Screening of Substrates and Optimization of Formulations for Exogenous Nutrient Bags of Morchella sextelata (Black Morel)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses the practical aspects, including ENB composition, of cultivating the highly valued edible mushroom, black morel. The investigation is done at a semi-industrial level, which has enabled the authors to transform the differences in morel yield into prospective income values. This is an important aspect, advantageous for this type of development-oriented research.
On the other hand, to obtain reliable hints for the mushroom industry, the provided results are still inconclusive, allowing identification of some tendency, which may be or may not be confirmed in further field trials.
My reservations are based on the design of the presented research, which includes just one trial, although the variants have been tested in triplicate. There are numerous factors, temperature ranges, basic soil composition, type and condition of morel spawn, etc., which can still be variable in the following trials and influence the outcome. The authors seem to be aware of this fact (rows 438-442), but do recognize it only in the final sentence of the discussion.
If the editors decide to publish this contribution nevertheless, I would urge the authors to make a more explicit disclaimer regarding the limited nature of their conclusions and eventual problems of reproducibility already at the abstract and introduction of the paper.
Apart from this general concern, there are a number of inconsistencies that have to be corrected if the paper is going to be published.
1) Rows 111-113, the authors claim to have prepared and autoclaved polyethylene ENB. I am afraid polyethylene will not stand the given conditions of sterilization; usually, polypropylene is employed instead. Please check.
2) Day- and nighttime temperature, as well as humidity fluctuations during the greenhouse cultivation have been considerable and are not precisely recorded, especially the temperature shift during the mushroom initiation. Meanwhile, the authors indicate that the temperature was somehow controlled (row 145) or regulated (row 161). I would propose to provide the temperature (soil & air) and humidity curves or at least the graphic representation of the range of these changes, during the cultivation period. This would be important for the eventual assessment of factors influencing the reproducibility of results in further experiments.
3) To my understanding, figure 2 is rather blurry and does not provide a clear message; figure 3 and table 4 on mushroom yield give the same information more precisely. The figure can be omitted or replaced by the graphs I have mentioned in point (2).
4) The origin, type, and any available information should be given about the morel spawn used in the trial – important to consider eventual reproducibility of the results.
5) The data on the basic composition of soil, supplemented by ENB composition, should be provided– important to consider the eventual reproducibility of the results.
6) The authors indicate the method of harvesting mature morels (row 174), but do not provide the time of harvest and the information on whether the harvesting was done during one initial mushroom flush or over consecutive tides. This information must be provided.7) Existing research indicate that the optimal C to N ratio for morel production in soil is about 20/1. I wonder if it is possible to deduce this ratio from the soil samples analysis by the authors. I would welcome including an additional panel reflecting C to N ratio in figure 4 or 3, if possible.
8) Within the discussion, the authors pay some attention to the positive mushroom yield results obtained by the ENB versions KY2 and MY2 (rows 422-425) while version MY1, which gave even better results (Table 3) is not mentioned. Please add on this.
9) The mass of mushroom mycelial hyphae not always correlates with the production of buttons. I would like to propose the authors including in the discussion the aspects of the influence of available soil nitrogen concentration on mushroom mycelial growth and on the approaches of evaluating its mass in the soil, which may be useful in interpreting the adverse effects of N concentration on the morel yield.
Author Response
I have organized the content into a Word document and uploaded it for your review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript reports on an in situ experiment carried out to identify an economically and ecologically interesting adjuvant formulation (ENB) for morel cultivation. The work complies with the relevant international standards and the practical recommenations delivered in conclusion are based on solid data. Although the scope of this work remains limited to the specific conditions of morel cultivation in a region of China with a given soil quality, it can inspire local experiments to optimise M. sextelata cultivation. Despite its limited readership, this work deserves to be published.
Following are specific comments :
Page 2- Line 48: ENB is already defined in the abstrat, but it should be defined again here in the introduction.
Page 2- Line 78: ".... grains grain ..." ?
Page 2- Line 88: the composition of the spawn should be added here.
Page 3- Line 106: I do not understand whant means " the substrates were combined in a 1:1 ratio...." Substrates were added to grain at different ratios. Please explain better.
Page 5- Line 1180: "...Biological samples..." Do you mean soil samples?
Figure 2 - line 280: the size and definition of the pictures are too low for being informative. You should change or delete.
Figure 5 - line 348: Please use more contrasted colours.
Author Response
I have organized the content into a Word document and uploaded it for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
