Identification and Pathogenicity of Fungal Pathogens Associated with Leaf Disease of Fallopia multiflora in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript reports on the identification of several palnt pathogens affecting Fallopia multiflora using both morphological and multilocus molecular approaches. My biggest concern is that the present study focuses only on disease identification, which alone may not be sufficient to justify a publication in horticulturae. Although the methodology is scientifically sound, in my opinion the manuscript is not demonstrating a broader scientific or horticultural significance. Such novelty for example could be the host–pathogen associations, their implications for plant health, or potential impacts on cultivation practices of this medicinal and economically important plant. In its present form, I believe it is better to submit it in a plant pathology oriented journal as first report.

Specific comments: Both the Introduction and Discussion are insufficiently detailed and should be expanded to better frame the study, highlight its significance, and discuss the implications of the results. Figure 1 needs descriptive labels or a legend explaining panels.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,        We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable revision suggestions. In light of your comments, we have revised the manuscript by integrating the feedback from the other reviewers.      First, we optimized the presentation format of the figures and their legends in the manuscript, and specifically revised the insufficiently detailed legend for Figure 1 as you pointed out.      Second, we added relevant horticultural content to the Introduction and Discussion sections, which makes the study more closely aligned with the disease identification of horticultural plants in combination with production practice, as well as the impacts of diseases on horticultural plants.      Third, we have completely rewritten the Discussion section, in which we discussed each fungal species isolated and identified in this study individually, focusing on the diseases they induce, their host range, and their respective impacts on host plants. Finally, we would like to extend our sincere gratitude again for your careful reading and insightful comments. We look forward to your further feedback, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or inquiries. The revised manuscript is attached to the PDF file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Keywords: Suggest reformulating the keywords more objectively, avoiding the repetition of terms already present in the title.

Introduction: The introduction is well-written but remains brief. It could be enriched by exploring the specific diseases encountered and the phytopathological importance of these fungi, even in other host cultures.

Materials and Methods: Well-described.

Results

Figures (2, 4, 5, 7, 9): The identification codes for all fungal isolates must be included in their respective figures to enhance clarity.

Scale bars should be placed within the figure itself, properly positioned for better visualization.

Table 2: All abbreviations used in the tables must be defined in the footnotes, even if the culture media are widely known or described in the Materials and Methods section.

Figures 3, 6, 7, 10: Standardize the presentation of the phylogenetic trees.

Maintain consistency in layout, font size, and the use of boldface for names on the right.

Highlight specific clades of interest using boxes or bold formatting. If arrows are maintained, ensure they are standardized in terms of thickness and horizontal alignment.

Lines 326-328: The current phrasing implies that Figure 12 shows pathogenicity in tuber roots, which does not align with the visual evidence. Please rewrite this section to specifically describe each figure, including Figure 13 for clarification.

3.2.1. All results refer to observed symptoms and repeatedly cite Figure 12. I suggest dedicated a paragraph to describing lesion sizes or removing the references to Fig. 12 when describing individual results already presented in Fig. 11.  

Discussion

The discussion requires considerable improvement. Beyond identifying the fungi, it is crucial to present each species in detail, discussing current trends, pathological challenges, and potential control methods. The study has relevant findings but should not be presented as a mere report; it requires a specific literature review for each identified species and strain. To add this depth of information, I suggest at least one paragraph for each species.

Conclusion

A formal Conclusion section should be written. This section should succinctly convey the importance of the study, the complexity and validation of the data, the main findings, and any limitations or difficulties encountered. Furthermore, it should highlight the scientific gains provided by this study, the specific field it enriches, and the next steps for disease control and future perspectives. The synthesis must be coherent with the depth of the data provided.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,   We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable revision suggestions. In light of your comments, we have revised the manuscript by integrating the feedback from the other reviewers.

Comments 1: The introduction is well-written but remains brief. It could be enriched by exploring the specific diseases. encountered and the phytopathological importance of these fungi, even in other host cultures.

Response 1: Your suggestion is highly valuable. We have revised the Introduction section, adding descriptions of the horticultural value of F. multiflora itself, as well as the potential impacts and threats posed by its pathogenic fungi.

Comments 2: Regarding several issues with the figures and tables in the Results section.

Response 2: We have optimized and adjusted the figures in the Results section, standardized the presentation format of the phylogenetic trees, and added footnotes for all abbreviations used in Table 2, with further adjustments made to the morphological characteristic figures of all fungal species. Revisions have been made to the issues identified on pages 326–328, and a detailed description has been provided for Figure 13.

Comments 3: Regarding the issues identified in the Discussion section.

Response 3: We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the issues you pointed out on this aspect and the valuable suggestions you provided. We have completely rewritten the Discussion section, adopting a segmented discussion format for all the isolated strains, with the discussion focusing on the impacts of pathogenic fungi on horticultural plants as well as their key biological characteristics.

Comments 4: Regarding the suggestions on the Conclusion section.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate your reminder. We have formulated a formal Conclusion section, which concisely elaborates on the significance of the study, highlights the scientific findings yielded by this research, the specific research areas it enriches, as well as the follow-up steps for disease control and future prospects.

Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude again for your careful reading and insightful comments. Your suggestions are of great importance to us and have played an invaluable role in the revision of this manuscript. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any further questions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, The manuscript is well written and concise, thus making it a pleasure to read. Thank you for creating a manuscript that clearly demonstrates the importance of taxonomic characterization, phylogeny, and morphological data for new diseases. The materials and methods, as well as the results, were presented in an orderly fashion making it easy to read even for audience that might not be familiar with the subject in question. Thank you for your contributions to the field of plant pathology.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,   Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly admire your meticulous comments and constructive revision suggestions, and we would like to express our sincere gratitude to you again for these! Accordingly, we have revised the manuscript by integrating your comments with those from the other reviewers.   Comments 1: Regarding the revision suggestions for Lines 22, 25 and 29 Response 1: In accordance with your suggestions, we have revised the issues in these lines: Line 22 has been revised and optimized, the full names of the genes have been spelled out with their corresponding abbreviations provided, the phrase" with obvious interspecific variability" has been deleted, and a period has been added after the term.   Comments 2: Regarding the revision suggestions for the keywords Response 2: In accordance with your suggestions, we have revised the key words to horticultural plants; pathogenic fungi; morphology; multi-locus phylogenetic analysis.   Comments 3: Regarding the issues identified in the Introduction section Response 3: Integrating the feedback from all reviewers, we have made extensive adjustments and revisions to the Introduction section, adding content regarding the horticultural roles and significance of Fallopia multiflora itself, as well as the potential impacts of pathogenic fungi on it.   Comments 4: Regarding the issues identified in the Materials and Methods section Response 4: For the content originally in Line 69 (now Line 78), the approximate size of this square is 1 cm, which has been indicated in the manuscript. For the content originally in Lines 72–74 (now Lines 82–84), the distilled water used was sterile water. The phrase "for fungal isolation" has been deleted. A period has been added after "Canada." In addition, the words "Petri-dish with" have been added before "potato." The definite article "the" has been added before "upcoming." The word "fresh" has been deleted, and "Petri-dishes" has been added after PDA (now Line 88). "All the obtained pure cultures" has been deleted and replaced with "Purified single-spore cultures." For Lines 92–95 and 107–110 (current line numbers), the sentence structure and order have been adjusted, and the relevant content has been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript. All other identified issues have been revised and highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.   Comments 5: Regarding the issues identified in the Discussion section Response 5: We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the issues you pointed out on this aspect and the valuable suggestions you provided. We have completely rewritten the Discussion section, adopting a segmented discussion format for all the isolated strains, with the discussion focusing on the impacts of pathogenic fungi on horticultural plants as well as their key biological characteristics.     Finally, we would like to express our sincere gratitude again for your careful reading and insightful comments. Your suggestions are of great importance to us and have played an invaluable role in the revision of this manuscript. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any further questions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On figure 1, you need to point out the disease in each photo. Furthermore, there should be a reference in text for Fig. 1.