Critical Evaluation of Biocontrol Ability of Bayoud Infected Date Palm Phyllospheric Bacillus spp. Suggests That In Vitro Selection Does Not Guarantee Success in Planta
, Allaoua Silini 1, Ali Chenari Bouket 2, Lenka Luptakova 3, Nora Saadaoui 1, Faizah N. Alenezi 4 and Lassaad Belbahri 5,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Title: Critical evaluation of biocontrol ability of Bayoud infected date palm phyllospheric Bacillus spp. suggests that in vitro selection does not guarantee success in planta
Manuscript ID: agronomy-1903564
The manuscript written by Boulahouat et al. reports some interesting. In this work, the authors have investigated the biocontrol ability of Bacillus spp. against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. albedinis (FOA) and against other major plant pathogens. These isolated bacteria have shown others’ potentialities to enhance plant growth and resist stressful conditions. Further research on this area may result in the development of a good strategy for Bayoud disease control.
In general, this paper is clearly laid out, well planed and easy to read. The experiments are well designed and appropriate controls are presented. Some specific suggestions or questions are listed below:
1. The abstract section should be written more precisely and explain novelty of this work.
2. Introduction: This section is too long and needs to be reorganized. The Introduction section should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed, and key publications cited. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. However, the novelty and significance of the manuscript were not highlighted in the Introduction section, please modify the introduction more clearly.
3. Materials and Methods: Lines 138-144, these sentences and Fig.1 can be put in the Introduction section.
4. 2.3. Antifungal potential of selected isolates, please add references to support this method.
5. 2.5. Antagonistic effect of bacterial co-culture, add references to support this method.
6. Line 287: IAA, please use full name for the first time. Please check throughout the manuscript that abbreviations/acronyms are defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table.
7. 3. Results. Line 341: Of 335 isolates, 75 were able to inhibit FOA growth in vitro. It’s suggested to add the results of 75 isolates as Supplementary Materials.
8. Line 379-383: Have the described strains been deposited in a public strain collection? Please mention the collection number in the manuscript.
9. Discussion: why the author did not compare the antifungal activity of the isolated Bacillus spp. strains with that of other Bacillus strains based on the literature such as doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020365; doi: 10.3390/plants11030457; doi: 10.3390/plants10112342; doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.10.004; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9122511. Bacillus strains are known for their metabolic capability and environmental versatility as well as for their ability to manage bacterial and fungal pathogens infecting crop plants. Authors should add more information into this section and cite the recent research into the field.
10. Conclusions: I suggest the authors short the Conclusion section, just elaborate the main conclusions.
11. References: Many of the references have been superceded and more modern ones are required, such as Crop Protect. 1995, 14(3), 227-235; Phytoma: La défense des végétaux. 1995, 469, 36-40; Mikrobiologiya. 1948, 17, 362-370.
12. The English can be improved. There are several grammatical mistakes in the manuscript. Please check the manuscript carefully.
Author Response
Thank you very much for making a critical assessment of our manuscript. Based on the comments, we submit a revised version, which takes into account all of the points raised by the reviewer(s). Our response to reviewers’ comments has been listed below point-by-point.
Reviewer 1
- The abstract section should be written more precisely and explain novelty of this work.
The abstract has been modified as suggested by reviewer.
- Introduction: This section is too long and needs to be reorganized. The Introduction section should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be reviewed, and key publications cited. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. However, the novelty and significance of the manuscript were not highlighted in the Introduction section, please modify the introduction more clearly.
The introduction has been modified as suggested by reviewer.
- Materials and Methods: Lines 138-144, these sentences and Fig.1 can be put in the Introduction section.
The sentences were put in the introduction section.
- 2.3. Antifungal potential of selected isolates, please add references to support this method.
A reference was added to support this method.
- 2.5. Antagonistic effect of bacterial co-culture, add references to support this method.
A reference was added to support this method.
- Line 287: IAA, please use full name for the first time. Please check throughout the manuscript that abbreviations/acronyms are defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract; the main text; the first figure or table.
Correction has been done.
- 3. Results. Line 341: Of 335 isolates, 75 were able to inhibit FOA growth in vitro. It’s suggested to add the results of 75 isolates as Supplementary Materials.
A supplementary table was added.
- Line 379-383: Have the described strains been deposited in a public strain collection? Please mention the collection number in the manuscript.
The strains are deposited in the culture collection of the University Ferhat Abbas Setif- Algeria under the same names indicated in the manuscript.
- Discussion: why the author did not compare the antifungal activity of the isolated Bacillus spp. strains with that of other Bacillus strains based on the literature such as doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10020365; doi: 10.3390/plants11030457; doi: 10.3390/plants10112342; doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.10.004; doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9122511. Bacillus strains are known for their metabolic capability and environmental versatility as well as for their ability to manage bacterial and fungal pathogens infecting crop plants. Authors should add more information into this section and cite the recent research into the field.
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and we add the references.
- Conclusions: I suggest the authors short the Conclusion section, just elaborate the main conclusions.
Conclusion has been modified.
- References: Many of the references have been superceded and more modern ones are required, such as Crop Protect. 1995, 14(3), 227-235; Phytoma: La défense des végétaux. 1995, 469, 36-40; Mikrobiologiya. 1948, 17, 362-370.
The references are removed.
- The English can be improved. There are several grammatical mistakes in the manuscript. Please check the manuscript carefully.
Correction has been done.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript the authors have identified and characterized PGPR strains against FOA the causing agent of vascular wilt of date palm. The authors have described extensively their work, the experiments are well designed and the results are well presented. Such works have an overall merit since PGPR are considered as the most promising and eco-friendly agents for the biological control of plant diseases. Some minor comments can be found in the attached file. I therefore recommend acceptance of this MS after minor revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Rewiever 2
We thank the reviewers for their comments and appreciate the efforts and the time spending reading and reviewing our manuscript.
All the corrections have been made as suggested.
Dr. Lassaad Belbahri
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have considered all comments raised by the reviewers and revised the manuscript accordingly based on these comments. The revision is fine and can be accepted for publication in current form.
