Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper by Fasusi et al., takes shape as a typical review of the literature. It is interesting collection of information but not a lot of synthesis of ideas or new knowledge creation.  In other words, they are cataloging the collection of papers on microorganisms that release or interact with nutrients and metals.  They overuse the term biofertilizer; just because you add a microbe to the soil, you do not always add a fertilizer.   They do not pose any hypotheses or questions, and they do not attempt to create a systemic understanding of the data and information.  If you want a catalog of papers related to one form of microbial action, this is the paper. Is the article wrong or incorrect? It is hard to say as they are not testing any ideas or concepts, so it is a reporting of the existing literature?  I think they miss use the term biofertilizer in the paper. 

When I first looked at the title (biofertilizer), I expected some synthesis of ideas and concepts relating to microbial recovery of minerals. From line 286, a good biofertilizer should increase yield!  I wanted the paper to tie microbial actions to crop yield; you don't apply fertilizer unless you wish to increase yield. Are these actions essential, and is the manipulation of the rhizosphere worth the trouble? Neither of these questions was answered as they did not tie any microbiology to yield the plants. For me, the ideas that are missing would relate the microbiology to the yield. I did think their potassium discussion was good, as was their look at some of the other lesser-known minerals. However, again, is the response critical? Is yield impacted?

My central grip with the paper is its incredible poor graphics. As they are not providing new data and are using the artwork to convey concepts, they will need to develop a better plan than PowerPoint standard clipart as the current combination is not acceptable.  They also need to sharpen the paper's focus; the excursion into bioremediation weakens what they are trying to do.  Sections 9, 10, and 11 seem to be miss placed in terms of the

Recommendations:

• A complete overhaul of all of the artwork is a mandatory change.
• I would argue their use of the term biofertilizer is overdone. Just because you can add a microorganism to the soil does not make it a biofertilizer. A bioremediation agent is not a biofertilizer. It is a microorganism that is conducting a process.
• Rework each of the sections to include some comments on the impact on plant yield. Better yet would be to have a column in table 2 on yield increases or not.  Section 6 of the paper needs to be reworked and enhanced.  This is where the real need for a review can be found: besides rhizobium and mycorrhizae, can we get a yield increase out of bacterial introduction?  Section 6 should be section 1, and everything should hang from the question, can we increase yield?  
• I think the inclusion of the bioremediation section is not needed. I do not put bioremediation and plant growth for yield in the same place.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith is the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

It is interesting collection of information but not a lot of synthesis of ideas or new knowledge creation.

Response: New idea has been included thus

“increase yields, manage abiotic and biotic stress and prevent phytopathogens attacks. Recently, beneficial soil microbes have been reported to produce some volatile organic compounds, which are beneficial to plants and the amendment of these microbes locally available organic materials and nanoparticles, are currently used to formulate biofertilizers to increase plant productivity.” (line 17-21).

  “ Recently, new technology has been introduced in the formulation of biofertilizer, which involves the amendment of plant growth-promoting microbes with nanoparticles [117]. This technique involves the use of nanoparticles made from organic or inorganic material with, at least, 100 nm in size. In agriculture, this technique is referred to as the agro-nanotechnology approach. Plant growth-promoting microbes are integrated into the nanostructure to enhance performance of yields in plants [118].  The formulation of nano- biofertilizer has efficiently enhanced agricultural productivity by increasing high retention in soil moisture content and increasing essential nutrient due to the direct and indirect effects of nanomaterial coating on plant growth-promoting microorganisms and its application has been reported to increase performance of yields in cereal and leguminous plants by stimulating the germination potency in plants [119].” (line 367-377).

Point 2

When I first looked at the title (biofertilizer), I expected some synthesis of ideas and concepts relating to microbial recovery of minerals.

Response: The recovery of soil nutrients and minerals by the application of biofertilizer has been included table 2 and more discussion has been provided in line 309-316.

“ More importantly, soil nutrients are reduced as a result of different activities that occur in the soil, which include runoff, bush burning and leaching of agricultural soil. Nutrients in the soil migrate to the water body through runoff caused by rainfall, where it causes eutrophication and contamination of the water body [107]. This has caused a major threat to the natural environment. Thus, application of nutrient-rich biofertilizer made from plant growth-promoting microorganisms that have the potential like nitrogen fixation, potassium solubilization, and phosphate solubilization are essential in the recovery of soil nutrient to enhance plant growth and performance of yields [108].”

Point 3

From line 286, a good biofertilizer should increase yield!  I wanted the paper to tie microbial actions to crop yield; you don't apply fertilizer unless you wish to increase yield.

Response: The application of biofertilizer in increasing plant yield has been included in line “increase plant yield” line 333. Detail discussion has been provided on the effect of biofertilizer on yield performance in line 296-308.

 “Besides, the effect of biofertilizer in increasing plant growth, increase in plant yield for more food production has also been attached to its application. This is evident in research conducted by Dicko et al. [104], who found that biofertilizer made from plant growth promoting Actinomycetes (Actinomycetes sp.  H7, O19, and AHB12), improves maize yield. Data obtained for the study revealed the highest yield performance was recorded in biofertilizer made from a combination of O19 and AHB12, with a yield increase of 311.5 g for 1000 seeds compared to 178.28 g for the control plant. Recently, the effect of biofertilizer made from a plant growth-promoting Bacillus pumilus strain TUAT-1 was evaluated on two forage rice genotypes. The result obtained revealed that biofertilizer made from the Bacillus species, increases productivity of rice compared to uninoculated [105]. Additionally, application of biofertilizer in increasing maize growth and yield performance was reported by Fathi [106]. In the study, biofertilizer formulated using phosphate solubilizing bacteria was reported to enhance maize growth and yield compared to uninoculated control.”

Point 4

Are these actions essential, and is the manipulation of the rhizosphere worth the trouble? Neither of these questions was answered as they did not tie any microbiology to yield the plants. For me, the ideas that are missing would relate the microbiology to the yield. I did think their potassium discussion was good, as was their look at some of the other lesser-known minerals. However, again, is the response critical? Is yield impacted?

Response: The application of biofertilizer in rhizosphere management in this manuscript has been tied to increase in plant growth and yield in line 59-62, 274, line 296-308, 333 and a column has been provided on the effect of biofertilizer on plant yield in table1.

Point 5

My central grip with the paper is its incredible poor graphics. As they are not providing new data and are using the artwork to convey concepts, they will need to develop a better plan than PowerPoint standard clipart as the current combination is not acceptable.

Response: The graphic in the manuscript has be reformatted.

Point 6

They also need to sharpen the paper's focus; the excursion into bioremediation weakens what they are trying to do.  Sections 9, 10, and 11 seem to be miss placed

Response: The paper focus has been sharpened by removing all sections that are related to bioremediation. The section listed has been fixed.

Point 7

A complete overhaul of all of the artwork is a mandatory change.

Response: The artwork has been overhauled

Point 8

I would argue their use of the term biofertilizer is overdone. Just because you can add a microorganism to the soil does not make it a biofertilizer. A bioremediation agent is not a biofertilizer. It is a microorganism that is conducting a process.

Response: Your suggestion has been fixed and the inclusion of a bioremediation agent as a biofertilizer has been removed.

Point 9

Rework each of the sections to include some comments on the impact on plant yield. Better yet would be to have a column in table 2 on yield increases or not.  Section 6 of the paper needs to be reworked and enhanced.  This is where the real need for a review can be found: besides rhizobium and mycorrhizae, can we get a yield increase out of bacterial introduction?  Section 6 should be section 1, and everything should hang from the question, can we increase yield?

Response: Each of the section has been reworked and a column has been created for effect of biofertilizer on plant yield performance in table 1.

Note: All effected corrections were highlighted in the main manuscript using Track Change and in the answer letter copied too.

Prof OO Babalola

Reviewer 2 Report

This review focuses on the diverse plant biofertilizers at the rhizospheric level. While this reads pretty well, authors mainly recombine what could be found in many reviews of this topic. This is disapointing that one can poorly find further challenges to better develop or use them as well as strategies to move forward from what is known and exist. It would be great that authors could add more to this.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith are the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

This review focuses on the diverse plant biofertilizers at the rhizospheric level. While this reads pretty well, authors mainly recombine what could be found in many reviews of this topic. This is disapointing that one can poorly find further challenges to better develop or use them as well as strategies to move forward from what is known and exist. It would be great that authors could add more to this.

Response.  More point has been added.

“increase yields, manage abiotic and biotic stress and prevent phytopathogens attacks. Recently, beneficial soil microbes have been reported to produce some volatile organic compounds, which are beneficial to plants and the amendment of these microbes locally available organic materials and nanoparticles, are currently used to formulate biofertilizers to increase plant productivity.” (line 17-21).

  “Recently, new technology has been introduced in the formulation of biofertilizer, which involves the amendment of plant growth-promoting microbes with nanoparticles [117]. This technique involves the use of nanoparticles made from organic or inorganic material with, at least, 100 nm in size. In agriculture, this technique is referred to as the agro-nanotechnology approach. Plant growth-promoting microbes are integrated into the nanostructure to enhance performance of yields in plants [118].  The formulation of nano- biofertilizer has efficiently enhanced agricultural productivity by increasing high retention in soil moisture content and increasing essential nutrient due to the direct and indirect effects of nanomaterial coating on plant growth-promoting microorganisms and its application has been reported to increase performance of yields in cereal and leguminous plants by stimulating the germination potency in plants [119].” (line 367-377).

“Besides, the effect of biofertilizer in increasing plant growth, increase in plant yield for more food production has also been attached to its application. This is evident in research conducted by Dicko et al. [104], who found that biofertilizer made from plant growth promoting Actinomycetes (Actinomycetes sp.  H7, O19, and AHB12), improves maize yield. Data obtained for the study revealed the highest yield performance was recorded in biofertilizer made from a combination of O19 and AHB12, with a yield increase of 311.5 g for 1000 seeds compared to 178.28 g for the control plant. Recently, the effect of biofertilizer made from a plant growth-promoting Bacillus pumilus strain TUAT-1 was evaluated on two forage rice genotypes. The result obtained revealed that biofertilizer made from the Bacillus species, increases productivity of rice compared to uninoculated [105]. Additionally, application of biofertilizer in increasing maize growth and yield performance was reported by Fathi [106]. In the study, biofertilizer formulated using phosphate solubilizing bacteria was reported to enhance maize growth and yield compared to uninoculated control.” (line 296-308).

Note: All effected corrections were highlighted in the main manuscript using Track Change and in the answer letter copied too.

Prof OO Babalola

Reviewer 3 Report

The review article entitled “Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management” on interesting topic, while authors have put a lot of effort in compiling a bulk of information. However, manuscript seems a bit poorly written and it requires improvement in ideas and language.

At present, the abstract of the manuscript does not provide a synthesis  of this review which gives readers a new information or understanding, so it should be revised. Currently, it contains just general sentences and phrases.

The first paragraph of the introduction is too general and it has little to no connection with the real topic, it would be better if authors only and precisely focus on microbial biofertilizers? Also, it contains very confusing and unrealistic thoughts, for instance, “depletion of rock phosphate”?? How can biofertilizers address this issues in soil which are already deficient in phosphorus??? Any logical explanation???

Ln 44 “rhizosphere management” what is meant by rhizosphere management? You may want to rewrite first portion of introduction with a clear focus on rhizosphere management? Definition of rhizosphere management, and possible microbial role???

Ln 50-53. You sentences are either too wordy or full of redundant phrases, you may want to refine your writing?

Ln 67. The “microbial diversity of the rhizosphere is determined by” not only the factors that authors mentioned in this sentence BUT also by root system architecture, root branching order, and root chemistry (e.g. Root microbiome changes with root branching order and root chemistry in peach rhizosphere soil. Rhizosphere 16 (2020): 100249).

Ln 70-73 & Ln 50-53. Manuscript contains very redundant sections, authors may want to address these.

Ln 74 “n detriment of other microorganisms” what does this mean?

I gave up reading this manuscript because it is full of redundant text, authors should go back and clearly define the core concept of Rhizosphere management and tightly link or describe sub-sections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith are the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

At present, the abstract of the manuscript does not provide a synthesis of this review which gives readers a new information or understanding, so it should be revised. Currently, it contains just general sentences and phrases.

Response: New information has been included in the abstract in line 17-21

Point 2 

The first paragraph of the introduction is too general and it has little to no connection with the real topic, it would be better if authors only and precisely focus on microbial biofertilizers? Also, it contains very confusing and unrealistic thoughts, for instance, “depletion of rock phosphate”?? How can biofertilizers address this issue in soil which are already deficient in phosphorus??? Any logical explanation???

Response: The introduction has been connected to the topic.  depletion of the rock phosphate has been removed. Biofertilizers address the issue of soil that is deficient in phosphorus by application of sole/consortium of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms amended with the low-cost organic or inorganic carrier.

Point 3

 Ln 44 “rhizosphere management” what is meant by rhizosphere management? You may want to rewrite first portion of introduction with a clear focus on rhizosphere management? Definition of rhizosphere management, and possible microbial role???

Response: Rhizosphere management has been defined and the possible role of microorganisms has been included in line 45-51. The introduction has been rewritten.

Point 4

Ln 50-53. You sentences are either too wordy or full of redundant phrases, you may want to refine your writing?

Response: The writing has been refined.

Point 5

Ln 67. The “microbial diversity of the rhizosphere is determined by” not only the factors that authors mentioned in this sentence BUT also by root system architecture, root branching order, and root chemistry (e.g. Root microbiome changes with root branching order and root chemistry in peach rhizosphere soil. Rhizosphere 16 (2020): 100249).

Response: The factors listed above with the reference has been included in the manuscript in line 73-74.

Point 6

 Ln 70-73 & Ln 50-53. Manuscript contains very redundant sections; authors may want to address these.

Response: The redundant sections mentioned has been addressed.

Point 7

Ln 74 “n detriment of other microorganisms” what does this mean?

Response: The statement has been rewritten when the section was overhauled. 

Note: All effected corrections were highlighted in the main manuscript using Track Change and in the answer letter copied too.

Prof OO Babalola

Reviewer 4 Report

Referee Report of the Manuscript ‘Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management' submitted to Agriculture journal by Oluwaseun Adeyinka Fasusi, Cristina Cruz and Olubukola Oluranti Babalola.

The authors analyze the role of beneficial soil microorganisms as promising 'bioinoculants' to manage rhizosphere and plant growth.

The Manuscript has a certain potential to be published in Agriculture.
At the same time, based on the content of the MS, it does not yet correspond to the level of the target journal and is not ready to be accepted for publication.
To provide a substantial contribution to the research area MS should be revised and re-written.

There are the following comments, questions, and suggestions to this manuscript:

1. How do the authors define the term 'agricultural sustainability'?
Which interpretation context did the authors follow when developing the concept of the manuscript?

2. What do authors think about the standardization criteria for the evaluation of agricultural sustainability in the context of the idea of sustainable development as a whole?

3. What concepts, indicators and framework potential could be revealed directly or indirectly and developed from the results of the MS to estimate agricultural sustainability in the context of the microbial biofertilizers' role in rhizosphere management?

4. It should be noted that the challenges in the context of agricultural sustainability are broadly discussed in different papers.
But what principally novel, innovative concepts could be suggested by authors of the reviewed manuscript, please, to contribute significantly to the considered area of research?

5. Authors consider "the exploitation of beneficial soil microorganisms as an alternative to chemical fertilizers in the production of food".
Do the authors have information in more detail about real success stories and areas of agricultural land, where chemical fertilizers would be effectively and equally replaced by biofertilizers?
Please, cite and discuss these.
And if authors have in view this even as a "potential solution" only - it's just that there is an opinion that expectations and promises in this context are greatly overestimated, but what do the authors think?
On the contrary, is there negative data in this sense in more detail?

6. 1. The authors use 'biofertilizer' and 'inoculant' terms in the MS. But also they consider plant growth-promoting and biocontrol traits. So, biostimulants and biopesticides too?
Interestingly, that du Jardin (2012) did not consider microorganisms as biostimulants, but later du Jardin (2015) proposed biofertilizers as a subcategory of biostimulants.
What do authors think about this from the concept of their manuscript?
To develop and discuss this challenge, it should be noted that the following highly conceptual papers were published:
du Jardin, P. (2012). The Science of Plant Biostimulants - A Bibliographic Analysis, Ad hoc Study Report. Brussels: European Commission.
du Jardin, P. (2015). Plant biostimulants: definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae,196, 3-14.
Yakhin, O. I., Lubyanov, A. A., Yakhin, I. A., & Brown, P. H. (2017). Biostimulants in plant science: a global perspective. Frontiers in plant science, 7, 2049.
Caradonia, F., Battaglia, V., Righi, L., Pascali, G., & La Torre, A. (2018). Plant Biostimulant Regulatory Framework: Prospects in Europe and Current Situation at International Level. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 1-11.
It is also desirable to formulate in the manuscript the scientific and regulatory definitions of biofertilizers, biostimulants, and biopesticides to provide correct discussion and conclusions.

7. The authors consider the application of a consortium of microorganisms as a biofertilizer and in the bioremediation of agricultural soil.
In this aspect, what do the authors think about additivity, synergy, and especially emergence/emergent properties concepts in the context of the discussion in the previous paragraph 6 above?

8. To exclude the risk of conceptual plagiarism and self-plagiarism, it is necessary to look through all close similar works in the literature, make appropriate references and discuss earlier results, if any, both by MS authors' own and other authors, from articles to conference proceedings including the same on the other languages too.
What is fundamentally new that this manuscript introduces and implements compared to other previously published works in this sphere of research?

9. The manuscript contains many common approaches, well-known and already widely used "cliche" and concepts.
In order to meet the high level of the journal Agriculture and the novelty of the MS content, it is necessary to significantly revise and rewrite the entire manuscript, develop, as well as present and substantiate promising innovative ideas, concepts, approaches, and fundamental methodology.
The same is applicable for an abstract, body text, conclusions. Perhaps for the title of MS too.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith are the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

How do the authors define the term 'agricultural sustainability'? Which interpretation context did the authors follow when developing the concept of the manuscript?

Response: Agricultural sustainability can be defined as agricultural practices which involve  maintaining and improving soil fertility for plant growth promotion and increasing  plant yield (Weiner, 2017).The interpretation concept followed was to promote plant growth and yield using bioformulation made from plant growth promoting  microorganisms.

Point 2

What do authors think about the standardization criteria for the evaluation of agricultural sustainability in the context of the idea of sustainable development as a whole?

Response: The standardization criteria used in evaluating agricultural sustainability is by evaluating the effectiveness of indicator (microorganisms) use in establishing agricultural sustainability. In this context, the effect of the biofertilizer in increasing soil nutrient and promoting plant productivity in terms of yield is needed to establish the potential of microbial biofertilizer.

Point 3

What concepts, indicators and framework potential could be revealed directly or indirectly and developed from the results of the MS to estimate agricultural sustainability in the context of the microbial biofertilizers' role in rhizosphere management?

Response: The concept, indicator and the frame work potential developed from the result of this manuscript to estimate agricultural sustainability is the application of beneficial soil microorganisms having plant growth promoting traits in the production of biofertilizer to enhance the efficiency of soil nutrient needed for plant growth promotion to enhance plant yield which pose no harm to human health and the environment.

Point 4

 It should be noted that the challenges in the context of agricultural sustainability are broadly discussed in different papers.
But what principally novel, innovative concepts could be suggested by authors of the reviewed manuscript, please, to contribute significantly to the considered area of research?

Response: The principal innovative concept suggested in this manuscript that contributed to agricultural sustainability is the application of viable cells of beneficial soil microorganisms with plant growth promoting traits in biofertilizer production to enhance plant yield and meet the food demand by increasing world population and recently the amendment of plant growth promoting microorganisms with nanoparticles are now in use.

Point 5

 Authors consider "the exploitation of beneficial soil microorganisms as an alternative to chemical fertilizers in the production of food".
Do the authors have information in more detail about real success stories and areas of agricultural land, where chemical fertilizers would be effectively and equally replaced by biofertilizers?
Please, cite and discuss these.
And if authors have in view this even as a "potential solution" only - it's just that there is an opinion that expectations and promises in this context are greatly overestimated, but what do the authors think?
On the contrary, is there negative data in this sense in more detail?

Response: The success story on why biofertilizer is an alternative to chemical fertilizer are discussed below.

The quest for replacement of chemical fertilizer with biofertilizer is majorly based on the health issues and environmental concern attributed to application of chemical fertilizer as reported by Trujillo-Tapia and Ramírez-Fuentes (2016).This health concern caused by application of chemical fertilizer for more food production are sometimes deadly as reported by Lu et al. (2015). Recently, Atieno et al. (2020) reported  the use of biofertilizer as an alternative to chemical due to the deleterious effect attributed to it usage and the destabilization in the ecological balance like pollution of air and water. Additionally, the environmental challenges encounter in the land use practice such as emission of gases and the release  through leaching and runoff into the water body as reported by Drechsel et al. (2015)    demand for a new route which is low cost and eco-friendly for increasing plant yield.

Point 6

The authors use 'biofertilizer' and 'inoculant' terms in the MS. But also, they consider plant growth-promoting and biocontrol traits. So, biostimulants and biopesticides too?
Interestingly, that du Jardin (2012) did not consider microorganisms as biostimulants, but later du Jardin (2015) proposed biofertilizers as a subcategory of biostimulants.
What do authors think about this from the concept of their manuscript?
To develop and discuss this challenge, it should be noted that the following highly conceptual papers were published:
du Jardin, P. (2012). The Science of Plant Biostimulants - A Bibliographic Analysis, Ad hoc Study Report. Brussels: European Commission.
du Jardin, P. (2015). Plant biostimulants: definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae,196, 3-14.
Yakhin, O. I., Lubyanov, A. A., Yakhin, I. A., & Brown, P. H. (2017). Biostimulants in plant science: a global perspective. Frontiers in plant science, 7, 2049.
Caradonia, F., Battaglia, V., Righi, L., Pascali, G., & La Torre, A. (2018). Plant Biostimulant Regulatory Framework: Prospects in Europe and Current Situation at International Level. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 1-11.
It is also desirable to formulate in the manuscript the scientific and regulatory definitions of biofertilizers, biostimulants, and biopesticides to provide correct discussion and conclusions.

Response: I agree with your point but I will also buttress my own literature review using the below publication;

Recently, Azizoglu (2019) reported the classification of Bacillus thuringienesis  a bacterium with plant growth promoting potentials as a biofertilizer, biostimulant for plant growth promotion and it was also reported as a biocontrol agent. Additionally, Rahman et al. (2018) classified  an endophytic Bacillus spp. as a biofertilizer and biopesticides.  Therefore, I believe if the beneficial microorganisms to be use in the bioformulation process possess one of two potential require for their classification into biostimulant, biofertilizer and biopesticide we don’t have option than to group them in such category.

Point 7

The authors consider the application of a consortium of microorganisms as a biofertilizer and in the bioremediation of agricultural soil.
In this aspect, what do the authors think about additivity, synergy, and especially emergence/emergent properties concepts in the context of the discussion in the previous paragraph 6 above?

Response:  The first step in the application of consortium of microorganisms in biofertilizer production is to evaluate them for plant growth promoting potentials. Thereafter, the synergistic and compatibility test must be conducted in vitro to examine if the consortium of microorganisms to be applied are indeed compactible or not because the fact that two or more microbes have plant growth promoting traits does not mean that they can be applied as consortium. Therefore, compatibility test is the basis for application of microbial consortium.

Point 8

To exclude the risk of conceptual plagiarism and self-plagiarism, it is necessary to look through all close similar works in the literature, make appropriate references and discuss earlier results, if any, both by MS authors' own and other authors, from articles to conference proceedings including the same on the other languages too.
What is fundamentally new that this manuscript introduces and implements compared to other previously published works in this sphere of research?

Response: The fundamentally new aspect of this work is the management rhizosphere for more food production through application of biofertilizer made from beneficial soil microbes with plant growth promoting trait and recently the amendment of beneficial microbes with nanoparticle for biofertilizer formulation.

Point 9

The manuscript contains many common approaches, well-known and already widely used "cliche" and concepts.
In order to meet the high level of the journal Agriculture and the novelty of the MS content, it is necessary to significantly revise and rewrite the entire manuscript, develop, as well as present and substantiate promising innovative ideas, concepts, approaches, and fundamental methodology.
The same is applicable for an abstract, body text, conclusions. Perhaps for the title of MS too.

Response: The suggestions are well appreciated as have been corrected following your advice and that of other reviewers in line 17-21, 297-308, 367-377 and 471- 489.

Note: All effected corrections were highlighted in the main manuscript using Track Change and in the answer letter copied too.

Prof OO Babalola

References

Atieno, M., Herrmann, L., Nguyen, H.T., Phan, H.T., Nguyen, N.K., Srean, P., Than, M.M., Zhiyong, R., Tittabutr, P., Shutsrirung, A., 2020. Assessment of biofertilizer use for sustainable agriculture in the Great Mekong Region. Journal of environmental Management 275, 111300.

Azizoglu, U., 2019. Bacillus thuringiensis as a biofertilizer and biostimulator: a mini-review of the little-known plant growth-promoting properties of Bt. Current Microbiology, 1-7.

Drechsel, P., Heffer, P., Magen, H., Mikkelsen, R., Wichelns, D., 2015. Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification.

Lu, Y., Song, S., Wang, R., Liu, Z., Meng, J., Sweetman, A.J., Jenkins, A., Ferrier, R.C., Li, H., Luo, W., 2015. Impacts of soil and water pollution on food safety and health risks in China. Environment International 77, 5-15.

Rahman, W., Prince, M., Haque, E., Sultana, F., West, H.M., Rahman, M., Mondol, M., Akanda, A.M., Rahman, M., Clarke, M.L., 2018. Endophytic Bacillus spp. from medicinal plants inhibit mycelial growth of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and promote plant growth. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 73.

Trujillo-Tapia, M., Ramírez-Fuentes, E., 2016. Bio-fertilizer: an alternative to reduce chemical fertilizer in agriculture. Journal of Global Agriculture and Ecology 4, 99-103.

Weiner, J., 2017. Applying plant ecological knowledge to increase agricultural sustainability. Journal of Ecology 105, 865-870.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors made appropriate and significant modification. this article is now suitable for publication as is.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1 Authors made appropriate and significant modification. this article is now suitable for publication as is.

Response. The manuscript has been rechecked by an English editor.

Prof OO Babalola

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

There is a significant improvement in the revised manuscript, and it can now be considered for publication. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith are the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

There is a significant improvement in the revised manuscript, and it can now be considered for publication.

Response: The manuscript has been rechecked by an English editor.

Prof OO Babalola

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Noting the efforts of the authors to clarify this, unfortunately, actual challenges with biofertilizers, inoculants, biostimulants, and biopesticides terms as well as additivity, synergy, and especially emergence/emergent properties concepts have not been discussed and explained sufficiently in the MS.
But these are important aspects for this MS.
It is necessary to provide a more high level of conceptualization, originality, and more use of the system approach in this manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 comments

Manuscript title: Agricultural Sustainability: Microbial Biofertilizers in Rhizosphere Management

Manuscript ID: Agriculture-1075536 

Thanks so much for the positive criticism. Highlighted herewith are the effected corrections and responses to your comments. The manuscript has been checked by an English editor.

Point 1

Noting the efforts of the authors to clarify this, unfortunately, actual challenges with biofertilizers, inoculants, biostimulants, and biopesticides terms as well as additivity, synergy, and especially emergence/emergent properties concepts have not been discussed and explained sufficiently in the MS.

Response: A section has been created for the challenges with biofertilizer (Section 11).

“Though the application of beneficial soil microorganisms in the production of biofertilizer to enhance plant productivity is gaining more traction and a lot of success have been recorded from its application over the past years, but have not been widely accepted on a large scale because of the difficulty to reproduce their beneficial effect on plants in a natural environment where there is variation in the environmental condition. The major challenges with the application of microbial biofertilizer are lack of awareness on the eco-friendly importance of microbial biofertilizer among the communities of farmers, inadequate promotion and motivation by the agricultural extension worker to the farmers on the use of biofertilizer product, lack of availability of suitable carrier for biofertilizer formulation, lack of storage facilities to prevent contamination of the biofertilizer product, an extreme climatic condition which led to inconsistency in the efficacy of biofertilizers product on plant productivity in a natural environment, the credibility in the application of biofertilizer product can be shattered by lack of labelling e.g expiring date, and the name of microorganisms used in the production of the biofertilizer and most biofertilizers are selective in their actions [152,153].” (line 471-484)

Note: All effected corrections were highlighted in the main manuscript using Track Change and in the answer letter copied too.

Prof OO Babalola

Author Response File: Author Response.docx