Combined Application of Rhizosphere Bacteria with Endophytic Bacteria Suppresses Root Diseases and Increases Productivity of Black Pepper (Piper nigrum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An intensive farming practice that warrants high yield and quality requires extensive use of chemical fertilizers, which are costly and create environmental problems. Therefore, more recently there has been a resurgence of interest in environmental friendly, sustainable, and organic agricultural practices including bio-fertilizers containing beneficial microorganisms.
The subject of this paper is interesting and fulfils the scope of Agriculture MDPI Journal but some information needs to be completed and corrected. The results are generally correctly organized but section ‘Results and discussion’ contain only a discussion of the authors' own results without scientific discussion. Moreover, the ‘Materials and methods’ section needs to be supplemented by the some analytical procedures related to the described results, i.e. chlorophyll determinations, leaf yellowing, etc. Therefore the discussion is poor and must be significantly improved.
I recommend that the paper could be considered for publication after major revision
Specific comments:
Abstract: is written succinctly and clearly.
Introduction: provides a good introduction to the discussed results and provides an appropriate background for the research.
Materials and methods:
L. 104-106: Please include the climate-related characteristics of the research area.
Fig 1. : Please add the map with the research area location (reference map next to the photo).
Fig 2. This photo is redundant. Please remove them.
L. 116: Please describe precisely what is meant by the name 'formula 1-formula 6'
L. 127-132: How the samples for testing were collected and transported. Please describe.
L. 138: Are the methods used by the authors their own developments? If not, please refer to the literature data.
L. 173-177: What was the distribution of the obtained data?
L. 193: 7 formulas? The authors described only 6... Please describe briefly what authors meant by formulas 1-6.
Result and discussion:
Please compare your results with the results of other authors. Please also try to analyze the results obtained and indicate the reason for such results.
Fig 3.: Please describe F1-F6. Please mark the significant differences between obtained variables.
L. 240-242: Please describe the correlation analysis in the ‘Statistic’ section
L. 292-295: Please describe the chlorophyll determination method in ‘Materials and method’ section
Author Response
-Reviewer 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
General comment. The subject of this paper is interesting and fulfils the scope of Agriculture MDPI Journal but some information needs to be completed and corrected. The results are generally correctly organized but section ‘Results and discussion’ contain only a discussion of the authors' own results without scientific discussion. Moreover, the ‘Materials and methods’ section needs to be supplemented by the some analytical procedures related to the described results, i.e. chlorophyll determinations, leaf yellowing, etc. Therefore the discussion is poor and must be significantly improved.
Specific comments:
Abstract: is written succinctly and clearly.
Reply: Thanks for your very careful review
Introduction: provides a good introduction to the discussed results and provides an appropriate background for the research.
Reply: Thanks for your very careful review
Materials and methods:
- 104-106: Please include the climate-related characteristics of the research area.
Reply: Thank you. This suggestion has been added in the line 115-117
Fig 1. : Please add the map with the research area location (reference map next to the photo).
Reply: Thank you. the research area location has been added in the line 114-115, but we are so sorry because of no map adding.
Fig 2. This photo is redundant. Please remove them.
Reply: Thank you. The Fig 2 has been removed.
- 116: Please describe precisely what is meant by the name 'formula 1-formula 6'
Reply: Thank you. This suggestion has been described precisely in the line 143-154
- 127-132: How the samples for testing were collected and transported. Please describe.
Reply: Thank you. The samples for testing were collected and transported which has been described in the line 159-165.
- 138: Are the methods used by the authors their own developments? If not, please refer to the literature data.
Reply: Thank you. Some methods we used by other authors that we have already referred relevant documents at the end of each method title.
- 173-177: What was the distribution of the obtained data?
Reply: Thank you. Using Statistical Analysis Software to analyze date which can show the significance of differences or not among formula.
- 193: 7 formulas? The authors described only 6... Please describe briefly what authors meant by formulas 1-6.
Reply: Thank you. 7 Formulas involves the control formula and 6 formulas treatment
Result and discussion:
Please compare your results with the results of other authors. Please also try to analyze the results obtained and indicate the reason for such results.
Reply: Thank you. This requirement has been added in the line 270-276; 341-355; 377-391; 408-414
Fig 3.: Please describe F1-F6. Please mark the significant differences between obtained variables.
Reply: Thank you:
F1; F2; F3; F4; F5; F6 mean formula 1; formula 2; formula 3; formula 4; formula 5; formula 6 which has been described at the Fig. 2 and Fig.4 title (Fs is abbreviated for Formulas).
The word of “a,b,c…” has been inserted in the Fig. 2 (replaced Fig.3) and Fig. 4 (replaced Fig. 5) which mark the significant differences between obtained variables.
- 240-242: Please describe the correlation analysis in the ‘Statistic’ section
Reply: Thank you: This suggestion has been added in the line 217 - 220
- 292-295: Please describe the chlorophyll determination method in ‘Materials and method’ section
Reply: Thank you. The chlorophyll determination method has been added in the line 195-200.
Reviewer 2 Report
The research article titled, “Effect of the Selected Rhizobacteria and Endobacteria 2 on the Antagonists of Pathogenic Fungus, Growth 3 and Productivity of Black Pepper (Piper Nigrum L.)” is an interesting research topic. However, the research lacks some key aspects such as detailed description of the bio-products, soil type, etc. This research lacks a take-home message, which should be provided in the “Conclusion”. Extensive English language revision is recommended.
Abstract
The abstract is concise and to the point but needs revision in terms of grammar.
Line 19. Change to “was to”
Line 25. Change to “Led to increase”. The “intensive more’ part of the sentence does not make sense in the sentence.
Introduction
The introduction is a bit loose in depicting a story. There are no objectives written at the end of the ‘Introduction” section. Please, write the specific objectives of your research.
Line 46 to 49. Explore other nematode control options such as bio-solarization in inorganic or organic cropping systems if available in Vietnam and include it the literature review.
Possible literature could be “Rebuilding Soil Ecosystems for Improved Productivity in Biosolarized Soils”.
Line 54 to Line 56. “Besides the traditional chemical methods, recent studies have used soil microorganisms as biological approaches for controlling plant diseases. It was reported that the uses of rhizobacteria and endobacteria are effective for disease management, plant-growth-promoting, and are environmentally friendly for agricultural products including black pepper [3, 11, 10].”
This paragraph needs more content. Research exists that to suppress and control nematodes only rhizobacteria and endobacteria are effective but also other suits of microbes such a Pseudomonas, Bacillus, etc. are capable of doing this function. This manuscript mentioned in Line 86. So, please, explore those possibilities. Some research to look at are-
“Sensitivity of Nematode Community Analysis to Agricultural Management Practices and Inoculation with Local Effective Microorganisms in the Southeastern United States”
“The inhibitory role of effective microorganisms on the growth of pathogenic bacteria”
“Impact of inoculation with local effective microorganisms on soil nitrogen cycling and legume productivity using composted broiler litter”
“Study on the Identification Methods for Effective Microorganisms in Commercially Available Organic Agriculture Materials”
Line 75. ‘Asian countries”
Line 83. Wrong reference format?
Line 88. Wrong reference format?
Materials and Methods
Please, give a short description of your study site, such as latitude, longitude, soil type, weather condition, etc.
Please, provide a description of the bio-products on how they were produced in a separate sub-section in the M&M. Keep Table 1 there.
Line 129 to Line 132. Not sure, what the authors are trying to say here. Maybe a separate section on soil sampling might help.
Line 142. Fresh soil?
Line 176. Can the authors run Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test?
Result and Discussion
Line 180 to 187. They can be incorporated into a later part of the discussion.
Figure 3 and Figure 5. Please, indicate the significant differences in the graph with lower letter cases or capital letter cases.
Line 242. Please, indicate the there is a trend of decline since the r square is not very strong.
Line 292. Please, indicate how the chlorophyll a and b content was determined in the M&M section.
Line 328. Please, indicate if the Yield is dry or fresh weight basis.
Conclusion
This seems a reiteration of the results section. Please, give a take-home message and provide some recommendations, and also speculate cautiously where this current research can direct future research.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research article titled, “Effect of the Selected Rhizobacteria and Endobacteria 2 on the Antagonists of Pathogenic Fungus, Growth 3 and Productivity of Black Pepper (Piper Nigrum L.)” is an interesting research topic. However, the research lacks some key aspects such as detailed description of the bio-products, soil type, etc. This research lacks a take-home message, which should be provided in the “Conclusion”. Extensive English language revision is recommended.
Specific comments:
Abstract
The abstract is concise and to the point but needs revision in terms of grammar.
Reply: Thank you. The abstract and manuscript have been edited by MDPI English editing service
Line 19. Change to “was to”
Reply: Thank you. The word of “is” has been changed to “was” in the line 19.
Line 25. Change to “Led to increase”. The “intensive more’ part of the sentence does not make sense in the sentence.
Reply: Thank you. The word of “leaded” has been changed to “led” in the line 25. The sentences containing “intensive more’’ has been changed as the suggestion in the line 25-26
Introduction
The introduction is a bit loose in depicting a story. There are no objectives written at the end of the ‘Introduction” section. Please, write the specific objectives of your research.
Reply: Thank you: This suggestion has been added in the line 57-59, and 103-109
Line 46 to 49. Explore other nematode control options such as bio-solarization in inorganic or organic cropping systems if available in Vietnam and include it the literature review.
Possible literature could be “Rebuilding Soil Ecosystems for Improved Productivity in Biosolarized Soils”.
Reply: Thank you. This literature is litle bit difference of our target research
Line 54 to Line 56. “Besides the traditional chemical methods, recent studies have used soil microorganisms as biological approaches for controlling plant diseases. It was reported that the uses of rhizobacteria and endobacteria are effective for disease management, plant-growth-promoting, and are environmentally friendly for agricultural products including black pepper [3, 11, 10].”
This paragraph needs more content. Research exists that to suppress and control nematodes only rhizobacteria and endobacteria are effective but also other suits of microbes such a Pseudomonas, Bacillus, etc. are capable of doing this function. This manuscript mentioned in Line 86. So, please, explore those possibilities. Some research to look at are
“Sensitivity of Nematode Community Analysis to Agricultural Management Practices and Inoculation with Local Effective Microorganisms in the Southeastern United States”
“The inhibitory role of effective microorganisms on the growth of pathogenic bacteria”
“Impact of inoculation with local effective microorganisms on soil nitrogen cycling and legume productivity using composted broiler litter”
“Study on the Identification Methods for Effective Microorganisms in Commercially Available Organic Agriculture Materials”
Reply: Thank you. This suggestion has been added in the line 57-59
Line 75. ‘Asian countries”
Reply: Thank you. The word of “Asia” has been changed to “Asian” in the line 75
Line 83. Wrong reference format? Line 88. Wrong reference format?
Reply: Thank you: These references have been formated in the line 88-89
Materials and Methods
Please, give a short description of your study site, such as latitude, longitude, soil type, weather condition, etc.
Reply: Thank you. This suggestion has been added in the line 112-117
Please, provide a description of the bio-products on how they were produced in a separate sub-section in the M&M. Keep Table 1 there.
Reply: Thank you. This requirement has been descripted in the line 124-132
Line 129 to Line 132. Not sure, what the authors are trying to say here. Maybe a separate section on soil sampling might help.
Reply: Thank you. This requirement has been descripted and seperated in the line 158-165
Line 142. Fresh soil?
Reply: Thank you. Yes, Fresh soil sample has been used. The word of “fresh” has been inserted in the 175
Line 176. Can the authors run Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) test?
Reply: Thank you. No, SAS Institute Taiwan Lts. was used to compare the significance of differences among the mean values.
Result and Discussion
Line 180 to 187. They can be incorporated into a later part of the discussion.
Reply: Thank you. The Line 180 to 187 has been moved to line 244 to 252, after table 3.
Figure 3 and Figure 5. Please, indicate the significant differences in the graph with lower letter cases or capital letter cases.
Reply: Thank you. The word of “a,b,c…” has been inserted in the Figure 2 in the line 287 and Figure 4 in the line 331.
Line 242. Please, indicate the there is a trend of decline since the r square is not very strong.
Reply: Thank you. The correlation coefficient can range in value from −1 to +1. The larger the absolute value of the coefficient, the stronger the relationship between the variables. The sign of the coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship. If both variables tend to increase or decrease together, the coefficient is positive, and the line that represents the correlation slopes upward. If one variable tends to increase as the other decreases, the coefficient is negative, and the line that represents the correlation slopes downward.
In this paper results, R square is more than 0.4, it could be strong correlation when it analyze in the field.
Line 292. Please, indicate how the chlorophyll a and b content was determined in the M&M section.
Reply: The chlorophyll determination method has been added in the line 195-200.
Line 328. Please, indicate if the Yield is dry or fresh weight basis.
Reply: Thank you. The word of “Dry yield” has been inserted in the Table 8.
Conclusion
This seems a reiteration of the results section. Please, give a take-home message and provide some recommendations, and also speculate cautiously where this current research can direct future research.
Reply: Thank you. This suggestion has been modified in the line 420-429
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please, get rid of the figure from the conclusion and rather add it to the introduction.
Author Response
We feel pleasure to thank you for your time and effort, as well as your excellent suggestions for refining the readability and impact of the manuscript.
As you suggest that get rid of the figure from the conclusion and rather add it to the introduction.
Thank you so much for you suggestion.
Actually, this figure is a graphical representation of the paper as a self-explanatory image, as editor require that appear alongside with the abstract appearing on the Table of Contents.
So, This figure has been removed in our revised manuscript
Best regards!
