Water Conservation and Plant Survival Strategies of Rhizobacteria under Drought Stress
, Shahid Ali 2, Haleema Tariq 3, Sadia Latif 4,5, Humaira Yasmin 6, Asif Mehmood 7 and Muhammad Adnan Shahid 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
row 82 state the meaning of the abbreviation, and it explain briefly WHICH MICRO-ORGANISMS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS GROUP
row 82, state the meaning of the abbreviation, and I suggest that authors explain briefly wich microorganisms are included in this group
row 91, state the meaning of the abbreviation
r. 144, full name (Glomus)
r. 144-147, state to which research they refer
r. 150 two brackets
r. 155 full name
r. 156 uppercase leeter (Lactuca)
r.158 use an abbreviated name
r. 191 in vitro italic
r 194, 199, 232 use an abbreviated name
r. 198 uppercase leter in latin name
r. 202 use an abbreviated name
r. 230 clarify in which samples
r. 245 delete the dot in the subtitle
r. 265 use an abbreviated name (P. fluorescens)
r. 267 two dots, use an abbreviated name
r. 272 previously Figure 4 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 272-273 unclear sentence
r. 287 full name (Pseudomonas)
r. 293 Figure 2 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 313 Table 1 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 318 Figure 1 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 332 small letter in iaa
r. 337 host name is wrong (Pisum sativim)
r. 350 Figure 2 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 361 previously Figure 4 has already been cited in the manuscript
r. 392 use an abbreviated name
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her evaluation and for the constructive comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your suggestions and comments to improve its quality. All the changes made in responses to the Reviewer’s comments were tracked in the revised file. We hope that our revised version will now meet your expectations. Please see below our responses itemized to your comments and suggestions.
row 82 state the meaning of the abbreviation, and it explain briefly WHICH MICRO-ORGANISMS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS GROUP
row 82, state the meaning of the abbreviation, and I suggest that authors explain briefly wich microorganisms are included in this group
Response: The abbreviation has now been explained in the text and the missing information about the microorganisms are added in the MS.
row 91, state the meaning of the abbreviation
Response: The abbreviation is elaborated in the text.
- 144, full name (Glomus)
Response: It is corrected.
- 144-147, state to which research they refer
Response: These information are added to the MS and a reference is added.
- 150 two brackets
Response: This has been corrected.
- 155 full name
Response: This has been corrected.
- 156 uppercase leeter (Lactuca)
Response: This has been corrected.
r.158 use an abbreviated name
Response: This has been corrected.
- 191 in vitro italic
Response: Corrected
r 194, 199, 232 use an abbreviated name
Response: This has been corrected.
- 198 uppercase leter in latin name
Response: Corrected
- 202 use an abbreviated name
Response: Corrected
- 230 clarify in which samples
Response: This clarification has been added.
- 245 delete the dot in the subtitle
Response: This has been corrected.
- 265 use an abbreviated name (P. fluorescens)
Response: This has been corrected.
- 267 two dots, use an abbreviated name
Response: This has been corrected.
- 272 previously Figure 4 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: The figure is dealing with different mechanisms that’s why cited in more than one place.
- 272-273 unclear sentence
Response: More clarity has been added to these sentences.
- 287 full name (Pseudomonas)
Response: Corrected
- 293 Figure 2 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: The figure is dealing with different mechanisms that’s why cited in more than one place.
- 313 Table 1 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: Citation is removed from one place.
- 318 Figure 1 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: The figure is dealing with different mechanisms that’s why cited in more than one place.
- 332 small letter in iaa
Response: Standard abbreviation for Indole-3-acetic acid is IAA.
- 337 host name is wrong (Pisum sativim)
Response: This has been corrected throughout the Table.
- 350 Figure 2 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: The figure is dealing with different mechanisms that’s why cited in more than one place.
- 361 previously Figure 4 has already been cited in the manuscript
Response: The figure is dealing with different mechanisms that’s why cited in more than one place.
- 392 use an abbreviated name
Corrected: It is corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by Khan et al. aims at reviewing the current knowledge on the role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in crops protection against drought stress. Agronomy (MDPI) has a recent publication on the same topic (Ojuederie et al., 2019; doi:10.3390/agronomy9110712), so in my opinion the novelty of this manuscript, at least for this particular journal, is compromised.
The manuscript has major problems of English writing, which make the scientific evaluation of the text very difficult. The title is hard to understand and throughout the text many sentences are difficult to read (for example line 148 “Soil microorganisms may interact with mechanisms related to plant protection of water.”). Besides the language problems, there are also many text editing imprecisions (for example line 267 “from the advers effects of extreme desicaiton. .”) and inaccurate species designation (for example table 1, “Mesorhizobium cicersis” or “Psuedomonas” or “Psium”).
My overall comment is that extensive editing of English language is required in order to allow further reviewing of the manuscript.
Author Response
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her evaluation and for the constructive comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your suggestions and comments to improve its quality. All the changes made in responses to the Reviewer’s comments were tracked in the revised file. We hope that our revised version will now meet your expectations. Please see below our responses itemized to your comments and suggestions.
The manuscript by Khan et al. aims at reviewing the current knowledge on the role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in crops protection against drought stress. Agronomy (MDPI) has a recent publication on the same topic (Ojuederie et al., 2019; doi:10.3390/agronomy9110712), so in my opinion the novelty of this manuscript, at least for this particular journal, is compromised.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for this comment. However, we do not understand when the reviewer mentions that Agronomy has a publication on the same topic. The contents of both papers are completely different. The present review covered most of the important mechanisms employed by PGPR for water conservation in plants under water deficit conditions. We believe that that paper will be pertinent to the readers of the Agronomy Journal.
The manuscript has major problems of English writing, which make the scientific evaluation of the text very difficult. The title is hard to understand and throughout the text many sentences are difficult to read (for example line 148 “Soil microorganisms may interact with mechanisms related to plant protection of water.”). Besides the language problems, there are also many text editing imprecisions (for example line 267 “from the advers effects of extreme desicaiton. .”) and inaccurate species designation (for example table 1, “Mesorhizobium cicersis” or “Psuedomonas” or “Psium”).
My overall comment is that extensive editing of English language is required in order to allow further reviewing of the manuscript.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for these important comments. We have sent our paper to experts for language editing and I believe that the language of the revised version is much improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Water Conservation and Plant Survival Strategies of Rhizobacteria under Drought Stress is well-written review and the topic is relevant and interesting.
Authors attempted to discuss mechanisms that includes physio-chemical modifications called rhizobacterial induced drought endurance and resilience RIDER. Authors try to discuss many topics in this review. It is critical to focus on few important aspects and discuss them in depth. Throughout manuscript, there are many grammatical errors and typos that need to be read by a native speaker.
Comments
- Since its review article , in the abstract it is important to mention about the topics/ aspects that will be covered in this review
- Figure 3. A PCA based biplot is blurred with lot of overlap and most of them are crowded and needs to be fixed
- Line 331: Authors write some PGPRs promote root development and alter root structure. Please write some examples of PGPRs in this context.
- 5 Legend needs to be expanded and discuss the abbreviations in the figure legend
- Line 184: Authors write as follows “The IAA also serves as a signaling molecules that influencing gene expression in a variety of microorganisms”. Please write some examples of microbes in this context. In several areas of the review, authors tend to write this kind of statements. Please avoid those and write some examples wherever needed. IAA has many positive effects on crop growth as well as plant-microbe signaling. It is important to include this information in the review article
- Authors wrote a general conclusion which is a summary of the review article. However, it is important to include a section that has future directions and perspectives within the context of PGPR under stress.
Author Response
Water Conservation and Plant Survival Strategies of Rhizobacteria under Drought Stress is well-written review and the topic is relevant and interesting.
Authors attempted to discuss mechanisms that includes physio-chemical modifications called rhizobacterial induced drought endurance and resilience RIDER. Authors try to discuss many topics in this review. It is critical to focus on few important aspects and discuss them in depth. Throughout manuscript, there are many grammatical errors and typos that need to be read by a native speaker.
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her evaluation and for the constructive comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your suggestions and comments to improve its quality. All the changes made in responses to the Reviewer’s comments were tracked in the revised file. We hope that our revised version will now meet your expectations. Please see below our responses itemized to your comments and suggestions.
Comments
Since its review article , in the abstract it is important to mention about the topics/ aspects that will be covered in this review
Response: We have already mentioned all these aspects (Lines 83-89) as ‘’The current review comprehensively covers major research to evaluate the effectiveness of PGPR in alleviation crop water stress, and to find effective PGPR to help crops maintain water status when water is scarce. The aim of present review was also extended to study the role of phytohormones, plant metabolites, exopolysaccharides (EPS) and ACC-deaminase activity in stress tolerance of plants under PGPR inoculation. This review identifies the challenges of drought stress and the involvement of PGPR in the mitigation of drought stress in plants in order to increase its productivity’’ but putting these lines in the abstract will make it very lengthy.
- Figure 3. A PCA based biplot is blurred with lot of overlap and most of them are crowded and needs to be fixed
Response: Though the overlapped/clustered samples show similar metabolic patterns in the leaves. Still we have regenerated fig 3; and reduced the number of metabolites and samples in order to reduce the number of overlapped samples and to add more clarity to the figures.
- Line 331: Authors write some PGPRs that promote root development and alter root structure. Please write some examples of PGPRs in this context.
Response: These information are added to the MS.
- 5 Legend needs to be expanded and discuss the abbreviations in the figure legend
Response: We have modified figure legends as suggested by the reviewer.
- Line 184: Authors write as follows “The IAA also serves as a signaling molecules that influencing gene expression in a variety of microorganisms”. Please write some examples of microbes in this context. In several areas of the review, authors tend to write this kind of statements. Please avoid those and write some examples wherever needed. IAA has many positive effects on crop growth as well as plant-microbe signaling. It is important to include this information in the review article.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for this important suggestion. We have modified our MS based on these comments and added a section on the role of IAA in plant growth.
- Authors wrote a general conclusion which is a summary of the review article. However, it is important to include a section that has future directions and perspectives within the context of PGPR under stress.
Response: We have modified the conclusion as suggested by the reviewer.
Reviewer 4 Report
I like this review because the authors show the different ways that bacteria have to help and improve the plant growth under drought stress, and this is very important to study nowadays due to the Global Change and human activities which transform lands in arid regions with poor soils.
I think that this review addresses the most important mechanisms that bacteria have to alleviate this kind of stress (and others) in plants and the authors show several articles that demonstrate this fact. Maybe I miss a point where talk about the molecular mechanisms, I mean, what molecular mechanisms of plants are activated in presence of PGPR under this stress.
Now I describe some mistakes/suggestions in the manuscript:
line 91: ACC in capital letters.
line 155: Lactuca.
line 155: "or" without italic.
line 172: is reference number 61 ok? If it is ok, reference 66 isn't cite in the text.
line 188: After references add a point.
line 198: Pseudomonas.
line 219: between conditions and mannitol I think you need to add a comma.
line 228: word phenylalanine is repeated in the same sentence. Remove one of them.
line 265: P. fluorescens because you have named this specie before. You should write the complete name of species the first time that you talk of it and you can use the genus abbreviation in the rest.
line 267: Remove point.
line 267: strains without italic.
line 268: Why do you put strains and only name one (ATCC 6051)?
line 269: Arabidopsis in italic.
line 269: Pseudomonas syringae because it is the first time that you talk about it.
line 270-289: Different spacing between lines.
line 287: Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
line 293: Remove one space.
line 297: add a comma between [135] and high salinity.
line 297: Remove comma after [136] and add a point.
line 300: Add plant before growth.
line 310: Recently a study has been published about the positive effects of Variovorax sp. and the ACC deaminase activity over a legume growing in arid areas of Tunisia, improving the plant growth and the nodulation. I think you can add this study in this review: Bessadok et al., 2020. The ACC-Deaminase Producing Bacterium Variovorax sp. CT7.15 as a Tool for Improving Calicotome villosa Nodulation and Growth in Arid Regions of Tunisia. Microorganisms 8:541.
line 313: Remove parenthesis in bold.
line 322: What specie is strain STM196? Add in the text.
line 331-335: Different spacing between lines.
line 332: indoleacetic.
line 335: Add a point at the end of the sentence.
line 345: Add plant before Growth.
line 384: Remove a point.
Figure 2: What is the meaning of SAM? Add in the text.
Figure 3: I think that this figure needs to be changed because you can't see all of the words clearly and it is very confusing.
Table 1: -References should be numbered in order to appear in the text. You jump from reference number 142 to number 161 and then you come back to number 143 in the table. Change that.
- The genus Pisum are wrong written in all the table. Change them.
- P. fluorescens.
- V. paradoxus.
- improve without capital letters.
- Pseudomonas with capital letters and add sp.
- licheniformis.
- Add point after CaPR-10.
- Check all the names of the species because several are wrong: Pisum, Pseudomonas, Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense, etc... Check also in all the manuscript.
- sp. without italic.
- Reference number 152 isn't about ACC deaminase activity. Check all the references because I think you have a mess with the reference numeration.
Finally, authors need to check and put the references in the correct format, add the doi number and check the name of the species because they don't put in italic and this is a big mistake if you work with microorganisms. Reference number 98 isn't cited in the text.
In conclusion, I like the review, but I think that the authors need to add a section talking about molecular mechanisms and make all the changes that I suggest, overall the correct name of the species. Furthermore, authors must check the references because some not appear and others are wrong cited. For the second review, I'm going to check that these mistakes are ok and if each reference is cited correctly into the text.
Author Response
I like this review because the authors show the different ways that bacteria have to help and improve the plant growth under drought stress, and this is very important to study nowadays due to the Global Change and human activities which transform lands in arid regions with poor soils.
I think that this review addresses the most important mechanisms that bacteria have to alleviate this kind of stress (and others) in plants and the authors show several articles that demonstrate this fact. Maybe I miss a point where talk about the molecular mechanisms, I mean, what molecular mechanisms of plants are activated in presence of PGPR under this stress.
Now I describe some mistakes/suggestions in the manuscript:
We would like to thank the Reviewer for his/her evaluation and for the constructive comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the manuscript following your suggestions and comments to improve its quality. All the changes made in responses to the Reviewer’s comments were tracked in the revised file. We hope that our revised version will now meet your expectations. Please see below our responses itemized to your comments and suggestions.
line 91: ACC in capital letters.
Response: It is corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
line 155: Lactuca.
Response: This has been corrected
line 155: "or" without italic.
Response: Corrected.
line 172: is reference number 61 ok? If it is ok, reference 66 isn't cite in the text.
Response: Reference 61 was wrongly cited instead of 66 and is now corrected.
line 188: After references add a point.
Response: This has been corrected
line 198: Pseudomonas.
Response: Corrected.
line 219: between conditions and mannitol I think you need to add a comma.
Response: It is corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
line 228: word phenylalanine is repeated in the same sentence. Remove one of them.
Response: Corrected.
line 265: P. fluorescens because you have named this specie before. You should write the complete name of species the first time that you talk of it and you can use the genus abbreviation in the rest.
Response: It is corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
line 267: Remove point.
Response: Corrected.
line 267: strains without italic.
Response: This has been corrected
line 268: Why do you put strains and only name one (ATCC 6051)?
Response: Corrected.
line 269: Arabidopsis in italic.
Response: Corrected.
line 269: Pseudomonas syringae because it is the first time that you talk about it.
Response: This has been corrected
line 270-289: Different spacing between lines.
Response: This has been corrected
line 287: Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Response: Corrected.
line 293: Remove one space.
Response: Corrected.
line 297: add a comma between [135] and high salinity.
Response: Corrected.
line 297: Remove comma after [136] and add a point.
Response: Corrected.
line 300: Add plant before growth.
Response: This has been corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
line 310: Recently a study has been published about the positive effects of Variovorax sp. and the ACC deaminase activity over a legume growing in arid areas of Tunisia, improving the plant growth and the nodulation. I think you can add this study in this review: Bessadok et al., 2020. The ACC-Deaminase Producing Bacterium Variovorax sp. CT7.15 as a Tool for Improving Calicotome villosa Nodulation and Growth in Arid Regions of Tunisia. Microorganisms 8:541.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for this important suggestion. This work has been added to the MS.
line 313: Remove parenthesis in bold.
Response: This has been corrected
line 322: What specie is strain STM196? Add in the text.
Response: Species name is added as Phyllobacterium brassicacearum
line 331-335: Different spacing between lines.
Response: This has been corrected
line 332: indoleacetic.
Response: Corrected.
line 335: Add a point at the end of the sentence.
Response: A full stop has been added at the end of the sentence.
line 345: Add plant before Growth.
Response: Corrected.
line 384: Remove a point.
Response: Corrected.
Figure 2: What is the meaning of SAM? Add in the text.
Response: SAM has been elaborated in the text.
Figure 3: I think that this figure needs to be changed because you can't see all of the words clearly and it is very confusing.
Response: Though the overlapped/clustered samples show similar metabolic patterns in the leaves. Still we have regenerated fig 3; and reduced the number of metabolites and samples to reduce the number of overlapped samples and to add more clarity to the figures.
Table 1: -References should be numbered in order to appear in the text. You jump from reference number 142 to number 161 and then you come back to number 143 in the table. Change that.
Response: Reference numbering has been reordered.
- The genus Pisum are wrong written in all the table. Change them.
Response: It has been corrected.
- P. fluorescens.
Response: It has been corrected.
- V. paradoxus.
Response: It has been corrected.
- improve without capital letters.
Response: It has been corrected.
- Pseudomonas with capital letters and add sp.
Response: It has been corrected.
- licheniformis.
Response: It has been corrected.
- Add point after CaPR-10.
Response: A point has been added.
- Check all the names of the species because several are wrong: Pisum, Pseudomonas, Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense, etc... Check also in all the manuscript.
Response: These mistakes have been corrected throughout the MS.
- sp. without italic.
Response: Corrected
- Reference number 152 isn't about ACC deaminase activity. Check all the references because I think you have a mess with the reference numeration.
Finally, authors need to check and put the references in the correct format, add the doi number and check the name of the species because they don't put in italic and this is a big mistake if you work with microorganisms. Reference number 98 isn't cited in the text.
Response: We have carefully checked all the references and rearrange their numbering accordingly.
In conclusion, I like the review, but I think that the authors need to add a section talking about molecular mechanisms and make all the changes that I suggest, overall the correct name of the species. Furthermore, authors must check the references because some not appear and others are wrong cited. For the second review, I'm going to check that these mistakes are ok and if each reference is cited correctly into the text.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for these important suggestions. We have modified the MS based on these comments and added a section on molecular mechanisms.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors have corrected and improved the previous manuscript, however there is still some mistakes that I expose bellow:
line 83: cellular.
Lines 86-101: different spaces between lines.
Line 96: affects.
Line 127: maybe a comma should be between polyols and mannitol?.
Line 145: Pseudomonas sp. or some strain in particular?
Line 148: reference 46 doesn’t talk about Pseudomonas. This cite is wrong.
Line 152: improving.
Line 158: double space between words.
Line 160: Azospirillun sp. or some strain in particular? Check if the reference 50 is cited correctly.
Line 173: Azospirillum sp. and Azotobacter sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Line 193: Add full stop.
Line 201: IAA is one type of auxins. You need to clarify it and put here the complete name of IAA.
Line 210: plant.
Line 212: Remove "The".
Line 216: Put the complete name of SA, ET and GA.
Line 222: Xanthomonas campestris, Erwinia chrysanthemi and Pseudomonas syringae.
Line 230: Type VI section? or secretion system?.
Line 251: A. thaliana.
Line 280: add "in" before chickpea.
Line 290: increased.
Line 295: K+.
Lines 304 and 305: consortium in italic.
Line 307: Add full stop.
Line 324: Remove "the" before Paenibacillus polymyxa.
Line 324: P. polymyxa.
Line 329: Bacillus cereus.
Lines 335-355: different spaces between lines.
Line 350: P. mendocina.
Line 376: ACC.
Line 378: Reference is not cited.
Line 380: "...under moisture deficient condition [150]."
Line 382: Remove bold parenthesys of (Table 1).
Line 391: Azospirillum sp. and Azotobacter sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Line 392: P. fluorescens.
Line 397: "...from roots to the." To the what?
Lines 404-409: different spaces between lines.
Line 404: A. brasilense, B. japonicum, B. cereus.
Line 405: Remove ; after P. fluorescens.
Line 405: P. fluorescens.
Line 406: Indole-3-acteic acid (IAA) in line 201.
Line 414: activities.
Lines 476-512: different spaces between lines.
Line 485: and.
Line 488: P. fluorescens.
Line 490: chaperones.
Line 491: A. thaliana.
Line 494: put point instead comma.
Line 496: enhanced is not in italic.
Line 496: Bacillus sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Line 552: Title in bold.
Line 558: improving.
Line 563: "...movement of photosynthates between." between what?
Table 1: - P. fluorescens.
-V. paradoxus.
-Bacillus isolate is not a specie. Check the reference and put the correct name. The name of the plant is missed in this row.
-Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense.
-B. subtilis.
Moreover of this mistakes, authors haven't correct the references. Please, check and change that all the names of the species are in italic and add the doi numbers for all the publications. Check also that the referencse are cited correctly, because I find some that are incorrect.
Author Response
Authors have corrected and improved the previous manuscript, however there is still some mistakes that I expose bellow:
line 83: cellular.
Response: It has been corrected.
Lines 86-101: different spaces between lines.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 96: affects.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 127: maybe a comma should be between polyols and mannitol?.
Response: It has been corrected.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 145: Pseudomonas sp. or some strain in particular?
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 148: reference 46 doesn’t talk about Pseudomonas. This cite is wrong.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 152: improving.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 158: double space between words.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 160: Azospirillun sp. or some strain in particular? Check if the reference 50 is cited correctly.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 173: Azospirillum sp. and Azotobacter sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 193: Add full stop.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 201: IAA is one type of auxins. You need to clarify it and put here the complete name of IAA.
Response: It has been corrected as suggested by the reviewer.
Line 210: plant.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 212: Remove "The".
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 216: Put the complete name of SA, ET and GA.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 222: Xanthomonas campestris, Erwinia chrysanthemi and Pseudomonas syringae.
Response: these have been corrected.
Line 230: Type VI section? or secretion system?.
Response: It has been corrected, as secretion.
Line 251: A. thaliana.
Response: It appeared at the start of the sentence therefore, the abbreviated form has not been used.
Line 280: add "in" before chickpea.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 290: increased.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 295: K+.
Response: It has been corrected.
Lines 304 and 305: consortium in italic.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 307: Add full stop.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 324: Remove "the" before Paenibacillus polymyxa.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 324: P. polymyxa.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 329: Bacillus cereus.
Response: It has been corrected.
Lines 335-355: different spaces between lines.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 350: P. mendocina.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 376: ACC.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 378: Reference is not cited.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 380: "...under moisture deficient condition [150]."
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 382: Remove bold parenthesys of (Table 1).
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 391: Azospirillum sp. and Azotobacter sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 392: P. fluorescens.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 397: "...from roots to the." To the what?
Response: It has been corrected.
Lines 404-409: different spaces between lines.
Response: It has been corrected.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 404: A. brasilense, B. japonicum, B. cereus.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 405: Remove ; after P. fluorescens.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 405: P. fluorescens.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 406: Indole-3-acteic acid (IAA) in line 201.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 414: activities.
Response: It has been corrected.
Lines 476-512: different spaces between lines.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 485: and.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 488: P. fluorescens.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 490: chaperones.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 491: A. thaliana.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 494: put point instead comma.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 496: enhanced is not in italic.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 496: Bacillus sp. or some species or strain in particular?
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 552: Title in bold.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 558: improving.
Response: It has been corrected.
Line 563: "...movement of photosynthates between." between what?
Response: It has been corrected.
Table 1: - P. fluorescens.
-V. paradoxus.
-Bacillus isolate is not a specie. Check the reference and put the correct name. The name of the plant is missed in this row.
-Ochrobactrum pseudogrignonense.
-B. subtilis.
Response: Table 1 has been modified based on the above comments.
Moreover of this mistakes, authors haven't correct the references. Please, check and change that all the names of the species are in italic and add the doi numbers for all the publications. Check also that the referencse are cited correctly, because I find some that are incorrect.
Response: We checked all the references and italicized all the scientific names.
