The Use of Botanical Extracts for the Control of Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) in Yellow Pitahaya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting, showing the use of plant extracts as an alternative to synthetic products. The results are promising, especially when applied as a preventive treatment, since botanical extracts of T. zypaquirensis and D. ambrosioides reduced the infestation of M. incognita in yellow pitahaya. Despite having citations from 2024, 42% of the references listed are out of date and are more than 10 years old. The article may be published after the authors respond to the comments.

 1. Language corrections (it is recommended that the manuscript be reviewed by a native English speaker).

 2. Abstract:

Line 26: The name of the genus must be written in full the first time it is mentioned in the text (R. communis).

 3. Materials and Methods

a) Plant extracts

-Were the plants used in the experiment (D. ambrosioides, Urtica sp., R. communi, T. zypaquirensis and L. urucu) identified? If so, add the number of the voucher specimens, the location where they were deposited (Herbarium) and the name of the researcher who made the identification.

-How much was collected from each plant before drying? How were the plant extracts prepared? Add information to facilitate repeatability of the experiment.

b) The authors could add to the study a phytochemical analysis of the main groups of secondary metabolites present in the botanical extracts of T. zypaquirensis and D. ambrosioides that reduced the infestation of M. incognita in yellow pitahaya, in order to better support the discussion. The phytochemical analysis can be performed by thin layer chromatography (TLC), which is a quick and easy method.

 4) References: 42% of the listed references are outdated; please update them to not older than 2014.

-Reference 13 is incomplete.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Language corrections (it is recommended that the manuscript be reviewed by a native English speaker).

Author Response

Comment: Language corrections (it is recommended that the manuscript be reviewed by a native English speaker).

Response: The English redaction has been reviewed by a native speaker colleague from England.

 

Comment:. Abstract:

Line 26: The name of the genus must be written in full the first time it is mentioned in the text (R. communis).

Response: The full scientific name has been mentioned the first time that each species has been mentioned in the manuscript.

 

Comment: Materials and Methods

1. a) Plant extracts

-Were the plants used in the experiment (D. ambrosioides, Urtica sp., R. communi, T. zypaquirensis and L. urucu) identified? If so, add the number of the voucher specimens, the location where they were deposited (Herbarium) and the name of the researcher who made the identification.

Response: For the identification of the vegetal species used in this study, Literature where the morphological and taxonomical characteristics of these species was used. This has been mentioned in the methodology.

 

-How much was collected from each plant before drying? How were the plant extracts prepared? Add information to facilitate repeatability of the experiment.

Response: The process for the preparation and application of the botanical extracts has been mentioned in the Methodology section.

 

1. b) The authors could add to the study a phytochemical analysis of the main groups of secondary metabolites present in the botanical extracts of  zypaquirensisand D. ambrosioidesthat reduced the infestation of M. incognita in yellow pitahaya, in order to better support the discussion. The phytochemical analysis can be performed by thin layer chromatography (TLC), which is a quick and easy method.

Response: Raman spectra of secondary metabolites was done as a general chemical analysis; thus result was placed as Supplementary Material (Figure S1). In addition, a recommendation to carry out the profile of these metabolites has been mentioned in the conclusion.

 

Comment: References: 42% of the listed references are outdated; please update them to not older than 2014.

Response: The references have been updated.

 

Comment: Reference 13 is incomplete.

Response: This reference has been written correctly.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

        The manuscript “Use of Botanical Nematicides for the Control of Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid and White) in Yellow Pitahaya” is appropriate for the journal. It is an original and relevant contribution to generate knowledge on a preliminary study suggesting that botanical extracts of T. zypaquirensis and D. ambrosioides could be considered a promising treatment for reducing M. incognita infestation on yellow pitahaya, especially when applied as a preventative treatment. This approach contributes to the biological control of nematode populations to minimize the use of nematicides, highlighting the importance of early application using an integrated pest management strategy. Overall, the manuscript is adequate; however, I have made observations to contribute to improving the work. My observations in the introduction, materials methods, result, discussion, and references, are highlighted in the manuscript and listed below.

Some specific comments and suggestions:

L02- It is more appropriate to use the term "botanicals" instead of "botanical nematicides," as the experiment aims to evaluate their potential nematicidal activity rather than assuming their effectiveness in advance.

L26- Please clarify whether a single species of Urtica was used in the experiment or multiple species were involved. If only one species was used, provide its full scientific name. If multiple species were included, specify which ones to ensure accuracy and clarity.

L26- The full scientific name of a species should be mentioned in its entirety the first time it appears in the manuscript to ensure clarity and adherence to standard scientific conventions.

L45- The word pitahaya should be removed, as it is already included in the manuscript title, ensuring conciseness and avoiding redundancy.

L62- The author should see new relevant studies on nematodes that might provide valuable insights such as doi: 10.3390/plants12142724, doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113215

L165- According to your statement, the magnetic stirrer includes heating technology. Could you clarify whether the suspension was heated during the experiment?

L188- The reviewer requests clarification on the selection of 1200 J2/plant for the pot experiment, as many researchers, according to the literature, have used 2000 J2/plant. Providing a rationale for this choice, supported by relevant references or experimental considerations, will strengthen the justification.

L306- For root fresh weight, T. zypaquirensis and D. ambrosioides exhibited the highest values (116.77 g and 115.70 g, respectively), which were lower than the absolute control (157.86 g) but higher than the inoculated control (66.94 g). These values should be verified against Table 2 to ensure accuracy and consistency with the reported evaluation period.

L319- There appears to be a discrepancy in the reported root fresh weight values, as the paragraph mentions measurements taken at 60 days of evaluation, while the values provided in line 319 correspond to 30 days. The authors recommend verifying these values and ensuring that the correct data for 60 days is accurately reflected in the text and Table 2. Please review the data and update the values accordingly to maintain consistency and accuracy in the MS. 

L322- There appears to be a discrepancy in the reported data. The root fresh weight value of 72.21g is stated as the measurement after 30 days. However, the paragraph later discusses observations after 60 days. Please clarify whether the given value corresponds to the 30-day or 60-day mark to ensure consistency and accuracy in the analysis.

L328- It is possible that the author mentioned the root fresh weight measurement taken seven days earlier to ensure the smooth flow of the manuscript. However, to maintain clarity and consistency, it is important to explicitly state the timeline of observations, ensuring that the reported values align with the corresponding time points.

L336- 1197.00 nodules in which treatment?

L428- The authors may provide a reference to support this statement, ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the reported data. Proper citation will enhance the manuscript's clarity and allow readers to verify the information within the relevant context.

L479- The authors recommended summarizing the conclusion, as the key findings have already been discussed in detail in the discussion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: L02- It is more appropriate to use the term "botanicals" instead of "botanical nematicides," as the experiment aims to evaluate their potential nematicidal activity rather than assuming their effectiveness in advance.

Response: The term “botanical extracts” was used in the title.

 

Comment: L26- Please clarify whether a single species of Urtica was used in the experiment or multiple species were involved. If only one species was used, provide its full scientific name. If multiple species were included, specify which ones to ensure accuracy and clarity.

 

Response: In the methodology section, it was clarified that the species used in this study was Urera laciniata.

 

Comment: L26- The full scientific name of a species should be mentioned in its entirety the first time it appears in the manuscript to ensure clarity and adherence to standard scientific conventions.

Response: The full scientific name has been mentioned the first time that each species has been mentioned in the manuscript.

 

Comment: L45- The word pitahaya should be removed, as it is already included in the manuscript title, ensuring conciseness and avoiding redundancy.

Response: The word “pitahaya” has been deleted from the keywords.

 

Comment: L62- The author should see new relevant studies on nematodes that might provide valuable insights such as doi: 10.3390/plants12142724, doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113215

Response: The references have been updated. The suggested references made for the reviewer have been considered.

 

Comment: L165- According to your statement, the magnetic stirrer includes heating technology. Could you clarify whether the suspension was heated during the experiment?

Según su declaración, el agitador magnético incluye tecnología de calentamiento. ¿Podría aclarar si la suspensión se calentó durante el experimento?

Response: In the methodology section, it has been clarified that the magnetic stirrer was used only for stirring. To avoid confusion for heating, the text related to heating has been deleted.

 

Comment: L188- The reviewer requests clarification on the selection of 1200 J2/plant for the pot experiment, as many researchers, according to the literature, have used 2000 J2/plant. Providing a rationale for this choice, supported by relevant references or experimental considerations, will strengthen the justification.

Response: The references that support this dose have been placed.

 

Comment: L306- For root fresh weight, T. zypaquirensis and D. ambrosioides exhibited the highest values (116.77 g and 115.70 g, respectively), which were lower than the absolute control (157.86 g) but higher than the inoculated control (66.94 g). These values should be verified against Table 2 to ensure accuracy and consistency with the reported evaluation period.

Response: The data of the text and the table have been checked, corrected and verified.

 

Comment: L319- There appears to be a discrepancy in the reported root fresh weight values, as the paragraph mentions measurements taken at 60 days of evaluation, while the values provided in line 319 correspond to 30 days. The authors recommend verifying these values and ensuring that the correct data for 60 days is accurately reflected in the text and Table 2. Please review the data and update the values accordingly to maintain consistency and accuracy in the MS. 

Response: Response: The data of the text and the table have been checked, corrected and verified.

 

Comment: L322- There appears to be a discrepancy in the reported data. The root fresh weight value of 72.21g is stated as the measurement after 30 days. However, the paragraph later discusses observations after 60 days. Please clarify whether the given value corresponds to the 30-day or 60-day mark to ensure consistency and accuracy in the analysis.

Response: Response: The data of the text and the table have been checked, corrected and verified.

 

Comment: L328- It is possible that the author mentioned the root fresh weight measurement taken seven days earlier to ensure the smooth flow of the manuscript. However, to maintain clarity and consistency, it is important to explicitly state the timeline of observations, ensuring that the reported values align with the corresponding time points.

Response: The specific time (7 days before the inoculation) has been mentioned in this paragraph.

 

 

Comment: L336- 1197.00 nodules in which treatment?

Response: In the text is mentioned that this data corresponds to the “inoculated control”.

 

Comment: L428- The authors may provide a reference to support this statement, ensuring the credibility and accuracy of the reported data. Proper citation will enhance the manuscript's clarity and allow readers to verify the information within the relevant context.

Response: The references that support the statement have been placed.

Comment: L479- The authors recommended summarizing the conclusion, as the key findings have already been discussed in detail in the discussion section.

Response: The conclusion has been summarized.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this revised version, the author carefully revised each one. I am satisfied and therefore agree to accept publication. However, it is important to note that the format of the references should comply with the requirements of the journal, especially in italics for Latin. Thank you.

Author Response

Comment: In this revised version, the author carefully revised each one. I am satisfied and therefore agree to accept publication. However, it is important to note that the format of the references should comply with the requirements of the journal, especially in italics for Latin. Thank you.

 

Response: Each reference has been checked and corrected according to the journal´s format.