Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors
1. How to identify the isolated bacteria?

2. What is the reason for the biodegradation rate of Native microbiota (NM) better than Bioaugmentation with exogenous consortium (BEC)?

3. Do you identify the bacteria by 16SRNA?

4. Have you verified how long the introduced strains survived in the soil?

5. Please summarize the discussion and decrease the references to 60 - 80 references.

6. 7. Before doing ANOVA, did you test for check the assumptions of ANOVA (normality, homogeneity of variance, independence)? By repeatedly using ANOVA you increase the possibility of Type-I errors, especially if there is a high degree of dependence between time-points. You do not account for within-group variability, which might lead to a false sense of significance due to repeated measurements within groups over time (which are considered more reliable than single measurements across individuals).

When using the same dataset at multiple time points for each time point, you risk having some degree of statistical dependence between data points. It is important not to confuse correlation with causation; a higher or lower p-value in one test doesn't automatically mean your results are valid or significant.

7. Why didn't you use linear mixed models (LMM), given your study design and inclusion of times? ANOVA doesn't account for these. LMMs would enable you to estimate heteroscedasticity (how much varibility exists between groups and within individuals), and to increase the power for statistical significance. And, using contrasts, you could perform pairwise comparisons. Using simple ANOVA and post-hoc tests on such a data set is a mistake and the results are not reliable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study evaluated the effectiveness of two microbial consortia—one indigenous and the other exogenous—in remediating agricultural soil contaminated with real diesel fuel. The experimental design included a control group comprising natural microbial communities, which helped strengthen the reliability of the findings. The research holds practical significance for bioremediation applications.

However, the study has several limitations:

1. The background section lacks a comprehensive review of literature on petroleum hydrocarbon degradation and related contaminants. Moreover, the discussion and conclusion sections should compare the present results with existing studies and clarify whether the proposed consortia offer any advantages over previously reported degradation systems.

2. Figure 1, which illustrates TPH biodegradation, includes a paired Student's t-test (α = 0.05) that appears to contribute limited meaningful information and could be removed.

3. Although a negative correlation was observed between the initial rise and subsequent decline in bacterial counts and TPH degradation, the underlying mechanisms—such as nutrient competition or metabolite inhibition—were not thoroughly addressed. It is recommended that these aspects be explored in the discussion.

4. While a reduction in PAH concentrations was noted, residual high-molecular-weight compounds, including phenanthrene and pyrene, still pose potential ecological risks. Their environmental impact remains unassessed.

5. Although shifts in dominant bacterial genera (e.g., Pseudomonas) were documented, their functional roles and interactions within the microbial community were not further analyzed. Elucidating these aspects would enhance the mechanistic understanding of the degradation process.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted