Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0307082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307082

Allelopathic interactions of Carthamus oxyacantha, Macrophomina phaseolina and maize: Implications for the use of Carthamus oxyacantha as a natural disease management strategy in maize

Nazir Aslam 1, Muhammad Akbar 1,*, Anna Andolfi 2,3
Editor: Abhay K Pandey4
PMCID: PMC11527155  PMID: 39480774

Abstract

Fungicides are used to control phytopathogens but all these fungicides have deleterious effects. Allelopathic interactions can be harnessed as a natural way to control the pathogens but there are no reports that show the allelopathic interactions of donor plant, recipient crop, as well as the target plant pathogen and the material used for inoculum production. So, in the present study, the suitability of Carthamus oxyacantha M. Bieb. was assessed against Macrophomina phaseolina, the cause of charcoal rot in maize. Among the various treatments in pot experiment, a negative control, 3 concentrations of inoculum (1.2×105, 2.4×105, and 3.6×105 colony forming units (CFU) mL-1, 3 concentrations (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5% w/w) of C. oxyacantha along with an autoclaved M. phaseolina (Mp) and C. oxyacantha alone were included to investigate their allelopathic effects on maize, not investigated earlier. Maximum suppression of the disease was observed by 1.5% (w/w) concentration of C. oxyacantha. Soil amendment with C. oxyacantha significantly suppressed the disease incidence (DI) and disease severity index (DSI) in charcoal rot of maize up to 40 and 55%, respectively over the strongest level of inoculum (Mp3). C. oxyacantha not only reduced area under disease incidence progress curve (AUDIPC) and area under disease severity progress curve (AUDSPC), but also improved the morphological, biochemical and physiological parameters of maize. The maximum increase of 48, 65, and 75% in values of shoot length (SL), shoot dry mass (SDM), and root dry mass (RDM), respectively was observed by application of the highest concentration of C. oxyacantha in the treatment Mp1+Co3, over infested control (Mp1). Photosynthetic pigments, such as chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids were increased to 58, 64, and 46%, respectively over Mp1, by the application of C. oxyacantha. Carbon assimilation rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), rate of transpiration (E), and internal carbon dioxide concentration (Ci) were significantly increased to 58, 48, 48, and 20%, respectively over infested control (Mp3), by application of C. oxyacantha concentration 1.5 (w/w). Moreover, defense enzymes like superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activities were boosted up to 27, 28, and 28% over Mp3, respectively. Positive allelopathy of C. oxyacantha towards maize and negative allelopathy towards M. phaseolina makes C. oxyacantha a suitable candidate for charcoal rot disease control in maize.

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is a staple food crop which stands at 1st position with respect to its production, while it stands at 3rd position regarding its cultivation worldwide, after wheat and rice [1]. Pakistan stands on the 18th position among the maize producing countries, with 5.27 t ha-1 yield, that is very low as compared to per hectare yield, 9.5 t ha-1 in United States [2, 3]. There are many factors involved in this low per hectare yield, including non-availability of high yielding maize varieties, costly fertilizers, poor implementation of agricultural policies, adverse climatic conditions, and biotic constraints [4].

Pathogenic fungi are the main biotic constraints causing plant diseases and resulting in 31% yield loss in maize [5]. Among them, Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid, infects over 500 host plants with morphological symptoms such as, charcoal rot, canker, damping off and blights [6].

Charcoal rot of maize has developed into more alarming situation because of resistance found in pathogen against environmental factors, ability to cause epidemic and its propensity to kill the host plants, causing up to 63.6% yield loss in the maize crop [7, 8]. M. phaseolina is a soil and seed borne pathogen, its transmission from seed to seedling has also been reported [9]. Pakistan is one amongst the countries which are facing devastating environmental changes. Rise in average daily temperature of Pakistan, up to 0.87 ºC is slightly more than average global increase. Meanwhile, Pakistan experiences some of the highest maximum temperatures in the world, with average maximum temperature of 38 °C and above in many regions [10]. So, these climate changes are very suitable for growth of M. phaseolina, the causal agent of charcoal rot disease in crops.

Various strategies such as avoidance, breeding for disease resistance, cultural practices and chemical disease management can be adopted to control charcoal rot of maize. However, the presence of natural antifungal compounds in plants is an emerging technology to manage plant diseases [1114]. Several successful investigations reported that application of plant extracts, residue, compost and mulches used either in vitro or in vivo significantly controlled various fungal pathogens [1518]. Previous in vitro studies revealed that C. oxyacantha has antifungal activity against various fungal pathogens such as Aspergillus niger, M. phaseolina, Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium oxysporum, and mushrooms [19].

C. oxyacantha (wild safflower, Family: Asteraceae), is an annual herbaceous weed plant with white stem and simple sessile spiny leaves. C. oxyacantha is abundantly found in wheat fields in the plains of Punjab, Pakistan, with orange yellow capitulum and achene fruit. C. oxyacantha contains antifungal compounds e.g., D-Ribofuranose, 5-deoxy-5-(methylsulfinyl)-1,2,3-tris-O-(trimethylsilyl), Benzoic acid, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxy-, methyl ester, and γ-Sitosterol [20, 21]. Along with presence of antifungal compounds in an organic material to cope with fungal diseases in plants, its compatibility with crop plants is also very important. Allelopathy of plant residue must be checked before its application in field [22]. Although, in vitro antifungal activity of C. oxyacantha has been reported, it’s in vivo effectiveness against charcoal rot of maize as well as its compatibility for maize is missing. Therefore, a pot experiment was conducted to investigate the compatibility and antifungal efficacy of C. oxyacantha to control charcoal rot of maize caused by M. phaseolina. Moreover, effect of soil amendment with C. oxyacantha on the morphological, physiological, and defense related attributes of maize were also investigated for the first time in this study.

Materials and methods

Collection of indigenous weed, pathogen and test plant

Indigenous weed, C. oxyacantha was collected from District Mandi Bahauddin, Punjab Province, Pakistan, and was identified on the basis of vegetative and floral characters, and compared with literature [23]. C. oxyacantha is an herbaceous plant having spiny-leaves alternately arranged on non-woody stem, having deep lobe with dentate margins. Orange colored flowers grow as flower head, having size of 2 to 3 cm in diameter. The plants were air-dried under shade. Dried plants were ground to powder with the help of mini electric grinder Nm-8300, and stored at room temperature in polythene bags.

Certified seeds of maize, variety Neelam, were purchased from the local market. The isolate of fungal pathogen, Macrophomina phaseolina was isolated from diseased maize plant collected from maize field, village Sagera, District Kasur, Punjab, Pakistan. For the Identification of fungal isolate, the color of culture, diameter of colony (cm), and the size of microsclerotia were noted [24]. M. phaseolina was identified as gray color colony, maximum colony size was 80 to 85 mm after 7 days of incubation, whereas the size of microsclerotia was 48.00 μm in diameter.

Sorghum seeds were used as a substrate for multiplication of fungal inoculum. Sorghum seeds were soaked overnight in 4 L of a solution containing distilled water and 40 g of sucrose, 0.5 g of yeast extract and 0.25 g of tartaric acid per liter. The solution was decanted, and the sorghum seeds were divided equally into autoclavable bags. A plastic tube of 5 cm in diameter and 10 cm long was inserted halfway into the bags for the placement of culture plugs onto the sorghum seeds. Cotton plugs were inserted into each tube, and the samples were autoclaved at 121 °C for 30 min. One-week-old culture plugs of M. phaseolina, grown on PDA (Potato dextrose agar), were used to inoculate the sorghum seeds. Mycelial plugs were placed into each bag, and each opening was then reclosed with the cotton plug. The bags were incubated at 28±2 °C for 3 weeks, with periodic shaking to spread the inoculum on sorghum seeds within the bags. After 3 weeks, the sorghum seeds were completely colonized and darkened with fungal hyphae/microsclerotia. The dried sorghum based inoculum was stored in sealed plastic containers at 4 °C until further use [25].

In vivo assessment of antifungal activity of C. oxyacantha

Antifungal efficacy of C. oxyacantha was investigated in a pot experiment (Pots were kept in open air to simulate natural field conditions). Whereas, pots were used to enhance inoculum equally for equable infection and better control of M. phaseolina with C. oxyacantha in a completely randomized design (CRD), having 19 treatments with 5 replicates. Corn field soil and pots (20 cm in diameter and 30 cm deep) were sterilized by 5% formalin solution for 15 minutes and left to dry for two weeks. Soil amendments with selected weed, C. oxyacantha were made with three concentrations (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5% w/w), by mixing the C. oxyacantha in pots of selected treatments. Amended soil was added in each pot (7 kgs/pot). Sorghum based fungal inoculum [26] was ground to form hyphal/microsclerotial suspension in sterilized distilled water and three concentrations viz., 1.2×105 CFU mL-1, 2.4×105 CFU mL-1 and 3.6×105 CFU mL-1, respectively were maintained by serial dilution method. Pot soil of selected treatments was infested by inoculum of the pathogen by mixing ten mL of hyphal/microsclerotia suspension in topsoil of 10 cm depth. Healthy maize seeds were sown on 5th day of inoculation [27], at the rate of 3 seeds/pot and each pot was thinned to one seedling at ten days after emergence. Standard agronomical conditions were maintained [28]. In total 19 treatments were made. The detailed composition of treatments in pot experiment is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Treatments composition in pot experiment.

Sr. No. Treatments Description
1 C Control (Without pathogen and soil amendment)
2 Mp1 Macrophomina phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1)
3 Mp2 M. phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1)
4 Mp3 M. phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1)
5 AMp1 Autoclaved M. phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1)
6 AMp2 Autoclaved M. phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1)
7 AMp3 Autoclaved M. phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1)
8 Co1 Carthamus oxyacantha 0.5% (w/w)
9 Co2 C. oxyacantha 1% (w/w)
10 Co3 C. oxyacantha 1.5% (w/w)
11 Mp1+Co1 M. phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 0.5%
12 Mp1+Co2 M. phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1%
13 Mp1+Co3 M. phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1.5%
14 Mp2+Co1 M. phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 0.5%
15 Mp2+Co2 M. phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1%
16 Mp2+Co3 M. phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1.5%
17 Mp3+Co1 M. phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 0.5%
18 Mp3+Co2 M. phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1%
19 Mp3+Co3 M. phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1)+C. oxyacantha 1.5%

Disease assessment

DI and DSI were assessed simultaneously, three times during the whole pot experiments, with the interval of 14 days. Disease symptoms for charcoal rot of maize, appearance of lesion at the collar region [27] were observed 42 days after sowing (DAS), at growth stage 3, (Collar of 12th leaf visible, leaves 3 and 4 may be dead) in plants of infested pots. Two more successive observations were made with the interval of 14 days, at growth stage 4, 56 DAS (Collar of 14th leaves visible, tips of many tassels visible) and at growth stage between 5 and 6, 70 DAS (75% of plants have silks visible) [29]. Both DI and DSI were evaluated at the same time. Depending on the disease symptoms, DSI was scaled on a 0–5 scale [30]. Numerical disease rating was assigned as follows: 0, healthy plants; 1, appearance of lesion at the collar region, 2–7 mm in length; 2, large lesions, 8–12 mm in length; 3, moderate rotting of the collar region, loss of turgor at the top with slight drooping; 4, extensive rotting at the collar region, wilting and drying of many leaves, drooping of the shoot; 5, plants completely wilted, dead and dry. DI and DSI were measured by following equations;

DI=No.ofdiseasedplantsTotalnumberofPlants×100 (1)
DSI=0×P0+1×P1+2×P2+3×P3+4×P4+5×P5N(G-1)×100 (2)

Where P0 to P5 are total number of observed plants in each disease grading per treatment, N is total number of observations and G stands for number of grading. The AUDIPC and AUDSPC both were calculated by [31].

AUDIPC/AUDSPC=n=1n-1Xi+Xi-1/2)(Ti-Ti-1 (3)

Where Xi is 1st reading of disease incidence/disease severity and Xi+1 indicated each successive reading of disease incidence/disease severity at time (t).

Morphological parameters

Morphological parameters were measured after harvesting the plants on 80 DAS. SL, SDM, and RDM of all plants in all treatments were recorded after oven drying at 70 °C until a constant dry weight reading was achieved [32].

Estimation of photosynthetic pigments

The measurement of photosynthetic pigments such as chlorophyll a, b, and carotenoids was done at 42 DAS. For this, 100 mg of apical leaves from each treatment (parts of three leaves were randomly mixed) were cut into small pieces and mixed with 5 mL of 80% acetone in triplicates. Homogenization was done in a pre-cooled sterile mortar and pestle. The obtained extract was then centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 15 min and the clear solution was transferred to a new vial with a final volume made up to 5 mL by 80% acetone. For these three pigments, the optical density was recorded at 663, 645, and 440.5 nm wavelength by using a spectrophotometer (Model UV 3000), respectively [33]. The levels of chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids were measured by the following equations;

Chlorophyllamgg-1=12.7(OD)6632.69(OD)645×(w/v×1000) (4)
Chlorophyllbmgg-1=22.9(OD)6454.68(OD)663×(w/v×1000) (5)
Totalcarotenoidsmgg-1=46.95(OD)440.5(0.268×chla+b) (6)

where v = final volume (mL) of extract in 80% acetone, w = fresh weight of leaf in grams.

Physiological measurements

Physiological measurements were made after 56 DAS on the 6th leaf of plants from each treatment (5 replications per treatment) with help of a portable infrared gas analyzer (IRGA) (model: ADC-USA 1264) and the following four parameters were calculated: Net carbon assimilation rate (A) μmol CO2 m-2s-1; Stomatal conductance (gs) mmol m-2s-1; Internal CO2 concentration (Ci); Transpiration rate (E) mmol H2O m-2s-1 [37]. The measurements were made between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM.

Measurements of antioxidant activities

For SOD, POD and CAT antioxidant activities, 0.5 g of fresh leaf tissues (mixed from 10 leaves collected from plants for each treatment at 56 DAS were ground into a fine powder by pre chilled mortar and pestle. The leaf powder was homogenized by adding 3 mL of chilled 100 mM PBS buffer (pH 7.8) [34]. After adding 1.5 mL of homogenate in the two centrifuge tubes, the supernatant was centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 20 min at 4 °C. Centrifuged supernatant was transferred to new centrifuge tubes for further analysis.

SOD activity assay

Solution mixture (for 95 reactions) were prepared by adding 95 mL 100 mM PBS (pH 7.8), 1.9 mL 1 mM EDTA, 6.4 mL 130 mM Met, 6.4 mL 750 μM NBT, and 6.4 mL 20 μM Riboflavin. Crude enzyme solution (50 μL) from each sample was added into 1 mL reaction solution in a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube. Reaction solution with 50 μL 100 mM PBS (pH 7.8) but no crude enzyme under dark and light condition served as controls I and control II, respectively. All the tubes were exposed to the light intensity of 4,000 lux for 10–15 min, except the control I which was kept in the dark, while other tubes were quickly moved away from the light. Spectrophotometer absorbance was measured at 560 nm in the dark and used control I as reference [35].

SODtotalactivity(unit:u/gFW)=[(ACAs)xV]/(0.5xAckxVt)/FW (7)

Ac: Control II, absorbance at 560 nm, AS: sample tube, absorbance at 560 nm, V: total volume of enzyme solution, Vt: volume of enzyme used in the test tube, FW: fresh weight of sample (g).

POD activity assay

To determine POD activity, solution mixture (for 95 reactions) was prepared by adding 53.2 μL 0.2% guaiacol in 95 mL 100 mM PBS (pH 7.0), heated and stirred well, then added 36.1 μL 30% H2O2 after cooling. 50 μL 100 mM PBS (pH 7.8) and 1 mL of the reaction solution were mixed into a cuvette for reference (control) [35, 36].

PODactivityunit:u/gFW=ΔA470xV/Vt/0.01xt/FW (8)

ΔA470: the change in absorbance at 470 nm during every 20 seconds, V: total volume of enzyme solution, Vt: volume of enzyme used in cuvette, t: time of reaction (min), FW: sample fresh weight (g).

CAT activity assay

Solution mixture (for 95 reactions) was prepared by adding 147.25 μL 30% H2O2 in 95 mL100 mM Phosphate buffer solution (PBS, pH 7.0). 50 μL crude enzyme and 1 mL of the reaction solution were taken in the cuvette and the absorbance at 240 nm was recorded immediately with spectrophotometer at every 15 seconds for 1 min, by looking for steady average alteration. Reaction solution with 50 μL 100 mM PBS (pH 7.8) was used as a reference.

CATactivity(unit:u/mgprotein)=ΔA240x(V/Vt)/(0.1xt)/FW (9)

ΔA240: the change of absorbance at 240 nm during every 15 seconds [35, 36]. V: total volume of crude enzyme solution, Vt: volume of crude enzyme used in the test tube t: reaction time (min), FW: fresh weight (g).

Statistical analysis

For statistical analysis, ANOVA was done followed by Fisher’s LSD test at 5% probability using computer software Minitab 20. Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot was performed by using OriginPro 2024.

Results

Disease assessment

Data regarding disease assessment are given in Table 2. DI and DSI were measured at three different stages, 42 DAS, 56 DAS, and 70 DAS. There were no disease symptoms in negative control and treatments with only C. oxyacantha. When comparing three different strengths of the inoculum, DI and DSI recorded for Mp1, Mp2 and Mp3 increased progressively with increasing inoculum levels from 60 up to 100% for DI and from 16 up to 88% for DSI, respectively. Soil amendments with Co1, Co2, and Co3 dry C. oxyacantha significantly reduced the DI and DSI over positive controls with all tested strengths of inoculum. This antifungal efficacy of C. oxyacantha was reduced with the passage of time but increased with increasing quantity of the C. oxyacantha in respective treatments. Finally, at 70 DAS, among three tested concentrations of C. oxyacantha, (Mp3+Co3) suppressed DI and DSI in charcoal rot of maize up to 40 and 55%, respectively over the strongest level of inoculum (Mp3). AUDIPC and AUDSPC were calculated from three consecutive readings with 14 days of interval. Both AUDIPC and AUDSPC for Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3 were increased from 1820 up to 2800% for AUDIPC and from 756 up to 1960% for AUDSPC, respectively. Finally, at 70 DAS, among three tested concentrations of C. oxyacantha, (Mp3+Co3) significantly suppressed AUDIPC and AUDSPC in charcoal rot of maize up to 55 and 61%, respectively, over the strongest level of the inoculum, Mp3 (Table 2, S1 and S2 Files).

Table 2. Effect of different treatments on disease incidence (DI), disease severity index (DSI), area under disease incidence progress curve (AUDIPC), and area under disease severity progress curve (AUDSPC) on maize plants, grown in pots.

Treatments Disease Incidence (%) AUDIPC (%) Disease Severity Index (%) AUDSPC (%)
42DAS 56DAS 70DAS 42DAS 56DAS 70DAS
Mp1 60±24.49 a-c 60±24.49 a-c 80±20.00 ab 1820±610.0 a-c 16±7.5 b-d 24±11.66 b-e 44±14.70 c-e 756±312 b-d
Mp2 80±20.00 ab 80±20 ab 80±20 ab 2240±560 ab 24±7.4 b 48±13.56 ab 80±20.00 ab 1400±362 ab
Mp3 100±0.00 a 100±0.00 a 100±0.00 a 2800±0.0 a 56±11.7 a 68±12.0 a 88±4.90 a 1960±221 a
Mp1+Co1 40±24.49 b-d 60±24.49 a-c 60±24.49 a-c 1540±560.0 a-c 12±8.0 b-d 24±11.7 b-e 32±13.56 c-f 644±305 c-e
Mp1+Co2 20±20.00 cd 40±24.49 b-d 40±24.49 b-d 980±610 b-d 8±8.0 b-d 16±9.80 c-e 24±14.60 d-f 448±278 de
Mp1+Co3 20±20.00 cd 20±20.00 cd 20±20.00 cd 560±560.0 cd 4±4.0 cd 12±12.00 de 16±16.00 ef 308±308 de
Mp2+Co1 60±24.49 a-c 60±24.49 a-c 80±20.49 ab 1820±610 a-c 20±10.95 bc 28±12.00 b-e 52±13.6 b-d 896±315 b-d
Mp2+Co2 40±24.49 b-d 40±24.49 b-d 60±.24.49 a-c 1260±641.6 b-d 12±8.0 b-d 24±14.7 b-e 36±16.0 c-e 672±358 c-e
Mp2+Co3 20±20.00 cd 20±20.00 cd 40±24.49 b-d 700±542.3 cd 4±4.0 cd 12±12.0 de 28±17.44 d-f 392±298 de
Mp3+Co1 80±20.00 ab 80±20 ab 80±20.00 ab 2240±560.0 ab 24±7.5 b 44±11.66 a-c 64±16.00 a-c 1232±317 bc
Mp3+Co2 60±24.49 a-c 60±24.49 a-c 80±20.00 ab 1820±610.3 a-c 16±7.5 b-d 32±13.56 b-d 44±11.66 c-e 868±308 b-d
Mp3+Co3 40±24.49 b-d 40±24.49 b-d 60±24.49 a-c 1260±641.6 b-d 12±8.0 b-d 28±17.44 b-e 40±16.73 c-e 756±388 b-d

Mp1; Macrophomina phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1), Mp2; Macrophomina phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1), Mp3; Macrophomina phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1), Co1; Carthamus oxyacantha 0.5%, Co2; Carthamus oxyacantha 1%, Co3; Carthamus oxyacantha 1.5%, DAS; days after sowing, AUDIPC; Area under disease incidence progress curve, AUDSPC; Area under disease severity progress curve. Data presented represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates, followed by a different alphabet, differ significantly at P < 0.05 according to Fisher’s LSD test.

Note: Disease symptoms of charcoal rot did not appear in treatments viz., C; control, AMp1; Autoclaved Macrophomina phaseolina (1.2×105 CFU mL-1), AMp2; Autoclaved Macrophomina phaseolina (2.4×105 CFU mL-1), AMp3; Autoclaved Macrophomina phaseolina (3.6×105 CFU mL-1), Co1, Co2, and Co3. So, these data are excluded from the table.

Effects of treatments with Carthamus oxyacantha on morphological attributes of maize

Data regarding the effects of treatments on the morphological attributes of C. oxyacantha are presented in (Fig 1A–1C). SL, SDM, and RDM were significantly decreased by the application of three different inoculum levels (Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3), up to (25, 29, and 32%), (26, 39, and 48%), and (30, 44, and 52%), respectively, over control (C). Whereas, soil amendment with C. oxyacantha with three concentrations (Co1, Co2, and Co3) increased SL, SDM, and RDM up to (4, 12, and 15%), (8, 21, and 26%), and (13, 17, and 30%), respectively over C. Application of C. oxyacantha in infected treatments also significantly increased SL, SDM, and RDM. The minimum increase in the values of above mentioned parameters was 29, 56, and 64%, respectively by application of the highest concentration of the treatment Mp3+Co3, over the highest level of inoculum Mp3. While, maximum increase of 48, 65, and 7% in the values of aforesaid parameters, respectively was observed by application of the highest concentration of C. oxyacantha in the treatment Mp1+Co3, over Mp1 (Fig 1A–1C, S3 File).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Effect of treatments on (A) shoot length, (B) shoot dry mass, and (C) root dry mass of maize in pot trials. Data represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates. Error bars with a common alphabet do not differ significantly at P = 5% as computed by Fisher’s LSD test, using Minitab 20.2. Abbreviations: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1).

Effects of treatments with Carthamus oxyacantha on pigments of maize

Data about the effects of soil amendments on the pigments of C. oxyacantha are shown in (Fig 2A–2C). Photosynthetic pigments, such as chlorophyll a (Chl a), chlorophyll b (Chl b) and carotenoids were decreased by the application of three levels of inoculum (Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3). This decrease was up to (31, 37, and 28%), (38, 49, and 35%), and (41, 55, and 39%) in Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids, respectively over C. However, the values of Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids were significantly increased in the treatments having C. oxyacantha amendments over the infected treatments (Mp1, Mp2 and Mp3). The minimum increase in the values of Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids was seen in the treatment Mp3+Co3, which were 48, 58, and 34% for Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids, respectively, over Mp3. Whereas, the maximum increase in the values of Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids was seen in the treatment Mp1+Co3, which was 58, 64, and 46% for Chl a, Chl b, and carotenoids, respectively, over the positive control treatment (Mp1) (Fig 2A–2C, S4 File).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Effect of treatments on (A) chlorophyll a, (B) chlorophyll b, and (C) carotenoids of maize in pot trials. Data represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates. Error bars with a common alphabet do not differ significantly at P = 5% as computed by Fisher’s LSD test, using Minitab 20.2. Abbreviations: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1).

Effects of treatments with Carthamus oxyacantha on physiological attributes of maize

Data regarding the effects of different treatments on the physiological attributes of C. oxyacantha are presented in (Figs 3A, 3B, 4A & 4B). (A) and (gs) were decreased up to (28, 34, and 47%) and (29, 33, and 45%), respectively for inoculated treatments (Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3), in comparison with non-inoculated treatment C. A significant decrease in (A) and (gs), were also observed for the treatments with autoclaved inoculums (Amp2 and Amp3). There was an increase of (2, 10, and 16%) for (A) with the treatments Co1, Co2, and Co3 whereas, values of (gs) were significantly increased for Co2 and Co3 up to 17 and 25%, respectively, for treatments with C. oxyacantha (Co2, and Co3), in comparison to treatment C. There was maximum increase of 32, 45, and 54%, respectively for (A); 28, 44, and 58%, respectively for (gs), by treatments with C. oxyacantha (Mp1+Co1, Mp1+Co2, and Mp1+Co3), in comparison to inoculated treatment Mp1. There was minimum but significant increase of 22, 34, and 40%, respectively for (A); 22, 38, and 48%, respectively for (gs), by treatments with C. oxyacantha (Mp3+Co1, Mp3+Co2, and Mp3+Co3) in comparison with inoculated treatment Mp3 (Fig 3A & 3B, S5 File).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Effect of treatments on (A) rate of carbon assimilation, and (B) stomatal conductance of maize in pot trials. Data represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates. Error bars with a common alphabet do not differ significantly at P = 5% as computed by Fisher’s LSD test, using Minitab 20.2. Abbreviations: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Effect of treatments on (A) transpiration rate, and (B) internal carbon dioxide conc. of maize in pot trials. Data represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates. Error bars with a common alphabet do not differ significantly at P = 5% as computed by Fisher’s LSD test, using Minitab 20.2. Abbreviations: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1).

A significant decrease of 20, 26, and 38% in (E) was observed with the application of three different levels of inoculum such as Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3, respectively. Whereas, with the application of three different levels of C. oxyacantha Co1, Co2, and Co3, the values of (E) progressively increased up to 5, 13, and 28% over C, respectively. Minimum increase of up to 3, 14, and 43% in infested treatments (Mp3+Co1, Mp3+Co2, and Mp3+Co3) was observed over inoculated treatment Mp3. Whereas, the maximum increase of up to 9, 25, and 48% in infested treatments (Mp1+Co1, Mp1+Co2, and Mp1+Co3) was observed over inoculated treatment Mp1 (Fig 4A).

Carbon dioxide concentration (Ci) significantly increased up to 14, 25, and 32% with the application of Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3, respectively over C. Application of three different levels of C. oxyacantha Co1, Co2, and Co3 also increased (Ci) up to 11, 17, and 21%, respectively. Minimum significant increase of up to 7, 10, and 14% in infested treatments (Mp3+Co1, Mp3+Co2, and Mp3+Co3) was observed over inoculated treatment, Mp3. Whereas, the maximum increase of up to 15, 19, and 20% in infested treatments (Mp1+Co1, Mp1+Co2, and Mp1+Co3) was observed over Mp1. There was significant decrease of 5 and 10%, for (Ci), for treatments (Amp2 and Amp3), respectively, over C (Fig 4B, S6 File).

Effects of treatments with Carthamus oxyacantha on defense related antioxidant enzymes of maize

Data regarding the effects of different treatments on the activities of antioxidant enzymes are given in (Fig 5A–5C). Activities of antioxidant enzymes were noticeably enhanced in infected maize plants. SOD activity was significantly increased up to 32, 55, and 79% due to pathogen infection for Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3, respectively over C. Application of C. oxyacantha also significantly increased the values of SOD, up to 14, 25, and 39%, over C respectively, for Co1, Co2, and Co3. The minimum increase of 9% in the SOD activity was observed in the treatment Mp1+Co1, over Mp1. The maximum increase in the value of SOD was 26.7% for Mp3+Co3, over Mp3 (Fig 5A).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Effect of treatments on (A) superoxide dismutase, (B) peroxidase, and (C) catalase activities of maize in pot trials. Data represent means ± standard error of 5 replicates. Error bars with a common alphabet do not differ significantly at P = 5% as computed by Fisher’s LSD test, using Minitab 20.2. Abbreviations: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1).

POD activity was also significantly enhanced due to pathogen infection up to 9, 17, and 25% for Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3, respectively over C. The application of C. oxyacantha also increased the values of POD significantly, up to 5 and 13% over C respectively, for Co2 and Co3. The minimum increase (17%) in the value of POD activity was seen in the treatment Mp1+Co1, over Mp1, while, the maximum increase was 28% for Mp3+Co3, over Mp3 (Fig 5B).

CAT activities were also increased in infected treatments up to 47, 67, and 95% for Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3, respectively over C. Application of C. oxyacantha also increased the values of CAT significantly, up to 36, 46, and 63% over C, respectively, for Co1, Co2, and Co3. The minimum increase (25.2%) in CAT activity was seen in the treatment Mp1+Co1, over Mp1. On the contrary, the maximum increase was 28% for Mp3+Co3, over Mp3 (Fig 5C, S7 File).

Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot showing the relationships of treatments and effects is shown in Fig 6 (S1 Table).

Fig 6. Principal component analysis (PCA) biplot performed by using OriginPro 2024.

Fig 6

Abbreviations of treatments: C: control (Without pathogen and soil amendment), Mp: Macrophomina phaseolina, AMp: Autoclaved M. phaseolina, Co: Carthamus oxyacantha, Mp1: Mp (1.2×105), Mp2: Mp (2.4×105), Mp3: Mp (3.6×105), AMp1: AMp (1.2×105), AMp2: AMp (2.4×105), AMp3: AMp (3.6×105), Co1: Co0.5%, Co2: Co1%, Co3: Co1.5%, Mp1+Co1: Mp (1.2×105)+Co0.5%, Mp1+Co2: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1%, Mp1+Co3: Mp (1.2×105)+Co1.5%, Mp2+Co1: Mp (2.4×105)+Co0.5%, Mp2+Co2: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1%, Mp2+Co3: Mp (2.4×105)+Co1.5%, Mp3+Co1: Mp (3.6×105)+Co0.5%, Mp3+Co2: Mp (3.6×105)+Co1%, Mp3+Co3: Mp (3.6×105)+ Co1.5%. Note: Mp concentrations are given in colony forming units (CFU mL-1). Abbreviations of parameters: SL: Shoot length, SDM: Shoot dry mass, RDM: Root dry mass, Chl a: Chlorophyll a, Chl b: Chlorophyll b, A: rate of carbon assimilation, gs: stomatal conductance, E: transpiration rate, Ci: Internal carbon dioxide concentration, SOD: superoxide dismutase, POD: peroxidase, CAT: catalase, AUDIPC: Area under disease incidence progress curve, AUDSPC: Area under disease severity progress curve.

Discussion

In the present study, soil amendment with an astraceous weed C. oxyacantha was investigated against M. phaseolina, the cause of charcoal rot of maize variety (Neelam). The effect of different treatments was assessed in terms of morphological, physiological, and biochemical attributes of maize plants under pot conditions, to investigate efficacy of antifungal weed against charcoal rot of maize. Disease assessment of charcoal rot infection in maize variety Neelam was based on the variables of DI, DSI, AUDIPC, and AUDSPC. The occurrence of first symptom of charcoal rot was observed on infected plants near the tasseling stage of maize. Both DI and DSI were measured at three different times with 14 days of interval. AUDIPC and AUDSPC were calculated on 70 DAS. There was no disease in negative control maize plants. When comparing three different strengths of inoculum, DI, DSI, AUDIPC, and AUDSPC recorded for Mp1, Mp2, and Mp3 were increased with increase of inoculum level of the pathogen in the soil. The remarkable infection level in infected plants may be linked to interruption of water and mineral upward flow in xylem vessels, owing to colonization of the stalk tissues by M. phaseolina. Previous reports demonstrated that the flow of minerals and water was damaged by the colonization of Fusarium verticillioides in the conducting tissues of maize plants [37]. The similar interruption by infection of Ceratocystis fimbriata and Ceratocystis smalleyi in mango and bitternut hickory plants was reported by earlier workers [37, 38]. Previously, the disease severity of olive leaf spot (OLS) was increased when inoculum concentration of Spilocaea oleaginea increased from 1.0×102 to 2.5×105 conidia mL−1 [39]. In the present pot assays, antifungal activity of C. oxyacantha with concentrations 0.5, 1, and 1.5% (W/W) was assessed against the charcoal rot infection of maize caused by M. phaseolina. When different concentrations of C. oxyacantha as soil amendments were used to control the disease infection, percentage of DI and DSI were decreased with increasing concentrations of C. oxyacantha. Similar findings were reported in a previous study where root rot incidence of cowpea was decreased by the application of neem leaves [40]. It was also observed in our study that percentages of DI and DSI were increased with increasing days after sowing (DAS) in infected treatments. C. oxyacantha having antifungal potency against charcoal rot, suppressed DI and DSI up to 40 and 55%, over Mp3, respectively, in treatment (Mp3+Co3). AUDIPC and AUDSPC both were decreased with increasing concentrations of C. oxyacantha in selected treatments. In another study, soil amendment with neem cake and farmyard manure reduced the incidence of charcoal rot disease in chickpea and soybean [41].

Soil amendments with organic materials in crop fields is an efficient way to restore soil organic matter content and to improve soil quality directly or indirectly. Directly it is due to enhancing the availability of micro and macronutrients and indirectly by providing some biologically active compounds (antifungal compounds and antioxidants). Soil amendments with organic materials may alter the communities of microorganisms, which might be helpful to suppress harmful effects of other pathogens. Previous investigations indicate that organic amendments can reduce the incidence of diseases caused by soil borne pathogens, including M. phaseolina [11, 42]. Soil amendments with different plant residues have different effects on the growth of other plants either by enhancing the growth of recipient plant or by retarding the growth of recipient plant. In present investigation, C. oxyacantha showed positive allelopathy on maize plants as well as antifungal efficacy to control charcoal rot in maize. Application of C. oxyacantha increased SL, SDM, and RDM, over non-infested control (C). In a previous investigation [43], reported the positive allelopathy of C. oxyacantha on maize plants. Similarly, the application of dry leaf powder of Acacia nilotica L. at the rate of 1, 2 and 3% (W/W) in mash bean infested by M. phaseolina, increased SL, SFW, SDW, RFW, and RDW up to 35, 96, 45, 92, and 74%, over non-treated infested control [44].

In general, the autoclaved M. phaseolina also negatively affected the morphological, biochemical, and physiological attributes of maize and this effect was significant at the higher concentrations. It might be due to sorghum seeds used as a substrate for inoculum multiplication as negative allelopathy of sorghum was reported in a previous study [45]. Moreover, the negatively allelopathy of sorghum for maize has already reported earlier [46]. The photosynthetic pigments such as chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids were significantly reduced in infected plants over healthy plants (control) in pots. Previous investigations also reported that fungal infection had inhibitory effects on the synthesis of chlorophyll as well as carotenoids [47]. Previously, it has been demonstrated that infection of M. phaseolina in mung bean reduced the content of photosynthetic pigments [12]. This reduction in synthesis of photosynthetic pigments is due to maximum utilization of energies to combat against fungal infection rather in the synthesis of pigments by the infected plants. In the present study, soil amendments with C. oxyacantha, enhanced the content of photosynthetic pigments in maize plants. Previously, increase in photosynthetic pigments by the addition of organic matter in soil was reported [14, 48].

Physiochemical alterations may also occur in plants by pathogens causing root infection and disturb the vascular system which ultimately affect plant growth by hindering the rate of photosynthesis and carbon assimilation by the plants [37, 39]. For many host-pathogen interactions, a decrease in (A) was linked with lower (gs) and higher (Ci) [37, 49]. The photosynthetic restrictions can also be attributed to limitations in CO2 fixation at the biochemical level, not only to reductions in CO2 influx due to stomatal closure [37, 50]. Interestingly, in the present study, there was a progressive decline in (A), (gs), and (E) values while, the (Ci) values increased in maize leaves in response to infection. Stomatal limitations may have contributed to the lower (A) values since it was accompanied by decrease in (gs) values indicating, therefore, an imperceptible influx of CO2 into the leaf tissues that could impair photosynthesis in leaves as a result of M. phaseolina infection in the stalk tissues. In the present study, maize plants infected with M. phaseolina resulted in great dehydration promoted by fungal colonization of the xylem vessels affecting (gs), (Ci), and (E), consequently lowering (A) due to stomatal closure [37, 51]. An interesting aspect M. phaseolina infection was an increase in (Ci) values indicating a behavior associated with lower activity of photosynthetic enzymes (e.g., RuBisCo) limiting CO2 fixation at the chloroplasts level in wheat plants by the infection of Pyricularia oryzae [52]. Moreover, reductions in (A) due to M. phaseolina infection are mainly associated with stomatal limitations coupled to loss of biochemical performance in the photosynthetic process. Application of soybean cake also increased in (A), (gs), and (E), by 21, 22, and 21%, respectively [53]. Similarly, soil amendment with moringa leaves in maize field increased (Ci) to 62%, over control [54].

Soil amendments with C. oxyacantha, enhanced the SOD, POD, and CAT activities. The harmful effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS) are minimized by increased activities of antioxidant enzymes such as SOD, POD, and CAT. In fact, SOD, POD, and CAT activities were increased in the maize plant tissues by M. phaseolina. In the present study, the addition of pathogen inoculum as well as amendment with C. oxyacantha resulted in higher SOD, POD, and CAT activities. The higher antioxidant activities are considered beneficial for the plant as these enzyme activities help to remove the ROS generated in infected plant tissues or by soil amendments with plant residues. Similarly, previous investigations reported that SOD and POD activities were increased in maize plants infected by F. oxysporum [37]. Previously it has been demonstrated that SOD activities were increased in wheat plants by the infection of M. phaseolina [50]. Similarly, charcoal rot infection increased POD activities in infected plants up to 15%, over non-infested control [11]. Present results of increase in CAT activities by pathogen infection are in agreement with previous studies [11, 55]. Growth enhancement effects of C. oxyacantha on maize and growth retarding effects on M. phaseolina makes C. oxyacantha a suitable soil amendment for charcoal rot disease control in maize. Moreover, the negative allelopathy depicted by the autoclaved inoculum on carrier material suggests to evaluate the effect of these amendments in soil amendment assays to decipher the false positive or negative results.

Conclusion

In present investigation, C. oxyacantha showed strong antifungal activity against M. phaseolina, causing charcoal rot in maize. Antifungal efficacy of C. oxyacantha was increased by increasing its concentration. Addition of C. oxyacantha not only suppressed the charcoal rot in maize, it also enhanced SL, SDM and RDM of maize plants. Photosynthetic pigments were also increased in infested and non-infested plants by the addition of C. oxyacantha. Moreover, physiological parameters, (A), (gs), (E), and (Ci) were also enhanced in infested plants by soil amendment with C. oxyacantha. Activities of SOD, POD, and CAT were also increased in infested and non-infested plants by the addition of C. oxyacantha. Disease suppressing ability of C. oxyacantha suggests that soil amendment with C. oxyacantha can be used against M. phaseolina. Additionally, positive allelopathy of C. oxyacantha on maize plants indicate that it might have nutrients or growth stimulating substances which enhanced growth parameters in non-infested maize plants. The treatments included in the present investigation to evaluate the individual effects of Amp as well as C. oxyacantha strongly suggest to include the appropriate controls of treatments in order to avoid false positive or negative results in soil amendment bioassays.

Recommendations

As soil amended with C. oxyacantha effectively controlled charcoal rot of maize in pot experiment and also showed compatibility with maize plants, therefore, C. oxyacantha can be utilized by farmers to control charcoal rot and increase per hectare yield in their fields.

Supporting information

S1 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the disease incidence (DI) and area under disease progress curve disease incidence (AUDPC DI) on maize plants.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s001.docx (23.9KB, docx)
S2 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the disease severity (DS) and area under disease progress curve disease severity (AUDPC DI) on maize plants.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s002.docx (23.8KB, docx)
S3 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the morphological attributes of maize.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s003.docx (21.2KB, docx)
S4 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the pigments of maize.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s004.docx (21.1KB, docx)
S5 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) rate of carbon assimilation and (B) stomatal conductance of maize.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s005.docx (19.6KB, docx)
S6 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) transpiration rate and (B) internal carbon dioxide concentration of maize.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s006.docx (19.7KB, docx)
S7 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) superoxide dismutase, (B) peroxidase, and (C) catalase activities of maize.

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s007.docx (22.1KB, docx)
S1 Table. Values used for Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

(DOCX)

pone.0307082.s008.docx (20.5KB, docx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: Trends and R&D implications. Food Secur. 2022. Oct;14(5):1295–319. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pakistan Agriculture research council; Maize, Sorghum and Millet program. [October 12, 2022] http://www.parc.gov.pk/
  • 3.United States Department of Agriculture. World Corn Production 2022/2023. [October 12, 2022] https://www.usda.gov/oce/ag-outlook-forum/2022-aof-program
  • 4.Ngoune Tandzi L, Mutengwa CS. Estimation of maize (Zea mays L.) yield per harvest area: Appropriate methods. Agronomy. 2019. Dec 23;10(1):29. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moore D, Robson GD, Trinci AP. 21st century guidebook to fungi. Cambridge University Press; 2020. May 8. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kaur S, Dhillon GS, Brar SK, Vallad GE, Chand R, Chauhan VB. Emerging phytopathogen Macrophomina phaseolina: biology, economic importance and current diagnostic trends. Crit Rev Microbiol. 2012. May 1;38(2):136–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Das IK, Indira S, Annapurna A, Seetharama N. Biocontrol of charcoal rot in sorghum by fluorescent pseudomonads associated with the rhizosphere. Crop Prot. 2008. Nov 1;27(11):1407–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hegde R, Desai S. A preliminary survey of incidence of stalk-rot complex of maize in two districts of Karnataka.
  • 9.Pun KB, Doraiswamy S, Valluvaparidasan V. Studies on seed-borne nature of Macrophomina phaseolina in okra. Plant Dis Res. 1998;13:162–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chaudhry QU. Climate change profile of Pakistan. Asian development bank; 2017. Aug 1. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shoaib A, Munir M, Javaid A, Awan ZA, Rafiq M. Anti-mycotic potential of Trichoderma spp. and leaf biomass of Azadirachta indica against the charcoal rot pathogen, Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid in cowpea. Egypt J Biol Pest Control. 2018. Dec;28:1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shoaib A, Khan KA, Awan ZA, Jan BL, Kaushik P. Integrated management of charcoal rot disease in susceptible genotypes of mungbean with soil application of micronutrient zinc and green manure (prickly sesban). Front Microbiol. 2022. Jul 25;13:899224. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.899224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mawar R, Lodha S. Relative efficacy of on-farm weeds as soil-amendment for managing dry root rot of clusterbean in an arid environment. Phytopathol Mediterr. 2006. Dec 1;45(3):215–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Omara AE, Hafez EM, Osman HS, Rashwan E, El-Said MA, Alharbi K, et al. Collaborative impact of compost and beneficial rhizobacteria on soil properties, physiological attributes, and productivity of wheat subjected to deficit irrigation in salt affected soil. Plants. 2022. Mar 25;11(7):877. doi: 10.3390/plants11070877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aftab A, Yousaf Y, Javaid A, Riaz N, Younas A, Rashid M, et al. Antifungal activity of vegetative methanolic extracts of Nigella sativa against Fusarium oxysporum and Macrophomina phaseolina and its phytochemical profiling by GC-MS analysis. Int J Agric Biol. 2019. Jan 1;21(3):569–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lorenzetti E, Heling AL, Carvalho J, Faria VD, Fujimoto JY, Stangarlin JR, et al. Antimicrobial activity of plant extracts on the development of Macrophomina phaseolina and influence of sterilization methods. Sci Agrar Paran. 2018;17(1):112–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Shi X, Cordero T, Garrigues S, Marcos JF, Daròs JA, Coca M. Efficient production of antifungal proteins in plants using a new transient expression vector derived from tobacco mosaic virus. Plant Biotechnol J. 2019. Jun;17(6):1069–80. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Singh A., Patel P., & Agrawal P. K. Management of Collar Rot Disease Caused by Macrophomina phaseolina in Jatropha curcas-Green Diesel Plant. J Plant Pathol Microbiol. 2018;9(1):1–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abid M, Hussain F. Screening of ethnomedicinal plants for their antifungal and nematicidal activities against soil-borne phytopathogens. S Afr J Bot. 2022. Jul 1;147:18–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Rafiq M, Javaid A, Shoaib A. Antifungal activity of methanolic extract of Carthamus oxycantha against Rhizoctonia solani. Pak. J. Bot. 2021. Aug 10;53(3):133–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Rafiq M, Javaid A, Shoaib A. Possible antifungal and antibacterial constituents in inflorescence extract of Carthamus oxycantha. Mycopath. 2017;15(2):89–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Marian M, Voşgan Z, Roşca OM, Mihalescu L. Allelopathy relationship between plants and their use in organic farming. InIOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 2017 May 1 (Vol. 200, No. 1, p. 012039). IOP Publishing.
  • 23.Tariq N, Majeed MI, Hanif MA, Rehman R. Pholi (Wild Safflower). In Medicinal Plants of South Asia 2020. Jan 1 (pp. 557–569). Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Domsch KH, Gams W, Anderson TH. Compendium of soil fungi. Volume 1. Academic Press (London) Ltd.; 1980.
  • 25.Mengistu A, Ray JD, Smith JR, Paris RL. Charcoal rot disease assessment of soybean genotypes using a colony‐forming unit index. Crop Sci. 2007. Nov;47(6):2453–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pandey AK, Yee M, Win MM, Lwin HM, Adapala G, Rathore A, et al. Identification of new sources of resistance to dry root rot caused by Macrophomina phaseolina isolates from India and Myanmar in a mungbean mini-core collection. Crop Prot. 2021. May 1;143:105569. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pal KK, Tilak KV, Saxcna AK, Dey R, Singh CS. Suppression of maize root diseases caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, Fusarium moniliforme and Fusarium graminearum by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol Res. 2001. Jan 1;156(3):209–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Iqbal U, Mukhtar T, Iqbal SM. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of antifungal activities of some antagonistic plants against charcoal rot causing fungus, Macrophomina phaseolina. Pak J Agri Sci. 2014. Sep 1;51(3):689–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hanway J.J. Growth stages of corn (Zea mays L.). Agron J. 1963;55:487–492. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bag, TK. Use of metal salts in the control of Sclerotium rot of selected leguminous crop. [MSc. Thesis] BCKVV. 1991; India.
  • 31.Kone N, Asare-Bediako E, Silue S, Kone D, Koita O, Menzel W, et al. Influence of planting date on incidence and severity of viral disease on cucurbits under field condition. Ann Agri Sci. 2017. Jun 1;62(1):99–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alharby HF, Al-Zahrani HS, Hakeem KR, Alsamadany H, Desoky ES, Rady MM. Silymarin-enriched biostimulant foliar application minimizes the toxicity of cadmium in maize by suppressing oxidative stress and elevating antioxidant gene expression. Biomolecules. 2021. Mar 21;11(3):465. doi: 10.3390/biom11030465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pal G, Kumar K, Verma A, Verma SK. Seed inhabiting bacterial endophytes of maize promote seedling establishment and provide protection against fungal disease. Microbiol Res. 2022. Feb 1;255:126926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.El-Shafey NM, AbdElgawad HR. Antioxidants Released from Cichorium pumilum Jacq. Amendment Mitigate Salinity Stress in Maize. Jordan J Biol Sci. 2020. Oct 1;13(4). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chen T, Zhang B. Measurements of proline and malondialdehyde content and antioxidant enzyme activities in leaves of drought stressed cotton. Bio-protocol. 2016. Sep 5;6(17):e1913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Gao JF. Experimental guidance for plant physiology. China Higher Education Press: Beijing, China. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Cacique IS, Pinto LF, Aucique-Pérez CE, Wordell Filho JA, Rodrigues FA. Physiological and biochemical insights into the basal level of resistance of two maize hybrids in response to Fusarium verticillioides infection. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2020. Jul 1;152:194–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bispo WM, Araújo L, Bermúdez‐Cardona MB, Cacique IS, DaMatta FM, Rodrigues FA. Ceratocystis fimbriata induced changes in the antioxidative system of mango cultivars. Plant Pathol. 2015. Jun;64(3):627–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Obanor FO, Walter M, Jones EE, Jaspers MV. Effects of temperature, inoculum concentration, leaf age, and continuous and interrupted wetness on infection of olive plants by Spilocaea oleagina. Plant Pathol. 2011. Apr;60(2):190–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vengadeshkumar L, Kalaiselvi M, Meera T, Sanjayghandi S, Udhayakumar R, Rajamohan K, et al. Effect of neem compared with Pseudomonas fluorescens on the management of cowpea root rot disease. J Biopestic. 2019. May 1;12(2):232–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Salman A, Backhouse D, Yunusa I. Using Neem to Control Charcoal Rot of Chickpea. 2018.
  • 42.Kumar KS, Balabaskar P, Sivakumar T, Kannan R, Saravanan KR. Bio—efficacy of culture filtrate of Bacillus cereus against on the growth of Macrophomina phaseolina causing root rot of groundnut and different organic amendments on the survivability of Bacillus cereus. Plant Arch. 2020;20(1):1547–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Amir H., Waqas A., & Muhammad I. Evaluation of allelopathic effect of Carthamus oxyacantha against wheat and maize seed germination. Lett Appl NanoBioScience. 2020;9: 814–818. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Javaid A, Kanwal A, Shoaib A. Effect of Trichoderma harzianum and dry leaves of Acacia nilotica subsp. indica on growth of mash bean in Macrophomina phaseolina contaminated soil. Int J Biol Biotechnol. 2018;15:535–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Wilson RG. Effect of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) residue on growth of some crops. Weed Sci. 1981. Mar;29(2):159–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kim SY, De Datta SK, Robles RP, Kim KU, Lee SC, Shin DH. Allelopathic effect of sorghum extract and residues on selected crops and weeds. Korean J Weed Sci. 1994;14(1):34–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Shehbaz M, Rauf S, Al-Sadi AM, Nazir S, Bano S, Shahzad M, et al. Introgression and inheritance of charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) resistance from silver sunflower (Helianthus argophyllus Torr. & A. Gray) into cultivated sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Australas Plant Pathol. 2018. Jul;47:413–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Shahkolaie SS, Baranimotlagh M, Dordipour E, Khormali F. Effects of inorganic and organic amendments on physiological parameters and antioxidant enzymes activities in Zea mays L. from a cadmium-contaminated calcareous soil. S Afr J Bot. 2020. Jan 1;128:132–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tatagiba SD, DaMatta FM, Rodrigues FÁ. Leaf gas exchange and chlorophyll a fluorescence imaging of rice leaves infected with Monographella albescens. Phytopathol. 2015. Feb;105(2):180–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Debona D, Rodrigues FÁ, Rios JA, Nascimento KJ. Biochemical changes in the leaves of wheat plants infected by Pyricularia oryzae. Phytopathol. 2012. Dec;102(12):1121–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wang M, Sun Y, Sun G, Liu X, Zhai L, Shen Q, et al. Water balance altered in cucumber plants infected with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum. Sci Rep. 2015. Jan 12;5(1):7722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rios JA, Aucique‐Pérez CE, Debona D, Cruz Neto LB, Rios VS, Rodrigues FA. Changes in leaf gas exchange, chlorophyll a fluorescence and antioxidant metabolism within wheat leaves infected by Bipolaris sorokiniana. Ann Appl Biol. 2017. Mar;170(2):189–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ye S, Liu T, Niu Y. Effects of organic fertilizer on water use, photosynthetic characteristics, and fruit quality of pear jujube in northern Shaanxi. Open Chem. 2020. Jun 2;18(1):537–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Afzal I, Imran S, Javed T, Basra SM. Evaluating the integrative response of moringa leaf extract with synthetic growth promoting substances in maize under early spring conditions. S Afr J Bot. 2020. Aug 1;132:378–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang M, Zhang C, Zhang S, Yu H, Pan H, Zhang H. Klebsiella jilinsis 2N3 promotes maize growth and induces resistance to northern corn leaf blight. Biol Control. 2021. May 1;156:10455. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abhay K Pandey

9 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-34629Carthamus oxyacantha as bio-elicitor and natural defense in maize against charcoal rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akbar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abhay K. Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and previous work in the [introduction, conclusion, etc.].

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

[If the overlap is with the authors’ own works: Moreover, upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to PLOS ONE or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-related-manuscripts).]

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission and further consideration of the manuscript is dependent on the text overlap being addressed in full. Please ensure that your revision is thorough as failure to address the concerns to our satisfaction may result in your submission not being considered further.

3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Please consider the following suggestions for the manuscript “Carthamus oxyacantha as bio-elicitor and natural defense in maize against charcoal rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina”

Abstract and text:

Line 13: ‘A total of 19 treatments’

Line 17 and onwards: Spell out the word ‘conc.’

Line 16: Rephrase ‘dead inoculum’

SOD, POD, CAT and other acronyms: Do not abbreviate these in the abstract. Instead, write the complete words and their abbreviations the first time they are mentioned in the main text. Use the abbreviations onwards.

Introduction:

Good information about maize and M. phaseolina was provided. Adding some information about C. oxyacantha will be helpful, especially for readers that are not familiar with this weed.

Lines 40 and 45: Not necessary to repeat that M. phaseolina is a seed and soil borne pathogen.

Lines 49-50: Rephrase “climate change is very favorite for M. phaseolina”

Line 66: Spell out the word “1st”

Materials and Methods:

Some sections need additional details for readers to follow how the study was evaluated/conducted.

Lines 69-71: Add specific details/criteria on how Carthamus oxyacantha was identified.

Lines 73-75: How was the pathogen identified as Macrophomina phaseolina?

Lines 75-76: Provide a short summary of the fungal inoculum preparation.

Lines 119-123: What does “G” in equation 2 represent?

Lines 137-142: What equipment/machine was used to measure the pigments?

Discussion:

Indicate author citation for those written as part of the sentence: [36], [39], [40], [43], [46], [12], etc.

Spell out “@”

Proofread the abstract and introduction to make statements clear and unambiguous.

Add line numbers for page 11 and onwards.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript is written decently but lack molecular analysis to support biochemical assay, there is no specific bioelicitor and known marker genes to address the complex network associated with the particular defense mechanism

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: ALBERT MAIBAM

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-34629.pdf

pone.0307082.s009.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0307082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307082.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


22 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-34629

Respected Editor (Dr. Abhay K. Pandey) & Reviewers,

The authors are thankful to honorable editor and reviewers for sparing their precious time to review/improve our manuscript “Carthamus oxyacantha as bio-elicitor and natural defense in maize against charcoal rot disease caused by Macrophomina phaseolina”. Keeping in mind the comments of the honorable reviewer 2 (Dr. ALBERT MAIBAM), the authors revised the title to best depict the research work done & presented in this MS as “Allelopathic interactions of Carthamus oxyacantha, Macrophomina phaseolina and maize; Implications for the use of Carthamus oxyacantha as a natural disease management strategy in maize”.

The authors have revised the manuscript in track change mode.

Request: Please note that the authors have included one more author Anna Andolfi, cosupervisor of PhD thesis of Nazir Aslam. Previously there was a confusion about to include only the name of scholar and the main supervisor in the MS required for the award of PhD degree, now the confusion has been resolved as we need to include the name of cosupervisor also. We realize that PLOS One policy is very strict and there are numerous manuscripts of many authors retracted in the past, so the authors request to accept the inclusion of 3rd author and hope this will not affect the integrity of review process/authorship. Thanks

Reply to the comments are presented below;

Reviewer 1

Abstract and text:

Comment 1.

Line 13: ‘A total of 19 treatments’

Response: Now it is amended as pointed out.

Comment 2.

Line 16: Rephrase ‘dead inoculum’

Response: ‘dead inoculum’ is replaced by autoclaved M. phaseolina. It was already discussed as autoclaved M. phaseolina in main body.

Comment 3.

Line 17 and onwards: Spell out the word ‘conc.’

Response: The authors spelled out the word ‘conc.’ and rephrased it in all the onward text.

Comment 4.

SOD, POD, CAT and other acronyms: Do not abbreviate these in the abstract. Instead, write the complete words and their abbreviations the first time they are mentioned in the main text. Use the abbreviations onwards.

Response: The authors revised and made changes to the manuscript and SOD, POD, CAT and other acronyms fully described at first mention.

Introduction:

Comment 5.

Good information about maize and M. phaseolina was provided. Adding some information about C. oxyacantha will be helpful, especially for readers that are not familiar with this weed.

Response: The authors added information about C. oxyacantha in introduction portion of the manuscript.

Comment 6.

Lines 40 and 45: Not necessary to repeat that M. phaseolina is a seed and soil borne pathogen.

Response: Removed the suggested repeated lines from the manuscript.

Comment 7.

Lines 49-50: Rephrase “climate change is very favorite for M. phaseolina”

Response: Mentioned text have been rephrased.

Comment 8

Line 66: Spell out the word “1st”

Response: Now the word “1st” is replaced by “first”.

Materials and Methods:

Some sections need additional details for readers to follow how the study was evaluated/conducted.

Comment 9

Lines 69-71: Add specific details/criteria on how Carthamus oxyacantha was identified.

Response: The weed C. oxyacantha was identified based on its vegetative and floral characters and this information is now added in the manuscript.

Comment 11

Lines 73-75: How was the pathogen identified as Macrophomina phaseolina?

Response: The Macrophomina phaseolina was identified by recording its morphological characters such as hyphae shape, colony color, presence of microsclerotia and size of microsclerotia and these specifications were also added in the manuscript.

Comment 12

Lines 75-76: Provide a short summary of the fungal inoculum preparation.

Response: A short summary inoculum preparation has been added in manuscript.

Comment 13

Lines 119-123: What does “G” in equation 2 represent?

Response: G’ stands for number of grading. This information added in the MS

Comment 14

Lines 137-142: What equipment/machine was used to measure the pigments?

Response: The optical density was recorded at 663, 645, and 440.5 nm wavelength, respectively by using a spectrophotometer (Model UV 3000) and it is also mentioned in the revised manuscript.

Discussion:

Comment 15 Indicate author citation for those written as part of the sentence: [36], [39], [40], [43], [46], [12], etc.

Response: Added author citations for those scientific names written as part of the sentence: [36], [39], [40], [43], [46], [12] and all others at their first mention in the manuscript.

Comment 16

Spell out “@”

Response: Spelled out “@” as “at the rate of” in the manuscript.

Comment 17

Proofread the abstract and introduction to make statements clear and unambiguous.

Response: Proof read and updated the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments/suggestions.

Comment 18

Add line numbers for page 11 and onwards.

Response: line numbers are added in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2

Comment 1

Manuscript is written decently but lack molecular analysis to support biochemical assay, there is no specific bioelicitor and known marker genes to address the complex network associated with the particular defense mechanism.

Response:

The authors are highly obliged for appreciation and encouragement and for providing new insights for related work. The authors modified the title to match the research done as the title was misleading as the reader might think of molecular analysis to support biochemical assays, specific bioelicitor and known marker genes to address the complex network associated with the particular defense mechanism.

Comment 2

Used methods unable to correlate or justify the title.

Response: The title has been modified to depict/justify the research work done.

Comment 3

Try to avoid abbreviation usage in Abstract. Please explain Mp

Response: All abbreviations are now fully described at first mention (abbreviated thereafter) in the abstract as well as in the whole MS. Also pointed out by the reviewer 1.

Comment 4

Estimation of Morphological and biochemical properties generally used as a supplementary data to cross check molecular study. So, addition of molecular analysis (known marker gene) will make complete conclusion.

Response: The confusion arose due to the inappropriate title. Now the title has been revised to represent the actual work done/presented in the MS. By modifying the title comment 2 was also addressed. The authors are highly obliged for useful comment of addition of molecular analysis (known marker gene). The author will consider including such investigations in future studies.

Comment 5

It better to have particular selected active antifungal metabolite

Response:

Antifungal activity of C. oxyacantha has been reported and also the active compounds have been reported as per references 21 & 22. Although, in vitro antifungal activity of C. oxyacantha has been reported, its effectiveness has never been tested against charcoal rot of maize in in-vivo as well as its compatibility for maize were missing also. Therefore, pot experiment was conducted to investigate compatibility, antifungal efficacy of C. oxyacantha, to control charcoal rot of maize caused by M. phaseolina. Moreover, effect of soil amendment with C. oxyacantha, on morphological, physiological, and defense related attributes of maize were also investigated 1st time in this study.

Comments closed:

Regards

Dr. Muhammad Akbar

Associate Professor,

Department of Botany, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, 50700, Punjab, Pakistan.

muhammad.akbar@uog.edu.pk Mobile: +923337645058

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0307082.s010.docx (41.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Abhay K Pandey

25 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-34629R1Allelopathic interactions of Carthamus oxyacantha, Macrophomina phaseolina and maize; Implications for the use of Carthamus oxyacantha as a natural disease management strategy in maizePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akbar,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abhay K. Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my previous comments and made changes to significantly enhance the clarity of the manuscript. Please see minor comments below:

• Title: Use colon instead of semicolon

• Line 28: Change to ‘48.1, 65.3, and 75.0%’ (or 48, 65, and 75%) to make decimal values consistent. Do the same with all values throughout the manuscript.

• Line 98: spell out ‘PDA’

• Line 117: Change to: ‘is given in Table 1.’

• Line 135: ‘between 5 and 6’

• Line 153-155: ‘Morphological parameters were measured after harvesting the plants on 80 DAS. Shoot length, shoot dry weight, and root dry weight of all plants in all treatments were recorded after oven drying at 70 'C until a constant dry weight reading was achieved [31].’

• Line 173: ‘and the following’

• Line 175: ‘the measurements were made between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM’

• Line 179: ‘The leaf powder was homogenized by adding 3 mL of chilled…’

• Line 180: ‘two centrifuge tubes, the supernatant was centrifuged at…’

• Line 184-185: ‘Crude enzyme solution (50 uL) from each sample…’

• Line 187-189. Rephrase because the sentences read like laboratory protocol.

• Line 196: Rewrite the following phrase because it reads like a laboratory protocol = heat and stir well, add 36.1 uL of 30% H202 after cooling

• Line 203-204: ‘and 1 mL of the reaction solution into the cuvette’

• Line 219: ‘and Mp3 increased progressively with increasing inoculum levels from 60 up to 100% for DI’

• Results: Include the Table or Figure number at the end of first sentence where the result of the Table or Figure is mentioned. This is in addition to the Table or Figure number you included at the end of each paragraph.

• Line 262: ‘Amp2 and Amp3’

• Line 270: ‘A significant decrease of 20…’

• Line 279: ‘and 21%, respectively’

• Discussion: No need to repeatedly write the complete names of previously abbreviated terms.

• Line 345: Write author citation for [45]

Reviewer #2: As you mention, you have refer reference 21 and 22. There they have mentioned clearly the extracted chemical that can further process in detail studies regarding the allelopathic interaction. Why you have used the crude extract as to compare the associated data. It show us that the work undertaken is very preliminary, not so rigorous.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0307082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307082.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Jun 2024

Response to the Comments

PONE-D-23-34629R1]

Respected Editor (Dr. Abhay K. Pandey) & Reviewers,

The authors are thankful to honorable editor and reviewers for sparing their precious time to review/improve our manuscript ““Allelopathic interactions of Carthamus oxyacantha, Macrophomina phaseolina and maize; Implications for the use of Carthamus oxyacantha as a natural disease management strategy in maize”. The authors have revised the manuscript in track change mode.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reply: The authors have tried their level best to improve the conclusions section to show more clearly that conclusions have been drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reply: The authors have tried their level best to choose the appropriate data analysis suitable to show the effects of different treatments on numerous parameters like morphological, physiological, biochemical and disease. These statistical tests included ANOVA followed by Fisher’s LSD test at 5% probability using computer software Minitab 20. (This portion has already included in the MS. The Minitab analysis files are shared as (supporting data).

The authors also tried to construct the heat map shown below (Shown in word file of response to reviewers) using R programming but the authors realize that this test will not be appropriate to show the effects of different treatments on various parameters and is not suitable for such type of data where multiple treatments with their respective controls are given.

The authors also performed PCA analysis (using OriginPro 2024) of the data that shows the effect of different treatments on various parameters better as compared to heat map, so the authors included the PCA analysis in the revised MS. However, the authors think that graphs with LSD presented better show the effects of different treatments on different parameters.

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my previous comments and made changes to significantly enhance the clarity of the manuscript. Please see minor comments below:

Reply to the comments are presented below;

Reviewer 1

Comment 1.

Title: Use colon instead of semicolon.

Response: Now it is amended as pointed out and put the colon to replace semicolon.

Comment 2.

Line 28: Change to ‘48.1, 65.3, and 75.0%’ (or 48, 65, and 75%) to make decimal values consistent. Do the same with all values throughout the manuscript.

Response: Now decimal values are consistent throughout the manuscript as per your guidance.

Comment 3.

Line 98: spell out ‘PDA’

Response: PDA changed with potato dextrose agar.

Comment 4.

Line 117: Change to: ‘is given in Table 1.’

Response: “is given in the table 1” have been corrected to ‘is given in Table 1.’

Comment 5.

Line 135: ‘between 5 and 6’

Response: “between 5 & 6” have been corrected with ‘between 5 and 6’.

Comment 6.

Line 153-155: ‘Morphological parameters were measured after harvesting the plants on 80 DAS. Shoot length, shoot dry weight, and root dry weight of all plants in all treatments were recorded after oven drying at 70 ºC until a constant dry weight reading was achieved [31].’

Response: The paragraph “Morphological parameters shoot length was measured by measuring tap, shoot dry weight and root dry weight of all plants of all treatments were recorded after oven drying at 70 ºC, till constant dry weight reading, after harvesting on 80 DAS [31]” has been replaced with ‘Morphological parameters were measured after harvesting the plants on 80 DAS. Shoot length, shoot dry weight, and root dry weight of all plants in all treatments were recorded after oven drying at 70 ºC until a constant dry weight reading was achieved [31].’

Comment 7.

Line 173: ‘and the following’

Response: “the” has been added and corrected the sentence as: ‘and the following’

Comment 8.

Line 175: ‘the measurements were made between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM’

Response: “from 10:00 am to 2:00 pm” has been changed with ‘between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM’

Comment 9.

Line 179: ‘The leaf powder was homogenized by adding 3 mL of chilled…’

Response: The sentence “Homogenized the leaf powder by adding 3 ml of chilled…’ has been corrected and replaced with “The leaf powder was homogenized by adding 3 mL of chilled…’

Comment 10.

Line 180: ‘two centrifuge tubes, the supernatant was centrifuged at…’

Response: ‘two centrifuge tubes, centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 20 min at 4 °C” corrected as ‘two centrifuge tubes, the supernatant was centrifuged at…’

Comment 11.

Line 184-185: ‘Crude enzyme solution (50 uL) from each sample…

Response: the “crude enzyme “has been deleted and now this sentence has been corrected as ‘Crude enzyme solution (50 uL) from each sample…

Comment 12

Line 187-189. Rephrase because the sentences read like laboratory protocol.

Response: Mentioned sentences are now rephrased.

Comment 13.

Line 196: Rewrite the following phrase because it reads like a laboratory protocol = heat and stir well, add 36.1 uL of 30% H202 after cooling.

Response: Mentioned phases are rephrased.

Comment 14

Line 203-204: ‘and 1 mL of the reaction solution into the cuvette’

Response: “were mixed” has been deleted from the sentence and now corrected sentence is “‘and 1 mL of the reaction solution into the cuvette’

Comment 15

Line 219: ‘and Mp3 increased progressively with increasing inoculum levels from 60 up to 100% for DI’

Response: The sentence “and Mp3 were increased progressively with stages from 60 up to 80% for DI “has been replaced with “and Mp3 increased progressively with increasing inoculum levels from 60 up to 80% for DI’. Not 100% as per our disease measurements.

Comment 16

Results: Include the Table or Figure number at the end of first sentence where the result of the Table or Figure is mentioned. This is in addition to the Table or Figure number you included at the end of each paragraph.

Response: Table or Figure number at the end of first sentence included in the revised Manuscript.

Comment 17.

Line 262: ‘Amp2 and Amp3’

Response:. The sign “&“ between Amp2 and Amp3 has been replaced with word “and”.

Comment 18

Line 270: ‘A significant decrease of 20…’

Response: The word “of “has been added before 20 and now updated in the revised manuscript.

Comment 19

Line 279: ‘and 21%, respectively’

Response: “%” has been added in the sentence.

Comment 20

Discussion: No need to repeatedly write the complete names of previously abbreviated terms.

Response: Abbreviations are now fully described at 1st mention in the MS the used only the abbreviations except in table 1 where each species was given with full genus name at first mention, as table needs to be self-explanatory.

Comment 21

Line 345: Write author citation for [45]

Response: Author citation for [45] mentioned in revised manuscript at its first mention in the abstract, then abbreviated onward as per comment 20 above.

Reviewer #2:

Comment 1

As you mention, you have referred reference 21 and 22. There they have mentioned clearly the extracted chemical that can further process in detail studies regarding the allelopathic interaction. Why you have used the crude extract as to compare the associated data. It shows us that the work undertaken is very preliminary, not so rigorous.

Response:

Reference [21] discusses about antifungal compounds isolated from Cirsium arvense (L). Scop. These authors discussed only the in vitro antifungal activity of compounds isolated from C. arvense. They did not report the in vivo disease suppressing efficacy of C. arvense. (Carthamus oxyacantha was mistakenly mentioned there in the introduction as reference [21] was about C. arvense, while reference [22] was specific to C. oxyacantha, both belonging to family Asteraceae. The authors of reference 22 mentioned the antifungal compound γ-Sitosterol, so reference 22 was retained and old ref [21] was removed and updated latest paper specific to C. oxyacantha.

Only few reports are also available about the presence of antifungal compounds in C. oxyacantha and now we have replaced the reference with reference pertinent to Carthamus oxyacantha. The added reference also report the presence of antifungal compounds in C. oxyacantha just as references [21] in previous version of the MS).

We have not used the crude extract of C. oxyacantha, instead we used the plant biomass as soil amendment.

In these references researchers mentioned about presence of antifungal compound in C. oxyacantha family Asteraceae, but not antifungal efficacy against charcoal rot causal agent Macrophomina phaseolina, it is first in vivo study in which C. oxyacantha was investigated against charcoal rot of maize. Moreover, the isolated natural compounds can not be tested in vivo because of low quantities purified through chromatographic procedures and these can only be tested in vitro but our present study focused on various other aspects of in vivo studies.

In addition to evaluating the antifungal efficacy at 3 different concentrations, the authors also included treatments to observe the allelopathic effects of not only the autoclaved pathogen but also the weed, C. oxyacantha, not investigated before in detail. Moreover, the authors also confirmed the allelopathic effects in terms of physiochemical attributes, not reported earlier. Therefore, the present study can be viewed as advanced study as it not only extended the studies of earlier researchers but also presented an improved way to investigate the allelopathic interactions. This need was also pointed out in a study reference [23], in a broader sense.

Thanks for your consideration.

Comments closed:

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0307082.s011.docx (160.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Abhay K Pandey

1 Jul 2024

Allelopathic interactions of Carthamus oxyacantha, Macrophomina phaseolina and maize: Implications for the use of Carthamus oxyacantha as a natural disease management strategy in maize

PONE-D-23-34629R2

Dear Dr. Akbar,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Abhay K. Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

authors have addressed all comments.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Abhay K Pandey

29 Jul 2024

PONE-D-23-34629R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Akbar,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abhay K. Pandey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the disease incidence (DI) and area under disease progress curve disease incidence (AUDPC DI) on maize plants.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s001.docx (23.9KB, docx)
    S2 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the disease severity (DS) and area under disease progress curve disease severity (AUDPC DI) on maize plants.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s002.docx (23.8KB, docx)
    S3 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the morphological attributes of maize.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s003.docx (21.2KB, docx)
    S4 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on the pigments of maize.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s004.docx (21.1KB, docx)
    S5 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) rate of carbon assimilation and (B) stomatal conductance of maize.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s005.docx (19.6KB, docx)
    S6 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) transpiration rate and (B) internal carbon dioxide concentration of maize.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s006.docx (19.7KB, docx)
    S7 File. ANOVA file for the effect of treatments on (A) superoxide dismutase, (B) peroxidase, and (C) catalase activities of maize.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s007.docx (22.1KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Values used for Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

    (DOCX)

    pone.0307082.s008.docx (20.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-34629.pdf

    pone.0307082.s009.pdf (1.3MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0307082.s010.docx (41.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0307082.s011.docx (160.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES