Growth and Nitrogen Uptake by Potato and Cassava Crops Can Be Improved by Azospirillum brasilense Inoculation and Nitrogen Fertilization
, Jessica Aparecida da Silva 2, Juliana Aparecida Marques Eburneo 1, Magali Leonel 1, Francisca Gyslane de Sousa Garreto 2 and Jason Geter da Silva Nunes 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors did a simple work to present the Growth and nitrogen uptake by potato and cassava crops. In this high-reputed journal, need to more mechanistic work to present such types of paper. The introduction is nicely written. However, the methodology and especially the results should be improved.
1. Abstract is very poorly written. It should be rewrite again. Some introductory notes should be given in the abstract. Results should be also includes precisely (increasing and decreasing). Methodology also should be mention properly (the doses and methods).
2. Why this the potato cultivar ‘Agata’ and the cassava cultivar ‘IAC 576-70’ were used. Should be precisely describe in the methods.
3. Results section should be thoroughly improved with character wise separate heading and description should be given properly with decreasing and increasing percentage (Leaf N concentration, DM.......) in two crops.
4. Discussion should be more deep and mechanistic.
5. Conclusion should be more precise.
6. Please minimize the grammatical and typo mistakes (For example Line 35, Please delete the excess N)
Author Response
# Revisor 1.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Authors did a simple work to present the Growth and nitrogen uptake by potato and cassava crops. In this high-reputed journal, need to more mechanistic work to present such types of paper. The introduction is nicely written. However, the methodology and especially the results should be improved.
Response 1: Thanks for the comments. In this work, we have evaluated how the inoculation of A. brasilense interferes with the growth of potatoes and cassava and the N uptake. We understand that this is an important issue for these two root crops. In this version of the manuscript, we have improved the M&M wording, results, and discussion.
- Abstract is very poorly written. It should be rewrite again. Some introductory notes should be given in the abstract. Results should be also includes precisely (increasing and decreasing). Methodology also should be mention properly (the doses and methods).
Response 2: We have rewritten the abstract, an inserted this information.
- Why this the potato cultivar ‘Agata’ and the cassava cultivar ‘IAC 576-70’ were used. Should be precisely describe in the methods.
Response 2: We have used these cultivars because the Agata is the most important cultivar grown in Brazil (aproximadamently 65% of the planted area from Brazil), whereas the cassava cultivar IAC 5476-70 is the most planted in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, representing 80% of the cultivated area in this state.
- Results section should be thoroughly improved with character wise separate heading and description should be given properly with decreasing and increasing percentage (Leaf N concentration, DM.......) in two crops.
Response 2: We have rewritten the results section in line with the suggestions made by the reviewer.
- Discussion should be more deep and mechanistic.
Response 2: We have sought to present a more in-detailed discussion of the results/effects obtained in the study.
- Conclusion should be more precise.
Response 2: We have rewritten the conclusion trying to point out the most accurate results.
- Please minimize the grammatical and typo mistakes (For example Line 35, Please delete the excess N)
Response 2: We have proofread the manuscript to lessen grammatical errors and a native speaker proofread the manuscript as well to improve English writing.
Response 2: We have improved the conclusions section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Major comments
- The author investigates the effects of two strains of A. brasilense i.e., Ab-V5 and Ab-V6, and hypothesized that the inoculation of A. brasilen alone or in combination can improve the growth and N uptake (lines 71–72). However, in the manuscript, I couldn’t find the results of observation and comparative analysis from the inoculation of A. brasilen alone or in combination.
- Since there are several sentences that need to paraphrase, the manuscript required extensive editing of the English language and style before acceptance.
Minor comments
Line 12 Please clarify the sentence, it is confusing with the word “effects” repetition.
Line 45 Azospirillum spp. (please write spp. not in italics)
Line 53 Please describe which topic related to inoculation of Azospirillum that still poorly understood
Line 96 Please confirm 2.0 × 108 viable cells per mL OR 2.0 × 108 ?
Line 576 A. brasilense write in italics. Please check carefully to the entire manuscript
Author Response
# Revisor 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Major comments
- The author investigates the effects of two strains of A. brasilense i.e., Ab-V5 and Ab-V6, and hypothesized that the inoculation of A. brasilen alone or in combination can improve the growth and N uptake (lines 71–72). However, in the manuscript, I couldn’t find the results of observation and comparative analysis from the inoculation of A. brasilen alone or in combination.
Response 2: In the figures, we have presented two regression analyses for N rates in both crops. One regression was fitted to data from treatments without A. brasilense inoculation (open symbols) and the other regression to the set of N rates combined with A. brasilense inoculation (closed symbols). Within each N rate, we compared by LSD (p<0.05) the differences between those with and without A. brasilense inoculation. Therefore, through this comparison, we know if, for example, the N application combined with the inoculation is better than the N application without the inoculation of the bacteria. We inform you that we have included more information in the text to highlight the comparative analysis and the combined application of N and A. brasilense. We also have improved the figures to better understand of the readers.
- Since there are several sentences that need to paraphrase, the manuscript required extensive editing of the English language and style before acceptance.
Response 2: This new version of the manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker.
Line 12 Please clarify the sentence, it is confusing with the word “effects” repetition.
Response 2: We have changed the text to make it clearer and removed the word repetition.
Line 45 Azospirillum spp. (please write spp. not in italics)
Response 2: We have changed.
Line 53 Please describe which topic related to inoculation of Azospirillum that still poorly understood
Response 2: We have inserted this information.
Line 96 Please confirm 2.0 × 108 viable cells per mL OR 2.0 × 108 ?
Response 2: We have corrected this information.
Line 576 A. brasilense write in italics. Please check carefully to the entire manuscript
Response 2: We have checked all the text and made the corrections.
Reviewer 3 Report
1) With few exceptions, relatively old documents are cited. Please try to work on this. I think that there are also new, sufficiently high-quality articles that should be included in the article. Nine cited articles are only in Portuguese. I think that these articles should be replaced by new articles written in English.
2) Add a paragraph to the Introduction chapter explaining the principle of symbiosis between the mentioned bacteria and plants.
3) Table 1: Soil organic matter (g dm–3 ) ...explain what does it mean? I recommend expressing it in Cox (%)
4) In the discussion, I recommend debating the wheat topic less and focusing more on how your research might play out in natural field conditions.
5) The Conclusion chapter needs to be improved. It should be more apt.
Author Response
# Revisor 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1) With few exceptions, relatively old documents are cited. Please try to work on this. I think that there are also new, sufficiently high-quality articles that should be included in the article. Nine cited articles are only in Portuguese. I think that these articles should be replaced by new articles written in English.
Response 2: Answer: We have updated cited articles in the manuscript, and replaced most works cited in Portuguese. Only 3 Portuguese articles were kept, which are the first works with studies on Azospirillum in cassava.
2) Add a paragraph to the Introduction chapter explaining the principle of symbiosis between the mentioned bacteria and plants.
Response 2: We have entered this information.
3) Table 1: Soil organic matter (g dm–3 ) ...explain what does it mean? I recommend expressing it in Cox (%)
Response 2: We have changed.
4) In the discussion, I recommend debating the wheat topic less and focusing more on how your research might play out in natural field conditions.
Response 2: we have removed the topics on wheat and inserted information about the possible benefits of this inoculation under field conditions.
5) The Conclusion chapter needs to be improved. It should be more apt.
Response 2: We have improved the conclusions section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks authors for improving the manuscript according to my previous comments. They did huge work in the revision. The article is much more improved. The article can be accepted. However, I have a minor query, please add a conclusion in the abstract.
Author Response
Response 1: Thanks for the comments. We have inserted a conclusion at the end of this version's abstract.
Reviewer 2 Report
the MS has improved!
Author Response
Response 1: Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with the improvement in your article. However, the Conclusion should be improved by "something extra" instead of just repeating the results. Think about this important chapter some more.
Best regards.
Author Response
Response 1: We have improved the Conclusions section of this version of the manuscript. We try to indicate the main findings of the study and the future paths for the implementation of the results observed here.
