Can Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Crop Productivity and Quality in Hydroponics? A Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made a truly complete, extensive review of the literature, which can be very useful for both scientists and technologists who are involved in optimizing the cultivation of agricultural plants.

However, a general criticism of the manuscript is local inconsistency. In my opinion, the text should be better structured - this will make it easier to understand and use. Thus, the authors in several places provide general data on the nature of mycorrhizal fungi, the mechanism of infection and the exchange of signals between the plant and symbionts. However, it would be much more logical to put this in a separate section or in the introduction. Regarding the use of arbuscular mycorrhiza when growing plants in a hydroponic system, the first issue that should be fully discussed is the feasibility of such use. There is conflicting evidence in the text, which is illustrated in Figure 4. These should first be discussed in detail so that the reader understands in which cases mycorrhiza can be beneficial in hydroponics and in which it is not, and on what this may depend. It seems that this is where any technologist will begin to solve his problem. Then you should include sections on the dynamics of infection, requirements for environmental conditions (pH, phosphorus level and aeration).

The benefit of mycorrhizal symbionts in the soil system is undeniable, since this system is close to natural conditions, and the main aspect is the deficiency of mineral elements and, often, water, which is precisely the problem that mycorrhiza solves. The authors rightly note that the hydroponic system often contains completely sufficient, or even excessive, levels of elements and does not imply assistance in their extraction. So what functions can mycorrhiza perform in a hydroponic system?

In some places in the text, repetition is noted: starting a discussion of one topic (for example, the effect of phosphorus availability on mycorrhiza), then the author jumps to some other factor, and then returns to the first one again. I would say that the text is crude and just needs to be read again with fresh eyes, perhaps shortened in places.

Here are some places that are worth paying attention to (written more clearly and logically):

l. 140-144 about root systems is not quite clear.

l. 156-158 - this sentence seems loosely connected with the rest of the paragraph; it is better to move it, for example, to l.172.

l. 207 - "compared to 50% control" - what is 50% control?

l. 264-265 is an incomprehensible sentence.

General places that are loosely related to specific studies and can be moved: k. 400-408, 442-452.

l. 498-505 - excessive detail regarding strains.

Author Response

The authors made a truly complete, extensive review of the literature, which can be very useful for both scientists and technologists who are involved in optimizing the cultivation of agricultural plants. However, a general criticism of the manuscript is local inconsistency. In my opinion, the text should be better structured - this will make it easier to understand and use. Thus, the authors in several places provide general data on the nature of mycorrhizal fungi, the mechanism of infection and the exchange of signals between the plant and symbionts. However, it would be much more logical to put this in a separate section or in the introduction. Regarding the use of arbuscular mycorrhiza when growing plants in a hydroponic system, the first issue that should be fully discussed is the feasibility of such use. There is conflicting evidence in the text, which is illustrated in Figure 4. These should first be discussed in detail so that the reader understands in which cases mycorrhiza can be beneficial in hydroponics and in which it is not, and on what this may depend. It seems that this is where any technologist will begin to solve his problem. Then you should include sections on the dynamics of infection, requirements for environmental conditions (pH, phosphorus level and aeration).

Our response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. We feel the revision incorporated in the manuscript have strengthened the manuscript and hope the reviewer will now find it suitable for publication.

The benefit of mycorrhizal symbionts in the soil system is undeniable, since this system is close to natural conditions, and the main aspect is the deficiency of mineral elements and, often, water, which is precisely the problem that mycorrhiza solves. The authors rightly note that the hydroponic system often contains completely sufficient, or even excessive, levels of elements and does not imply assistance in their extraction. So what functions can mycorrhiza perform in a hydroponic system?

Our response: Good point. The following paragraph add to the revised version of the manuscript to answer the reviewer question In hydroponic systems where nutrient levels are already optimized, mycorrhizal fungi play crucial roles beyond nutrient extraction. They facilitate enhanced water uptake, improve nutrient absorption efficiency, and promote stress tolerance in plants, thereby contributing to overall plant health and productivity [8,19]. Additionally, mycorrhizal symbiosis fosters robust root growth and structure, supports beneficial microbial commu-nities, and ultimately enhances plant growth and yield [23,30]. While nutrient extraction may not be their primary function, mycorrhizal fungi offer multifaceted benefits that make them valuable additions to hydroponic systems, aiding in the creation of resilient, healthy crops.

In some places in the text, repetition is noted: starting a discussion of one topic (for example, the effect of phosphorus availability on mycorrhiza), then the author jumps to some other factor, and then returns to the first one again. I would say that the text is crude and just needs to be read again with fresh eyes, perhaps shortened in places. Here are some places that are worth paying attention to (written more clearly and logically):

Lines 140-144 about root systems is not quite clear.

Our response: the paragraph was re-written.

Lines 156-158 - this sentence seems loosely connected with the rest of the paragraph; it is better to move it, for example, to l.172.

Our response: The sentence was moved to line 172

Line 207 - "compared to 50% control" - what is 50% control?

Our response: The authors of the paper (Dasgan et al., 2022) aimed to compare the response of three biofertilizers where the mineral fertilizers are reduced by 50%, and that what was referred to “50% control. The tern 50% control was clarified in brackets at the end of the sentence.

Lines 264-265 is an incomprehensible sentence.

Our response: The sentence was removed.

General places that are loosely related to specific studies and can be moved: k. 400-408, 442-452.

Our response: For 400-408, This paragraph was re-written and first part of it was removed as follows:

When there's an excess of phosphorus (P) in the root rhizosphere, the formation of intact arbuscules may decrease, and instead, vesicles may develop [127]. Since phosphorus availability in the growing substrates is restricted, plants have evolved various mechanisms to boost their absorptive surfaces, such as root elongation and branching [130].

For 442-452: This paragraph was removed.

Lines 498-505 - excessive detail regarding strains.

Our response: The paragraph was rewritten and summarized with less details.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors mention the method used to search for information, the databases consulted, the keywords used, and analyze the result of their search, which is correct.

With this meta-analysis the authors confirm the positive effects of inoculating plants grown in hydroponics with AMF, previously reported in the papers they consult.

The authors find that the concentration of P is the condition that most affects the establishment of mycorrhiza, so perhaps it would be appropriate to include an exclusive graph that shows that with an increase in the concentration of P, colonization decreases, similar to what is presented in Figure 2. According to the analysis, pH is not a factor that has a negative effect on root colonization so it could be omitted from the graph.

Use the full name of "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi" only in the first mention, in subsequent mentions use the abbreviation.

Author Response

The authors mention the method used to search for information, the databases consulted, the keywords used, and analyze the result of their search, which is correct. With this meta-analysis the authors confirm the positive effects of inoculating plants grown in hydroponics with AMF, previously reported in the papers they consult.

Our response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. We feel the revision incorporated in the manuscript have strengthened the manuscript and hope the reviewer will now find it suitable for publication.

The authors find that the concentration of P is the condition that most affects the establishment of mycorrhiza, so perhaps it would be appropriate to include an exclusive graph that shows that with an increase in the concentration of P, colonization decreases, similar to what is presented in Figure 2. According to the analysis, pH is not a factor that has a negative effect on root colonization so it could be omitted from the graph.

Our response: We agree. Based on the results from previous studies the pH is not a factor that has a negative effect on root colonization and therefore it has been omitted from the revised version of the manuscript. However, in term of deriving a graph showing the effect of P increment on root colonization we couldn’t have a reasonable number of data points that cover the entire interval 10-120 mg/l P. In fact most of them are within the low or high ranges (0.1-20 or higher than 40).

Use the full name of "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi" only in the first mention, in subsequent mentions use the abbreviation.

Our response: the full name was used in the first mention and the abbreviation AMF was used in the subsequent mentions.

Reviewer 3 Report

This meta-analysis review examines the effects of incorporating arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) into hydroponic systems compared to traditional soil cultivation on crop growth. Results show that AMF colonization is higher in soil than in hydroponics, with differences depending on the specific hydroponic conditions and crop species. It is important to maintain optimal phosphorus levels in hydroponic systems for successful AMF performance, as high concentrations can hinder colonization. Certain hydroponic techniques may also pose challenges for the integration of AMF. Overall, this topic is intriguing and aligns well with the focus of the journal. The manuscript is well organized and written. After minor revisions it can be accepted. Specific comments are provided below.

1)     The authors seem to emphasize too much on the quantity of papers with a certain conclusion, but in reality, the quality of the papers is a more important factor. This may also be a weakness in meta-analysis.

2)     There are different types of AMF, which should be introduced and their functioning explained.

3)     A figure can be added to show the hydroponics techniques and the ways of how they are combined with AMF.

4)     Is the data searching performed in 2024 so that all relevant papers in 2023 are extracted?

5)     I suggest the authors to give some clearer conclusions showing the scenarios when AMF+hydroponics will be successful.

6)     I’d like to see more perspectives regarding future studies in science and possible strategies in practical application.

7)     Line 21, “are not always have” needs revision.

8)     Table 1, “MgSO4”, the number in the chemical formula should be written in subscript. For, “kg/m2”, the number should be superscripted.

9)     Figure 5, the axis for pH is too low that we cannot judge the pH values for the column data.

It's good.

Author Response

This meta-analysis review examines the effects of incorporating arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) into hydroponic systems compared to traditional soil cultivation on crop growth. Results show that AMF colonization is higher in soil than in hydroponics, with differences depending on the specific hydroponic conditions and crop species. It is important to maintain optimal phosphorus levels in hydroponic systems for successful AMF performance, as high concentrations can hinder colonization. Certain hydroponic techniques may also pose challenges for the integration of AMF. Overall, this topic is intriguing and aligns well with the focus of the journal. The manuscript is well organized and written. After minor revisions it can be accepted. Specific comments are provided below.

We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. We feel the revision incorporated in the manuscript have strengthened the manuscript and hope the reviewer will now find it suitable for publication.

• The authors seem to emphasize too much on the quantity of papers with a certain conclusion, but in reality, the quality of the papers is a more important factor. This may also be a weakness in meta-analysis.

Our response: we acknowledge the reviewer's concern regarding the use of numerous articles. However, throughout the manuscript development process, we adhered to a rigorous approach to screen relevant studies at early stages. Additionally, we utilized multiple papers to compile a comprehensive dataset for figure development.

2)     There are different types of AMF, which should be introduced and their functioning explained.

      Our response: Thank you for your comment. In the third paragraph of the introduction, we presented examples of AMF and their impact on promoting plant growth.

3)     A figure can be added to show the hydroponics techniques and the ways of how they are combined with AMF.

Our response: The result of previous studies showed that the best approach to use AMF in hydroponics is to inoculate the plants with AMF before place the seedling inside the hydroponic system. In fact, adding the spores directly to the nutrient tanks not recommended. We highlighted this point in the revised version of the manuscript (section 6)

4)     Is the data searching performed in 2024 so that all relevant papers in 2023 are extracted?

Our response: Yes, the search was done on January, 2024.

5)     I suggest the authors to give some clearer conclusions showing the scenarios when AMF+hydroponics will be successful.

    Our response: Good point scenarios when AMF+hydroponics will be successful have been added to the revised version of the conclusions.

6)     I’d like to see more perspectives regarding future studies in science and possible strategies in practical application.

     Our response: We agree, the conclusion part has been potentially revised in the new version.

7)     Line 21, “are not always have” needs revision.

Our response: Corrected to “do not always have”

8)     Table 1, “MgSO4”, the number in the chemical formula should be written in subscript. For, “kg/m2”, the number should be superscripted.

Our response: Corrected.

9)     Figure 5, the axis for pH is too low that we cannot judge the pH values for the column data.

Our response: Based on meta-analysis, the results from previous studies showed that the pH is not a factor that has a negative effect on root colonization and therefore it has been omitted from the revised version of the manuscript. (Note: reviewer #2 also suggested to remove pH pars from the graph). 

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript “Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi have the potential to improve crop productivity and quality in hydroponics: A meta-analysis“ is devoted to research on the use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in hydroponic conditions. In my opinion, the manuscript lacks analytical conclusions made by the authors themselves, based on the described literary sources. For example, assumptions or explanations for the difference in the degree of AMF colonization, whether the use of AMF in hydroponic installations is economically feasible and for which crops their use is relevant and in what time frame.

I believe the authors need to seriously rework the article. Also, please correct the following points:

Line 1 Please correct the title of the manuscript due to grammatical mistakes.

Line 12 Check and change "Understand to" (of)

How is the percentage of root colonization calculated? Give general information and determination methods.

Line 33 Add "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)" to Keywords

Line 97 Please correct “Hydroponic systems” to “Hydroponic method”

In the Introduction section, it should be more clearly described what AMF is, what species belong to this group of fungi, and how they are used.

Line 101 Check and change scientific research studies “higher plant height”.

Line 114 Please rephrase “scientific research studies”

I advise you to more clearly describe the goals and objectives of the study.

Line 115 Please rephrase “This provides an overview of…”

Line 187 “air bubbles”? Please use special terms (aeration etc.)

You use a link to the [14] source of literature in a row in one paragraph. It's better to rewrite this paragraph and make it more interesting.

Line 221 Please explain “…saffron can benefit from essential nutrients without competition with pathogens or abiotic stresses associated to nutrient-soil interaction.”

Lines 240-242 Please describe in more detail why you mentioned silver ions or move [44], [45] to the end of the paragraph to explain the use of AMF as an alternative to silver compounds.

Modify the tables according to the Journal template.

Use the full Latin names of plant species in the text and tables. When mentioned again, you can abbreviate the specific name. For example, Ocimum basilicum L. (full), O. basilicum (short)

Table 1 Check the spelling of the Latin names of plants (1 column). Rename the "Substrate" column to "Substrate/Hydroponics Type" and fill in the appropriate column with the required information.

Lines 172-173 Part of the text after Table 1 is apparently lost. Check which part of the text is missing.

Colonization of roots by AMF is reduced when grown in soilless substrates compared to soil ones, but you do not explain this fact.

Lines 355-357 “The addition of macro- and micronutrients fertilizers in hydroponics can potentially lead to an increase in the soilless nutrient solution”. What do you mean?

Line 366 Check and change “re-circulating”

Lines 369-371 This is useful information, but no analysis followed. Please describe what problem the authors [65] considered and how this affects AMF inoculation.

Line 410 Check and change “…AMF [G. fasciculatum)…”

Check the format of the list of references used (remove DOI)

You only talk about economic efficiency in Conclusion, but it is the main indicator that determines the feasibility of using AMF in hydroponics.

In recent years, this topic (AMF in hydroponics) has not been very popular (4-5 publications per year), how can you explain this?

In addition, the text of the work is written in a rather difficult language. Please rewrite it.

I also ask you to add a diagram or figure reflecting the methods of adding AMF, the disadvantages and advantages of their use.

Multiple grammatic and syntax errors.

Understand to (of)

“higher plant height”

“scientific research studies” etc.

Author Response

The manuscript “Do arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi have the potential to improve crop productivity and quality in hydroponics: A meta-analysis“ is devoted to research on the use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in hydroponic conditions. In my opinion, the manuscript lacks analytical conclusions made by the authors themselves, based on the described literary sources. For example, assumptions or explanations for the difference in the degree of AMF colonization, whether the use of AMF in hydroponic installations is economically feasible and for which crops their use is relevant and in what time frame.

We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. We feel the revision incorporated in the manuscript have strengthened the manuscript and hope the reviewer will now find it suitable for publication.

I believe the authors need to seriously rework the article. Also, please correct the following points:

Our response: We agree, the new version of the manuscript has been potentially improved. We restructured the discussion part and we also revised the table and figure 5. In addition, the conclusion part has been fully re-written.

Line 1 Please correct the title of the manuscript due to grammatical mistakes.

Our response: We agree, the title has been revised as follows:

Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance crop productivity and quality in hydroponics?: A meta-analysis.

Line 12 Check and change "Understand to" (of)

Our response: Corrected.

How is the percentage of root colonization calculated? Give general information and determination methods.

Good point. A general brief method for calculating the root colonization was added in the abstract.

Line 33 Add "arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)" to Keywords

Our response: AMF was added to the keywords.

Line 97 Please correct “Hydroponic systems” to “Hydroponic method”

Our response: corrected.

In the Introduction section, it should be more clearly described what AMF is, what species belong to this group of fungi, and how they are used.

Our response: the following paragraph was added in the introduction: AMF are a group of beneficial fungi that form symbiotic associations with the roots of most land plants. They belong to the Glomeromycota phylum and are characterized by their ability to form arbuscules and vesicles within plant root cells. These specialized structures facilitate the exchange of nutrients between the fungus and the plant host, with the fungus providing essential nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen to the plant in exchange for carbon compounds. Common species of AMF include Rhizophagus irregularis (formerly Glomus intraradices), Funneliformis mosseae (formerly Glomus mosseae), and Claroideoglomus etunicatum (formerly Glomus etunicatum). AMF can be applied as inoculants to seeds, roots, or growing media to establish symbiotic associations with plants and promote their overall health and productivity.

Line 101 Check and change scientific research studies “higher plant height”.

Our response: changed to “had more plant length”.

Line 114 Please rephrase “scientific research studies”

Our response: changed to “available research results”

I advise you to more clearly describe the goals and objectives of the study.

Our response: We agree, the objectives has been revised. 

Line 115 Please rephrase “This provides an overview of…”

Our response: The paragraph was rephrased as follows “This offers an overview of the profitability associated with the combined utilization of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) in conjunction with hydroponic systems for crop production, contrasting it with either hydroponic or AMF-supported soil cultivation. Such insights aim to stimulate further research efforts and the development of commercial applications in the future.”

Line 187 “air bubbles”? Please use special terms (aeration etc.)

Our response: This paragraph was rewritten.

You use a link to the [14] source of literature in a row in one paragraph. It's better to

rewrite this paragraph and make it more interesting.

Our response: This paragraph was rewritten as follows: Various hydroponic techniques have been proposed for integrating arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), including floating, nutrient film technique (NFT), aeroponics, and drip systems. In the floating system, plant roots are suspended in a nutrient solution-filled bed or reservoir, with an air pump ensuring adequate oxygen supply to prevent root oxygen deprivation. NFT systems involve suspending plants above a continuous film of nutrient solution. In aeroponics, plants are suspended in the air, with AMF-inoculated roots exposed to a mist of nutrient solution (14).

Line 221 Please explain “…saffron can benefit from essential nutrients without competition with pathogens or abiotic stresses associated to nutrient-soil interaction.”

Our response: the following explanation was added: These systems provide an optimal environment for saffron growth, allowing for precise control over nutrient availability and minimizing the risk of soil-borne diseases. Additionally, soilless cultivation methods reduce the likelihood of nutrient imbalances or deficiencies, promoting healthier plant development and potentially higher yields.

Lines 240-242 Please describe in more detail why you mentioned silver ions or move [44], [45] to the end of the paragraph to explain the use of AMF as an alternative to silver compounds.

Our response: We agree. The paragraph revised as follow:

Mycorrhizal colonization in soilless grown cut flower snapdragons (Antirrhinum majus L.) significantly increased the vase life of flowers by reducing ethylene production [46]. Although AMF did not lead to an increase in the number of flowers per spray or the concentration of flower P, its broader influence on host ethylene production indicates that this microbial association might offer a viable alternative to chemical ethylene inhibitors like silver thiosulfate and silver nitrate, which are known for their high toxicity [44, 45, 46].

Modify the tables according to the Journal template.

Our response: The table has been modified.

Use the full Latin names of plant species in the text and tables. When mentioned again, you can abbreviate the specific name. For example, Ocimum basilicum L. (full), O. basilicum (short)

Our response: done for all the Latin names within the text and the table.

Table 1 Check the spelling of the Latin names of plants (1 column). Rename the "Substrate" column to "Substrate/Hydroponics Type" and fill in the appropriate column with the required information.

Our response: Spelling was checked, Substrate was renamed and the appropriate hydroponic method was added.

Lines 172-173 Part of the text after Table 1 is apparently lost. Check which part of the text is missing.

Our response: The missing sentence was added.

Colonization of roots by AMF is reduced when grown in soilless substrates compared to soil ones, but you do not explain this fact.

Our response: The following sentence was added: One possibility is that the absence of soil in soil-less substrates alters the microenvironment and conditions required for AMF colonization. 

Lines 355-357 “The addition of macro- and micronutrients fertilizers in hydroponics can potentially lead to an increase in the soilless nutrient solution”. What do you mean?

Our response: Text revised as follows: The addition of macro- and micronutrients fertilizers in hydroponics can potentially lead to an increase in the soilless nutrient solution electrical conductivity.

Line 366 Check and change “re-circulating”

Our response: corrected to recirculating.

Lines 369-371 This is useful information, but no analysis followed. Please describe what problem the authors [65] considered and how this affects AMF inoculation.

Our response: This paragraph has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 410 Check and change “…AMF [G. fasciculatum)…”

Our response: corrected to G. fasciculatum.

Check the format of the list of references used (remove DOI)

Our response: The references format has been checked and the DOI removed.

You only talk about economic efficiency in Conclusion, but it is the main indicator that determines the feasibility of using AMF in hydroponics.

Our response: It is a good point, however, the economical assessment of AMF X hydroponics is beyond the main objective of this study. We highlighted the economical importance of AMF X hydroponics in the conclusion session to direct future studies about the importance of the topic.

In recent years, this topic (AMF in hydroponics) has not been very popular (4-5 publications per year), how can you explain this?

Our response: We agree. We added the following paragraph before figure 1: The incorporation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) into hydroponic systems presents challenges stemming from cost and complexity, as growers may face additional expenses and logistical difficulties in sourcing AMF inoculants, optimizing inoculation methods, and managing the symbiotic relationship between fungi and plants in a soilless environment. Furthermore, limited research and awareness about the potential benefits of AMF in hydroponics contribute to their underutilization, with growers often prioritizing factors such as nutrient management and disease control over the integration of AMF. The relatively low popularity of AMF in hydroponics, as evidenced by the scarcity of recent publications, is influenced by various factors. Traditional hydroponic systems, designed to deliver optimized nutrient solutions directly to plants, diminish the perceived necessity for root symbionts like AMF to scavenge for nutrients. Moreover, the historical focus of AMF research on soil-based agricultural systems diverts attention from their potential advantages in hydroponics. Challenges related to the application of AMF inoculants, coupled with scepticism about their efficacy and cost-effectiveness, may further discourage exploration of their use in hydroponic setups. Despite these barriers, growing interest in sustainable agriculture and soil health may catalyse renewed exploration and adoption of AMF in hydroponic systems in the future.

In addition, the text of the work is written in a rather difficult language. Please rewrite it.

Our response: We agree. The manuscript has been fully checked. Flow and grammatical errors have been addressed and revised.

I also ask you to add a diagram or figure reflecting the methods of adding AMF, the disadvantages and advantages of their use.

Our response: Based on the previous studies. The main approach to add AMF to the plants was mainly by inoculating the transplants with AMF prior to place into the hydroponic system.

Multiple gramatical errors

Our response: The revised manuscript has been full checked for gramtical errors. 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript "Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance crop productivity and quality in hydroponics? A meta-analysis" has been significantly improved and revised. Reviewers' comments have been taken into account. However, I still believe that authors need to re-proofread the manuscript for errors in the English translation. Please also pay attention to the following points:

Line 92 “Employing AMF in the cultivation…”

Line 97 This phrase sounds strange. I advise you to rephrase “…nutrient uptake resulted from leaves…” (…nutrient uptake (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu)…)

Line 101 Check and change “…plants need to be cultured in the sand”

Please check the text for the correct use of definite articles “the”.

Line 110 It’s better to use ‘Solanum lycopersicum L.’ Latin name.

Line 112 Check and change “had more plant length”

Lines 121-124 “This offers an overview of the profitability associated with the combined utilization of AMF in conjunction with hydroponic systems for crop production”. Check this sentence and explain its meaning. You haven't assessed profitability. Maybe you had in mind the advisability of using these techniques together.

Figure 1 Change the figure name. “Cumulative publications on mycorrhiza and hydroponics- related keywords in prominent scientific databases over the past 100 years.” (since 2002)

Line 253 Check and change “strawberryies”

Lines 413, 474, 504 Check the design of the subsections.

Change design of the reference list to match the journal template (4, 5, 13, 15, 16 etc.)

Line 92 “Employing AMF in the cultivation…”

Line 97 This phrase sounds strange. I advise you to rephrase “…nutrient uptake resulted from leaves…” (…nutrient uptake (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu)…)

Line 101 Check and change “…plants need to be cultured in the sand”

Line 112 Check and change “had more plant length”

Line 253 Check and change “strawberryies”

Author Response

The manuscript "Can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance crop productivity and quality in hydroponics? A meta-analysis" has been significantly improved and revised. Reviewers' comments have been taken into account. However, I still believe that authors need to re-proofread the manuscript for errors in the English translation. Please also pay attention to the following points:

Our response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful comments. We feel the revision incorporated in the manuscript have strengthened the manuscript and hope the reviewer will now find it suitable for publication.

Line 92 “Employing AMF in the cultivation…”

Our response: Text revised.

Line 97 This phrase sounds strange. I advise you to rephrase “…nutrient uptake resulted from leaves…” (…nutrient uptake (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu)…)

Our response: The paragraph revised as follow” Furthermore, when 80% of mineral fertilizers are used in combination with a mixture of mycorrhiza and bacteria bio-fertilizers, the concentration of mineral nutrients (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu) in the leaves of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) plants were higher than that of the control (100% mineral fertilizer without bio-fertilizers)”

Line 101 Check and change “…plants need to be cultured in the sand” Please check the text for the correct use of definite articles “the”.

Our response: ‘the’ removed.

Line 110 It’s better to use ‘Solanum lycopersicum L.’ Latin name.

Our response: Latin name replaced.

Line 112 Check and change “had more plant length”

Our response: ‘more’ replaced with ‘higher’

Lines 121-124 “This offers an overview of the profitability associated with the combined utilization of AMF in conjunction with hydroponic systems for crop production”. Check this sentence and explain its meaning. You haven't assessed profitability. Maybe you had in mind the advisability of using these techniques together.

We agree. The “profitability” replaced with ‘effectiveness’  

Figure 1 Change the figure name. “Cumulative publications on mycorrhiza and hydroponics- related keywords in prominent scientific databases over the past 100 years.” (since 2002)

We agree. The figure caption revised.

Line 253 Check and change “strawberryies”

Our response: “strawberryies” replaced with ‘“strawberry”

Lines 413, 474, 504 Check the design of the subsections.

Our response: The subsections revised following the journal templet instructions.

Change design of the reference list to match the journal template (4, 5, 13, 15, 16 etc.)

Our response: The reference section has been fully checked and revised.