Potential Native Bacilli Reduce Fumonisin Contamination in Maize
, Plabon Saha 1, Md. Mostafa Masud 1, Rummana Islam 1,2, Nazia Binta Islam 1, Md. Zahangir Alam 1 and Md. Rashidul Islam 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, a very interesting manuscript. A very important topic, especially in today's time of climate change and new threats from mycotoxins. Therefore, I consider the work significant for the area it comes from, but the originality of the topic it deals with is not so new globally.
The manuscript itself and the writing style should perhaps be a little more scientific, I'm not saying that it doesn't have all the elements of scientific work, but the way of thinking is a little too spontaneous (stylistic comment). Related to that, there are several abbreviations in the paper that are not adequately explained, for example in the 54th line. I mention this because some well-known books are explained in parentheses, and this one is not explained. I just want consistency. I also want to see the consistency and technical identity of the tables, especially the first ones (all tables must be technically identical).
In short, the read manuscript has scientific weight and importance, it is relatively solidly written, so I can recommend it for printing after minor improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I made a number of recommendations for improving the manuscript text. Please see the scanned manuscript that is attached to this review.
For the sentence in lines 18-20:
"... MMM1 was able to increase root and shoot length by 25%, and the vigor index by 50%, by colonizing..." I don't think it is necessary to include 25.23% and 24.9% as reported values in the abstract.
After reading section 3.1, I asked myself 'Was BD Fusarium_4 used for all of the in vitro and colonization experiments?' If so, this should be stated in section 3.1, and perhaps in other parts of section 2, for clarity.
Table 4-is not clear to me at what stage these samples were processed. This detail should be added appropriately to section 2. What bacterium was used for the control? How did the authors ensure that only the BDISO was counted and not other endophytes present in the roots?
Table 5-it is not clear to me how the vigor index was calculated. Perhaps a brief explanation of the technique can be added to section 2.9.2.
Line 407-408: "significantly inhibited F. proliferatum root colonization in maize at 20 DAI.
Figure S2. Please define the error bars-standard error or standard deviation, or something else?
Line 467. Please define APC
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
