Arbuscular Mycorrhizae Confers Salinity Tolerance to Medicago sativa L.
, Camila Victoria Chiroli 1, Maria Cecilia Pacheco Insausti 1, Laura Virginia Gallardo 2, Ivana Tamara Ponce 3 and Hilda Elizabeth Pedranzani 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The manuscript titled "Arbuscular mycorrhizae confers salinity tolerance to Medicago sativa L." is submitted to the Stresses journal. The review report is completed and suggestions and Comments were mentioned in the manuscript PDF file.
With Best Regards.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Los cambios sugeridos han sido tenidos en cuenta. Gracias por mejorar el articulo
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you can find my comments in the attached Word file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear authors, you can find my comments in the attached Word file.
Author Response
Gracias por su detallada corrrección. Hemos tenido en cuanta casi todas sus sugerencias. Hemos cambiado las figuras de pigmentos fotosintéticos y ahora se ven mejores. También unimos la de prolina y MDA como lo sugirió Ud y otro revisor. Hemos mejorado las conclusiones también . Muchas gracias por su esfuerzo. Saludos !!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Arbuscular mycorrhizae confers salinity tolerance to Medicago sativa L.” is focused on the effect of symbiosis: Medicago sativa var. CW660 - Rhizophagus intraradices under salinity stress, evaluating morphological and physiological parameter.
The above MS has the potential to be a nice piece of study, but in the current version it suffers from several points of view and it needs to be improved for clarity, and scientific form. I found the introduction section not focused and too concise, and most importantly I was not able to fully understand the main purpose, or the novelty of the present study in relation to the previous works highlithed in line 57 on. And why Rhizophagus intraradices has been selected?
The other main concern on the manuscript is on data analysis. No normality test has been performed (e.g. a shapiro.test ?), but is not clear why a non parametric Tukey B test has been used. In all the figures is not clear if the bars are related to SD or SE. Fig 4 Chl B, NM treatment is a (control) – a (100mM) – b (200mM), althought under control and 200nM are at the same levels (around 15 μg/ml).
Here is stated that “Proline is an excellent marker of the plant response to stress.” Be careful, cause quite often several studies assert that is not good indicator of the degree of damage caused by stress factors…prolines’ contribution to cytoplasmic osmotic adjustment looks in some species insignificant in response to salinity, in stark contrast with what was observed for glycine-betaine. This suggests that proline accumulation is merely a consequence of plant injury.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Hemos realizado muchos cambios en el articulo, atendiendo todas las correcciones de los distintos revisores, algunas de las cuales eran coincidentes. Esperamos que el resultado sea bueno. Gracias por sus comentarios
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Arbuscular mycorrhizae confers salinity tolerance to Medicago sativa L.” investigated the effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis on Medicago sativa plants cultivated under salinity stress. The study fits with the general scope of the journal. However, there are several flaws that need to be addressed before publication.
I believe that in the whole manuscript there are formatting issues, please follow the Journal guidelines.
keywords may not contain words included in the manuscript title, revise.
In the abstract, authors must include some percentage increase or decrease in the measured parameters compared to the control.
Lines 28-29: these conclusions provide no information to the reader, revise.
The introduction is too short. The authors should go deeper into the topics discussed. Furthermore, in the final part of the introduction, the authors should include the hypothesis of the work and the knowledge gap that the study fills.
Discussions are too short, the authors need to delve more deeply into the mechanisms behind the observed behavior. For example, salinity has a negative effect on mycorrhizal colonization, as the authors also mention, however, there was no decrease in the inoculation rate even when the plants were subjected to salinization. The authors noted this behavior without giving an explanation. in discussions, this aspect needs to be investigated further.
The colonization percentage must also be reported for control (non-inoculated) plants, so that it is possible to check whether inoculation of any mycorrhizal fungi was not already present in the soil.
More information on the inoculation is needed, for example how was the inoculation conducted? What was the concentration of the inoculum? how much inoculum was used per plant?
The salt treatment must be explained in detail: how many applications were made in total? what was the electrical conductivity of the nutrient solution?
How many days did the experiment last in total?
The conclusions are too short and do not highlight the results obtained. Moreover, the implications of the study and prospects are missing.
Author Response
Hemos realizado todas las correcciones que sugiriera Ud. y los demás evaluadores. Esperamos haber enriquecido el articulo y que queden bien claras nuestras hipótesis y objetivos.
Se hicieron cambios en el abstrac, palabras claves, introducción , materiales y métodos y resultados. Se agregaron citas. Esperamos haber resuelto todas las preguntas realizadas. Gracias !
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The final review report for the manuscript titled "Arbuscular mycorrhizae confers salinity tolerance to Medicago sativa L. is finished, and a very minor correction was mentioned in the PDF file.
In conclusion, do not split into multiple paragraphs.
With Best Regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Muchas gracias por sus correcciones, han sido muy útiles y serán tenidas en cuanta para próximas publicaciones. Esperamos este en condiciones de ser publicado nuestro paper . Saludos cordiales
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you can find my comments again Word file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear authors, you can find my comments again Word file.
Author Response
Gracias por sus correcciones, serán tenidas en cuenta para próximas publicaciones. Un saludo afectuoso y esperamos este en condiciones de ser publicado nuestro paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors addressed all points of criticism raised up by me, consequently, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication.
Author Response
Muchas gracias por sus correcciones , han sido muy útiles y serán tenidas en cuanta para próximas publicaciones. Un saludo cordial y esperamos que nuestro paper pueda ser publicado.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you can find my comments in the attached Word file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear authors, you can find my comments in the attached Word file.
Author Response
Se han realizado las correcciones solicitadas, esperemos este ahora en condiciones de ser aprobado.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
