Survey of Fungal Foliar and Panicle Diseases in Smallholder Sorghum Cropping Systems in Different Agro-Ecologies of Lower Eastern Kenya
, Charles O. Orek 2, John Maina Wagacha 3 and Evans N. Nyaboga 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript represents a study of the distribution and occurrence of six major sorghum diseases in some regions of Kenya. According to authors, the obtained data are new. The study included a large volume of work, and may be important for the local scientists and authorities, as well as farm holders. I have some minor comments:
Materials and methods
2.1.
- Please check the correctness of reference presentation in the text of this subsection (Line 90). They should be numbered and placed into square brackets.
- Fig. 1 has insufficient quality.
- It would be good to provide a connection between inspection sites shown in Fig. 1 and description of agroecological zones (Table 1). Now the table does not allow a reader to associate sampling sites (and the obtained results) with their climatic features.
Results
Line 237: probably you mean infected, not inflicted? Please, check.
Table 3: Please, add the title for agroecological zones. I also suppose the results would be more clear and better visualized if the data on the incidence and prevalence were divided into two tables.
Fig. 5 has improper quality; probably its resolution should be improved.
Discussion
Line 450: Authors mention susceptible sorghum varieties as one of the possible reasons of the revealed disease distribution. It would be good to add information about the use of such varieties on the examined fields. Did any farmers use resistant varieties? In the Line 531, however, you write that farmers do not have a possibility to use tolerant cultivars. It seems there is a kind of a contradiction.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the time and effort by the editor and reviewers for reviewing this manuscript and for providing insightful comments and suggestions to improve its quality. We have revised the manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. We have incorporated the following reviewer’s specific comments in the revised version of manuscript. The point-by-point responses are provided below.
Response to Comments from Reviewers
Reviewer #1
- Please check the correctness of reference presentation in the text of this subsection (Line 90). They should be numbered and placed into square brackets.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have revised the reference accordingly and placed the number in the squared brackets [10]
- Materials and methods
Fig. 1 has insufficient quality.
Response: Thank you. We have improved the resolution of Figure 1 and enhanced its quality.
- It would be good to provide a connection between inspection sites shown in Fig. 1 and description of agro-ecological zones (Table 1). Now the table does not allow a reader to associate sampling sites (and the obtained results) with their climatic features.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have revised Table 1 and the sampling counties/locations from Figure 1 have been incorporated in Table 1. It is now easy to associate sampling sites and the obtained results with climatic conditions.
Results and Discussion
- Line 237: probably you mean infected, not inflicted? Please, check.
Response: We have replaced “Inflicted” with “infected”
- Table 3: Please, add the title for agroecological zones. I also suppose the results would be more clear and better visualized if the data on the incidence and prevalence were divided into two tables.
Response: We have split Table 3 as suggested based on disease prevalence and the other showing disease incidence
- 5 has improper quality; probably its resolution should be improved.
Response: We have improved the resolution of Figure 5 as suggested.
Discussion
- Line 450: Authors mention susceptible sorghum varieties as one of the possible reasons of the revealed disease distribution. It would be good to add information about the use of such varieties on the examined fields. Did any farmers use resistant varieties? In the Line 531, however, you write that farmers do not have a possibility to use tolerant cultivars. It seems there is a kind of a contradiction.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have included a table indicting the varieties grown by famers in lower eastern Kenya as observed in the field during the survey. The table also shows the resistance status of the varieties based whether symptoms were observed or not in the surveyed fields.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of the manuscript Koima et al “Survey of fungal foliar and panicle diseases in smallholder 3 sorghum cropping systems in different agro-ecologies of lower 4 Eastern Kenya”
The manuscript addresses an increasingly relevant topic of plant diseases and fully addresses the journal topic. The survey of sorghum fungal diseases is well addressed, although only one year of sampling is shown which compromises the data significance/robustness, regarding eg the prevalence as aimed by the authors. Nevertheless, and as this is not an agronomic journal (which would require more sampling periods for agricultural purposes), the results are relevant to the current state of the art in the description of the fungal characterization. The conclusions are however too ambitious for the results (highly descriptive). It is not clear why a genetic/molecular analysis (or even a metagenomic) was not performed to support the phenotypic data (the authors admit that “Molecular characterization of the fungal pathogens needs to be done to obtain the genetic variability”). This would enrich the results. Also, it is not clear if the authors aim at contributing to a Collection/Bank of phytopathogens isolates/strains for further analysis.
In detail:
Title: clear and adequate
Abstract: clear but the conclusions are vague and too ambitious for the obtained results.
Introduction: clear and focused on the problem. The objective of “determining the occurrence, severity and spatial distribution of sorghum fungal diseases in different agro-ecological zones of lower eastern Kenya” is however descriptive, which is a drawback of the whole manuscript, with little contribution to science other than a descriptive report.
Methodology: clear, but the restriction to one single year diminishes the results interest. Please explain why not more years. Table 1- please insert the year/period to which the data refer. Also, further details on soil description and cultural practices (eg, as Supplementary data) would benefit the manuscript. Another important aspect is that the characterization of the sorghum hosts (cultivars) is not sufficiently detailed, which may be a variable influencing some of the parameters studied.
Results – Clear and well addressed, considering the data.
Discussion: the discussion is too descriptive, and highly grounded on a reference [10] that is 20 years old. Please make the discussion more updated and critical.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the time and effort by the editor and reviewers for reviewing this manuscript and for providing insightful comments and suggestions to improve its quality. We have revised the manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. We have incorporated the following reviewer’s specific comments in the revised version of manuscript. The point-by-point responses are provided below.
Response to Comments from Reviewers
Reviewer #2
- Introduction: clear and focused on the problem. The objective of “determining the occurrence, severity and spatial distribution of sorghum fungal diseases in different agro-ecological zones of lower eastern Kenya” is however descriptive, which is a drawback of the whole manuscript, with little contribution to science other than a descriptive report.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have revised the conclusion section accordingly.
- The manuscript addresses an increasingly relevant topic of plant diseases and fully addresses the journal topic. The survey of sorghum fungal diseases is well addressed, although only one year of sampling is shown which compromises the data significance/robustness, regarding eg the prevalence as aimed by the authors. Nevertheless, and as this is not an agronomic journal (which would require more sampling periods for agricultural purposes), the results are relevant to the current state of the art in the description of the fungal characterization.
Response: There was an outbreak of sorghum diseases reported by the extension offers in lower eastern Kenya in 2019 and therefore this study was quickly carried out to unearth the causal agents of the diseases, hence the study was only done for a single year. However, it will be important to carry out further surveys to evaluate the dynamics in fungal disease in lower eastern Kenya. There is need for successive assessments of the diseases spread in all sorghum growing areas over time and further identify sources of resistance to the diseases in Kenya.
- The conclusions are however too ambitious for the results (highly descriptive). It is not clear why a genetic/molecular analysis (or even a metagenomic) was not performed to support the phenotypic data (the authors admit that “Molecular characterization of the fungal pathogens needs to be done to obtain the genetic variability”). This would enrich the results.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We are in agreement, molecular analysis would enrich the results and molecular characterization of the pathogens will be the next step as indicated in our recommendations.
- Table 1- please insert the year/period to which the data refer.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have included the year (2019) to which the data in the table refer.
- Also, further details on soil description and cultural practices (eg, as Supplementary data) would benefit the manuscript.
Response: Thank you. We have provided a supplementary table showing the characteristics of the soils in the different ago-ecological zones as well as the cultural practices used in the management of fungal diseases in lower eastern Kenya.
- Another important aspect is that the characterization of the sorghum hosts (cultivars) is not sufficiently detailed, which may be a variable influencing some of the parameters studied.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have included a table indicting the sorghum cultivars grown by famers in lower eastern Kenya as observed in the field during the survey. The table also shows the resistance status of the cultivars based on whether symptoms were observed and/or not in the surveyed fields.
- Results – Clear and well addressed, considering the data.
Response: Thank you for the encouraging comments.
- Discussion: the discussion is too descriptive, and highly grounded on a reference [10] that is 20 years old. Please make the discussion more updated and critical.
Response: Thank you for the comment. Unfortunately, no recent information has been reported on sorghum fungal diseases in Kenya and East Africa. However, we have revised the discussion and incorporated recent information from other studies in Africa.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is an up-to-date study on the prevalence of fungal diseases in sorghum. The strong points are represented both by the large number of samples from different locations and the realization of the geographical distribution, but also by the clear and concise presentation of the results. I believe that the results of this study are of interest both for the scientific community in the field and for agricultural producers and that it can contribute to a better management of fungal diseases in sorghum. I have only one specific recommendation, namely changing the text in figures 1, 3, 4 and 5 so that it can be read because it is too small and even if zoomed in the text is unclear.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the time and effort by the editor and reviewers for reviewing this manuscript and for providing insightful comments and suggestions to improve its quality. We have revised the manuscript as per the reviewers’ suggestions and comments. We have incorporated the following reviewer’s specific comments in the revised version of manuscript. The point-by-point responses are provided below.
Response to Comments from Reviewers
Reviewer #3
- It is an up-to-date study on the prevalence of fungal diseases in sorghum. The strong points are represented both by the large number of samples from different locations and the realization of the geographical distribution, but also by the clear and concise presentation of the results. I believe that the results of this study are of interest both for the scientific community in the field and for agricultural producers and that it can contribute to a better management of fungal diseases in sorghum.
Response: Thank you for the encouraging comments.
- I have only one specific recommendation, namely changing the text in figures 1, 3, 4 and 5 so that it can be read because it is too small and even if zoomed in the text is unclear.
Response: Thank you for the observation. We have revised the text in figures 1, 3, 4 and 5, they are now clear and can be read with ease.
