Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizer Reduction in Sorghum Cultivation: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizer Reduction in Sorghum Cultivation: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture” is interesting and has the potential to be considered for publication. I would like to suggest a few major revisions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

1. The sections should be appropriately numbered starting from ‘1. Introduction’ as per the instructions given in the journal website.
2. The in text citations of references are not according to the journal instructions; it should be completely changed. Adherence to instructions given in the journal homepage is needed.
3. Objective section needs to be removed and combined as the last paragraph of introduction.
4. Line 114-115: The lines should be modified as ‘isolated in the previous research work and stored’. The Genbank numbers should be mentioned. The accession numbers of the strain should be properly mentioned in the materials.
5. Line 122: Clarify what is meant by 80% of the fertilizer. (What constitutes 20%?) . In objective it is mentioned as 50% and 100% in the materials it is mentioned as 80%, Why such kind of inconsistency in data presentation?
6. Line 130: Mention the capacity of the pot and also the volume of soil added in each pot.
7. Figure 1: Label b is overlapping the axes markings , modify the same. Increase the size of axes labels.
8. Is the data statistically significant? In many places the error bar representation reflects that the data points may be non significant. Clarify the same.
9. Discussion sections seem to be weak. Proper  comparison with existing literature on each parameter studied can improve the paper.
10. Add the future prospects in the conclusion section.

 

Author Response

Reviewer1 - The manuscript entitled “Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizer Reduction in Sorghum Cultivation: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture” is interesting and has the potential to be considered for publication. I would like to suggest a few major revisions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Answer: We, the authors, express our gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your efforts.

Answer: The modifications in the manuscript are written in red.

 

Reviewer1 -  The sections should be appropriately numbered starting from ‘1. Introduction’ as per the instructions given in the journal website.

Answer: The numbers have been added.

 

 

Reviewer1 - The in text citations of references are not according to the journal instructions; it should be completely changed. Adherence to instructions given in the journal homepage is needed.

Answer: This has been changed accordingly.

 

Reviewer1 - Objective section needs to be removed and combined as the last paragraph of introduction.

Answer: This has been done.

 

Reviewer1 - Line 114-115: The lines should be modified as ‘isolated in the previous research work and stored’. The Genbank numbers should be mentioned. The accession numbers of the strain should be properly mentioned in the materials.

Answer: The text has been revised, and all the accession numbers have been added. The new text is "The microorganisms used in this study belonged to the collection of the Laboratory of Soil Microbiology, UNESP, Campus of Jaboticabal, Brazil. These microorganisms (bacteria and fungi), B. subtilis (accession number MZ133755), B. pumilus (accession number MZ133476), B. licheniformis (accession number MZ133757), T. harzianum (accession number MZ133758), Purpureocillum lilacinum (accession number KY624227.1). These microorganisms were selected because of their growth-promoting characteristics such as phosphorus solubilization, biological nitrogen fixation, and IAA production (Baron et al., 2018; Diaz et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2020)."

Reviewer1 - Line 122: Clarify what is meant by 80% of the fertilizer. (What constitutes 20%?).

Answer: Treatments 1 to 6 received 100% of the recommended chemical fertilizer dose based on soil fertility analysis. To evaluate the effect of microorganisms and reduce the use of chemical fertilizers, treatments 7 to 12 were given only 80% of the chemical fertilizer dose. This represents a 20% reduction in the amount of chemical fertilizers applied.

 

Reviewer1 - In objective it is mentioned as 50% and 100% in the materials it is mentioned as 80%, Why such kind of inconsistency in data presentation?

Answer: The correct is 100 and 80%. It has been corrected.

 

Reviewer1 - Line 130: Mention the capacity of the pot and also the volume of soil added in each pot.

Answer: The volume of each pot is 5 liters.

 

Reviewer1 - Figure 1: Label b is overlapping the axes markings , modify the same. Increase the size of axes labels.

Reviewer1 -  Is the data statistically significant? In many places the error bar representation reflects that the data points may be non significant. Clarify the same.

Answer: The figures were changed accordingly.

 

Reviewer1 - Discussion sections seem to be weak. Proper  comparison with existing literature on each parameter studied can improve the paper.

 

Answer: The discussion has been revised. Previous studies involving Bacillus sp. have been incorporated. Unfortunately, no studies are available on P. lilacinum in sorghum.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the impact of microbial inoculation on sorghum. Results showed no significant differences in most parameters, except for plant height and shoot dry matter, where the B. subtilis treatment had lower values. Microbial inoculants may reduce fertilizer use.

Introduction lines 35-45 Too many details not directly related to this study are provided.

line 83  add the scientific name for Striga (a parasitic weed).

Also,  previous studies should be highlighted.

Materials and Methods: 

line 115: The names of people who contributed to this study can be listed in the Acknowledgments section not here.

line 116: Why is it important to add that the soil is from a rural property in Taquaritinga? For this point, better add a map.

line 134: Why is important the plants of sorghum are from Embrapa? 

lines 164-171: The statistical analysis performed is described very briefly. Elaborate this part.

 Results: Figures 1-10 are not well represented and should be redone.

Figures 11 and 12 are not visible.

 Discussion :

287-293: this paragraph refers strictly to previous studies. It should be moved to Introduction.

Conclusion is brief. The authors emphasize the fulfillment of the aim of this study.

I also noticed a low number of references. I recommend the authors to add new references especially in the Introduction and Discussion section.

Author Response

Reviewer2

 

Reviewer2 - This study evaluated the impact of microbial inoculation on sorghum. Results showed no significant differences in most parameters, except for plant height and shoot dry matter, where the B. subtilis treatment had lower values. Microbial inoculants may reduce fertilizer use.

 

Answer: We, the authors, express our gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your efforts.

Answer: All the modifications are written in red.

 

Reviewer2 - Introduction lines 35-45 Too many details not directly related to this study are provided.

Answer: These lines have been deleted.

 

 

Reviewer2 - line 83  add the scientific name for Striga (a parasitic weed).

Also,  previous studies should be highlighted.

Answer: The scientific name is Striga hermonthica. It has been added.

 

Reviewer2 - Materials and Methods:

 

Reviewer2 - line 115: The names of people who contributed to this study can be listed in the Acknowledgments section not here.

Answer: It has been changed accordingly.

 

 

Reviewer2 - line 116: Why is it important to add that the soil is from a rural property in Taquaritinga? For this point, better add a map.

Answer: We agree with the reviewer. It is not necessary to mention that the soil is from a rural property in Taquaritinga, so this detail has been removed.

 

Reviewer2 - line 134: Why is important the plants of sorghum are from Embrapa?

Answer: This information has been deleted.

 

Reviewer2 - lines 164-171: The statistical analysis performed is described very briefly. Elaborate this part.

Answer: This has been changed.

 

Reviewer2 -  Results: Figures 1-10 are not well represented and should be redone.

Answer: All the figures have been revised, and Figures 4 and 5 have been added.

 

Reviewer2 - Figures 11 and 12 are not visible.

Answer: The figures have been changed.

 

Reviewer2 - Discussion : 287-293: this paragraph refers strictly to previous studies. It should be moved to Introduction.

Answer: The paragraph has been updated. We were unable to discuss the results of P. lilacinum because this is the first study involving sorghum.

 

Reviewer2 - Conclusion is brief. The authors emphasize the fulfillment of the aim of this study.

Answer: The conclusion has been changed.

 

Reviewer2 - I also noticed a low number of references. I recommend the authors to add new references especially in the Introduction and Discussion section.

 

Answer: New references have been added and discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizer Reduction in Sorghum Cultivation: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture” was to verify whether the inoculation of the microorganisms Bacillus subtilis, B. pumilus, B. licheniformis, Purpureocillum lilacinum, and Trichoderma harzianum were tested under two soil fertility levels: 100% and 50% fertilization. The work is interesting, but there are lots of things need to be further improving. The specific comments were as follows.

1. In the introduction, the number of paragraphs is excessive. It is suggested that the author consolidate the content by reducing the number of paragraphs, while emphasizing the academic background and research highlights more clearly.
2. In lines 127 and 128, there are fewer words in one paragraph. I recommend that the author revise this section and incorporate it into other paragraphs. Similar short paragraph with few words also were found in other parts. I suggested the author also revised them.
3. The quality of the figures is suboptimal. For instance, Figure 1 contains information that is difficult to interpret due to the small font size used for the text within the figure.
4. There are too many figures in the present work. I suggest that the author consolidate some similar figures into a single figure to improve readability.
5. Regarding Figure 11, the author presents numerous correlations between different parameters. However, this figure lacks a significant difference analysis, which may limit the interpretation of these correlations.
6. Regarding Figure 12, the small font size within the figure and the disorganized information presentation may hinder clarity. I suggest that the author enhance the quality of the figure to improve its readability and overall effectiveness.

Author Response

Reviewer3 - The manuscript entitled “Microbial Inoculants and Fertilizer Reduction in Sorghum Cultivation: Implications for Sustainable Agriculture” was to verify whether the inoculation of the microorganisms Bacillus subtilis, B. pumilus, B. licheniformis, Purpureocillum lilacinum, and Trichoderma harzianum were tested under two soil fertility levels: 100% and 50% fertilization. The work is interesting, but there are lots of things need to be further improving. The specific comments were as follows.

Answer: We, the authors, express our gratitude to the reviewer for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your efforts.

Answer: All the modifications are written in red

 

Reviewer3 - In the introduction, the number of paragraphs is excessive. It is suggested that the author consolidate the content by reducing the number of paragraphs, while emphasizing the academic background and research highlights more clearly.

Answer: The introduction has been shortened.

 

Reviewer3 - In lines 127 and 128, there are fewer words in one paragraph. I recommend that the author revise this section and incorporate it into other paragraphs. Similar short paragraph with few words also were found in other parts. I suggested the author also revised them.

Answer:

 

Reviewer3 - The quality of the figures is suboptimal. For instance, Figure 1 contains information that is difficult to interpret due to the small font size used for the text within the figure.

Answer: The figures have been changed.

 

Reviewer3 - There are too many figures in the present work. I suggest that the author consolidate some similar figures into a single figure to improve readability.

Answer: The figures have been joined together.

 

Reviewer3 - Regarding Figure 11, the author presents numerous correlations between different parameters. However, this figure lacks a significant difference analysis, which may limit the interpretation of these correlations.

Answer: This figure has been deleted.

 

Reviewer3 - Regarding Figure 12, the small font size within the figure and the disorganized information presentation may hinder clarity. I suggest that the author enhance the quality of the figure to improve its readability and overall effectiveness.

Answer: This figure has been deleted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the necessary corrections suggested and the manuscript may be considered for acceptance.

Author Response

We express our sincere gratitude for your work and for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Before the conclusion section, the last paragraph of the Discussion, the last paragraph of the Discussion, does not make sense since it starts with 'in conclusion'.

However, I do not consider that the authors did not change the manuscript enough and did not respond to all comments. 

Author Response

Reviewer2: Before the conclusion section, the last paragraph of the Discussion, the last paragraph of the Discussion, does not make sense since it starts with 'in conclusion'.

Answer: This word In conclusion has been deleted.

However, I do not consider that the authors did not sufficiently change the manuscript and did not respond to any of the comments. 

Answer: We apologize for the failure to display all the modifications. We are now endeavoring to present all modifications more effectively.

We express our sincere gratitude for your work and for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript.

Reviewer2 - Discussion : 287-293: this paragraph refers strictly to previous studies. It should be moved to Introduction.

Answer: In accordance with the initial recommendation of the reviewer, we have relocated the information regarding P. lilacinum to the introduction section.

This can be seen in red.

Reviewer2

Reviewer2 - Introduction lines 35-45 Too many details not directly related to this study are provided.

Answer: These lines below have been deleted. Please verify this point in the revised manuscript.

The United States, Nigeria, Mexico, India, Sudan, China, Ethiopia, Argentina, Australia, and Burkina Faso are the top ten sorghum producers in the world (Djanaguiraman et al., 2018). Specifically, the United States leads with 8.4 million tons, followed by Nigeria (6.5 million tons), Mexico (6.0 million tons), India and Sudan (4.5 million tons each), China (3.8 million tons), and Ethiopia (3.7 million tons) (Djanaguiraman et al., 2018).

Interestingly, while Africa produces 40% of the global sorghum crop, with West Africa accounting for just over half of Africa's production, the Americas contribute approximately 37%, and Asia and Oceania produce 20% (Djanaguiraman et al., 2018). It is worth noting that India, despite being a major producer, has seen a decline in production due to competition for resources and socioeconomic factors (Djanaguiraman et al., 2018).

Reviewer2 - line 83 add the scientific name for Striga (a parasitic weed).

Also, previous studies should be highlighted.

Answer: The scientific name is Striga hermonthica. It has been added and written in italic

Reviewer2 - Materials and Methods:

Reviewer2 - line 115: The names of people who contributed to this study can be listed in the Acknowledgments section not here.

Answer: We, authors decided to delete the name.

Reviewer2 - line 116: Why is it important to add that the soil is from a rural property in Taquaritinga? For this point, better add a map.

Answer: We agree with the reviewer. It is not necessary to mention that the soil is from a rural property in Taquaritinga, so this detail has been removed.

Reviewer2 - line 134: Why is important the plants of sorghum are from Embrapa?

Answer: This information has been deleted.

Reviewer2 - lines 164-171: The statistical analysis performed is described very briefly. Elaborate this part.

Answer: This has been changed.

Reviewer2 - Results: Figures 1-10 are not well represented and should be redone.

Answer: All figures have been revised. In this updated version, the figures have been consolidated, and Figures 4 and 5 have been added.

Reviewer2 - Figures 11 and 12 are not visible.

Answer: The figures 11 and 12 have been deleted.

Reviewer2 - Discussion : 287-293: this paragraph refers strictly to previous studies. It should be moved to Introduction.

Answer: In accordance with the initial recommendation of the reviewer, we have relocated the information regarding P. lilacinum to the introduction section.

Reviewer2 - Conclusion is brief. The authors emphasize the fulfillment of the aim of this study.

Answer: The conclusion has been changed.

Reviewer2 - I also noticed a low number of references. I recommend the authors to add new references especially in the Introduction and Discussion section.

Answer: New references have been added and discussed.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author revised the previous version.

Author Response

We express our sincere gratitude for your work and for the opportunity to enhance our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx