Rhizobium and Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria Influence the Soil Nutrient Availability, Growth, Yield, and Quality of Soybean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study describes the application of Rhizobium and Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria with or without N and P fertilizers in soybean soil. The result indicates that Rhizobium and PSB can improve the environment by reducing the need for chemical fertilizer. The authors made the contribution on field experiment. However, there are some questions that need to be clarified.

1.      First abbreviation requires full name such as DAS, AOAC.

2.      Is there any past planting record of the experimental field? What is the soil classification of the experimental field? These should be described in the text.

3.      The methods of chlorophyll content, protein and oil analysis needs a brief description.

4.      The initial and post-harvest soil analysis should be listed as Table (page 124).

5.      B. japonicum—full name?

6.      Is there any laboratory data to prove the efficacy of two strains, Rhizobium japonicum and Pseudomonas striata by acetylene reduction method or molybdenum blue method? What about their capacity of N-fixation and Phosphate Solubilization? This can make the data of field experiment more reliable.

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions.  Author's responses file is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The MS entitled: Rhizobium and Phosphate Solubilizing Bacteria Influence Soil Nutrient Availability, Growth, Yield and Quality of Soybean demonstrates the potential of two bacterial strains to improve yield and quality of soybean and soil nutrient conditions.

Minor remarks are as below;

In the Abstract:

·  Specify which bacterial strains were used.

· Experimental design is not clear, since rhizobium and PSB were also combined; this part of the abstract should be rewritten.

· „individual effects became prominent for shoot N and P, seed P, soil available N and P content“  - not a specific effect; rewrite it.

In the Materials and Methods:

·    Twelve treatments were used comprising of four rhizobium treatments and 3 PSB treatments - how 12 out of 4 + 3 treatments, and where were rhizobium and PSB combined treatments? Are there any differences between the two controls?

· Insufficient information about Rhizobium (Bradyrhizobium) and Pseudomonas strains. On what basis the strains were selected for the study? Have any characteristics of bacterial strains already reported in other publications (Rhizobium as NFB and/or Pseudomonas as PSB) and are selected strains commercially used? It is not clear why you say “rhizobium and PSB”, when you only examined one Rhizobium strain and one Pseudomonas strain? If strains properties were not specified, authors should replace rhizobium and PSB with Bradyrhizobium japonicum and Pseudomonas striata, through the entire text.

In the Results:

·  Experimental design again: Authors examined 12 treatments: one control, three treatments related to rhizobium/nitrogen and two treatments related to PSB/phosphorus, as well as their combination – 6 more treatments. Why these 12 treatments were not considered for all parameters and data were not processed together? Why two controls if nothing is added (R₀P₀ = R₀ = P₀)? Also, what is the difference between R₁ and R₁P₀, etc.? Use uniform table and figure notes instead of different abbreviations, which could standalone without reading the text.

·    Check results: for example - what's the difference between R2P2 and R1P2 – 0.55 a (Line 183-184); no microbial inoculation gave the lowest LAI – what about R₂P₀ at 30 DAS? (Line 185); 47% increase? (Line 188), etc.

·         Line 191, 197, 218, 288, 312, 319: similar – same

·         What do the bars on the charts represent?

Author Response

Thanks for your valuable comments and suggestions.  The author's responses file is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      Line 124. Pseudomonas should be italic.

2.      After page 3. The genus name of the strain written for the first time should be full name, followed by abbreviation.

3.      If there is no capacity of N-fixation and Phosphate Solubilization of these two strains, authors should explain how they were obtained and their sources. How about their species identification? Where are they stored? Because this study emphasizes the role of two strains in the field, the source of these two strains should be clearly explained.

Author Response

Please find attached response to the reviewer's comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx