Response of Bread Wheat Cultivars Inoculated with Azotobacter Species under Different Nitrogen Application Rates
, Aly A. A. El-Banna 1, Ahmed M. Abdelghany 2, Ehab A. A. Salama 3, Hayssam M. Ali 4, Manzer H. Siddiqui 4, Nafiu Garba Hayatu 5, Lidia Sas Paszt 6 and Sobhi F. Lamlom 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The manuscript presents Response of Bread Wheat Cultivars Inoculated with Azotobacter Species under 2 Different Nitrogen Application Rates. The data support the results and outcome claimed. Standard experimental design and protocol are followed and are in line.
There are minor concerns,
1. Authors used cultivars, namely Giza-168, Shandawel-1, and Misr-2. Explain why these 3 cultivars were used? Are these belong to any international wheat nursery or your own crosses? Pedigree indicates their different origin.
2. SPAD observations are taken how many times, write growth stages on Zadoks growth scale.
3. Minor spelling corrections are needed.
A manuscript may be accepted with the above minor corrections
All the best!
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
From Table 5., we can see highly positive interactive effects between wheat genotype and azotobacter. Comparing the treatment azotobacter with 100%N, the GY decreased were 50.08%(2019/2020) and 47.66%(2020/2021) in genotype Misr-2, 40.52%(2019/2020) and 436.11%(2020/2021) in genotype dawel-1, and 30.1%(2019/2020) and 27.86%(2020/2021) in genotype Giza-16,respectively. It seems that genotype Giza-16 has higher positive interactive effects with azotobacter than the other wheat genotypes. Therefore, I suggest the Authors adding some analyses about the interactive effects between wheat genotype with azotobacter in "3. Results".
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The discussed article is a very interesting work containing a lot of relevant information. Of course, the beneficial effect of nitrogen on plant growth is well known, however, this article contains information that complements and expands the current knowledge. The article is written in a logical and well-organized manner. Before publishing it, however, I suggest you read it again to eliminate minor errors, e.g. punctuation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
