Chitosan-Based Bioactive Formulations for the Control of Powdery Mildew in Viticulture
, Eva Sánchez-Hernández 2, Rubén Baquero-Foz 3, Pablo MartÃn-Ramos 3, Jesús MartÃn-Gil 2, Sergio Torres-Sánchez 4 and José Casanova-Gascón 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Chitosan-based Bioactive Formulations for the Control of Powdery Mildew in Viticulture” is an interesting piece of work where authors have demonstrated the control of powdery mildew in viticulture using the chitosan based bioactive. However, the manuscript can be improved by addressing the following queries:
- In the abstract section, authors should remove the abbreviation from the whole abstract.
- In the Introduction section, lines 45-46, the statement is quite generic. Authors should discuss the relevant studies.
- In Table, why only concentration of silver nanoparticle and poly-lysine is selected. Reason should be footnoted in the Table 1..
- Data presentation in the Tabular format is not up to the mark. Table 2: heading of Table should be changed to Day 1 and so on. Authors should mention the specific environmental conditions in the Table footnote. Actual date may be footnoted for the better presentation.
- Finally, authors should present the studies without abbreviation throughout the manuscript. For example, distilled H2O (Tcontrol), chitosan oligomers (T1C), COS + silver nanoparticles (T2C), COS + ε-polylysine (T3C), COS + Streptomyces rochei secondary metabolites (T4C), COS 271 + S. lavendofoliae secondary metabolites (T5C), and COS + hydrolyzed gluten (T6C).
- Supplementary Tables S1-7, Please try to add the significant statement/conclusion drawn from the respective Table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Ruano-Rosa et al published their findings on chitosan based disease management of powdery mildew in viticulture. I really enjoyed reading the paper and it is well written. Paper is recommended for publication after amending the modifications mentioned below.
I think paper will be stronger if authors showed a brief information on how metabolites and the formulations were prepared even though it says it is done as previously described. Were there any stabilizers? Or purely these compounds. It is better to mention details for reproducibility in other regions of the world. That will give more visibility to the paper.
Minor modifications
Line 18-19: put
while harmless to human 18 health and the environment (according to Article 14 of the European Directive 2009/128/EC), at the last of the sentence or better to divide the sentence into 2, to separate the
“harmless to human 18 health and the environment (according to Article 14 of the European Directive 2009/128/EC)” as a separate full sentence.
Line 20: remove real
Line 21: not sure what is meant by during a campaign
Line 27: what is an endemic disease? Powdery mildew cant be endemic
Lien 36: remove ..the case of
Line 37: change production costs to production cost
Line 40: in many cases, quickly generates should be in many cases, quickly generate
Lien 40-44: Divide this sentence in to two for clarity
Lien 53: and –with them− to the first symptoms of the disease. replace with “and onset of the disease”.
Line 56: replace breaking the cycle with breaking the disease cycle
Lien 59-60: change “highlighting as a fundamental aspect the reduction of their use” with “ highlighting the reduction of their use as a fundamental aspect”.
treatments tested replace with “treatments used” in this place as well as in the table title
Line 112: in vitro should be italicized
Line 148: add a ref for the Townsend-Heuberger formula or show the formula
Lien 157: why activity A simple and other first letters were capital ?
Lien 160: replace “grapevine variety very susceptible to powdery” with powdery mildew susceptible grape wine variety”
Line 161: with a high presence of mature chasmothecia on the leaves replace with “with abundant production of chasmothecia on leaves.
Line 164: remove After this time, replace they with “Chasmothecia”
Line 166: problematic statement
Line 168: replace “on filter paper” with “on a filter paper”
Line 184: Better to mention in concentrations not in volumes..
Lien 248: need more explanation on phytotoxicity.. show data, numbers
Lien 254: not sure what is meant by in the musts
Line 339: replace ways of action with modes of action or mechanisms or with another suitable word
Lien 358: another possibility is leaf exudates might also inactivate the compounds
Good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study is not yet ready to be published and before it must pass through major revisions that may improve this manuscript.
Below the authors will find some comments that will help to improve the article.
Introduction
Page 1, line 36: “diseases are increasing as a consequence of climate change”, please add some reference
Page 1, lines 38-40: please add some reference
It was not clear to readers why Streptomyces secondary metabolites, chitosan, silver nanoparticles and ε-polylysine were used.
The introduction references must be updated. Very few recent studies (2021-2022) were cited.
Material and Methods
Page 2, line 89-90: “Chitosan oligomers were obtained according to the enzymatic procedure described by Santos-Moriano et al. [7], with slight modifications”. Please describe the modifications.
Page 3, line 105: Was this data verified and observed by the authors of this article?
Results and discussion
Which Streptomyces ssp. were secondary metabolites used? Why did these have antifungal action against powdery mildew? Streptomyces ssp. secondary metabolites should have been identified.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept in present form
