Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thouroughly good paper with probable immediate importance.  I congratulate the authors for this painstaking work.

It does however, raise an important question:  how is it ,as ipmlied, that Egyptian soil is deficient in these PGPR's?  And therefore why would inoculation be necessary?  One might suggest that regenerative or 'eco-' agricultural methods would ensure that PGPR microbes occur natually.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful review and kind words regarding our paper. We appreciate your interest in our work.

Regarding your question about the deficiency of PGPRs in Egyptian soil and the necessity of inoculation, we would like to clarify that our study aimed to explore the current state of PGPR microbial populations in the specific agricultural regions under consideration. While we acknowledge that regenerative or eco-agricultural methods can naturally foster microbial communities, our findings suggest that certain areas may exhibit lower levels of beneficial PGPRs.

Several factors contribute to this scenario, including historical agricultural practices, soil management techniques, and environmental conditions. Inoculation is proposed as a strategic approach to accelerate the establishment of a robust PGPR community, especially in regions where natural levels may be suboptimal for promoting plant health and growth such as degrading soil.

We agree with your suggestion regarding the potential benefits of regenerative agricultural methods, and we believe that a combination of inoculation and eco-friendly practices can offer a comprehensive solution for enhancing soil health and agricultural productivity.

We hope this clarification addresses your concern. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research article on using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to enhance drought tolerance in Egyptian wheat is a noteworthy contribution to sustainable agriculture. The innovative nature of the study, along with its thorough methodological approach and clear presentation.

For further refinement, I recommend that the focus on enhancing language clarity. Simplifying more complex sentence structures could make the paper more accessible without compromising the technical depth. It’s also crucial to maintain uniform terminology throughout the manuscript to ensure clarity and prevent any misunderstandings.

Regarding technical language, striking the right balance between specialized terms and general readability is critical. This balance will help make the research more approachable to a broader audience, including those outside the immediate field. Additionally, a meticulous proofreading process to correct minor grammatical and typographical errors would enhance the professional quality of the manuscript.

Regarding the presentation of complex ideas, particularly in the methodology section, a more detailed explanation would help make the research more understandable, especially for non-specialists. This could involve breaking down intricate concepts into simpler parts for better understanding.

Expanding the comparison with existing literature would also be beneficial. This would provide a more comprehensive context for the findings, highlighting how the research contributes to and differs from existing studies. Moreover, exploring the underlying mechanisms of how PGPR affects plant physiology under drought conditions would add considerable depth to the research.

Considering the long-term effects of PGPR use on soil health and crop productivity and discussing the economic and practical implications of its application in agriculture would provide a more holistic view of the research’s impact.

 These suggested enhancements could further elevate its academic and practical significance. We eagerly anticipate the revisions and continued progression of this vital area of research.

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality could be improved by addressing a few areas. Simplifying complex sentence structures would enhance readability. Consistent use of scientific terminology throughout the text is essential to avoid confusion. Balancing technical accuracy with accessibility is critical, as excessive jargon can limit the paper's reach to a broader audience. Minor grammatical and typographical errors should be reviewed and corrected to uphold the manuscript's professionalism. Lastly, more explicit expression of complex ideas, especially in methodological descriptions, can significantly aid reader comprehension and engagement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our research article exploring the use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to enhance drought tolerance in Egyptian wheat. Your positive acknowledgment of the study's noteworthy contribution to sustainable agriculture is encouraging, and we are grateful for your valuable insights. Here is our response to your suggestions for further refinement:

1. Language Clarity:

We acknowledge the importance of enhancing language clarity to make the paper more accessible. We have made some changes in many parts of the manuscript for more Clarity following your suggestion.

2. Technical Language Balance:

Striking the right balance between specialized terms and general readability is a valid concern. We have made a proofreading process to correct minor grammatical and typographical errors in the manuscript.

3. Methodology Explanation:

Your feedback on providing a more detailed explanation, particularly in the methodology section, is well received. We have made some changes to this part following your suggestion.

5. Comparison with Existing Literature

Expanding the comparison with existing literature is a valuable suggestion. We have made some changes to this part by addition of many paragraphs following your suggestion.

6. 6. Long-Term Effects and Economic Implications:

Considering the long-term effects of PGPR use on soil health and crop productivity, as well as discussing the economic and practical implications of its application in agriculture, was included in our revision in the attachment.

We genuinely appreciate your thorough review and are committed to addressing each of your suggestions to further enhance the academic and practical significance of our work.

Best Regards

See the attachment for the edited version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is well-written and introduces several important findings in plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to enhance drought tolerance in wheat. Overall, the manuscript is good and qualified for Sustainability. I think the texts highlighted in green are the revised texts. They are well-written and clearly stated now. I have fewer comments for the authors to improve the manuscript.

1. Figure 2 and Figure 6, the X-axis is not in the stand 0. I do not understand why authors did that, as the all data in the histogram is above 0.

2. How about the general phenotypes of wheat under drought treatment? Besides the dry and fress biomass, are there any changes for plant morphology?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation of our manuscript and your acknowledgment of the revised texts highlighted in green. We are pleased that you find the overall content to be good and suitable for publication in Sustainability.

We carefully considered your comments and have the following responses:

Figure 2 and Figure 6 X-axis:

Thank you for catching the x-axis starting below. We will revisit the graphs to ensure clarity and alignment with the data. Our intention is to accurately represent the information, and we appreciate your keen observation in this regard.

Wheat Phenotypes under Drought Treatment:

Thank you for bringing up this important point. We agree that including information on the general phenotypes of wheat under drought treatment, such as changes in plant morphology, is valuable. We will incorporate additional details about the observed phenotypic changes in the revised manuscript. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on wheat under drought conditions.

We are committed to addressing these suggestions promptly to enhance the quality of our manuscript. If you have any further recommendations or specific aspects you would like us to focus on during the revision, please feel free to let us know.

Once again, we appreciate your time and expertise in reviewing our work.

Best regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract, line 1: "PGPR REPRESENT a promising strategy". Bacillus in italics. Introduction: again plural "PGPR REPRESENT a promising".

Material and methods: I suggest adding a few words on where that wheat was grown, eventually with a brief characterization of soil conditions. 2.2.2 Production of SIDEROPHORES. 2.2.7. line 1: Rhizoctonia in italics.

Results 3.4 Myroides in italics. 

Apart from these minor suggestions, the paper concerns an issue of great interest and great potential in sustainable agriculture, that of PGPR, as well mentioned by the authors in their introduction. The authors use a wide array of methods to characterize some bacterial isolates in wheat rhizosphere and their effect on wheat plant growth and resistance. Methods are clearly described, in an easily reproductible manner. Results are clearly presented, supported by graphic material and discussed by reference to relevant literature. Conclusions logically follow results.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and valuable suggestions for improvement. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the necessary revisions to enhance the clarity and precision of our manuscript. Here are the responses to your specific comments:

Abstract, Line 1:

"PGPR REPRESENT a promising strategy." - We have revised the abstract to ensure grammatical accuracy. The corrected line now reads: "PGPR represent a promising strategy." Additionally, we have italicized the term "Bacillus" as per your suggestion.

Introduction:

"PGPR REPRESENT a promising strategy." - We have revised the abstract to ensure grammatical accuracy. The corrected line now reads: "PGPR represent a promising strategy."

Material and Methods:

We have incorporated information about the location where the wheat was grown, providing a brief characterization of soil conditions. This addition aims to offer context and a better understanding of the experimental setup.

Material and Methods, Section 2.2.2 - Production of SIDEROPHORES:

The term "Rhizoctonia" has been italicized following your suggestion.

Results, Section 3.4:

The term "Myroides" has been italicized, addressing your suggestion for consistency.

We would like to express our gratitude for your positive remarks about the significance of our study in the context of sustainable agriculture. Your recognition of the potential of PGPR in this field is encouraging. We are pleased to hear that our methods are clear and easily reproducible and that our results and conclusions are well-supported and discussed with the relevant literature.

Your feedback has been invaluable in refining our manuscript. If you have any further comments or require additional clarification, please do not hesitate to let us know. We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

Best regards,

See the attached file for the edited version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I've reviewed your manuscript and commend its relevance and thorough approach. The study's methods and clear presentation of findings are impressive. For readability, embedding tables and figures within the text, especially in the digital format, would be beneficial.

I look forward to the evolution of your manuscript.

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found the study to be relevant and thorough in its approach, with impressive methods and clear presentation of findings.

Per your thoughtful suggestion, we will embed the tables and figures within the text rather than having them at the end of the manuscript. You make an excellent point that this will improve the overall readability, especially for the digital format. Integrating the visuals into the narrative flow will help reinforce key data and create a more cohesive reading experience.

We appreciate you highlighting this opportunity to enhance the accessibility of the manuscript. Making revisions based on insightful peer review always helps strengthen academic work. We are grateful for your time and input as we continue refining this study. Please feel free to provide any other recommendations to aid in the evolution of our manuscript.

Best regards,