Preparation of Wheat-Straw-Fiber-Based Degradable Mulch Film for Sustained Release of Carbendazim and Its Application for Soybean Root Rot Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have raised an important problem of environmentally friendly control of the development of microorganisms that are unfavorable for agriculture (crops).

The experiment is well designed and the results are largely well presented. However, some shortcomings have arisen. For example, the equation describing the dependence of dry tensile strength (y1) on chitosan concentration, the wet film thickness and the carbendazim loading is probably incorrect. If we substitute the values x1=2, x2=20 and x3=0.1, we do not obtain a dry tensile strength (y1) value close to that given in Table 4. The value of y1 is approximately 2.06 instead of 3.66 (kN/m).

 

In addition, the optimization of the chitosan concentration, the wet film thickness and the carbendazim loading values ​​for three criterion functions (y1, y2 and y3) is a typical multi-criteria optimization problem. The goal optimization method is particularly useful for solving this problem. The algorithm for this method is e.g. available in MATLAB, Global Toolbox.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We are extremely grateful for the reviewers' in-depth and constructive feedback, which has been crucial in enhancing the quality of our work.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The experiment is well designed and the results are largely well presented. However, some shortcomings have arisen. For example, the equation describing the dependence of dry tensile strength (y1) on chitosan concentration, the wet film thickness and the carbendazim loading is probably incorrect. If we substitute the values x1=2, x2=20 and x3=0.1, we do not obtain a dry tensile strength (y1) value close to that given in Table 4. The value of y1 is approximately 2.06 instead of 3.66 (kN/m).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the equations(8-10). The revised equations(8-10) can be found on page [7], line [244], and we have modified the Figure (2-4).The revised Figure (2-4) can be found on page [9], line [281], and page [10], line [306], and page [11], line [332].

Comments 2: In addition, the optimization of the chitosan concentration, the wet film thickness and the carbendazim loading values for three criterion functions (y1, y2 and y3) is a typical multi-criteria optimization problem. The goal optimization method is particularly useful for solving this problem. The algorithm for this method is e.g. available in MATLAB, Global Toolbox.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to consider alternative data processing approaches and understand the concern regarding our methodology. Our decision to use Design Expert software was made after careful consideration of its capabilities and suitability for our research needs. This software is widely recognized in the scientific community and has been extensively utilized in similar research fields(Chikati et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2023). Its comprehensive suite of tools, specifically tailored for experimental design and data analysis, provides significant advantages. For instance, its ability to perform response surface methodology enables precise modeling and optimization of the complex interactions and multiple factors involved in our study. Additionally, Design Expert has consistently demonstrated reliability and effectiveness in generating accurate and interpretable results, as evidenced by its successful application in previous studies conducted within our research group and in related literature. We believe that its use has contributed to the robustness and validity of our findings.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study on incorporating carbendazim into mulch film to prevent soybean root rot is highly meaningful. However, several aspects of the manuscript require revision:

Cost and Feasibility of Mulch Film Based on Straw: What is the production cost of the mulch film derived from straw? What is its potential for widespread adoption? If the price is too high or the manufacturing process overly complex, it may hinder its practical application and promotion.

The manuscript would benefit from an increased number of references, particularly in the section "3. Results and Discussion." Furthermore, in the second paragraph of "1. Introduction," please include a discussion of research progress on incorporating pesticides into mulch films. This will help highlight the innovation and significance of this study.

Suggestions:

1. Ensure consistent font formatting in Fig. 1.  

2. The manuscript references several standards; these should be properly cited.  

3. Revise Equation (6) to the following format:  

  y = ∑[ (ni × ai) / (n × a)] × 100

4. In Section 2.8, the indicators to be measured are described as "height of soybean plants, the fresh plant weight of soybeans," but in Fig. 11, they are presented as "Stem fresh weight" and "Stem length." Please correct and unify the descriptions in these sections.  

5. In Section 2.8, the manuscript states, "grading the disease index of root rot with reference to the standards GB/T 23222-2008 and GB/T 23224-2008, and calculating the disease index and incidence of soybean root rot." However, the grading criteria for disease severity in GB/T 23224-2008 refer to GB/T 23222-2008. Please confirm and revise the description in the manuscript accordingly.

6. In the abstract, it is stated that "The results showed that after the introduction of the C-CS coating, the DTS and WTS of C-CS-WFM were significantly improved, while the AP was decreased." Please provide specific numerical values to substantiate this statement.  

7. When was the mulch film applied to the potted plants? If it was applied after sowing, would it have any impact on the germination rate? Please include relevant details in the Methods and Results sections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We are extremely grateful for the reviewers' in-depth and constructive feedback, which has been crucial in enhancing the quality of our work.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Cost and Feasibility of Mulch Film Based on Straw: What is the production cost of the mulch film derived from straw? What is its potential for widespread adoption? If the price is too high or the manufacturing process overly complex, it may hinder its practical application and promotion.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We have added a discussion about wheat straw fiber mulch film. The discussion can be found on page [17], line [499-517].

Comments 2: The manuscript would benefit from an increased number of references, particularly in the section "3. Results and Discussion." Furthermore, in the second paragraph of "1. Introduction," please include a discussion of research progress on incorporating pesticides into mulch films. This will help highlight the innovation and significance of this study.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a discussion about the incorporation of pesticides into mulch films in the introduction part,and cited relevant literature to support it. The revised content can be found on page [2], line [54-69], and page [16,17], line [469-517].

Comments 3: Ensure consistent font formatting in Fig. 1.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the Fig. 1. The revised picture can be found on page [4], line [132].

Comments 4: The manuscript references several standards; these should be properly cited.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made a citation to the standards. The cited standards can be found on page [3], line [108], and page [4], line [147,149], and page [5], line [158], and page [6], line [228].

Comments 5: Revise Equation (6) to the following format:

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the equation. The revised equation can be found on page [6], line [230].

Comments 6: In Section 2.8, the indicators to be measured are described as "height of soybean plants, the fresh plant weight of soybeans," but in Fig. 11, they are presented as "Stem fresh weight" and "Stem length." Please correct and unify the descriptions in these sections.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [6], line [226,227],and page [15], line [454,455].

Comments 7: In Section 2.8, the manuscript states, "grading the disease index of root rot with reference to the standards GB/T 23222-2008 and GB/T 23224-2008, and calculating the disease index and incidence of soybean root rot." However, the grading criteria for disease severity in GB/T 23224-2008 refer to GB/T 23222-2008. Please confirm and revise the description in the manuscript accordingly.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [6], line [228].

Comments 8: In the abstract, it is stated that "The results showed that after the introduction of the C-CS coating, the DTS and WTS of C-CS-WFM were significantly improved, while the AP was decreased." Please provide specific numerical values to substantiate this statement.  

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [1], line [23-25].

Comments 9: When was the mulch film applied to the potted plants? If it was applied after sowing, would it have any impact on the germination rate? Please include relevant details in the Methods and Results sections.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [6], line [214,215].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are many points  need to improve

1- in abstract  Fusarium solani, not bacteria itis fungi

2- in the introduction, Phytophthora sojae, Fusarium species, and Rhizoctonia solan(all fungi not bacteria), please correct  through the manuscript

3- Please add the soil content which soil was used? clay or sandy and so on or mixed

4- in vitro and in vivo the positive control not present, (carbendazim), without loading at the same amount

5- discussion not present

6- please separate conclusion 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We are extremely grateful for the reviewers' in-depth and constructive feedback, which has been crucial in enhancing the quality of our work.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: in abstract  Fusarium solani, not bacteria itis fungi

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [1], line [33].

Comments 2: in the introduction, Phytophthora sojae, Fusarium species, and Rhizoctonia solan(all fungi not bacteria), please correct  through the manuscript

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on  page [1], line [39,40,], and page [2], line [92].

Comments 3: Please add the soil content which soil was used? clay or sandy and so on or mixed

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [6], line [212,213].

Comments 4: in vitro and in vivo the positive control not present, (carbendazim), without loading at the same amount

Response 4: We are grateful for your feedback regarding the lack of the positive control (carbendazim) without loading at the same amount in both in vitro and in vivo studies. However, the central aim of our research is to establish the antifungal effect of C-CS-WFM. In our experimental design, we have designated WFM as the control group. This is because our primary interest lies in highlighting the enhanced antifungal properties that C-CS-WFM possesses over the basic WFM. By comparing the performance of C-CS-WFM directly with WFM, we can effectively demonstrate the unique contribution of the specific modifications and characteristics of C-CS-WFM in inhibiting fungal growth.

Nonetheless, we do recognize the value of your suggestion. We plan to conduct further research in the future to explore the implications and potential benefits of incorporating such a positive control as you recommended. This will help us to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the antifungal mechanisms and performance of C-CS-WFM in a broader context.

Comments 5: discussion not present

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, We have added to the discussion section. The discussion section can be found on page [16-17], line [469-517].

Comments 6: please separate conclusion

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added the conclusion. The conclusion can be found on page [17,18], line [518-559].

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has improved significantly compared with its original version. Yet, there are still some minor issues.

In the Materials and Methods section(2.8 Pot experiment), it should be stated how many pots were planted for each treatment and how many plants were planted in each pot.

The detailed description of the preparation method for the spore suspension is very good. However, the author should provide a detailed introduction to the inoculation method, as it is crucial for the invasion of pathogenic bacteria.

In Fig 11-a, there are no obvious symptoms of disease. How can the author ensure that these plants have been successfully infected by the pathogen? Besides, in Table 6, why is there no statistical analysis of the data? Were there no repetitions in the experimental treatments?

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We are extremely grateful for the reviewers' in-depth and constructive feedback, which has been crucial in enhancing the quality of our work.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: In the Materials and Methods section(2.8 Pot experiment), it should be stated how many pots were planted for each treatment and how many plants were planted in each pot.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have modified the content. The revised content can be found on page [6], line [217].

Comments 2: The detailed description of the preparation method for the spore suspension is very good. However, the author should provide a detailed introduction to the inoculation method, as it is crucial for the invasion of pathogenic bacteria.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have already provided a detailed introduction to the inoculation method. The method can be found on page [6], line [218-223].

Comments 3: In Fig 11-a, there are no obvious symptoms of disease. How can the author ensure that these plants have been successfully infected by the pathogen? Besides, in Table 6, why is there no statistical analysis of the data? Were there no repetitions in the experimental treatments?

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Based on the disease spots on the stem base and main root of the soybean plants, we can determine that the soybeans had been infected by the pathogen. To display the infection situation more clearly, we magnified and presented the root in Figure 11 (a). Regarding the data in Table 6, initially we calculated based on the total number of each treatment. After accepting your suggestion, we calculated respectively according to the three replicates in each treatment and statistically analyzed the test results using Design Expert 6.0. Then we deleted Table 6 and replaced it with Figure 11 (e) and (f).The revised content can be found on page [6], line [235], page [7], line [241,242]and page [16], line [467-481].

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

I'm very pleased to learn that the reviewers have no further comments. I sincerely appreciate all the efforts and valuable feedback you've provided during the review process. I'm looking forward to the next steps regarding the publication of this manuscript.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx