Exploring Potential Soil Bacteria for Sustainable Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Production
, Jabar Zaman Khan Khattak 7 and Shakeel Ahmad 8Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Exploring the potential soil bacteria…wheat
Sheirdil et al. (submitted) evaluated the potential of ten strains of soil bacteria as biofertilizers for growing wheat. The paper has value because it is one of the few studies that evaluated the response of crops in the lab and in the field. The Biolog and Fatty acid data adds little. Move Tables 6 and 7 to supplemental material.
My major concern is the format and style of the presentation. The text requires numerous edits, which I cannot possibly detail. Practically every sentence requires revisions. Here are some examples.
Specific
Line 20. Change to “…formulations of PGPR could allow growers to reduce the use synthetic fertilizers, without sacrificing yield.”
Line 21 and 62. Delete empty phrases like “Keeping in view”
Line 23. Italicize in vitro and in vivo and delete “potential”.
Line 25. Delete “further”
Line 26. Delete phrases like “We found significant” and “The results of the present study revealed that (line 28 & 29).” If you are reporting results we presume you found them. Revise to “Wheat growth increased significantly in response to inoculation of seeds in both pot studies and field trials.”
Line 30. The yield increase associated with PGPR-treatment was greatest at reduced levels of chemical fertilizer”
Line 32. Move “These strains…and Biolog.” To after “(IAA)” (line 25).
Line 33. Delete “It can be concluded…chemical fertilizers.”
Line 39. Delete “The importance..extent.”
Line 40. Revise to “..(PGPR) can enhance plant growth and crop yield by several mechanisms. PGPR can produce hormones that stimulate plant growth, make nutrients available…”
Line 44-47. Delete section “Numerous types… for the plants (Vessey 2003).”
Line 48. PGPR have been identified in many genera, including…”
Line 51. Revise to “Wheat is a major staple food in Pakistan but low soil fertility, inadequate irrigation and inefficient fertilizer use limit yields. Low organic content of soils in Pakistan correspond to poor soil structure and fertility...”
LIine 54-62. Move this section “Beneficial effects…38 percent.” To line 43.
Line 66-68. Revise this section to state “In this study we demonstrated that application of a consortium of rhizobacteria could allow growers to half synthetic fertilizer application without sacrificing yield.”
Line 74. Delete “used in this study”
Line 76. Delete “For plant growth..in plants.”
Line 79. Revise to “ACC activity (Table 1).”
Line 80. Here and throughout. Write in the active voice. Revise to “Strain RA-8 showed the highest rate of ACC..”
Line 89-92. Do not start Results by repeating Methods. Delete “All strains..of all isolates.” Also, move line 119 and 122 to Methods.
Line 97-99. Move (“For phylogenetic..server.” to Methods.
Line 100-109. Move MIDI and Biolog discussion and Tables to Supplemental.
Line 135-137. This section requires revision. I am not sure what parameters correlated.
Line 151. Delete “Bacterial inoculants..because.”
Line 153. Replace with “Few studies of PGPR include field trials..”
Line 162. Delete “much less as compared to our results.”
Line 164. This section repeats line 137 and isn’t clear here either.
Line 175-185. This section repeats justification. Delete.
Line 244. What are “rhizo beg trays”?
Line 279. Only cap proper nouns in reference titles (A tool for biobleaching…)
Line 286 and 306. Be consistent in journals. Soil Biol. Biochem. Or Soil Biology & Biochemistry.
Line 301. Proofread references! (Applied Soil Ecology).
Line 316, 372... Italicize genus and species (Medicago..Pseudomonas…)
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments,
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript. These comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections. We hope these modifications will make the manuscript qualify to be published in the journal. Thank you very much for your time and effort you expend in our work.
Sincerely yours,
Mukhtar Ahmed
Ref: sustainability-499277
Reviewers' comments:
Point 1: Extensive editing of English language and style required.
Answer: Thank you for your comment and suggestion, we have invited a good English editor (from our department with an agronomic background) to refine the grammar and language.
Point 2: Yes, introduction provide the sufficient background and include all relevant references.
Answer: Thank you.
Point 3: Yes, the research design is appropriate.
Answer: Thank you.
Point 4: Improve the methods adequately described.
Answer: We have added more information in materials and methods.
Point 5: Improve the results?
Answer: We have revised the results and made corrections in results after carefully reading the manuscript.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: Sheirdil et al. (submitted) evaluated the potential of ten strains of soil bacteria as biofertilizers for growing wheat. The paper has value because it is one of the few studies that evaluated the response of crops in the lab and in the field. The Biolog and Fatty acid data adds little. Move Tables 6 and 7 to supplemental material.
My major concern is the format and style of the presentation. The text requires numerous edits, which I cannot possibly detail. Practically every sentence requires revisions. Here are some examples.
Answer: Thank you for your letter and positive comments, Sir, we moved the table 6 and 7 to supplemental material. In addition, Sir, we have revised the manuscript carefully and invited a English editor (from our department with an agronomic background) to refine the grammar and language.
Point 2: Line 20 Change to “…formulations of PGPR could allow growers to reduce the use synthetic fertilizers, without sacrificing yield.”
Answer: Sir, we have modified the sentences as you suggested to us.
Point 3: Line 21 and 62 Delete empty phrases like “Keeping in view”
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, Sir, we have deleted the empty phrases.
Point 4: Line 23 Italicize in vitro and in vivo and delete “potential”.
Answer: We have Italicized the words and deleted the word potential as you suggested to us.
Point 5: Line 25 Delete “further”
Answer: We have deleted the word ‘further’ from line 25.
Point 6: Line 26 Delete phrases like “We found significant” and “The results of the present study revealed that (line 28 & 29).” If you are reporting results, we presume you found them. Revise to “Wheat growth increased significantly in response to inoculation of seeds in both pot studies and field trials.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted and revised the sentences according your comments.
Point 7: Line 30 The yield increase associated with PGPR-treatment was greatest at reduced levels of chemical fertilizer”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have revised the sentence according your comments.
Point 8: Line 32 Move “These strains…and Biolog.” To after “(IAA)” (line 25).
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have moved the sentence according your comments.
Point 9: Line 33 Delete “It can be concluded…chemical fertilizers.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 10: Line 39 Delete “The importance..extent.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 11: Line 40 Revise to “..(PGPR) can enhance plant growth and crop yield by several mechanisms. PGPR can produce hormones that stimulate plant growth, make nutrients available…”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have revised the sentences according your comments.
Point 12: Line 44-47 Delete section “Numerous types… for the plants (Vessey 2003).”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 13: Line 48 PGPR have been identified in many genera, including…”
Answer: Sir, we have revised the sentence.
Point 14: Line 51 Revise to “Wheat is a major staple food in Pakistan but low soil fertility, inadequate irrigation and inefficient fertilizer use limit yields. Low organic content of soils in Pakistan correspond to poor soil structure and fertility...”
Answer: Dear Sir, we have revised the sentences as you suggested to us.
Point 15: Line 54-62 Move this section “Beneficial effects…38 percent.” To line 43.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have moved the sentences according your comments.
Point 16: Line 66-68 Revise this section to state “In this study we demonstrated that application of a consortium of rhizobacteria could allow growers to half synthetic fertilizer application without sacrificing yield.”
Answer: Dear Sir, we have revised the sentences as you suggested to us.
Point 17: Line 74 Delete “used in this study”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 18: Line 76 Delete “For plant growth….in plants.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 19: Line 79 Revise to “ACC activity (Table 1).”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have revised the sentence as you suggested.
Point 20: Line 80 Here and throughout. Write in the active voice. Revise to “Strain RA-8 showed the highest rate of ACC”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have re-write the sentences in active voice and revised the sentence as you suggested.
Point 21: Line 89-92 Do not start Results by repeating Methods. Delete “All strains...of all isolates.” Also, move line 119 and 122 to Methods.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted and moved the suggested sentences.
Point 22: Line 97-99 Move (“For phylogenetic...server.” to Methods.
Answer: Dear Sir, we have moved the sentence as you suggested.
Point 23: Line 100-109 Move MIDI and Biolog discussion and Tables to Supplemental.
Answer: Dear Sir, we have moved the sentence as you suggested.
Point 24: Line 135-137 This section requires revision. I am not sure what parameters correlated.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have revised the sentences and clearly corelated the sentences.
Point 25: Line 151 Delete “Bacterial inoculants...because.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 26: Line 153 Replace with “Few studies of PGPR include field trials….”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have replaced the sentence as you suggested.
Point 27: Line 162 Delete “much less as compared to our results.”
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 28: Line 164 This section repeats line 137 and isn’t clear here either.
Answer: Thank you for your comments. Sir, we have deleted the repeated sentences and re-write for clear meaning.
Point 29: Line 175-185 This section repeats justification. Delete.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have deleted the sentence as you suggested.
Point 30: Line 244 What are “rhizo beg trays”?
Answer: Corrected as Trays????
Point 32: Line 279 Only cap proper nouns in reference titles (A tool for biobleaching…)
Answer: Its part of citation and authors have their ow titles so unable to modify it.
Point 33: Line 286 and 306 Be consistent in journals. Soil Biol. Biochem. Or Soil Biology & Biochemistry.
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have corrected the mistake as you suggested.
Point 34: Line 301 Proofread references! (Applied Soil Ecology).
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have checked and corrected the references.
Point 35: Line 316, 372... Italicize genus and species (Medicago..Pseudomonas…)
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have corrected the mistake according your comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Review of “exploring the potential soil bacteria for sustainable wheat production” Rizwan Ali Sheirdil et al 2019; Sustainability
General comments:
This topic is of significant interest and important for sustainable agriculture.
English language improvements are needed throughout; specifically attention to proper use of prepositions would improve the manuscript (prepositions are absent or confusing in several instances).
The methods section would be improved by including substantially more detail, especially in the section “response of wheat to potential…”
Some results may be preferred as supplementary information (Table 3 and 4, currently mislabeled as Tables 6 and 7). Results of grain yields are ambiguous – what is the area measured? How was the harvest performed?
The discussion should more fully address field trial results and grain yields. Better use of citations is needed in the discussion section. Propose next steps for research. How does this result improve sustainability of the system? How might this be implemented? Or what additional research is needed in order make recommendations to wheat farmers?
Specific comments by line number:
34 replace in with to
41 add ‘that’ instead of comma
55 -58 proper citations needed
72 define ACC in ACC deaminase activity and why it is useful metric
112 Table 6 should be relabeled as Table 3, or removed to supplementary information
114 Table 7 should be relabeled as Table 4 or removed to supplementary information, text style of title inconsistent
132 additional details would be helpful – what precisely is meant by ‘ inoculants efficacy decreases…”?
142-143 additional details on yield results would be helpful
150 Discussion section: additional discussion on the link between healthy soil rhizobia and reduced need for inorganic fertilizer; instances of ‘results correlate significantly’ with other reports should be removed. Correlations should refer to specific statistical analyses generally.
For example:
166 replace ‘ correlate significantly’ with ‘confirm’
168, 176 appropriate use of citations needed
180 objective is to reduce “ the need for” chemical fertilizers – correct?
196 – why do you think this effect occurred?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments,
Thank you for your letter and the comments concerning our manuscript. These comments are valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections. We hope these modifications will make the manuscript qualify to be published in the journal. Thank you very much for your time and effort you expend in our work.
Sincerely yours,
Mukhtar Ahmed
Ref: sustainability-499277
Reviewers' comments:
Point 1: Moderate English changes required.
Answer: Thank you for your comment, we have carefully read the manuscript and corrected our mistakes.
Point 2: Yes, introduction provide the sufficient background and include all relevant references.
Answer: Thank you.
Point 3: Yes, the research design is appropriate.
Answer: Thank you.
Point 4: Improve the methods adequately described.
Answer: We have added more information in materials and methods.
Point 5: Yes, the conclusions supported by the results?
Answer: Thank you.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Point 1: This topic is of significant interest and important for sustainable agriculture.
English language improvements are needed throughout; specifically, attention to proper use of prepositions would improve the manuscript (prepositions are absent or confusing in several instances).
Answer: Thank you for your comment and suggestion, we have invited a good English editor (from our department with an agronomic background) to refine the grammar and language.
The methods section would be improved by including substantially more detail, especially in the section “response of wheat to potential…”
Answer: Dear Sir, we have added more information in materials and methods.
Some results may be preferred as supplementary information (Table 3 and 4, currently mislabelled as Tables 6 and 7). Results of grain yields are ambiguous – what is the area measured? How was the harvest performed?
Answer: Tables now corrected and information about harvested pot area and field area has been added to give idea how much area was harvested and then it was converted to Kg ha-1.
The discussion should more fully address field trial results and grain yields. Better use of citations is needed in the discussion section. Propose next steps for research. How does this result improve sustainability of the system? How might this be implemented? Or what additional research is needed in order make recommendations to wheat farmers?
Answer: Suggestions incorporated.
Specific comments by line number:
Line 34 replace in with to
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. Sir, we have replaced the ‘in’ with ‘to’ as you suggested to us.
Line 41 add ‘that’ instead of comma
Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, Sir, we have added ‘that’ as you suggested.
Line 55-58 proper citations needed
Answer: Sir, we have provided the proper citation.
Line 72 define ACC in ACC deaminase activity and why it is useful metric
Answer: Its standard to use as such.
Line 112 Table 6 should be relabeled as Table 3, or removed to supplementary information
Answer: Suggestions incorporated.
Line 132 132 additional details would be helpful – what precisely is meant by ‘inoculants efficacy decreases…”?
Answer: This line has been deleted.
Line 142-143 additional details on yield results would be helpful
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have added the more details n results as you directed us to include.
Line 150 Discussion section: additional discussion on the link between healthy soil rhizobia and reduced need for inorganic fertilizer; instances of ‘results correlate significantly’ with other reports should be removed. Correlations should refer to specific statistical analyses generally.
Answer: Corrected as suggested.
Line 166 replace ‘correlate significantly’ with ‘confirm’
Answer: Thank you for your comment. Sir, we have replaced the word as you suggested.
Line 158, 176 appropriate use of citations needed
Answer: Dear Sir, we have included the appropriate citations.
Line 180 objective is to reduce “the need for” chemical fertilizers – correct?
Answer: Yes and now it has been modified,
Line 196 196 – why do you think this effect occurred?
Answer: Suggestion incorporated, and it would be because of availability of nutrients.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My major concern remains the format and style of the presentation. Numerous suggestions were apparently not followed, which is fine if the authors can rebut my comments, but in most cases it appears that the authors simply claimed to make changes. The text I received to review does not have those changes and still requires numerous edits. Here are some examples from the first 50 lines. It doesn’t make sense for me to continue to review, if my suggestions are ignored.
Specific
Line 20. Change to “…formulations of PGPR could allow growers to reduce the use synthetic fertilizers, without sacrificing yield.” Ignored by authors.
Line 21 and 62. Delete empty phrases like “Keeping in view” Ignored by authors
Line 26. Delete phrases like “We found significant” and “The results of the present study revealed that (line 28 & 29).” If you are reporting results we presume you found them. Revise to “Wheat growth increased significantly in response to inoculation of seeds in both pot studies and field trials.” Ignored in revision. The revised abstract contains the phrases “We noticed a substantial” and “Results of the present study”
Line 30. The yield increase associated with PGPR-treatment was greatest at reduced levels of chemical fertilizer”
Line 35. Replace “Strains were…besides biology” with “Strains were identified and 16S rRNA gene sequencing and further characterized by fatty acid and metabolite utilization profiling.”
Line 37. Suggestion to delete “It can be concluded…chemical fertilizer” was changed to “It can be determined…chemical fertilizers” instead of deleting it.
Line 39. Delete “The importance..extent.” This suggestion was ignored.
Line 40. Revise to “..(PGPR) can enhance plant growth and crop yield by several mechanisms. PGPR can produce hormones that stimulate plant growth, make nutrients available…” This suggestion was ignored.
Line 44-47. Delete section “Numerous types… for the plants (Vessey 2003).” This suggestion was ignored.
Line 48. PGPR have been identified in many genera, including…”
Author Response
Version 2:
General comments
Point 1: English language and style, (x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response 1: English language and style have been improved after consulting native English speaker.
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Point 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Response 2: Thanks for supporting comment | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 3: Are the methods adequately described? Response 3: Thanks | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 4: Are the results clearly presented? Response 4: Now we tried to improve results presentation. | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Point 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response 5: Thanks | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 6: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
My major concern remains the format and style of the presentation. Numerous suggestions were apparently not followed, which is fine if the authors can rebut my comments, but in most cases it appears that the authors simply claimed to make changes. The text I received to review does not have those changes and still requires numerous edits. Here are some examples from the first 50 lines. It doesn’t make sense for me to continue to review, if my suggestions are ignored.
Response 6: All suggestions are incorporated now in revised version. Sorry about some points as it was not incorporated earlier. However, now checked throughout the manuscript completely.
Point 7: Specific
Line 20. Change to “…formulations of PGPR could allow growers to reduce the use synthetic fertilizers, without sacrificing yield.” Ignored by authors.
Response 7: Suggestions incorporated kindly see Line 36-37 under Abstract.
Point 8: Line 21 and 62. Delete empty phrases like “Keeping in view” Ignored by authors
Response 8: It was deleted earlier and there is no Keeping in View in the whole article. Please have a look.
Point 9: Line 26. Delete phrases like “We found significant” and “The results of the present study revealed that (line 28 & 29).” If you are reporting results we presume you found them. Revise to “Wheat growth increased significantly in response to inoculation of seeds in both pot studies and field trials.” Ignored in revision. The revised abstract contains the phrases “We noticed a substantial” and “Results of the present study”
Response 9: Corrected as suggested. Please have a look throughout manuscript.
Point 10: Line 30. The yield increase associated with PGPR-treatment was greatest at reduced levels of chemical fertilizer”
Response 10: Not found this line in complete manuscript so it was corrected earlier.
Point 11: Line 35. Replace “Strains were…besides biology” with “Strains were identified and 16S rRNA gene sequencing and further characterized by fatty acid and metabolite utilization profiling.”
Response 11: This line has been added. Kindly see under heading of Identification of bacterial strains using 16S rRNA gene sequencing Page 9.
Point 12: Line 37. Suggestion to delete “It can be concluded…chemical fertilizer” was changed to “It can be determined…chemical fertilizers” instead of deleting it.
Response 12: We have not found this statement in our revised submitted article however it has been checked again to avoid confusion.
Point 13: Line 39. Delete “The importance..extent.” This suggestion was ignored.
Response 13: Deleted Kindly see start of introduction Line 41.
Point 14: Line 40. Revise to “..(PGPR) can enhance plant growth and crop yield by several mechanisms. PGPR can produce hormones that stimulate plant growth, make nutrients available…” This suggestion was ignored.
Response 14: Added kindly see Line 42 to 43.
Point 15: Line 44-47. Delete section “Numerous types… for the plants (Vessey 2003).” This suggestion was ignored.
Response 15: This line has been deleted Kindly see Line 44 where it was earlier available.
Point 16: Line 48. PGPR have been identified in many genera, including…”
Response 16: It was modified in earlier version however rechecked again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Version 2:
General comments
Abstract needs carefully reviewed for English fluency – some phrases remain unclear.
Text needs carefully reviewed for English fluency and correct punctuation throughout.
Few of the prior general comments were addressed from version 1, although several line-by-line edits were made.
Comments by line number, revised version 2:
48 plant*s*
60 citation? Is this is also [6]?
69 rephrase objective, lacking English fluency
124 rephrase…seeds were inoculated with individual bacterium strains (number T 1 through 10, see table XX) and grown for 1 month…(the bacterium are not inoculated, the seeds are)
142 replace ‘to’ with ‘during the’
No line numbers: page 7:
“Our investigation was based on three… rephrase: Our investigation was based on three experiments including in vitro and in vivo conditions. We focused on quantitation of the effect of inoculants individually and in consortia on wheat plants grown under full and half the recommended fertilization rate.”
“[13] much less compared to our results” Please rephrase – this is ambiguous. Did your results show more or less than 25% increase in numbers of tillers?
“negative correlation…” Can this be rephrased if appropriate: In our study, as inorganic fertilizer rates increased, PGP efficacy decreased, showing a negative correlation (R2=0.91) similar to those of [14-15].
“Results also showed that when PGPR …” are these results from your study or from [16] or from [14-15] ? please clarify
Top of page 8:
“…bacteria as inoculants. And Our results showed…and, may be useful
“promote plant growth directly <<add a comma>>, or indirectly by producing ACC…”
“plant developing plants…”
Bottom of paragraph: “our results improve the sustainability…” rephrase: Our results show that use of PGPR in wheat production could reduce the need for inorganic fertilizers while maintaining or improving yields.
Table 5. please add Grain yield in terms of kg/ha as shown for Table 4. Then use this value in end of discussion and conclusion to support the statement that less inorganic fertilizer is needed to maintain grain and/or total biomass yield.
Conclusion: rephrasing is needed throughout to improve English fluency.
Methods: Response of wheat:
What is the seeding and plant density? Was it the same for chamber/ pot / and field? Was the seed pre-treated in any way? Does it come commercially treated?
The fertilizer recommendations is from where? Is this typical of farmer fields in the area? Is this based on existing soil fertility of the field test plots? You make a claim on sustainability of the whole system with very little background information.
Author Response
Version 2:
General comments
Point 1: Abstract needs carefully reviewed for English fluency – some phrases remain unclear.
Response 1: Abstract has been revised completely. Please see below as well as in main file:
Inorganic fertilizers usage could be reduced and replaced by the application of climate friendly plant-growth-promoting rhizo-bacteria (PGPR). It is promising ecofriendly and sustainable crop production technology. Thus, present study was designed to explore and assess inoculation result of native rhizospheric-bacteria on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop growth and productivity under in vitro and in vivo conditions. Bacterial strains were isolated from wheat sandy loam rhizospheric soil (33o14’26.38” N and 72o23’10.29” E) and 10 prospective strains were designated on account of ACC deaminase activity, siderophore productivity, P-solubilization besides productivity of indole acetic acid (IAA). Furthermore, the strains were tested in 03 experiments (growth-chamber, pots having an experimental area of 0.05 m2 and field). Results showed that strains possess four PGP traits i.e. production of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), solubilization of insoluble tricalcium phosphate, ACC deaminase activity and siderophore production which resulted to the increase in shoot length, root length, fresh and dry weight of plants under growth chamber study. Similarly, under pot trial maximum crop traits were observed under consortium + half dose while under field conditions maximum crop parameters were detected in case of consortium 1 and consortium 2 along with half recommended dose of fertilizer. Results of the present study confirmed that these strains could be used in various combinations with inorganic fertilizers to have maximum sustainable crop production and it will also help to reduce usage of chemical fertilizers.
Point 2: Text needs carefully reviewed for English fluency and correct punctuation throughout.
Response 2: Suggestion incorporated please.
Point 3: Few of the prior general comments were addressed from version 1, although several line-by-line edits were made.
Response 3: Suggestion incorporated please.
Comments by line number, revised version 2:
Point 4: 48 plant*s*
Response 4: S has been removed from Plants
Point 5: 60 citation? Is this is also [6]?
Response 5: Yes, line has been modified.
Point 6: 69 rephrase objective, lacking English fluency
Response 6: Rephrased as suggested.
Point 7: 124 rephrase…seeds were inoculated with individual bacterium strains (number T 1 through 10, see table XX) and grown for 1 month…(the bacterium are not inoculated, the seeds are)
Response 7: Corrected
Point 8: 142 replace ‘to’ with ‘during the’
Response 8: Replaced as suggested.
Point 9: No line numbers: page 7:
Response 9: Corrected
Point 10: “Our investigation was based on three… rephrase: Our investigation was based on three experiments including in vitro and in vivo conditions. We focused on quantitation of the effect of inoculants individually and in consortia on wheat plants grown under full and half the recommended fertilization rate.”
Response 10: Corrected as suggested.
Point 11: “[13] much less compared to our results” Please rephrase – this is ambiguous. Did your results show more or less than 25% increase in numbers of tillers?
Response 11: Corrected as suggested.
Point 12: “negative correlation…” Can this be rephrased if appropriate: In our study, as inorganic fertilizer rates increased, PGP efficacy decreased, showing a negative correlation (R2=0.91) similar to those of [14-15].
Response 12: Suggestion incorporated.
Point 13: “Results also showed that when PGPR …” are these results from your study or from [16] or from [14-15] ? please clarify
Response 13: Corrected (Our results also showed that when PGPR inoculants were applied with full recommended dose of fertilizer the crop growth parameter and yield were lower than the half dose rate of recommended fertilizer with PGPR inoculants).
Top of page 8:
Point 14: “…bacteria as inoculants. And Our results showed…and, may be useful
Response 14: Corrected and rephrased.
Point 15: “promote plant growth directly <<add a comma>>, or indirectly by producing ACC…”
Response 15: Added.
Point 16: “plant developing plants…”
Response 16: Plant deleted.
Point 17: Bottom of paragraph: “our results improve the sustainability…” rephrase: Our results show that use of PGPR in wheat production could reduce the need for inorganic fertilizers while maintaining or improving yields.
Response 17: Suggestion incorporated.
Point 18: Table 5. please add Grain yield in terms of kg/ha as shown for Table 4. Then use this value in end of discussion and conclusion to support the statement that less inorganic fertilizer is needed to maintain grain and/or total biomass yield.
Response 18: Suggestion incorporated (Our findings could improve the sustainability of the whole system as it will minimize use of inorganic fertilizers which are major causes of global warming and climate change. Since consortium 2 + half dose treatment resulted to the maximum production of thousand grain weight and grain yield thus it should be used further to have sustainable crop yield in future. Furthermore, it is recommended that multilocation trial should be conducted to have more detailed information about available PGPR and its linkage with local industry).
Point 19: Conclusion: rephrasing is needed throughout to improve English fluency.
Response 19: Corrected as suggested (Extensive use of inorganic fertilizers led to the dangerous ecological effects and therefore the biological approaches such as PGPR could be recommended to prevent further deterioration of the environment. Results showed that the application of PGPR in a consortium and alone improves wheat crop growth and yield. The isolation and usage of indigenous PGPR is more beneficial as it can reduce the rate of inorganic fertilizers. Similarly, the side effects of inorganic fertilizers on soil health could be mitigated by the application of PGPR with less dose of NPK. Moreover, in present study PGPRs were used with a lower dose of fertilizer thus it is an environment-friendly technology which can minimize soil pollution and maximize crop returns).
Point 20: Methods: Response of wheat:
Response 20: Modified as “Potential soil bacteria effect on wheat crop under controlled and field conditions”.
Point 21: What is the seeding and plant density? Was it the same for chamber/ pot / and field? Was the seed pre-treated in any way? Does it come commercially treated?
Response 21: Suggestion incorporated. Seed rate used was 100 kg ha-1. It was uniform in all treatments and experiments. Seed was pre-treated already so no need of treatment again.
Point 22: The fertilizer recommendations is from where? Is this typical of farmer fields in the area? Is this based on existing soil fertility of the field test plots? You make a claim on sustainability of the whole system with very little background information.
Response 22: The fertilizer recommendations is from field experiments and we added this line “Our findings could improve the sustainability of the whole system as it will minimize use of inorganic fertilizers which are major causes of global warming and climate change. Since consortium 2 + half dose treatment resulted to the maximum production of thousand grain weight and grain yield thus it should be used further to have sustainable crop yield in future. Furthermore, it is recommended that multilocation trial should be conducted to have more detailed information about available PGPR and its linkage with local industry”.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Exploring the potential soil bacteria…wheat
The authors addressed many of my comments but they have not taken those examples and completed their revisions. The manuscript still needs revision for format and style.
Specific
Line 21-24. Avoid the passive voice and make the topic of the sentence the subject of the paper (PGPR). Replace “Inorganic…technology.” With “Application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR_ could allow growers to reduce synthetic fertilizer and increase the sustainability of crop production.”
Line 24. State the importance of wheat to Pakistan and the lack of field studies of crop response to PGPR.
Line 24-26. Delete empty phrases like “Thus the present study was designed to..” Revise to “To determine if PGPR can maintain wheat productivity under reduced fertilizer applications, we isolated bacteria from the rhizosphere of wheat grown in sandy loam. We selected ten prospects based on in vitro assays for traits associated with PGPR: ACC deaminase…”
Line 29. Replace “03” with “three”
Line 26. Delete phrases like “Results showed that” and “Results of the present study (line 36).” If you are reporting results we presume you found them. Revise to “Strains that possessed the four traits associated with PGPR increased shoot length..”
Line 36. Replace with “This confirms that this consortium could provide growers a sustainabile approach to reduce synthetic fertilizer usage in wheat production.”
Line 42. Delete “The importance..extent.” This suggestion was ignored. Delete it.
Line 43. Revise to “..group of bacteria that can promote plant growth..”
Line 54. Revise to “Wheat is a staple in Pakistan but poor soils, lack of irrigation and inefficient fertilizer use in the region prevent growers in the region from reaching the potential yield of this crop. Soils in this region have low organic..which corresponds to low soil fertility and poor soil structure.”
Line 57-65. This section “Advantageous..38 percent” belongs in the previous paragraph, where the traits and be. Move to line 48.
Line 65. Delete phrase “Based on importance of PGPR..designed to…” and revise to “To develop a sustainable approach to wheat cultivation in Pakistan, we …”
Line 91-93. Do not repeat Methods to start paragraphs in Results. Delete “All bacterial…in Table 2.”
Line 101. Start a new paragraph after the 16S data for the Sherlock and Biolog data. Start that paragraph that says “Fatty acid profiles and metabolite utilization patterns of the isolates were consistent with the genera identified in Figure 1.”
Line 111. Do not tell the reader to look at a Table before you tell them what that data shows. Delete “The biology..Table S2” and write a sentence that describes the Biolog results.
Line 120. As above (line 91 comment), do not start Results paragraphs with a repetition of Methods. Delete “The first..10 strains.”
Discussion lacks page numbers.
Delete “Bacterial inoculants..Mostly in many studies.”’
Delete “has been discussed as the cause of” and revise to “…rhizobacteria can increase tillers”
References lack page numbers.
Reference 1 and throughout, cap journal titles “Annals of Microbiology”
Reference 5. Be consistent with journal titles, either abbreviate them all or not and use “and” or “&” throughout.
Reference 7 and throughout, italicize genus and species “Bacillus subtilis”
Author Response
REPLY TO REVIEW REPORT
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Point 1: English language and style
(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
Response 1: English language and style have been improved after consulting native English speaker.
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Point 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Response 2: Improved | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 3: Is the research design appropriate? Response 3: Thanks | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 4: Are the methods adequately described? Response 4: Thanks | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Point 5: Are the results clearly presented? Response 5: Improved now. | ( ) | ( ) | (x) | ( ) |
Point 6: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Response 6: Thanks | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Exploring the potential soil bacteria…wheat
Point 7: The authors addressed many of my comments but they have not taken those examples and completed their revisions. The manuscript still needs revision for format and style.
Response 7: Now all comments were addressed as directed by reviewer.
Specific
Point 8: Line 21-24. Avoid the passive voice and make the topic of the sentence the subject of the paper (PGPR). Replace “Inorganic…technology.” With “Application of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR_ could allow growers to reduce synthetic fertilizer and increase the sustainability of crop production.”
Response 8: Corrected as suggested. Please see these lines again.
Point 9: Line 24. State the importance of wheat to Pakistan and the lack of field studies of crop response to PGPR.
Response 9: Suggestions added.
Point 10: Line 24-26. Delete empty phrases like “Thus the present study was designed to..” Revise to “To determine if PGPR can maintain wheat productivity under reduced fertilizer applications, we isolated bacteria from the rhizosphere of wheat grown in sandy loam. We selected ten prospects based on in vitro assays for traits associated with PGPR: ACC deaminase…”
Response 10: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 11: Line 29. Replace “03” with “three”
Response 11: Replaced as suggested.
Point 12: Line 26. Delete phrases like “Results showed that” and “Results of the present study (line 36).” If you are reporting results we presume you found them. Revise to “Strains that possessed the four traits associated with PGPR increased shoot length..”
Response 12: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 13: Line 36. Replace with “This confirms that this consortium could provide growers a sustainable approach to reduce synthetic fertilizer usage in wheat production.”
Response 13: Replaced as suggested.
Point 14: Line 42. Delete “The importance..extent.” This suggestion was ignored. Delete it.
Response 14: Deleted as suggested.
Point 15: Line 43. Revise to “..group of bacteria that can promote plant growth..”
Response 15: Revised as suggested. Now it is “Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are a group of free-living bacteria that can enhance plant growth and crop yield by several mechanisms”.
Point 16: Line 54. Revise to “Wheat is a staple in Pakistan but poor soils, lack of irrigation and inefficient fertilizer use in the region prevent growers in the region from reaching the potential yield of this crop. Soils in this region have low organic..which corresponds to low soil fertility and poor soil structure.”
Response 16: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 17: Line 57-65. This section “Advantageous..38 percent” belongs in the previous paragraph, where the traits and be. Move to line 48.
Response 17: Moved as suggested.
Point 18: Line 65. Delete phrase “Based on importance of PGPR..designed to…” and revise to “To develop a sustainable approach to wheat cultivation in Pakistan, we …”
Response 18: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 19: Line 91-93. Do not repeat Methods to start paragraphs in Results. Delete “All bacterial…in Table 2.”
Response 19: Deleted as suggested.
Point 20: Line 101. Start a new paragraph after the 16S data for the Sherlock and Biolog data. Start that paragraph that says “Fatty acid profiles and metabolite utilization patterns of the isolates were consistent with the genera identified in Figure 1.”
Response 20: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 21: Line 111. Do not tell the reader to look at a Table before you tell them what that data shows. Delete “The biology..Table S2” and write a sentence that describes the Biolog results.
Response 21: Sentence has been revised but not described all as it is part of supplementary file.
Point 22: Line 120. As above (line 91 comment), do not start Results paragraphs with a repetition of Methods. Delete “The first..10 strains.”
Response 22: Deleted as suggested.
Point 23: Discussion lacks page numbers.
Response 23: Page numbers added.
Point 24: Delete “Bacterial inoculants..Mostly in many studies.”’
Response 24: Deleted as suggested.
Point 25: Delete “has been discussed as the cause of” and revise to “…rhizobacteria can increase tillers”
Response 25: Thanks for valuable suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 26: References lack page numbers.
Response 26: Page numbers added.
Point 27: Reference 1 and throughout, cap journal titles “Annals of Microbiology”
Response 27: Thanks for suggestions. It has been incorporated.
Point 28: Reference 5. Be consistent with journal titles, either abbreviate them all or not and use “and” or “&” throughout.
Response 28: Suggestions incorporated.
Point 29: Reference 7 and throughout, italicize genus and species “Bacillus subtilis”
Response 29: Suggestions incorporated.
