Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting study on the potential as biocontrol agents of certain isolates of the so-called Rhizoctonia species complex, against Fusarium wilt in Vanilla planifolia. The work is well presented and although it is sometimes a bit complicated to read and follow, the experimental designs seem adequate to respond to the starting hypotheses. However, a more precise identification at the specific level of the isolates used is missing (although it is described in the matmet section), especially for Bv3, a new strain not previously characterized. A more precise characterization would shed some light on the erratic and differential behavior of the isolates, depending on whether their potential to inhibit the growth of Fusarium on plates, their capacity to colonize plant tissues or the protective effects on micropropagated plants were tested. Knowing exactly what species you are working with allows you to know (if the species has already been described) its autoecological behavior (if it is a specific symbiont, a weak pathogen, etc.). In addition, minor suggestions/comments have been directly introduced in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor suggestion are made on the pdf file provided

Author Response

Evaluator 1.

• The minor modifications proposed in the attached PDF of the manuscript were made. (lines 21, 66, 71, 109, 398, 441, etc.)
• Spelling errors and italics in the scientific names were corrected.
• A paragraph was added in the results on the molecular identification of Bv3 (lines 243-246) and the genbank access code for this isolation is included.
• It was suggested that all scientific names should have authors. However, this suggestion did not apply to the document because:

1. There is no consensus among the taxonomic nomenclature committees for the different groups of organisms mentioned in the work.
2. Some species of fungi and special forms do not have a definite author, because there is no clarity about their taxonomic status.
3. Recent articles (2022) in this journal do not include the authors of scientific names.

Mosquera-Espinosa, A.T.; Bonilla-Monar, A.; Flanagan, N.S.; Rivas, Á.; Sánchez, F.; Chavarriaga, P.; Bedoya, A.; Riascos-Ortiz, D. In Vitro Evaluation of the Development of Fusarium in Vanilla Accessions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2831. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12112831

Pereira, M.R.d.A.; Moreira, S.I.; Silva, A.G.d.; Nunes, T.C.; Vicentini, S.N.C.; Silva, D.P.d.; Silveira, P.R.d.; Oliveira, T.Y.K.d.; Silva, T.C.; Botelho, D.M.d.S.; et al. Potential of Pseudomonas and Trichoderma from the Brazilian Amazon as Biocontrol Agents against the Wheat Blast Disease. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12092003

4. No scientific papers showing author assignment for scientific names of fungi

Reviewer 2 Report

Specific comments:

The manuscript is well written and structured.

Material and methods contain details which help other researchers to follow.

Although the topic is interesting for the reader but I have some comment on your article

The aim of this study unclear for me

The discussion is very poor and it is enough to make a decision on this paper it is need to rewrite again 

Authors should fellow Journal style 

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

 

Author Response

Evaluator 2.

• Adjustments to target wording (line 88)
• The title is modified to generate greater clarity and coherence with the objective of the work and the results obtained, as suggested.
• It was confirmed that the manuscript complied with the format of the journal, using the template downloaded from the platform
• Italics were revised and adjusted in the scientific names of the references (line 700).
• It was indicated to expand or rewrite the discussion. However, this suggestion did not apply to the document because:

1. The discussion addresses all the results obtained in the work, following a clear structure, which has been used in other articles published by MDPI.

Bleša, D.; Matušinský, P.; Sedmíková, R.; Baláž, M. The Potential of Rhizoctonia-Like Fungi for the Biological Protection of Cereals against Fungal Pathogens. Plants 2021, 10, 349. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020349

González, V.; Armijos, E.; Garcés-Claver, A. Fungal Endophytes as Biocontrol Agents against the Main Soil-Borne Diseases of Melon and Watermelon in Spain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 820. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060820

2. The ideas discussed are based mostly on recent publications, published in high-impact journals. Currently, work on these topics does not focus on the Vanilla study model. So existing literature, to date, is already in this document.
3. The authors refrain from making ecological or agronomic inferences beyond the results obtained, especially due to the scarcity of information about plant-microorganism biocontrolator-interactions plant pathogen in tropical ecosystems for further discussion in this paper.
4. Based on the published scientific literature, the different aspects that could influence the assumptions of the study are addressed (mainly host genetics and microorganisms, environmental conditions, among others). In addition, emphasis is placed on the need for further studies to understand the behaviour of the proposed system. The results obtained, make a small contribution to deepen these relevant issues on the biological control of plant pathogens within integrated pest management proposals.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript entitled “Potential of Tulasnella and Ceratobasidium as biocontrol agents of Fusarium wilt on Vanilla planifolia”, the authors proposed different experiments to evaluate the interaction between fungi species and Vanilla plants interactions, considering cultural, histological and plant observations. The experimental results describe in detail the interactions between the fungi evaluated and the vanilla plants, although the conclusions obtained do not match completely with the title proposed.

Some additional observation:

1)    Figure 8: The treatments T1, T2…..,T8, their values are cero, they could be omitted from the image and only mentioned in the text.

2)    Paragraph 3.5 is confusing to read, because they mentions previous information in a disordered way.

 

3)    Some minor typos: lines 109, 398, 441.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Evaluator 3.

• Figure 8 was modified as suggested, it is specified in lines 430 to 433 that treatments 1-8 have zero values.
• The title was modified to generate greater clarity and coherence with the objective of the work and the results obtained, as suggested.
• The order of sentences in paragraph 3.5 (now 3.6) was modified to facilitate understanding, as suggested.
• mentioned "the previous information again towards the end of the paragraph", as indicated by the evaluator, because it is necessary to highlight the difference between the symptoms induced by Er19 and 1Fov. It is the form that is considered to be emphasized and communicated in the results obtained.
• Minor corrections are made to lines 109, 398, 441.