Potential of Nettle Infusion to Protect Common Bean from Halo Blight Disease

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Manuscript entitled: Potential of nettle infusion to protect common bean from halo blight disease. The manuscript mainly investigated the protection ability of nettle infusion to common bean against Pph. The manuscript is reasonable design, and the Introduction and Discussion section is well written. However, several points need to be addressed before it can be accepted.

1. The most question is using of two different nettle infusions Ui22 and Ui18. The author described the Ui22 and Ui18 were collected from different regions and years. Therefore, what is the meaningful for comparison data from Ui22 and Ui18? The author should discussed in the manuscript.

2. Line 132-133. The source of bacteria used in this study should be added. Are the bacteria were origin isolated or obtained from any bacteria preservation Institute?

3. Line 166 and Figure 1. The author described seven days after the pretreatment, plants were sprayed with 2 mL Pph, but in Figure 1 is 21 days.

4. Line 223. The author should set a control of Pph growth without usage of Ui.

5. Line 229-230. Ui22 and Ui18 present opposite effects on Pph growth, but both Ui22 and Ui18 exhibit excellent effect to protect common bean from halo blight disease. The author should discussed in the manuscript.

6. I suggest statistic analysis in this manuscript, including software, statistic method and significance difference list as a single section in Materials and Methods.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I read your article with great interest and it seems to me to provide useful ideas for the world of applied research. However, I believe that the work requires some changes before it can be published, in particular I am referring above all to the methodological aspects which should be better supported by the literature on the topic and described in a clearer and more extensive manner. I also suggest you better specify what the added value of the proposed paper is, it is clear in the abstract but it is not made explicit in the text. Pay attention to acronyms, they should be specified in full the first time they are mentioned. Finally, I would pay more attention to the presentation of the results, for example the econometric part is a bit neglected. Below are some more specific comments and suggestions that I hope will help you.

Introduction:

• There is no indication of the structure of the paper, please add it.

• As already mentioned, please specify better what the added value of the work is.

• Line 55: “…due to the lack” must be “…due to lack”

• Line 67: MAP-kinases, please specify it, apply to all.

• Line 101: “avoids” must be “avoid”

• Line 104: please add some bibliographical references that can reinforce what is stated.

 

Materials and methods:

• Try to reduce the number of subparagraphs, at the moment they seem too many.

• Line 136-137: please correct the sentence, it is not clear, it should be better specified which methodology is adopted by the cited author (even if in a synthetic way, what De La Rubia et al propose should be described), this always applies.

• In general, it is necessary to understand whether the methodology is consistent with the literature on the topic, if so, other bibliographical references should be included, if not, the reason should be explained.

 

Results:

• In general, the results should be better linked to the proposed objectives of the work.

• Line 255: you mention “earlier results” but which ones are you referring to? Should the section you are referring to be specified, or are these results in general? It is not clear.

• Line 368: you talk about ANOVA tests but then I don't see any table showing these tests carried out, it would be useful to show them.

• Table 1: Please find a more concise title and insert the comment into the text.

 

Conclusions:

In general, they should be expanded by better specifying the implications and possible future developments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine, just some small typos.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  Title: Potential of nettle infusion to protect common bean from halo blight disease

 

 

The manuscript reports the results of using nettle infusions applied to Phaseolus vulgaris to test their potential to protect against Pseudomonas syringae, which causes halo blight disease.

Developing effective and eco-friendly methods to manage pathogenic microorganisms is currently a significant obstacle in agriculture and crop yield. Studies such as the one described in the manuscript are crucial and provide essential evidence, which can aid in developing alternative sources and formulations.

 

The document is well-structured and easy to understand. However, I have a few comments, suggestions, and queries to put forward in this review.

 

Abstract

The abstract section needs revision to clearly transmit the work reported in the manuscript. For example, the sudden mention of flagellin22 without a proper transition is confusing.

 

Introduction

Lines 73-75 – please clarify this sentence.

 

Lines 105-110 – please review this section. It is not clear why the antioxidant potential could help protect against phytopathogens. Also, “different genders” refers to different plant genera, is that correct?

 

Materials and Methods

 

Section 2.4 needs revision for clarity. For example, in lines 154-155: all wells had 200 uL of either water, Ui18 or Ui22, at the concentration of 20mg/mL in the case of both infusions?

 

Results

Line 261: why are these results not shown? 

 

Discussion 

Line 529-51: What do authors mean by “pretreatment of common bean plants (…) Figure 4”. It is not clear in the M&Ms section how this pretreatment was applied.

 

Conclusions:

The statement within lines 551-552 seems to contradict the statement in lines 554 to 555. Please verify the ideas expressed here.

 

General comments:

-there is no analysis or reference to the chemical composition of the nettle infusions obtained from plant material collected in different years, that would support the inferences made in the discussion.

In lines 65 to 69, signal transduction cascades that involve MAP-kinases and plant growth regulators such as salicylic acid are mentioned. However, the study did not perform a molecular analysis of alterations to gene expression, which would provide valuable evidence and support that the effect of nettle infusion is more than just transient and goes deeper to enhance a true defence response. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you for taking into account my suggestions, I appreciated your efforts, however I still have some comments, please try to make these extra changes, thank you

line 56: I'm sorry maybe my suggestion was misunderstood, please put "due to lack"

About the structure of the article I refer to the division in different paragraphs, for exmple, after the introduction to the topic, in section 2 we presente the data used and the methodology ....in section 3....

regarding comment n. 12 the table that I suggest to include (in English) is the follow and please add some comments in the text:

ANOVA
Colour intensity
	Suma de cuadrados	gl	Media cuadrática	F	Sig.
Entre grupos	5098,897	5	1019,779	12,395	,000
Dentro de grupos	987,293	12	82,274
Total	6086,190	17

 Comment 13. Table 1: Please find a more concise title and insert the comment into the text. I still suggest to reduce it, please.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx