In Vitro Compatibility of Three Native Isolates of Trichoderma with the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

All suggestions have been added directly to the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are very well.
All suggested changes were made.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study is in an acceptable format for publication. Just required a moderate English editing service. 

The authors made an effort to determine whether the synthetic pesticide chlorpyrifos and the biological control agent Trichoderma were compatible. Eco-friendly pest management strategies will benefit from this research.     The discipline of pest control benefits from research like this.   

1. But it's also important to consider how well it works against insect pests.  For a major insect pest, I suggest including some mortality data.
2. The authors need to add some mortality data on the combination of chlorpyrifos and the biological control agent Trichoderma and identify which concentration of chlorpyrifos is suitable for Trichoderma.
3. The authors need to add the F value, DF value, and P value for the one-way ANOVA for all the figures in the text.

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are very well.
All suggested changes were made.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article addresses an interesting topic related to integrated pest control in agriculture. The compatibility of three strains of a fungus with an insecticide was analyzed.

There is a need to correct the English of parts of the article. There are lines with strange or meaningless words or with a dot in a position that makes it difficult to understand the text (for example: lines 37, 49-50, 92, 127, 269, 271, 286,288-289, 344-345).

The penultimate paragraph of the Introduction can be removed.

In Results, there are paragraphs repeating figure´s data. Photos with Petri dishes are not self-explanatory and need captions.

The Discussion is too extensive. It is possible to focus only on topics more directly related to the data collected in this article.

There is also a need for other corrections:

- line 53: This caused a situation in which international entities requested...

- line 61: biocontrol agents (BA);

- line 103: three strains (and two species);

- line 122: (%C)

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are very well.
All suggested changes were made.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Reviewer comments

Manuscript title: In vitro compatibility of three native isolates of Trichoderma with the insecticide chlorpyrifos

The manuscript by Sabogal-Vargas et al. evaluated the in vitro compatibility of three native isolates of Trichoderma in three concentrations of chlorpyrifoss and the antagonistic capacity against Botrytis sp. in a dual culture. The results of the study provide useful information for sustainable development of agriculture. However, there are some questions that need to be addressed.

Specific comments and recommendations are:

Abstract

As per style, at the first citation of a genus/species, authority, order, and family names should be given in parentheses. Please add authority name, order, and family for all the genus/species, except the genus/species for which the details are already given in the article title.

Keywords

The three keywords has been used in the title. I suggest using different keywords, since the title is likely already being indexed. Using a different combination of words between the title and keywords will increase the chances of the article being retrieved in a literature search.

Introduction

Line 37 A sentence was missing at the beginning of the Introduction.

Line 69 Lepidoptera (family name) should not be in italic type.

Line 106 Remove extra “.”

Materials and Methods

Line 132 Why the authors selected the three concentrations of chlorpyrifos (960, 1200, and 1440 mg/L). Please provide the reason. This may need to be mentioned in the discussion section.

Results

Line 160 Trichoderma should in normal font as the subtitle is in italics.

Line 168 Trichoderma should be in italics.

Line 176 Whether the authors performed homogeneity of variance analysis prior to one-way ANOVA.

Line 179 should be Figure 2a- Figure 2c. Please specific.

Line 186 should be Figure 2d- Figure 2f. Please revise.

Figure 2 The authors should carefully check the label in the figure and revise.

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are very well.
All suggested changes were made.
best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Some specific corrections are still needed in this second version of the article:

- line 40: economic losses;

- line 41:. On the other hand,

- line 114: . It is

- lines 274-275: "is not recognized" or "is not affected by the pesticides"?

- line 331: "greater" or "more significant results"?

Although the discussion remains very extensive, the reorganization of the paragraphs makes it easier to read. But some paragraphs can be split in two, because they are too long.

Author Response

Dear colleague, I hope you are in good health.
The corrections made have been sent.
Thank you very much for the suggested comments.
best regards

• line 40: economic losses;

Ans. The comment was considered and the word out of place was removed

• line 41:. On the other hand,

Ans. The comment was considered and the word out of place was removed

• line 114: . It is

Ans. The comment was considered and the word out of place was removed

• lines 274-275: "is not recognized" or "is not affected by the pesticides"?

 Ans. is not affected by the pesticides

• line 331: "greater" or "more significant results"?

Ans. more significant results

Although the discussion remains very extensive, the reorganization of the paragraphs makes it easier to read. But some paragraphs can be split in two, because they are too long.

Ans. The authors divided the paragraphs to make them shorter and more understandable.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx