Seed-Borne Probiotic Yeasts Foster Plant Growth and Elicit Health Protection in Black Gram (Vigna mungo L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript is well designed and well written.

Results are fairly presented.

English could be checked.

Some comments are addressed to:

Keywords: - include more specific ones. Use different keywords from those used in the title.

Results:

Figure 1: Diagrams should be of much better quality, and prepared as one figure not in a separate boxes within the table. Also there are no letters A, B, C, D, E, F associated to diagrams.

 In that point it is not clear what they present.

The explanation for diagrams (A) Shoot length; B) Root length; C) Number of leaves; D) Number of nodules; E) Number of pods; F) Grain yield ) should be placed after the Figure title

Figures 2, 3, 4 should be placed after the text where they are mentioned first time.

Titles on the diagrams in all figures are not quite clearly readable. It should be corrected.

The organization of figures within the text is confusing; hence it is hard to follow the results.

It should be reorganized.

Discussion section:

Latin names of plants should be written in Italic.

Corrections should be made through the whole text.

Abbreviations should be written uniformly, without dots between the letters.

Some newer references should be taken into account in the discussion.

Author contributions should be checked carefully. It seems that all authors are not associated to the certain contribution.

Other detailed comments are given in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Report

• Manuscript is well designed and well written.

Authors’ response : We accept with thanks

• Results are fairly presented.

Authors’ response : We accept with thanks

• English could be checked.

Authors’ response : Language has been checked throughout the manuscript

Some comments are addressed to:

• Keywords:- include more specific ones. Use different keywords from those used in the title.

Authors’ response : Two new key words have been added replacing the words that find place in title (Line numbers 57 & 58)

• Results: Figure 1: Diagrams should be of much better quality, and prepared as one figure not in a separate boxes within the table. Also there are no letters A, B, C, D, E, F associated to diagrams.  In that point it is not clear what they present.

Authors’ response : Figure 1 has been prepared with better resolution and inserted. The diagrams have been labelled A (root length), B (shoot length),C(Number of leaves and nodules) and D (Number of pods and grain yield)

• The explanation for diagrams (A) Shoot length; B) Root length; C) Number of leaves; D) Number of nodules; E) Number of pods; F) Grain yield ) should be placed after the Figure title

Authors’ response : Explanation has been included after Figure 1 title (Line numbers 371 &372)

• Figures 2, 3, 4 should be placed after the text where they are mentioned first time.

Authors’ response :  Figures are placed after the concerned text (Line numbers 381, 394, 407, 437)

• Titles on the diagrams in all figures are not quite clearly readable. It should be corrected.

Authors’ response : Made into readable form (Figures 1,2,3,4 &5)

• The organization of figures within the text is confusing; hence it is hard to follow the results. It should be reorganized.

Authors’ response : All figures have been re-arranged and placed below the result where they are mentioned for the first time (Line numbers 366, 381, 394, 407, 437)

Discussion section:

• Latin names of plants should be written in Italic. Corrections should be made through the whole text.

Authors’ response : All names have been italized through out the text (Line numbers 454, 455,456,470,471,472, 505,524)

• Abbreviations should be written uniformly, without dots between the letters.

Authors’ response : The dots between IAA,BMBS,PPO,PR,PGP have been removed (Line numbers- 184,349,356,390,391,424,483,482,490,422,458,480)

• Some newer references should be taken into account in the discussion.

Authors’ response : Latest references have been added Ref.Nos.71,72,73,78,81

• Author contributions should be checked carefully. It seems that all authors are not associated to the certain contribution.

Authors’ response : Contribution of each authors has been mentioned accordingly

• Other detailed comments are given in the PDF file.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Seed Borne Probiotic Yeasts Foster Plant Growth Promotion and Elicits Health Protection In Blackgram (Vigna Mungo L.)" is written well; however, can be improved by amending the following suggestions:

1. Exclude the irrelevant theory part from the abstract, focus on the objectives and result.

2. Proofread the entire manuscript for grammatical and typological errors.

3. Introduction and discussion section needs more recent studies.

4. add recent references 

5. Improve the depth discussion for more information

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Seed Borne Probiotic Yeasts Foster Plant Growth Promotion and Elicits Health Protection In Blackgram (Vigna Mungo L.)" is written well; however, can be improved by amending the following suggestions:

1. Exclude the irrelevant theory part from the abstract, focus on the objectives and result.

Authors’ response: Yes. Few of the generalized statement has been removed (line nos. 37-41) ; objective and result oriented information has been added (Line number 41&42)

2. Proofread the entire manuscript for grammatical and typological errors.

Authors’ response: Has been done and corrections made.

3. Introduction and discussion section needs more recent studies.

Authors’ response: Added in introduction part (line numbers 90, 91, 92); discussion part (line numbers 505-508; 524-525; 531-536; 552-553; 557-559)

4. add recent references 

Authors’ response: Added (Ref Nos. 71,72,73,78,81)

5. Improve the depth discussion for more information

Authors’  response: Improved (line numbers 505-508; 524-525; 531-536; 552-553; 557-559; 508-510; 526-530)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript is substantially revised and improved.

Some minor comments are addressed to:

Line: 167: change to α-ketobutyrate

Line 234: change to N-acetylglucosamine

Line 237: Statistical analysis section: Are test done in replicates? Please explain.

Line 272: Table 1. Abrreviations  IAA  and ACCD should be explained in the Table legend.

             Also meaning of ND should be given in the legend.

Figures 3,4,5: Provide description of diagrams T1-T7 in the presented figures

Abbreviations should be checked through the manuscript and associated with full names when first mentioned.

Author contributions should be checked.  

Other detailed comments are given in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Round 2 Report

Manuscript is substantially revised and improved.

Authors response: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for such an excellent reviewing of the paper. Reviewers suggestions have helped in improving the paper.

Some minor comments are addressed to:

Line: 167: change to α-ketobutyrate

Authors response: Corrected

Line 234: change to N-acetylglucosamine

Authors response: Corrected

Line 237: Statistical analysis section: Are test done in replicates? Please explain.

Authors response: Yes test were done in triplicates. More details are mentioned in statistical analysis section

Line 272: Table 1. Abrreviations  IAA  and ACCD should be explained in the Table legend.

Authors response: Mentioned

             Also meaning of ND should be given in the legend.

Authors response: Mentioned

Figures 3,4,5: Provide description of diagrams T1-T7 in the presented figures

Authors response: Description is provided in Figures

Abbreviations should be checked through the manuscript and associated with full names when first mentioned.

Authors response: Checked

Author contributions should be checked.  

Authors response: Checked

Other detailed comments are given in the PDF file.

Authors response: Corrections have been made as per the suggestion in pdf file