Evaluation of Novel Picolinamide Fungicides (QiI) for Controlling Cercospora beticola Sacc. in Sugar Beet
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
Could you please confirm whether "N" or "n" will be used in Table 2? It would be helpful to maintain consistency by using one format of abbreviation throughout the document, as I've noticed that both the complete term and the abbreviation have been used multiple times.
Author Response
Comments1: Could you please confirm whether "N" or "n" will be used in Table 2? It would be helpful to maintain consistency by using one format of abbreviation throughout the document, as I've noticed that both the complete term and the abbreviation have been used multiple times.
Answers1: Thank you. I agree. It was a typo. I changed it to small letter to be consitent accross the table.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) In the section of 1. Introduction: The importance of chemical pesticides should be emphasized compared with non-agrochemical.
(2) Change “Figure 2 (c) Picolinamide fungicides demonstrated superior or comparable efficacy to reference products in controlling Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) across six trials conducted in 2020. (d) Two fungicide applications were sufficient to maintain low levels of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) throughout the 2021 season. All treatments provided at least three weeks of residual control. [63]” to “Figure 2 (a) Picolinamide fungicides demonstrated superior or comparable efficacy to reference products in controlling Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) across six trials conducted in 2020. (b) Two fungicide applications were sufficient to maintain low levels of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) throughout the 2021 season. All treatments provided at least three weeks of residual control. [63]”
(3) Whether difenoconazole and epoxiconazole are appropriate as control, and whether their mechanisms of action are similar to those of fenpicoxamid and florylpicoxamid.
(4) In the section of Figure 2 (d), the height of the Y axis should be adjusted from 0 to 30%.
(5) In the section of Figure 8, the standard deviation of the data is too large, especially, fenpicoxamid 50 (106,80), florylpicoxamid 50 (112,58), and difenoconazole 100 (106,46).
(6) What was the selection criteria of the control group? On what bases did the authors choose drug concentrations? The concentration of fenpicoxamid and florylpicoxamid are 50, 75, 100, 150, but the concentration of difenoconazole and epoxiconazole are 100 and 125, Why?
Author Response
Comments 1: The importance of chemical pesticides should be emphasized compared with non-agrochemical.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have inserted 3 sentences to be empasized the importance of the sinthetic fungicide treatments with citation [18] (Page 3, paragraph 1.1., line 93-100). New related reference also inserted under number 18 (Page 18, References, Line 510-511)
Comments 2: Change “Figure 2 (c) Picolinamide fungicides demonstrated superior or comparable efficacy to reference products in controlling Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) across six trials conducted in 2020. (d) Two fungicide applications were sufficient to maintain low levels of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) throughout the 2021 season. All treatments provided at least three weeks of residual control. [63]” to “Figure 2 (a) Picolinamide fungicides demonstrated superior or comparable efficacy to reference products in controlling Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) across six trials conducted in 2020. (b) Two fungicide applications were sufficient to maintain low levels of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) throughout the 2021 season. All treatments provided at least three weeks of residual control. [63]”
Response 2: Thank you. This change was done accordingly to your request. (Page 11, paragraph 4.1.1., line 342-343)
Comments 3: Whether difenoconazole and epoxiconazole are appropriate as control, and whether their mechanisms of action are similar to those of fenpicoxamid and florylpicoxamid.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this shortcoming. We made two additional sentences to clarify the circumstances of the selection reliability for reference product. (Page 9, paragraph 3.3., line 273-275)
Comments 4: In the section of Figure 2 (d), the height of the Y axis should be adjusted from 0 to 30%.
Response 4: We agree. It was modified accordingly to your request. We also reshaped the format of these graphs a bit (Page 11, paragraph 4.1.1., line 341)
Comments 5: In the section of Figure 8, the standard deviation of the data is too large, especially, fenpicoxamid 50 (106,80), florylpicoxamid 50 (112,58), and difenoconazole 100 (106,46).
Response 5: Agree. Therefore, we made an additional sentence to describe this circumtances. (Page 14-15, paragraph 4.3., line 405-408)
Comments 6: What was the selection criteria of the control group? On what bases did the authors choose drug concentrations? The concentration of fenpicoxamid and florylpicoxamid are 50, 75, 100, 150, but the concentration of difenoconazole and epoxiconazole are 100 and 125, Why?
