Both reviewers agree that the manuscript presents a well-structured and interesting study, although R2 note that its relevance is mostly local:
R1:”The manuscript represented an interesting study about trying to determine how soil physicochemical properties in the Gamo highlands of Ethiopia influenced the development of Xanthomonas wilt of enset (EXM)”
R2 “The topic is relevant for the region because of the importance of enset for food security in Ethiopian highlands. In general, the manuscript is clearly written, well structured, and contains observational data that may be technically useful for local farmers and land managers”.

This make the manuscript of possible relevance to the journal, but both reviewers have raised major concerns of the manuscript that can be summarized as:
1-There appears to be many confounding effects, which impact on the results and the conclusions made by the authors. (R1)
2- There is no clear discrimination between sites and there is insufficient statistical power to agree with the conclusions made by the authors. (R1)
3- The study lacks crop yield data and important details on management practices (e.g., amount and form of nutrients added to soils), which make it hardly useful to develop general strategies to improve crop production, enhance soil sustainability, and fight plant diseases. (R2)

In addition to this the manuscript needs to be improved in terms of clarity (e.g. the sampling strategy is complex and a bit difficult to follow) and English usage, and have many additional comments.


Overall, the authors’ response addressed many of the additional comments made by the reviewers but it is not clear to me if the three main concerns noted above could be properly addressed in the way indicated by the authors, which in many cases limits this to recognize the limitations of the study due to its observational nature.

For this reason my recommendation to the editor is that this manuscript should be returned to the authors to be reconsidered after major revisions, been evaluated by the same reviewers whom should deem if their concerns regarding the manuscript have been properly addressed.

Dear Authors,

after revising the reviewers’ comments, both agree that your manuscript should be published subjected to minor technical corrections. For this reason, my recommendation to the executive editor is that this manuscript should be accepted for publication in SOIL once these minor corrections have been included.

By mistake the second editor couldn´t attach the PDF describing these minor corrections, so I attach them on his/her behalf in the accompanying PDF.

I would like to explain you that the relative long-time to complete this review has been due to the time necessary to find reviewers who accepted to provide a review. These reviews are the key to maintain the quality standards of the review process by SOIL journal, which should be in line with the quality of your work in this manuscript.

Dear authors,

First of all, my apologies for the delay in the review process. The last few months have been challenging. I am happy to report that, based on the reports of the TE and reviewers, your paper is now accepted for publication subject to technical corrections; Please carefully consider the minor corrections requested in the reports before submitting your final manuscript. Thank you for selecting SOIL.

Kind regards

Kristof Van Oost