Engineering Approach for Production of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Inoculum Adapted to Saline Soil Management
, Frederic Laruelle 2, Benoit Tisserant 2, Yolande Dalpé 3 and Anissa Lounés-Hadj Sahraoui 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the case for the publication these items needed to be improved;
1. the title is not suitable for the research work;
2. the abstract needed to be re-written, and the aim of the study, and hypotheses needed to be pointed out in the abstract and later in the introduction in more detail; the methods should be
3. the conclusion should be directly from the results of the present work instead of speculation;
4. in the introduction, the MPN, the AMF pureness and mycorrhizal efficiency, FAME, and PLFA needed to describe in detail correlated to AMF inoculation;
5. in materials and methods, the experimental design, the principles of the measurements on the paraments needed to point out in summary, instead of only lost references, eg references 37, 45,46, etc.
6. each table and figure is independent, so footnotes are necessary for each one with meanings of abbreviations. eg, table 1, the SR,ZA,BG , especially MO, and Q3 are difficult to understand; the C/N is related to soil organic matter or soil microbe biomass?
7. In the text, the DCA analysis is necessary to be explained;
8. Page numbers and line numbers are not continuous, so it is difficult to point out small comments with lone numbers. Anyway, the text check is necessary by a mother tongue with better grammatically correct.
Author Response
pen Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors: we gratefully thanks the reviewer for the time spent to reviewing our manuscript. All the comment are considered and revised.
In the case for the publication these items needed to be improved;
- the title is not suitable for the research work;:
Authors: we gratefully thanks the reviewer for this pointed suggestion, the title was modified and became: “Engineering approach for production of an arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum adapted to saline soil management.”
- the abstract needed to be re-written, and the aim of the study, and hypotheses needed to be pointed out in the abstract and later in the introduction in more detail; the methods should be
[Authors]: the abstract and the introduction has been developed and rewritten in their totality.
Line 18-31: Background: Soil salinity impacts plant growth and productivity in steppic regions. Thus, the current study aims at producing, at low cost, an inoculum composed of native arbuscular my-corrhizal fungi (AMF) strains adapted to saline soil management. (2) Methods: The propagation of native AMF strains was carried out in three natural saline soils presenting increasing salinity levels (4.5, 8.5 and 9.3 dS.m-1 in BG, SR and ZA sites respectively). Three host plant species (alfal-fa, clover and leek) were tested as trap cultures. AMF spore richness and diversity as well as the quantification of soil microbial biomass, and the determination of the most probable number (MPN) were carried out before and after 24 months culture. Moreover, the mycorrhizal rates of the host plant species were assessed. (3) Results: The moderate saline soil (SR) planted with al-falfa was found to be the most suitable for AMF inoculum production with a maximum of 650 spores. 10 g-1 of soil, a mycorrhizal rate of 86%, 70 propagules. g-1 of soil and the highest microbial biomass content. (4) Conclusion: This study points out the best combination allowing to produce a more adapted AMF biofertilizer for saline soil management and proposes several indicators for biofertilizer quality evaluation.
- the conclusion should be directly from the results of the present work instead of speculation;
[Authors]: the conclusion has been rewritten.
Line 567-577: In the context of soil salinity and arid conditions, the most appropriate inoculum should be composed of native AMF strains/ natural substrate (soil with moderate level of salinity) /alfalfa as host plant species. Moreover, the tested combination allows to improve AMF spore richness and diversity as well as the rhizospheric microbial biomass and root colonization. Thus, our findings open new perspectives for the production of AMF biofertilizers adapted to arid and semi-arid saline soils. Knowing that the mycorrhizal potential of inoculum can be affected by a diversity of parameters such as climate, vegetation and soil composition, the proposed tripartite approach for obtaining inoculants adapted to natural environments is feasible, realistic and promising. The worldwide huge problem of soil salinity can only benefit from the results obtained from this study.
- in the introduction, the MPN, the AMF pureness and mycorrhizal efficiency, FAME, and PLFA needed to describe in detail correlated to AMF inoculation;
[Authors]: Thank for pointing out this point. It was developed in the introduction in line 62-71:
Thus, the selection of AMF species should be appropriate for the desired application scenario [22]. The inoculant should contain enough viable propagules to achieve AMF root colonization [23]. Inoculum viability is highly variable between AMF isolates [7] and the host plant used for inoculum production [24]. Several important criteria should be taken into account in producing mycorrhizal inoculum like (i) the AMF propagules density within the inoculant which can be assessed using the most probable number (MPN) [27], (ii) the diversity of the AMF species used [25 - 26]. Furthermore, the biofertilizer must improve soil health, which can be estimated by the soil microbial biomass [28], using for example, the phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis [29].
- in materials and methods, the experimental design, the principles of the measurements on the paraments needed to point out in summary, instead of only lost references, eg references 37, 45,46, etc.
[Authors]: Thank for this pertinent remark, short description of the methods were given in addition to the references. The experimental design was added in supplementary materials
- each table and figure is independent, so footnotes are necessary for each one with meanings of abbreviations. eg, table 1, the SR,ZA,BG , especially MO, and Q3 are difficult to understand; the C/N is related to soil organic matter or soil microbe biomass?
