Combined Effects of Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and NPK Fertilizer on Growth and Yields of Maize and Soil Nutrient Availability
, Grace Nakabonge 3, Joseph Ssekandi 4, Hassna Founoune-Mboup 5, Arfang Badji 6, Abibatou Ndiaye 2, Malick Ndiaye 2, Paul Kyakuwa 1, Otim Godfrey Anyoni 7, Clovis Kabaseke 8, Amos Kipkemoi Ronoh 9 and Joseph Ekwangu 1,7
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study is fascinating. Nevertheless, some points have been found and should be considered by the authors in address for publication. They are:
Methods: line 110, why the N concentration is too high, it should be showed in NH4+ form
Line 213, uptake = concentration x biomass; Thus, in this case we must use content
Conclusions: all sentences should be summarized, not explanation
Line 34-35: These should be “suggested: instead of “suggest”.
Line 37-39: Keywords should be placed in the alphabet order and be uniform, rather than randomly uppercased words.
Line 42-45: Maize and Corn are typically the same, but it should be addressed in one name only.
Line 45: the “staple food” argument has been mentioned above. The two sentences about maize as a staple food should be merged.
Line 47: Units should be described uniformly, e.g. /ha or ha-1 and tons or t.
Line 76: “to be” should be added after “is considered”.
Line 77-78: Uncertain words, e.g. “may”, should not be used when citing from other studies.
Line 117: : “are” should be “were”.
Line 146: “ha-1” should be “ha-1”
Line 167: Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium have been replaced by N, P and K previously.
Line 181: When interpreting the result of a study, past tense is more preferable.
Line 213: The same as line 47, i.e. /g or g-1.
Line 418: A full-stop is required.
Author Response
The authors have fully addressed all the reviewer's comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript entitled “The combined effect of indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and NPK fertilizer on the growth and yields of maize and soil N, P, and K availability” by Fall et al. deals with the use of indigenous mycorrhizal inoculants in combination with different NPK doses to improve maize yields. After a careful review, I found this study well conducted, organized, and structured as per the requirements of Sustainability MDPI. The data obtained is novel and discussed appropriately. However, I have noticed serious grey points in the manuscript which need to be clarified. The manuscript strongly needs to be scrutinized for writing style and language. There are several major corrections in the current version. My specific comments are:
1. The title of this manuscript is lengthy. I suggest revising it as: Combined Effects of Indigenous Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) and NPK Fertilization on Growth and Yields of Maize and Soil Nutrient Availability”.
2. Abstract needs to be reorganized with sentences in the following order: problem, objectives, methods, major results, major outcome, and relevance of this study in overall maize crop improvement.
3. NPK is not defined in the abstract.
4. Keywords are too long and irrelevant, I suggest reducing to 6 relevant keywords which do not appear in the title also.
5. In the Introduction section, the authors used AMF in almost every sentence/paragraph which makes the reading weird. The authors provided a problem in most of the statements where the hypothesis becomes irrelevant and unlinked to claims made. I suggest rewriting the introduction part more scientifically and logically.
6. Remove all impersonal terms such as we, us, our, etc. from the manuscript.
7. Line 117: use the proper multiply sign (×) and not “x”. Correct for degree sign also in the entire manuscript.
8. Overall methodology and treatment design can be depicted using a flow chart in order to understand the actual meaning of the experiments.
9. Soil properties were analyzed at what? Readers don’t care about it. The method section should provide the exact scientific protocol adopted for laboratory analysis with proper reference and not its place. Also, provide brief details about each parameter and instrument used. I have noticed the same problem with other parameters also.
10. When were the experiments conducted? More environmental conditions of greenhouse such as humidity, light/dark period, and edge effect mitigation should be provided.
11. Provide the name of the software used for statistical analysis.
12. Line 165: This section is again repeated here.
13. Syntax and spacing problem exists in the whole manuscript.
14. Results need to be written logically with the proper reason behind their trend and not just values.
15. The manuscript also lacks proper scientific evidence behind the AMF and NPK interactions (molecular) to derive significant conclusions. It should be discussed logically.
16. Tables: some tables include data that is not replicated. SD? How mean comparison for the post-hoc test was achieved with a single value?
17. Conclusion: The results support the hypothesis that plants inoculated? Is written multiple times, poor writing style here. Needs to be rewritten more scientifically.
18. References: could be updated to avoid outdated ones.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for all the useful and helpful comments on the manuscript.
The authors have accepted the suggestions to change the title, and they have worked on the abstract, introduction, and methods.
16. Tables: some tables include data that is not replicated. SD? How mean comparison for the posthoc test was achieved with a single value?
The mean comparison was achieved because the authors had four replications for each parameter.
The authors have fully addressed all comments. The manuscript has been proofread using Grammarly software.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Please give the treatment consistent with the results, L.117-120
2. Please provide the names of the methods used.
3. Please introduce every abbreviation and acronym before using it in the text (put them in parentheses after the full terms).
4. Please describe all the statistics used in the Materials and Methods section.
5. Please provide the characteristic of the soil before the experiment.
6. All abbreviations and acronyms used in tables and figures should be defined in the table notes or figure captions.
7. Please explain what is “Turkey at 5%”? (L. 223, 243, etc.)
8. Please provide Pearson's correlation coefficient (table or figures) in the result section.
Author Response
The authors have fully addressed all the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have checked the revised manuscript. However, I was confused about the point by point reply from authors. After a side-by-side check, I found that the manuscript is well revised and can be accepted in current form.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the reviewer for the precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions, except one - regarding “Turkey at 5%” I made in the review. My question concerned Turkey, not Tukey method.
Please correct a spelling error in the method name, e.g. L. 223, 243, 253, and 264.
Author Response
The authors appreciate the reviewer for evaluating this work despite a busy schedule.
The authors have put the right spelling in L. 223, 243, 253, and 264. It is Tukey's instead of Turkey.
