The Effectiveness of Synthetic and Inorganic Substances in Different Apple Scab Control Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript compared the different strategies including synthetic fungicides, inorganic substances, foliar fertilizers, along and the combination treatment to control apple scab. This manuscript has a strong application value in practice. However, some suggestions have been made in order to improve the quality of this manuscript.

General comments

1.         In this study, the author used different synthetic fungicides, inorganic substances, foliar fertilizers, how to optimize the usage these substances, and how about proportion? Because different proportion for the synthetic fungicides, inorganic substances and foliar fertilizers have a significant effect to control apple scab.

2.         The author should explain why the fertilizers treatment had the highest incidence and AUDPA in discussion part.

3.         Line 193-194, There was a significant difference between the untreated control, fertilizes and inorganic substances alone from Table 3 and 4, but the author suggested there was no significant difference between the untreated control, fertilizes and inorganic substances alone? Please explain it.

4.         For apple russeting, if all the inorganic substances treatment can induce the disease of apple russeting?

5.         How about the quality (such as: Vc, sugar-acid ratio, etc.) of apple after different strategies treatment? The objective of the study 

6.         For fungicide residues, the author should make a table to present the data.

7.         The title needs to modify, because the different strategies including synthetic fungicides, and foliar fertilizers, were employed in this manuscript, not just inorganic substances.

8.     In conclusion part, “Using only inorganic fungicides would be suitable for low-inoculum orchards and apple cultivars that are not sensitive to russeting”. In the study, it seemed that the author did not the relative result or data, it just the speculation from the study.

9.     The author should provide the temperature and rainfall capacity in 2021 and 2022, because these factors can influence the apple disease

10.  Line 175, (P ≤0.05) should be italic.

11.  Line 126, “rain” change to “raining”.

12.  Line 164, “fruit samples” change to “fruit sample”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the review. Thank you for the suggestions and comments.

The manuscript has been revised. Material and methods, as well as results, were corrected and supplemented. Tables and figures have been improved.

Sincerely

Regīna Rancāne

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The effectiveness of inorganic substances in different apple scab control strategies

 

This research showed the key findings of the two-year trial regarding the effectiveness of inorganic substances in controlling apple scab. The strategy using only inorganic fungicides was effective for low-inoculum orchards. Treatments with inorganic substances significantly decreased leaf disease incidence compared to the untreated control on cv. Auksis in 2021.

Inorganic fungicides are characterized by multi-site contact activity and are typically considered to have no risk of developing fungicide resistance. These findings suggest that inorganic substances, particularly inorganic fungicides, can play a significant role in controlling apple scab and may be a valuable component of integrated pest management strategies in apple orchards.

Nevertheless, there are certain aspects that require clarification from the authors. 

 

1. Were the authors able to validate the manifestation of symptoms caused by fungi by testing the apple scab pathogen on media?

2. Why does Figure 1 lack standard error, and what is the reason for the apparent skewness in standard error in Figure 1B?

3. It is recommended to incorporate images of all apples from each treatment in Figure 2 for a comprehensive representation.

 

These points should be addressed to enhance the clarity and completeness of the study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the review. Thank you for the suggestions and comments.

The manuscript has been revised. Material and methods, as well as results, were corrected and supplemented. Tables and figures have been improved.

Sincerely

Regīna Rancāne

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors response almost the questions, however, there are some little defects. For example, 1. there are two "table 4" and no table 5 in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the review. Thank you for the comment.

Comments: There are two "table 4" and no table 5 in the revised manuscript.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We corrected “table 4” to “table 5”, Line 258.  

Point 1: Minor editing of English language is required.

Response 1: English language was edited.

Sincerely

Regīna Rancāne