Olive Escudete (Dalmatian Disease) Caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea as a Result of Fly–Midge–Fungus Interaction
, Antonio Santos-Rufo 1,2,*, Ibrahim Eldesouki-Arafat 3, Enrique Vargas-Osuna 1, Juan Moral 1, Antonio Trapero 1 and Francisco Javier López-Escudero 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors of the manuscript “Olive escudete, caused by Botryosphaeria dothidea, as result of the interaction fly-midge-fungus”, this study present an interesting discussion and investigation regarding the interaction between B. dothidea, B. oleae and P. berlesiana and their roles in the development of Olive escudete. My recommendation, after reading the entire manuscript, is that it is ready for publication, in present form.
Kind regards,
Reviewer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript investigates the relationship between various agents contributing to the development of escudete disease in olive trees. The study explores the involvement of olive fly punctures, B. dothidea fungus, and the cecidomyiid P. berlesiana. Overall, the research aims to elucidate the interactions among these agents and their roles in disease propagation.
Considering the relevance of the study to agriculture and the potential contribution to understanding escudete disease, the manuscript has the potential for publication after addressing the suggested improvements. The study's empirical approach and comprehensive exploration make it a valuable addition to the field of plant pathology.
Major comments
Certain sections of the manuscript, especially in the methodology and discussion, could benefit from clearer language and sentence structure to enhance overall readability.
The term "escudete disease" is introduced without a clear definition. Consider providing an early explanation to help readers understand the context.
The conclusions could be more succinctly presented, summarizing key findings and their implications. This will help readers quickly grasp the significance of the study.
Minor comments
Line 2: "Olive escudete" might need clarification. Is "escudete" a specific term, or should it be "Olive scud-type disease"?
Line 3: The phrase "fly-midge-fungus" might benefit from a clearer explanation or a hyphen between each component, like "fly-midge-fungus interaction."
Line 40: "sanitates" should be "sanitation."
Line 45: "Dalmatian disease" - is this a common term for the disease or could it be "escudete" as mentioned later?
Line 55: The phrase "the pathogen vector" may be confusing. It might be clearer to say "the vector role of the pathogen."
Line 61: Consider rephrasing to enhance clarity: "they point out different ways about the role of P. berlesiana in transmission of the pathogen."
Line 66: "It strengthens the assumption" - consider rephrasing for more precision, perhaps "supports the hypothesis."
Line 79: "An experimental field (37°30'41''N, 4°25'58''W; ‘La Mina’)" - Consider whether this information needs to be included in the main text or if it could be part of the methods section.
Line 105: Consider clarifying what "fly oviposition punctures without apparent presence of the midge" means. It might be more explicit to state that these are punctures made by the olive fly without signs of the midge.
Line 135: The word "collect" is repeated, consider rephrasing for variety.
Line 150: "SW for a longer time after the puncture" - Clarify what "SW" stands for.
Line 199: "Chi-squared test (χ2; P=0.05)" - While this is technically correct, you may consider presenting the information in a more concise manner.
Line 210: The phrase "The Gordal sevillana cultivar was the most affected with 10.0%" could be rewritten for better clarity.
Line 268: "385/758" - Consider stating percentages to make it clearer.
Line 271: "50.0%" - Consider whether it's more appropriate to present this as a range (e.g., 45-55%).
Line 277: The phrase "visible presence of P. berlesiana" could be clarified, perhaps "visible signs of P. berlesiana."
Line 292: "χ2 test showed that the incidence" - Mention what χ2 represents.
Line 301: The percentages like "38.2%" could be rounded for simplicity.
Line 302: Consider adding a conclusion or transition to the next section to maintain the flow.
Line 363: The term "escudete disease" is introduced without prior explanation. Consider providing a brief description or definition upon first mention for clarity.
Line 365: The sentence structure could be simplified for better clarity and comprehension. Consider rephrasing.
Line 374: The sentence is lengthy; breaking it down could enhance readability and understanding.
Line 382: The pronoun "it" lacks clarity; specify the referent to enhance understanding.
Line 386: The sentence mentioning the percentage of olives lacking midge presence needs rephrasing for improved clarity.
Line 391: Clarify the nature of the interaction between the three agents mentioned in the Venn diagram.
Line 398: The sentence is complex; breaking it into smaller segments may aid comprehension.
Line 404: The sentence discussing the possibility of disease development needs clarification for better understanding.
Line 419: Consider rephrasing for better clarity regarding the potential reasons for the lack of detection of cecidomyiids.
Line 428: Provide more clarity on Solinas[9]'s perspective regarding the role of the fly in the disease's development.
Line 439: Clarify the significance of P. berlesiana in olives with non-live stings and its implications.
Line 450: Rephrase to improve clarity regarding the attribution of P. berlesiana presence in non-live stings.
Line 474: Elaborate on the limitations of considering biological relationships as valid in absolute terms.
Line 538: Summarize Solinas[9]'s stance on the symbiotic relationship between the three agents, emphasizing any nuances or qualifications.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have provided my feedback in the attached document for your consideration. Overall, I find this manuscript to be well-written and do not have significant concerns regarding its content. The observations and suggestions outlined in the document aim to further refine and clarify certain aspects of the manuscript for enhanced clarity and impact.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI find this study very interesting. It indicates the natural interaction of several organisms in the spread of a locally important fungal pathogen. It describes possible relationships even at the level of life stages. It brings new insights into the dissemination process. I consider the study to be well done and well written. However, I would recommend a few minor suggestions before the study is accepted.
​1) L47-economical losses: For a better insight into the issue, please add some numbers, estimates or data that quantify the economic losses involved. Complete it with a reference.
2) L180 - PDA acid culture: Describe better the PDA acid isolation method, which acid(s) was(were) included for the medium? What pH was used? Under a certain pH value it is not easy to achieve the agarization process. Why wasn't normal pH PDA supplemented with some ATBs used? Please provide a reference if possible and if a commercial kit or original acid PDA was used please provide the source.
3)L335 - Isolation of PDA: I believe that no PDA was isolated from olive. The sentence is incorrect. And then mention please, what PDA was used for it (Acid PDA?)
4) L353 - PDA Isolation: Please correct the sentence. Isolation from (not on)
5) L399 - attacks of the escudete disease: emergence of escudete disease would be better, in the case of basically fungal disease.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have diligently incorporated the feedback provided by the reviewer into their manuscript, rendering it well-suited for publication. I highly recommend accepting this manuscript in its current form. Congratulations to the authors on their outstanding work!
