Binucleate Rhizoctonia Strain: A Potential Biocontrol Agent in Wheat Production

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction is reasonably well written, but as usual, it should state the purpose of the research. In this case, I didn't detect it.

Very old literature 1956, 1959, 1969, 1970, 1971 is cited in the description of the methods. I would assume that there are more recent descriptions and modifications of those methods, so outdated sources should be avoided.

Tables 1, 2, 3 are quite clumsy and uninformative. I would suggest displaying part of the data graphically and large data tables can be provided in supplement, then it would be much clearer for the reader.

In conclusions, I would say there are too many abstract statements aimed at future research and too few concrete results of this particular research.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled: Effect of binucleate Rhizoctonia strain in wheat production - a  potential biocontrol agent towards pathogens from the same genus.

It is indeed interesting, and it provides perspectives for a broad scientific community of phytopathology.  The manuscript reports about study the phytopathogen Rizoctonia and its use in the biocontrol of pathogens of the same genus. However, the work did not show satisfactory results for safe use, and further work is needed to determine the use of the fungus as a biocontrol agent.

Changes are suggested to improve it.

1 - line 1- Title much long: sugestion  “Strain binucleate of Rhizoctonia  a potential biocontrol agent in wheat production”.;

2 - line  44, 45, 48, 62, 70, 129, 269, 277, 381, ... "microorganisms our  microrganisms;

3 - Introduction:  Regarding the literature review the subject being well reported, the hypothesis and objective of this work is not clearly described in the introduction topic. The same is of fundamental importance for understanding the methodology.

4 -  Results: The results have of  be described previously (before) the tables in the text

5 – Conclusion: The work conclusions must punctuate the relevant information about the work, written in a concise manner.

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading the manuscript because the study concept is novel. I have a few minor suggestions in the attached document. My main suggestions are...

1. The introduction includes very long paragraphs that are challenging to follow. Please consider dividing them into shorter paragraphs.

2. Please convert all three tables into graphical illustrations, such as bar plots with standard error bars and significance. These extensive tables will be difficult for the reader to follow.

3. The discussion is rather shallow. Based on the novelty of the work I was expecting a rich discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The manuscript “Effect of binucleate Rhizoctonia strain in wheat production - a potential biocontrol agent towards pathogens from the same genus” reports interesting results but many important points need to be improved and to clarify:

·       Please mention more details about the main results in the abstract. The abstract is the first portion where the reader takes the attention, this portion need to provide a clear view of most interesting results, inducing the reader to pay attention (or not) to the manuscript.

·       Introduction: from L25-37: the authors mentioned important information but missed the references please add. Please mention the percentage of losses due to this pathogen Rhizoctonia solani.  And the authors focuses on in the introduction on Rhizoctonia spp., while in the trials two species: R. solani and R. cerealis were used, this can be confusing for the reader.

·       The objective of the study should be clearer and should be written in the last part of the introduction

·       In materials and methods L176: please explain more the ‘5-point rating scale’

·    Always start with the text and then the table throughout the entire part of the result, and at the bottom of each table please mention the analysis statistic used. And please re-write the title of the tables.

·       Language needs to be checked by a native English speaker

 

 

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 4 is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

not.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Thanks for addressing my suggestion. I am happy with this version of the manuscript.

 

Best regards