Review Reports - Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent Derived from Alternaria gaisen Strain GD-011

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results not fully support the conclusion, need more experiments to elucidate the herbicidal activities of the strain. And also there are so many mistakes in the manuscript, must be corrected them all clearly before submitted, such as (1)Line 40/42/60/71/87/132/161/274/278/303/307/339: displayed errors. (2)Line 133/145: OD600nm, what is it meaning? (3)Figure1: It is unnecessary. (4)Line 215: OD value, usually indicate the number.

Author Response

《Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain》

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Greetings!

I am Zhang Suifang (email: 17389539023@163.com), the author of the manuscript "Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain" (ID: fermentation-3843780). Thank you for your valuable suggestions on this paper. The main text has been revised in accordance with all the feedback provided, and the modified sections are highlighted in the article. In response to the revision suggestions, the following explanations (in red font) are provided:

Comment 1：The results not fully support the conclusion, need more experiments to elucidate the herbicidal activities of the strain. And also there are so many mistakes in the manuscript, must be corrected them all clearly before submitted, such as (1)Line 40/42/60/71/87/132/161/274/278/303/307/339: displayed errors. (2)Line 133/145: OD600nm, what is it meaning? (3)Figure1: It is unnecessary. (4)Line 215: OD value, usually indicate the number.

Response to Comment 1：Thank you for your valuable feedback on this manuscript. Regarding your comment that "the research results do not sufficiently support the conclusions," we would like to clarify the following: The herbicidal activity of strain GD-011 is clearly demonstrated in Figure 2. This experimental result is based on three independent replicates, ensuring good repeatability and reliability. Furthermore, prior research on this strain, including its weed control efficacy and crop safety evaluation, has been detailed in a previously published paper by our team (10.1080/09583157.2023.2209297). The current study builds upon this solid foundation and represents a continuation of our work, focusing on the development and formulation of a bacterial agent for practical application.

We sincerely apologize for the formatting, expression, and data errors present in the manuscript. We are carefully reviewing and revising all indicated line numbers (including but not limited to lines 40, 42, 60, 71, 87, 132, 161, 215, 274, 278, 303, 307, and 339). After thorough reconsideration of Figure 1, we believe it is more appropriate to retain it for clarity. We have also explicitly defined OD600nm and ensured that all OD values are correctly presented in numerical form.

We are committed to thoroughly improving the manuscript and will address each of your concerns point-by-point in the revised version. Once again, we greatly appreciate your rigorous and thorough review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

The authors try to develop production and application process for microbial herbicides, Alternaria gaisen GD-011, against weeds. The research is valuable in development of friendly bio-herbicides. Some comments and suggests are raised as followings:

1. The authors should carefully check scientific names of plants and and microbial species change them to italic form through the manuscript, e.g. P1, L15; P2 L73-74 L78; P9, L314, L317; P10, L348-----.

2. The nomenclator of scientific name should not be in italic form, e.g. P3, L96 and others throughout the manuscript.

3. The sp. in ‘Alternaria sp.’ should not be in italic.

4. Please cite the reference source to the description needed reference, e.g. P1, L40; P2 L42; P2, L60----in the section of introduction and discussion.

4. The cited reference number should be followed the format of the Journal.

5. P8, L258, 'Bamboo Shoots' is suggested to be in Lowercase.

6. The scientific name should be in italic in Table 5, Fig. 2

7. Strain GD-011 in Table 2,4,5 and Fig. 2 are suggested written as “A. gaisen GD-011”

Table 4. check the spelling ‘olony diameter’.

9.Please carefully check the wording, spelling and the format of the text throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain》

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Greetings!

Comment 1： The authors should carefully check scientific names of plants and and microbial species change them to italic form through the manuscript, e.g. P1, L15; P2 L73-74 L78; P9, L314, L317; P10, L348-----.

Response to Comment 1：Thank you very much for pointing out this important issue. We fully agree with your comment and have thoroughly checked the entire manuscript accordingly. All scientific names of plants and microorganisms have been uniformly italicized as suggested. The specific locations you mentioned, including Line 15 on Page 1, Lines 73–74 on Page 2, Line 78 on Page 2, Line 314 on Page 9, Line 317 on Page 9, and Line 348 on Page 10, have all been corrected.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been crucial in improving the quality of our paper

Comment 2：The nomenclator of scientific name should not be in italic form, e.g. P3, L96 and others throughout the manuscript.

Response to Comment 2：Thank you for your valuable feedback. Your correction regarding the formatting of authors in scientific names ("author citations should not be italicized") is highly professional and crucial, for which we sincerely apologize. In response, we have systematically reviewed the entire manuscript and uniformly corrected all relevant instances to the non-italic format. The specific location you mentioned (Page 3, Line 96) as well as other related instances have now been thoroughly revised.

Comment 3：The sp. in ‘Alternaria sp.’ should not be in italic.

Response to Comment 3：Thank you for your correction. We have thoroughly reviewed all instances of "sp." (including "Alternaria sp.") throughout the manuscript and uniformly changed them to non-italic format. We sincerely appreciate your rigorous review!

Comment 4：Please cite the reference source to the description needed reference, e.g. P1, L40; P2 L42; P2, L60----in the section of introduction and discussion. The cited reference number should be followed the format of the Journal.

Response to Comment 4：Thank you very much for your thorough review! The relevant literature citations have been included in the corresponding sections of the manuscript, and the formatting has been carefully checked to ensure full compliance with your journal's guidelines. We sincerely appreciate your attentive feedback.

Comment 5：P8, L258, 'Bamboo Shoots' is suggested to be in Lowercase.

Response to Comment 5：Thank you for your feedback. After careful review, we have identified and removed the incorrect term "Bamboo Shoots" on Page 8, Line 258. We sincerely appreciate your thorough review.

Comment 6：The scientific name should be in italic in Table 5, Fig. 2

Response to Comment 6：Thank you for your reminder. As suggested, we have uniformly italicized all scientific names in Table 5 and Figure 2. We sincerely appreciate your thorough and rigorous review.

Comment 7：Strain GD-011 in Table 2,4,5 and Fig. 2 are suggested written as “A. gaisen GD-011”

Response to Comment 7：Thank you for your valuable suggestion. As advised, we have uniformly revised the designation "Strain GD-011" to "A. gaisen GD-011" in Tables 2, 4, and 5, as well as in Figure 2, to ensure standardized and consistent nomenclature throughout the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your thoroughness and attention to detail.

Comment 8：Table 4. check the spelling ‘olony diameter’.

Response to Comment 8：Thank you for pointing out this typographical error. We have promptly reviewed and corrected "olony diameter" to "colony diameter" (colony diameter) in Table 4. We greatly appreciate your meticulous review!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper is very difficult to read and understand. The presentation needs to be shortened about 50%. The species used and common and scientific names are imprecise and difficult to follow. Be very specific about the target plants and their names. Eg. you mention Galium spurium and Galium aparine. Are these the same species? You mention quinoa. Where does that fit into the research? The references not found in the editor review (as indicated in the text) must be annotated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Paper appears to be written by an AI program. The English is stilted and very over-worded. It is difficult to read for a native English speaker. It will be very difficult for non-English speakers to read and understand. The research appears to be acceptable, but the description is so overstated that it is difficult to ascertain the fine points. I think the authors need to simplify the whole presentation to make it more readable and understandable.

Author Response

《Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain》

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Greetings!

Comment 1：Paper is very difficult to read and understand. The presentation needs to be shortened about 50%. The species used and common and scientific names are imprecise and difficult to follow. Be very specific about the target plants and their names. Eg. you mention Galium spurium and Galium aparine. Are these the same species? You mention quinoa. Where does that fit into the research? The references not found in the editor review (as indicated in the text) must be annotated.

Response to Comment 1：Thank you very much for your valuable and insightful comments. These suggestions are crucial for improving the quality and readability of our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the paper based on your recommendations, and our specific responses are as follows:

(1) Regarding the issue of imprecise species names, we greatly appreciate you pointing out this critical matter. We have carefully checked and standardized all species names throughout the text. Galium spurium L. and Galium aparine L. are not the same species but rather two different species within the genus Galium in the Rubiaceae family. We sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding caused by our unclear. In the revised manuscript, the correct study subjects, Chenopodium album L. and Galium aparine L., have been highlighted for clarity, and a full review has been conducted. We deeply apologize again for this oversight. (See lines 23, 27, and 241-245, for example).

(2) Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) is the target weed for control in this study. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) is another important crop. Its appearance in the text was due to a typographical error where we mistakenly referred to the target weed "lambsquarters" as "quinoa." We have conducted a full review and corrected all related erroneous expressions to "lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.)". This study did not involve any experiments on quinoa.

(3) Dear Editor, this was an oversight that was not detected during the initial review process and does not constitute a newly added reference; therefore, no addition is necessary

Comment 2：Paper appears to be written by an AI program. The English is stilted and very over-worded. It is difficult to read for a native English speaker. It will be very difficult for non-English speakers to read and understand. The research appears to be acceptable, but the description is so overstated that it is difficult to ascertain the fine points. I think the authors need to simplify the whole presentation to make it more readable and understandable.

Response to Comment 2：We fully agree with your perspective. We have undertaken extensive revisions to streamline the entire text, breaking down complex clauses into shorter sentences and minimizing the use of specialized terminology to ensure logical clarity and accessibility for an international readership (e.g., in the abstract, introduction, and discussion sections).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

The authors try to develop a production and application process for microbial herbicides, Alternaria gaisen GD-011, against weeds. The research is valuable in development of friendly bio-herbicides. The manuscript has been revised according to suggestions and comments raised by reviewers, but some comments and suggestions could be considered for further revision of this manuscript.

1.The title of this paper is suggested to change as “ Preparation and---------on the Alternaria gaisen GD-011”.

2. P3, L79 Scientific name could be usually as Alternaria gaisen GD-011. “strain”is a redundant word.

3. The reference source should be cited, eg. P4, L150; P9, L265-297; P10, L329.

4. The cited reference number should be followed the format ruled by the Journal, eg. P9, L286-309 (Ref 24-32).

5.The strains, HZ-011, HZ-31, AS-68, PA-2 mentioned in P9 are suggested to be added scientific names.

Author Response

《Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain》

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Greetings!

Corresponding author Zhang Suifang (email: 17389539023@163.com) hereby expresses sincere gratitude to the reviewers and editors for their valuable comments on the manuscript titled "Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain" (ID: fermentation-3843780). Based on the second round of feedback, we have further revised the manuscript and highlighted the modifications in green. The following point-by-point responses are provided to address the revision suggestions:

Rebuttal to Comments from Reviewer 1

Comment 1：The title of this paper is suggested to change as “ Preparation and---------on the Alternaria gaisen GD-011”.

Response to Comment 1：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We fully agree with the recommendation regarding the paper title and have revised it to: "Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent Derived from Alternaria gaisen Strain GD-011". We appreciate your insightful feedback.

Comment 2：P3, L79 Scientific name could be usually as Alternaria gaisen GD-011. “strain”is a redundant word.

Response to Comment 2：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We fully agree with the observation regarding the redundant use of the term "strain" and have accordingly removed this terminology throughout the manuscript. We appreciate your meticulous review.

Comment 3：The reference source should be cited, eg. P4, L150; P9, L265-297; P10, L329.

Response to Comment 3：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We fully agree with the feedback regarding the omitted references (Page 4 Line 150, Page 9 Lines 265-297, and Page 10 Line 329) and have conducted thorough literature research to supplement these citations accordingly. We appreciate your diligent review.

Comment 4：The cited reference number should be followed the format ruled by the Journal, eg. P9, L286-309 (Ref 24-32).

Response to Comment 4：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. The references throughout the manuscript have been comprehensively rechecked and properly cited. The citation numbering format has been uniformly revised to comply with the journal's required style. We greatly appreciate your meticulous review.

Comment 5：The strains, HZ-011, HZ-31, AS-68, PA-2 mentioned in P9 are suggested to be added scientific names.

Response to Comment 5：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Regarding the omission of Latin names for the strains HZ-011, HZ-31, AS-68, and PA-2, we have now supplemented the full scientific nomenclature in the manuscript as suggested. We greatly appreciate your thorough review

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper is better with the revisions. There still are several references to other work without a citation. These are indicated by "Reference not found."

L. 26 Change Galium spurium to Galium asparine?

Author Response

《Preparation and Herbicidal Activity of a Microbial Agent based on the GD-011 Strain》

Response to Reviewers' Comments

Dear Reviewers and Editors,

Greetings!

Rebuttal to Comments from Reviewer 2

Comment 1： Paper is better with the revisions. There still are several references to other work without a citation. These are indicated by "Reference not found.

Response to Comment 1：We sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. We fully agree with the feedback regarding the missing citations of some referenced studies and have thoroughly re-examined the entire manuscript. The omitted references have been supplemented and highlighted in the text for clarity. We appreciate your diligent review.

Comment 2：L. 26 Change Galium spurium to Galium asparine?

Response to Comment 2：We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' valuable suggestions. We fully agree with the recommendation to revise "Galium spurium" to "Galium aparine" and have implemented this correction throughout the manuscript accordingly.