Effects of Pesticides on the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is an extensive review concerning the effect of pesticides on the symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF).
The review is well written. However, I have some issues.
Introduction
-In the paragraph, "The presence of pesticides in food, for example, is associated with the farming system used for their production, being higher in conventional > integrated pest management > organic systems" (page 2), I think is a need for more citations.
-In Table 1,
AMF+Pesticides That papers treated all pesticides subject ?
-Page 4, after Table 1, paragraph "In this review we focus on the impact of synthetic and natural (or ‘green’) pesticides on arbuscular mycorrhizal." On what type of pesticides will you focus? Newer pesticides?
-Figure 1. Here readers can be confused.
The papers about pesticides were different than papers concerning only a pesticide type (e.g., fungicides).
-On page 8, paragraph "Most reports attribute the negative effects of pesticides on root colonization with AMF to their effects on spore germination to initiate infection (Abd-Alla et al., 2000)."
There aren't newer reports concerning the negative effects of pesticides on root colonization with AMF. I think most of the pesticides from the report from the year 2000 aren't authorized nowadays.
-C. Insecticides and nematocides
Paragraph "Moreover, new norms of a maximum limit of neonicotinoid residues were expected before 2026, in the legislation of the European Union, due to the probable acute or chronic toxicity for bees." (pg. 19)
Need citations concerning neonicotinoid toxicity for bees.
Also, it may be better to write a paragraph to explain why fewer papers treated the influence of insecticides on AMF.
I think it is better to specify the area where it was made the study concerning pesticide influence on AMF. The main reason is that situation with harmful pests, diseases, and weeds for agriculture is quite different, and treatments with pesticides are very different from one area to another.
The references are good.
Overall, I agree with publishing this review after minor modifications.
The English language is ok; it only needs minor editing.
Author Response
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS- Agrochemicals,
Academic Editor Notes
--Dear Authors,
thanks for this interesting contribution. The topic is important but would profit from a renewed careful look at the matter.
-- Response: Thanks for your interest and suggestions. We improved the original manuscript according to the suggestions.
Please also revise your manuscript by taking into account the reviewer's comments.
-- Response: We revised the manuscript according to the reviewers comments, we agreed to.
After a quick search of the relevant literature, I found several references that are not included in your manuscript. Therefore, I wonder, how accurate your literature search was done.
-- Response: We searched for most relevant papers and auyhors in the topics.
--Please also state, which databases you searched.
-- We used the SCOPUS Database Google Scholar and Research Gate for access the papers
For instance I found the following papers:
- Riedo et al. (2021) Widespread Occurrence of Pesticides in Organically Managed Agricultural Soils—the Ghost of a Conventional Agricultural Past? Environmental Science & Technology 2021.
- Laatikainen et al. (2002) Mycorrhizal growth in pure cultures in the presence of pesticides. Microbiological Research 2002; 157: 127-137.
- Bruckner et al. (2019) Foliar Roundup application has minor effects on the compositional and functional diversity of soil microorganisms in a short-term greenhouse experiment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 2019; 174: 506-513.
- Mandl (2018) Effects of Glyphosate-, Glufosinate- and Flazasulfuron-Based Herbicides on Soil Microorganisms in a Vineyard. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 2018; 101: 562-569.
- Zaller (2018) Herbicides in vineyards reduce grapevine root mycorrhization and alter soil microorganisms and the nutrient composition in grapevine roots, leaves, xylem sap and grape juice. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2018; 25: 23215–23226.
- Zaller (2014) Glyphosate herbicide affects belowground interactions between earthworms and symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in a model ecosystem. Scientific Reports 2014; 4: 5634, doi:10.1038/srep05634.
---- Response: accordingly, we added those references.
In addition, the manuscript would benefit from a table summarizing the main findings (study system, field/lab, pesticide class tested, etc.) and the directions of the observed effects.
-- Response: We agree, but we believe that such detailed table can be prepared for another manuscript, which continue to compile and investigate the topic.
Anyway, I look forward the revised version of this manuscript.
-- Response: Thank you very much for your comments.
--Reply to Academic Editor
Dear editor, thanks for your interest in reviewing and editing our manuscript. We have improved the last version according to the comments of reviewers, we agreed with. We would like to thank you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor,
This paper is having valuable information indeed. It needs more novelity to publish such a review.
I would regret to say that I must reject the paper.
With my very best regards.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
-- Response: Thank you very much for your comments.
We consider this topic very important for understanding agroecosystem functioning worldwide. The present article is the first current review on the topic after previous seminal reviews by Trappe et al. (1984), Kling and Jakobsen (1997), Abd-Alla et al. (2000), and only a few articles such as Edlinger (2022).
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for this valuable review
In abstract there is no brife record from previous studies about the hazards
The criteria of selection and exclusion of articles in review not present
The numbring of subtitles is incorrect
Replace more than sign
Some abbreviation need to be mention completetly
What is ment by seminal paper?
How it come more recent study and mention study in 2008?
Table 2 and figure 2 mention two time with different table and figure
Table 3 mention and not present
Figure 2 mention first not illustrative
Spaces between lines not consistant
References need revision example second reference
Moderat English editing is needed
Author Response
--RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3:
--Thank you for this valuable review
--In abstract there is no brife record from previous studies about the hazards.
-RESPONSE: We included a text mentioning the hazards: constituting hazardous molecules for humans and environment
The criteria of selection and exclusion of articles in review not present
--RESPONSE: We now mention the criteria: it was added the following: We compile here, based on selected papers included in the SCOPUS DATABASE, significant reports on the topic.
The numbring of subtitles is incorrect
--RESPONSE: We checked this. Now there are 6 subtitles.
Replace more than sign
----RESPONSE: We checked this.
Some abbreviation need to be mention completely
--RESPONSE:
--Abbreviations were explained: (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDE) and DDT
What is ment by seminal paper?
--RESPONSE: We refer to influential papers.
How it come more recent study and mention study in 2008?
--RESPONSE: We checked this.
Table 2 and figure 2 mention two time with different table and figure
RESPONSE: We checked this.
Table 3 mention and not present
--RESPONSE: We checked this. There is not table 3.
Figure 2 mention first not illustrative
--RESPONSE: We eliminated Fig 2.
Spaces between lines not consistant
--RESPONSE: We checked this.
References need revision example second reference
--RESPONSE: We checked references and corrected them..
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Most of reviewer comment had been considered but I do not found exclusion criteria and the > sign still present in line 33 also the conclusion must be yours not other so remove other author opinions
Accept after minor change
