Review Reports
- Vinelina Yankova1,
- Olga Georgieva1 and
- Nataliya Karadzhova1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Enrique Rico-García Reviewer 2: Kevin Cloonan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
It is good; however, the problem may be described clearly.
In methodology
In general, methodology does not give detailed descriptions to replicate the experiments.
Sow and harvesting times are not precise. How many cycles were considered?
Was a positive control considering? I mean chemical control. It is only mention not treated plants as a control.
How were bacterial blight and anthracnose induced into plants?
The origin of vermicompost? Cow, pig manure? Or other sources. Quality of vermicompost?
How big were treatments, how big were the plots of land? Distribution?
Tools to carried out measurements?
Results
In the heading of table 1 chemical products were used. This was not mentioned in materials and methods.
All figures and tables must stand alone, must be understood without reading the text.
In general, it is said that the experiment lasted 3 years. Table 5 does not show a 3 years experiment. Not the information presented.
Some tables may be turn into figures, think of weight or height a figure will show immediately the differences, in tables this is not see easily.
Other comments are in the MS
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Introduction
R1: It is good; however, the problem may be described clearly.
A: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We add some more information and rephrased some paragraphs to describe more clearly the problem.
In methodology
R1: In general, methodology does not give detailed descriptions to replicate the experiments.
A: Thank you very much for this comment. We add some more information and details about the methodology. Please see below.
R1: Sow and harvesting times are not precise. How many cycles were considered?
A: Corrected; please see L83-86
R1: Was a positive control considering? I mean chemical control. It is only mention not treated plants as a control.
A: Positive (chemical) control was not included. The experiments were conducted in certified organic field were no chemical pesticides are allowed. The only one comparison is made with two chemical products containing Azoxystrobin and difenoconazole and Penconazole, which effectiveness against anthracnose was evaluated in a conventional bean field.
R1: How were bacterial blight and anthracnose induced into plants?
A: Thank you for this comment. The experiments were carried at natural pest occurrence. We added this information, please see L 80-81.
R1: The origin of vermicompost? Cow, pig manure? Or other sources. Quality of vermicompost?
A: Thank you for this comment. We added this information. Please see L 122-125.
R1: How big were treatments, how big were the plots of land? Distribution?
A: Thank you for this comment. We added this information. Please see L138-142
Results
R1: In the heading of table 1 chemical products were used. This was not mentioned in materials and methods.
A: We added this information, please see L94-97
R1: All figures and tables must stand alone, must be understood without reading the text.
A: Thank you for this comment. We made changes in order to improve all figures and tables.
R1: In general, it is said that the experiment lasted 3 years. Table 5 does not show a 3 years experiment. Not the information presented.
A: Thank you for this comment. Please see L142-145 and L241-242
R1: Some tables may be turn into figures, think of weight or height a figure will show immediately the differences, in tables this is not see easily.
A: Thank you for this suggestion. We converted table 6 into figure.
Other comments are in the MS
Thank you! We have considered all of them.
Reviewer 2 Report
Organic production of snap bean in Bulgaria: pests and dis-2 eases incidence and control, soil fertility and yield.
Abstract
L 19: change to “at a dose of…”
L 22: at “the” before “Tangra”.
Introduction
L 28: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
L 42 – 44: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
L 49 – 50: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
L 62 – 64: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
L 69: provide author information for Beauveria bassiana.
Materials and Methods
L 78: add “an” before field.
L 81: instead of “decade” give the exact dates.
Provide information on the acreage of each field site. In Addition, provide spatial information – i.e. how experimental blocks were separated.
I’m not clear how sampling for pests was performed – i.e. how much material was subsampled from each field? Additionally, how were aphids and beetles collected from the field (sweet net, traps, etc)?
Results
Resolution of Fig. 1 is low. Can a simple histogram be provided? Error bars?
Same for Fig. 2. Can a simple line graph be provided? Error bars?
Discussion
L 277 – 279: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2. We would like to thank for your valuable comments. We try to address all of them. Please see below.
R2: L 19: change to “at a dose of…”
A: Done, please see L19-20
R2: L 22: at “the” before “Tangra”.
A: Done, please see L22
Introduction
R2: L 28: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
A: Done, please see L27-28
R2: L 42 – 44: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
A: Done, please see L42-43
R2: L 49 – 50: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
A: Done, please see L48-49
R2: L 62 – 64: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
A: Done, please see L61-64
R2: L 69: provide author information for Beauveria bassiana.
A: Done, please see L70
Materials and Methods
R2: L 78: add “an” before field.
A: Corrected, please see L81
R2: L 81: instead of “decade” give the exact dates.
A: Corrected, please see L84-86
R2: Provide information on the acreage of each field site. In Addition, provide spatial information – i.e. how experimental blocks were separated.
A: Added, please see L138-142
R2: I’m not clear how sampling for pests was performed – i.e. how much material was subsampled from each field?
A: Added, please see L138-142
R2: Additionally, how were aphids and beetles collected from the field (sweet net, traps, etc)?
A: Please see L109-111
Results
R2: Resolution of Fig. 1 is low. Can a simple histogram be provided? Error bars?
Same for Fig. 2. Can a simple line graph be provided? Error bars?
A: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have changed the graphs accordingly.
Discussion
R2: L 277 – 279: Sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
A: Please see L301-302
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
No additional comments
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your time and and efforts to review our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Introduction
L 31: add ‘s’ to species.
L 32: add ‘a’ before unique.
L 35: add ‘an’ before ideal.
L 39: change is to are.
L 70: delete fragrant.
L 77: change has to have.
L 79: add and before has.
Materials and Methods
L 99: change till to until.
I still do not see any information about the acreage of each field site, or spatial information about how experimental blocks were separated. Please include.
I still do not see any information about how sampling for pests was performed. Please include.
Results
New Figures look very nice, good work!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate all your valuable comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.Thank you very much for your time and and efforts!
R: L 31: add ‘s’ to species; L 32: add ‘a’ before unique; L 35: add ‘an’ before ideal; L 39: change is to are; L 70: delete fragrant; L 77: change has to have; L 79: add and before has; L 99: change till to until.
A: Thank you for all these corrections. All of them are corrected and marked up by Track changes.
R: I still do not see any information about the acreage of each field site, or spatial information about how experimental blocks were separated. Please include.
A: Please see L138-140 (Materials and methods, 2.5 Data analyses). The experimental setup consisted of 12 plots of ~167 square meters each. Total area experimental area was 0.2 ha. Each variant (treatment) consisted of three replications, each replication was composed by 10 plants. The variants are spatially separated from each other by plants treated accordingly but not evaluated.
R: I still do not see any information about how sampling for pests was performed. Please include.
A: Please see L104-105; 109-111; L118-120. The number of alive aphids were visually recorded on the field; Representative samples of 100 pods were taken from each variant and the index of bean weevil infestation (%) in seeds was calculated 50 days after harvesting; The number of twospotted spider mite larvae, nymphs and adults was counted on four infested leaves per plant under stereomicroscope.