Role of the Fungicide Seed Dressing in Controlling Seed-Borne Fusarium spp. Infection and in Enhancing the Early Development and Grain Yield of Maize

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

The manuscript is well written and found to be relevant for the readers of the ‘Agronomy’ journal. However, I have a few comments that need to be addressed , for providing better clarity and comprehension. Specific comments are provided below:

Introduction:

The Introduction section is nicely done and has presented the pertinent literature review and scope of this study. However, this reviewer felt the readers would appreciate some information on the extent and significance of maize production in the region of this study.

Materials and Methods:

Line 104: Provide expansion of ‘ a.s.l’  when it is first used in the text.

Line 106: Also consider adding information on the history of soil-borne fungi detection, and fungicide use, especially the use of tested chemicals in this study, in the experimental sites, if available.

Line 121: Information on the specific method used for disinfecting the maize seeds would be useful for the readers (chemical, steam, etc.)

Line 168: Controls not clear; were there two types of controls involved? i.e., 1)Seeds are NOT fungal infected, and 2) seeds are fungal infected, but NOT seed dressed with Fungicides? Please clarify. What is your untreated control?

Results:

Figure 2: Although you have included the letters of significance, personally, I would like to see error bars (Standard error) in the graphs as well to get a better idea of the variability in the data.

Discussions:

I encourage the authors to consider sharing their thoughts on potential cons/demerits if any, of 4-way fungicidal seed dressing since they have mastered this technique for a few years.

Author Response

Please see the attchement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall the paper is well written but the the authors should consider my comments regarding statistical appropriateness of data display and discussion.

I am not convinced that labeling each experiment A, B, C... and using them as main factors in the analysis is correct.

Authors should provide support for that or else rerun the analyses using a more appropriate combination.

Please see attached for more detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept the authors' revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for your revision