Recent Trends in Microbial Approaches for Soil Desalination
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript describes the global problem of soil salination in combination with various environmental factors and reports on various proposed solutions in relation to desalination by the use of plants and microorganisms. I think it is an important contribution to the presentation of this problem. However, I think it can be improved in the way it is presented.
I have some comments for the revision of the manuscript:
General:
How is the literature sorted? It should be in the order of first mention. This is not done consequently in the introduction and is slightly irritating. In the following chapters, it is done in the expected way. I recommend that you revise this.
There are a few too many blanks in the document and also a change of font ("Consequently" in chapter 3.2)
I would recommend a different structure of the manuscript to improve comprehension for the reader:
I like the current chapters 3 and 4 to state the problem (make it 2 and 3 or put them toghether). I would like than a chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by plants” (current number 5) only on plants, including chapter 8.1 and 9, than a chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by microorganisms” including chapter 2, 6 and 8.2., the next chapter “Soil desalinization combined methods”, than perspectives and the conclusion.
The current structure makes the need of a lot of repetitions that could be avoided.
I think the figures are nice to summarize the problems and solutions presented and are a good addition to the text, but they could be made smaller and with less color. It is quite eye-catching and distracts from the statement.
The english language is very good to understand and easy to read.
Some more specific comments:
Introduction:
I think the introduction is very long and could be shortened, also because there are a lot of repetitions in what follows.
Paragraph 4 of the introduction fits very well with the text in chapter 2 (further comments on chapter 2 follow).
The abbreviation PGPB should be written out once at the first mention.
Chapter 2
I think this chapter should be placed elsewhere in the manuscript. It can also be expanded further. In its current form, I ask myself "What for?”.
Chapter 4
Sentence “This occurrence was generated by Sea level rise…” has something missing and is not good to understand in its current form.
In Paragraph 2, when you talk about [34] it says “...precipitation levels in the eastern Mediterranean are expected to decrease by 10 % by 2010” is slightly misleading because it is in the past. I would recommend revising that sentence.
Chapter 5 to 9
See general comment: a lot of repetitions can be avoided by employing a different structure.
Author Response
Review 1
Comment 1: The manuscript describes the global problem of soil salinization in combination with various environmental factors and reports on various proposed solutions in relation to desalination by the use of plants and microorganisms. I think it is an important contribution to the presentation of this problem. However, I think it can be improved in the way it is presented. I have some comments for the revision of the manuscript: How is the literature sorted? It should be in the order of first mention. This is not done consequently in the introduction and is slightly irritating. In the following chapters, it is done in the expected way. I recommend that you revise this.
Answer 1: The literature was sorted in the order of first mention in the introduction. We revised this.
Comment 2: There are a few too many blanks in the document and also a change of font ("Consequently" in chapter 3.2)
Answer 2: We deleted blanks in the document and also uniformed font ("Consequently" in chapter 3.2)
Comment 3: I would recommend a different structure of the manuscript to improve comprehension for the reader:
I like the current chapters 3 and 4 to state the problem (make it 2 and 3 or put them toghether). I would like than a chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by plants” (current number 5) only on plants, including chapter 8.1 and 9, than a chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by microorganisms” including chapter 2, 6 and 8.2., the next chapter “Soil desalinization combined methods”, than perspectives and the conclusion. The current structure makes the need of a lot of repetitions that could be avoided.
Answer 3: The structure of the manuscript was modified to improve comprehension for the reader:
Current chapters 3 and 4 stated the problem (we make it 2 and 3). Chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by plants” (previous number 5) only on plants, including previous chapter 8.1 and 9, than the chapter about “Bio-phytoremediation by microorganisms” including previous chapter 2, 6 and 8.2., the next chapter “Soil desalinization combined methods”, than perspectives and the conclusion.
Comment 4: I think the figures are nice to summarize the problems and solutions presented and are a good addition to the text, but they could be made smaller and with less color. It is quite eye-catching and distracts from the statement.
Answer 4: Figures were made smaller and with less color.
Comment 5: I think the introduction is very long and could be shortened, also because there are a lot of repetitions in what follows.
Answer 5: The introduction was shortened
Comment 6: Paragraph 4 of the introduction fits very well with the text in chapter 2 (further comments on chapter 2 follow).
Answer 6: Paragraph 4 is moved to the text of previous Chapter 2.
Comment 7: The abbreviation PGPB should be written out once at the first mention.
Answer 7: The abbreviation PGPB was written once at the first mention in the abstract.
Comment 8:
Chapter 2
I think this chapter should be placed elsewhere in the manuscript. It can also be expanded further. In its current form, I ask myself "What for?”.
Answer 8: Previous Chapter 2 was placed in the manuscript (Actually Chapter 5.4). It was also expanded further
Comment 9:
Chapter 4
Sentence “This occurrence was generated by Sea level rise…” has something missing and is not good to understand in its current form.
Answer 9: In chapter 4, the sentence " This occurrence was generated by Sea level rise…" has been reworded to be easy to understand.
Comment 10:
In Paragraph 2, when you talk about [34] it says “...precipitation levels in the eastern Mediterranean are expected to decrease by 10 % by 2010” is slightly misleading because it is in the past. I would recommend revising that sentence.
Answer 10: In previous Paragraph 2, when we talk about [34] it says “...precipitation levels in the eastern Mediterranean are expected to decrease by 20 % by 2050”. We revised this sentence.
Comment 11:
Chapter 5 to 9
See general comment: a lot of repetitions can be avoided by employing a different structure.
Answer 11: From previous chapter 5 to 9, repetitions were avoided by employing a different structure.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This review deals with a very interesting topic. The work is publishable, the authors are asked to verify the writing of the chemical formulas of the compounds mentioned. CaCl2 example in the introduction.
Author Response
Review 2
Comment 1: This review deals with a very interesting topic. The work is publishable, the authors are asked to verify the writing of the chemical formulas of the compounds mentioned. CaCl2 example in the introduction.
Answer 1: We checked the chemical formulas of the compounds mentioned.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article by Nabti et al. is a review article that could potentially be useful to readers but needs to be expanded.
First thing that I notice is that the references are out of order. This is something that needs to be addressed immediately.
In the introduction the authors talk about bioremediation for reference 4. I would like to kindly request the authors to include the following reference as this reference will strengthen the paper regarding bioremediation:
Bussan, Derek D., Ryan F. Sessums, and James V. Cizdziel. "Activated carbon and biochar reduce mercury methylation potentials in aquatic sediments." Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 96, no. 4 (2016): 536-539.
When speaking about the genetic engineering methods the authors need to go more in depth regarding the types of methods that are currently being used.
The section on microbial bioremediation is good, but this section needs to be expanded.
The conclusion is too short and needs to be expanded.
Overall, The article is well written, however I would like to see more depth added to this manuscript before I am willing to accept it.
Author Response
Review 3
Comment 1: The article by Nabti et al. is a review article that could potentially be useful to readers but needs to be expanded. First thing that I notice is that the references are out of order. This is something that needs to be addressed immediately.
Answer 1: References are ordered.
Comment 2: In the introduction the authors talk about bioremediation for reference 4. I would like to kindly request the authors to include the following reference as this reference will strengthen the paper regarding bioremediation:
Bussan, Derek D., Ryan F. Sessums, and James V. Cizdziel. "Activated carbon and biochar reduce mercury methylation potentials in aquatic sediments." Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 96, no. 4 (2016): 536-539.
Answer 2: In the current Chapter 5.4 (microbial bioremediation under abiotic stress conditions) when we talk about bioremediation. The following reference was included: Bussan et al. (2016); because we deleted the part talking about bioremediation in the introduction section
Comment 3: When speaking about the genetic engineering methods the authors need to go more in depth regarding the types of methods that are currently being used.
Answer 3: When talking about the genetic engineering methods we go more in depth regarding the types of methods that are currently being used. Thus, 3 paragraphs were added.
Comment 4: The section on microbial bioremediation is good, but this section needs to be expanded.
Answer 4: The section on microbial bioremediation was expanded (currently chapter 5.4)
Comment 5: The conclusion is too short and needs to be expanded.
Answer 5: The conclusion was expanded
Comment 6: Overall, The article is well written, however I would like to see more depth added to this manuscript before I am willing to accept it.
Answer 6: Overall, more depth were added to this manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
One of my main criticisms regarding the first version of the manuscript was the structure and the resulting comprehensibility and repetition of information. The authors have edited the entire manuscript and it is now much easier to understand and follow.
All of the review points mentioned have been edited or addressed by the authors.
I think the manucript in the current version has improved a lot.
I have only a few and very small comments:
In regard to the:
Introduction - Paragraph 5:
First letter missing "(A)n ..."
Line 9: "It's an promising alternative for restoring.." Delete "It's an promising alternative for" and start the sentence with "Restoring salt-effected.." because that it is promising is already written in paragraph 3.
Line 13: full stop ist double.
4.1 Halophyte Plants:
2nd paragraph:
"Recently, there have been various studies.." is quoted with only one reference [9], and according to the reference list it is from 1988?! This is neither various nor recent. More studies are quoted in the next sentences. That first sentenced needs to be reviewed.
There are still some text marks that should be removed (page 9, last paragraph)?
Chapter 5.4 headline in italics
Author Response
Answers for Reviewer 1
Comment 1: In regard to the:
Introduction - Paragraph 5:
First letter missing "(A)n ..."
Answer 1: is corrected
Comment 2: Line 9: "It's an promising alternative for restoring.." Delete "It's an promising alternative for" and start the sentence with "Restoring salt-effected.." because that it is promising is already written in paragraph 3.
Answer 2: Line 9: "It's an promising alternative for restoring.." was deleted "It's an promising alternative for" and sentence was started with with "Restoring salt-effected..".
Comment 3: Line 13: full stop ist double.
Answer 3: corrected
Comment 4: 4.1 Halophyte Plants:
2nd paragraph:
"Recently, there have been various studies.." is quoted with only one reference [9], and according to the reference list it is from 1988?! This is neither various nor recent. More studies are quoted in the next sentences. That first sentenced needs to be reviewed.
Answer 4: The first sentenced was reviewed and previous references were added
Comment 5: There are still some text marks that should be removed (page 9, last paragraph)?
Answer 5: the paragraph was checked and revised for the marques.
Comment 6: Chapter 5.4 headline in italics
Answer 6: Chapter 5.4 was headline in italics
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
