Review Reports - Spice Defense: Resistance, Capsaicin, and Photosynthesis in Diverse Capsicum Genotypes Under Root-Knot Nematode Stress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is very interesting, but before publishing, the authors should do another screening with the accessions selected in the first one in larger pots, with greater inoculum, for a longer period (three months) to be sure that the resistance was maintained after more nematode cycles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

he work is very interesting, but before publishing, the authors should do another screening with the accessions selected in the first one in larger pots, with greater inoculum, for a longer period (three months) to be sure that the resistance was maintained after more nematode cycles.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable and insightful suggestion. We fully agree that evaluating resistance under conditions that allow for multiple nematode cycles—such as using larger pots, a higher inoculum density, and an extended period—would provide stronger confirmation of durable resistance. However, due to constraints relating to resources and experimental timelines, this extended validation could not be conducted within the scope of the current study. We will perform such an experiment in a future study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

Overall, the manuscript contains useful data which will be helpful for Meloidogyne enterolobii management using resistant genotypes in Thailand and elsewhere. The resistant genotypes identified from present study will help to identify new sources of resistance and develop resistant pepper cultivars with desirable traits. However, the data was not presented in a clear and organized way to deliver the right massage. Hence, it needs major revision.

Shortcomings of the manuscript:

The title needs to reflect the main aspect of the study which is identifying resistant cultivars; Capsaicin is a small part of the study. (see line 11-14)
Generally, the manuscript lacks language clarity, flow of ideas and logical organization. Hence, it needs a lot of work on the language, flows of ideas and organization.
The authors need to use standard terminology in nematology studies. For example: they used “nematode-resilient” instead of “nematode resistant” line 18; “nematode infestation” instead of “nematode infection” (line 78); etc. The term nematode “infestation” is used to show the nematodes are in the soil and “infection” is used when the nematodes penetrate plants.
The authors did not clearly categorize the nematode resistance-susceptible categories. They did not show which method they followed (citation), did not mention if they modified that category and the reason for their modification. For example: what is the difference between “hypersusceptible” and “highly susceptible” (line 145-147); “highly resistant” and “very resistant” (line 236-237; 241-24; etc.), etc. The term like “hypersusceptible”, for example, is not common. If the authors have justification on changes in defining categories, they need to explain well and justify it or put the authority for that category (citation).
It is not clear how the authors measured tolerance using Reproductive factor (RF). Resistance and tolerance are two different concepts. Resistance refers to the trait that reduces nematode reproduction which is measured by rate of reproduction such as RF. Tolerance refers to reduction of the impact of nematode infection on hosts fitness and measured by the hosts trait such as yield parameters, root and shoot growth, or/etc. In the manuscript, the authors did not clarify this but used the RF factor which is not common for tolerance traits.
The authors used the term “root-knot nematode” too much instead of specifying they tested on Meloidogyne enterolobii. Once the general name “a root-knot nematode” mentioned and the work is specified the root-knot nematode is enterolobii, it should consistently be spelled out as “M. enterolobii” throughout the manuscript including topics of sections and subsections of Material and methods, Results, and Discussion.
Figure 2 is confusing. It looks like the susceptible genotype (Figure 2A) has better root biomass than the resistant one (Figure 2B). It is better to put new pictures that show a good contrast between susceptible and resistance genotypes.
Figure 3 is not clearly visible, especially the x-axis. It should be modified to make the fonts bigger and readable.
The Results and discussion sections are difficult to follow due to confusions in the use of terminologies, organization, the language and flow of ideas.
Follow the journals guide for reference formatting such as use of punctuation, italicizing scientific names, use of abbreviated journal name, etc.

Specific comments:

Lines 16-17: Why is using gall index which is used by many researchers less reliable in the present study?
Line 18: Better to use “nematode infection” instead of “nematode resilient”
Lines 21-23: I would suggest as “In contrast, capsaicin accumulation was influenced by genotype and nematode stress.”
Lines 35-37: Please support the sentence with citation.
Lines 37-39: Please support the sentence with citation.
Line 47: please change “Baht” amount into international unit (dollar amount)
Lines 52: add “the” as “Despite the growing awareness …”
Lines 55-58: Please support the statements with citation.
Lines 58-65: Rewrite this part.
Lines 77-78: Put nematode “nematode infection” instead of “nematode infestation”
Lines 78-80: This section did not show the complete objectives of the present study. Please put the broader objective of your study by including screening for resistance, physiological properties and capsaicin accumulation.
Figure 1: Better to separate phrases in the legend with “;” instead of “,” and put “.” at the end.
Lines 110-123: Remove the details of this section. Just mention that you confirmed the identity. Like “ enterolobii was confirmed using ---------- (which region ITS, 28S) of the ribosomal DNA and cytochrome oxidase II genes. The identity was -----% and ----- % for --- ribosomal DNA and cytochrome oxidase II, respectively.
In subsection 2.2, 2.3,2.4 and 2.5, replace “root-knot nematode” with “ enterolobii”.
Line 135: replace “a random” with “a randomized”.
Line 144: Please put as” … number of eggs per gram of root” instead of “gram root weight”.
Line 17: Put “.” at the end.
Lines 153-154: It is not clear. Please rewrite it.
Line 170: Please put “.” before “Measurements…”

Note: Results and Discussion sections need major revision to follow the message.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Shortcomings of the manuscript:

Q: The title needs to reflect the main aspect of the study which is identifying resistant cultivars; Capsaicin is a small part of the study. (see line 11-14)

A: Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed the title to “Spice Defense: Resistance, Capsaicin, and Photosynthesis in Diverse Capsicum Genotypes Under Root-Knot Nematode Stress.”

Q: Generally, the manuscript lacks language clarity, flow of ideas and logical organization. Hence, it needs a lot of work on the language, flows of ideas and organization.

A: We appreciate your suggestion and have thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to enhance its clarity, coherence, and logical flow of ideas.

Q: The authors need to use standard terminology in nematology studies. For example: they used “nematode-resilient” instead of “nematode resistant” line 18; “nematode infestation” instead of “nematode infection” (line 78); etc. The term nematode “infestation” is used to show the nematodes are in the soil and “infection” is used when the nematodes penetrate plants.