucose was utilized as the standard curve” this description was not accurate. It should be sth like “Glucose was used to generate the standard curve.”

 Line 274-276, Do not use symbol “+” to connect each reagent, use text.

 Line 277, Grammar error detected, should be “The activity of the peroxidase enzyme was measured at 425 nm and expressed as μM H2O2 g-1 FW min-1”. The same problem to other enzymes, please check the expressions for other enzymes.

 Line 468 “lowest dry mass (19.81 g plant-1)”, 19.81 seems to be the highest. Please explain.

Line 484-485, in terms of the ordering for all the treatments, T11 is missing, please add T11.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall writting is good. However, a number of minor problems were detected throughout the ms, including grammar errors. please check the ms to make sure there is no language problem.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled “Novel bioformulations with Trichoderma lixii to improve the growth dynamics and biocontrol the cowpea damping-off disease” is appropriately written. Sustainable agriculture production is critically required as a result population growth, and harmful effects of chemical pesticides. Chemical pesticides contaminate soil, land, lakes, and rivers which is leading to a lot of toxicity and health issues for animals, plants, and people. The current article is an attempt in sustainable farming.

I made the following observations after reading this article and inserted them as comments:

Abstract:

1. It lacks background, please add it.

2. Line 20-21: “Data showed that fungal counts increased when using 4 g of sweet potato …..decreased sharply lasting up to 12 months.” Why there is a decrease in fungal counts after 7 months?

Introduction: It is nicely written with background and including all the components of the title.

Materials and Methods:

Why two RSM methods i.e. Plackett Burman design and CCD (2.3.1 &2.3.2) were used for optimisation

Table 4. Why only two substrates W2 and W5 were used at three level optimisations.

3. Line 252: “The fresh and dry mass (g plan-1), as well as shoot length and root….”. What do you mean by g plan^-1.

4. Line 261-62: “The supernatant was measured at wavelengths of 663, 645, and 470 nm after being centrifuged at 13,000 x g for 262 10 min.” Why these three specific wavelengths were used and for what type of materials? Please specify.

5. Line 263-64: What do you mean FW here and at many other places?

Results:

Table 11, Line 413-414: Why the treatments T1-T3 are excluded in this table??

Moreover, treatment T1-T13 are confusing, please make an effective style for this.

 

Conclusions: Nicely written

References:

The journal names are not in uniform format at many places. Please make sure all references are in line with journal guidelines.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the present investigation presents a very interesting topic, but the quality of the English makes harder the duty of understant what is writen than that really important, the research.

Please make an extensive revision of the English by a native speaker before any submission 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear authors, the present investigation presents a very interesting topic, but the quality of the English makes harder the duty of understant what is writen than that really important, the research.

Please make an extensive revision of the English by a native speaker before any submission 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, the present research about novel bioformulations using Trichoderma lixii is a very extense paper which include a high number of test and results with more or less scientific importance.

Still the level of the English is low. A native speaker must check the full paper since there are paragraphs with a high level, even may be to complex and other parts with simple and not very comprehensive English, so the paper history is a bit lost

Material and Methods must be improved since in many cases is diffucult to understand what is done or that could be understood in different ways

One of the problems of the actual paper is the ammount of data, may be too much (I would say that there are information for two different studies).

Quality of the graphs is not high and in some cases units are lost (table 11)

 

Table 4 codes do no match in treatment and pretreatment with Table 5

Paper must be totally reorganised and focused on the title or change the title. 

13 tables and 18 different figures is too much information that makes the reader to be lost

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Still the level of the English is low. A native speaker must check the full paper since there are paragraphs with a high level, even may be to complex and other parts with simple and not very comprehensive English, so the paper history is a bit lost

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf