Rhizosphere Acidification Determines Phosphorus Availability in Calcareous Soil and Influences Faba Bean (Vicia faba) Tolerance to P Deficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have gone through the manuscript entitled "Rhizosphere acidification and P use efficiency-mediated alleviation of phosphorus deficiency and determine Faba bean tolerance in calcareous soils and found it informative. The experiments and statistical design is satisfactory. However, the finding of the investigation are restricted to the particular region. I suggest author should modified towards its global implications. Accordingly Abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion need to be modify. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting to review our MS and present this report.

The MS was taken up again and subjected to a total revision of its scientific content, linguistic quality and presentation. All recommendation are taken in account, Figures are redone to be clearer, soils analysis were redone on 3 new samples for each to verify and confirm their physico-chemical characteristics (table 1). Below our response to your reports

Abstract, introduction, discussion and conclusion are modified, almost rewritten and clearly improved. A schematic conclusion was also added, all figures are redone to be clearer and more representative. After final adjustment, the MS was sent to an expert in the field (english editing service) for its linguistic and grammatical adjustment.

 All amendments are highlighted in green.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses rhizosphere acidification and phosphorus utilization in faba beans of three different genotypes in calcareous soils. I think that sounds good and that some researchers in our field may be interested to take a look on. However, there are many problems with this manuscript, both in terms of writing grammar and diagramming, which give me strong reason to suspect that the authors took this work seriously. In general, the content of the manuscript requires a significant amount of revision before reaching the publication quality.

1.      The purpose of the study in the introduction needs to be clear.

2.      The introduction section can be found in these articles:

S. Zhang, Q. Du, K. Cheng, Markus Antonietti, F. Yang, Efficient Phosphorus Recycling and Heavy Metal Removal from Wastewater Sludge by a Novel Hydrothermal Humification-Technique, Chemical Engineering Journal, 394(2020)124832.

F. Yang, S. Zhang, J. Song, Q. Du, G. Li, N. Tarakina, M. Antonietti, Synthetic Humic Acids Solubilize Otherwise Insoluble Phosphates to Improve Soil Fertility, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58(2019)18813-18816.

3.      On page 2. why these 3 genotypes were chosen and their differences should be written in detail.

4.      Figure 1, Figure 2 should be consistent in the font.

5.      Root H-ATPase activity is very important to the text, I think we should measure the enzyme activity content to make the data more convincing.

6.      On page 12. ‘This result confirms the strict dependence of photosynthesis on P availability.’ It is very hard to follow this section. Please describe the points correctly.

7.      On page 14, line 14-26. The discussion cites numerous other people's results, but I do not see any connection with your own findings and suggest rewritten.

8.      ‘This result confirms the strict dependence of photosynthesis on P availability’. Please add a reference to how this sentence was concluded.

9.      The discussion section is not coherent and the descriptions are not deep enough. Please carefully revise the statement of the conclusion.

10.  The author should have thoroughly checked the manuscript and the English language should receive continuous improvement.

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting to review our MS and present this report.

The MS was taken up again and subjected to a total revision of its scientific content, linguistic quality and presentation. All recommendation are taken in account, Figures are redone to be clearer, soils analysis were redone on 3 new samples for each to verify and confirm their physico-chemical characteristics (table 1). Below our response to your reports

1. The purpose of the study in the introduction needs to be clear.

The purpose of the study was clarified. A related paragraph has been added in the introduction (last paragraph)

2. The introduction section can be found in these articles:
3. Zhang, Q. Du, K. Cheng, Markus Antonietti, F. Yang, Efficient Phosphorus Recycling and Heavy Metal Removal from Wastewater Sludge by a Novel Hydrothermal Humification-Technique, Chemical Engineering Journal, 394(2020)124832.
4. Yang, S. Zhang, J. Song, Q. Du, G. Li, N. Tarakina, M. Antonietti, Synthetic Humic Acids Solubilize Otherwise Insoluble Phosphates to Improve Soil Fertility, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58(2019)18813-18816.

Recommended references and others are used.

3. On page 2. why these 3 genotypes were chosen and their differences should be written in detail.

Point explained in the last paragraph of introduction (purpose and objectives of the study)

4. Figure 1, Figure 2 should be consistent in the font.

All figures are redone to be clearer and more representative

5. Root H-ATPase activity is very important to the text, I think we should measure the enzyme activity content to make the data more convincing.

The measurements made on rhizosphere acidification reflected the enzyme H-ATPase activity.

6. On page 12. ‘This result confirms the strict dependence of photosynthesis on P availability.’ It is very hard to follow this section. Please describe the points correctly.

Sentence was rewritten and improvement are made to be clearer. Amendments highlighted in green.

7. On page 14, line 14-26. The discussion cites numerous other people's results, but I do not see any connection with your own findings and suggest rewritten.

This paragraph was reformulate, new references and information added to be clearer, easy to understand.

8. ‘This result confirms the strict dependence of photosynthesis on P availability’.Please add a reference to how this sentence was concluded.

This is our results and conclusion extracted from the correlation between net photosynthesis and plant P content (Figure 8), the respective paragraph was rewritten and convenient amendments (references for discussion) were added

9. The discussion section is not coherent and the descriptions are not deep enough. Please carefully revise the statement of the conclusion.

To be more coherent, the discussion was deeply revised, some paragraphs are re-placed, others rewritten, and new sentences and paragraph added. The conclusion was rewritten after clear amendments and schematic representation was added (figure 10).

10. The author should have thoroughly checked the manuscript and the English language should receive continuous improvement.

An English Editing Service was made for the MS

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 Baccari and Krouma have conducted a study to determine the genotypic difference in P use efficiency of three Faba bean genotypes under calcareous soil. The manuscript needs major modifications to be published. Following are the crucial points that should be considered by authors to increase the value of the manuscript and may be readability.

-Please modify the title. In place of determine, it should be ‘determination of’. Actually entire title can be modified.

-Please add the novelty of the study to the abstract and introduction. The future prospect of the study should be added to the abstract.

- The language of the manuscript needs major modification. Few sentences are completely unclear. For example, ‘P and N use efficiency is defined as screening features [26]. As part of this alternative, this work is planned. It consists of studying the ecophysiological be-havior of three Faba bean genotypes cultivated on calcareous soil (compared to reference fertile soil as control) to investigate the relationship between rhizosphere acidification, P remobilization and key metabolic reactions in shoots. The genotypic differences allow us to identify the valuable traits of tolerance-promoting P management in calcareous soils. A deep analysis of plant growth, chlorophyll biosynthesis, photosynthesis and P uptake was undertaken, and respectful relationships were established.’

-Please carefully go through the manuscript and rewrite the confusing parts so that the results can be properly understood.

I believe that the manuscript should be rewritten considering the aim of the study and the obtained results.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting to review our MS and present this report.

The MS was taken up again and subjected to a total revision of its scientific content, linguistic quality and presentation. All recommendation are taken in account, Figures are redone to be clearer, soils analysis were redone on 3 new samples for each to verify and confirm their physico-chemical characteristics (table 1). Below our response to your reports

-Please modify the title. In place of determine, it should be ‘determination of’. Actually entire title can be modified.

The title was modified.

-Please add the novelty of the study to the abstract and introduction. The future prospect of the study should be added to the abstract.

The abstract, introduction and discussion and conclusion were deeply revised, recommended and convenient amendments were added. All amendments were highlighted in green.

- The language of the manuscript needs major modification. Few sentences are completely unclear. For example, ‘P and N use efficiency is defined as screening features [26]. As part of this alternative, this work is planned. It consists of studying the ecophysiological be-havior of three Faba bean genotypes cultivated on calcareous soil (compared to reference fertile soil as control) to investigate the relationship between rhizosphere acidification, P remobilization and key metabolic reactions in shoots. The genotypic differences allow us to identify the valuable traits of tolerance-promoting P management in calcareous soils. A deep analysis of plant growth, chlorophyll biosynthesis, photosynthesis and P uptake was undertaken, and respectful relationships were established.’

The MS was the subject of a deep revision for its scientific and linguistic quality, taking in account these recommendations. Some sentences and paragraphs are rewritten, other added, …After scientific amendments, the MS was edited by an expert in the field for its English quality.

-Please carefully go through the manuscript and rewrite the confusing parts so that the results can be properly understood.

The conclusion was clearly improived and schematic representation was added (Figure 10)

I believe that the manuscript should be rewritten considering the aim of the study and the obtained results.

Recommendations taken in account

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Though the authors have done a few modifications, still there are major deficiencies in presenting the aim and results of the study. Unfortunately, it could not be accepted in its present form. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for all recommendations and comments you provided. I fully agree with these recommendations, and I respond positively. it can only improve the quality of our MS. We have made an effort to improve the quality of our paper and meet the required criteria. All comments are taken into account in the revision of the MS

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Though the authors have done a few modifications, still there are major deficiencies in presenting the aim and results of the study. Unfortunately, it could not be accepted in its present form.