Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title is very eye catching, but the content presentation is quite difficult mostly for reader of abiotic stress. 

I am too much concern about the methodology, where details should be more specific and readable. otherwise this whole content become garbage. 

Figure 1 is not needed but can be given as supplemented data. 

Treatment duration must be given otherwise this is not reliable.

Soil characteristic (like table 1) must be analysed after treatment exposure. 

Is there any changes of salt alkali level after providing treatment? If yes then give emphasis on that which could be more efficient for stress management. 

Need mechanistic figure by plotting mechanism involved the bacteria-induced changes in saline alkali soil improvement.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

We thank all Reviewers for their careful and insightful reviews of our manuscript. We have addressed their questions and comments and have further improved our manuscript. Our explicit responses (in regular) to each of the Reviewers’ comments (in italics) are shown below.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The title is very eye catching, but the content presentation is quite difficult mostly for reader of abiotic stress. I am too much concern about the methodology, where details should be more specific and readable. otherwise this whole content become garbage.

 

We thank the reviewer for the favorable review and approval of our work. We have completed the revision in strict accordance with the reviewer's comments. We have used yellow background standards in the manuscript. We address the detailed technical comments raised by Reviewer 1 below:

 

Comments 1. Figure 1 is not needed but can be given as supplemented data.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have included Figure 1 in the Supplementary data as requested.

 

Comments 2. Treatment duration must be given otherwise this is not reliable.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. Materials and methods have been modified , and the treatment duration () has been highlighted.

 

Comments 3. Soil characteristic (like table 1) must be analysed after treatment exposure.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have completed the modifications and analyzed the data in Table 1 in Results and analysis 3.5. ‘.’

 

Comments 4. Is there any changes of salt alkali level after providing treatment? If yes then give emphasis on that which could be more efficient for stress management.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. ’

 

 

Comments 5. Need mechanistic figure by plotting mechanism involved the bacteria-induced changes in saline alkali soil improvement.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have completed the modification as required, and added mechanistic figure by plotting mechanism.

 

Figure 8. Effects of applying low-temperature saline-alkali tolerant and efficient straw degrading bacteria on straw degradation and saline-alkali soil.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 267: indicate what the parameters in the equation represent

Table 3. Resize so that all the numbers reported for each parameter stay on the same line.

For all the figures presented consider incorporating what the individual graphs represent in their titles as you have them lettered (i.e. a, b, c, etc.)

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

We thank all Reviewers for their careful and insightful reviews of our manuscript. We have addressed their questions and comments and have further improved our manuscript. Our explicit responses (in regular) to each of the Reviewers’ comments (in italics) are shown below.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

We thank the reviewer for the favorable review and approval of our work. We have completed the revision in strict accordance with the reviewer's comments. We have used yellow background standards in the manuscript. We address the detailed technical comments raised by Reviewer 1 below:

 

Comments 1. Line 267: indicate what the parameters in the equation represent.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. ‘’

 

Comments 2. Table 3. Resize so that all the numbers reported for each parameter stay on the same line.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required and resized so that all the tables of numbers reported for each parameter stay on the same line.

 

Comments 3. For all the figures presented consider incorporating what the individual graphs represent in their titles as you have them lettered (i.e. a, b, c, etc.)

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required and put all the figures in lowercase alphabetical order.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Improvement of Saline–Alkali Soil and Straw Degradation Efficiency in Cold and Arid Areas Using Klebsiella sp. and Pseudomonas sp.’’ By Zhao et al., required revision before its acceptance in Agronomy.The manuscript is on slow decomposition of crop residues in cold, arid, and  saline–alkali soils that are responsible to to serious resource waste and ecological crisis. The use of beneficial microorganisms such as Klebsiella sp. and Pseudomonas sp. with degradation functions could solve these problems. The manuscript is well written and required careful revision before its acceptance. Overall this reaech is potentially full of interest, as it addresses relevant topic.

Major Comments

The introduction section required the addition of Straw Degradation Efficiency in Cold and Arid Areas.

In section 2.3 Add detailed methodology of Manganese peroxidase

The results of this study showed that the degradation of straw and its components and the release rate of elements (C, N, P, and K) in the low, medium and high saline–alkali soil showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. Discuss the functions of these elements

The degradation effect of GF2+GF7 was significantly higher than the single treatments discuss the mechanism of the same in detailed in discussion.

Soil alkaline protease, soil alkaline phosphatase, soil urease, soil cellulase, soil invertase, and soil catalase, their role should be mentioned in discussion under salinity.

Graphical representation of the manuscript is highly recommended

Conclusions should be improved

Minor comments

Homogenize the use of terminology throughout the manuscript

In keywords add comma after low temperature.

Materials and Methods is ok

Figure 2 Graph, resolution should be improved

References style is not uniform

Check formatting of references 1,2 journal name with others references

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

We thank all Reviewers for their careful and insightful reviews of our manuscript. We have addressed their questions and comments and have further improved our manuscript. Our explicit responses (in regular) to each of the Reviewers’ comments (in italics) are shown below.

 

 

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript “Improvement of Saline–Alkali Soil and Straw Degradation Efficiency in Cold and Arid Areas Using Klebsiella sp. and Pseudomonas sp.’’ By Zhao et al., required revision before its acceptance in Agronomy. The manuscript is on slow decomposition of crop residues in cold, arid, and  saline–alkali soils that are responsible to serious resource waste and ecological crisis. The use of beneficial microorganisms such as Klebsiella sp. and Pseudomonas sp. with degradation functions could solve these problems. The manuscript is well written and required careful revision before its acceptance. Over all this reaech is potentially full of interest, as it addresses relevant topic.

 

We thank the reviewer for the favorable review and approval of our work. We have completed the revision in strict accordance with the reviewer's comments. We have used yellow background standards in the manuscript. We address the detailed technical comments raised by Reviewer 1 below:

 

Comments 1. The introduction section required the addition of Straw Degradation Efficiency in Cold and Arid Areas.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required and added of straw degradation efficiency in cold and arid areas in the introduction section. ‘’

 

Comments 2. In section 2.3 Add detailed methodology of Manganese peroxidase.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required and added detailed methodology of Manganese peroxidase in section 2.3. ‘’

 

 

 

3. The results of this study showed that the degradation of straw and its components and the release rate of elements (C, N, P, and K) in the low, medium and high saline–alkali soil showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. Discuss the functions of these elements.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. ‘.’

 

 

Comments 4. The degradation effect of GF2+GF7 was significantly higher than the single treatments discuss the mechanism of the same in detailed in discussion.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. ‘.’

 

 

Comments 5. Soil alkaline protease, soil alkaline phosphatase, soil urease, soil cellulase, soil invertase, and soil catalase, their role should be mentioned in discussion under salinity.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required.

 

 

Comments 6. Graphical representation of the manuscript is highly recommended.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have completed the modification as required and added mechanistic figure by plotting mechanism.

Figure 8. Effects of applying low-temperature saline-alkali tolerant and efficient straw degrading bacteria on straw degradation and saline-alkali soil.

 

Comments 7. Conclusions should be improved.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. ’

 

Comments 8. Homogenize the use of terminology throughout the manuscript. In keywords add comma after low temperature.

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required and homogenize the use of terminology throughout the manuscript.

 

Comments 9. Materials and Methods is ok.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have further refined the materials and methods.

 

Comments 10. Figure 2 Graph, resolution should be improved.

Response 10: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. The quality of all the figures in the manuscript has been improved.

 

Comments 11. References style is not uniform. Check formatting of references 1,2 journal name with others references.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abbreviated word in table should be changed into complete name

Comments on the Quality of English Language

quite fine to read

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

We thank all Reviewers for their careful and insightful reviews of our manuscript. We have addressed their questions and comments and have further improved our manuscript. Our explicit responses (in regular) to each of the Reviewers’ comments (in italics) are shown below.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments 1. Abbreviated word in table should be changed into complete name.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. We have supplemented the complete name in Tables 3 and 4. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is suitable for publication.

References 47, 48, 49 and 51 first letter of title of the paper is in uppercase while in others references it is in lower case. It should be uniform

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

We thank all Reviewers for their careful and insightful reviews of our manuscript. We have addressed their questions and comments and have further improved our manuscript. Our explicit responses (in regular) to each of the Reviewers’ comments (in italics) are shown below.

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Comments 1. References 47, 48, 49 and 51 first letter of title of the paper is in uppercase while in others references it is in lower case. It should be uniform.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. We have finished the modification as required. We have used yellow background standards in the manuscript.

47. 47. Sayyed, R. Z.; Shaikh, S. S.; Wani, S. J.; Rehman, M. T.; Al Ajmi, M. F.; Haque, S.; El Enshasy, H. A., Production of biodegradable polymer from agro-wastes in alcaligenes sp. and pseudomonas sp. Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) 2021, 26 (9) , 2443.
48. 48. Liu, X.; Ding, J.; Li, J.; Zhu, D.; Li, B.; Yan, B.; Mao, L.; Sun, G.; Sun, L.; Li, X. The response of soil bacterial communities to cropping systems in saline–alkaline soil in the songnen p Agronomy 2023, 13, 2984.
49. 49. Zhang, H.; Gao, J.; Yu, X.; Ma, D.; Hu, S.; Shen, T. Effect of Deep Straw return under saline conditions on soil nutrient and maize growth in saline–alkali Land. Agronomy 2023, 13, 707.
50. Fazl, U.; Wang, J.; Yin, J.; Jiang, X.; Meng, F.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, H. Effects of FeSO₄ and organic sdditives on soil properties and microbiota during model soybean planting in saline-alkali soil. Agronomy 2024, 14(7):1553.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf