Influence of the Phytosanitary Status, Cultivar, and Harvest Time on the Phenolic, Chlorophyll, and Alkaloid Content of Rosa sp. Leaves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1: The use of "mushroom" in the article may not be a suitable term for referring to Diplocarpon rosae Wolf, as it can lead to misunderstandings.

2: The second and third paragraphs of the Introduction section have weak relevance to the rest of the article, which can disrupt the logical flow in this part.

3: Including images of healthy and infected roses in the Results section could provide readers with a better understanding of the disease.

4: The Methods section lacks a description of how Diplocarpon rosae Wolf infects roses. Is it through artificial inoculation or through natural observation of naturally infected roses for comparative analysis? Are there other diseases occurring simultaneously in the same plant?

5: The data presented in the table does not indicate the sample size or significance between different samples.

6: The Conclusion section does not effectively demonstrate the correlation between the quantity of various substances and the sensitivity of rose varieties to Diplocarpon rosae Wolf. Some content deviates from the conclusions that can be drawn from the paper, such as "The results of this work show that rose leaves accumulate large amounts of phenolic compounds, these compounds having antioxidant and free radical scavenging abilities, with potential effects on human health."

Author Response

The authors thank you for the patience with which you analyzed our work and for the advice you offered!

1: The use of "mushroom" in the article may not be a suitable term for referring to Diplocarpon rosae Wolf, as it can lead to misunderstandings.

Answer: We replaced 'mushroom' with 'pathogenic fungus'.

2: The second and third paragraphs of the Introduction section have weak relevance to the rest of the article, which can disrupt the logical flow in this part.

Answer: The two paragraphs of the Introduction section have been modified according to your suggestion.

3: Including images of healthy and infected roses in the Results section could provide readers with a better understanding of the disease.

Answer: We have included one figure that contains the images of some leaves affected by Diplocarpon rosae Wolf attack from the rosary in the 'Alexandru Buia' Botanical Garden in Craiova.

4: The Methods section lacks a description of how Diplocarpon rosae Wolf infects roses. Is it through artificial inoculation or through natural observation of naturally infected roses for comparative analysis? Are there other diseases occurring simultaneously in the same plant?

Answer: The Methods section has been completed. The Diplocarpon rosae Wolf inoculation was carried out spontaneously, without intervening in the pathogenesis process until the necessary treatments were carried out. Simultaneously with the installation and evolution of the disease, no other spontaneous pathologies were noted on the surface of the plant or in the anatomical-physiological structure.

5: The data presented in the table does not indicate the sample size or significance between different samples.

Answer: Additional information has been added.

6: The Conclusion section does not effectively demonstrate the correlation between the quantity of various substances and the sensitivity of rose varieties to Diplocarpon rosae Wolf. Some content deviates from the conclusions that can be drawn from the paper, such as "The results of this work show that rose leaves accumulate large amounts of phenolic compounds, these compounds having antioxidant and free radical scavenging abilities, with potential effects on human health."

Answer: We have modified the Conclusion section according to your suggestion. Thank you for the advice!

Thank you for your input in improving the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present study aims to elucidate the impact of pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf on the chemical composition of leaves across various rose (Rosa sp.) cultivars. 

 

While the manuscript is well-written, a few comments are needed to enhance the quality of this work:

1. The abstract begins well by explaining the significance of the pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf in roses. However, it could be useful to include some statistics on the severity of the attacks or the damage caused by this fungus to provide a more precise idea of its impact.

2. Provide more clarity regarding the study's objectives right from the beginning of the abstract. For instance, explicitly state that the study aims to assess how the fungus's attack affects the chemical composition of Rosa sp. leaves.

3. The introduction begins with a general reflection on the significance of roses in human history, which may seem overly broad. It would be preferable to quickly focus on the specific topic of the article, namely the impact of the pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf on roses.

4. The study's objectives are not clearly stated in the introduction. It is essential to specify from the outset what the article seeks to accomplish. For example, you can state that the study aims to assess the impact of Diplocarpon rosae Wolf's attack on the chemical composition of rose leaves.

5. The introduction lacks a smooth transition between different parts. You could organize the information more logically by first explaining the context, then presenting the study's objectives, and finally briefly discussing the methodology.

6. Some sentences are long and complex, which can make reading difficult. Try to simplify some of these sentences for better comprehension.

7. Statistical Analysis:

- Mention the sample size for each group, especially for statistical analyses. This can be useful for assessing the validity of the results.

- Briefly explain why Duncan's Multiple Range Test was chosen for group comparisons.

8. Compare the findings of this study to previous research or literature, particularly regarding the content of phenolic compounds, tannins, flavonoids, chlorophyll, and alkaloids. Discuss similarities and differences in results and potential explanations for variations.

Author Response

The authors thank you for the patience with which you analyzed our work and for the advice you offered!

The present study aims to elucidate the impact of pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf on the chemical composition of leaves across various rose (Rosa sp.) cultivars.

While the manuscript is well-written, a few comments are needed to enhance the quality of this work:

1. The abstract begins well by explaining the significance of the pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf in roses. However, it could be useful to include some statistics on the severity of the attacks or the damage caused by this fungus to provide a more precise idea of its impact.

Answer: The information on the severity of the Diplocarpon rosae Wolf attacks in roses and the damage caused by this fungus was included in the abstract.

2. Provide more clarity regarding the study's objectives right from the beginning of the abstract. For instance, explicitly state that the study aims to assess how the fungus's attack affects the chemical composition of Rosa sp. leaves.

Answer: Thank you! We modified it according to your suggestion.

3. The introduction begins with a general reflection on the significance of roses in human history, which may seem overly broad. It would be preferable to quickly focus on the specific topic of the article, namely the impact of the pathogenic fungus Diplocarpon rosae Wolf on roses.

Answer: Thank you! We shortened the introduction.

4. The study's objectives are not clearly stated in the introduction. It is essential to specify from the outset what the article seeks to accomplish. For example, you can state that the study aims to assess the impact of Diplocarpon rosae Wolf's attack on the chemical composition of rose leaves.

Answer: We have modified the introduction section according to your suggestion. Thank you for the advice!

5. The introduction lacks a smooth transition between different parts. You could organize the information more logically by first explaining the context, then presenting the study's objectives, and finally briefly discussing the methodology.

Answer: Thank you! The introduction section was reformulated.

6. Some sentences are long and complex, which can make reading difficult. Try to simplify some of these sentences for better comprehension.

Answer: Some sentences have been reformulated.

7. Statistical Analysis:

- Mention the sample size for each group, especially for statistical analyses. This can be useful for assessing the validity of the results.

- Briefly explain why Duncan's Multiple Range Test was chosen for group comparisons.

Answer: Additional information has been added.

8. Compare the findings of this study to previous research or literature, particularly regarding the content of phenolic compounds, tannins, flavonoids, chlorophyll, and alkaloids. Discuss similarities and differences in results and potential explanations for variations.

Answer: We have not found any study regarding the content of phenolic compounds, tannins, flavonoids, chlorophyll, and alkaloids in rose leaves affected by the 'black spot of rose' disease. However, the results section of our paper compares our results regarding the content of phenolic compounds, flavonoids, and chlorophyll to those reported by other researchers for the leaves Rosa L. cultivars from Poland [31], Slovenia [32], Sicily [33], Turkey [34] and Latvia [35] during the florescence of roses.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the answers. The manuscript can be accepted for publishing in its present form.