All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
I would like to thank you for accepting the referees' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. Your article is ready to publish. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
Dear editors/authors,
A key concern relates to the adequacy of the sample size and the representativeness of the infected samples. The data indicate that only 4 out of 159 bulbs (approximately 2.5%) were infected, collected across three garlic genotypes. Assuming each genotype contributed at least one infected bulb, one genotype would necessarily include two infected bulbs.
As mentioned in the Data Analysis section, each genotype was analyzed using three biological replicates of 20 cloves each (i.e., 60 cloves per genotype). However, the specific garlic type is not clearly described, and it is questionable whether a single bulb could realistically yield 60 cloves. Furthermore, with each analysis requiring approximately 30 grams, this would imply a need for at least 90 grams of cloves per genotype.
More importantly, analyzing only one infected bulb per genotype does not provide a robust basis for evaluating the pathogen’s effects. There appears to be no methodological justification for dividing a single infected bulb into three replicates, especially since disease stage can significantly influence biochemical properties. Given the small number of infected bulbs, it is unlikely that all were at the same stage of disease progression.
In light of these limitations, I find the current descriptive approach insufficient to reliably address the study’s central question.
No comment
No comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
I appreciate your positive and constructive attitude toward the suggestions of reviewers. However, your article needs some revisions to improve before publishing. I suggest a thorough review of the reviewers' suggestions and a judicious consideration of each recommendation. If you find yourself in disagreement with any particular suggestion, it would be beneficial to provide clear and well-reasoned justifications for your perspective.
No comment
The revised version still lacks details on the number of infected and healthy samples from each region and genotype. It mentions that “20 bulbs were collected in three replicates (total 60 bulbs) according to regions” Does this total include all genotypes? How many samples were collected per genotype?.
However, the results section ("Isolation…") states: “A total of 159 garlic bulbs were studied, and 2.5% were classified as infected with F. proliferatum…”. The exact number of samples remains unclear. Also, if only 2.5% were infected, how many were infected per genotype and region? Please provide a table detailing the number of infected and diseased samples for each genotype and study area.
Similarly, regarding the methodology section: Were indicators analyzed for each sample (diseased or healthy) or for combined samples per replicate (three replicates of 20 samples)? Do the values in the analysis results tables represent the mean of three replicates or the average of n analyzed samples? If the latter, the tables should specify n for each analytical criterion. Also, in the raw data appendix, what do the numbers 7/5/1/9/10/11 refer to?
I believe that once this information is provided, it will clarify the inputs to the analysis process, enhancing the credibility of the comparative analysis presented in Tables (such as 2, 3, 4, and 5).
Due to the unresolved methodological issue, which has persisted since the previous review, I still recommend a major revision before consideration.
no comment
No comment
self-contained
well defined
no coment
Fusarium spp. is widely recognized as a principal pathogenic fungus affecting many field crops, including garlic. I believe that your study will be enhancing our understanding of its biology and the host-pathogen interactions specific to garlic. While your work provides valuable information about Fusarium disease in garlic, it does not fully meet some requirements of our journal. Therefore, it is essential to address certain technical details to enhance the article further. I strongly recommend carefully reviewing the reviewers' suggestions and thoughtfully considering each recommendation. If you disagree with any of the suggestions, please provide clear and well-reasoned justifications for your perspective. Additionally, your article need to linguistic refinement. I recommend seeking assistance from a colleague or utilizing our editing service to ensure the language is professional.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript, "Effect of Fusarium Infection on Physiological, Phytochemical, and Nutrient Responses in Garlic (Allium sativum) Genotypes," examines the biochemical differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic garlic bulbs (referred to as healthy). While the topic is relevant and offers valuable insights into plant-pathogen interactions, several key concerns need addressing:
Disease Identification: The manuscript appears to rely solely on visible symptoms to classify bulbs as healthy or diseased. Under natural, uncontrolled infection conditions, various fungal species can produce similar symptoms. Additionally, latent infections—common in such diseases—can also alter biochemical properties.
Fusarium spp. Verification:
Fusarium spp. is an opportunistic pathogen; its presence in rotting bulbs is expected but not definitive evidence of causation.
The isolation and identification methods are inadequately detailed. Were all analyzed samples subjected to pathogen isolation? What proportion of bulbs were infected? Were other microbial species detected? Is Fusarium spp. consistently found in all diseased samples and absent in healthy ones?
Without robust verification, attributing biochemical changes solely to Fusarium infection is speculative. These conclusions are only valid if all samples are confirmed to be infected or if results are derived from controlled infections with Fusarium (F. proliferatum).
Suggested Revisions: If verifying Fusarium infection in all samples is not feasible, the authors could consider focusing on the broader characterization of this disease, detailing its symptoms and correlating them with biochemical differences. Conclusions should then address symptomatic versus asymptomatic bulbs without attributing changes to Fusarium spp.
Given these issues, I recommend a major revision of both the content and writing style of the manuscript. While the analytical results are appreciated, the current presentation is disorganized and lacks clarity. Addressing these concerns will significantly improve the manuscript, and I would be glad to provide further suggestions once revised.
No comment
no comment
no comment
The article will contribute to scientific developments in the field. Although the writing is clear, it should be grammatically revised. The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can.(Lines 507-516)
The sampling method used in the Materials and Methods section should be detailed in Mondaini et al 2021. I wish the researcher success in his studies
1. The author's research clearly refers to the species Fusarium proliferatum, so especially in the title, in the materials and materials, and the results are directly adjusted to the name of the species.
2. Writing units must be in accordance with SI units and the way of writing must be consistent
3. The manuscript is written in English, so the decimal symbol is a dot (.) not a comma (,). Example 3.54, not 3.34
4. Many of the word choices are not in accordance with the terminology of the field of plant pathology. For example, resistance, not resilient
clear and concise enough
In general, the data presentation needs to be improved, the writing of units needs to be consistent, the presentation of table results needs to be improved with the correct format and the average data should be equipped with ± Sdv or Sde, the graphic image should be changed to be not colored (black and white) it would be better and replace it with a certain pattern to fill the graph in the form of bars.The statistic symbols should be typed in italic
In general, the substance includes background, materials and methods, results, conclusions, and novelty are very good. However, some things need to be improved such as language, writing units needs to be consistent, presentation of table results and Figures (diagrams) needs to be improved. My detail comments. My detailed comments are on the words/sentences that I highlighted in the script and can be clicked to open them.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.