Role of Plant GrowthPromoting Microbes in Plant Growth and Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors discussed the role of Plant Growth Promoting Microbes in Plant Growth and Development. Below are my comments/concerns:

1. While the review discusses various PGP traits and mechanisms, it does not quantitatively compare the effectiveness of different microbial strains or traits under controlled and field conditions.
2. The review does not deeply address challenges related to formulation, storage, delivery methods, and compatibility of PGP microbes with current farming practices.
3. Interactions of PGP microbes with native soil microbial communities and the long-term stability of introduced strains need more discussion.
4. Most findings are based on laboratory or controlled conditions; field-scale efficacy and consistency across diverse environments remain underexplored.
5. The survival, colonisation, and persistence of introduced PGP microbes under fluctuating environmental stressors (e.g., drought, temperature extremes) can be unpredictable.
6. There is little discussion about possible ecological impacts, such as disruption of native microbial communities or horizontal gene transfer.

Author Response

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors discussed the role of Plant Growth Promoting Microbes in Plant Growth and Development. Below are my comments/concerns:

1. While the review discusses various PGP traits and mechanisms, it does not quantitatively compare the effectiveness of different microbial strains or traits under controlled and field conditions.

Thanks, it has been added now. Some strains were discussed with their ability of producing IAA and phosphate solubilization quantitively.

1. The review does not deeply address challenges related to formulation, storage, delivery methods, and compatibility of PGP microbes with current farming practices.

Unfortunately, in this review we couldn’t focus about their formulation, storage, and delivery methods, however we have added a section for “4. Introducing PGP microbes to soil”. Where we discussed compatibility and adaptation to a new environment.

1. Interactions of PGP microbes with native soil microbial communities and the long-term stability of introduced strains need more discussion.

Thanks, it has been added now in section 4. “Introducing PGP microbes to soil”

1. Most findings are based on laboratory or controlled conditions; field-scale efficacy and consistency across diverse environments remain underexplored.

Thanks, it has been added now in section 4.

1. The survival, colonisation, and persistence of introduced PGP microbes under fluctuating environmental stressors (e.g., drought, temperature extremes) can be unpredictable.

Thanks, it has been added now in section 4.

1. There is little discussion about possible ecological impacts, such as disruption of native microbial communities or horizontal gene transfer.

Thanks, it has been added now.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is very broad and general and appears superficial. The authors need to identify a unique angle and describe in the introduction how their review differs from others. I think a lot of the information is standard textbook-level knowledge and not cutting-edge knowledge or perspectives worthy of a review article.

If “….novel trait flavins (FLs) secretion” really is a novel and little reviewed aspect, then make that a greater focus.

Much higher quality illustrations are needed.

 

The section “4. Application of molecular based tools to study plant microbe interactions” does  not provide any new insights.

Plant-associated microorganisms (MO): here “MO” does not seem a standard abbreviation.

Ln 22: “This review will help to identify gaps for future studies”. Can you give concrete examples of how review does this?

Ln 66: host plants is two words.

Ln 120: typo: Phythium

Ln 315: really” The most abundant element on earth is iron (Fe),”? is a lot of Fe in Earth’s core and not relevant to this review?

 

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is very broad and general and appears superficial. The authors need to identify a unique angle and describe in the introduction how their review differs from others. I think a lot of the information is standard textbook-level knowledge and not cutting-edge knowledge or perspectives worthy of a review article.

Thankyou. Manuscript has been revised and new paragraphs added.

If “….novel trait flavins (FLs) secretion” really is a novel and little reviewed aspect, then make that a greater focus.

Paragraph related to application of flavin promoting different plant growth, yield and physiological aspect have been removed from this article and here only introducing the Flavin as plant growth promoting trait. As you suggested a separate article will fully focus about flavin as PGP molecule.

Much higher quality illustrations are needed.

 Thanks, figures and captions were edited. New perspectives related studies has been added.

The section “4. Application of molecular based tools to study plant microbe interactions” does not provide any new insights.

Thanks, new paragraph added with recent references.

Plant-associated microorganisms (MO): here “MO” does not seem a standard abbreviation.

Thanks, it has been removed and replaced with proper words.

Ln 22: “This review will help to identify gaps for future studies”. Can you give concrete examples of how review does this?

By combining different PGP functions such as phosphate solubilization, N fixation, ACC deaminase, hormones and novel trait flavin in one review article will help to comprehensively understand the PGP functions of microbes in one view. Many studies available for other traits as separate articles but not for flavins, so this review will help to identify the gap (importance of flavin in PGP) for future study.

Ln 66: host plants is two words.

Thanks, it has been corrected.

Ln 120: typo: Phythium

Thanks, it has been corrected.

Ln 315: really” The most abundant element on earth is iron (Fe),”? is a lot of Fe in Earth’s core and not relevant to this review?

Thanks, that statement has been removed and sentence has been corrected.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript "Role of Plant Growth Promoting Microbes in Plant Growth and Development" Nivethika Ajeethan et. al. reports a systematic review on the role of plant growth promoting microorganisms in stress management.
The work is generally logical, but there are significant errors and issues that, in my opinion, require serious correction.

- The text is very repetitive: the same thing is explained several times (e.g., the role of PGPB in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone production). It is necessary to reduce duplicate fragments, especially in sections 3.2.1–3.2.5.
- In some cases, statements sound like proven facts, without reference to sources or with insufficient substantiation (e.g., the role of lumichrome in root respiration and photosynthesis - p. 10).
- The authors retell many articles, but do not offer a comparative analysis, do not highlight gaps in knowledge, do not discuss contradictions between studies. Moreover, it would be good to present the compared data in the form of a table with references to the sources.
- The text has many grammatical, stylistic and punctuation errors. For example: “may be act against” (p. 6), “such as Rhizobium, Brandyrhizobium…” is a typo in the genus name. Careful language editing is required.
- The figures (e.g. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) are not provided with sufficient captions that would help the reader understand how exactly the visualization reflects the key mechanisms.
- Section 3.2.6 is reasonably attractive from a scientific point of view, but the structure of its presentation violates the overall logic of the text. This section is excessively long and claims to be an independent article. This should either be shortened and summarized, or moved to a separate publication.
- Problems with abbreviations and their first mention. For example, the abbreviation ET (ethylene) appears on page 8 without explanation, whereas on page 12 in the list of abbreviations it is expanded.
-Despite the declared applied focus (biofertilizers, biocontrol), existing commercial products, difficulties in implementing PGPB in the field and regulatory restrictions are not described or discussed.
-Only plant-microorganism interactions are considered. Modern approaches require studying microbiomes as complex communities.
-Despite the important topic, some of the literature is outdated. The article requires the inclusion of new reviews and meta-analyses, especially on the genomic tools used in section 4.
I strongly encourage the authors to improve the quality of the text and thereby increase the significance of the publication.

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
( ) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Is the work a significant contribution to the field? Thanks, yes. A new section has been added as “4. Introducing PGP microbes to soil”. This section discusses the compatibility of PGP microbes with native microbes and their interactions.
Is the work well organized and comprehensively described? Yes. Paper has been revised according to the reviewer comments and suggestions.
Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading? Yes. As you suggested section “3.2.6 Flavin secretion” has been shortened and has no chance for misleading.
Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work? Yes. More references have been added. Some are recent (2020 to 2025) references.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript "Role of Plant Growth Promoting Microbes in Plant Growth and Development" Nivethika Ajeethan et. al. reports a systematic review on the role of plant growth promoting microorganisms in stress management.
The work is generally logical, but there are significant errors and issues that, in my opinion, require serious correction.

- The text is very repetitive: the same thing is explained several times (e.g., the role of PGPB in nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone production). It is necessary to reduce duplicate fragments, especially in sections 3.2.1–3.2.5.

Thanks, it has been revised.

- In some cases, statements sound like proven facts, without reference to sources or with insufficient substantiation (e.g., the role of lumichrome in root respiration and photosynthesis - p. 10).

Thanks, new references have been revised.

- The authors retell many articles, but do not offer a comparative analysis, do not highlight gaps in knowledge, do not discuss contradictions between studies. Moreover, it would be good to present the compared data in the form of a table with references to the sources.
- The text has many grammatical, stylistic and punctuation errors. For example: “may be act against” (p. 6), “such as Rhizobium, Brandyrhizobium…” is a typo in the genus name. Careful language editing is required.

Thanks, it has been revised.
- The figures (e.g. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) are not provided with sufficient captions that would help the reader understand how exactly the visualization reflects the key mechanisms.

Figure captions have been modified and figures also modified.
- Section 3.2.6 is reasonably attractive from a scientific point of view, but the structure of its presentation violates the overall logic of the text. This section is excessively long and claims to be an independent article. This should either be shortened and summarized, or moved to a separate publication.

Thanks for your suggestion, it has been shortened and will be published as separately.
- Problems with abbreviations and their first mention. For example, the abbreviation ET (ethylene) appears on page 8 without explanation, whereas on page 12 in the list of abbreviations it is expanded.

Thanks, it has been corrected.
-Despite the declared applied focus (biofertilizers, biocontrol), existing commercial products, difficulties in implementing PGPB in the field and regulatory restrictions are not described or discussed.

Unfortunately, in this review we couldn’t focus about their regulatory restrictions, however we have added a section for “4. Introducing PGP microbes to soil”. Where we discussed compatibility and adaptation to a new environment.
-Only plant-microorganism interactions are considered. Modern approaches require studying microbiomes as complex communities.

Thanks, it has been added in section 5.
-Despite the important topic, some of the literature is outdated. The article requires the inclusion of new reviews and meta-analyses, especially on the genomic tools used in section 4.

Thanks, it has been added and renamed as section 5. New references have been added.

I strongly encourage the authors to improve the quality of the text and thereby increase the significance of the publication.

Thank you very much, paper has been revised according to your suggestions/ comments/ recommendations.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for correcting the comments.