Optimization of Fermentation Conditions for Bacillus pumilus LYMC-3 to Antagonize Sphaeropsis sapinea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Manuscript is well-structured and effectively conveys the main points of the study. Overall, the MS provides a clear and concise summary of the study's objectives, methods, and results. The study's use of statistical experimental design to optimize a low-cost liquid medium for B. pumilus LYMC-3 is an interesting approach to improving its antagonistic activity against Sphaeropsis sapinea. The use of plate antagonism tests and greenhouse control effect tests to determine the antifungal effect of the strain is also a valid and appropriate methodology.
However, some additional information could enhance the MS and usefulness. For example, the abstract could mention the specific low-cost substrates used to optimize the liquid medium, as this information could be useful for researchers.
Overall, this MS provides a clear overview of the study's main objectives, I am sure that the results are important for publication in journal of fermentation.
Manuscript Number: fermentation-2387952
Full Title: Optimization of fermentation conditions for Bacillus pumilus LYMC-3 to antagonize Sphaeropsis sapinea
Recommendation: Accepted with minor revision
The Manuscript is well-structured and effectively conveys the main points of the study. Overall, the MS provides a clear and concise summary of the study's objectives, methods, and results.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Some additional information could enhance the MS and usefulness. For example, the abstract could mention the specific low-cost substrates used to optimize the liquid medium, as this information could be useful for researchers.
Response 1: Specific low-cost substrates（glucose and magnesium sulfate） for optimizing liquid media have been added in the abstract and discussion sections, enhancing the applicability of optimized low-cost fermentation substances
Reviewer 2 Report
please see attach file with some comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for reviewing my article so patiently and carefully, which is of great significance to me！Then, I will explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript:
Point 1: change key words should be different than title.
Response 1: Deleted “inhibition rate” and added “pine shoot blight”,”control effect”, which different than title.
Point 2: why only subtilis.
Response 2: In the introduction section, you mentioned 'why only subtilis', the original intention of the article is to introduce Bacillus pumilus, which was mistakenly translated as Bacillus subtilis and has been changed.
Point 3: You should write about your pathogen sources and how you know this is pathogenic and where you identified it.
Response 3: In the Materials and Methods section, the code, isolation location, and storage location of the pathogenic fungi have been added.
Point 4: how much ? and how you inoculated spray , injection /........or what?.
Response 4: The specific operation of the inoculum has been supplemented in section 2.3 of the Materials and Methods section, and the inoculation method and amount have been described in detail.
Point 5: where the statistical about Table 1 (Effects of different B. pumilus fermentation treatments on indoor control of pine blight).
Response 5: The control effect of this experiment is calculated based on the disease index of 6 masson pine seedlings indoors, and according to forestry convention[1], statistical analysis cannot be conducted.
[1] Dai M L . Biocontrol potential of Bacillus pumilus HR10 against Sphaeropsis shoot blight disease of pine[J]. Biological Control: Theory and Application in Pest Management, 2021, 152(1).
Point 6: in general, the discussion is Ok but please try to find other references about use of bioagents against different pathogen.
Response 6: Additional references have been added in the Discussion section regarding the use of biological reagents to combat different pathogens.
Point 7: you should update your references this is very important.
Response 7: Every effort has been made to update the references, and incorrect abbreviations in the journal have been reviewed and revised, with additional links to the original text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I see authors covered all my comments
it is Ok
