Next Article in Journal
Special Issue “The Fungal Cell Wall Integrity Pathway”
Next Article in Special Issue
Population Dynamics of Phytophthora infestans in Egypt Reveals Clonal Dominance of 23_A1 and Displacement of 13_A2 Clonal Lineage
Previous Article in Journal
Co-Regulatory Roles of WC1 and WC2 in Asexual Development and Photoreactivation of Beauveria bassiana
Previous Article in Special Issue
First Record of Aspergillus fijiensis as an Entomopathogenic Fungus against Asian Citrus Psyllid, Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Liviidae)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Identification and Characterization of Neofusicoccum stellenboschiana in Branch and Twig Dieback-Affected Olive Trees in Italy and Comparative Pathogenicity with N. mediterraneum

J. Fungi 2023, 9(3), 292; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9030292
by Giuliano Manetti 1,†, Angela Brunetti 1,†, Valentina Lumia 1, Lorenzo Sciarroni 1, Paolo Marangi 2, Nicola Cristella 2, Francesco Faggioli 1, Massimo Reverberi 3, Marco Scortichini 4 and Massimo Pilotti 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
J. Fungi 2023, 9(3), 292; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9030292
Submission received: 10 January 2023 / Revised: 18 February 2023 / Accepted: 19 February 2023 / Published: 23 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Fungi: Impact on Agricultural Production)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor:

  The manuscript entitled "First report of Neofusicoccum stellenboschiana in Branch and Twig Dieback-affected Olive Trees in the Northern Hemi- 3 sphere (Salento, Apulia, Italy) and comparison of Pathogenicity 4 with N. mediterraneum" has been reviewed. The causal pathogen was well identified. However, there some issues need to be revised.

1. The title is better to be reconsidered. How about delete ‘and comparison of Pathogenicity with N. mediterraneum’.

2. L 109-125, L 200-201, the content could be clearly showed in Table. It is better for the understanding. For example, Table S1 could move to the manuscript and add detail information of those strains.

3. In Table 1, what is Average inoculation point? Please explain it. Is that the ‘girdling index ’?Please use the name of N. stellenboschiana for the present isolates in Table 1.

4. Many species are not in italic, L248, 254… Please check it in the whole manuscript.

5. Figure legends should show in detail (Fig. 1-2). Why not showing the colony feature of OL 438 which is different from the other three isolates based on the phylogenetic tree?

6. There are many figures in the manuscript. Some figures could be combined because of the similar information. For example Figure 7 and Figure 8. 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is about the investigation into the dieback syndroms of olive trees. The authors report on the identification of a new fungal pathogen namely Neofusicoccum stellenboschiana, isolated at different sites in Central and Southern Italy. N. stellenboschiana is a rather newly identified pathogen, first isolated in South Africa and in the last years also found on different trees and shrubs around the Mediterranean. Here, the authors study 4 isolates for morphological, phenological traits and compare genomic traits. By this, it is possible to attribute the isolates taxonomically to the species N. stellenboschiana. In very complete inoculation studies, on young trees and on twigs, the authors characterize the pathogenicity and the aggressiveness of the isolates, completing, by this, Koch's postulate. The studiy is completed with the comparison of the pathogenicity with the known olive dieback pathogen N. mediterranea.

Overall, the study raises important and significant questions that are answered in a scientifically sound and clear manner. However, the manuscript bears a series of weaknesses and errors in its scientific conception, wording and English language.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop