Review Reports - Growth-Promoting Effect of Naturalized <i>Metarhizium</i> spp. on <i>Pisum sativum</i> Seedlings Under Greenhouse Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 57: reach USD 4.71 billion by 2030, this product value is just reached possibility or not.
Line 111-113, this sentences should be improved to clearly.
Table 1. the size of the font should be decrased.
The associate species of MM29C should be identified, at least with a common name in local region or a genus name.
The phylogenetic tree should be constructed and present between the sequences of ITS obtained in this research and their closely related species download from NCBI. This comment must be added in the revised manuscript.
The processing photos during this research are recommended to add in the figure 1 and figure 4, that figure 1 or figure 4 could contain four pictures and narrow down the figure 1c and figure 4E, resulting typesetting neatly of figures.
In figure 3, the original figures from camerta were suggested to add upon the images obtained form software.
Each sub-figure should be cited in the main manuscript, such as in the section of results and discussion.
In the conclusion, the source should be described in detail to protrude specificity. Two paragraphs should be refined into a paragraph.

Author Response

We appreciate you review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Insufficient taxonomic resolution for fungal identification. The study relies exclusively on ITS sequencing for species identification of Metarhizium, which is widely recognized as insufficient for accurate species delimitation in this genus. The absence of additional loci (e.g., TEF1-α) and phylogenetic analysis significantly weakens taxonomic reliability.

Lack of true biological replication and potential pseudoreplication. The experimental design does not clearly define independent biological replicates in the plant assay. The use of multiple seedlings within the same tray may introduce pseudoreplication, compromising the validity of statistical inferences.

Bias introduced by the insect bait method. The exclusive use of Tenebrio molitor as a trap insect likely biases fungal isolation toward strains pathogenic to this host, underrepresenting the diversity of entomopathogenic fungi in the soil.

Uncontrolled and potentially confounding environmental conditions. Greenhouse temperatures reaching up to 42.4°C are unusually high and may induce abiotic stress in plants, confounding the interpretation of fungal inoculation effects.

Inadequate characterization of inoculum quality. The conidial suspension is standardized by concentration only, without assessing spore viability or germination rate. This omission introduces uncertainty regarding the consistency and effectiveness of the inoculation.

The measured variables are mainly descriptive and lack mechanistic depth. The study focuses on basic agronomic traits (biomass, length, chlorophyll), which are insufficient to explain the underlying biological mechanisms of plant–fungus interaction, limiting the novelty and impact of the work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The methodology should consistently use past tense, but there are occasional inconsistencies. Some sentences are unnecessarily long or repetitive, reducing clarity.

Therefore, the manuscript requires substantial language editing, as several grammatical errors and non-native constructions reduce clarity and readability, which does not meet the standards of a high-impact journal.

Author Response

We appreciate your review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer comments

The article entitled “Growth-promoting effect of native Metarhizium spp. on pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings under greenhouse conditions” presents an interesting investigation into the plant growth-promoting potential of Metarhizium isolates on pea seedlings. The topic is relevant given current interests in sustainable agriculture and biostimulants. However, the manuscript requires substantial revision before it meets publication standards.

Major Concerns

The title should be revised, especially the word “native”, native to which region? Geographic context is needed.
The abstract reports increases as fractions (e.g., "4/6", "3/6") without providing actual numerical values, effect sizes, or statistical parameters. Reviewers and readers cannot assess the magnitude or biological significance of these effects. Please report means ± SD/SE, test statistics, and exact p-values. (e.g., "strain M3 increased shoot length by 34.2% ± 5.1%, p < 0.01").

The experimental design in the abstract should be clearer, such as:

Sample size (n) per treatment is not stated
Whether the six strains were applied individually or as a consortium is ambiguous
Duration of the greenhouse experiment is missing, and also the greenhouse temperature and humidity.
Control conditions (what was the control? Sterile water? Inoculum without conidia?) are not clearly defined
Six Metarhizium strains were applied, mention strains names?

The phrase in line# 34 "significant increases" requires supporting statistical information. Which test was used? What was the alpha threshold? Were multiple comparison corrections applied, given the six strains tested?
There are some grammatical and stylistic issues mentioned below:

Line # 24-25 "this crop's development has had to adopt strategies" this needs to be revised, crops do not adopt strategies.
Line # 25 "food global demands" should be "global food demands."
Line#26-27 "Metarhizium genus is an endophytic insect-pathogenic fungus” seems awkward phrasing. You can consider if it doesn’t come in conflict with your original meaning "Metarhizium is a genus of entomopathogenic fungi that can also function endophytically".

Line # 27: "endophytic insect-pathogenic fungus" is unclear; clarify that Metarhizium is primarily entomopathogenic but can colonize plants endophytically??
Line # 36: "Native Metarhizium spp. isolates" native to which region? Geographic context is needed.

Line # 31: Why were Tenebrio molitor larvae used for isolation? how does this relate to plant growth effects?
Line # 33-34: “Compared to the control, significant increases were observed.” You should clearly write the exact figure/number for the control and observed parameters so that readers can easily compare and understand the difference. For example, compared to the control (20 cm), strain M3 increased shoot length by 34.2%, reaching 26.8 cm."

“MM23B and MM26B, identified as Metarhizium sp., reported significant shoot 300 development compared to the control?” This information should be mentioned in the abstract.
The authors' affiliations are written in languages other than English. Please check it.
In the introduction section, the authors mentioned abiotic stress (line 64) while in line 72 mentioned biotic stress. It is a bit confusing whether the Metarhizium anisopliae is used for Abiotic or Biotic stress?
In the conclusion section, you mentioned specific MM23B and MM26B, which are missing in the abstract, so the conclusion and abstract must have a link.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs improvement all over the manuscript.

Author Response

we appreciate your review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend a change in the title: Growth-promoting effect of native Metarhizium spp. on pea (Pisum sativum) seedlings under greenhouse conditions. Change to: Growth-promoting effect of native Metarhizium spp. on Pisum sativum seedlings under greenhouse conditions

Change or delete the Keywords: Growth promotion; Metarhizium spp.; sustainable agriculture. It is not recommended to use the same words from the manuscript title in the keywords.

The introduction became too long and repetitive. I invite the authors to shorten the introduction and make it easier to read. Much information can be omitted because, in our understanding, it is redundant and unnecessary. I invite the authors to improve the introduction, reducing it to no more than two-thirds of its current length. It has become too long and tiring. Leave some of these explanations for the manuscript discussion.

Describe in the methodology how many and which treatments were used and the number of repetitions for each treatment.

Only the ITS region was sufficient to identify the fungal agent at the species level. Metarhizium anisopliae????

I would like the authors to explain how they managed to identify the species of isolated fungi using only the ITS region, which is rarely used today to separate groups. It is important that the authors search the literature for other regions to conduct their analyses and arrive at phylogenetic trees. This is a recommendation. Simply expanding the ITS region does not give a reliable result.

I suggest the authors improve the conclusions; at some points, the authors are discussing the results. The conclusions should be more objective and answer the hypotheses and objectives.

Author Response

we appreciate your review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision is recommended to publish on horticulturae.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, they have been fully incorporated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Respect to Insufficient taxonomic resolution for fungal identification. The authors have satisfactorily point this issue by revising the taxonomic assignment to the genus level. The current revision is acceptable within the scope of the study.

Likewise, the authors partially addressed the concern by explaining measures taken to avoid cross-contamination.

Also, the authors have justified the use of Tenebrio molitor as a trap insect by providing additional references supporting this methodology.

Additionallly, the writing, linguistic and modificationwas were performed,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The methodology should consistently use past tense, but there are occasional inconsistencies. Some sentences are unnecessarily long or repetitive, reducing clarity.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, they have been fully incorporated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved compared to the previous version.

The "native" or "naturalized", you can decide according to your own facts
The scientific writing still needs improvement

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs improvement all over the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, they have been fully incorporated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all requests and suggestions for changes to the manuscript to improve reader comprehension. I believe the manuscript is now much better and easier to read.

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions, they have been fully incorporated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf