Mitigation of CaCO₃ Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study authors investigated "Mitigation of CaCO3 influence on Ipomoea batatas plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var.". The work is important, but the manuscript suffers from lack of clarity, the methods are inadequately described, the data analysis appears inadequate, and the results presented do not provide adequate support for the conclusions.

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1756752

Manuscript Title:  " Mitigation of CaCO₃ Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var."

===================================================================================

Dear Ms. Evelyn Zhang

Section Managing Editor    

Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

Open review

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

English language style

(x ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(   ) Moderate English changes required
(   ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(   ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Comments and suggestions for authors

In this study authors investigated "Mitigation of CaCO₃ influence on Ipomoea batatas plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var.". The work is important, but the manuscript suffers from lack of clarity, the methods are inadequately described, the data analysis appears inadequate, and the results presented do not provide adequate support for the conclusions.

Re 1. Regarding English language style. Dear reviewer, I would like to inform you that our manuscript have been undergone for reviewing via MDPI editing service. (Invoice No.42590 dated on April 3, 2022) and based on your suggestion, our manuscript was send again to English language editing (invoice NO 46167 dated on June 19, 2022).  

Re 2. Part from discussion was added to the introduction section to elucidate the role of Bacillus spp in details as shown with red color (line 104-129)

Re 3. We reviewed all cited references and we made sure of that.

Re 4. This research includes 2 factors, the first factor was application of different levels of CSP (the least important) and put as mean, while the second factor was Bacillus megaterium (the most important) that put as a sub-mean. Therefore, this study ordered according to split-plot design to know the effect of CSP and Bacillus individually and their interaction. All these were written in materials and methods section (line 182-189).

Re 5. The results were rewritten again. I hope is satisfied for you, and I am ready to make any other required modifications from your point of view.

Re 6. Of course , the conclusion was supported with the obtained results.        

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

June 22, 2022 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is interesting and valuable since it addresses an important issue of Mitigation of CaCO3 Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 Var.–

The research methodology is appropriate, the experiment was properly designed and described in sufficient detail, including the characteristics of soil and climate conditions; agronomic conditions

The results generally are clearly presented (including the statistical significance of research findings), and they provide new information on the potential improvements in the performance of calcareous soils.

An in-depth discussion of the results is based upon carefully selected - but I have some comments in this chapter.

My comments are presented below.

Introduction

I think there is too much information on phosphorus itself. Nearly half of this chapter is about phosphorus. Bacillus megaterium does more than just produce phosphorus.

Line 49. "There is an ..." - this is probably not true.

Line 58 "characterized by high soil acidity (pH), - this is probably not true

Line 63 "... that affects the growth of croplands ..." - I don't get it

Line 79 "... Moreover, there are negative influences of these fertilizers on soil degradation .." - firstly, not all phosphorus fertilizers have a negative effect on the soil, and secondly, I did not find such information in the quoted work [15]. The mentioned authors [15] deal with manure.

line 118. - Whether this statement is the purpose of the work - I do not think. It is rather a wish

Results

The results are interesting, but too many numbers in the text and the reader may get lost.

1) Line 219, I consider it unnecessary to enter, e.g. the results are presented in table 4. the same in other places

2) I consider it superfluous to multiply the subsections: 3.1.2., 3.1.3. 3.2.2, 3.2.3 etc. Main chapters are enough

3) Line 221. Please check the interpretation of the results. There is a terrible confusion here. CSP 60 significantly influenced the highest N content and CSP 100 the highest Ca. In my opinion, this text cannot be read in such a way.

Line 265. In my opinion, in Table 4, it is stated that in 2019 it did not significantly affect N (LSD), and neither did Ca in 2020 (LSD). Why are these values ​​when only homogeneous groups are described?

Table and figures

Please enter under the tables which means *

There is no explanation of what they refer to (factor or factor * year)

Why there is no analysis for years.

I don't understand inserted homogeneous groups in figures (some of them).

e.g. Fig. 1 - marking with the letter "c" is higher than "ab" and "e", it should rather be between them

Some citations are poorly structured and read badly, e.g.

line 198 ... methods described in [34].

Line 192 ... the methods described by [35]

the same line 195, 635, 640

Discussion

Line 554-586

In this area, this is not a discussion, a description that could be included in the Introduction

List of References

You have to format correctly, spaces, unnecessary dots etc.

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1756752

Manuscript Title:  " Mitigation of CaCO₃ Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var."

===================================================================================

Dear Ms. Evelyn Zhang

Section Managing Editor    

Thank you for your efforts and I would like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

Open review

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

English language style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Based on your comments regarding improve the introduction and results, we would like to inform you that some modifications have been made in both sections as shown with a red color 

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

June 22, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

The work "Mitigation of CaCO3 influence on Ipomoea batatas plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var." has the potential to be significant, however the text lacks clarity, the methods are poorly defined, the data analysis appears to be inadequate, and the results and discussion presented do not fully support the conclusions. The following are some examples of specific comments that demonstrate these points:

I have found that the authors did not revise this manuscript according to previous comments (as below):

Title

I suggest rewriting the tittle of the manuscript.

 Abstract

Line 10-14: “Under Egyptian soil conditions…………..fertilizer used”.  These sentences should be more specific than the broad introduction.

Line 15-20: “The experiment……….2020 season”. These lines should be moved from the abstract to the materials and methods section.

Line 21: What exactly do you mean when you say DSM2894? Why is it necessary to use abbreviations in the abstract?

Line 22: Change “compered” to “compared”

Line 23-25: “Phosphorus fertilizer improved protein, anti-radical power, yield as well as nutrient uptake (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) in leaves and roots of sweet potato under CaCO3 stress.” How its improved?

Line 26: What do you mean by 345?

Line 29: which crop performance?

Keywords

 “leaf and tuberous root nutrient contents, tuberous root yield” Please consider rewriting these keywords.

Introduction

The introduction does not clearly presents the problem and goals the authors want to achieve with the paper.

Line 33-44: There isn't a single reference in the entire paragraph?? How is this even possible?

Line 46: “According to [1]” Authors should review the journal's reference writing guidelines and make necessary changes.

Line 46-89: These paragraphs are vague; I recommend revising them to be more relevant to your research topic.

Line 102-103: “While this research was motivated ………….semi-arid areas with calcareous soils.” How did you come to this conclusion?

 Materials and methods

Line 108: What do you mean by “standard sweet potato”???

Line 114: The reference must be revised in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

Line 126: “Studied treatments….”? It’s unclear.

Section 2.4, 2.5. 2.6 and 2.7 are unclear, suggest rewriting.

Results

Line 177 Change “content” to “contents”

Section 3.2 and 3.3 are unclear, I recommend rewriting your paragraphs and focusing solely on your findings.

Discussion and conclusions

This section is poorly written and should be proofread by someone who is fluent in English, to understand it completely.

References

Please follow the author's guidelines and correct your references as necessary. Journal guidelines are not followed while writing references. For example line 419-421 (reference 4).

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1641599

Manuscript Title:  " Mitigation of CaCO₃ Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var."

=====================================================================

Dear Ms. Nicu Petrescu

Assistant Editor, MDPI, Romania

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 1:

The work "Mitigation of CaCO₃ influence on Ipomoea batatas plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var." has the potential to be significant, however the text lacks clarity, the methods are poorly defined, the data analysis appears to be inadequate, and the results and discussion presented do not fully support the conclusions. The following are some examples of specific comments that demonstrate these points:

I have found that the authors did not revise this manuscript according to previous comments (as below):

 

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

April 3, 2022 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

This manuscript reports on the effects of specific plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the field performance of Ipomoea batatas plants in a region of Egypt. Although interesting data were collected, the manuscript has serious deficiencies that render it unsuitable for publication in a high-rank journal like Agronomy. My concerns are summarized below.

Specific comments

Ipomoea batatas in the title (see L2) should be in italics.

There are too many introductory statements in the abstract (see L10-14). This part should be reduced.

The information about the study site, geographical coordinates, experimental design, and replications in the abstract (see L17-18 & L21) is redundant. This part should be reduced.

The abstract should focus on the main findings of the study, instead of background and methodological information.

The introduction does not point out the gap of the literature the study seeks to fill and the novelty of the study over the existing literature. What triggered the study and what is the new information this study brings to the literature?

A relevant hypothesis for the study is missing from the introduction. What was the hypothesis tested in this article? A true scientific question should be formed. This point should be further elaborated.

In Table 1, the names of the variables in the first row are not displayed correctly.

In all Tables, two decimal digits are redundant for all variables. I would suggest rounding at one decimal digit.

In the methodology, more information is required about the establishment of Ipomoea batatas pants to the experimental field.

In the methodology, more information is required about the exact method of application of the PGPR to the plants.

In the methodology, the analysis of the data is not explained clearly. Only the main effects of the treatments are reported. Potential year by treatment interactions are not reported. A table with the analysis of the data is required.

In all Figures, the font size of the labels in x- and y-axis should be increased, so that labels can be visible. The same should be done for the letters of significance on the bars.

The number of figures (totally 22) is quite large for a scientific paper and very tiring for the reader. Some figures could be easily combined to one figure, so that the total number could be reduced. Some others could be deleted without a loss for the paper. An alternative way of presentation should be applied.

All tables are overcrowded. There are too many values in relatively small space. Some values overlap. The reader cannot tell what is what. An alternative way of presentation should be applied.

The novelty of the study should be highlighted in the discussion. Why are the findings significant for the scientific community? What are the trends in other areas of the world? What are the practical implications of the findings in the study area and in other areas?

The authors should incorporate recent papers on the effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on crop growth. For example, please see Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 19, 592–602 (2019) by Amirnia et al. This paper could be cited in the introduction and in the discussion.

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: agronomy-1641599

Manuscript Title:  " Mitigation of CaCO₃ influence on Ipomoea batatas plants using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var."

=====================================================================

Dear Ms. Nicu Petrescu

Assistant Editor, MDPI, Romania

         Thank you for your efforts and I would like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 2:

General comments

This manuscript reports on the effects of specific plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the field performance of Ipomoea batatas plants in a region of Egypt. Although interesting data were collected, the manuscript has serious deficiencies that render it unsuitable for publication in a high-rank journal like Agronomy. My concerns are summarized below

The text requires careful revision from a native English-speaking individual. It is not sufficient for an academic publication.

Re: this manuscript was corrected by one of the English editing service listed at https:// www. Mdpi.com/authors/English to check it.

Many thanks to Reviewer 2 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "  Mitigation of CaCO3 Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Us-2 ing Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 Var.

The methodology applied in the study is appropriate. The results are statistically analyzed and  discussed adequately. The present study has important practical implications.However, the manuscript was written carelessly.

line 264  it is: ".....for the non-inoculated sweet potato leaves (DSM0) in both growth seasons,...."            it should be: "....for the non-inoculated sweet potato leaves (DSM0) and inoculated sweet potato leaves (DSM1) in both growth seasons,........"

line 271 (title of Tables 4) it is: ".... plants in 2019 and 2020" it should be: ".... plants in 2019 and 2020."

line 276 (under Table 4) it is: ".... phosphorus content and Ca = calcium content  . " it should be: "phosphorus content and Ca = calcium content."

line 323 it is: ".... recorded values of 103.58 vs. 110.13 for Mn....." it should be: ".... recorded values of 103.58 vs. 119.51 for Mn....."

line 329 it is: " ... CSP₁₀₀xBM₀ and CSP₂₀xBM₀ for Mn and CSP₂₀xBM₀ and CSP₆₀xBM₀ for Zn..." it should be: " ..... CSP₁₀₀x DSM₀ and CSP₂₀x DSM₀ for Mn and CSP₂₀x DSM₀ and CSP₆₀x DSM₀ for Zn..."

line 406 it is: "....  13.55 vs. 13.64 for Mn, .... " it should be: ".... 13.55 vs. ????? for Mn,..."

line 437 it is: ".... vs. 4.48 for P in the 2019 and 2020 growth seasons  ..." it should be: ".... vs. 4.84 for P in the 2019 and 2020 growth seasons  ..."

line 515 it is: " 3.5.2. The effect of phosphorus ..." it should be: " 3.3.2. The effect of phosphorus ..."

line 519 it is: ".... followed by 14.88 vs. 14.771.82 tons ha^-1) ..." it should be: "...".... followed by 14.88 vs. 14.77 tons ha^-1) ...".

line 634 it is: " .. that DSM 2894 + CPS can be used.." it shoul be: .." that DSM 2894 + CSP can be used

in Table 3 it is: "345 kg ha-1 of calcium super phosphate (100% of RPF) with incubated plants by Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var. " it should be: "345 kg ha-1 of calcium super phosphate (100% of RPF) non-inoculated plants by Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var ".

in the row of Table 5 it is.  " Tubers (mg kg^-1) " it should be: "Leaves (mg kg^-1) ".

there is no row in table 8 with DSM₀, DSM₁

error in Figs. and in title of Figs.: 5,6,7,8,13,14,15,16,19,20 it is "DMS₁" it should be: " DSM₁"

error in Fig 21. it is: " Pf  or FP.." it shloul be: " CSP₂₀   CSP₄₀ ....

error in Fig. 22 it is "BMS_{0 ,} BMS₁" it should be: " DSM₀, DSM₁  "

Author Response

Agronomy - MDPI

Manuscript ID: Agronomy-1641599

Manuscript Title:  "Mitigation of CaCO₃ Influence on Ipomoea batatas Plants Using Bacillus megaterium DSM 2894 var."

=====================================================================

Dear Ms. Nicu Petrescu

Assistant Editor, MDPI, Romania

         Thank you for your efforts and I’d like also to thank very much the reviewers for their valuable comments. We have corrected the manuscript based on the comments of reviewers, and the corrections made in the text in red color, and are outlined step by step as follows:

Response to the comments of Reviewer 3:

 

Many thanks to Reviewer 3 for his valuable comments

Ahmed A. M. Awad (Corresponding author)

April 3, 2022

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors did not respond to my major remarks and did not follow advice how to improve the manuscript. According to the revised version of the manuscript it seems that they disagree with my opinion but I did not obtain any explanation.