Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this research paper, authors discussed the crop diversification to control powdery mildew in pea crop. This research paper useful for the researcher to study the intercropping to reduce the disease. They summarized the intercropping strategies to reduce the powdery mildew in pea. This manuscript includes the emerging approaches, which enable the readers to understand and follow the intercropping system to reduce the diseases in pea. Some minor revisions required. Specific comments as follows.
Minor comments:
Overall, this work shows that diversification
->
Overall, this work shows that crop diversification
Results show a reduction of powdery
->
Our results show a reduction of powdery
when intercropped by replacement at 50:50 with barley or with faba bean
->
when intercropped by replacement at 50:50 ratio with barley or with faba bean
intercrop with wheat and in pea monocrop.
->
intercrop with wheat and in a pea monocrop.
Only three genes for resistance 36 have been described, namely er1, er2 and Er3
->
Only three genes for resistance 36 have been described, namely Er1, Er2 and Er3
The objective is to modify the traditional monocrop environment?
Could you please specify the obhective
(Peyronellaea pinodes [Berk. & A. Bloxam] Avesk., Gruy. & Verkl.) [14-16] and broomrape 56 (Orobanche crenata Forsk.) [17].
Please re-check
Again, a wide range of disease severity was found (Table 7).
->
Wide range of disease severity was found (Table 7).
Cereal-legume intercrops might be particularly interesting in
->
Cereal-legume intercropping might be particularly interesting in
although Fernandez-Aparicio et al. [15] reported higher reductions in mixtures with triticale and faba bean.
->
although Fernandez-Aparicio et al. reported higher reductions in mixtures with triticale and faba bean [15].
Zivanov et al. [18] carried out one field trial of pea intercropped with oat, with unconclusive effects on powdery mildew: they reported 20-30% disease reduction in pea leaves, but no effect on global disease on pea plants.
->
Zivanov et al. carried out one field trial of pea intercropped with oat, with unconclusive effects on powdery mildew: they reported 20-30% disease reduction in pea leaves, but no effect on global disease on pea plants [18].
Intercropping on plant diseases [7,29]: morphological and
->
Intercropping on plant diseases [7,29], morphological and
One of the main problems
->
One of the main problem
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reports an experimental study on effects of intercropping powdery mildew sensitive pea with other crops or powdery mildew resistant lines on pea powdery mildew disease.
The manuscript reports original research which is of interest to the readers of Agronomy.
I think the experiments were planned and executed well. I feel that the description of statistical analysis need some more detail. The manuscript is generally well written, but some information should be added to the Introduction and to the Discussion to have a better manuscript. My comments are detailed below.
I recommend minor revisions to be done on this manuscript before publication. The comments below should be addressed and/or taken into consideration in order to improve the manuscript for publication.
--------
L29-30. I think Erysiphe pisi is not the only powdery mildew species infecting pea. Braun and Cook (2012) lists Erysiphe glycines and Attanayake et al. 2010 found another fungus (identified as “E. trifolii”) on pea. Please revise the sentence accordingly.
Braun U, Cook RTA, 2012. Taxonomic Manual of the Erysiphales (Powdery Mildews). CBS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
R. N. Attanayake D. A. Glawe K. E. McPhee F. M. Dugan W. Chen 2010.
Erysiphe trifolii– a newly recognized powdery mildew pathogen of pea
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02306.x
L38-40. Please provide a reference for this statement.
L96: n is not found in the formula, please correct.
L140: Please provide the (approximate) ratio of seed and peat.
L157: It is highly possible that the fungus was indeed E. pisi, but has it been properly identified in this work, or any earlier work? It would be nice to have a morphological analysis, and an ITS sequence of the isolate (deponated to GenBank).
L163: I think you did not describe which software was used for statistical analysis.
L173-174: Please describe which test was used for rejecting normality and homogeneity.
L188-190: Please specify how the determination coefficient and p value were obtained.
L190-192: Regression lines or the linearized models are not further described in the Results.
L194-195: Please describe which test was used for rejecting normality and homogeneity.
L198: I think the phrase “ANOVA analysis” is redundant, as “AN” in ANOVA means “analysis”.
Table 3: Please do not abbreviate ”faba bean”. Please reconsider placement of table 3 to avoid the last row printed on the next page.
Figure 4, 5 and 6: Please show the standard errors on the bars.
L230-231. Discuss this result in the Discussion in short.
L232, L248 (and others): Provide a p value for significant results.
Table 5: Please do not abbreviate “difference” and ”faba bean”.
L304-305: Provide a reference as an example for supporting this statement.
L313: Please define “addition intercropping” with some words to help readers.
L324-325: “Our results are in line with what has been found for other diseases in different intercropping systems [7].” Although a reference is given, I would specify the results of that study in some words (again, to help readers).
L349-351. The effect of faba bean clearly needs more studies. However, in the discussion, you could provide some ideas (based on references) what could be the mechanism for the effect in this case.
L369-371. This statement seems quite obvious, but I would put a reference here to support the statement.
L378-380. Please revise the grammar of this sentence, and provide a reference.
L386: Although references are given, please describe those studies/results in some words and specify pathogens with which similar results were found.
L389: ref [37] – as above, please specify the referred study with some words.
The text itself is generally well written. Below I marked some places where I think there is a typo or grammar error. Please consider these.
L8: interest in
L25: highly suitable
L25: pea fixes
L304: consisting of
L311: monocropped
L374: exert a too high selection pressure
L385: without seriously compromising
L388: an importance of the barrier effect
L399: simultaneously face
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
