Synergy Between Agroecological Practices and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review "Synergy Between Agroecological Practices and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi" systematically explores the potential use of AMF for sustainable agriculture and soil improvement, focusing primarily on Latin American countries.

It is interesting that the review focuses, in addition to analyzing the effectiveness of AMF in improving soil and plant nutrition, on their potential contribution as relational socio-ecological agents, examining their ecological, economic, epistemic, and territorial contribution to sustainable agriculture, improving food quality, and local autonomy.

The manuscript is certainly interesting and unique.

I suggest just a few changes:

- In paragraph 3.1.2 "Crop rotation," the sentence on lines 165-171 is repeated identically in lines 175-181 with different bibliographic citations. Reword and insert the references together at the end.

- In line 193, the sentence is missing the verb.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In some places, for example, in lines 210 and 286, it is more correct to use "such as" instead of "like."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review explores the synergy between agroecological practices and AMF, examining their ecological, economic, epistemic, and territorial contributions to sustainable agriculture.

The writing is fine, but I find the text too general and lacking concrete information. I suggest that the authors include numerical examples within the text, similar to those presented in the table at the end of the document.

The work presents relevant numerical data that should be incorporated throughout the text, rather than being presented only in a table at the end of the document.

I found the information contained in the table at the end of the document very valuable. However, I did not see anything in the text that relates to the references listed in the table (references 119 to 147). Why are these citations not included throughout the document?

I did not find the tables or the figures in the file. Additionally, the English needs to be reviewed throughout the entire document. I also noticed frequent text duplications throughout the material, which should be corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs to be reviewed throughout the entire document.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I read with interest the manuscript .This review article examines a topical issue with an interdisciplinary approach: the role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in enhancing ecological agriculture and the sustainability of agricultural systems. The article covers well the biological basis, ecosystem functions, and socio-political dimensions of this synergy. The overall quality of the references is excellent, covering a wide range of new articles (up to 2025) and theoretical references. However, the article requires structural corrections, linguistic editing, and clarification in some sections. The following suggestions could help improve the article.

 

Section 3.3: This section is very long and somewhat scattered. It is suggested that subsections 3.3.1 to 3.3.4 be organized separately and with clearer titles.

 

Table 1 (pp. 30–43): The table is very detailed but lacks an analytical explanation in the main text. It is suggested that the discussion section (4) summarize the key findings of the table.

Typos and spelling errors: observed throughout the paper

For example: “AMF belongs” → “AMF belong”

Long and complex sentences: in theoretical sections (e.g. 3.3) sentences are very long and reduce readability.

Ambiguity in some phrases: for example: “salvage capitalism” on line 472 needs further explanation.

The discussion section, although well written, could make a clearer connection to the findings of section 3.

The conclusion is clear and concise. It is suggested that more specific policy recommendations based on the analysis of section 3.3 (e.g. for legislation, advocacy or participatory research) be added.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please check the text formatting and correct the lack of punctuation at the end of some sentences.