Citrus Extract Found Potent in the Control of Seed-Borne Fungal Pathogens of Pearl Millet—A Recommendation for Farmers’ Seed Saving Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very interesting and give the valuable information to the researchers and readers. The subject of the manuscript is consistent with the scope of the Journal. Thus, I suggested that the manuscript need to be minor revised before it is accepted by this journal.

 

The following specific comments are observed:

1. Manuscript must be through language editing.

2. Keywords: The first letter should be capitalized or alphabetized.

3. The neatness of introduction and discussion must be improved. There are many paragraphs, some of which are long and some of which are short, which appear to be disorderly.

4. Figure 1-3: The standard deviation of some data is larger than the mean, casting doubt on the reliability of the data. Please check carefully whether the analysis method is accurate.

5. P<0.001：P should be in italics, please check the full text.

6. Conclusions is too long, shorten it by at least half and and shorten it to 1 paragraph.

Manuscript must be through language editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript Horticulturae-2602064 deals with the study of pearl millet seeds. It is a very interesting and complete study, based on real data and samples obtained in the field.

In my point of view, the theme fits very well with the theme of this journal and the methodology used is adequate. In addition, many results were obtained, which are carefully presented and discussed. The references presented are pertinent.

I suggest some minor modifications to make the manuscript clearer.

1. Abstracts could cointain more specific data, in order to call the attention for the results.

2. Usually, when citing values ​​from 1 to 10, it is customary to write in full. I suggest modifying, for example, lines 21 and item 3.5, page 12 "were the 2 dominant fungi". 

3. The manuscript must be placed in the template. In the current version, after a certain point, the numbering of the lines ceases to exist.

4. Regarding line 119 "The weights of the pure and the impure seed" in my point of view the term pure and impure are not adequate. It's not about purity. I suggest using a more appropriate term.

5. It is necessary to add the time that the plant material was left in contact with the water for extraction. From what is understood, it seems that everything was done immediately. Why? Wouldn't a longer contact time have produced an extract richer in bioactive components?

6. Correct the unity liter (L, not l. mL, not ml) in all text, example, lines 177 and 179

7. Line 170. What is a compound microscope? Please, specify

8. Line 191. 

9.  Standard Germination and laboratory germination test are the same thing? If so, please, change, in line 191, the term laboratory by standard to avio misunderstanding

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Find below my comments to improve the manuscript.

 

Provide a list of abbreviations.

Line 77

Justify the novelty.

Line 87

Provide the exact geography. Latitude, longitude. The same applies to the others.

Line 96

Were they asked for their informed consent?

Line 105

Under what conditions were they transported?

Line 112

Provide the brand, model name and country of manufacture. The same applies to the other types of equipment.

Line 114

Was the moisture content expressed on a wet or dry basis?

Line 177

So, what type of conventional extraction method did you use?

Table 3

Present it as mean +/- standard deviation. Why not p < 0.05 as you stated in the statistical analysis section?

 

Figure 2

Where is the statistics on this?

 

Discussion.

Talk about the science behind your results and use a lot of literature to back it up.

The manuscript article requires revision in grammar, sentence structure, and reference format. Please carefully check the sections: introduction, results, discussion and conclusions. Please try to reword the phrases in the active voice. Grammar and punctuation mistakes. For consistency, please use the manuscript in just one English style (a non-variant British or British style, American style, etc.). There are phrases with the verb in the wrong tense. Sentences with words misspelt. Words overused or unnecessary. Nouns without determiner or unnecessary.

can be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

accept

minor