Hazelnut-Associated Bacteria and Their Implications in Crop Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review paper presents an overview regarding bacteria management in Hazelnut. The subject area is interesting and is of interest, the paper is also very well written. Though, it is lacking on several aspects that needs to be addressed before being considered for publication. As it stands this is more a mini review than a review

The title is too vague. It needs to be more specific and more attractive. I its not clear if the author is addressing bacterial disease or beneficial bacteria (the abstract suggests both subjects are addressed)  

The introduction section is lacking and needs to be significantly enriched.  Data on cultivated areas, market, and application field should be provided (provided data are not enough). The problematic needs to be clearly addressed in this section. Hypothesis and objectives of the review should be also better highlighted.  

Structuration of the manuscript are not aligned with ideas presented in the abstract. I see here two key sections: conventional management strategies of bacterial diseases and novel management strategies (which include biological management using PGPR). This latter section should be equally developed which is clearly not the case.  Restructuration should be reviewed as well as sub-section and section titles.

Section 5 is not related to the focus of the review. It should be either removed or discussed in the introduction section.

The conclusion section should be better developed. Maybe rename it to conclusion and future prospects section, where the authors must provide hypothesis and novel perspective with respect to Hazelnut management

The manuscript does not contain any figures or tables (tables representing data such as type of management, bacterial diseases, plant response, yield gain, quality gain) and figures discussing infection mechanisms, biological approaches… will improve attractiveness of the paper.

Overall, in its current form the paper is not adequate for publication. Significant work needs to be done. Consequently, my decision is reject but I strongly encourage resubmission.

Author Response

The review paper presents an overview regarding bacteria management in Hazelnut. The subject area is interesting and is of interest, the paper is also very well written. Though, it is lacking on several aspects that needs to be addressed before being considered for publication. As it stands this is more a mini review than a review

Thank you for your positive judgment. We have no problem in classifying our manuscript as a mini review.

The title is too vague. It needs to be more specific and more attractive. I its not clear if the author is addressing bacterial disease or beneficial bacteria (the abstract suggests both subjects are addressed)

Title has been changed.

The introduction section is lacking and needs to be significantly enriched.  Data on cultivated areas, market, and application field should be provided (provided data are not enough). The problematic needs to be clearly addressed in this section. Hypothesis and objectives of the review should be also better highlighted.

Introduction has been enriched following reviewer’s indications.

Structuration of the manuscript are not aligned with ideas presented in the abstract. I see here two key sections: conventional management strategies of bacterial diseases and novel management strategies (which include biological management using PGPR). This latter section should be equally developed which is clearly not the case.  Restructuration should be reviewed as well as sub-section and section titles.

The available literature concerning pathogenic bacteria is preponderant in quantitative terms, which explains why the two main sections are not equally developed. Text in sections 2 and 4 has been divided in sub-sections.

Section 5 is not related to the focus of the review. It should be either removed or discussed in the introduction section.

We do believe that section 5 is related to the issue of bacterial associations. In fact, the antibiotic properties of hazelnut may play a role in the regulation of the interactions with bacteria, which deserves to be further investigated. This concept has been better explained at the end of this section.

The conclusion section should be better developed. Maybe rename it to conclusion and future prospects section, where the authors must provide hypothesis and novel perspective with respect to Hazelnut management

The conclusion section has been further developed and renamed to ‘Future Perspectives’.

The manuscript does not contain any figures or tables (tables representing data such as type of management, bacterial diseases, plant response, yield gain, quality gain) and figures discussing infection mechanisms, biological approaches… will improve attractiveness of the paper.

A synoptic figure has been added at the end of introduction. Figure showing symptoms has been divided into two new figures at the end of the pertinent sub-sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting and well elaborated review. Eventually plant name(s) could be given in lines 258-262.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comment. Text at lines 258-262 obviously refers to hazelnut.

Reviewer 3 Report

In this report, the authors reviewed the implications of bacteria in hazelnut management. First, they described the bacterial diseases on hazelnut caused by Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina and Pseudomonas avellanae. Then, they introduced the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and endophytic microorganisms on the fitness of hazelnut fitness. Finally, they found that bacterial associations may also be relevant to the processes of lipid oxidation and fat degradation caused by the kernels after grinding.

 

Overall, this manuscript was well-written and the references were cited properly. Anyway, this review contains only one figure. It is better to add one more figure or table to illustrate the main text.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments. Two figures were added in the updated version.

Reviewer 4 Report

In this study, author examined the relationships between hazelnut and bacteria both from the pathological point of view and with reference to the beneficial perspectives that could derive in terms of fitness and productive performance of the trees. In recent years cultivation of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) has expanded in several areas of Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America following the increased demand of raw materials by the food industry. Bacterial diseases caused by Xanthomonas arboricola pv. corylina and Pseudomonas avellanae are threats of major concern for hazelnut farmers. Traditionally, copper-based compounds are used to control these pathogens, even though some progress has been recently achieved through the exploitation of the plant systemic acquired resistance mechanisms, the nanoparticle technology, as well as preventive measures based on hot water treatment of the propagation material. However, bacteria do not merely represent a biotic adversity. In fact, the application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria at the seedling level could enhance better performances of the tree. Likewise, endophytic and epiphytic microorganisms are considered to play a notable role in plant nutrition and protection, and their effects on hazelnut fitness deserve to be further investigated. Finally, bacterial associations may also be relevant in the post-harvest phase, particularly with reference to the processes of lipid oxidation and fat degradation suffered by the kernels after grinding. But the article is not well organized, the manuscripts lack references. Finally, there are some essential problems should be addressed by authors, which are listed below.

 

1. Some sentences in the text are not fluent in logic and the wording is not accurate. Suggest reorganizing the language.

2. L13 “These pathogens have been controlled with copper-based compounds” instead of “Traditionally, copper-based compounds are used to control these pathogens”

3. L13-17 “Traditionally, copper-based compounds are used to control these pathogens, even though some progress has been recently achieved through the exploitation of the plant systemic acquired resistance mechanisms, the nanoparticle technology, as well as preventive measures based on hot water treatment of the propagation material. However, bacteria do not merely represent a biotic adversity.” Please rewriter this sentence.

4. L71-72 “Spread is favored by wet periods with temperatures above 20°C, although it can occur at lower temperatures.” Please rewriter this sentence.

5. L182 In Figure 1, the disease features of pictures A and C are not obvious, so picture like B can be provided.

6. L186 There is an error in the reference

7. L224-236, L331-333, L353-360 Add reference.

8. Add reference.

9. L371 “E.coli” instead of “E. coli”

10. L390 delete “of”.

Author Response

Thank you for your help in improving our manuscript. We revised it according to your comments, as follows:

1. Some sentences in the text are not fluent in logic and the wording is not accurate. Suggest reorganizing the language.

The text has been revised to improve fluency and accuracy.

2. L13 “These pathogens have been controlled with copper-based compounds” instead of “Traditionally, copper-based compounds are used to control these pathogens”

Corrected as requested.

3. L13-17 “Traditionally, copper-based compounds are used to control these pathogens, even though some progress has been recently achieved through the exploitation of the plant systemic acquired resistance mechanisms, the nanoparticle technology, as well as preventive measures based on hot water treatment of the propagation material. However, bacteria do not merely represent a biotic adversity.” Please rewriter this sentence.

This sentence has been changed.

4. L71-72 “Spread is favored by wet periods with temperatures above 20°C, although it can occur at lower temperatures.” Please rewriter this sentence.

This sentence has been rewritten.

5. L182 In Figure 1, the disease features of pictures A and C are not obvious, so picture like B can be provided.

Figure 1 has been replaced with two figures showing more meaningful symptoms.

6. L186 There is an error in the reference

Corrected.

7. L224-236, L331-333, L353-360 Add reference.
8. Add reference.

References have been added.

9. L371 “E.coli” instead of “E. coli”

Spacing is required, we retained ‘E. coli’.

10. L390 delete “of”.

Deleted.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author addressed most of the comments. I agree for publication but as a mini review not a review. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Congratulations