Sustainable Disease Control of Phytophthora cactorum in a Strawberry Nursery by Adapting the Growing System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper "agronomy-3313471" presents a valuable idea with strong potential, supported by extensive experiments and thorough analysis using sensitive and appropriate molecular methods. The findings are relevant and beneficial for strawberry nurseries and growers. However, the manuscript would benefit from substantial revisions to enhance clarity and readability. Currently, the language and structure detract from the quality of the work, as issues with English expression impact the clarity of the introduction, experimental design, and some methodological descriptions. Additionally, the flow and clarity of the results and discussion could be improved. For reproducibility, more detailed information is needed in the materials and methods section. I recommend the authors consider a major revision to fully realize the potential of this promising research.

I have provided specific comments and suggestions for improvement in the attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language and structure detract from the quality of the work, as issues with English expression impact the clarity of the introduction, experimental design, and some methodological descriptions. Additionally, the flow and clarity of the results and discussion could be improved.

I've included specific comments and suggestions for improvement in the attached PDF file. However, I recommend that the manuscript undergo extensive language editing to enhance clarity and readability throughout.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This authors report in this manuscript the possible pathways of Phytophthora cactorum to infect strawberry plants in greenhouses as well as other pathogens. They also suggest how to reduce the occurrences of this disease in cultivation. The information will be certainly available not only for agricultural researchers but also for growers and other people who are engaged in the cultivation of this crop. This manuscript can be recommended for the publication in this journal, after moderate revision. The comments will be hopefully available for the revision.

 

English should be checked by a native English speaker before the resubmission of the manuscript. In particular, both British spelling and American one are used in the manuscript (e.g. analyse at L179 and center at L151). The authors write the manuscript in only one spelling system.

 

Keywords

Any words used in the title should be avoided to list. Fragaria must be italicised, as this is the genus name of strawberry.

 

L29

Italicise the scientific name of strawberry.

 

L31

"Underground" may be used, not "Belowground".

 

L48-49

Is strawberry grown in soil? Probably, "strawberry is grown in field".

 

L72

Do you mean "there are no methods", not "they are no methods"?

 

L99

Specify the pesticides used and the mode of the uses in this study briefly.

 

 

L107

Briefly explain how the spores were counted.

 

L110-117

Explain correctly and more in detail how to construct the experimental design. First, the authors describe their experiment as split-plot and fix inoculation as the main factor at L112. However, at L190, three factors are defined as the main factors: inoculation, trayfield and cultivar. As long as I understand the design from their descriptions, their experimental design was a "split-plot, nested" structure: inoculation split the other two factors, cultivar nested by trayfield. For avoiding confusion, the authors should describe: 1) how many splits were prepared and how many inoculation/control treatments were assigned to each split and how. Since the authors mention that four replicates were made for the primary factor, inoculation, eight splits were established in this experiment; 2) how many plots (probably eight) were divided into each plot and how the four of each trayfield treatment were distributed there; 3) how many pots of each cultivar (replicate at the lowest level) were prepared for each trayfield. Therefore, this design means that these three factors were not independent of each other. The cultivar was under the influence of the trayfield, split by inoculation. The authors must analyse their data according to this structure. Was the design balanced or unbalanced? Since the structure of the experiment as complex, an unbalanced design might have led the statistical analyses to be biased, resulting more likely in Type I errors.

 

L121

What differences were not observed?

 

L122

Specify the propagators.

 

L135

7 December 2023.

 

L136

Describe the root symptoms in visual observation and explain how the symptoms can be distinguished between P. cactorum and N. clavispora. This is the key in this study.

 

L168

Why is P. aphanis included only here? Explanation for the reason and necessity should be given.

 

L185

What level of the replicate is referred to?

 

L188

Explain more in detail the data analyses. Which of incidence was analysed, the number of events or the proportion, or anything else? What type of ANOVA was applied for the data analyses? As pointed out above, the structure for two independent factors in one split-plot factor is not correct in this study. The type of ANOVA varies according to the properties of factors, possibly providing different results.

 

L202

The probability at 0.05 does not support a significant difference. It must be less than 0.05 (< 0.05) for significance.

 

L217-218

Explain in Materials and Methods clearly how the foil system was made.

 

L241

The scientific name must not be italicised but written in stand. Also "wind" should be changed for other words, since no "wind" conditions or wind velocity was examined in this study; e.g. "aerially" or "airborne infection" may be considered.

 

L246

I think "5 cm above the ground" is correct, not "5 cm of the ground".

 

L247-248

The concentrations of the pathogen at higher positions were surely much lower in 2023. However, what is important is not "absent", or increased in the second year. If the occurrences were negligible, the minimum concentration of the spores should be referred to and discussed the numbers of spores that could be risk of the disease infection, whereas there may still remain the possibility that the spore would increase more next year.

 

L250-251

This sentence should be moved before "(Table 2)" at L248.

 

L337-338

Cite any relevant references.

 

L358

From the results in their study, it seems to be appropriate to mention "these pathogens" (in plural form).

 

L377-380

The descriptions might be too early, since no "resistance" of strawberry plants were examined in this study. For the evaluation of resistance, at least several cultivars different in resistance should be tested. However, as the authors mention, no resistant varies have been established yet, it is not clear how much the disease occurrences could be reduced with the use of "less susceptible" cultivars.

 

L385

The survival of spores was not experimented in the study. Another expression other than "survive" should be considered, such as "be multiplied in the system".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some typographical or grammatical errors in the manuscript. Before the resubmission of a revised manuscript, the authors are encouraged to ask a native English speaker to check the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Much of the content in the headers of Tables 2-4 can be included in the results section.

• The discussion should not largely consist of repeating the description of the results;it should focus more on analyzing comparisons with the findings of other studies,potential issues with the method,and directions for future improvements.

• Contrasting images of plant diseases can be provided in the supplementary files.

• The method section should provide the formula for calculating Crown rot incidence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made a commendable effort to address the reviewer comments. However, the clarity of their responses and the overall manuscript is still hindered by language issues, which make it difficult to fully understand the research and its implications. This interesting study has significant potential, and I strongly recommend a thorough language revision to improve its clarity and readability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript presents an interesting and valuable study. However, the quality of English currently limits its clarity and impact. Several sections are difficult to follow due to issues with grammar, word choice, and sentence structure. A comprehensive language revision by a professional editor is recommended to enhance readability and ensure that the research findings are effectively communicated.

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor corrections are still needed for this manuscript. After the correction, the manuscript can be published.

L108

Explain in note what I to IV indicate and describe the pesticides used (or cite the descriptions in the text). As other Journals state in their Instruction for Authors, tables and figures should be self-explanatory.

L11-113

As the authors clearly explain here, the experimental design in this study must have been split-plot for the avoidance of the contamination of the pathogen due the inclination of the greenhouse. If so, why could the application of pesticides be ignored? Could overflowing of pesticides be ignored in this study? The explanation of the exclusion for the possible pesticide "drift" should be provided.

L225 in Figure 2 and L249 in Figure 4

The authors seem confused with the level of significance and the probability for significance. The probability of 0.05 (P = 0.05) does not mean a significant difference among treatments in biological sense (this may not happen but be possible mathematically). In this sense, "<", not "≤", must be used in both figure legends. This is an absolute condition. The use of this symbol in the previous paper cannot be the justification of its use in the current manuscript.

L418

In the "if-clause" of which subject is pleural, "is" in this dependent-clause must be replaced for "are". The comma between "used" and "[10]" must be removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please see the comment for L418-419.

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx