Current Advances in Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria Alleviating Salt Stress for Sustainable Agriculture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review attempts to deal with different aspects of the current advances concerning the use of PGPBs for saline stress alleviation. Below, some important issues should be revised and resolved;
The abstract does not reflect the objectives, methods and important findings for the manuscript properly. These issues should be addressed and resolved properly.
The introduction should cover the literature on this topic as well. Additionally, up to date references should be included.
Figures should be explained. Important findings should be highlighted.
The literature of this review should be discussed in regard to the previously published findings
Conclusion section should address the significant findings and include the recommended future work that should be conducted in this regard.
Up to date references should be included to reveal the up to date information that could support these findings as well.
Author Response
Point 1: The abstract does not reflect the objectives, methods and important findings for the manuscript properly. These issues should be addressed and resolved properly.
Response 1: A section was added in the abstract as it reflect the objectives, methods and important findings for the manuscript properly
Point 2: The introduction should cover the literature on this topic as well. Additionally, up to date references should be included.
Response 2: The introduction was rewritten as it cover the literature on this topic as well. Additionally, up to date references should be included
Point 3: Figures should be explained. Important findings should be highlighted.
Response 3: Figures were explained. Important findings were highlighted
Point 4: The literature of this review should be discussed in regard to the previously. published findings
Response 4: The literature of this review was discussed in regard to the previously published findings
Point 5: Conclusion section should address the significant findings and include the recommended future work that should be conducted in this regard
Response 5: Conclusion section was rewritten as requested.
Point 6: Up to date references should be included to reveal the up to date information that could support these findings as well
Response 6: Up to date references were included to reveal the up to date information that could support these findings as well
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic of Review is interesting. Review is written correctly and have some objections. To help improve the quality of this manuscript, I have added more comments bellow:
General Comments:
- The full title should be written instead of PGPB in the title of paper: Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria
- Convert figures and tables from “Appendix A” to text.
- Delete "Graphical abstract"
- In addition to abbreviations not defined previously in the text, it is necessary to define. Review text eg L170, L171, L191 etc.
- Calling "Author Contributions" which an individual author has contributed to a paper, I cannot equally.
- Expand the “Conclusions” highlight the most important PGPBS progress to date and write future PGPBS research and progress in your opinion.
- Figure A1, Figure A2 and Table 1A from Appendix A switch to text. (Figure A1 (L125), Figure A2 (L350) and Table 1A (L337)).
- Redesign according to the "Guidelines for Authors" chapter References, font is too large.
L12 “[email protected]” -> font size
L13 delete a blank line
L14 “* Correspondence: El-hafid Nabti: [email protected]” -> font size
L27 delete a blank line
L28 delete a blank line
L29 delete a blank line
L73-80 align text
L86 “[15,16,17]” -> [15-17]
L100 “[22,23,24,25,26]” -> [22-26]
L107 “salinity)” -> delete “)”
L109 “[28,29,30]” -> [28-30]
L121 “number. In addition”-> space
L125 “(Fig.1)” -> full name (Figure 1)
L126 “[36, 37].” -> space
L128 “(p. 500)” -> ?
L143 delete a blank line
L153 delete a blank line
L158 “4.2. Plant growth” -> delete or write text about plant growth.
L162 delete a blank line
L195-196 “100 mM NaCl salinity reduced the composition of Mg in flowers.” -> reformulate a sentence cannot start with 100 mM
L200 “reduced. Additionally” -> space
L213 “tabacum” -> tabacum
L215 “Na+” -> potency
L216 “ mechanisms. K+” -> space
L248-252 “By affecting soil enzyme activities, which play key roles in response to environmental changes, serving as catalysts for varied responses resulting in the degradation of organic compounds, the cycling of nutrients and the production of organic matter in the soil, in addition to intercellular metabolic responses essential for the functionality and sustainability of living organisms [32].” -> sentence too long, please rephrase into two sentences.
L256 “runoff [117].” -> space
L264 “difficult. In” -> space
L278 “15.000” -> 15,000
L279 “20.000” -> 20,000
L287 “[130,131,132]” -> [130-132]
L290 “[133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140]” -> [133-140]
L293 “[143,131]” -> [131,143]
L320 “arrived [1].” -> space
L363-364 “230 %” -> 230%
L364 “151 % and 94 %” -> 151% and 94 %.
L391 “(IAA), [189].” -> (IAA) [189].
L391 “[189]. IAA” -> space
L429 “[209,2010]” -> [209,210]
L434 “Cl-“ -> potency
L441 delete a blank line
L453 “fluctuations [218] (p. 40).” -> space
L453 “(p.40)” -> ?
L461 “[223]. In” -> space
L501 delete a blank line
L518 “ethylene. Ethylene” -> space
L618-636 delete a blank lines
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Point 1: The full title should be written instead of PGPB in the title of paper: Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria
Response 1: Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria was written instead of PGPB in the title of paper
Point 2: Convert figures and tables from “Appendix A” to text.
Response 2: Figures and tables were converted from “Appendix A” to text
Point 3: Delete "Graphical abstract"
Response 3: "Graphical abstract" was deleted
Point 4: In addition to abbreviations not defined previously in the text, it is necessary to define. Review text ex. L170, L171, L191 etc.
Response 4: Abbreviations previously in the text were defined. As in L170, L171, L191 etc.
Point 5: Calling "Author Contributions" which an individual author has contributed to a paper, I cannot equally
Response 5: The first author (Mokrani S.) wrote the draft, the second author (Nabti Elh.) completed the draft until the final manuscript. The third (Cristina C.) revised it and added some necessary details.
Point 6: Expand the “Conclusions” highlight the most important PGPBS progress to date and write future PGPBS research and progress in your opinion
Response 6: “Conclusions” were expanded and the most important PGPBS progress to date were highlighted and future PGPBS research and progress in our opinion were written
Point 7: Figure A1, Figure A2 and Table 1A from Appendix A switch to text. (Figure A1 (L125), Figure A2 (L350) and Table 1A (L337)).
Response 7: Figure A1, Figure A2 and Table 1A from Appendix A were switched to text
Point 8: Redesign according to the "Guidelines for Authors" chapter References, font is too large
Response 8: "Guidelines for Authors" chapter References were redesigned, font is too large; font was adjusted
Point 9: L12 “[email protected]” -> font size
Response 9: In L12 “[email protected]” -> font size was adjusted
Point 10: L13 delete a blank line
Response 10: L13 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 11: L14 “* Correspondence: El-hafid Nabti: [email protected]” -> font size
Response 11: In L14 “* Correspondence: El-hafid Nabti: [email protected]” -> font size was adjusted
Point 12: L27 delete a blank line
Response 12: In L27 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 13: L28 delete a blank line
Response 13: In L28 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 14: L29 delete a blank line
Response 14: In L29 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 15: L73-80 align text
Response 15: In L73-80 text was aligned
Point 16: L86 “[15,16,17]” -> [15-17]
Response 16: In L86 “[15,16,17]” -> [15-17]
Point 17: L100 “[22,23,24,25,26]” -> [22-26]
Response 17: In L100 “[22,23,24,25,26]” -> [22-26]
Point 18: L107 “salinity)” -> delete “)”
Response 18: In L107 “salinity)” -> delete “)”
Point 19: L109 “[28,29,30]” -> [28-30]
Response 19: In L109 “[28,29,30]” -> [28-30]
Point 20: L121 “number. In addition”-> space
Response 20: In L121 “number. In addition”-> space
Point 21: L125 “(Fig.1)” -> full name (Figure 1)
Response 21: In L125 “(Fig.1)” -> full name (Figure 1)
Point 22: L126 “[36, 37].” -> space
Response 22: L126 “[36, 37].” -> space deleted
Point 23: L128 “(p. 500)” -> ?
Response 23: L128 “(p. 500)” was deleted
Point 24: L143 delete a blank line
Response 24: In L143 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 25: L153 delete a blank line
Response 25: In L153 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 26: L158 “4.2. Plant growth” -> delete or write text about plant growth.
Response 26: In L158 “4.2. Plant growth” -> was deleted
Point 27: L162 delete a blank line
Response 27: In L162 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 28: L195-196 “100 mM NaCl salinity reduced the composition of Mg in flowers.” -> reformulate a sentence cannot start with 100 mM
Response 28: In L195-196 “100 mM NaCl salinity reduced the composition of Mg in flowers.” -> was reformulated
Point 29: L200 “reduced. Additionally” -> space
Response 29: In L200 “reduced. Additionally” -> space was deleted
Point 30: L213 “tabacum” -> tabacum
Response 30: L213 “tabacum” -> tabacum
Point 31: L215 “Na+” -> potency
Response 31: In L215 “Na+” -> potency
Point 32: L216 “ mechanisms. K+” -> space
Response 32: In L216 “ mechanisms. K+” -> space was deleted
Point 33: L248-252 “By affecting soil enzyme activities, which play key roles in response to environmental changes, serving as catalysts for varied responses resulting in the degradation of organic compounds, the cycling of nutrients and the production of organic matter in the soil, in addition to intercellular metabolic responses essential for the functionality and sustainability of living organisms [32].” -> sentence too long, please rephrase into two sentences
Response 33: In L248-252 “By affecting soil enzyme activities, which play key roles in response to environmental changes, serving as catalysts for varied responses resulting in the degradation of organic compounds, the cycling of nutrients and the production of organic matter in the soil, in addition to intercellular metabolic responses essential for the functionality and sustainability of living organisms [32].” -> sentence was rephrased into approximately two sentences
Point 34: L256 “runoff [117].” -> space
Response 34: In L256 “runoff [117].” -> space was added
Point 35: L264 “difficult. In” -> space
Response 35: In L264 “difficult. In” -> space was deleted
Point 36: L278 “15.000” -> 15,000
Response 36: In L278 “15.000” -> 15,000
Point 37: L279 “20.000” -> 20,000
Response 37: In L279 “20.000” -> 20,000
Point 38: L287 “[130,131,132]” -> [130-132]
Response 38: In L287 “[130,131,132]” -> [130-132]
Point 39: L290 “[133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140]” -> [133-140]
Response 39: In L290 “[133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140]” -> [133-140]
Point 40: L293 “[142,131]” -> [131,142]
Response 40: In L293 “[142,131]” -> [131,142]
Point 41: L320 “arrived [1].” -> space
Response 41: In L320 “arrived [1].” -> space was deleted
Point 42: L363-364 “230 %” -> 230%
Response 42: L363-364 “230 %” -> 230%
Point 43: L364 “151 % and 94 %” -> 151% and 94%.
Response 43: In L364 “151 % and 94 %” -> 151% and 94%.
Point 44: L391 “(IAA), [189].” -> (IAA) [189].
Response 44: In L391 “(IAA), [189].” -> (IAA) [189].
Point 45: L391 “[189]. IAA” -> space
Response 45: In L391 “[189]. IAA” -> space was deleted
Point 46: L429 “[209,2010]” -> [209,210]
Response 46: In L429 “[209,2010]” -> [209,210]
Point 47: L434 “Cl-“ -> potency
Response 47: In L434 “Cl-“ -> potency was added
Point 48: L441 delete a blank line
Response 48: In L441 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 49: L453 “fluctuations [218] (p. 40).” -> space
Response 49: In L453 “fluctuations [218] (p. 40).” -> space was deleted
Point 50: L453 “(p.40)” -> ?
Response 50: In L453 “(p.40)” -> was deleted
Point 51: L461 “[223]. In” -> space
Response 51: In L461 “[223]. In” -> space was deleted
Point 52: L501 delete a blank line
Response 52: In L501 delete a blank line was deleted
Point 53: L518 “ethylene. Ethylene” -> space
Response 53: In L518 “ethylene. Ethylene” -> space was deleted
Point 54: L618-636 delete a blank lines
Response 54: In L618-636 delete a blank lines were deleted
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Taking into account that this manuscript is a review, you should mention more studies related to the topic in the Introduction section, developing more its content, highlighting the diversity of the salinisation processes an their effects.
Very good description of PGPB on soil salinisation (Section 2), but it should be a little bit more detailed with remarcs on the foreseen impact, as already done in section 7. I consider that you could develop section 6 by introducing at least 2-3 subsections.
At row 451 I supposed there is an error (maybe a typing one) namely we are the section 7, but the subsection is 6.2.6.
At row 528, maybe you can take out the suppress the suspention points (...). It reinforces the content.
Regarding the section Conclusions, I consider that you have to develop it more, pointing out the major effects highlighted during the entire manuscript.
It is very important that you have reached the goal with your manuscript (as I have clearly understood), but it has to be summerized in this last section of Conclusions.
One aspect that you might take into account ist o include the graphics which are after section Conclusions into the corresponding/appropiate sections during the content of the review, not after.
I appreciate that you have studied, consulted and especially cited an impressive number of authors, but as an general recommandation of the entire manuscript review, I consider that you could develop the entire content reaching, maybe to a more specific data for each section.
Consequently, my general appreciation is I have read a god manuscript review, but it should be more developed.
Good luck in your research!
Author Response
Point 1:Taking into account that this manuscript is a review, you should mention more studies related to the topic in the Introduction section, developing more its content, highlighting the diversity of the salinization processes and their effects.
Response 1: More studies related to the topic in the Introduction section were mentioned, its content was moredeveloped, the diversity of the salinization processes an their effects were highlighted
Point 2: Very good description of PGPB on soil salinization (Section 2), but it should be a little bit more detailed with remarks on the foreseen impact, as already done in section 7. I consider that you could develop section 6 by introducing at least 2-3 subsections.
Response 2: Section 6 was more detailed by presenting some impacts of PGPB on soil desalinization. Additionally, section 6 was developed by introducing 3 subsections.
Point 3: At row 451 I supposed there is an error (maybe a typing one) namely we are the section 7, but the subsection is 6.2.6
Response 3: At row 451, error of numbering was corrected
Point 4: At row 528, maybe you can take out the suppress the suspension points (...). It reinforces the content.
Response 4:At row 528, suspension points (...) were deleted
Point 5: Regarding the section Conclusions, I consider that you have to develop it more, pointing out the major effects highlighted during the entire manuscript.
Response 5: The section Conclusions was developedmore and pointed out the major effects highlighted during the entire manuscript.
Point 6: It is very important that you have reached the goal with your manuscript (as I have clearly understood), but it has to be summarized in this last section of Conclusions.
Response 6: The goal of the manuscript was summarized in this last section of Conclusions.
Point 7: One aspect that you might take into account is to include the graphics which are after section Conclusions into the corresponding/appropriate sections during the content of the review, not after.
Response 7: Graphics which are after section conclusions were included into the corresponding/appropriate sections during the content of the review, not after.
Point 8: I appreciate that you have studied, consulted and especially cited an impressive number of authors, but as a general recommendation of the entire manuscript review, I consider that you could develop the entire content reaching, maybe to a more specific data for each section.Consequently, my general appreciation is I have read a god manuscript review, but it should be more developed.
Response 9: The entire content was developed by specifyingmore data for each section.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript is greatly improved as per suggested comments
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The corrections I requested for the paper "Current advance in Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria alleviating salt stress for sustainable agriculture" were successfully made. The quality and clarity of the text and results has been significantly improved. The scientific contribution is visible and applicable and, following the proposed corrections, future research on this topic can be compared and developed. I wish successful further research.
Best regards,
Reviewer
