Mycorrhiza: An Ecofriendly Bio-Tool for Better Survival of Plants in Nature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Just to rearrange the abstract and correct the remarks given in the text. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the manuscript of the article: [Sustainability] Manuscript ID: sustainability-1812624 –

Title:  Mycorrhiza: an ecofriendly bio-tool for better survival of plants  in nature

 

Mamta Dhiman, Lakshika Sharma, Prashant Kaushik, Abhijeet Singh and Madan Mohan Sharma

 

The reviewed manuscript covers a wide range of papers and issues, but in my opinion, it could be improved by applying documents for the years 2021-2022, the avulses cite only two papers for the year 2021.

 

 

Based on my analysis of the manuscript of the article, I believe that this review manuscript is entirely consistent with the scientific direction of the journal issue and can be published after minor additions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear  Authors,

Article is interesting and informating.

Need to do some correction in the text and list of refernces.

All the best,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors, I have read the manuscript entitked "Mycorrhiza: an ecofriendly bio-tool for better survival of plants in nature", which I consider interesting and important for a better understanding of the mycorrhiza mechanism and its implications/use in plant survival, growth and development.

There are some suggestions I consider will make your work more readable and will improve the quality and understanding.

You need a separate paragraph at the end of the introduction where to state the aim of the manuscript and the specific objectives. This will add value to your research and will prepare the reader for the text. Also, here you can point out why is important research like this.

The second suggestion is a methodological one - Add a section of Methods for data extraction. Here you need to say how you construct the sections/sub-sections, why did you choose each of them. Add a description of literature search, where it was performed, how and more important how you filter the literature to extract the most relevant articles.

Overall, I liked the idea and how you construct your manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors investigated in their review “Mycorrhiza: an ecofriendly bio-tool for better survival of plants in nature” the importance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and discussed its role generally in environment and particularly in agriculture. Actually, the manuscript is interesting and mentioned well many aspects related to the mycorrhizal symbiosis. This seems of a great importance but many changes/clarifications and English revision are needed before publishing.

Line 42+Line 69: Please, change “&” to “and”

Line 71: Check the section number “1. History” already introduction has number 1

Line 87: (Wipf et al., 2019) should be number

Line 92: Change “&” to “and” in “the most ancient & abundant”

Line 101: “on” instead of “upon” in “Depending upon”

Line 123+124: The word “different” repeated twice

Line 127: Arbuscular mycorrhizal is defined in the first mention in the test so later on, it is enough to write the abbreviation “AM” without saying “Arbuscular mycorrhizal”

Line 135: In “Table 1.”

·       The names of Mycorrhizal sp. and Host Plant in italic and where is necessary.

·       For better following of the collected data in the table I suggest setting the table to landscape instead of portrait.

·                ·      “Liu et al., 2018” should be a number  

·       Why the authors add boarder line between Sr. No. from 1 to 8 and 9-12 since they are talking about salinity stress and then in the same row are continued with data on drought stress? It will be better adding the single inferior line after each stress to show the different types of stress separately.

Line 176: Merge the sentence

Line 192: “Ethylene” in lowercase

Line 194: Please, write this note “*Evidences for particular stage affected by BR still need further investigations” after the figure caption

Line 271: “Triticum” in italic

Line 253+line 271+line 287+line 297+line 307+line 308+line 340+line 360+line 369+ line 374+line 376+line 380+ line 383+ line 409+ line 354+ line 536+ line 543+line 559: Change “&” to “and”

Line 285+ line 288+line 304+line 324+line 345: Please, cite (Das & Gutjahr, 2020) in number.

Line 300: Please, add “in” between “resulted” and “delayed” to complete the sentence

Line 322: Please, cite (Zhang et al., 2020) in number  

Line 328+line 332: (Foo et al., 2016) in number

Line 333: (Foo, 2020) in number

Line 343: (Liu et al., 2017) in number

Line 360: (2009) in number

Line 376: “depending on” instead of “depending upon

Line 398:Please, rephrase the sentence to keep only “increased” instead of two in “increased surface area and increased absorption of soil minerals”

Line 313+314: All the citations should be number (Harrison et al., 2002; Sieh et al., 2013; Giovannetti et al., 2014; 413 Garcia & Zimmermann, 2014).

Line 428: In “Table 2.”

·       The names of Mycorrhizal sp. and Host Plant in italic and where is necessary.

·      To avoid the repetition, for example; in mineral column mention the phosphorus only in the first row while delete the other two words “phosphorus “ in the next rows. The same can be done for the other mineral

·       Boarder line only between the different minerals.

·       “(Zhang et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2019)” should be a number  

Line 449: (“Augé, 2004; Driver et al., 2005)” in number

Line 466: space between “(f)2 and “hormonal”

Line 428: In “Table 3.”

·       The names of Mycorrhizal sp. and Host Plant in italic and where is necessary.

·        “(Wong et al., 2007)”, (Zhang et al., 2020), and (Liu et al., 2018) should be a number  

·       For better following of the collected data in the table I suggest setting the table to landscape instead of portrait.

Line 485: “depending on” instead of “depending upon”

Line 486: Please, keep only the abbreviation in “lead (Pb)”

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors. The manuscript is improved and present better the topic. I like the idea and the way you present it.