Evaluation of Corn Stalk as a Substrate to Cultivate King Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors.

I considered the manuscript relevant and exciting research; the manuscript has a good presence in all sections and here added some comments minors about the format for improving the manuscript.

Only details of format about figure and table captions correct it, such as the template showed:  “Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.”, and for tables: “Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.”.

Line 350: Into of all manuscript should be corrected the cited “Fig. number” by “Figure number”, please.

In the manuscript did not find cited reference 37, check it, please.

 

good look!

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

I considered the manuscript relevant and exciting research; the manuscript has a good presence in all sections and here added some comments minors about the format for improving the manuscript.

 

Point 1: Only details of format about figure and table captions correct it, such as the template showed:  “Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.”, and for tables: “Table 1. This is a table. Tables should be placed in the main text near to the first time they are cited.”.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have corrected figure and table captions.

 

Point 2: Line 350: Into of all manuscript should be corrected the cited “Fig. number” by “Figure number”, please.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have corrected the figure captions.

 

Point 3: In the manuscript did not find cited reference 37, check it, please.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have checked and corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Zhou et al., studied the possibility of using corn stalks as an amendment in the composition of substrates to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) in the laboratory. The introduction is well written with the clear novelty and the enumerated highlights accurately represent the essence of this research study. Here are my few comments

Line 25-26: Please provide a reference for this sentence

Line 88-93: provide a diagrammatic representation of the experimental treatment for easy replication by other researchers in this field of study

Line 115: how did you come about the 7, 12, 17, 24 115 and 31 days of inoculation?

Line 164: what is the year of the Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA, USA) version used for this analysis?

 

The results and discussions sections are well explained with concrete concluding remarks

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Zhou et al., studied the possibility of using corn stalks as an amendment in the composition of substrates to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) in the laboratory. The introduction is well written with the clear novelty and the enumerated highlights accurately represent the essence of this research study. Here are my few comments

Point 1: Line 25-26: Please provide a reference for this sentence

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a reference.

 

Point 2: Line 88-93: provide a diagrammatic representation of the experimental treatment for easy replication by other researchers in this field of study

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The requirements for materials and the process of medium preparation are common in edible mushroom cultivation and we consider it would be redundant to add this section.

 

Point 3: Line 115: how did you come about the 7, 12, 17, 24 115 and 31 days of inoculation?

 

Response 3: We mean 7, 12, 17, 24 and 31 days after inoculation, and we have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 4: Line 164: what is the year of the Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA, USA) version used for this analysis?

 

Response 4: It’s Microsoft Excel 2021, and we have added it.

 

Point 5: The results and discussions sections are well explained with concrete concluding remarks

 

Response 5: Thank you for endorsing our research!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments to the Author:

 Title: Evaluation of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii)

 Overview and general recommendation:

The manuscript deals with an important topic related to the use of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii). The manuscript technically sounds averagely but shows high novelty. However, it needs major linguistic adjustments; therefore, I ask the authors to pass their manuscript to a native English speaker for major revision and editing.

The references used in the manuscript should all be up-to-date (2010 and onwards). Although it outlines clearly the problematic, aims, and experimental design of the present study, the Abstract part should be reformulated in a correct language as it is very badly written in its current form. The findings need to be presented in a more appropriate manner. The Introduction part shows the need for moderate linguistic adjustments, besides the need to updated the references used to be all 2010 and onwards, if possible, as earlier references are considered old. In the Materials and methods, the experimental design is not clear; it should be presented in a more appropriate manner. Also, compositional analysis methods should be briefly described. In 3.2. (Results part), Table 3 shows no statistical representation of the findings. The statistical letters obtained after Duncan test performance should be added. The Results part should be written in a better scientific manner where percentages of improvements should be outlined. The discussion of the findings is poor and should be more deeply performed. The Conclusions part is clear and well aiming and summarizes the obtained findings in the current study. Suggestions for further research should be moved from the Discussion part to the end of the Conclusions one.

My comments and queries for authors are detailed below in “Major comments” and “Minor comments” sections.

  

1.1.            Major comments:

 

1-      Although it outlines clearly the problematic, aims, and experimental design of the present study, the Abstract part should be reformulated in a correct language as it is very badly written in its current form. The findings need to be presented in a more appropriate manner.

2-      The Introduction part shows the need for moderate linguistic adjustments, besides the need to updated the references used to be all 2010 and onwards, if possible, as earlier references are considered old.

3-      2. Materials and methods, 2.1. Inoculum source and spawn preparation: Page 2, line 79: Kindly mention the source and composition of used PDA.

4-      2. Materials and methods, 2.1. Inoculum source and spawn preparation: Page 2, line 80: Were the cultures placed in an incubator? As the later can maintain a stable temperature. If yes, kindly mention that. If not, kindly mention how the temperature was stabilized.

5-      2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, lines 88–91: “Corn… Y5”: The experimental design is not clear; it should be presented in a more appropriate manner.

6-      2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Compositional analysis methods should be briefly described.

7-      3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Table 3 shows no statistical representation of the findings. Kindly put the statistical letters obtained after Duncan test performance.

8-      3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 303–310: The analysis of this section should be improved.

9-      3. Results: The Results part should be written in a better scientific manner where percentages of improvements should be outlined.

10-  3. Results: Some results were reported in the Discussion part and should be oved to the Results one or merge both parts.

11-  4. Discussion: The discussion of the findings is poor and should be more deeply performed.

  

1.2.            Minor comments:

 

12-  Abstract: Page 1, lines 8–9: “The goal… laboratory”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

13-  Abstract: Page 1, lines 10–11: “Corn… typical”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

14-  Abstract: Page 1, lines 13–16: “The results… bagasse”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

15-  Abstract: Page 1, line 17: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “substrate containing 42% sugarcane bagasse”.

16-  Abstract: Page 1, line 18: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to those” and move “)” after “respectively”.

17-  Abstract: Page 1, lines 18–19: “Moreover… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

18-  Abstract: Page 1, lines 19–21: “Therefore… sawdust”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

19-  1. Introduction: Page 1, lines 25–27: “Major… produced”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

20-  1. Introduction: Page 1, lines 38–41: “The application… industry”: The sentence is cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it clearer and more aiming.

21-  1. Introduction: Page 1, line 42: Kindly remove “it”.

22-  1. Introduction: Page 1, line 43: Kindly adjust as follow: “North Africa, and Central Asia”.

23-  1. Introduction: Page 1, line 44: Kindly adjust as follow: “Northern Italy”.

24-  1. Introduction: Page 2, line 47: Kindly adjust as follow: “[9,12,13]”.

25-  1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 52–53: “Lignocellulosic… mushrooms”: This statement lacks reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly add the following ones as recent and very reliable ones: “doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1090/1/012020; doi: 10.3390/agriculture12122095”.

26-  1. Introduction: Page 2, line 54: Kindly replace “and include” by “of which”.

27-  1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 57–59: “In China… materials”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

28-  1. Introduction: Page 2, line 70: Kindly replace “possible” by “potential”.

29-  1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 72–73: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “improve the nutritional composition of P. eryngii fruiting bodies”.

30-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 86: Kindly replace “provides” by “shows”.

31-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 94: Kindly adjust as follow: “dry mixed”.

32-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 95: Kindly replace “in triplicate” by “thrice”.

33-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, line 96: It is better to present it as “1 kg” instead of “1000 g”.

34-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, lines 99–100: “The bags… 121 ℃”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

35-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, lines 101–102: Kindly adjust as follow: “before being incorporated”.

36-  2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, lines 102–103: “All… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

37-  2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, line 110: Kindly adjust as follow: “mycelial growth rate”.

38-  2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, lines 111–112: Kindly adjust as follow: “combination of substrates”.

39-  2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, lines 115–119: “After… time”: The sentence is long and badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it more concise, clearer and more aiming.

40-  2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, line 119: Kindly adjust as follow: “mycelial growth”.

41-  2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 133: Kindly adjust as follow: “The spawn sticks”.

42-  2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 140: Kindly replace “at” by “of”.

43-  2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, lines 145–147: “Measurements… cm”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

44-  2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 151: Kindly adjust as follow: “divided by”.

45-  2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Page 5, line 153: Kindly adjust the title of this paragraph as follow: “2.5. Compositional analysis”.

46-  2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Page 5, line 154: Kindly adjust as follow: “were harvested”.

47-  3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, line 171: Kindly replace “lignocellulose” by “holocellulose”.

48-  3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, lines 174–175: “confirming… Pleurotus”: Kindly mention a reliable source (reference) for this statement.

49-  3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, line 176: Kindly adjust as follow: “were lower”.

50-  3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, lines 175–178: “The contents… bagasse”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

51-  3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 184: Kindly adjust the title of this paragraph as follow: “3.2. Mycelial growth rate”.

52-  3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 187: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “mycelial growth rate when grown on…”

53-  3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 189: Kindly adjust as follow: “growth rate”.

54-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 219: Kindly remove “extremely”.

55-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 220: Kindly replace “on” by “of”.

56-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 222: Kindly adjust as follow: “owing the lowest BE”.

57-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 224: Kindly adjust as follow: “(P > 0.05)”.

58-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 228: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “consistent with the findings of Table 4”.

59-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, lines 229 and 231–232: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to CK”.

60-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 235: Kindly adjust as follow: “to the yield outcome”.

61-  3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 8, lines 274–278: Kindly clarify the experimental design in the Materials and methods part in the same manner; it is well clear like that.

62-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 281: Kindly adjust as follow: “on CK”.

63-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 282: Kindly replace “similar” by “comparable”.

64-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 283: Kindly adjust as follow: “than those of CK”.

65-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, lines 283–285: “The samples… ash”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

66-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 9, line 286: Kindly adjust as follow: “on CK”.

67-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Pages 9–10, lines 288 and 291: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.

68-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 300: Kindly adjust the numbering of this paragraph as “3.5.” instead of “4.”

69-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 304: Kindly adjust as follow: “cultivated on”.

70-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 303–306: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

71-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 311–312: “In this… contained”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

72-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 314–315: Kindly remove “in our analysis”.

73-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 316: Kindly adjust as follow: “observed with CK”.

74-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 316–317: “The highest… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

75-  4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 335–336: “In this… Y5”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

76-  4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 338–339: Kindly adjust as follow: “the mycelial growth rate”.

77-  4. Discussion: Page 11, line 340: Kindly adjust as follow: “supplemented to”.

78-  4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 341–343: “Therefore… P. eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

79-  4. Discussion: Page 11, line 344: Kindly adjust as follow: “which is”.

80-  4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 355–357: “This could… aeration”: The sentence is cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it clearer and more aiming.

81-  4. Discussion: Page 12, line 362: Kindly replace “equally” by “comparably” and adjust as follow: “compared to”.

82-  4. Discussion: Page 13, line 420: Kindly adjust as follow: “[38–40]”.

83-  4. Discussion: Pages 13–14, lines 424 and 428: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to CK”.

84-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 436–437: “We used… substrate”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

85-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 443–444: Kindly adjust as follow: “elemental N”.

86-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 445–446: “In future… P. eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead. Moreover, kindly move this sentence to the Conclusions part.

87-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 458–459: Kindly adjust as follow: “highest one found” and remove “which was”.

88-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 458–461: “Among… [45]”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

89-  4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 463–464: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.

90-  4. Discussion: Page 14, line 470: Kindly adjust as follow: “to uptake”.

91-  4. Discussion: Pages 14–15, lines 471–473: “Zinc… selenium”: These sentences are badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate them.

92-  4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 475–476: “The highest… (Table 6)”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

93-  4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 483–486: “The corn… standard”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

94-  4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 488–492: “Therefore…stalks”: Kindly remove this section.

95-  5. Conclusions: Page 15, line 496: “The substrate… bodies”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate them.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Point 1: Although it outlines clearly the problematic, aims, and experimental design of the present study, the Abstract part should be reformulated in a correct language as it is very badly written in its current form. The findings need to be presented in a more appropriate manner.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated the abstract part.

 

Point 2: The Introduction part shows the need for moderate linguistic adjustments, besides the need to updated the references used to be all 2010 and onwards, if possible, as earlier references are considered old.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have updated some references.

 

Point 3: 2. Materials and methods, 2.1. Inoculum source and spawn preparation: Page 2, line 79: Kindly mention the source and composition of used PDA.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the composition of PDA in line 83-84.

 

Point 4: 2. Materials and methods, 2.1. Inoculum source and spawn preparation: Page 2, line 80: Were the cultures placed in an incubator? As the later can maintain a stable temperature. If yes, kindly mention that. If not, kindly mention how the temperature was stabilized.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added it in line 84-85.

 

Point 5: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, lines 88–91: “Corn… Y5”: The experimental design is not clear; it should be presented in a more appropriate manner.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 6: 2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Compositional analysis methods should be briefly described.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In fact, our component analysis is followed by references, and we provide the number of test standard. In addition, not every test method has an accurate name, so we believe that adding test methods would not only be redundant, but also hinder readers' reading

 

Point 7: 3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Table 3 shows no statistical representation of the findings. Kindly put the statistical letters obtained after Duncan test performance.

 

Response 7: We have analyzed the data of mycelium growth rate and marked the significance with letters.

 

Point 8: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 303–310: The analysis of this section should be improved.

 

Response 8: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have improved the analysis of the mineral composition.

 

Point 9: 3. Results: The Results part should be written in a better scientific manner where percentages of improvements should be outlined.

 

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have improved the analysis of the result.

 

 

Point 10: 3. Results: Some results were reported in the Discussion part and should be oved to the Results one or merge both parts.

 

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 11: 4. Discussion: The discussion of the findings is poor and should be more deeply performed.

 

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Minor comments:

 

Point 12: Abstract: Page 1, lines 8–9: “The goal… laboratory”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 13: Abstract: Page 1, lines 10–11: “Corn… typical”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

 

Response 13: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 14: Abstract: Page 1, lines 13–16: “The results… bagasse”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

 

Response 14: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 15: Abstract: Page 1, line 17: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “substrate containing 42% sugarcane bagasse”.

 

Response 155: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten this setence.

 

Point 16: Abstract: Page 1, line 18: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to those” and move “)” after “respectively”.

 

Response 16: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 17: Abstract: Page 1, lines 18–19: “Moreover… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 17: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 18: Abstract: Page 1, lines 19–21: “Therefore… sawdust”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

 

Response 18: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

 

Point 19: 1. Introduction: Page 1, lines 25–27: “Major… produced”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

 

Response 19: Tnk you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 20: 1. Introduction: Page 1, lines 38–41: “The application… industry”: The sentence is cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it clearer and more aiming.

 

Response 20: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 21: 1. Introduction: Page 1, line 42: Kindly remove “it”.

 

Response 20: Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We have removed it.

 

Point 22: 1. Introduction: Page 1, line 43: Kindly adjust as follow: “North Africa, and Central Asia”.

 

Response 22: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 23: 1. Introduction: Page 1, line 44: Kindly adjust as follow: “Northern Italy”.

 

Response 23: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 24: 1. Introduction: Page 2, line 47: Kindly adjust as follow: “[9,12,13]”.

 

Response 24: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised it.

 

Point 25: 1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 52–53: “Lignocellulosic… mushrooms”: This statement lacks reliable sources (references); accordingly, kindly add the following ones as recent and very reliable ones: “doi: 10.1088/17551315/1090/1/012020; doi: 10.3390/agriculture12122095”.

 

Response 25: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a reference.

 

 

Point 26: 1. Introduction: Page 2, line 54: Kindly replace “and include” by “of which”.

 

Response 26: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced “and include”.

 

Point 27: 1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 57–59: “In China… materials”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 27: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have rewritten it.

 

Point 28: 1. Introduction: Page 2, line 70: Kindly replace “possible” by “potential”.

 

Response 28: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced “possible” by “potential”.

 

Point 29: 1. Introduction: Page 2, lines 72–73: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “improve the nutritional composition of P. eryngii fruiting bodies”.

 

Response 29: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 30: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 86: Kindly replace “provides” by “shows”.

 

Response 30: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 31: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 94: Kindly adjust as follow: “dry mixed”.

 

Response 31: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 32: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, line 95: Kindly replace “in triplicate” by “thrice”.

 

Response 32: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 33: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, line 96: It is better to present it as “1 kg” instead of “1000 g”.

 

Response 33: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 34: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, lines 99–100: “The bags… 121 ℃”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 34: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 35: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 3, lines 101–102: Kindly adjust as follow: “before being incorporated”.

 

Response 35: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 36: 2. Materials and methods, 2.2. Substrate preparation: Page 2, lines 102–103: “All… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 36: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 37: 2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, line 110: Kindly adjust as follow: “mycelial growth rate”.

 

Response 37: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 38: 2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, lines 111–112: Kindly adjust as follow: “combination of substrates”.

 

Response 38: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 39: 2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, lines 115–119: “After… time”: The sentence is long and badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it more concise, clearer and more aiming.

 

Response 39: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 40: 2. Materials and methods, 2.3. Assay for the growth rate: Page 5, line 119: Kindly adjust as follow: “mycelial growth”.

 

Response 40: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 41: 2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 133: Kindly adjust as follow: “The spawn sticks”.

 

Response 41: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 42: 2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 140: Kindly replace “at” by “of”.

 

Response 42: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 43: 2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, lines 145–147: “Measurements… cm”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 43: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 44: 2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 5, line 151: Kindly adjust as follow: “divided by”.

 

Response 44: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 45: 2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Page 5, line 153: Kindly adjust the title of this paragraph as follow: “2.5. Compositional analysis”.

 

Response 45: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 46: 2. Materials and methods, 2.5. Compositional analysis: Page 5, line 154: Kindly adjust as follow: “were harvested”.

 

Response 46: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 47: 3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, line 171: Kindly replace “lignocellulose” by “holocellulose”.

 

Response 47: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 48: 3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, lines 174–175: “confirming… Pleurotus”: Kindly mention a reliable source (reference) for this statement.

 

Response 48: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added a reference.

 

Point 49: 3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, line 176: Kindly adjust as follow: “were lower”.

 

Response 49: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 50: 3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 6, lines 175–178: “The contents… bagasse”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 49: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 51: 3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 184: Kindly adjust the title of this paragraph as follow: “3.2. Mycelial growth rate”.

 

Response 51: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 52: 3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 187: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “mycelial growth rate when grown on…”

 

Response 52: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 53: 3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Page 6, line 189: Kindly adjust as follow: “growth rate”.

 

Response 53: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 54: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 219: Kindly remove “extremely”.

 

Response 54: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have removed it.

 

Point 55: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 220: Kindly replace “on” by “of”.

 

Response 55: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 56: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 222: Kindly adjust as follow: “owing the lowest BE”.

 

Response 56: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 57: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 224: Kindly adjust as follow: “(P > 0.05)”.

 

Response 57: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 58: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 228: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “consistent with the findings of Table 4”.

 

Response 58: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 59: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, lines 229 and 231–232: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to CK”.

 

Response 59: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 60: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 7, line 235: Kindly adjust as follow: “to the yield outcome”.

 

Response 60: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 61: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 8, lines 274–278: Kindly clarify the experimental design in the Materials and methods part in the same manner; it is well clear like that.

 

Response 61: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 62: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 281: Kindly adjust as follow: “on CK”.

 

Response 62: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 63: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 282: Kindly replace “similar” by “comparable”.

 

Response 63: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 64: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, line 283: Kindly adjust as follow: “than those of CK”.

 

Response 64: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 65: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 8, lines 283–285: “The samples… ash”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 64: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 66: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 9, line 286: Kindly adjust as follow: “on CK”.

 

Response 66: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 67: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Pages 9–10, lines 288 and 291: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.

 

Response 67: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 68: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 300: Kindly adjust the numbering of this paragraph as “3.5.” instead of “4.”

 

Response 68: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 69: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 304: Kindly adjust as follow: “cultivated on”.

 

Response 69: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 70: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 303–306: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 70: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 71: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 311–312: “In this… contained”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

 

Response 71: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

 

Point 72: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 314–315: Kindly remove “in our analysis”.

 

Response 72: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have removed it.

 

Point 73: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, line 316: Kindly adjust as follow: “observed with CK”.

 

Response 73: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 74: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 10, lines 316–317: “The highest… substrate”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 74: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 75: 4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 335–336: “In this… Y5”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

 

Response 75: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 76: 4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 338–339: Kindly adjust as follow: “the mycelial growth rate”.

 

Response 76: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 77: 4. Discussion: Page 11, line 340: Kindly adjust as follow: “supplemented to”.

 

Response 77: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 78: 4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 341–343: “Therefore… P. eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

 

Response 78: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 79: 4. Discussion: Page 11, line 344: Kindly adjust as follow: “which is”.

 

Response 79: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 80: 4. Discussion: Page 11, lines 355–357: “This could… aeration”: The sentence is cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make it clearer and more aiming.

 

Response 80: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 81: 4. Discussion: Page 12, line 362: Kindly replace “equally” by “comparably” and adjust as follow: “compared to”.

 

Response 81: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 82: 4. Discussion: Page 13, line 420: Kindly adjust as follow: “[38–40]”.

 

Response 82: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 83: 4. Discussion: Pages 13–14, lines 424 and 428: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to CK”.

 

Response 83: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 84: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 436–437: “We used… substrate”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

 

Response 84: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 85: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 443–444: Kindly adjust as follow: “elemental N”.

 

Response 85: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 86: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 445–446: “In future… P. eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead. Moreover, kindly move this sentence to the Conclusions part.

 

Response 86: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence and moved it to the conclusion part.

 

Point 87: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 458–459: Kindly adjust as follow: “highest one found” and remove “which was”.

 

Response 87: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence and removed it.

 

Point 88: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 458–461: “Among… [45]”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

 

Response 88: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted the sentence.

 

Point 89: 4. Discussion: Page 14, lines 463–464: Kindly adjust as follow: “compared to”.

 

Response 89: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 90: 4. Discussion: Page 14, line 470: Kindly adjust as follow: “to uptake”.

 

Response 90: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 91: 4. Discussion: Pages 14–15, lines 471–473: “Zinc… selenium”: These sentences are badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate them.

 

Response 91: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 92: 4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 475–476: “The highest… (Table 6)”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment.

 

Response 92: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 93: 4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 483–486: “The corn… standard”: Same recommendation as in the previous two comments.

 

Response 93: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 94: 4. Discussion: Page 15, lines 488–492: “Therefore…stalks”: Kindly remove this section.

 

Response 94: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have removed it.

 

Point 95: 5. Conclusions: Page 15, line 496: “The substrate… bodies”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate them.

 

Response 95: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The article Evaluation of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) is interesting and its study shows results on an alternative substrate for the cultivation of said species. I send some comments:

 

1. In each of the sections it mentions that sawdust has been used as part of the combination for the cultivation of Pleurotus eryngii, but it does not specify what type of sawdust (pine, cedar, mahogany, etc.), it is important to mention this information if the purpose is to present a feasible cultivation alternative for the said specie of fungus.

2. In section 2.2 indicates that they used broad-leaved wood branches sourced from Yanqing, however again it does not specify the species. Probably those who are from the area identify what species it is, but the authors must remember that the article will be read by people from all over the world.

3. In the same section mentioned above, the authors indicate that they used sawdust (they do not specify what kind of tree) and that they carry out a composting process, I suggest that it be specified so that the work can be reproduced, which is an important part of research articles.

4. I suggest improving the wording of the results, for example in section 3.1, the text mentions all the results contained in table 2, but in my opinion, it is repetitive.

5. Table 5 shows the results of the proximal chemical analysis, I ask the authors to review, it since it is not consistent: They indicate that it is in dry samples and g/100 g (%), due to the values that have been reported the genus and species, I believe that the protein, ash, fiber and fat content can be reported in dry percentage and carbohydrates could be in wet. Carbohydrates are one of the main components of mushrooms, constituting between 40-80% depending on the specie.

6. The work indicates that the purpose is to replace substrates that are expensive compared to one with a lower price (almost 2.3 times cheaper), however, it is important to remember that depending on which species the sawdust is, the price is different, in my country the price of pine sawdust is much lower compared to mahogany or cedar sawdust (10 times more expensive).

7. Review and correct the format of references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

The article Evaluation of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) is interesting and its study shows results on an alternative substrate for the cultivation of said species. I send some comments:

 

Point 1: In each of the sections it mentions that sawdust has been used as part of the combination for the cultivation of Pleurotus eryngii, but it does not specify what type of sawdust (pine, cedar, mahogany, etc.), it is important to mention this information if the purpose is to present a feasible cultivation alternative for the said specie of fungus.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In fact, the sawdust we use is from a mixture of broadleaf trees (poplar, birch, oak, etc.), and the composition of the sawdust can be adapted to local conditions in edible mushroom cultivation, so we only specify in the text that we are using sawdust from broadleaf trees.

 

Point 2. In section 2.2 indicates that they used broad-leaved wood branches sourced from Yanqing, however again it does not specify the species. Probably those who are from the area identify what species it is, but the authors must remember that the article will be read by people from all over the world.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In edible mushroom cultivation, the researcher can adapt the source and composition of the sawdust to local conditions, so we have only indicated the source of our material in the text.

 

Point 3. In the same section mentioned above, the authors indicate that they used sawdust (they do not specify what kind of tree) and that they carry out a composting process, I suggest that it be specified so that the work can be reproduced, which is an important part of research articles.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In fact, the sawdust we use is from a mixture of broadleaf trees (poplar, birch, oak, etc.), and the composition of the sawdust can be adapted to local conditions in edible mushroom cultivation, so we only specify in the text that we are using sawdust from broadleaf trees.

 

Point 4. I suggest improving the wording of the results, for example in section 3.1, the text mentions all the results contained in table 2, but in my opinion, it is repetitive.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 5. Table 5 shows the results of the proximal chemical analysis, I ask the authors to review, it since it is not consistent: They indicate that it is in dry samples and g/100 g (%), due to the values that have been reported the genus and species, I believe that the protein, ash, fiber and fat content can be reported in dry percentage and carbohydrates could be in wet. Carbohydrates are one of the main components of mushrooms, constituting between 40-80% depending on the specie.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In fact, as fresh mushrooms are not well stored, we usually dry them and store them for testing. Your suggestion is very useful and we will increase the testing of fresh mushrooms in future studies to make the results more informative and scientific.

 

Point 6. The work indicates that the purpose is to replace substrates that are expensive compared to one with a lower price (almost 2.3 times cheaper), however, it is important to remember that depending on which species the sawdust is, the price is different, in my country the price of pine sawdust is much lower compared to mahogany or cedar sawdust (10 times more expensive).

 

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In fact, the wood chips we use are already the cheapest in China and with the growth of the edible mushroom industry, the demand for bagasse is about to exceed its production and we want to explore not only the cheapness of the price but also the fuller use of the large amount of straw to replace the small amount of bagasse, which requires a combination of considerations rather than just price.

 

Point 7. Review and correct the format of references.

 

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have checked and corrected it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments to the Author:

Title: Evaluation of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii)

Overview and general recommendation:

Authors made significant improvements to their manuscript and are well thanked for that. Only minor adjustments are still needed and reported below.

  

1.1.            Major comments:

 

1-      No major comments to give.

  

1.2.            Minor comments:

 

2-      Although it outlines clearly the problematic, aims, and experimental design of the present study, the Abstract part should be reformulated in a better manner. The findings need to be presented in a more appropriate manner.

3-      Abstract: Page 1, lines 9–10: “Here… Pleurotus eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

4-      Abstract: Page 1, lines 12–19: “By analyzing... calcium”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment. Moreover, the sentence is long and cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make more concise, clearer and more aiming.

5-      1. Introduction: Page 2, line 65: Kindly add the following sentence after “materials”: “However, the chosen raw materials shall be evaluated for their potentially toxic elements bioaccumulation and their possible risk on human health (doi: 10.3390/agriculture12122095)”.

6-      2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 3, lines 132–133: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The spawn sticks were prepared…”

7-      3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 4, line 184: Kindly replace “has” by “had”.

8-      3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Kindly compare the growth rate of different treatments within each period in Table 3. Kindly put the statistical letters obtained after Duncan test performance.

9-      3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 6, line 229: Kindly adjust as follow: “which is consistent”.

10-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 7, lines 279–281: “The ash… reduced”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

11-  3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 7, line 286: Kindly replace “twice” by “two-fold”.

12-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, line 297: Kindly adjust as follow: “analysis”.

13-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, lines 297–300: “The macronutrient… 110.0 mg.kg^-1”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

14-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, lines 305–306: “We also… bodies”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

15-  3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 8, line 309: Kindly adjust as follow: “content”.

16-  4. Discussion: Page 8, lines 321–322: “In this… rates”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

17-  4. Discussion: Page 8, line 330: Kindly adjust as follow: “which could be”.

18-  4. Discussion: Page 8, line 340: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “This could be also related”.

19-  4. Discussion: Pages 8–9, lines 340–342: “This could… aeration”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

20-  4. Discussion: Page 12, line 455: Kindly adjust as follow: “could be used”.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1.1. Major comments:

Point 1 No major comments to give.

 

1.2. Minor comments:

Point 2: Although it outlines clearly the problematic, aims, and experimental design of the present study, the Abstract part should be reformulated in a better manner. The findings need to be presented in a more appropriate manner.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 3: Abstract: Page 1, lines 9–10: “Here…Pleurotus eryngii”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 4: Abstract: Page 1, lines 12–19: “By analyzing... calcium”: Same recommendation as in the previous comment. Moreover, the sentence is long and cumbersome; accordingly, kindly reformulate in order to make more concise, clearer and more aiming.

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 5: 1. Introduction: Page 2, line 65: Kindly add the following sentence after “materials”: “However, the chosen raw materials shall be evaluated for their potentially toxic elements bioaccumulation and their possible risk on human health (doi: 10.3390/agriculture12122095)”.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added it.

 

Point 6: 2. Materials and methods, 2.4. Spawning and fruiting bodies: Page 3, lines 132–133: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “The spawn sticks were prepared…”

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 7: 3. Results, 3.1. Composition of corn stalks: Page 4, line 184: Kindly replace “has” by “had”.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 8: 3. Results, 3.2. Mycelial growth rate: Kindly compare the growth rate of different treatments within each period in Table 3. Kindly put the statistical letters obtained after Duncan test performance.

Response 8: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added it.

 

Point 9: 3. Results, 3.3. The morphology and fruiting characteristics of P. eryngii: Page 6, line 229: Kindly adjust as follow: “which is consistent”.

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 10: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 7, lines 279–281: “The ash… reduced”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulate it.

 

Point 11: 3. Results, 3.4. Nutrient content of the mushrooms: Page 7, line 286: Kindly replace “twice” by “two-fold”.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 12: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, line 297: Kindly adjust as follow: “analysis”.

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have replaced it.

 

Point 13: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, lines 297–300: “The macronutrient… 110.0 mg.kg^-1”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Response 13: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulate it.

 

Point 14: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 7, lines 305–306: “We also… bodies”: Kindly avoid the first voice form of the sentence and adopt the impersonal form instead.

Response 14: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 15: 3. Results, 3.5. The mineral composition of mushrooms: Page 8, line 309: Kindly adjust as follow: “content”.

Response 15: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 16: 4. Discussion: Page 8, lines 321–322: “In this… rates”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Response 16: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulated it.

 

Point 17: 4. Discussion: Page 8, line 330: Kindly adjust as follow: “which could be”.

Response 17: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 18: 4. Discussion: Page 8, line 340: Kindly adjust the sentence as follow: “This could be also related”.

Response 18: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Point 19: 4. Discussion: Pages 8–9, lines 340–342: “This could… aeration”: The sentence is badly written in standard English; accordingly, kindly reformulate it.

Response 19: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have reformulate it.

 

Point 20: 4. Discussion: Page 12, line 455: Kindly adjust as follow: “could be used”.

Response 20: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have adjusted it.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer

Evaluation of corn stalk as a substrate to cultivate king oyster 3 mushroom (Pleurotus eryngii) Yuanyuan Zhou, Zihao Li, Congtao Xu, Jinlong Pan, Haijun Zhang, Qingxiu Hu and Yajie Zou*

Comment:

(1)   English is very good!   However, I would recommend that a native (first language and schooled in grammar) English speaker read for smoothness of the English language.

(2)   This is a valuable piece of practical science for the mushroom producer.

(3)   Details are missing in methodology and elsewhere. 

(4)   Table and figure numbering in text does not follow actual tables to which it refers. 

(5)   Given points 2 and 3, I strongly recommend that the authors re-read the manuscript for the details that are missing.   This means reading it as if for the first time.  This includes checking the references.

 

27:  Is the corn used for animal feed or human consumption?  It would be to clarify.

28: “2.64 x 108”  I don’t understand why the tonnage was broken down in this manner.  Why not 285 t?

58: “corn stover” is corn stalk

86: was spawn on some grain etc used for experiment?  Or were agar discs used?

89: 21 + 21  =42%

89:  Which wood species was the sawdust?

89:  Both sawdust and bagasse are small particles.  Were the stalks chopped?  To what size?  To place the mixtures in bags (line 97) and in glass tubes (L 118)  it had to be small.

89:  Corn stalks will have a lot of soil particles on them.  Were these from commercial operations or grown for this purpose?  This will make a difference in autoclaving success.

93-94:  4.2 + 18.4+ 6.8 + 8.4 +0.8 +1=39.6%  AND 42+39.6 =81.6%    UNCLEAR Where is other 19.4% of the dry formulation?

102:  To repeat the experiment, more details are required on the composting process.

108:  Where does the “*” point?

118:  how many tubes for each substrate?

122-125:  I understand what was done by the authors.  However, it is not clearly stated.

125:  What is “lag period”?

128:  How much spawn?   Not stated whether a spawn or mycelial discs on agar.

130: What is “physiological maturation fro 5 – 7 d to grow adaptively for 2 d”?   Unclear as to what was done and under what conditions.  Are the conditions mentioned in next sentence?  Not clear.

130ff: How were the substrates arranged in the production room?  No design is specified in the 2.6 Statistical Analysis.

135:   How was C02 concentration attained?

138:  How was C02 concentration attained?

142:  What is commercial cultural practices for king oyster? 

143:  30 replicates per substrate?  Therefore, 180 bags? Or 5 replicates per substrate?  Unclear.

171: 42.12 and 34.55 refers to hemi and cellulose.  Sentence construction references “lignocellulosic ..”   rewrite.

186: Table 3.   What is “+/-“   SD, SEM ???  Table should say how many replicates per substrate.  True for most of Tables.  Section 2.3 does not say anything about 4 measurements of growth.  When I read it, I thought one. 

200:  Table 3.  ??? Table numbering for all tables and figures in text needs to be checked and corrected with appropriate sections. 

213:  Figure 2 presumable Fig 1.  The figure doesn’t show significance.  The text later refers to the table but not noted.

223:  Table “3?”  see L 186.    Why were not stats performed on “days to production”?   As a grower I would be very interested in shorter time to harvest.

271:  If n=3, how were the three samples chosen given there were more experimental units per treatment for production?   This should be stated in section 2.5. What are “i” “e” and “n”?

315:  Why was there significance for the column?  I would think that the row would be of value.  The discussion in section 4 points to that.

445:  Isn’t selenium in plant fiber a function of the soil selenium?   Nutrient composition of plant materials may depend on the soil nutrients.  Thus, this statement  requires modification.

Author Response

Point 1: English is very good! However, I would recommend that a native (first language and schooled in grammar) English speaker read for smoothness of the English language.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Actually, we have polished the article before submission.

 

Point 2: This is a valuable piece of practical science for the mushroom producer.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your recognition of our work!

 

Point 3: Details are missing in methodology and elsewhere.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have modified and added to the methodology and discussion.

 

Point 4: Table and figure numbering in text does not follow actual tables to which it refers.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made changes.

 

Point 5: Given points 2 and 3, I strongly recommend that the authors re-read the manuscript for the details that are missing. This means reading it as if for the first time. This includes checking the references.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We rechecked the article very carefully, adding and revising details.

 

Point 6: 27 line: Is the corn used for animal feed or human consumption? It would be to clarify.

 

Response 6: The corn used for human consumption, we have We have indicated in Line 27.

 

Point 7: 28: “2.64 x 108”  I don’t understand why the tonnage was broken down in this manner.  Why not 285 t?

 

Response 7: Sorry for the confused description. We have corrected the format of the numbers.

 

Point 8: 58: “corn stover” is corn stalk

 

Response 8: We made an error in citing the reference, the original reference was “The most extensively used waste for edible mushroom production has been wheat and rice straws, sawdust, hard wood chips, sugarcane bagasse, cotton seed hulls, corn cobs, rice, and wheat bran (Orts et al. 2008; Saber et al. 2010).” We have corrected in Line 58.

 

Point 9: 86: was spawn on some grain etc used for experiment?  Or were agar discs used?

 

Response 9: We use the Potato-dextrose agar (PDA) served as the media to grow the mycelia, which for strain activation. And as for the spawning of P. eryngii, stick spawn was made for inoculation, we have added the the production details of stick spawn in Lines 138-144.

 

Point 10: 89: 21 + 21=42%

 

Response 10: Sorry for the confused description. We have modified the sentence to make it easier to understand.

 

Point 11: 89: Which wood species was the sawdust?

 

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The sawdust was from broadleaf tree and we have added the details about it in Line 89.

 

Point 12: 89: Both sawdust and bagasse are small particles.  Were the stalks chopped?  To what size?  To place the mixtures in bags (line 97) and in glass tubes (L 118)  it had to be small.

 

Response 12: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Both sawdust, bagasse and stalks were all crushed to less than 0.5 cm using a shredder. We have highlighted this in Lines 91-92.

 

Point 13: 89: Corn stalks will have a lot of soil particles on them. Were these from commercial operations or grown for this purpose? This will make a difference in autoclaving success.

 

Response 13: The corn stalks were from commercial operations. We choose corn stalks that are mechanically harvested without roots, so the soil content is minimized to ensure that the soil does not affect the sterilization effect.

 

Point 14: 93-94: 4.2 + 18.4+ 6.8 + 8.4 +0.8 +1=39.6%  AND 42+39.6 =81.6%    UNCLEAR Where is other 18.4% of the dry formulation?

 

Response 14: In the previous manuscript we made a mistake that the wheat bran, which is 18.4% of the substrates was missing, we have corrected the contents of the substrates, 21+21+4.2+18.4+18.4+6.8+8.4+0.8+1=100.

 

Point 15: 102: To repeat the experiment, more details are required on the composting process.

 

Response 15: Thank you for your valuable suggestions, We have modified and added to the materials and methods.

 

Point 16: 108: Where does the “*” point?

 

Response 16: We have added the note in Line 120.

 

Point 17: 118: how many tubes for each substrate?

 

Response 17: We inoculated 5 replicates of each treatment.

 

Point 18: 122-125: I understand what was done by the authors. However, it is not clearly stated.

 

Response 18: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the description of the experiment to make it easier for the reader to understand.

 

Point 19: 125: What is “lag period”?

 

Response 19: The lag phase is the initial growth phase after the strain has been introduced into fresh medium. This is the time when the metabolism of the bacterium is adjusted so that the growth rate of cell number or biomass is at its lowest level and thus difficult to measure.

 

Point 20: 128: How much spawn? Not stated whether a spawn or mycelial discs on agar.

 

Response 20: We have added the details of how stick spawn is made and inoculated in Lines 146-168.

 

Point 21: 130: What is “physiological maturation from 5 – 7 d to grow adaptively for 2 d”? Unclear as to what was done and under what conditions. Are the conditions mentioned in next sentence? Not clear.

 

Response 21: The yield of edible mushrooms depends on the number of mycelium, and in order to obtain higher yields in edible mushroom production, it is common to make the mycelium continue to grow nutritionally after the bag is full, and this stage is called physiological maturation.

 

Point 22: 130: How were the substrates arranged in the production room?  No design is specified in the 2.6 Statistical Analysis.

 

Response 22: We have attached two pictures to explain the problem, as pictures shown, the bags are placed parallel and horizontally on the shelf of the production room.

 

Point 23: 135: How was CO₂ concentration attained?

 

Response 23: Our mushroom chamber is equipped with CO₂ concentration sensor, which monitors the CO₂ content in the room in real time. When the CO₂ content in the mushroom chamber is higher than the set CO₂ limit, the controller automatically turns on the exhaust fan and ventilation, and when the CO₂ level drops to normal, the controller will automatically turn off the exhaust fan and ventilation fan.

 

Point 24: 142: What is commercial cultural practices for king oyster?

 

Response 24: We have corrected “cultural” to “cultivate”.

 

Point 25: 143: 30 replicates per substrate?  Therefore, 180 bags? Or 5 replicates per substrate?  Unclear.

 

Response 25: We inoculated 50 replicates of each substrate. However, due to bacterial contamination and other reasons, less than 50 bags were able to be harvested, and after removing the extreme values, we analyzed 30 replicates of the data. we have revised the description.

 

Point 26: 171: 42.12 and 34.55 refers to hemi and cellulose.  Sentence construction references “lignocellulosic ..” rewrite.

 

Response 26: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. we have corrected and revised the description.

 

Point 27: 186: Table 3.   What is “+/-“   SD, SEM ???  Table should say how many replicates per substrate.  True for most of Tables.  Section 2.3 does not say anything about 4 measurements of growth.  When I read it, I thought one.

 

Response 27: We use "values ± SD" to show the data and standard deviation. We have revised the manuscript to emphasize the number of replicates and also to illustrate how the growth rate was measured.

 

Point 28: 200:  Table 3.  ??? Table numbering for all tables and figures in text needs to be checked and corrected with appropriate sections.

 

Response 28: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have checked and modified the numbering of the tables and figures.

 

Point 29: 213: Figure 2 presumable Fig 1. The figure doesn’t show significance. The text later refers to the table but not noted.

 

Response 29: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We checked and modified the tables and figures mentioned in the manuscript.

 

Point 30: 223:  Table “3?”  see L 186.    Why were not stats performed on “days to production”?   As a grower I would be very interested in shorter time to harvest.

 

Response 30: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added stats performed on “days to production”.

 

Point 31: 271:  If n=3, how were the three samples chosen given there were more experimental units per treatment for production?   This should be stated in section 2.5. What are “i” “e” and “n”?

 

Response 31: For sample uniformity, we divided 30 fruiting bodies of the same treatment into three groups and crushed them for testing. “i” “e” and “n” are text error, we have modified it.

 

Point 32: 315: Why was there significance for the column?  I would think that the row would be of value.  The discussion in section 4 points to that.

 

Response 32: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We checked and modified it.

 

Point 33: 445: Isn’t selenium in plant fiber a function of the soil selenium? Nutrient composition of plant materials may depend on the soil nutrients.  Thus, this statement requires modification.

 

Response 33: Like plants absorb trace elements from the soil for their own growth and development, fungi also absorb trace elements from the medium. In our study, the corn stalks we used were just ordinary corn stalks, not selenium-enriched stalks or specially treated ones, so we think there is no problem with this idea, and we have cited some studies to support this idea.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors described an attempt to cultivate Pleurotus eryngii, the king osyter mushroom using cornstalks as substitutes for sawdust and sugarcane bagasse. Overall this is an important and interesting approach in view of the increase in price and depletion in the supply of both agroresidues. Standard methodologies were used but there is a lack of clarity in some procedures. Besides, additional details are needed in many parts of the manuscript.

1. Line 59-60: please provide evidence that sawdust and sugarcane bagasse is the main substrate in China

2. Line 88: please indicate the origin and details of the agroresidues used in this study

3. Line 89: please provide ref for the ratio of substrates

4. Line 125-126: the statement on lag phase is not clear

5. Table 2: please provide the method of analysis in an additional column

6. If the data in Table 2 come from a previous study, then is it still relevant to this study - as there are many factors that influent the chemical composition of plant biomass.

7. Table 2 is very confusing. Please explain how the different growth rates (growth rate in different times and growth rate in the last column) were determined.  It is more appropriate to present a single growth rate for each combination of substrates.

8. Please provide details on the morphology of the mycelium in the test tubes during the growth rate experiment.

9. The variation in the agronomic traits of mushrooms grown using different substrates as shown in Table 3 need to be described and explained better.

10. Table 4: the results were obtained from biological or technical replicates?

11. Table 5 is poorly described.

12. Line 336: figure 2?

13. The relationship between C/N ratio and growth rate as shown in Figure 2 requires more thorough discussion.

14. Line 355: The authors claimed there was "remarkable differences" among the fruiting bodies which I disagree. The data and photos indicate the fruiting bodies from different substrates are at best comparable. 

15. Line 368: ...cheaper - please provide a reference

16. Line 368: "...they are much cheaper to obtain because they do require the high expenses of processing" This sentence is confusing. I suggest the authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of cornstalk with proper citation.

17. Figure 4: please provide the methodology to produce the heat map. The results from heat map was not sufficiently described.

18.  Line 443: there is a possibility that the level of Se varies according to the origin of the plant biomass. Is there any ref to support that cornstalk is inherently rich in Se?

19. The reason for conducting analysis of the harmful toxic metals is not clear as the presence of toxic metals, if any, is associated with the plant biomass. Please justify. As long as the biomass used is not obtained from polluted area, then the levels of the toxic metals should be low. That is why it is very important to state the locations where the the plant biomass was obtained. Hence, Line 456-457 should be revised as the influencing factor would be the origin rather than cornstalk itself.

20.  Suggest more comparison to be made with previous studies on cultivation of P. eryngii using alternative substrates so that a comparison with the data obtained using cornstalk in this study can be made.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The authors described an attempt to cultivate Pleurotus eryngii, the king osyter mushroom using cornstalks as substitutes for sawdust and sugarcane bagasse. Overall this is an important and interesting approach in view of the increase in price and depletion in the supply of both agroresidues. Standard methodologies were used but there is a lack of clarity in some procedures. Besides, additional details are needed in many parts of the manuscript.

Point 1: Line 59-60: please provide evidence that sawdust and sugarcane bagasse is the main substrate in China

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We demonstrate that sawdust and sugarcane bagasse are the main materials by adding two references on Pleurotus eryngii cultivation in Line 61.

Point 2: Line 88: please indicate the origin and details of the agroresidues used in this study

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the origin and details of the agroresidues in Lines 89-91.

Point 3: Line 89: please provide ref for the ratio of substrates

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added two reference about the ratio of substrates in Line 93.

Point 4: Line 125-126: the statement on lag phase is not clear

Response 4: The lag phase is the initial growth phase after the strain has been introduced into fresh medium. This is the time when the metabolism of the bacterium is adjusted so that the growth rate of cell number or biomass is at its lowest level and thus difficult to measure.

Point 5: Table 2: please provide the method of analysis in an additional column

Response 5: By citing the literature, the analytical methods for the content of substances such as lignin have been marked.

Point 6: If the data in Table 2 come from a previous study, then is it still relevant to this study - as there are many factors that influent the chemical composition of plant biomass.

Response 6: In our research project, we used different substances to replace the substances in the CK , such as replacing sawdust and sugarcane bagasse, replacing calcium sources, etc. The materials used in these experiments were from the same batch and were organized into different articles based on different experimental purposes, so we believe that the data are valuable.

Point 7: Table 2 is very confusing. Please explain how the different growth rates (growth rate in different times and growth rate in the last column) were determined. It is more appropriate to present a single growth rate for each combination of substrates.

Response 7: The mycelial growth was measured in mm and growth rate of each set was calculated after 7 days of incubation. After 7, 12, 17, 24 and 31 days of inoculation, respectively, the growth position of mycelium in glass tubes was detected, and the length of mycelium spread during the detection interval was calculated, after which the daily growth rate of mycelium was obtained by dividing the length by the interval time. So, we show the mycelial growth rate in different time periods and the total growth rate of mycelium in the 31 days after inoculation

Point 8: Please provide details on the morphology of the mycelium in the test tubes during the growth rate experiment.

Response 8: We have provided details on the morphology of the mycelium in the test tubes during the growth rate experiment in Lines 125-135.

Point 9: The variation in the agronomic traits of mushrooms grown using different substrates as shown in Table 3 need to be described and explained better.

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have made changes to our manuscript.

Point 10: Table 4: the results were obtained from biological or technical replicates?

Response 10: The results were obtained from three biological replicates and three technical replicates.

Point 11: Table 5 is poorly described.

Response 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added some descriptions of the results in Table 5

Point 12: Line 336: figure 2?

Response 12: Sorry for the incorrect description. We have corrected it.

Point 13: The relationship between C/N ratio and growth rate as shown in Figure 2 requires more thorough discussion.

Response 13: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added discussions in Lines 341-343.

Point 14: Line 355: The authors claimed there was "remarkable differences" among the fruiting bodies which I disagree. The data and photos indicate the fruiting bodies from different substrates are at best comparable.

Response 14: The result of the experiment is indeed as you said, we modified the sentence, and the purpose of our experiment is to explore the possibility of replacing wood chips and bagasse with corn stover to cultivate Pleurotus eryngii, which is very satisfactory if the agronomic traits can reach the same level as the original medium.

Point 15: Line 368: ...cheaper - please provide a reference

Response 15: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the prices of the three materials in the article. In the Chinese market, the price of corn straw is 400 RMB per ton, wood chips are 800-900 RMB, and bagasse is 800-900 RMB.

Point 16: Line 368: "...they are much cheaper to obtain because they do require the high expenses of processing" This sentence is confusing. I suggest the authors discuss the advantages and disadvantages of cornstalk with proper citation.

Response 16: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added the prices of the three materials and reference in the article.

Point 17: Figure 4: please provide the methodology to produce the heat map. The results from heat map was not sufficiently described.

Response 17: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added methods for correlation analysis and heat map plotting in 2.6, and more analysis of heat maps in conjunction with references

Point 18: Line 443: there is a possibility that the level of Se varies according to the origin of the plant biomass. Is there any ref to support that cornstalk is inherently rich in Se?

Response 18: Studies have shown that the mycelium and fruiting body of P. eryngii have good ability to enrich, absorb and transform selenium. In fact, in edible mushroom production, selenium-rich P. eryngii is mainly obtained through artificial culture by adding exogenous selenium (sodium selenate, sodium selenite, Se Met, etc.) to the cultivation substrate or fermentation broth. We think that the different content of selenium in the substrates may be related to the content of selenium in wood chips, sugarcane bagasse and straw, but we did not test the trace elements of these three materials in our experiments, and this problem will be studied in depth in our subsequent research.

Point 19: The reason for conducting analysis of the harmful toxic metals is not clear as the presence of toxic metals, if any, is associated with the plant biomass. Please justify. As long as the biomass used is not obtained from polluted area, then the levels of the toxic metals should be low. That is why it is very important to state the locations where the the plant biomass was obtained. Hence, Line 456-457 should be revised as the influencing factor would be the origin rather than cornstalk itself.

Response 19: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The corn stalks we used were not from the land contaminated with heavy metals, therefore, we did not consider the effect of corn stalks from heavy metal-contaminated land on the heavy metal content of the fruiting bodies, and we have added a discussion of this aspect and will focus on it in subsequent studies.

Point 20: Suggest more comparison to be made with previous studies on cultivation of P. eryngii using alternative substrates so that a comparison with the data obtained using cornstalk in this study can be made.

Response 20: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily. I do not have further query but would like to recommend the manuscript to be checked for language correction, preferably by a  native English speaker.