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. I agrre with you this selection method was missed from the description of test materials. We have made two sentences to clarify why these dose rates were selected for both picolinamides and reference products with citation [62] (Page 9, paragraph 3.3., line 270-272 and 274-275). New related reference also inserted under number 62 (Page 20, References, Line 610-611)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the manuscript Evaluation of Novel Picolinamide Fungicides (QiI) for Controlling Cercospora beticola Sacc. in Sugar Beet
The topic of this MS is highly important for practice because of resistance of the pathogen against some commonly used fungicides. Thus, testing of new active ingredients is highly desirable.
However, the trials were performed in two years only. In one year, the infection was high enough, but in other one it was rather low. It practically means usable results from one year only. In my opinion, field experiments where effectivity of some pesticide and yield are measured should last at least 3 years. Moreover, the experiments were done on one locality only (Jászberény). Thus, probably, there was present one certain pathogen population only. For me, these objections are strong enough to suggest rejection of this manuscript.
Moreover, there is a lot of formal errors in the text.
Within the abstract, whole disease name is uselessly repeated several times when the abbreviation (CLS) was used already at the beginning. Full disease name together with the abbreviation is frequently used in the text as well instead of using abbreviation alone. The disease name is not written consistently. Generally, common disease names should be written in lower case, but since there is a name of the pathogen Cercospora, usually it is written capitalized (Cercospora leaf spot) in the articles of English-speaking authors.
Useless repeating concerns other information as well. Eg. l. 123-125 are repeating lines 120-122. L. 231: repeating info about certification of the experiments by certain authority. CERCBE code is repeated together with pathogen Latin name several times within the text (eg. l. 295), but it should be used already at the beginning of introduction with its first mention. Useless repeating applies to AUDPC as well.
Organism Latin names are not always written in italics (eg. l. 94, 95, 170, 184-185, 195, 200).
The authors partly describe results already in the Material section (l. 239-247).
Fig. 1: dates are not in the same form in parts a (eg. 06.07.2020) and b (eg. 3.8.2021). Why the legend is in italics and capitalized whereas for other figs it is not capitalized? It is confusing when fig. 1 contains parts a and b, and fig. 2 contains c and d.
I can't agree with the statement in abstract that „picolinamide fungicides applied at a rate of 75 g ai/ha significantly outperformed the DMI fungicides difenoconazole (100 g ai/ha) and epoxiconazole (125 g ai/ha) in controlling CLS of sugar beet“, because especially for epoxiconazole efficacies were mostly not statistically different and yield increase was even higher.
L. 184-185: the authors confuse the pathogen and the disease (eg. Septoria spp. are pathogens, not diseases).
L. 219: the authors evaluate the trial site as warm and dry, and thus favourable for disease development. However, the fungus prefers humid conditions, at least for some period.
L. 227: the authors confuse (or take as equivalent) the terms susceptible and sensitive which are not identical at all.
Tested picolinamide fungicides are differently named in Materials (GF-3308 and GF-3840) and in Results (Inatreq and Adavelt) what is confusing. What is the recommended dose of both fungicides?
Did the fungicide's efficacy differ among different sugar beet varieties? This should also be mentioned.
Let the authors add at least one year more and it could be a relatively good paper.
Author Response
Comments 1: However, the trials were performed in two years only. In one year, the infection was high enough, but in other one it was rather low. It practically means usable results from one year only. In my opinion, field experiments where effectivity of some pesticide and yield are measured should last at least 3 years. Moreover, the experiments were done on one locality only (Jászberény). Thus, probably, there was present one certain pathogen population only. For me, these objections are strong enough to suggest rejection of this manuscript.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. Please consider that the second year's infection level was above 16% severity. For validate a trial, necessary infection level is 5% for submisson in EU for registration purpose based on EPPO (we used EPPO guidlines to evaluation and validation of trials, see on material and methods (Page 9, paragraph 3.5., line 290-294). 10 valid trials accross 2 years also validate the results, meanwhile 6-8 trials would need for 1 crop and 1 disease to get a registration in EU for any new product. In our opinion and based on data consitency in these trials, with this method with 2 years trials is optimal to validate efficacy of plant production products. Most of studies used 2 years results but lower number of trials. We used one region, but not one location. The fields were around one city, Jászberény, but the distance among them was more than 10 km, and we used different varieties. Table 1 extended with exact coordinates of the trials (Page 7, paragraph 3.1., Table 1, line 248).
Comments 2: Moreover, there is a lot of formal errors in the text.
Response 2: Without the exact locations being marked, we cannot do anything about it.
Comments 3: Within the abstract, whole disease name is uselessly repeated several times when the abbreviation (CLS) was used already at the beginning. Full disease name together with the abbreviation is frequently used in the text as well instead of using abbreviation alone. The disease name is not written consistently. Generally, common disease names should be written in lower case, but since there is a name of the pathogen Cercospora, usually it is written capitalized (Cercospora leaf spot) in the articles of English-speaking authors.
Response 3: Thank you to pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the full name of the disease to CLS where existed (Page 1, abstract, line 14/22/24/27; page 5, paragraph 2., line 194; page 6, paragraph 2., line 206; page 16, paragraph 5., line 422/423/430/439/446; page 17, paragraph 5., line 468)
Comments 4: Useless repeating concerns other information as well. Eg. l. 123-125 are repeating lines 120-122. L. 231: repeating info about certification of the experiments by certain authority. CERCBE code is repeated together with pathogen Latin name several times within the text (eg. l. 295), but it should be used already at the beginning of introduction with its first mention. Useless repeating applies to AUDPC as well.
Response 4: Agree. We have revised and made some changes. We deleted repeted sections (original line 123-125 and 231) (page 4, paragraph 1.2.1., 130; page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 236). The pathogen's scientific name was deleted and CERCBE only kept (page 9, paragraph 3.6., line 302). For AUDPC only acronym kept at second place (page10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 323).
Comments 5: Organism Latin names are not always written in italics (eg. l. 94, 95, 170, 184-185, 195, 200).
Response 5: Agree. We have accordingly formated always in italics (page 3, paragraph 1.1., line 102; page 5, paragraph 1.3., line 175/189-190; page 5, paragraph 2., line195).
Comments 6: The authors partly describe results already in the Material section (l. 239-247).
Response 6: Agree. We deleted 3 affected sentences from this section: "The results of the trials demonstrated that the novel fungicides exhibited comparable or superior efficacy to standard treatments in controlling CLS........Overall, the study provided valuable insights into the efficacy of novel fungicides for managing Cercospora leaf spot in sugar beet production. Future research may focus on further refining the fungicide application strategies and exploring additional disease management tactics to enhance the sustainability of sugar beet cultivation."
Comments 7: Fig. 1: dates are not in the same form in parts a (eg. 06.07.2020) and b (eg. 3.8.2021). Why the legend is in italics and capitalized whereas for other figs it is not capitalized? It is confusing when fig. 1 contains parts a and b, and fig. 2 contains c and d.
Response 7: Agree. We have changed and reshaped Figure 1 according to the requests, legend just in bold and Figure 2 has parts signed also a and b (page 10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 335; page 11, paragraph 4.1.1., line 340).
Comments 8: I can't agree with the statement in abstract that „picolinamide fungicides applied at a rate of 75 g ai/ha significantly outperformed the DMI fungicides difenoconazole (100 g ai/ha) and epoxiconazole (125 g ai/ha) in controlling CLS of sugar beet“, because especially for epoxiconazole efficacies were mostly not statistically different and yield increase was even higher.
Response 8: Agree. We deleted the part "...the DMI fungicides..." and the claim was only applied to difenoconazole and inserted an additional statement regarding picolinamides at 100-150 g versus epoxiconazole (Page 1, abstract, line 30-33).
Comments 9: L. 184-185: the authors confuse the pathogen and the disease (eg. Septoria spp. are pathogens, not diseases).
Response 9: Agree. We have put an additional short statement: "...caused by pathogens..." (Page 5, paragraph 1.3., line 189)
Comments 10: L. 219: the authors evaluate the trial site as warm and dry, and thus favourable for disease development. However, the fungus prefers humid conditions, at least for some period.
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Unfortunately it was left out of the text that "...generally, but the microclimatic conditions due to the proximity of the surface waters found here provides high humidity,..." We inserted it. (page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 224-226).
Comments 11: L. 227: the authors confuse (or take as equivalent) the terms susceptible and sensitive which are not identical at all.
Response 11: Agree. The word "sensitive" was changed to susceptible at all relevant places according to speaking about susceptibility (page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 235-236; page 7, paragraph 3.1., line 245).
Comments 12: Tested picolinamide fungicides are differently named in Materials (GF-3308 and GF-3840) and in Results (Inatreq and Adavelt) what is confusing. What is the recommended dose of both fungicides?
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised and made names consistent with a shame in Materials and in Results: ex. fenpicoxamid (= InatreqTM; formulation code: GF-3308) (Page 8, paragraph 3.3., line 261-263; page 11, paragraph 4.2.1., line 349-350; page 13, 4.2.2., line 374-375). We took additional statements at the relevant places for considered dose rates (page 11, paragraph 4.2.1., line 361-362; page 13, 4.2.2., line 386-388; page 16, 5., line 446).
Comments 13: Did the fungicide's efficacy differ among different sugar beet varieties? This should also be mentioned.
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we inserted a statement for affect on efficacy level according to the different cultivars (Page 16, 5., line 433-435 ).
Comments 14: Let the authors add at least one year more and it could be a relatively good paper.
Response 14: Thank you for your comment and suggestion. The authors don't have one more year to investigate further trials. This amount of replication of the trials have already proper to make a valid conclusion on the existing results. Please accept it.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) Reference 62 is not suitable. 2-3 high quality and reliable literatures should de selected to support this viewpoint.
(2) It is suggested that Figure 4 be replaced by a bar chart and Figure 6 be replaced by a scatter diagram.
(3) The repetition rate of the manuscript should be 15% to 18%.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language.
Author Response
Comments 1: Reference 62 is not suitable. 2-3 high quality and reliable literatures should de selected to support this viewpoint.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we inserted [62-66] citations of 2 official database of registerated plant protection products in EU and 3 high quality and reliable literatures for fenpicoxamid (Page 8, paragraph 3.3., line 263; page 20-21, References, line 609-618) and we also inserted [62-63, 67-68] citations of 2 official database of registerated plant protection products in EU and 2 high quality and reliable literatures for reference products (Page 8, paragraph 3.3., line 273; page 20, References, line 609-612; page 21, References, line 619-622).
Comments 2: It is suggested that Figure 4 be replaced by a bar chart and Figure 6 be replaced by a scatter diagram.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We would like to recommend that Figure 3-4 and Figure 5-6 to be replaced by bar charts compering the same actives at different years, keeping the consistency.
Comments 3: The repetition rate of the manuscript should be 15% to 18%.
Response 3: We deleted the useless repeating of the disease name together with abbreviation (Page 3, paragraph 1.2., line 108; page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 221; page 9, paragraph3.5., line 290; page 9, paragraph 3.6., line 306; page 10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 320 and 336; page 11, Figure 2, line 340; page 11, paragraph 4.2., line 344; page 11, paragraph 4.2.1, line 348; page 13, paragraph 4.2.2., line 373), useless repeating of whole name of Cercospora beticola instead of using C. beticola (page 3, paragraph 1.1., line 93; page 3, paragraph 1.2., line 116 and 118; page 4, paragraph 1.2.1., line 129-130, 136, 138, 141, 145, 156 and 162) the same applies for CERCBE as well (page 11, paragraph 4.2., line 344; page 16, paragraph 5., line 437).
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: L. 49: subsp. should not be in italics. The same applies for spp. (l. 102 and 190).
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised and re-formated them without italics (page 2, paragraph 1.1., line 49; page 3, paragraph 1.1., line 102; page 5, paragraph 1.3., line 190-191).
Comments 2: L. 71: spreads instead of multiplies (disease doesn't multiply, it is the pathogen that multiplies).
Response 2: Agree and replaced. (page 2, paragraph 1.1., line 72).
Comments 3: L. 73: and instead of which.
Response 3: Agree and replaced. (page 2, paragraph 1.1., line 74).
Comments 4: Useless repeating of the disease name together with abbreviation (many times, eg. l. 108, 221, 292, 308, 322, 348, 352, 377 and possibly elsewhere as well).
