Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: I do not think that this title is correct, I have the feeling that something is missing, I would suggest upon/ under climatic extremes?

In the first author's name something is missing.

Lines 53- 60: At which plants these PGPRs are associated? Please specify the interactions and  cite table 1

Lines 70-74 Here again is too vague. Please specify which is the plant- microbe interaction and cite table 1

arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi: please replace with mycorrhizal and add AMF.

Lines: 117 -121 Who? These are referred to what? These endophytic and epiphytic plant growth-promoting microbial ...

Line 128:  replace arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with AMF.

Line 126-127: please specify which are the beneficial fungi and algae.

Line 183: phy-tohormones is incorrect , replace with phytohormones

Line 185: The PGPBs improved, Which?

Line 192: replace arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with AMF.

Line 195: please add the species.

Line 317: the crucial future threatens to teh – something is missing in this sentence.

Line 343: remove spaces.

Line 361 replace with AMF

Lines 361-366: the references for these statements are missing.

Lines 418- 420: this review demonstrated- I think that this claim is too strong. This review summarizes the discoveries that pointed out the role of PGPRs to mitigate plant adaptation to climate change.

 

Line 422: this chapter?

Author Response

Title: I do not think that this title is correct, I have the feeling that something is missing, I would suggest upon/ under climatic extremes?

In the first author's name something is missing.

R: The authors thanks to the reviewer. It was a typographical mistake. We agree with the reviewer and added “under” into the title. The first author name is corrected.

 

Lines 53- 60: At which plants these PGPRs are associated? Please specify the interactions and  cite table 1

Lines 70-74 Here again is too vague. Please specify which is the plant- microbe interaction and cite table 1

R: Thanks. The information are revised and corrected. These are several studies combined in that specific paragraph however, the crops are mentioned and the table 1 is cited as suggested.

 

arbuscular Mycorrhizal fungi: please replace with mycorrhizal and add AMF.

R: Thanks, changed as suggested.

Lines: 117 -121 Who? These are referred to what? These endophytic and epiphytic plant growth-promoting microbial ...

R: The references are being cited at the end of the sentence. These microbes are referred here to cereal crops, mentioned in the sentence for clarity and better understanding of the readers.

Line 128:  replace arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with AMF.

R: Thanks, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi was replaced with AMF as suggested.

Line 126-127: please specify which are the beneficial fungi and algae.

R: Thanks, specific fungi and algae are mentioned in the text and highlighted.

Line 183: phy-tohormones is incorrect , replace with phytohormones

R: Thanks, the sentences as a whole is revised and corrected. Thanks for indicating.

Line 185: The PGPBs improved, Which?

R: Thanks, specified as suggested.

Line 192: replace arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with AMF.

R: The authors appreciate the suggestion of the reviewer however, a sentence should not be started with abbreviated words. That’s why the authors keep full form of AMF.

Line 195: please add the species.

R: Thanks, added.

Line 317: the crucial future threatens to teh – something is missing in this sentence.

R: It was a typo mistake, revised and corrected.

Line 343: remove spaces.

R: Thanks, removed as suggested.

Line 361 replace with AMF

R: The authors appreciate the suggestion of the reviewer however, a sentence should not be started with abbreviated words. That’s why the authors keep full form of AMF.

Lines 361-366: the references for these statements are missing.

R: Thanks, reference has cited.

Lines 418- 420: this review demonstrated- I think that this claim is too strong. This review summarizes the discoveries that pointed out the role of PGPRs to mitigate plant adaptation to climate change.

 R: The sentence is revised.

Line 422: this chapter?

R: It was a typo mistake, revised and corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this review article, the authors provided a good summary of the effect of beneficial microbes (mostly bacteria and fungi) on plant growth and performance under stressed conditions. The stresses discussed include drought, salinity, heavy metals, flooding, extreme temperature, and intense light. Overall, the article provided some useful information on the application of beneficial microbes to plants for coping with stressed conditions. The summary tables are helpful. There are several concerns that need to be addressed:

1)     Potential issues, concerns, and challenges for using beneficial microbes: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to fairly assess the potential of using microbes. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

 

2)     Future perspectives: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to provide future research directions to overcome current challenges and to fill knowledge gaps. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

3)     Table 3: this table contains information on cold temperature but I didn’t find corresponding writing or section in the manuscript text. It was briefly mentioned in the High Temperature section but it was scarce, and the section title does not indicate so either.

4)     Duplication: Identical sentences in the end of Abstract and Introduction.

5)     English writing: English writing can use some major improvements. There are also abundant typo and grammatic errors that need to be fixed.

Author Response

Review 2

In this review article, the authors provided a good summary of the effect of beneficial microbes (mostly bacteria and fungi) on plant growth and performance under stressed conditions. The stresses discussed include drought, salinity, heavy metals, flooding, extreme temperature, and intense light. Overall, the article provided some useful information on the application of beneficial microbes to plants for coping with stressed conditions. The summary tables are helpful. There are several concerns that need to be addressed:

R: The authors thanks to the reviewer. The authors thanks for all the prestegious suggestions of the reviewer. The manuscript is thoroughly revised and corrections are made as per above the comments. We addressed most of the suggestions and comments of the reviewer previously. We hope that we have answered every inquiry to your satisfaction and also hope that you will find this version of publishable quality. Hope, this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.

1)     Potential issues, concerns, and challenges for using beneficial microbes: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to fairly assess the potential of using microbes. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

 R: The entire manuscript is revised. There were several short comings. We improved the manuscript to the best of our knowledge. Some figures are also added to the main text. Hope this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.

2)     Future perspectives: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to provide future research directions to overcome current challenges and to fill knowledge gaps. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

 R: Thanks to the reviewer for indicating one of the most important section of the review. We have added this section soon after the conclusions.

3)     Table 3: this table contains information on cold temperature but I didn’t find corresponding writing or section in the manuscript text. It was briefly mentioned in the High Temperature section but it was scarce, and the section title does not indicate so either.

R: The author appreciate for the indication of this important subtopic. We have added some information about cold stress to justify its presence in Table3.

4)     Duplication: Identical sentences in the end of Abstract and Introduction.

R: Thanks, the abstract and introduction are revised and remove the duplications.

5)     English writing: English writing can use some major improvements. There are also abundant typo and grammatic errors that need to be fixed.

R: The authors really thanks to the reviewer. We revised the entire manuscript by some of the English experts from our research group. Hope, this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is necessary to correct the name of the element calcium to chlorine (in the section 3. Salt stress).

It is desirable to provide a more recent review of the ROS.

Why is there a reference to salinization in section 5. (High temperatures)? Please delete.

Table.2 it is desirable to add the column "plants", as in the other tables, for clarity.

Section 7 (light stress) repeats the characteristics of ROS as in section 5. (High temperature).

Table 3. provides links to the effect of cold stress on plants. At the same time, the authors in the review do not consider cold stress.

The list of references should be brought in line with the requirements of the journal.

Author Response

Review 2

In this review article, the authors provided a good summary of the effect of beneficial microbes (mostly bacteria and fungi) on plant growth and performance under stressed conditions. The stresses discussed include drought, salinity, heavy metals, flooding, extreme temperature, and intense light. Overall, the article provided some useful information on the application of beneficial microbes to plants for coping with stressed conditions. The summary tables are helpful. There are several concerns that need to be addressed:

R: The authors thanks to the reviewer. The authors thanks for all the prestegious suggestions of the reviewer. The manuscript is thoroughly revised and corrections are made as per above the comments. We addressed most of the suggestions and comments of the reviewer previously. We hope that we have answered every inquiry to your satisfaction and also hope that you will find this version of publishable quality. Hope, this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.

1)     Potential issues, concerns, and challenges for using beneficial microbes: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to fairly assess the potential of using microbes. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

 R: The entire manuscript is revised. There were several short comings. We improved the manuscript to the best of our knowledge. Some figures are also added to the main text. Hope this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.

2)     Future perspectives: this section is completely missing. It is essential to include this information to provide future research directions to overcome current challenges and to fill knowledge gaps. Without it, this review is not insightful, and is merely a summary of literature search.

 R: Thanks to the reviewer for indicating one of the most important section of the review. We have added this section soon after the conclusions.

3)     Table 3: this table contains information on cold temperature but I didn’t find corresponding writing or section in the manuscript text. It was briefly mentioned in the High Temperature section but it was scarce, and the section title does not indicate so either.

R: The author appreciate for the indication of this important subtopic. We have added some information about cold stress to justify its presence in Table3.

4)     Duplication: Identical sentences in the end of Abstract and Introduction.

R: Thanks, the abstract and introduction are revised and remove the duplications.

5)     English writing: English writing can use some major improvements. There are also abundant typo and grammatic errors that need to be fixed.

R: The authors really thanks to the reviewer. We revised the entire manuscript by some of the English experts from our research group. Hope, this version has met the expectations of the reviewer.