Physiological Response of Soybean Plants to Seed Coating and Inoculation under Pot Experiment Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I appreciate your well written paper on “Physiological response of soybean plants to seed coating and inoculation under pot experiment conditions”. The objectives and experimental procedures followed in the study are clear. The paper is well organized, the topic of research is good. it's an important work, and the manuscript has been well prepared. I highly recommended to publish this manuscript in “Agronomy”, after minor revision.
Minor comments
- Lines 29, 198, 160, 198, 213: ha-1, 109, m-2 s-1, 109, 3rd make superscript
- The authors should improve the introduction part, most sections have sentences strung together arbitrarily without a clear structure, and transition between sentences in the introduction is confusing. Also, I strongly advice and recommended that the authors include a general sentence reviewing the role of PGPR such as Bradyrhizobium in enhancing plant growth and development especially physiological responses under both normal and abiotic stress conditions, please refer to the following studies as I believe they would be useful in this statement https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-02949-z https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13454 and the role of inoculation method https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00727-2
- Please try to explain in the introduction more details regarding the physiological response of soybean to different pots and environmental conditions; in this regard please read the following references and cite it where ever it is suitable : https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10822; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103823 ;
- Line 152: Replace “inoculant” with “Bioinoculant”.
- Line 172: Add reference
- Lines 208-213: Add reference https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7070531
- Lines 215-223: Add reference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134044
- Lines 225-230: Add referencehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134044
- In the results section, the authors should add a state of art and need one sentence at the end of each paragraph to show to readers what happen in the whole paragraph
- The discussion part is well interrupted and well presented
Kind Regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript includes very valuable information on seed technology and coatings. Appropriate research methods were employed but need minor clarification. The results obtained were described sufficiently. The discussion is comprehensive. The conclusions of the articles are in line with the results presented. However, there are some editorial improvements to consider to enhance the scientific soundness of the manuscript.
Line 2 and 3 Please use uppercase for the first letter of each word
Line 9: Coating technology
Line 10: the selection of appropriate
Line 14: protein content, and
Line 20-21: Please use ; instead of , to separate the keywords
Line 24: from the soil, fertilizers, and air.
Line 27: allows for obtaining
Line 29: you may consider using dry weight (DW) and editing throughout the manuscript such as line 146 and 147 soil dw
Line 31: plant, and
Line 38: year, and
Line 137: experiments.
Line 174: 2.2. Seed Coating
Line 177:
Is this considered a film coating technic? What was the percent application or percent build-up on the seeds?
Line 190: should be bold Figure 1. (Same comment for Figures 2 and 3 Lines: 288 and 348)
Line 195:
2.3. Seed Inoculation
Line 232: 2.7. Statistical Analysis
Line 238: 3.1. Plant Emergence and Nodulation
Line 244: Suggestion: but it did not affect plant density
Table 2: Table 2: DW can be used instead of dry weight
Line 276: 3.2. Green Mass
Line 481: and economic
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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.
