Improved Phosphorus Bioavailability in Lettuce Crop via Naganishia albida Inoculation of Wastewater-Derived Struvite

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1.     There should be a clearer statement of the specific hypotheses being tested and the objectives of the study. For instance, detailing the mechanisms by which Naganishia albida enhances phosphorus bioavailability compared to traditional fertilizers like TSP would provide a solid foundation for understanding the study’s relevance in the larger context of sustainable agriculture.

2.     An expanded literature review that places this study within the context of existing research could improve the scholarly robustness. Discuss how similar studies have approached phosphorus solubilization, the role of microbial inoculants, and contrasts with the findings of your research can establish a more comprehensive backdrop for your work. Current references should be checked for recent advancements in the related fields of sustainable fertilizers and microbial biotechnology.

3.     The experimental design should be elaborated on, particularly concerning the controls and replicates used in the experiments. It’s crucial to detail how variations in environmental conditions are managed and how these may affect outcomes.

4.     Enhance the discussion regarding the biochemical mechanisms by which Naganishia albida affects phosphorus availability. For example, detailed information on the types of organic acids produced by the yeast that promote P solubilization could be beneficial. Include specific pH changes and their correlation with enhanced bioavailability effects.

5.     A comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impact of using struvite fertilization combined with microbial inoculation should be included. Also explain how such practices could reduce phosphorus runoff into water bodies, thereby addressing eutrophication issues in a more detailed manner.

6.     The article would benefit from a section discussing the economic and social implications of adopting this method for larger-scale agricultural practices, especially in regions facing phosphorus deficiencies in soils. Insights on how waste management practices, such as recycling wastewater-derived struvite, support circular economy models in agriculture could create an added dimension to the paper.

7.     Compare the effectiveness of the struvite results on nutrients availability with various other supplements: 10.1016/j.jplph.2023.154023; 10.1007/s11104-023-06256-4

8.     A dedicated section outlining future research needs, such as investigating other potential crops or varying soil types for broader application of findings is necessary. This could help in formulating a strategic roadmap for deploying microbial inoculants with struvite across diverse agricultural systems.

9.     Incorporating more visual data (graphs, charts, and tables) to summarize key results will improve reader engagement and understanding of complex interactions between various factors in the experiments. For instance, visual representations of growth metrics and phosphorus levels correlated with treatment types will facilitate better comprehension.

10.  The conclusion should synthesize the findings into broader themes regarding sustainable agricultural practices. Reinforce why this study’s results are crucial for agricultural practices and policy-making regarding fertilizer use and nutrient management.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached you can find the asnwer of the comment of the Reviewer 1.

With my best regards,

 

Gladys Vidal  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present article entitled “Improved Phosphorus Bioavailability in Lettuce Crop via  Naganishia albida Inoculation of Wastewater-Derived Struvite” is  based on an  interesting theme.  Authors had  well designed the study and clearly presented. However I have  some concern in the data mentioned in the  Fig 3 and Fig. 5 data , the std error data mentioned in the bar charts are  very high . So  pleas recheck the data once, if possible.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached you can find the asnwer of the comment of the Reviewer 2.

With my best regards,

Gladys Vidal

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

  The innovation of the conducted research lies in the use of Naganishia albida yeast as a inoculant in the process of phosphorus release from struvite, a phosphorus source derived from waste. Although struvite is considered an effective slow-release fertilizer, its solubility in high pH soils can present a challenge for phosphorus availability to plants. The inoculation with yeast, which has the ability to solubilize phosphorus, is a novel approach that may enhance the bioavailability of phosphorus from unconventional sources like struvite, contributing to more efficient use of this resource in agriculture.  The use of a model plant, such as lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), allows for precise monitoring of the impact of this technology on plant growth and nutrient uptake, including phosphorus. Conducting the study with yeast,  which can stimulate phosphorus solubilization and improve its availability in the soil, is a step toward sustainable agriculture. This approach aligns with the growing interest in ecological and efficient fertilization solutions, particularly in the context of recovering and utilizing waste resources, such as struvite, in crop production.

Title of manuscript: suggestion to change the topic of the manuscript, because they compare inoculation uses the following microorganisms:  Burkholderia caledonica, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Naganishia albida, 

 Abstract: The sentence is written in a brief and concise manner, which can be an advantage when summarizing the main objectives of the study. However, in my opinion, it lacks detailed information regarding the results of the experiment, which could fully illustrate the scale of the achievements and findings. Instead of general, verbal conclusions, it would be beneficial to include specific numerical values that reflect the effects observed, such as changes in chlorophyll content or improvements in nutrient uptake by the plants. This would provide a better understanding of the effectiveness of the methods under investigation and offer a more precise picture of the analyses conducted. Additionally, a more detailed reference to the results concerning nutrient uptake could enrich the text, especially in the context of comparing different fertilizer sources, such as struvite and superphosphate.  

Introduction

The introduction is well-written, describing the importance of phosphorus in agriculture, its substitute in the form of struvite, and the limitation regarding its availability in soils with a pH above 8. The authors describe groups of soil organisms involved in increasing phosphorus availability in the soil. According to the authors, no previous studies have evaluated the ability of phosphate-solubilizing yeast to generate bioavailable phosphorus from struvite. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of inoculation with Naganishia albida yeast on phosphorus availability using struvite as a phosphorus source. I suggest adding some information about Naganishia albida.  

Material and methods: 

1. How was struvite obtained? Was it precipitated chemically, controlled? Please write how struvite was obtained. 

 2. Why were these species chosen? What do they have in common?

3. What quantities of struvite were supplied for quantification of phosphorus dissolution? Was the struvite easily dissolved in it? 

4. Please write how were the plants inolulated? Seedlings?Why was the inoculation treatment repeated after 15 days? 

5. Please describe the composition of the 50 mL Hewitt solution used ?

6. Why have you used term? You were working on the medium-substrate not soil?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Attached you can find the asnwer of the comment of the Reviewer 3.

With my best regards,

Gladys Vidal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok