Mixotrophy of Algae: More Algal Biomass and More Biofertilization for Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript 'Mixotrophic algal growth: more algae more plant biofertilization' was carried out to state that mixotrophically-grown blue-green algae as biofertilizer significantly enhanced plant growth and seed germination, indicating its usefulness as an eco-friendly agricultural strategy for achieving both food security and environmental sustainability. The English were well-written. However, some drawbacks need to be resolved. The figure's quality should be improved. For example, it is hard to see the number in figure 1

Author Response

Thanks a lot for valuable comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comment #1

This manuscript (2253005) proposes a study on the use of algae as biofertilizers to meet the demands for agricultural products. The study focuses on optimizing the nutritional components of algae through mixotrophic conditions using two algal isolates, Phormidium sp. and Synechocystis sp.

 

Comment #2

Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the use of algae as biofertilizers, and the findings have the potential to contribute to eco-friendly and sustainable agricultural practices.

 

Comment #3

One limitation of the study is that only two algal isolates were tested, and further studies may be needed to determine if the findings are applicable to other algal strains. Additionally, the study only examined the effects on cantaloupe seed growth, and it would be interesting to see if the same results could be replicated in other crops.

 

Comment #4

While the article provides useful insights into the use of algae as biofertilizers, there are some limitations to consider. In fact, the study does not provide a detailed explanation of the methodology used to optimize mixotrophic conditions, which could make it difficult for other researchers to replicate the findings. Additionally, there is no mention of any potential environmental impacts associated with the use of algae as biofertilizers, such as eutrophication or the potential for algal blooms.

 

Comment #5

While the study does propose a cost-effective approach to using algae as biofertilizers, further research may be needed to determine the economic feasibility of using this approach on a larger scale, as well as the potential barriers to adoption by farmers or agricultural industries.

 

Comment #6

The experiment was conducted with only three replicates per treatment. This relatively low number of repetitions raises concerns about the reliability of the results and the extent to which they can be extrapolated to real-world conditions. A larger number of replicates would improve the statistical power of the study and increase confidence in its findings. Additionally, including multiple sites or locations could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how the results apply to different environments.

 

Comment #7

The study presents descriptive results. To enhance the study's quality, the authors should conduct a Principal Component Analysis (PCA). This method could help identify the interrelationships among the variables and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the data.

 

Comment #8

I would appreciate it if the authors could provide a clear explanation for the selection of Duncan’s test in their statistical analyses. It would be beneficial for readers to understand the underlying assumptions and justification for this particular test and how it relates to the research question at hand.

 

Comment #9

Figure 4 would benefit from the inclusion of a scale bar to provide viewers with a clear understanding of the size of the plants depicted in the image. Without a scale, it is difficult to accurately interpret the visual information presented and understand the relative dimensions of the different plant species.

 

Comment #10

The graphical quality of the figures presented is poor, and the resolution is low. To enhance the overall professionalism of the article, it is crucial to display high-quality, clear figures that accurately depict the data. The current figures may hinder readers' ability to fully understand and appreciate the research findings, and therefore, improved figures are necessary.

 

Additional comments:

• Please ensure that all references have a corresponding citation within the text and vice versa.

• Please double-check the spelling of the author's names and dates and ensure they are correct and consistent with the citations.

• Please spell out all journal titles in the references section.

• Please ensure that all figures and tables are cited within the text and that they are cited in consecutive order.

• Please spell out all abbreviations the first time when they are mentioned in the text.

 

 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for valuable comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled : “Mixotrophic algal growth: more algae more plant biofertilization” submitted by the authors El Semary et al., studied the  ability of some algae to utilize waste molasses which is economic and contains many nutrients in addition to organic carbon. They also investigates the effects of plant extracts as source nutrients on algal growth in mixotrophic culture medium

There are some things need to be addressed before the publishing of this paper:

 

1.       In the introduction:

 

-          Lines 44-82, this paragraph should be shortened or spitted into 2 paragraphs.

-          Lines 119-121, please move the paragraph about Cantaloupe to a previous place in the introduction, for example the second or third paragraph. The last paragraph in the introduction usually focus on the current work procedure and novelty. The importance of the cantaloupe as fruit in Egypt should be highlighted as well.

-          The introduction in general is very long and need to be shortened into 4 paragraphs only.

-          In general, soft English editing by native English speaker is required.

 

2.       The materials and methods part   

-           Lines 138 and 140 the numbering should be in English in “7,4” and 1,0 …they should be 7.7, 1.0 . Please check all numbers for consistency.

-           

-           Line, 157, correct “GC-massof” to be “GC-MS of “

3.       The results  

·       Line 211, correct GC mass  to “GC-MS”

·       Lines 211-217, mention the GC-MS figure and paste the figure following the paragraph.

·       Line 218, add figure 2  and table 1 following the paragraph.

·       Line 225, please add figure 2 following the paragraph.

·       The same previous comment apply to vegetative growth

·        

 

4.       The discussion need to be separated into paragraphs discussing each point separately and not a single long paragraph.

5.       The conclusion is OK, but you need to show the major results found in the study and the prospect of the work

 

I give you major revision.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thanks a lot for valuable comments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed the revised version of your manuscript titled " Mixotrophic algal growth: more algae more plant biofertilization " and I am pleased to see that you have addressed the comments and suggestions I provided. The study has clear elements of interest and novelty, and I appreciate the effort you have put into improving the manuscript.

Thank you for implementing my suggestions, and I look forward to seeing the final version of the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Thanks a lot for your kind revision 

Reviewer 3 Report

I see you did great progress in the revision. 

There is one minor thing, use the abbreviaton GC-MS and not GC-Mass

Good luck 

Author Response

Thanka a lot for your kind revision 

GC-MS  abbreviation is now corrected in the all manuscript 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf