The Roles of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Influencing Plant Nutrients, Photosynthesis, and Metabolites of Cereal Crops—A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor,
The review article focused on the impact of symbiotic association of AM fungi with cereal plants on the plant’s nutrient uptake, primary and second metabolites, plants productivity and also quality. The general idea of the manuscript is potential interest and the study was well designed but the authors should modify some corrections as follows:
Line 11-13: The sentence in unclear.
Line 59: reported by???? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Line 59: according to??? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Line 67: Studies by???? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
- Lines 54-81: The linkage between sentences is missed.
- Lines 54-81: I recommend to separate different effects of AM fungi and discuss separately. I recommend this section should be divided to the following parts:
1-1: the effects of AM on the nutrient uptake.
1-2: the effect of AM on the primary and secondary metabolites.
1-3: The effects of AM on the chlorophylls and carotenoids as well as photosynthesis rate.
1-4: The effects of AM on the primary and secondary metabolites.
- Table 1: Table 1 should be divided based on the previous comment.
- Table 1: I recommend to adding one column about what changes in plants after AM colonization? For example, in the reference [30], the authors should be added the AM colonization enhance macro and micro nutrient concentration.
Table 1: Also, the authors should be added one another column and added the environmental conditions of each study. For example, in the reference of [30] the authors should be added in environmental conditions column: ‘heavy metals contaminated soil’.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on the macro and micro nutrients content in the lines of 33-36, 55-60, and also again 89-109. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
- Some sentences such as lines 30-31 have grammatically errors. Please check it.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on influencing photosynthetic activity of cereal crops in the lines of 63-65, and also again 157-191. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
- Table 2: Please add the environmental conditions column in table 2.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on primary and secondary metabolites of cereal plants in the lines of 67-72, and also again 198-218. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
- In different section of this review article, the authors reported the previously studies reports. Unfortunately, the reason for changes the nutrient content, primary and second metabolites, photosynthesis and etc. in missed in these sections. Please add the main reasons for effects of AM on the increasing of nutrient content, photosynthetic activity and changes in the primary and secondary metabolites and also grain yield and quality of cereal crops in each section.
- Line 203: Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
- Lines 198-218: How AM fungi enhanced primary and secondary metabolites in plants? Please add the reasons.
Table 3: Please add the environmental conditions column in table 3.
- Lines 271-328: In this section, the authors only reported the previously published results. Please discuss how AM fungi improve quantity and quality properties of plant.
- The conclusion section is repetitive and should be re-written.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to resubmit our revised version of manuscript for your kind consideration. We greatly appreciate your decision to give us a chance to improve our revised manuscript into the journal after major revisions for publication. We apologize for the shortcomings of our initial submission and after reviewers’ comments; we have carefully revised our manuscript in close accord to the obtained comments and suggestions. Our paper has substantially improved after the revision and we really hope you will find these changes significantly improved the rigor and standard of our paper required to be considered for publication in your prestigious journal. All the changes are in close accordance to the reviewers’ suggestions and the revised manuscript clearly provides an improved version of the work. We hope you would kindly agree to these revisions and provide us a chance to publish our work in your journal after these substantial revisions.
Regards,
Dr. Tian Hui
Response to reviewers’ comments (Reviewer 1):
Line 11-13: The sentence in unclear.
Response: We modified the sentence and made it clear.
Line 59: reported by???? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Response: We changed the format of the citation according to the journal guidelines.
Line 59: according to??? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Response: We have changed the citation format based on the journal guidelines.
Line 67: Studies by???? Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Response: We have change the citation format based on the journal guidelines.
- Lines 54-81: The linkage between sentences is missed.
Response: We have linked the sentences and added the linkage words in order to connect the sentences.
- Lines 54-81: I recommend to separate different effects of AM fungi and discuss separately. I recommend this section should be divided to the following parts:
1-1: the effects of AM on the nutrient uptake.
1-2: the effect of AM on the primary and secondary metabolites.
1-3: The effects of AM on the chlorophylls and carotenoids as well as photosynthesis rate.
1-4: The effects of AM on the primary and secondary metabolites.
Response: We have made changes and added this three sections as according to your suggestion. The section 1.2 and 1.4 are same, so we added this sections as one.
- Table 1: Table 1 should be divided based on the previous comment.
Response: We added new columns in table 1 i.e. i) Changes after AM colonization ii) Environmental conditions.
- Table 1: I recommend to adding one column about what changes in plants after AM colonization? For example, in the reference [30], the authors should be added the AM colonization enhance macro and micro nutrient concentration.
Response: We have added new column ‘changes after AM colonization in table 1.
Table 1: Also, the authors should be added one another column and added the environmental conditions of each study. For example, in the reference of [30] the authors should be added in environmental conditions column: ‘heavy metals contaminated soil’.
Response: We have added ‘environmental conditions’ column to table 1.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on the macro and micro nutrients content in the lines of 33-36, 55-60, and also again 89-109. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
Response: Because the section 2 were divided into 3 sections as according to reviewer suggestions, and we have to add nutrients uptake to the first section (the effects of AM on the nutrient uptake) so, 33-36 was added to it, and we added some sentence from 89-109 to it. We have removed the repetition in these three mentioned sentences.
- Some sentences such as lines 30-31 have grammatically errors. Please check it.
Response: The line number 30-31 there is nothing, its space. We couldn’t find any sentence.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on influencing photosynthetic activity of cereal crops in the lines of 63-65, and also again 157-191. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
Response: We have deleted the repetition, and made these added in one section.
- Table 2: Please add the environmental conditions column in table 2.
Response: We have added environmental conditions column to table 2.
- The authors discussed about the effects of AM fungi on primary and secondary metabolites of cereal plants in the lines of 67-72, and also again 198-218. The mentioned section should be added in one section.
Response: As the 67-72 sentences go to new section, so we added it into 198-218, and made these added in one section.
- In different section of this review article, the authors reported the previously studies reports. Unfortunately, the reason for changes the nutrient content, primary and second metabolites, photosynthesis and etc. in missed in these sections. Please add the main reasons for effects of AM on the increasing of nutrient content, photosynthetic activity and changes in the primary and secondary metabolites and also grain yield and quality of cereal crops in each section.
Response: We have added some reasons in every section of the manuscript.
- Line 203: Please change the citation format based on the journal guidelines. Please check all text.
Response: We have check all citation format and made it according to journal guidelines
- Lines 198-218: How AM fungi enhanced primary and secondary metabolites in plants? Please add the reasons.
Response: We have added few reasons as according to the recent literature in cereal crops.
Table 3: Please add the environmental conditions column in table 3.
Response: We have added environmental conditions column to table 3.
- Lines 271-328: In this section, the authors only reported the previously published results. Please discuss how AM fungi improve quantity and quality properties of plant.
Response: In this section we added the reasons that’s how AMF improve quantity and quality of cereal crops.
- The conclusion section is repetitive and should be re-written.
Response: The conclusion section is re-written as according to the suggestion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have evaluated this review article (agronomy-1884820) entitled “The roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in influencing plant nutrients, photosynthesis and metabolites of cereal crops-a review” submitted for publication in ‘Agronomy’. Topic of study is interesting and falls within the scope of journal; however, the major drawbacks and therefore cannot be considered for publication in its current form. My main concerns are:
1. Need to check the scientific names and language quality as there are many related mistakes. In the 1st paragraph of introduction, the scientific names of wheat and maize are wrong which is very surprising for me. It means the authors write and read the draft casually. Moreover, write the scientific names with authorities and write the scientific name of each crop at its 1st occurrence.
2. Restructure the headings. Heading should not be like a scentice or article title.
3. Problem statement is missing in the introduction section. Problem statements must be justified by the literature. Moreover, the authors have to highlight the existing knowledge and novel aspect of this review. Expand the introduction section to cover the problem and need of this review.
4. In most cases, like section 1, 2, 3 etc. authors have reviewed different functions of AM fungi, it is better that authors discuss and review the mechanism behind these functions. Although some functions are explained in the figures, but it is better the review the possible mechanism behind these functions. Likewise, improve the captions of Figs to illustrate the mechanism.
5. Most importantly all the sections look like mess of scattered information which is not critically analyzed and concluded. Add brief concluding statements at the end of each section after critically evaluating the presented literature.
6. In conclusion section, instead of writing the summary of the results, authors are recommended to highlight the strengths and deficiencies, prospects and propose recommendations to overcome the deficiencies and to improve the efficiency of AMF.
7. Most of the literature used is old, which do not describe the current state of knowledge. Authors are recommended to review current literature along with old one to highlight the progress in current years.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We would like to resubmit our revised version of manuscript for your kind consideration. We greatly appreciate your decision to give us a chance to improve our revised manuscript into the journal after major revisions for publication. We apologize for the shortcomings of our initial submission and after reviewers’ comments; we have carefully revised our manuscript in close accord to the obtained comments and suggestions. Our paper has substantially improved after the revision and we really hope you will find these changes significantly improved the rigor and standard of our paper required to be considered for publication in your prestigious journal. All the changes are in close accordance to the reviewers’ suggestions and the revised manuscript clearly provides an improved version of the work. We hope you would kindly agree to these revisions and provide us a chance to publish our work in your journal after these substantial revisions.
Regards,
Dr. Tian Hui
Response to reviewers’ comments (Reviewer 2):
- Need to check the scientific names and language quality as there are many related mistakes. In the 1stparagraph of introduction, the scientific names of wheat and maize are wrong which is very surprising for me. It means the authors write and read the draft casually. Moreover, write the scientific names with authorities and write the scientific name of each crop at its 1st
Response: The botanical name of wheat and maize have been corrected, and we checked throughout the manuscript and wrote the botanical name of each plant at its 1st appearance.
- Restructure the headings. Heading should not be like a scentice or article title.
Response: The headings are modified and heading 2. Was adjusted in introduction section as suggested by reviewer 1.
- Problem statement is missing in the introduction section. Problem statements must be justified by the literature. Moreover, the authors have to highlight the existing knowledge and novel aspect of this review. Expand the introduction section to cover the problem and need of this review.
Response: We have added problem statement in in the introduction section, and provide the solutions. Further, we already discussed about the existing knowledge and different roles of AM fungi. As according to reviewer 1 suggestion, we have added the 2 section into introduction section as 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. So I think the introduction section is enough.
- In most cases, like section 1, 2, 3 etc. authors have reviewed different functions of AM fungi, it is better that authors discuss and review the mechanism behind these functions. Although some functions are explained in the figures, but it is better the review the possible mechanism behind these functions. Likewise, improve the captions of Figs to illustrate the mechanism.
Response: We have added the mechanism and reasons that why AM fungi improve the nutrients, photosynthesis and other parameters in every section. And we also improve the captions of Figs and explained it more clearly.
- Most importantly all the sections look like mess of scattered information which is not critically analyzed and concluded. Add brief concluding statements at the end of each section after critically evaluating the presented literature.
Response: We have added concluding statements of each section and highlighted the missing knowledge, research gaps and we also added the future recommendation.
- In conclusion section, instead of writing the summary of the results, authors are recommended to highlight the strengths and deficiencies, prospects and propose recommendations to overcome the deficiencies and to improve the efficiency of AMF.
Response: we rewrite the conclusion and reduce the summery, added strengths and deficiencies and propose recommendations for the future research.
- Most of the literature used is old, which do not describe the current state of knowledge. Authors are recommended to review current literature along with old one to highlight the progress in current years.
Response: We have added the new knowledge and new references in more detail as we find and was available on internet.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor,
In the revised version, the authors have appropriately edited and revised this earlier version according to the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. The current version could be accepted for publication in the Agronomy journal.
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
I have evaluated the revised draft and found it in much better shape than initial submission. The authors tried to incorporate the suggested revisions. Now the manuscript looks fine and can be accepted for publication.
