Isolation and Identification of Lysinibacillus sp. and Its Effects on Solid Waste as a Phytate-Mineralizing Bacterium in an Aquaponics System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Actually, the paper is well-done.

The main issue that I would like the authors replied is: can be the advantge of the application of the selected bacteria measured in terms of yield or quality improvement in the aquaponics system? The authors should report same papers relative to this biotechnological approch and put in evidence some lacking which could be improved by the application of the isolated microorganisms (also speculations and suppositions) (e.g., see and use these: Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2022, 102.2: 844-850; Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 208: 274-284; Journal of King Saud University-Science, 2020, 32.1: 60-66).

Rpm should be defined in the text.

In figure 1, S1 and S2 a dimension bar should be added.

Why in Fig S3 do you have several bands and not just one? Which one did you select for sequencing? Why? Could it indicate that your colonies were not homogenous and pure? 

The authors should also explain if these bacteria could be toxic (ore release toxic compounds) if present in very high concentrations for animals and plants in the system.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

Actually, the paper is well-done.

The main issue that I would like the authors replied is: can be the advantge of the application of the selected bacteria measured in terms of yield or quality improvement in the aquaponics system? The authors should report same papers relative to this biotechnological approch and put in evidence some lacking which could be improved by the application of the isolated microorganisms (also speculations and suppositions) (e.g., see and use these: Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2022, 102.2: 844-850; Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 208: 274-284; Journal of King Saud University-Science, 2020, 32.1: 60-66).

Thanks for the suggestions, we include a paragraph in discussion section line 567.

 

Rpm should be defined in the text.

We made the correction.

 

In figure 1, S1 and S2 a dimension bar should be added.

We made the correction.

 

Why in Fig S3 do you have several bands and not just one? Which one did you select for sequencing? Why? Could it indicate that your colonies were not homogenous and pure? 

The 1500 bp PCR product obtained with the QUGP-F1 and QUGP-R1b primers is consistent with the amplicon size reported by Barghouthi (2011). Thus, this abundant band was extracted from agarose gel, purified, and sequenced.

As Barghouthi reported, the less abundant bands may correspond to non-specific bands caused by snapback amplification during the annealing temperature.

 

The authors should also explain if these bacteria could be toxic (ore release toxic compounds) if present in very high concentrations for animals and plants in the system.

We included information about this comment, line 387

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the manuscript submitted by Edna R. Riaño-Castillo et al for possible publication in Horticulturae journal. The idea of manuscript is interesting and discussed important issue. The manuscript is very well written and can be considered for possible publication after some corrections. The test treatments are not clearly defined, it is suggested to revise for clarity.

1.      Line 19, can you please specify the different oxygen concentrations under different conditions (0 rpm and 200 rpm).

2.      Line 29; delete the words already mentioned in the title such as Aquaponic, Mineralization, and replace with others.

3.      Line 89; various vegetables, mentioned the names of vegetables.

4.      Line 139, authors have mentioned that the selected temperatures were 25 and 37 °C; but in abstract in line 19 24 and 37 ºC temperatures are mentioned. Which one is correct?

5.      Why you selected above temperatures and under different oxygen conditions? It is suggested to add the oxygen concentrations. Also, add some justifications to support your treatments.

6.      Section and sub sections numbering is missing.

7.      How the oxygen conditions and temperatures were maintained, please specify in the manuscript?

8.      It is suggested to write full forms of the abbreviations such as RPM and others.

9.      Line 145 what is LB medium?

10.  Please add citations for performed methodologies that this was done by following the recommendations of xyz et al 2024 or so on and what was the total duration of the experiment.

11.  It is suggested to add the month and year in which the experiment was performed.

12.  Line 167, at the beginning here do you mean at first day of experiment?

13.  Line 173 correct the reference format Rodríguez and Rodríguez (2002) [20].

14.  Line 174, what is per each experimental unit? please specify.

15.  In figures 3 and 5, correct the temperature unit.

16.  In Figure 4, for control T1 is firstly introduced, please revise accordingly.

17.  Line 263, R2 should be R². Revise throughout the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

N/A

Author Response

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

 

I reviewed the manuscript submitted by Edna R. Riaño-Castillo et al for possible publication in Horticulturae journal. The idea of manuscript is interesting and discussed important issue. The manuscript is very well written and can be considered for possible publication after some corrections.

 

The test treatments are not clearly defined, it is suggested to revise for clarity.

We made the correction, line 18.

 

1. Line 19, can you please specify the different oxygen concentrations under different conditions (0 rpm and 200 rpm).

We included the information, line 21.

 

2. Line 29; delete the words already mentioned in the title such as Aquaponic, Mineralization, and replace with others.

We made the correction, line 30.

 

3. Line 89; various vegetables, mentioned the names of vegetables.

We made the correction, line 95.

 

4. Line 139, authors have mentioned that the selected temperatures were 25 and 37 °C; but in abstract in line 19 24 and 37 ºC temperatures are mentioned. Which one is correct?

We made the correction, 24ºC is the correct temperature. Lines 21 and 150.

 

5. Why you selected above temperatures and under different oxygen conditions? It is suggested to add the oxygen concentrations. Also, add some justifications to support your treatments.

We appreciate the reviewer's observation. We included the information, line 151. The concentration of O2 dissolved in the medium was measured with a dissolved oxygen analyzer during the inoculation period. For the system carried out at 200 rpm the oxygen levels remained almost constant at values of 7.8 mg/L (Included in the manuscript), which is very close to the solubility of oxygen in aqueous solution. These values are achieved mainly by the turbulence generated by the agitation that promotes mass transfer.

 

On the contrary, in the process without agitation, oxygen levels varied during the experiment, reaching minimum values of 2.1 mg/L (Included in the manuscript) during the exponential growth of the microorganisms.

 

6. Section and sub sections numbering is missing.

We made the correction.

 

7. How the oxygen conditions and temperatures were maintained, please specify in the manuscript?

We made the correction, line 154.

 

8. It is suggested to write full forms of the abbreviations such as RPM and others. We made the correction.

 

9. Line 145 what is LB medium?

We made the correction, Luria-Bertani medium.

 

10. Please add citations for performed methodologies that this was done by following the recommendations of xyz et al 2024 or so on and what was the total duration of the experiment.

We included the information, 2.5 Section.

 

11. It is suggested to add the month and year in which the experiment was performed. We included the information, line 93.

 

12. Line 167, at the beginning here do you mean at first day of experiment?

We included the information, line 171.

 

13. Line 173 correct the reference format Rodríguez and Rodríguez (2002) [20].

We check the reference.

 

14. Line 174, what is per each experimental unit? please specify.

We made the correction, line195

 

15. In figures 3 and 5, correct the temperature unit.

We made the correction, 24ºC is the correct temperature.

 

16. In Figure 4, for control T1 is firstly introduced, please revise accordingly.

We made the correction.

 

17. Line 263, R2 should be R2. Revise throughout the manuscript.

We made the correction.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the manuscript as per provided suggestions, the paper can be accepted for possible publication after minor correction.

1-      It should be proof read before publication, there are several grammar mistakes. Such as on line 18 two tests will be conducted changed to were conducted and line 21 temperature changed temperatures.

2-      Improve the figures quality and text format.

3-      What the letters with figures captions are showing such as in figure 4, (byc), dye and others. Please revise.

4-      Table’s text format is not constant.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Final proof read is required before publication.

Author Response

Really we appreciate the time for check our manuscript. Thank you for all comments and suggestions.

All comments and suggestions of R1 and R2 were included.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors have revised the manuscript as per provided suggestions, the paper can be accepted for possible publication after minor correction.

1-      It should be proof read before publication, there are several grammar mistakes. Such as on line 18 two tests will be conducted changed to were conducted and line 21 temperature changed temperatures.

Thank you very much for the sugestion to our manuscript. We check all the grammar mistakes.

2-      Improve the figures quality and text format.

We made and check the quality and format of all tables and figures.

3-      What the letters with figures captions are showing such as in figure 4, (byc), dye and others. Please revise.

Thank you for the comment. We made the corrections The correct information is (b and c).

4-      Table’s text format is not constant.
Thank you foe your comment.

We made and check the format of all tables and figures.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language
Final proof read is required before publication.

Thank you for your comment.
We check the quality of english language. Thank you.