The Potential of Beneficial Microbes for Sustainable Alternative Approaches to Control Phytopathogenic Diseases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Biological approaches to plant protection from pathogens are based on the use of living forms of microorganisms that, on the one hand, have antagonism and antibiotic activity against pathogenic microbiota and nematodes, and on the other hand, the ability to induce their own plant defense systems against diseases, which in total contributes to the improvement of the cenosis and an increase in its productivity. The review work by R. Bakr et al. The Potential of Beneficial Microbes for Sustainable Alternative Approaches to Control Phytopathogenic Diseases» is devoted to the generalization of currently known data on the possibility of using microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) as an effective bioagent for the improvement of plants from pathogens. The article is written quite clearly, structured, the arguments given by the authors are convincing. At the same time, when reviewing the work, minor shortcomings were found that can be promptly corrected.

 

1. Globally, the authors should check whether the names of plant species and pathogens in the text part of the work are shown in Italian font everywhere? Further, the generic names should be noted in full the first time (preferably with taxonomic explanation, for example, Bacillus subtilis Cohn.), and shortened when repeated. In addition, there is often no space between the generic and species names of organisms in the text.
2. I believe that chapters 4.2 and 4.3 should be revised (combined), since bacteriocins also belong to substances with antibiotic activity. But at the same time, do not forget that biocontrol microorganisms produce these antibiotics in two ways. Ribosome-dependent and ribosome-independent.
3. Probably, in addition to table 3, add table (4) on bioactive components of bacteria.
4. I also draw attention to the fact that in table 3 there are columns responsible for antifungal, antimicrobial and antibacterial activities. How does antimicrobial activity differ from the other two. Probably, instead of this column, the authors should have shown the antioomycete activity of the components, though if these secondary metabolites were assessed for this.
5. Viruses also belong to plant diseases. Maybe the authors of the review should add a chapter (paragraph) on the antiviral activity of biocontrol agents? Such works exist.

Review works are necessary for an objective assessment of the state of affairs in this branch of plant protection and, probably, after corrections, the article can be published in the appropriate journal.

Author Response

1.-Globally, the authors should check whether the names of plant species and pathogens in the text part of the work are shown in Italian font everywhere? Further, the generic names should be noted in full the first time (preferably with taxonomic explanation, for example, Bacillus subtilis Cohn.), and shortened when repeated. In addition, there is often no space between the generic and species names of organisms in the text

Response: The correction was realized please, see new version letter in yellow color

2. I believe that chapters 4.2 and 4.3 should be revised (combined), since bacteriocins also belong to substances with antibiotic activity. But at the same time, do not forget that biocontrol microorganisms produce these antibiotics in two ways. Ribosome-dependent and ribosome-independent.

Response: The correction was realized please new version in section 4.2 and 4.3 (letter in yellow color)

3.-Probably, in addition to table 3, add table (4) on bioactive components of bacteria. 

Response: the suggestion are correct, but in the new table 3 are included the bioctive com 

4.-I also draw attention to the fact that in table 3 there are columns responsible for antifungal, antimicrobial and antibacterial activities. How does antimicrobial activity differ from the other two. Probably, instead of this column, the authors should have shown the antioomycete activity of the components, though if these secondary metabolites were assessed for this.

Response: Please see new table 3 (yellow color)

5.Viruses also belong to plant diseases. Maybe the authors of the review should add a chapter (paragraph) on the antiviral activity of biocontrol agents? Such works exist.

Response: in the new version add information about antiviral activity of bicontro agents (please see text in yellow color)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This review elaborates on the application of Microbial Biological Control Agents (MBCAs) in controlling plant diseases. It introduces different types of MBCAs, including bacteria and fungi, and their advantages, such as being safer for humans, animals, and the environment, having high target specificity, and leaving almost no residual effects. It expounds on various action mechanisms, such as hyperparasitism, bacteriocins, competition for nutrients or space, elimination of quorum sensing signals, siderophores, production of cell wall degrading enzymes, and induction of plant resistance and priming. It discusses the formulation development of biopesticides, including fermentation, the influence of formulation components on product efficacy, and the characteristics of different dosage forms. Meanwhile, it points out the challenges faced by biopesticides in practical applications. Overall, it is a review with academic value. The following are some suggestions for modification:

 

1. Abstract: As the abstract of a review article, the author needs to clarify in different sections what the main objects or contents of this review are. The current abstract fails to well present the contents of this review. Therefore, it is recommended to summarize in the abstract what parts are discussed in this review.
2. Lines 98-101: This paragraph is suitable for integration into the abstract to help readers quickly understand the contents of the review.
3. Line 613: Obviously, what is mentioned here are challenges, so the title should be 6.1 instead of 7.
4. Lines 635, 653: Similarly, these contents describe challenges and are not suitable to be independent chapters.
5. Line 667: This title has no serial number, and the same problem also occurs in Line 217.

Author Response

1. Abstract: As the abstract of a review article, the author needs to clarify in different sections what the main objects or contents of this review are. The current abstract fails to well present the contents of this review. Therefore, it is recommended to summarize in the abstract what parts are discussed in this review.

Response: Please see new abstract of new version of manuscript

2. Lines 98-101: This paragraph is suitable for integration into the abstract to help readers quickly understand the contents of the review.

Response: The change was realized please see the new manuscript  (letter in yellow color)

3.-Line 613: Obviously, what is mentioned here are challenges, so the title should be 6.1 instead of 7.

Response: The change was realized please see the new manuscript in the 6.1 and 7  (letter in yellow color)

4-Lines 635, 653: Similarly, these contents describe challenges and are not suitable to be independent chapters.

Response: Please see new version with change realized in yellow color

5.-Line 667: This title has no serial number, and the same problem also occurs in Line 217.

Response: Please see new version with the change realized in serial number

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf