Effects of Glomus fasciculatum, Azotobacter chroococcum and Vermicompost Leachate on the Production and Quality of Tomato Fruit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the present manuscript, the authors study the combined effects of Glomus fasciculatum, Azotobacter chroococcum and Vermicompost Leachate on Production and Quality of Tomato Fruit. This study has important practice significance in agriculture. However, I have the following comments:

1. The description of the Results section is simple. Besides the Gf + Azot + VL treatment, the effects of other treatments on the indexes of tomato should be also described.

2. In table 1, the control should be put in the first line.

3. In the figures and tables, after conducting the Tukey’s test, normally some treatments should be labeled with different letters, as it may have no significant difference with the larger and less values of other treatments. Please check the Tukey’s test result. In addition, what’s the meaning of different letters above the column should be also explained in the legends.

 

Minor comments:

Line 33-34, “The four main producing countries are the United States of America, China, Italy, Spain, and Turkey”, indeed the authors list five countries.

Line 42-43, this sentence is not well connected with the above sentence, as the previous mentioned the fertilization problems.

Line 77, what abut the soil characters, for example, organic matter, available phosphorus and nitrogen content?

Line 125, which kinds of ANOVA is performed?

Lien 196, K+ influence and Ca2+, + and 2+ should be superscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

overall, the English is good but still need to be carefully checked.

Author Response

Answer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

The manuscript is devoted to the actual topic of increasing plant productivity and promote sustainable agricultural practices. The manuscript will certainly arouse the interest of readers, but in order to improve its quality, I propose to make some changes to it.

1) In the Abstract you should briefly write the relevance of the chosen topic, and also indicate which group (bacteria, fungi, organic fertilizers) Gf, Azot, VL belong to.

2) Line 33. Error when specifying the number of countries.

3) Line 36. What do the authors mean by the phrase “Selecting microbiological inputs adequately”?

4) Give a brief description of the Vyta variety. Why was this particular tomato variety chosen?

5) Section 2.2. Briefly indicate how the soil was prepared, irrigated and cared for.

6) Please clarify the features of the field experiment:

- what weather conditions were there during the experiment;

- whether weeds (weeds) were taken into account;

- Were the plants damaged by pests and diseases?

7) Errors in numbering figures. There are 4 of them in the manuscript, not 5.

8) Fig.2. There are doubts about the reliability of the differences between the Gf+Vl and Gf+Azot+Vl options; Vl and Azot+Vl; Gf and Vl; Control and Azot. Differences within error limits.

9) Fig.3. There are doubts about the reliability of the differences between the options Vl, Gf+Azot, Gf+Vl, Azot+Vl. Differences within error limits.

10) Fig.4. There are doubts about the reliability of the differences between the Vl and Azot+Vl options. Differences within error limits.

11) Fig.5. There are doubts about the reliability of the differences between the Gf+Azot and Gf+Azot+Vl variants; Gf+Vl and Gf+Azot+Vl; Azot+Vl and Gf+Azot+Vl. Differences within error limits.

12) Lines 173-175. Specify which plant fruits we are talking about.

13) It is advisable that the authors process their data using other statistical methods.

13) In the article by Veselova et al. [30] studied the positive effect of only the Bacillus subtilis strain, and not A. chroococcum, on tomato fruits.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Answer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf