Plant Height and Stem Diameter of Solanum quitoense Lamarck Improved with Applications of AMF and Biostimulants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents an important contribution to science. However, it is necessary to improve the summary that is missing the conclusion and more information about the methodology. The introduction could have more citations of works showing results of the studied fungi. The methodology should be better detailed. The results are well presented.

The conclusion does not represent a response to the objectives.

See suggestions in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Thanks a lot

Jorge Cadena Iñiguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

I appreciate the well written manuscript entitled "Growth of lulo plants (Solanum quitoense Lamarck) with nutrition and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi” . The subject is very interesting, and the authors did a lot of work, and the methodology used is adequate for the objectives of the study. The results are of interest and support the conclusions. However, there is still some major issues need to be addressed before the paper could be accepted as follows:

Comments

Line 2-3: The authors should rework on the title.

Line 16:  correct “was”.

Lines 17 and 18: Delete “350 spores plant ^-1” and “5 g plant^-1”. These details not suitable here.

The abstract section should be improved; the authors should follow this format (purpose - methods - results - conclusions) and try to mention why they conducted this study and what is new??

­­Line 20: I suggest changing the keywords and use synonyms.

The authors should provide a list of abbreviations.

Lines 44-45: I think figure 1 is missing.

Lines 46-53: The introduction section needs further improvement. It is not sufficient. The authors should extend the role of AMF in sustainable agriculture, there are several mechanisms and benefits of using AMF. I think these papers will help you regarding this issue.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-02949-z

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11030194

Lines 57-61: Rework on your hypothesis.

Line 74: Give more details about the pots (Diameter and height).

Line 139: Replace “infected” with “colonized”.

Figure 1 A, I suggest use a bar figure instead of lines.

Table 3: Where are the statistics analysis???

Line 272: Ramírez-Builes and Duque [40]

Lin 295: Revise, not clear.

I appreciate the well-written discussion, however I think the titles should be changed to better represent the contents. For example,  “Plant height and stem diameter were improved by AMF and bio-stimulants applications”.

It is not clear and also not easy to understand the explanation of the conclusion part. Instead of repeating the results here, what can be done after this study or suggestions should be made. It does not seem to meet this recommendation in its current form.

Kind Regards.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Tanks a lot

Jorge cadena Iñiguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the improvements were done and the article could be accepted  for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my comments, many thanks for their contributions.

Minor editing of English language required