Next Article in Journal
Preparation and Characterization of Heat-Treated Douglas Fir Wood with Core–Shell Structure
Next Article in Special Issue
Nursery Roosts Used by Barbastelle Bats, Barbastella barbastellus (Schreber, 1774) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in European Lowland Mixed Forest Transformed by Spruce Bark Beetle, Ips typographus (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Liming on the Morphologies and Nutrients of Different Functional Fine Roots of Cunninghamia lanceolata Seedlings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evasive Planning for the Management of Eucalyptus Rust Austropuccinia psidii for Espírito Santo State, Brazil
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

First Report of Fungal Endophyte Communities and Non-Defensive Phytochemistry of Biocontrol-Inoculated Whitebark Pine Seedlings in a Restoration Planting

Forests 2022, 13(6), 824; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13060824
by Ehren R. V. Moler 1,*, Keith Reinhardt 1, Richard A. Sniezko 2 and Ken Aho 1
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Forests 2022, 13(6), 824; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13060824
Submission received: 9 April 2022 / Revised: 13 May 2022 / Accepted: 23 May 2022 / Published: 25 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1 Fungal endophyte inside trees is interesting. Although the autors inoculated Paramyrothecium roridum into seedlings, why did not detect with molecular methods?

2 What is the species of Paramyrothecium roridum, should stated detailed.

3 What is endophyte and pathogen? The authors consider all fungi isolated from leaf are endophyte, is it right?

4 How many species of inocula used in this study should identified.

5 Why did not reisolate after inoculated internal 2-3 years? Based on the results the inoculation is not succuss. Therefore, the paper should not mentioned inoculation research.

6 Why you not investigate rust every year? It did not occurred all the time or just in 2013? If no this data, it is should not discuss resistance of the host.

7 IT is 5 years or 6 years from 2008 to 2013?

8 Suggest the authors rewrite the data and results with a title of fungi community on leaves of pine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is very interesting and timely, it will be of interest to readers both in fundamental and practical aspects.

However, minor adjustments need to be made to improve the presentation of the work:

- The abstract should be shortened and the introductory words (such as Research Highlights: Background and Objectives: Materials and Methods:  Results: Conclusions:) must be removed.

- In Section 2 – Material and Methods, it is not necessary to use the dots when writing the words min and sec (lines 178, 179, 212-213, 220-222). Also, indicate units of measurements (i.e., ml or mL) in the same manner everywhere (for example, lines 211 and 261).

- The conclusion part should be presented as a separate section (Section 5) after the Section 4 - Discussion. Conclusion part must shortly and clearly demonstrate the obtained results and conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop