Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Comment sheet

The research article entitled ‘Effect of PGPR on soil bacterial community, soil physiochemical properties, and soil enzyme activity in the rhizosphere of alfalfa under field condition’ is well written and scientifically organized. This research article would be useful for researchers working for PGPR and microbial communities.

However, this research article can be acceptable after careful revision of some of my concerns regarding results.

1.    Can authors provide accession numbers for the PGPR isolates used in this study?

2.    In ‘experimental design’ under the section “materials and methods” authors are required to provide more detailed information regarding, time of PGPR application and data observation.

3.    I could not see SRA (Sequence Read Archive) accession of 16S rRNA gene sequences

4.    Authors are required to provide more insight regarding cropping patterns in the field before the study.

5.    It would be better if authors can provide data of plant growth promoting traits of PGPR isolates used in this study

6.    To elucidate the effect of PGPR on soil bacterial community, correlation of major bacteria taxa and soil physio-chemical properties is required.

 

Minor suggestions

1.    Please recheck the sentences in the main text as some of the sentences are not complete (e.g., Line 149-151).

2.    Authors are requested to careful consideration of format of journal.

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

the following document is my review response, I hope you will check it.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript in which the authors aimed to clarify the effects of inoculation of Acinetobacter beijerinckii LJL-12 and Pseudomonas fluorescens MJM-5 on bacterial diversity, composition, and relevant carbon source metabolic function in the rhizosphere soil of alfalfa grown under the field condition. Meanwhile, the changes of physicochemical properties and enzyme activities in the rhizosphere soil were also measured. The topic appears fascinating after carefully reading the revised article. The manuscript is well-written. The introduction provides sufficient background and includes several relevant references. The results match the objectives. Here are some suggestions to help the authors to improve the quality of the paper:

 -Although the term PGPR is well known (plant growth promoting rhizobacteria), I suggest not using acronyms in the title.

 -Line 45. The excessive use of chemical fertilizers in modern agricultural had a negative impact on the soil ecosystem. I suggest to include some reference as:

 Chandini, K. R., Kumar, R., Prakash, O. 2019. The impact of chemical fertilizers on our environment and ecosystem. Research trends in environmental Sciences, 2nd edition, pp 69-86.

 Jiménez-Ballesta, R., Bravo, S., Amoros, J. A., Pérez-de-los-Reyes, C., García-Pradas, J., Sanchez, M., & García-Navarro, F. J. (2021). Occurrence of some rare earth elements in vineyard soils under semiarid Mediterranean environmen. Environ Monit Assess, 194:341 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-09956-z.

 -Line 96. Organic matter content was 25.112 g·kg-1. Do you really consider that it is necessary to add 3 decimal places?. Also in line 290 soil bulk density in different treatments ranged from 1.160 to 1.319. In the latter case, what is the unit of measurement?.

 -Line 147. 2.6. Determination of soil physicochemical properties and soil enzyme activities. Please specify the methodology in a little more detail.

 -I suggest to include some photos of the area/experiment.

 I wish those changes will contribute to improve your paper.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

The following document is my review response, I hope you will check it.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all my suggestions, and the manuscript is now significantly improved and acceptable for publication.