[Authors]: Thank you four this Remarque. All footnotes were modified in the totality of tables and figures. The (Q3= 3.43 P/ M – m). OM: organic matter; C/N carbon/nitrogen ratio.
- In the text, the DCA analysis is necessary to be explained;
[Authors]: atuthors think the reviewer for this remark, the DCA was explained in the text. Detrended Correspondence Analysis, it was included in different section of the manuscript (Results, discussion and materiels and methods).
Line 352 the Detrended Correspondance Analysis (DCA) was used (Figure 5; S2).
- Page numbers and line numbers are not continuous, so it is difficult to point out small comments with lone numbers. Anyway, the text check is necessary by a mother tongue with better grammatically correct.
[Authors]: we remediated to this problem and mow all the line numbers are continuous.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study "Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated to rhizo- spheric microbiota: Engineering method for saline stress management" focused on a very interesting concept of interaction between native AMF strains/alfalfa trap culture and saline substrate. However this study has many strong points, but it could use some adjusting and some clarification of some important points as the manuscript is not well presented.
Minor Comments:
Rectify all grammatical errors. If there, spelling out all abbreviations in the text if it first time mentioned in the text. Cross-reference all of the citations in the text with the references in the reference section. Make sure that all references have a corresponding citation within the text and vice versa.
Major Comments:
L22-23, 30-31: rewrite the sentence
L41: discuss more some of the important Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi sp and their associated microbiota information.
L116: recheck the C/N in table 1; why available P too low in SR?
Results L19: “Rhizophagus irregularis” italics.
L16. AMF spore diversity results are very interesting; I would like to recommend to include some spore photos with this results.
L175: Need major improvement in the discussion part. revise it.
L259: add experimental sites geographic coordinates.
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Authors: we gratefully thanks the reviewer for the time spent to reviewing our manuscript. All the comment are considered and revised.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The study "Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated to rhizo- spheric microbiota: Engineering method for saline stress management" focused on a very interesting concept of interaction between native AMF strains/alfalfa trap culture and saline substrate. However this study has many strong points, but it could use some adjusting and some clarification of some important points as the manuscript is not well presented.
Minor Comments:
Rectify all grammatical errors. If there, spelling out all abbreviations in the text if it first time mentioned in the text. Cross-reference all of the citations in the text with the references in the reference section. Make sure that all references have a corresponding citation within the text and vice versa.
Authors: we thank the reviewer for this comment. The grammatical errors was rectified, all the manuscript was revised and rewritten in the totality and the references checked.
Major Comments:
L22-23, 30-31: rewrite the sentence
Authors: Thank you for this remark, it was rewritten
L41: discuss more some of the important Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi sp and their associated microbiota information.
Authors: Thank for pointing out this point, this point was improved in both introduction and discussion.
L116: recheck the C/N in table 1; why available P too low in SR?
Authors: C/N ratio was checked. The available phosphorus is really very low in SR site. Perhaps it’s impact of high salinity level and soil texture.
Results L19: “Rhizophagus irregularis” italics.
Authors: it was rectified.
L16. AMF spore diversity results are very interesting; I would like to recommend to include some spore photos with this results.
Authors: Thank you for this suggestion. It was included (figure 1).
L175: Need major improvement in the discussion part. revise it.
Authors: the discussion section was rewritten in the totality.
L259: add experimental sites geographic coordinates.
Authors: It was added to site description in material and methods; in the title: Experimental sites and soil samples: Line 489: (SR)(34°23’04’’N; 2°,50’17’’E), Zaafrane (ZA) (34°52’40’’N; 2°50’41’’E) and Boughzoul (BG) (35°42’03’’N, 2°50’17’’E).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The review comments are responsed. It is coming to level for publication.
Author Response
Authors: Authors gratefully thanks the reviewer for the time spent to reviewing our manuscript. Thank you for the positive report.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author, Thank you for attending to all the comments. However, In the title "an" arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum; "an" is suitable? In the abstract: spell out the BG, SR and ZA. It is clear that, in Figure 2A, B: the error bars drawn by paint or inserting different bars, it's not acceptable and statically wrong, I strongly suggest you must revise it and check another figure also.
Author Response
Open Review
( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author, Thank you for attending to all the comments. However, In the title "an" arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum; "an" is suitable? In the abstract: spell out the BG, SR and ZA. It is clear that, in Figure 2A, B: the error bars drawn by paint or inserting different bars, it's not acceptable and statically wrong, I strongly suggest you must revise it and check another figure also.
Submission Date
30 December 2022
Date of this review
01 Mar 2023 04:58:11
Authors: we gratefully thanks the reviewer for the time spent to reviewing our manuscript. All the comment are considered and revised.
Dear Author, Thank you for attending to all the comments. However, In the title "an" arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum; "an" is suitable?
Authors: Thank you for this observation “an” was omitted.
In the abstract: spell out the BG, SR and ZA.
Authors: we thank reviewer for this observation; it was done.
It is clear that, in Figure 2A, B: the error bars drawn by paint or inserting different bars, it's not acceptable and statically wrong, I strongly suggest you must revise it and check another figure also.
Authors: Authors thank the reviewer for this pertinent remark. We have not noticed that two error bar appeared in figure 2. It was corrected. And all figures were cheeked.
