Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The  abstract should have some value 

all Streptomyces name should be italic in abstract and other place 

the title of 2.1. Seed source and fungal isolate not write you did not isolate fungi 

what about isolation of Actinomycetes 

line 110 Subcultures of each isolate of what? 

some experiment you did not mention how many replicate you used

the statistical analysis part should be more clear 

I suggested to move the part of Morphological and molecular identifications of potential antagonists before greenhouse experiment 

3.1Screening the isolated Actinobacteria for suppressiveness activity 

change to isolation and Screening the Actinobacteria for suppressiveness activity

Fig 5 what is the capital litter and what is the small you should be 

the same Fig 8 and what is the bar mean

line 419-423 this is conclusion not discussion

General comment 

1-    Please put all latin names in italics throughout the text (it is wrong in quite many places, check them one by one); put also the names of the author(s) of all taxa cited the first time they appear in the text: 

2- Keyword should be different than in title

3- Make sure that all scientific names in the References list are italics.

4- Please add the DOI for ALL the References

5- All tables must be self-explanatory.

Author Response

We have revised the manuscript according to reviewer comments and replied to the comments as following. All the changes addressed in the text in RED as well.

Reviewer 1

• According to the journal format the abstract should have a total of about 200 words maximum so we can’t add more data to it.
• Performed accordingly.
• Corrected to “Seed source, rice pathogen and Actinomycetes isolation”
• Substituted to “Streptomyces antagonist isolates”
• The tests replicate was added to each experiment.
• The statistical analyses explained.
• Thanks for your suggestion and the section “Morphological and molecular identifications of potential antagonists” was transferred to above greenhouse experiment.
• Changed accordingly.  
• In Figure 5, we evaluated enzymatic activities of each isolate and the enzymatic activities for treatments not compared In Figure 8, the standard deviation is shown by error bars and Different letters represent significant differences.
• Transferred to conclusion accordingly.  
• All General comments were performed.

Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Nejad et al describes the potential of Streptomyces spp in suppression of causative agent of rice sheath blight disease in Northern Iran. The work is not very novel, similar studies were demonstrated already in rice and other crops. Considering the importance of the work, the work can be considered for publication.

The authors  mentioned about screening of 30 isolates but no information about this is found. On what basis screening was done?

The manuscript has weak writing. The introduction lacks strong justification on why this work is important.  

Discussion is a big let down in this manuscript. The results obtained from this study is not properly discussed neither in the results or discussion section.  

In Figure , no statistical analysis found, why?

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

• Dual culture technique was utilized and among 30 Actinomycetes isolates, isolates U, No. 5 and G demonstrated high inhibition zone and controlling effects were
• English quality improved throughout the entire text and introduction changed accordingly.
• Introduction was improved.
• Yes, corrected and “Results “section rewritten accordingly.
• In the last comment is not mentioned about which figure? Please let us know if any changes needed on the specific figure.

We hope that after considering all valuable comments provided by reviewers, the manuscript can be accepted for publication, although we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors nearly covered all my previously comment except the comment of abstract they did not covered it even they have  number of word that can be added 

word of Streptomyces should be italic in the whole text 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Authors revised the abstract according your suggestion. 

Streptomyces revised to italic in the whole text. 

Regards,