Temporal Susceptibility of Grapevine Pruning Wounds to Botryosphaeriaceae Host-Jumping Pathogens in Central Chile
, Fernanda B. Núñez 1, Yuramis Quesada 1, Mauricio Lolas 1, Karina Elfar 2, Akif Eskalen 2, Felipe Gainza-Cortés 3, Pedro E. Gundel 4,5, Eugenio Sanfuentes 6 and Gonzalo A. DÃaz 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A meaningful work about “Temporal susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to Botryosphaeriaceae host-jumping pathogens in Central Chile“, and the overall structure of the document is clear and coherent, While there are a few instances where the connection between ideas is not as clear as it could be.
- P68, Six isolates belonging to the Botryosphaeriaceae family were used in this study. The number of the isolates from different hosts is small. Different isolates of the same strain from the same host may have different pathogenicity.
- Consistent the format. In line 115,140…( 25 ℃)，there is space between number and symbol, but in line 80 (20℃) and 88 (4℃), there is not space.
- Line67, “2.1”, Why the author use mycelium instead of spores as inoculum?
- Partial contents in table1 and fig.1, table2 and fig.2, were repeat. They can be merged together.
Author Response
|
Comments 1: P68, Six isolates belonging to the Botryosphaeriaceae family were used in this study. The number of the isolates from different hosts is small. Different isolates of the same strain from the same host may have different pathogenicity
|
|
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that pathogenicity may vary among isolates within the same species and host. However, the present study used a limited number of representative isolates due to the need to evaluate multiple combinations of isolates, pruning wound ages, cultivars, and experimental conditions under both greenhouse and field conditions. The aim was not to assess intraspecific variability, but to determine general susceptibility patterns of grapevine pruning wounds to Botryosphaeriaceae spp. from different hosts. This limitation has been noted in the revised manuscript. The change can be found on page 11, lines 381 to 382, written in red.
|
|
Comments 2: Consistent the format. In line 115,140…( 25 ℃)，there is space between number and symbol, but in line 80 (20℃) and 88 (4℃), there is not space.
|
|
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The formatting of temperature units has been standardized throughout the manuscript, ensuring consistent spacing between numerical values and temperature symbols. The change can be found on page 2, lines 80 and 88, written in red.
Comments 3: Line67, “2.1”, Why the author use mycelium instead of spores as inoculum?
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. Mycelial suspensions were used instead of conidial suspensions because several Botryosphaeriaceae species exhibit variable sporulation under laboratory conditions, making it difficult to produce homogeneous and standardized conidial suspensions among isolates. The use of mycelial suspensions allowed the preparation of a consistent and comparable inoculum concentration for all isolates evaluated in this study. This approach is consistent with methodologies previously used in similar studies (e.g., Twizeyimana et al., 2013).
Comments 4: Partial contents in table1 and fig.1, table2 and fig.2, were repeat. They can be merged together.
Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We agree that part of the information presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 and 2 was partially redundant. In response to this comment, the figures have been moved to the Supplementary Materials, while the tables were retained in the main manuscript because they contain the detailed statistical analyses and treatment comparisons. The figures were preserved as supplementary material because they provide a clearer visual representation of the overall trend in the decrease of pruning wound susceptibility over time. Accordingly, all references to Figures 1 and 2 in the main text have been updated to Figures S1 and S2. The change can be found on page 5, lines 181; page 7, line 210; page 8, line 238; and page 9, line 271, written in red.
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript provides valuable information about the pruning wound susceptibility to different Botryisphariaceae species. Although data are about a specific region, the results may be of broad interest for planning pruning wound protection to avoid infection and dieback diseases worldwide. The introduction briefly summarizes the problem and previous knowledge on the topic. Materials and Methods section provides the necessary information about the fungal strains, preparation of the inoculum as well as collecting data about infection and necrosis measurements in greenhouse and field conditions. Results are summarized briefly in text, and in more detail (including statistical analysis) in well-arranged tables. Discussion highlights the importance of the study based on previous knowledge, importance for planning pruning and wound protection.
Minor remarks:
Rows 43-44: recent citation about importance of GTDs is suggested to add.
Table 1: Information about isolates should be added, similarly to the Figure 1 Rows 184-187.
Row 293: Reference 29 should be deleted, as it is about Eutypa lata and nor Botryosphaeriaceae species.
Author Response
|
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. A recent reference regarding the importance of grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs) has now been incorporated into the Introduction section. The change can be found on page 2, line 44 and page 12, line 410, written in red.
|
|
Comments 2: Table 1: Information about isolates should be added, similarly to the Figure 1 Rows 184-187.
|
|
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Additional information describing the isolate codes has now been incorporated into all tables to improve clarity and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. These changes can be found on page 5, lines 173 to 176; page 7, lines 203 to 206; page 8, lines 231 to 234 and page 9, lines 261 to 264, written in red.
Comments 3: Row 293: Reference 29 should be deleted, as it is about Eutypa lata and nor Botryosphaeriaceae species.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Reference 29 has been removed from the manuscript, as suggested. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