Response 4: Thank you, agree with it. We deleted the useless repeating of the disease name together with abbreviation (Page 3, paragraph 1.2., line 108; page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 221; page 9, paragraph3.5., line 290; page 9, paragraph 3.6., line 306; page 10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 320 and 336; page 11, Figure 2, line 340; page 11, paragraph 4.2., line 344; page 11, paragraph 4.2.1, line 348; page 13, paragraph 4.2.2., line 373).
Comments 5: Useless repeating of whole name of Cercospora beticola instead of using C. beticola (l. 116, 118, 129, 136, 138, 142, 145, 156, 162).
Response 5: Agree. We deleted useless repeating of whole name of Cercospora beticola instead of using C. beticola (page 3, paragraph 1.1., line 93; page 3, paragraph 1.2., line 116 and 118; page 4, paragraph 1.2.1., line 129-130, 136, 138, 141, 145, 156 and 162).
Comments 6: The same applies for CERCBE as well (l. 349, 441).
Response 6: Agree. We deleted useless repeating of useless repeating of whole name of Cercospora beticola instead of using CERCBE as well (page 11, paragraph 4.2., line 344; page 16, paragraph 5., line 437).
Comments 7: The whole article is about one pathogen and one disease, so there is no danger of confusing, and the reader can easily remember what is what.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.
Comments 8: On the other hand, the abbreviation CERCBE is erroneously used for the disease Cercospora leaf spot (l. 265).
Response 8: Agree. We have put an additional short statement: "caused by" before CERCBE (Page 8, paragraph 3.2., line 261).
Comments 9: L. 177: caused by Mycosphaerella fijiensis.
Response 9: Agree. We have put an additional short statement: "caused by" before Mycosphaerella fijiensis (page 5, paragraph 1.3., line 177).
Comments 10: L. 189-190: not yet correct. Better …diseases like powdery mildews, anthracnoses, and scab, or diseases caused by pathogens such as Septoria spp., Botrytis spp., Alternaria spp., and Monilinia spp.
Response 10: We appreciate your suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the 'for the control of diseases caused by pathogens such as Septoria spp., powdery mildews, Botrytis spp., anthracnose, Alternaria spp., scab, and Monilinia spp.' to 'for the control of diseases like powdery mildews, anthracnose, and scab, or diseases caused by pathogens such as Septoria spp., Botrytis spp., Alternaria spp., and Monilinia spp.' (page 5, paragraph 1.3., line 189-191).
Comments 11: L. 209: question mark is missing.
Response 11: Agree and replaced. (page 6, paragraph 2., line 209).
Comments 12: L. 245-248: This doesn't belong to the methods, but to the results (l. 327-330, see my previous review), where it is repeated in other words. Moreover, the problem of the term sensitivity here persists (l. 329).
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made the requested changes, we deleted L. 245-248 and corrected 'sensitivity' to 'susceptibility' (page 10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 327).
Comments 13: L. 270-274: in my opinion strange sentences (not clear).
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. We simpified and clarified these sentences (page 8, paragraph 3.3., line 267-274).
Comments 14: L. 330: as is doubled.
Response 14: Thank you. We deleted the duplication (page 10, paragraph 4.1.1., line 328).
Comments 15: L. 364 and 390: full stop should be after the link to the table.
Response 15: Thank you. Agree. We put the full stop after the link (page 11, paragraph 4.2.1., line 360; page 13, paragraph 4.2.2., line 386).
Comments 16: L. 367, 370 and 393: and would be better between difenoconazole and epoxiconazole instead of comma.
Response 16: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we replaced comma with 'and' (page 12, Figure 3, 363; page 12, Figure 4, 365; page 14, Figure 5, 389)
Comments 17: L. 406-409: the text is hard to be understood.
Response 17: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have made some correction in this short explanation (page 14-15, paragraph 4.3., line 402-405).
Comments 18: Fig. 1: problem with capitalization of the legend persists (compare with other legends).
Response 18: Agree. Therefore, we made some changes for the figure 1 to be consistent compare to the others (page 10, Figure 1, line 334). Morover, Figures 2 was also corrected regarding used the same remarks in the graphs a and b (page 11, paragraph 4.1.1., line 338).
Comments 19: Fig. 1+2: the citation No. 65 is a bit strange in the article. It looks like as if these figs were not original. I would not cite some conference presentation like this.
Response 19: We deleted this citation, these figures are originals.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNow I found some minor errors only.
L. 229: link to table 1 should be on the same line.
L. 233 and 236: the authors use the word "adjacent" fields. It doesn't correspond with their answer to my comment in the first review where they argued that fields were distant enough each from others. When I checked the coordinates, it seems that there can be a distance of about 10-20 km among them.
So, they should use this instead of "adjacent".
L. 268-271: this text could still be made clearer. I suggest eg.: They were the strongest available azoles in the Hungarian market, such as difenoconazole (Score 250 EC) and epoxiconazole (Opus 125 EC). Score 250 EC was applied at a rate of 100 g a.s./ha for straight comparison to the same rate of picolinamides and Opus 125 EC was applied at a rate of 125 g a.s./ha for comparison to the highest tested rate (150 g a.s./ha) of picolinamides.
L. 307: still useless repeating full text of AUDPC.
L. 411: use eather was or injuries.
L. 437: still useless CERCBE. In my opinion, it has no importance here.
There are many problems in references. I let it on you to put it in accordance with the instructions for authors.
E.g., in my opinion, Latin names should be italicized; there are some missing spaces in journal titles (l. 520, 575); journal titles not capitalized (l. 602); some references are capitalized (76), others aren't; missing spaces (l. 593).
Author Response
Comments 1: L. 229: link to table 1 should be on the same line.
Response 1: Thank you, the extra spaces are deleted (Page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 228-229).
Comments 2: L. 233 and 236: the authors use the word "adjacent" fields. It doesn't correspond with their answer to my comment in the first review where they argued that fields were distant enough each from others. When I checked the coordinates, it seems that there can be a distance of about 10-20 km among them. So, they should use this instead of "adjacent".
Response 2: 'adjacent' replaced by 'with about 10-20 km among them' (Page 6, paragraph 3.1., line 233 and 236).
Comments 3: L. 268-271: this text could still be made clearer. I suggest eg.: They were the strongest available azoles in the Hungarian market, such as difenoconazole (Score 250 EC) and epoxiconazole (Opus 125 EC). Score 250 EC was applied at a rate of 100 g a.s./ha for straight comparison to the same rate of picolinamides and Opus 125 EC was applied at a rate of 125 g a.s./ha for comparison to the highest tested rate (150 g a.s./ha) of picolinamides.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We accept you proposed correction (Page 8, paragraph 3.3., line 269-273).
Comments 4: L. 307: still useless repeating full text of AUDPC.
Response 4: Thank you. Agree. Deleted the full text in brackets (Page 9, paragraph 3.6., line 308).
Comments 5: L. 411: use eather was or injuries.
Response 5: Thank you. Agree. 'injury' was replaced by injuries (Page 15, paragraph 4.4., line 11)
Comments 6: L. 437: still useless CERCBE. In my opinion, it has no importance here.
Response 6: Thank you. Agree. CRECBE was deleted (Page 16, paragraph 5, line 437).
Comments 7: There are many problems in references. I let it on you to put it in accordance with the instructions for authors. E.g., in my opinion, Latin names should be italicized; there are some missing spaces in journal titles (l. 520, 575); journal titles not capitalized (l. 602); some references are capitalized (76), others aren't; missing spaces (l. 593).
Response 7: Thank you for your comments. Therefore, the following improvements have been implemented: latin names in references replaced to italics (page 18, References, lines: 483, 485, 492, 496, 504, 506, 509, 511, 516; page 19, References, lines: 518, 521, 526, 528, 530, 532, 534, 536, 538, 540, 546, 548, 549, 552, 553, 557, 559, 560, 562, 565; page 20, References, lines: 567, 572, 574, 580, 582-583, 584, 586, 588, 589, 591, 604; page 21, References, lines: 614, 627); inserted spaces (page 18, References, lines: 481, 494, 507, 508, 512; page 19, References, lines: 519, 521, 551; page 20, References, lines: 570, 571, 590, 592, 600; page 21, References, line 622); corrected the name order (page 18, References, line 481); corrected the author's name separation replaced comma to semicolon (Page 18-21, References, 478-645).
Please accept them.
Thank you so much in advance!
