Macroalgal Diseases: Exploring Biology, Pathogenesis, and Management Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPls see the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Just a little editing to coincide with the content of the manuscript based from the comments as reflected in the PDF.
Author Response
Comment 1: Lines 12-14 – This pertains to the claim of the authors that red rot and green spot diseases are reported in Pyropia/Porphyra, Kappaphycus and Gracilaria, however, the reviewer disagrees that such diseases are also present or reported in Kappaphycus and Gracilaria. To my knowledge, there are NO such diseases in these genera. Please revise this claim.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we modified it as you suggest.
Comment 2: Line 87 – Eucheuma is less cultivated in the Southeast Asian region but it is true in Tanzania. Please revise this claim.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we modified it as you suggest.
Comment 3: Line 94 – There is no such farming of Pyropia/Porphyra in the Southeast Asian region even in the coldest part of Vietnam. Yes, these species are found in wild populations in the northernmost part of the Philippines and also in central or northern part of Vietnam. Southeast Asian region is a tropical region. Pyropia/Porphyra are known to thrive in the temperate/colder waters.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we modified it as you suggest. We deleted the part that talks about cultivation in Southeast Asia leaving only the main players in Asian cultivation.
Comment 4: Since this is a review paper, it will more credible if the authors will include good quality pictures/images of the most common diseases of each species described in this manuscript to add more substance to the whole paper.
Response 4: Thanks for your comment, we absolutely agree with you, unfortunately we do not have many photos of our pathologies, even if it is a review and we would like to insert photos appropriately cited, often they are research articles even recent ones and the use of photos in most cases is not allowed.
Comment 5: In fact, the narratives of each genus for the diseases are all wanting. We need more substance considering that this is a Review paper.
Response 5: macroalgal pathologies, since they were studied for the first time, not much time has passed, in fact the literature is very lacking precisely because there is not much to be found. Furthermore, as you can read in the text some genera are described better than others precisely because the studies are much greater than others (Pyropia vs. Ulva)
Comment 6: For all the Tables, the reviewer wants more specific Current Treatment practices in terms of time (minutes) air exposure, frequency of air exposure during the entire culture period. Further, what kind of acid concentration, frequency of exposure and time duration are practiced.
Response 6: Thank you for this comment. Being a review in which some pathologies are well described because well studied and others are not, the relationship between the study of one gender and the study of another seemed absolutely unbalanced. Therefore, for the details of the treatment we refer to the authors who performed that treatment. It would have been true, in our opinion, if the review had only dealt with one gender, in which case it would have been useful to also include the details.
Comment 7: It will be prudent also to include References in each Table to be credible.
Response 7: Thank you for this comment Citations in tables may be misleading, as some considerations are elaborated by us. all citations are appropriately inserted along the text.
Comment 8: For the Table on Kappaphycus and Gracilaria Current treatment section – how could you possibly control water movement?
Response 8: The concept was poorly expressed, we changed it.
Comment 9: The reviewer presumes that all references cited in the Text are also listed in the References section, following the style and format of Phycology journal.
Response 9: Thanks for your comment, we done.
Comment 10: The present form of the manuscript needs major revisions as a Review paper to be appropriate for possible recommendation to Phycology journal.
Response 10: Thank you for your review, we have incorporated all the changes as described above and as you will see from the new version of the manuscript,
Kind regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review covers various diseases affecting macroalgae, including Red Rot Disease, Olpidiopsis Disease, Green Spot Disease, Cyanobacteria Felt, and Diatom Felt. This comprehensive scope provides a holistic understanding of the issue. Additionally, for each disease, the paper provides detailed information on the causative organisms, the symptoms, and the progression of the disease. This level of detail is particularly useful for identifying and diagnosing these diseases in practical settings.
The paper effectively highlights the economic implications of macroalgal diseases, underscoring the importance of disease management in the aquaculture industry. This emphasis is significant for stakeholders to prioritize research and development in this area. There is also a strong focus on the technological advancements in monitoring and managing macroalgal health. The discussion about discrepancies in technological capabilities across different regions is insightful and relevant for policymakers and industry leaders.
Furthermore, the review identifies gaps in current knowledge and suggests future research directions, particularly in understanding host-pathogen interactions and developing genetic toolkits for disease resistance. This forward-looking perspective is essential for guiding future research efforts.
While the paper mentions regions like Japan, Korea, China, and Southeast Asia, it could benefit from a broader geographic perspective, including data and case studies from other major seaweed-producing regions such as North America, Europe (beyond the brief mention), and Africa. The inclusion of specific case studies or real-world examples of disease outbreaks and management strategies would enhance the practical applicability of the review. This would also provide a clearer picture of the challenges and successes in different contexts.
The review discusses current treatment methods, it lacks depth in evaluating their effectiveness and practical implementation challenges. A more critical analysis of these strategies would be beneficial for readers looking to apply these methods. Additionally, the section on non-infectious diseases caused by environmental factors is relatively brief. Given their importance, a more detailed discussion on how to mitigate these through environmental management practices would be useful.
The introduction effectively sets the stage by discussing the growing market for seaweed and the associated challenges with disease management. It could be improved by briefly outlining the structure of the review to guide the reader. The section on Pyropia/Porphyra species is well-detailed, but it could benefit from a clearer separation of different diseases. Subsections with headings for each disease would improve readability.
The discussion on Red Rot Disease (RRD) is thorough. However, adding information on recent advancements in genetic resistance to RRD in Pyropia spp. would provide a more current perspective. The section on Olpidiopsis Disease is informative but would benefit from more recent data and references to current research efforts aimed at controlling this disease.
The paper notes the confusion between bacterial and viral causes in Green-Spot Disease, which is valuable. However, it should also discuss how modern diagnostic tools can differentiate these causes more effectively. The sections on Cyanobacteria Felt and Diatom Felt are concise but could be expanded with more information on environmental conditions that exacerbate these issues and specific case studies of outbreaks.
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge regarding macroalgal diseases, their economic impact, and potential management strategies, however it still needs extended and more detailed parts.
Author Response
Comment 1: The review covers various diseases affecting macroalgae, including Red Rot Disease, Olpidiopsis Disease, Green Spot Disease, Cyanobacteria Felt, and Diatom Felt. This comprehensive scope provides a holistic understanding of the issue. Additionally, for each disease, the paper provides detailed information on the causative organisms, the symptoms, and the progression of the disease. This level of detail is particularly useful for identifying and diagnosing these diseases in practical settings.
Response 1: Thank you for comment
Comment 2: The paper effectively highlights the economic implications of macroalgal diseases, underscoring the importance of disease management in the aquaculture industry. This emphasis is significant for stakeholders to prioritize research and development in this area. There is also a strong focus on the technological advancements in monitoring and managing macroalgal health. The discussion about discrepancies in technological capabilities across different regions is insightful and relevant for policymakers and industry leaders.
Response 2: Thank you for comment
Comment 3: Furthermore, the review identifies gaps in current knowledge and suggests future research directions, particularly in understanding host-pathogen interactions and developing genetic toolkits for disease resistance. This forward-looking perspective is essential for guiding future research efforts.
Response 3: Thank you for comment
Comment 4: While the paper mentions regions like Japan, Korea, China, and Southeast Asia, it could benefit from a broader geographic perspective, including data and case studies from other major seaweed-producing regions such as North America, Europe (beyond the brief mention), and Africa. The inclusion of specific case studies or real-world examples of disease outbreaks and management strategies would enhance the practical applicability of the review. This would also provide a clearer picture of the challenges and successes in different contexts.
Response 4: Thank you for comment; we agree with your comment and we have provided a "global case study” so that we can create and imagine the applicability and importance of such pathologies.
Comment 5: The review discusses current treatment methods, it lacks depth in evaluating their effectiveness and practical implementation challenges. A more critical analysis of these strategies would be beneficial for readers looking to apply these methods. Additionally, the section on non-infectious diseases caused by environmental factors is relatively brief. Given their importance, a more detailed discussion on how to mitigate these through environmental management practices would be useful.
Response 5: Since it is a review, we just include what we found in other scientific articles. Unfortunately, on certain topics, see non-infectious diseases, the bibliography is very sparse. In fact, there is also a clear gap between the knowledge of some genera (see Pyropia vs. Ulva); the manuscript also wants to highlight this, the fact that we do not yet have a common protocol for all macroalgae and a different knowledge for each genus.
Comment 6: The introduction effectively sets the stage by discussing the growing market for seaweed and the associated challenges with disease management. It could be improved by briefly outlining the structure of the review to guide the reader. The section on Pyropia/Porphyra species is well-detailed, but it could benefit from a clearer separation of different diseases. Subsections with headings for each disease would improve readability.
Response 6: We agree, done.
Comment 7: The discussion on Red Rot Disease (RRD) is thorough. However, adding information on recent advancements in genetic resistance to RRD in Pyropia spp. would provide a more current perspective.
Response 7: Thanks for the comment, we agree and we have included a very recent approach to disease control.
Comment 8: The section on Olpidiopsis Disease is informative but would benefit from more recent data and references to current research efforts aimed at controlling this disease.
Response 8: Thanks for your suggest, we agree and we have included the most recent approach to this disease control.
Comment 9: The paper notes the confusion between bacterial and viral causes in Green-Spot Disease, which is valuable. However, it should also discuss how modern diagnostic tools can differentiate these causes more effectively.
Response 9: Thanks for your comment. As described the bacterial attack is considered secondary, currently considered the Pyro v1 virus, while before the bacterium was considered the main one. The sentence has been rewritten more clearly
Comment 10: The sections on Cyanobacteria Felt and Diatom Felt are concise but could be expanded with more information on environmental conditions that exacerbate these issues and specific case studies of outbreaks. The sentence has been reworded for clarity.
Response 10: Thanks for your comment, we agree with your thoughts but we must underline that the most of the information on Cyanobacteria Felt and Diatom Felt comes from massive industrial cultivations for commercial purposes unlike that regarding other pathologies which also include purely scientific studies as well as massive cultivations. A lot of information on this type of pathology is not disclosed due to carelessness and/or industrial secrecy.
Comment 11: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge regarding macroalgal diseases, their economic impact, and potential management strategies, however it still needs extended and more detailed parts.
Response 11: Thanks for your comments, you will find the changes in the new version of the manuscript and the point-by-point answers above.
Kind regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. eucheumatoids is written in lower caps.
2. The reviewer still insists that the authors include few pictures of major diseases to all genera described.
3. The reviewer insists that references (single or multiple) are to be included in the Table where strategies are described to give credence to the original papers reported.
4. For the Table on Kappaphycus diseases, Indonesia and Malaysia also experienced incidences of ice-ice disease, hence, it is prudent to include. Likewise, References must be included for the readers to have further readings.
Author Response
Comment 1: eucheumatoids is written in lower caps.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we modified it as you suggest.
Comment 2: The reviewer still insists that the authors include few pictures of major diseases to all genera described.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we add some photos to all genera described.
Comment 3: The reviewer insists that references (single or multiple) are to be included in the Table where strategies are described to give credence to the original papers reported.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we add all the references on the tables to all genera described.
Comment 4: For the Table on Kappaphycus diseases, Indonesia and Malaysia also experienced incidences of ice-ice disease, hence, it is prudent to include. Likewise, References must be included for the readers to have further readings.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and we modified it as you suggest.
