Silicon Combined with Trichoderma harzianum and Organic Matter as an Environmental Friendly Strategy for Mitigating Salt Stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is “Silicon Combined with Trichoderma harzianum and Organic Matter to Mitigate Salt Stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Under Different Soil Moisture Content”. Some detailed comments are as follows:

(1) Abstract, Lines 16-17: “However, evaluating its application effectiveness alone or combined with other salt stress attenuators is essential.” However, the current issues that need to be addressed have not been revealed.

(2) Keywords, “Biosaline agriculture; semiarid regions”. These two keywords are not representative.

(4) Introduction: The research objective of this manuscript is not clear.

(5) Materials and Methods: The author did not reveal the experimental environmental conditions.

(6) Discussion: In the discussion section, the author needs to discuss different research topics.

(7) This manuscript lacks disclosure of research shortcomings.

(8) Figs 2 and 3 should avoid being distributed on page 2.

(9) A proof reading by a native English speaker should be carefully conducted to improve both language and organization quality. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript still needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

(1) Abstract, Lines 16-17: “However, evaluating its application effectiveness alone or combined with other salt stress attenuators is essential.” However, the current issues that need to be addressed have not been revealed.

We have improved the sentence as required by all reviewers.

(2) Keywords, “Biosaline agriculture; semiarid regions”. These two keywords are not representative.

We have changed the suggested keywords as required: Sustainable agriculture (Biosaline agriculture) and deleted (semiarid regions). The journal requires at least three keywords. We hope it will attend.

(4) Introduction: The research objective of this manuscript is not clear.

We have improved the sentence!

(5) Materials and Methods: The author did not reveal the experimental environmental conditions.

We have inserted the required information!

(6) Discussion: In the discussion section, the author needs to discuss different research topics.

We have split the discussion section into different research topics.

(7) This manuscript lacks disclosure of research shortcomings.

We didn’t understand the criticism. However, the other three reviewers were totally agree that the citing literature used in the work was adequate and enough!

(“References are appropriate; the authors cited works and results of other authors related to the topic of this manuscript”)

(8) Figs 2 and 3 should avoid being distributed on page 2.

We have left them together on only one page!

(9) A proof reading by a native English speaker should be carefully conducted to improve both language and organization quality. 

Ok! We will contact the journal's "English Language Editing Service" if the manuscript is accepted. We are in touch with the editor's journal about it.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigated the combination of silicon, Trichoderma harzianum, and goat manure to mitigate salt stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) under 30% and 80% soil moisture content. It was found that the application of "silicon + goat manure" achieved a better mitigative effect under 80% soil moisture content condition. This paper has important application value. However, the following questions and suggestions should be answered or revised. And I think the manuscript is more appropriate for an agricultural journal. If published in this journal, it should highlight agricultural sustainability from the writing. I suggest a major revision before publication.

Title: what the organic matter is?

Keywords: what is Biosaline agriculture? The so-called keyword was not appeared again in the following body of the manuscript.

Line 91: according to what? Not a complete sentence. The reference should not participate in the sentence.

Line 95: why [27], [28] put here? What does this sentence have to do with these two references? Please check the whole manuscript.

Table 1: Add radio of soil and water for pH. Can you explain for me what are Sorptive complex and Soluble complex? On what basis？All tables should be typical Three-line Table. Please check the whole manuscript.

Line 101: What is the size of the barrel, such as length, width and height?

Line 106: what is the organic matter?

Line 105-107: delete quinoa, and rewrite the treatments and the paragraph. Missing one important treatment: application organic matter alone.

Figure 1: The ordinate scale does not need to be so dense, generally within 6 scales. p<0.05, p should in italic. Check all figures.

Line 155: Add “（1）”

Line 437: sodium should use Na

For Conclusion: Insert the second paragraph before “However”in the first paragraph. Change “However” to “In the future”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

tolerableness

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

 

Title: what the organic matter is?

Bovine manure. We have inserted this information in the article: “The source of organic matter used was bovine manure (Table 3), applied at 60 t ha^-1, representing the dose used in the study region.”

Keywords: what is Biosaline agriculture? The so-called keyword was not appeared again in the following body of the manuscript.

We have changed this keyword to "sustainable agriculture," which is more appropriate to the manuscript. Thanks.

Line 91: according to what? Not a complete sentence. The reference should not participate in the sentence.

27 means citing literature. We have improved the sentence, but this is the journal’s format. We have improved it!

Line 95: why [27], [28] put here? What does this sentence have to do with these two references? Please check the whole manuscript.

We have improved the information in all the manuscript. However, this refers to the journal’s format.

Table 1: Add radio of soil and water for pH. Can you explain for me what are Sorptive complex and Soluble complex? On what basis？All tables should be typical Three-line Table. Please check the whole manuscript.

Soil: water ratio was 2:1. “Soil pH was determined in a soil-water suspension of 1:2.5 directly from the pH meter.”

Soil sorptive complex refers to the solid components responsible for the sorption of cations in soils. Please check these articles as examples of using the term “sorptive complex of soils”:

10.1080/00380768.2004.10408552

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11270-014-1971-4

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-014-1266-y

The soluble complex of soils refers to the soil solution - The water-soluble elements of soils! Please check the examples:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389407001100

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275100/

We are sorry, but the criticism about the tables was not clear to us. Our tables are according to the journal rules.

Line 101: What is the size of the barrel, such as length, width and height?

We inserted the information!

Line 106: what is the organic matter?

We inserted the information!

Line 105-107: delete quinoa, and rewrite the treatments and the paragraph. Missing one important treatment: application organic matter alone.

Quinoa was deleted from the text. We are sorry, but we don’t have organic matter alone. We intended to verify the interaction between Si and other salt stress attenuators.

Figure 1: The ordinate scale does not need to be so dense, generally within 6 scales. p<0.05, p should in italic. Check all figures.

We have used what was recommended by the journal! Please check this recent article in the same journal: 10.3390/su16052157

p<0.05 is now in italic!

Line 155: Add “（1）”

We have added (2) because another reviewer required another expression.

Line 437: sodium should use Na

We have changed!

For Conclusion: Insert the second paragraph before “However”in the first paragraph. Change “However” to “In the future”.

Changes were done. Thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2903958

Title: Silicon Combined with Trichoderma harzianum and Organic Matter to Mitigate Salt Stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Under Different Soil Moisture Content

 

General comments:

The work investigated whether the combined application of Si, organic matter, and Trichoderma under different water conditions can reduce salt stress in the growth of quinoa through 5 controls and 4 repeated in situ observation experiments, and drew some meaningful conclusions. The research has certain reference value for guiding agricultural irrigation and agricultural water use.

Overall, from the content of the manuscript, the results are reasonable and the data is detailed. However, the current manuscript have problems such as incomplete introduction of research methods, single data analysis methods, and insufficient depth of analysis. Additionally, there are some minor errors in the manuscript that require further improvement. The specific suggestions are as follows:

Detailed comments:

(1) Line 118: Verify minor error (E) "substance";

(2) Line 119: Is there any basis for two levels of soil moisture -30% and 80%?

(3) Line 140: Why did not clearly describe the detailed time of the experiment?

(4) Line 140: "2.3 Quinoa growth and chemical analysis of plant biomass" is not clearly described. When calculating biomass, is it the biomass of a plant? Is there any repetition here? Additionally, there is an indicator called "Shoot related biomass" that has been described in text and may be changed to a simple formula for clearer expression;

(5) Line 171: "a conductivity meter", there should be a description of the product model and measurement accuracy for the device;

(6) Line 184: In the Results part, the data analysis method is relatively single. The research method mentioned the use of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis, but the parameter table of variance analysis in the work was not seen. The analysis of the relationship between biological factors of experimental plants, nutrients, soil ions, etc. is still in the stage of qualitative description, and good data analysis methods have not been used. This part may require further improvement;

(7) Line 318: Check minor error "biomass. [31]";

(8) Line 373: Check minor error "[40], evaluating";

(9) The conclusion and discussion sections need further strengthening;

As a conclusion, major revision required.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2903958

Title: Silicon Combined with Trichoderma harzianum and Organic Matter to Mitigate Salt Stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) Under Different Soil Moisture Content

 

General comments:

The work investigated whether the combined application of Si, organic matter, and Trichoderma under different water conditions can reduce salt stress in the growth of quinoa through 5 controls and 4 repeated in situ observation experiments, and drew some meaningful conclusions. The research has certain reference value for guiding agricultural irrigation and agricultural water use.

Overall, from the content of the manuscript, the results are reasonable and the data is detailed. However, the current manuscript have problems such as incomplete introduction of research methods, single data analysis methods, and insufficient depth of analysis. Additionally, there are some minor errors in the manuscript that require further improvement. The specific suggestions are as follows:

Detailed comments:

(1) Line 118: Verify minor error (E) "substance";

(2) Line 119: Is there any basis for two levels of soil moisture -30% and 80%?

(3) Line 140: Why did not clearly describe the detailed time of the experiment?

(4) Line 140: "2.3 Quinoa growth and chemical analysis of plant biomass" is not clearly described. When calculating biomass, is it the biomass of a plant? Is there any repetition here? Additionally, there is an indicator called "Shoot related biomass" that has been described in text and may be changed to a simple formula for clearer expression;

(5) Line 171: "a conductivity meter", there should be a description of the product model and measurement accuracy for the device;

(6) Line 184: In the Results part, the data analysis method is relatively single. The research method mentioned the use of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis, but the parameter table of variance analysis in the work was not seen. The analysis of the relationship between biological factors of experimental plants, nutrients, soil ions, etc. is still in the stage of qualitative description, and good data analysis methods have not been used. This part may require further improvement;

(7) Line 318: Check minor error "biomass. [31]";

(8) Line 373: Check minor error "[40], evaluating";

(9) The conclusion and discussion sections need further strengthening;

As a conclusion, major revision required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

(1) Line 118: Verify minor error (E) "substance";

This error doesn’t appear for us! For us it is ok! “(E) Si + matter + Trichoderma”. (E) is the treatment.

(2) Line 119: Is there any basis for two levels of soil moisture -30% and 80%?

We intended to verify the effectiveness of the tested salt stress attenuators under low and high soil moisture content conditions. We have inserted this information in the manuscript to clarify the readers. Thanks!

(3) Line 140: Why did not clearly describe the detailed time of the experiment?

The experiment was conducted between August and November/2021. We have inserted the required information.

(4) Line 140: "2.3 Quinoa growth and chemical analysis of plant biomass" is not clearly described. When calculating biomass, is it the biomass of a plant? Is there any repetition here? Additionally, there is an indicator called "Shoot related biomass" that has been described in text and may be changed to a simple formula for clearer expression;

Yes. Biomass of the plant! We inserted the information!

We worked with 4 replications (it is mentioned in the text)!

We have inserted the expression as required.

(5) Line 171: "a conductivity meter", there should be a description of the product model and measurement accuracy for the device;

We have inserted the required information.

(6) Line 184: In the Results part, the data analysis method is relatively single. The research method mentioned the use of Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis, but the parameter table of variance analysis in the work was not seen. The analysis of the relationship between biological factors of experimental plants, nutrients, soil ions, etc. is still in the stage of qualitative description, and good data analysis methods have not been used. This part may require further improvement;

We have used the Tukey test to compare the significant effects of the tested treatments on the studied variables.

Several works in the literature (and in this journal) use the same approach used for us:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062228

https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052037

(7) Line 318: Check minor error "biomass. [31]";

We have fixed it. “[31]” is the citation referenced in the references section. This is the journal’s format to cite an article.

(8) Line 373: Check minor error "[40], evaluating";

We have fixed it. “[40]” is the citation referenced in the references section. This is the journal’s format to cite an article.

(9) The conclusion and discussion sections need further strengthening;

We have improved as required by the reviewers. Please specify what can be improved!

As a conclusion, major revision required.

We have improved as required by the reviewers. Please specify what can be improved!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question posed by this research was to test if Silicon combined with Trichoderma harzianum and organic matter can mitigate salt stress in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) under different soil moisture content.

The topic is original and interesting, crops will be increasingly stressed due to soil degradation and salinity and due to climate changes, which bring with them dry periods, when rain water is not enough to sustain different crops.

Compared with other published material, the authors did not only test the effect of Silicon alone and combined with organic matter on salt stress at quinoa but also added another factor, different humidity.

Authors explain very well, in Discussion part, the importance of K⁺. In figure 2, it can be seen that K⁺ values are lowest in control. How can the authors explain, that in figure 1, for both, shoot fresh matter and biomass, at low humidity of 30%, values for control are higher that the ones where Si, Trichoderma and manure was applied?

Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed. Authors present the variant most resistant to saline stress, in both low and high humidity.

References are appropriate, the authors cited works and results of other authors, related to the topic of this manuscript.

Tables and figures are clear and easy to follow. They have been detailed by the authors also in the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the criticism, comments, and suggestions. We agree they contributed to improving the manuscript. We have considered all of the recommendations, and we hope it meets your requirements.

We are available to clarify any additional questions!

Authors explain very well, in Discussion part, the importance of K+. In figure 2, it can be seen that K+ values are lowest in control. How can the authors explain, that in figure 1, for both, shoot fresh matter and biomass, at low humidity of 30%, values for control are higher that the ones where Si, Trichoderma and manure was applied?

Good question. They are a little bit higher, but no significant differences were verified. In other words, at low soil moisture content (30% AWC), salt stress attenuators don’t effectively promote quinoa growth. We have inserted this observation in the manuscript. Thanks.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is “Silicon Combined with Trichoderma harzianum and Organic Matter as an Environmental Friendly Strategy to Mitigate Salt Stress in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)”. Some detailed comments are as follows:

(1) I suggest the author to supplement the content that needs to be improved in future research.

(2) The English language of this manuscript still needs improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript still needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thanks for the suggestions. We have finalized the revision of the second round. Here is the response to the comments. We hope it meets your requirements. Also, we are aware of the improvement in English. We are in touch with the editor and will contact the journal’s English editing service if the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Our report is attached.

We are available to clarify any additional questions! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

87 of 100. The whole revised manuscript is OK.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

80 of 100.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thanks for the suggestions. We have finalized the revision of the second round. Here is the response to the comments. We hope it meets your requirements. Also, we are aware of the improvement in English. We are in touch with the editor and will contact the journal’s English editing service if the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Our report is attached.

We are available to clarify any additional questions! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

(1) Line 118: In “(C) Si + organic matter”, “organic matter” expression is required, while in “(E) Si + matter + Trichoderma” , “matter” expression is used. What matter is in the “(E) Si + matter + Trichoderma” ?

(2) Line 119: The author mentioned that "Cultivated quinoa plants were grown at two levels of soil moisture – 30 and 80% of the available water content". Please explain whether this is experimental data or literature data, and there should be clear evidence. Two numbers cannot be written randomly as evidence.

(3) There has been no substantial improvement in the data analysis section, and further modifications are needed.

(4) Recheck the revision status of the first round of review comments.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments:

(1) Line 118: In “(C) Si + organic matter”, “organic matter” expression is required, while in “(E) Si + matter + Trichoderma” , “matter” expression is used. What matter is in the “(E) Si + matter + Trichoderma” ?

(2) Line 119: The author mentioned that "Cultivated quinoa plants were grown at two levels of soil moisture – 30 and 80% of the available water content". Please explain whether this is experimental data or literature data, and there should be clear evidence. Two numbers cannot be written randomly as evidence.

(3) There has been no substantial improvement in the data analysis section, and further modifications are needed.

(4) Recheck the revision status of the first round of review comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

Thanks for the suggestions. We have finalized the revision of the second round. Here is the response to the comments. We hope it meets your requirements. Also, we are aware of the improvement in English. We are in touch with the editor and will contact the journal’s English editing service if the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Our report is attached.

We are available to clarify any additional questions! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

(1) In the result part, the current data analysis is not profound enough. The analysis of data mainly including plant biological factors, nutrients, soil ions, etc. is too hasty. Currently, the analysis of changes is mostly based on the intuitive comparison of the values of 30 and 80% soil moisture and five treatments, without using appropriate statistical analysis methods to compare whether the differences between the two groups of experiments have statistical significance, and how big these differences are; In addition, statistical analysis methods were not well applied in the analysis of the relationship between biological factors, soil ions, nutrient levels, and other factors during the difference analysis among the 5 treatments set up, resulting in a decrease in the credibility of the current research results. This requires further supplementation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments:

(1) In the result part, the current data analysis is not profound enough. The analysis of data mainly including plant biological factors, nutrients, soil ions, etc. is too hasty. Currently, the analysis of changes is mostly based on the intuitive comparison of the values of 30 and 80% soil moisture and five treatments, without using appropriate statistical analysis methods to compare whether the differences between the two groups of experiments have statistical significance, and how big these differences are; In addition, statistical analysis methods were not well applied in the analysis of the relationship between biological factors, soil ions, nutrient levels, and other factors during the difference analysis among the 5 treatments set up, resulting in a decrease in the credibility of the current research results. This requires further supplementation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We don't know if the figures are of good quality! Also, we only have one experimental group. The experiment is only one! We tested the efficacy of salt stress attenuators in two different soil moisture content. Understand that we have two different soil moisture content and five different salt stress attenuators (factorial 5 x 2). Thus, we have ten treatments (not 5, as mentioned).

The statistical method used was an analysis of variance. In case of significance, we used the Tukey test to compare means (other researchers use the Duncan test, Skot Knot test, etc.). This statistical approach can evaluate biological factors (soil and plant parameters). Again, please take a look at these works (open access). They have used this statistical method:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/6/2523  (1 – sustainability, 2024)

This article (1) evaluated soil properties and crop growth using variance analysis and the Duncan test.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2196   (2 – sustainability, 2024)

The authors of this article (2) also evaluated soil and crop parameters using variance analysis and the Tukeys’ test.

We hope we have clarified this confusion and that it meets your requirements.