Effects of Fermented Seaweed Fertilizer Treatment on Paddy Amino Acid Content and Rhizosphere Microbiome Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

fermentation-1866869

In this manuscript, a study on the amino acid content of rice produced by seaweed fertilizer implementation was evaluated. Furthermore, the rhizosphere bacterial community was also investigated.

The treatment with the CFSF2 group, when compared to other groups, shown significantly better growth characteristics, better concentration of macronutrients (N, P, K) in paddy leaf, and a most abundant amino acid composition. Moreover, treatment with the same CFSF2 group evidenced higher levels of beneficial bacteria Rhizobiales and th epresence of another important group, Vicinamibacterales was also significantly higher in CFSF2.

The seaweed fertilizer used in this study was prepared by fermentation that is an effective method to increase biological activity seaweed-based fertilizers.

The manuscript is well written and the investigation was interesting and innovative in analyzing a less treated aspect, namely the effects of seaweed fertilizer on the nutritional content of the crop produced.

Revisions

lines 27 and 31: ‘Vicinabacteriales’ change to ‘Vicinamibacterales’;

line 34: ‘(Oryza sativa’ change to Italic style;

line 69: ‘thee’ change to ‘three’;

lines 70-71: ‘Sargassum cristaefolium, Sargassum crassifolium, and Sargassum 70 polycystum.’ Change to ‘Sargassum cristaefolium, S. crassifolium, and S. polycystum.’;

lines 81-82: ‘combination of 75% seaweed fertilizer and 25% of chemical fertilizer (CFSF1), and combination of 50% seaweed fertilizer and 50% chemical fertilizer (CFSF2).’ On the basis of what was the choice of these concentrations made ?;

lines 177 and 185: ‘phosphor ‘ change to ‘phosphorus’;

line 180: ‘(Figure 2A).’ In Figure 2, the letter ‘A’ , referred to soil, is not indicated;

line 189: ‘Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, and K+’ change to superscript ‘Na⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and K⁺’;

line 193: ‘(Figure 2B).’ In Figure 2, the letter ‘B’ , referred to paddy plant leaves, is not indicated;

line 213: ‘phosphor’ change to ‘phosphorus’;

line 235: ‘such as iron (Fe) and (Zn)’ change to ‘such as iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn)’;

Table S1: ‘Amino acid concentration in rice’ change to ‘Amino acids concentration in rice’;

Line 266: ‘Leucine’ change to lowercase ‘leucine’;

Lines 303, 312 and 324: ‘Vicinabacteriales‘ change to ‘Vicinamibacterales’;

line 325: ‘phosphor‘ change to ‘phosphorus’;

line 366: ‘… Lycopersicum Esculentum …’ change to Italic style;

line 389: ‘(Oryzasativa L.)’ change the species name to Italic style ‘(Oryza sativa L.)’;

Please check the italics of the species names in the References list.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for the suggestions and corrections. We believe that these corrections significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have made corrections according to the comments by reviewer 1. Our answers to the comments by reviewer 1 are in red.

Thank you very much

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.

This paper is a good example of blue biotechnology and circular economy. The main contribution of the paper is the combination of techniques that the authors have applied to contrast their hypothesis. I wish to comment that the authors have included as a majority recent references. Also, I wish to highlight the clear and well-structured paper that the authors have submitted.

• General concept comments
  Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.

In the paper, some aspects remain unclear. The authors have selected three Sargassum species, but there is no reference about how the species have been identified or if the species have been registered with an ID code in an official herbarium or similar.

Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.
These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

The use of seaweed as fertilizers in rice is not new, however, the authors go deeper analyzing the amino acids rates. I encourage to the authors to use the seaweeds in pilot culture plants with higher extensions and also to check the reduction of marine salts after the first treatment and prior the fermentation process.

On the other hand, reviewing the paper, some specific aspects that should be clarified by the authors. The suggestions are:

• In line 97, authors have mentioned the method developed by Walkley and Black but there is no reference included, can the authors add as a reference the paper where the method is explained?
• Lines 115-117, do you mind to add a reference to expand information about the methodology to check the quality of the extracted DNA with an spectophotometer?
• Authors use along the manuscript Phospor instead of Phosphorous, can the authors clarify or modify this?
• Line 203: “studies” instead “study”
• Figure 3: In the total grains graph and total rice weight graph there are not error bars. Please, improve the graphics.
• Lines 260-261. The last sentence seems unclear.
• Lines 273-275: The sentence “The excessive 273 use of chemical fertilizers […]” is quite similar to the sentence include in line 247. Please, re-phrase the sentence.
• References: Please, ensure that the format is correct and uniform in all the bibliography.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for the suggestions and corrections. We believe that these corrections significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have made corrections according to the comments by reviewer 2. Our answers to the comments by reviewer 2 are in red.

Thank you very much

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf