Impact of Mycorrhizal Fungi from Different Rhizospheric Soils on Fungal Colonization, Growth, and Chlorophyll Contents of Cenchrus ciliaris

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The mycorrhizal symbiosis is the most common and ubiquitous plant-microbe interaction. The manuscript entitled "Impact of mycorrhizal fungi from different rhizospheric soils of perennial grasses on mycorrhizal colonization, growth, and chlorophyll contents of Cenchrus ciliaris" conformed that mycorrhizal fungi  had a positive impact on the growth parameters of a native grass.

The study is well designed, and the methods were adequately described. However, the work is merely descriptive, not part of any clear starting hypothesis. There are several points where the manuscript could be improved:

1) In the present study, the diversity of mycorrhiza was studied in 4 perennial grass species from District Layyah, but the reason is lacking. Similarly, the author did not introduce the reason why Cenchrus ciliaris was chosen as the research object;

2) Another important lack of information at work is related to data analysis. In results, it is suggested that the author should analyze the correlation between the diversity characteristics of mycorrhizal fungi and growth parameters of grass;

3) In discuss, it is suggested that the author can analyze the potential mechanism of different growth parameters caused by inoculants from different sources.

Some specific comments:

Abbreviations such as VAM/AMF should be written in full when they first appear; If different abbreviations represent the same meaning, they need to be consistent in the text.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 1 comments

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The mycorrhizal symbiosis is the most common and ubiquitous plant-microbe interaction. The manuscript entitled "Impact of mycorrhizal fungi from different rhizospheric soils of perennial grasses on mycorrhizal colonization, growth, and chlorophyll contents of Cenchrus ciliaris" conformed that mycorrhizal fungi  had a positive impact on the growth parameters of a native grass. The study is well designed, and the methods were adequately described. However, the work is merely descriptive, not part of any clear starting hypothesis. There are several points where the manuscript could be improved:

Response: Thanks for your appreciation. We have tried our level best to incorporate all the suggestions raised by all the worthy reviewers and to improve its quality

1) In the present study, the diversity of mycorrhiza was studied in 4 perennial grass species from District Layyah, but the reason is lacking. Similarly, the author did not introduce the reason why Cenchrus ciliaris was chosen as the research object;

Response: We have added the suggested information in the last paragraph of the Introduction section as per the suggestion of the reviewer (Please see lines 88-98)

2) Another important lack of information at work is related to data analysis. In results, it is suggested that the author should analyze the correlation between the diversity characteristics of mycorrhizal fungi and growth parameters of grass;

Response: We have added Table 4 showing the correlation between the diversity characteristics of mycorrhizal fungi and growth parameters of grass as per the suggestion of the reviewer

3) In discuss, it is suggested that the author can analyze the potential mechanism of different growth parameters caused by inoculants from different sources.

Response: We have modified the discussion section as per the suggestion of the reviewer and added the potential mechanism of different growth parameters caused by inoculants from different sources (Please see lines 416-420, 429-431, 440-443, and 451-452)

Some specific comments:

Abbreviations such as VAM/AMF should be written in full when they first appear; If different abbreviations represent the same meaning, they need to be consistent in the text.

Response: We have written the full form of all the abbreviations when appeared the first time

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

agronomy-1905538

Title: Impact of mycorrhizal fungi from different rhizospheric soils of perennial grasses on mycorrhizal colonization, growth, and chlorophyll contents of Cenchrus ciliaris

 Abstract

What is the contribution of this article, please specify it in the last of the abstract section.

 Introduction

 The research background and research status are too simple, please clarify and describe in detail based on your research aim.

 Line 89: hypothesis? I cannot find it in the Introduction section.

 Materials and Methods

 Much of the narrative is redundant in the Study area section, please reparse this section. For example, Layyah derives its name from a wild short stature shrub commonly known as Layyah. Is this related to the present MS?

 Line 109: delete the “and causes many diseases such as malaria and fever”.

Line 111: delete “is not much” and Line 112 “are very hot”. And other such descriptions in this section.

 Line 135: why did you use this ratio of 1:2?

 Table 1: The bicarbonate and the bicarbonate have the wrong sign

 Line 254: add the P value.

 Line 353: cite the results mentioned.

 Line 372-376: cite the results. Also, for line 377-378 and other such descriptions in this section.

 Please also discuss the weaknesses of your research in the discussion section.

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 2 comments

agronomy-1905538

Title: Impact of mycorrhizal fungi from different rhizospheric soils of perennial grasses on mycorrhizal colonization, growth, and chlorophyll contents of Cenchrus ciliaris

 Abstract

What is the contribution of this article, please specify it in the last of the abstract section.

Response: We have added a statement regarding the contribution of this article (Please see lines 41-44)

 Introduction

The research background and research status are too simple, please clarify and describe in detail based on your research aim.

Response: We have revised the research background and research status, describing all the details based on our research aim (Please see lines 99-107)

Line 89: hypothesis? I cannot find it in the Introduction section.

Response: Thanks for pointing out an important aspect. We have added the hypothesis made for the present study (Please see lines 105-108)

 Materials and Methods

Much of the narrative is redundant in the Study area section, please reparse this section. For example, Layyah derives its name from a wild short stature shrub commonly known as Layyah. Is this related to the present MS?

Response: We have modified the introduction of the study area and removed the redundant text

Line 109: delete the “and causes many diseases such as malaria and fever”.

Response: Deleted

Line 111: delete “is not much” and Line 112 “are very hot”. And other such descriptions in this section.

Response: Revised (Please see lines 115-118)

Line 135: why did you use this ratio of 1:2?

Response: We have revised the sentence as “Due to a sandy texture, the soil was suspended in distilled water in a 1:2 (w/v) ratio for pH and electrical conductivity (EC), … ” (Please see lines 146-148)

Table 1: The bicarbonate and the bicarbonate have the wrong sign

Response: Thanks for your comment. Corrected

Line 254: add the P value.

Response: Added

Line 353: cite the results mentioned.

Response: Cited (Please see lines 402-405)

Line 372-376: cite the results. Also, for line 377-378 and other such descriptions in this section.

Response: Cited (Please see lines 410-413)

Please also discuss the weaknesses of your research in the discussion section.

Response: We have discussed the limitation of the study conducted (Please see lines 458-461)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments

The work was carried out to study the diversityof mycorrhiza in the rhizospheric soils of perennial grass species in the Layyah distric, pakistan, and their impact on mycorrhizal colonization, Cenchrus ciliaris growth and its physiological characteristics.

Overall, the research presented in this manuscript seem to be good. However, the m/s should be redrafted and reformulated in a more precise and logical manner.  

The sections of the m/s are not suitable and not well structured and there is a data that are not adequate, especially in materials and methods. In addition, there is a great lack of reference, and the way you cite is not appropriate by putting one reference (old reference) for many information. Furthermore, the role of mycorrhizal fungi in boosting plant growth and performance is well documented. Please, describe correctly and clearly what is new about this m/s. Provide a reasonable motivation for the study and the selection of the site, plant used, measured parameters. Please give a clear hypothesis and explanation of the possible mechanism of the differences between the treatment variants.

Please verify the entire manuscript in terms of compliance with the template required by the agronmy journal. The use of page breaks disrupted the numbering of the paper pages (need to be checked)

Specific comments

The title is long. Please revise the title to be clearer and more concise.

Abstract: Please It is necessary to add values (percentage) to improve the summary (eg. Lines 27-29).

Keywords - Please put in alphabetical order. In addition, keywords should not repeat words found in the title of the manuscript.

Introduction:

1. Data about Cenchrus ciliaris are missing.

2.  Lack of reference in many sentences (eg, Lines 43, 48,54, 65, 71 ect) ,

3. Please do not give many information with just one reference (eg 52 ( old reference), 74….)

4. Line 75: Please explain VAM and ECM abbreviation.?

I believe that the introduction should be more structured, with a logical progression from one paragraph to the next. Please avoid repeating the same information and tell the theoretical and practical importance of your study.

Materials and Methods:

Lines 95-123: Paragraph too long without any references and the information given here are not suitable (eg : The moisture reaches its maximum during the inundation period (August and September) and causes many diseases such as malaria and fever. ).

Lines 145-146: “to kill the earlier present microbial fauna and flora” it is not necessary to say that

Lines 147-148 – How was the inoculum prepared? And how much was used for inoculation?

Discussion:

Please build discussion to test the hypotheses, explain your results with sufficient depth. Provide explanations with references.

 Discussion of the DSE and ECM results of is missing

Lines 349, 393, 397-398: references

The quality of the figures and tables is clear and satisfying. However, they should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited (eg figure 2 and 3 and table 3)

Conclusion:

Please provide the relevance of your results for the management of arid lands.

Reference: References: add the missing DOI in the references and check all references citation in the text and list (volume number and Pages).

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer 3 comments

The work was carried out to study the diversity of mycorrhiza in the rhizospheric soils of perennial grass species in the Layyah district, Pakistan, and their impact on mycorrhizal colonization, Cenchrus ciliaris growth and its physiological characteristics. Overall, the research presented in this manuscript seem to be good. However, the m/s should be redrafted and reformulated in a more precise and logical manner. 

Response: Thanks for your appreciation and recommendation. We have revised the manuscript as per the suggestions of worthy reviewers

The sections of the m/s are not suitable and not well structured and there is a data that are not adequate, especially in materials and methods. In addition, there is a great lack of reference, and the way you cite is not appropriate by putting one reference (old reference) for many information. Furthermore, the role of mycorrhizal fungi in boosting plant growth and performance is well documented. Please, describe correctly and clearly what is new about this m/s. Provide a reasonable motivation for the study and the selection of the site, plant used, measured parameters. Please give a clear hypothesis and explanation of the possible mechanism of the differences between the treatment variants.

Response: We have provided all the requested information like motivation for the study and the selection of the site, plant used, measured parameters, clear hypothesis, and explanation of the possible mechanism ad highlighted as yellow

Please verify the entire manuscript in terms of compliance with the template required by the agronomy journal. The use of page breaks disrupted the numbering of the paper pages (need to be checked)

Response: We have tried but were unable to correct it. We hope that it will be corrected by the editorial office

Specific comments

The title is long. Please revise the title to be clearer and more concise.

Response: We have revised the title as “Impact of mycorrhizal fungi from different rhizospheric soils on fungal colonization, growth, and chlorophyll contents of Cenchrus ciliaris” to make it clearer and concise

Abstract: Please It is necessary to add values (percentage) to improve the summary (eg. Lines 27-29).

Response: We have added the percentage increase values for different parameters as per the suggestion of the reviewer

Keywords - Please put in alphabetical order. In addition, keywords should not repeat words found in the title of the manuscript.

Response: We have revised the keywords as per the suggestion of the reviewer

Introduction:

1. Data about Cenchrus ciliaris are missing.

Response: We have added a paragraph about the characteristics and importance of grass species tested in the present study (Please see lines 89-98)

2. Lack of reference in many sentences (eg, Lines 43, 48,54, 65, 71 ect) ,

Response: We have cited the reference to the sentences without citations

3. Please do not give many information with just one reference (eg 52 ( old reference), 74….)

Response: We have cited more references

4. Line 75: Please explain VAM and ECM abbreviation.?

Response: We have explained these abbreviations

I believe that the introduction should be more structured, with a logical progression from one paragraph to the next. Please avoid repeating the same information and tell the theoretical and practical importance of your study.

Response: We have revised the introduction section by following a logical progression

Materials and Methods:

Lines 95-123: Paragraph too long without any references and the information given here are not suitable (eg : The moisture reaches its maximum during the inundation period (August and September) and causes many diseases such as malaria and fever. ).

Response: We have modified the description of the study area and added reference (Please see lines 114-135)

Lines 145-146: “to kill the earlier present microbial fauna and flora” it is not necessary to say that

Response: Revised the sentence

Lines 147-148 – How was the inoculum prepared? And how much was used for inoculation?

Response: We have added the mentioned information (Please see lines 158-166)

Discussion:

Please build discussion to test the hypotheses, explain your results with sufficient depth. Provide explanations with references.

Response: We have revised the discussion section by adding references to the added information and highlighting the mechanisms involved

 Discussion of the DSE and ECM results of is missing

Response: We have added discussion DSE and ECM and highlighted them as yellow

Lines 349, 393, 397-398: references

Response: We have added the references

The quality of the figures and tables is clear and satisfying. However, they should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited (eg figure 2 and 3 and table 3)

Response: Thanks for your appreciation. We have tried our level best to insert the mentioned Figures and Table in the main text near to the first time they are cited

Conclusion:

Please provide the relevance of your results for the management of arid lands.

Response: We have added the relevance of our results for the management of arid lands for future research work (Please see lines 475-477)

Reference: References: add the missing DOI in the references and check all references citation in the text and list (volume number and Pages).

Response: We have cross-checked all the references and citations regarding journal format and following the text and list

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully revised the paper according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Personally, I think the magazine can accept the paper and publish it.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

Comment: The authors have carefully revised the paper according to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Personally, I think the magazine can accept the paper and publish it.

Response: Thanks for your appreciation and recommendation

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After reviewing your manuscript, I recommend to accept it for publication in Agronomy

Before that, please take into account the few comments below.

 Lines 40-41: Compared with what?

Lines 89-98:  Pleases add references? e.g. Line 93 and 98.

Please read the references section again, they are not homogeneous, some are capitalized, others are not, for example references 66 and 67.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 comments

Comment: After reviewing your manuscript, I recommend to accept it for publication in Agronomy

Response: Thanks for your recommendation

Before that, please take into account the few comments below.

Comment: Lines 40-41: Compared with what?

Response: We have revised the sentence

Comment: Lines 89-98:  Pleases add references? e.g. Line 93 and 98.

Response: Added

Comment: Please read the references section again, they are not homogeneous, some are capitalized, others are not, for example references 66 and 67.

Response: We have cross-checked and corrected where required

Author Response File: Author Response.docx