The Pathogen of Top Rot Disease in Rosa roxburghii and Its Effective Control Fungicides
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors are well oriented in the area of plant protection and Rosa roxburghii diseases control.
I have a few general remarks:
Line 72 -use untreated instead of control objects.
There are few repetitions of sentence: Top rot, a newly discovered fruit disease f.ex line 344, 377 and few other. Could You please check it.
Some of the active ingredients as carbendazim, chlorothalonil, thiram, tiophanate methyl, mancozeb are now forbidden in EU. It could be good to mention this in the article, especially for European readers. Many changes now appear in the legistaltion connected to the a.i. so it could be good to mention somewhere that some of these a.i. are in dangerous even for Chinese market.
Author Response
Comment 1: Authors are well oriented in the area of plant protection and Rosa roxburghii diseases control.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comments, careful reviews and warm work to our work! We also sincerely thank you for your hard corrections on our manuscript! Reviewers' comments are extremely constructive and valuable, and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied carefully the reviewers' comments and made substantial revisions which we sincerely hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewers' comments and the corrections in the revised manuscript are as flows. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 2: Line 72 -use untreated instead of control objects.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! The corresponding statement has been revised as "…the single or combined application of allicin and chitosan effectively controlled powdery mildew of R. roxburghii and reliably enhanced its disease resistance, photosynthesis, growth, yield, and quality". Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 70-72)
Comment 3: There are few repetitions of sentence: Top rot, a newly discovered fruit disease f.ex line 344, 377 and few other. Could You please check it.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful review and warm work to our manuscript! The corresponding repetition statement has been deleted which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 344-345)
Comment 4: Some of the active ingredients as carbendazim, chlorothalonil, thiram, tiophanate methyl, mancozeb are now forbidden in EU. It could be good to mention this in the article, especially for European readers. Many changes now appear in the legistaltion connected to the a.i. so it could be good to mention somewhere that some of these a.i. are in dangerous even for Chinese market.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews! The reviewers' comment is extremely valuable. The corresponding statement has been added and revised as "Meanwhile, some of tested fungicides in this study such as carbendazim, chlorothalonil, thiram, tiophanate methyl, mancozeb are now forbidden in Europe. Considering the potential risks of above forbidden fungicides, accordingly, 80% tebuconazole WG, 10% difenoconazole WG, and 250 g/L azoxystrobin SC can be recommended for controlling top rot disease in R. roxburghii production." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. We sincerely hope to get your understanding and recognition! Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 395-399 )
We appreciate for reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
the paper is interesting and contains quite original data. Some notes are on the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: the paper is interesting and contains quite original data. Some notes are on the attached file
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comments, careful reviews and warm work to our work! We also sincerely thank you for your hard corrections on our manuscript! Reviewers' comments are extremely constructive and valuable, and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied carefully the reviewers' comments and made substantial revisions which we sincerely hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewers' comments and the corrections in the revised manuscript are as flows. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 2: add systematics
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! The corresponding statement have been revised as "Rosa roxburghii Tratt., a genus of rose in the Rosaceae family, is an emerging, healthy and typical representative of the third-generation fruits rich in vitamin C, flavonoids, superoxide dismutase (SOD) and various minerals [1-3]." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 31-33)
Comment 3: Line 123: please correct R. roxbkurghii.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful review and warm work to our manuscript! The corresponding statement has been added and revised as "R. roxburghii" which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 4: each species when reported for the first time in the texy should be written in full, in italics, with Authority and systematics
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews! The reviewers' comment is extremely valuable. The corresponding statements have been careful revised which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 273-275)
We appreciate for reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Brief Summary
The manuscript horticulturae-1989176 investigated for the first time the pathogen of top rot disease in Rosa roxburghii fruits. The pathogenicity of the fungal isolate, identified as Colletotrichum fruticola CXCDF-3 by morphological and multi gene phylogenetic analyses, was confirmed by in vitro and in planta tests. Fungal disease control through fungicides was studied in vitro and with an open field experiment.
The study is of great interest and could add knowledge to the field. The experiment was conducted with valid methodologies. The data handling is suitable, and the quality of the manuscript preparation is almost appropriate. I would improve only minor aspects. I provided my suggestions in the pdf file attached.
Specific comments
Keywords: I suggest using terms different from those present in the title.
Introduction: The Introduction correctly places the study in the context with a clear statement of the purpose of the study. The description of the working hypotheses should be provided. Some references should be provided in the description of the pathogenesis.
Materials and Methods: The authors described the methods used almost clearly. See the suggestions in the pdf file attached for some missing details.
Results: The results description is clear and supported by appropriate figures and tables. I would improve some minor aspects, see the suggestions in the pdf file attached.
Discussion: The authors correctly discussed the results from the perspective of previous studies, considering a valid number of references.
Conclusions: This section could be improved by adding future research directions. The use of “green" term must be clarified or removed.
Other comments
Revise the italics for scientific names.
The English language needs moderate improvements.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: The manuscript horticulturae-1989176 investigated for the first time the pathogen of top rot disease in Rosa roxburghii fruits. The pathogenicity of the fungal isolate, identified as Colletotrichum fruticola CXCDF-3 by morphological and multi gene phylogenetic analyses, was confirmed by in vitro and in planta tests. Fungal disease control through fungicides was studied in vitro and with an open field experiment.
The study is of great interest and could add knowledge to the field. The experiment was conducted with valid methodologies. The data handling is suitable, and the quality of the manuscript preparation is almost appropriate. I would improve only minor aspects. I provided my suggestions in the pdf file attached.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comments, careful reviews and warm work to our work! Reviewers' comments are extremely constructive and valuable, and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied carefully the reviewers' comments and have substantial revisions which we sincerely hope meet with approval. The responds to the reviewers' comments and the corrections in the revised manuscript are as flows. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 2: Keywords: I suggest using terms different from those present in the title.
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments and careful reviews! Keywords have been revised as "Colletotrichum fruticola; disease identification; tebuconazole; difenoconazole; azoxystrobin." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 28-29)
Comment 3: Introduction: The Introduction correctly places the study in the context with a clear statement of the purpose of the study. The description of the working hypotheses should be provided. Some references should be provided in the description of the pathogenesis.
Materials and Methods: The authors described the methods used almost clearly. See the suggestions in the pdf file attached for some missing details.
Results: The results description is clear and supported by appropriate figures and tables. I would improve some minor aspects, see the suggestions in the pdf file attached.
Discussion: The authors correctly discussed the results from the perspective of previous studies, considering a valid number of references.
Conclusions: This section could be improved by adding future research directions. The use of “green" term must be clarified or removed.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! We have made detailed modifications according to the comments of experts in the PDF attachment. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 4: Other comments
Revise the italics for scientific names.
The English language needs moderate improvements.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! The corresponding italics have been careful revised. We have carefully checked the words word by word and sentences in our manuscript and tried our best to revise the English language including grammar mistakes marked in red in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 5: Not structured sentence
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments! The corresponding statement has been revised as "Top rot is a new fungal fruit disease in Rosa roxburghii production regions of southwest China." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 13-14)
Comment 6: Revise significant digits
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's good advice to our manuscript! The corresponding digits have been revised which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 20, 316, 384-385)
Comment 7: I would modify it witho another term to be different from the title one. Provide the common name to make the term different from the one present in the title.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews and good comment on our manuscript! Keywords have been revised as "Colletotrichum fruticola; disease identification; tebuconazole; difenoconazole; azoxystrobin." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 28-29)
Comment 8: No references provided.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive comments, careful reviews and warm work to our work! The corresponding references have been added which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Moreover, since it is a new disease, the second paragraph in the introduction mainly introduces its occurrence information in detail. So, there's no reference for this paragraph. We sincerely hope to get your understanding and recognition! Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 41, 43, 463-467)
Comment 9: The working hypothesis is missing.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! The corresponding hypothesis has been added as "Whether top rot disease is caused by a new pathogen and whether the commonly used fungicides are effective against it are worthy of further study." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 77-78)
Comment 10: I would move these details in section 2.2.
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments and careful reviews! The corresponding details have been moved in section 2.2 which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 116-121)
Comment 11: The use of each medium should be clarified. E.g., Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA) was used for pathogenic strain isolation and purification.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! The corresponding statement has been revised "PDA was used for the isolation, purification, and biological character determination of pathogenic strain, and NA, ACM, OA, SDAY, and PSA were used for its biological character determination" which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 94-96)
Comment 12: Provide type and company name.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! The corresponding type and company name have been provided. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 134-135)
Comment 13: Clarify how the single strain obtainment was identified. Was the single spore culturing performed? Provide details about storage form.
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments! The corresponding statement has been revised as "A single strain was obtained by the single spore culturing, which was named strain CXCDF-3. The PDA plate and single spore of strain CXCDF-3 were stored at 4℃ for the research." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 141-143)
Comment 14: I would use "in planta" term. Check it in the entire manuscript.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's good advice to our manuscript! "in planta" have been revised "in planta" which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 146, 153, 156, 249)
Comment 15: Provide details about the tree inference, bootstrap analysis, and outgroup chosen.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews and good comment on our manuscript! The corresponding statement has been revised which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 175-177)
Comment 16: italics.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and warm work to our work! The corresponding italics have been care(ful revised. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 17: I would move this table in a supplementary file.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! This table has been moved in a supplementary file. Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 18: Provide dimensions and spacing plantation layout.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! The corresponding statement has been already stated as "The planting density of R. roxburghii trees was 106 plants per 666.7 m2." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 125-126)
Comment 19: Provide a clearer description of the panels, describing the presence/absence of pathogenesis within experimental conditions
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments and careful reviews! The corresponding clearer descriptions have been revised which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 235-244)
Comment 20: Provide the abbreviation meaning.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! The corresponding statement has been revised "basepairs" which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 268-269)
Comment 21: If possible the names of the strains should be bigger. Isolate should also be highlighted. Provide scale bar meaning.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and good comment! We have perfected the phylogenetic tree with our best efforts which we sincerely hope to get your understanding and recognition! The corresponding scale bar meaning has been provided which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See line 281)
Comment 22: Add meaning of the abbreviations used in this first table.
Response: Special thanks to you for your good comments! The corresponding abbreviations has been already stated in section 2.1 which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 99-101, 106)
Comment 23: I would move this table in supplementary material and insert figures to provide more significant outcomes.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's good advice to our manuscript! In order to make it easier for readers to read, we humbly believe that this table should be kept in the text. We sincerely hope to get your understanding and recognition! Thank you most sincerely!
Comment 24: Future research directions could also be provided.
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews and good comment on our manuscript! The future research direction has been added as "Considering the serious harmfulness of top rot disease in R. roxburghii, research on its diversified alternative and environmental-friendly control strategies is a major concern for the future." which marked in blue in the revised manuscript. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 422-424)
Comment 25: This aspect should be discussed further. The use of green practices is usually associated with the use of bilogical agents and not chemically synthesized molecules.
Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reviews and warm work to our work! "green" has been deleted. Thank you most sincerely! (See line 421)
Comment 26: The number of references will be increased with the implementation of the introduction section
Response: Thanks very much for the reviewer's careful reviews on our manuscript! T The number of references has been adjusted. Thank you most sincerely! (See lines 463-467)
We appreciate for reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
