Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Growth and Increase Concentrations of Anthocyanin, Phenolic Compounds, and Antioxidant Activity of Black Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To show the phylogenetic tree reconstructed and the sequence analysis of the rDNA results for all isolates. 

I would also like to ask the authors to include additional information about where these isolated cultures were deposited.

To include the accession numbers for all sequences deposited at NCBI. 

To include detailed identification of the isolates in table 1.  

Line 241. Please, check your data. 32 spores??

Table 1. Are these two isolates suitable for further research on rice growth due to the small number of spores produced?

Table 2. How did you manage to get these values? 1.5 and 1.9 numbers of spores. Please check your data/calculation. 

Lines 88-103. The discussion presented is more hypothetical about AMF inoculation's effect on the growth and the production of secondary metabolites of black rice. The actual mechanism involving AMF and the host plant has yet to be successfully proven and is not linked to other observations that have been made from the experiment (e.g., P content in plant tissues).

 

 

 

 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study titled “Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance growth and increases concentrations of anthocyanin, phenolic compound and antioxidant activity of black rice” has been reviewed. In my opinion,

 

the idea of the study is okay. I had no issue reading through the almost seamless and comprehensive study. The study is especially very important as it represents a milestone in propagating organic agriculture and by extension food security.

 

The results are equally applicable beyond the crop species, the study area and country. I do not recommend acceptance and publication of this manuscript in this current form until some improvements have been made. My worries are as follows:

 

Abstract

This section is good and informative, there are some minor flaws such as:

1.     Authors should avoid the use of undefined abbreviations

 

Keywords:

1.     Most of the words used as keywords here are not adequate and directly drawn from the title. This is not ideal because keywords should be words or phrases that best describe the content of the manuscript and that can be used for abstracting and indexing purposes

 

Introduction:

This section is good

 

Materials and Methods

Okay

 

Results and Discussion

Okay

 

Table and Figures

The number of figures is too high in my judgment.

 

 

References

1.     For a trending topic like this, it is expected that references of the last 5 years i.e., 2018-2023 should form the bulk of reference usage, but it is not so in this manuscript.

 

General comment

1.     I strongly suggest that the entire manuscript should be thoroughly checked for English Language correction.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Table 1: Total spore (spore/g soil) is different for fungi species. These fungi with different Total spore (spore/g soil) can affect the plants differently.

Table 3: Plant height has the same alphabet (same statistical group), and authors should rephrase the results and discussion based on non-significant differences.

Table 3: Based on data of Grain weight and Biomass, the Harvest index is inconsistent with this data. For example these above data are respectively for A. longula: Grain weight (17), Biomass (115), Harvest index (0.30).

Table 4: TPC (mg/100 g.....Dry and/or fresh weight)? NPK= g/plant? Plants have the different weights, and you should report these (NPK) based on mg/g Dry weight.

 

Correct the results and rephrase the discussion based on above recommendations and newer references (References are old). 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I have gone through the manuscript entitled "Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance growth and increases concentrations of anthocyanin, phenolic compound and antioxidant activity of black rice" and found it promising. However, below listed suggestion need to be incorporate for better understanding.

1. Abstract need to be modify by incorporation of the finding (quantitative results) of the investigation.

2. old references need to be replaced with the recent references.

3. Author should avoid personal words i.e. we, our, they, those etc.  as much as possible.  

4. The conclusive statement of the investigation need to more clear.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This research investigated the effects of AMF and cultivars on growth and yield of rice, as well as nutrient and secondary compounds. However, there is an error about interpreting the results of statistical analysis. Consultancy from statisticians is suggested for better interpretation of statistical results. Additionally, the written language in this manuscript should be largely improved and English editing service is encouraged when necessary. 

 

Comments on Manuscript Number:  2288035

AMF has been shown positive effects on plant-available nutrient availability and plant growth, and might influence concentration of bioactive compounds. This manuscript assessed the impact of AMF on growth, yield and secondary compounds in two black rice. This research may contribute to improvements of black rice’s yield and nutritional values.

This research investigated the effects of AMF and cultivars on growth and yield of rice, as well as nutrient and secondary compounds. However, there is an error about interpreting the results of statistical analysis. Consultancy from statisticians is suggested for better interpretation of statistical results. Additionally, the written language in this manuscript should be largely improved and English editing service is encouraged when necessary. More detailed comments are listed below:

Introduction

Introduction should focus more on the research object. For instance, how mulching influence productivity and soil fertility.

Line 41: use full comma before “However”.

Line 42: “with red, purple and black colored kernels”, and delete “their kernels are...”

Line 43: their grains.

Line 44: compounds

Line 46: “strengthening human immune system”, and use “cultivars” or “varieties” all through the manuscript.

Line 51: delete the second “soil”, and have unfavorable physio-chemical properties.

Line 52-53: delete the second and the third “low”.

Line 56: as well as environmental pollution.

Line 57: other field management strategies

Line 59-61: please add a reference.

Line 63: delete “agriculturally important”

Line 65-69: delete in rice, and make this sentence into two sentences.

Line 69-71: reformulate this sentence into two sentences.

Line 71-81: references needed for each point here. Meanwhile, please provide some current research on the effects of AMF on rice.

Line 84: delete “the effects of ”.

Line 86: allow to

Line 89: is.

Material and methods

I suggest authors dividing this section into two parts: AMF identification and greenhouse experiment.

Line 110: describe the sterilization method.

Line 112: specify AMF species.

Line 117: grounded, and please specify the diameter.

Line 118: please add reference for the method.

Line 140: As mentioned in introduction, rice is commonly grown in sandy soil. Why did authors use sandy loam for the greenhouse experiment? The difference in soil types might make results unrepresentative for practice.

Line 150: are the two cultivars under the same subspecies? Please provide subspecies name(s).

Line 153: add “and” before short life span.

Line 163: revise the unit.

Line 183: missing and.

Line 201-204: Please revise this paragraph. It is not proper English.

Line 205-211: Please provide reference for method.

Line 249: please specify the results are from greenhouse experiment.

Line 267: delete “analysis of”.

Line 272: the control treatment without fertilizer.

Line 272-275: if there is interaction, it is not possible to tell the effects of each factor. Please redo the statistical analysis, by using other statistical analysis or analyzing parameters in each cultivar.

Line 276: This sentence was not written in proper English.

Line 280: non-inoculated control without fertilizer.

Discussion

The line number is not continuously following the previous section.

Line 34-36: are the results from current study or from reference?

Line 40: inoculated Maled Phai

Line 46-47: not proper English writing.

Line 55-56: not proper English writing.

Line 59-60: not proper English writing.

Line 69-71: Grammar error.

Line 86-88: not proper English writing.

Line 97-103: The summary is not related to the results reported in current study.

Line 107-108: not proper English writing.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Authors have submitted the manuscript entitled as Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance growth and increases 2 concentrations of anthocyanin, phenolic compound and 3 antioxidant activity of black rice. The manuscript is good and presents an interesting research work. However, I will encourage the authors if they provide some pictorial evidence of the research work as supplementary file. Also, please go through the manuscript for in-depth evaluation of any potential errors in the manuscript. 

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers who provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. 

In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise. We have also checked the lay out of the ms, where we found several mistakes. Finally, we noted one sentence that was copied almost verbatim from an earlier publication but without acknowledging the authors of that publication. As such copying without acknowledgement, even of one sentence, might be regarded as plagiarism, we modified the sentence and now support the authors of that statement.

We provide the response to the reviewer's comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript (revised version) is suitable for publication in Soil Systems. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful to reviewer that provided constructive criticisms on our manuscript. In this version we have completely reviewed the English (by one of the authors, TWK) and corrected the mistakes for which we apologise.

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 5 Report

I strongly suggest a English editing by a native speaker or a company. Additionally, please choose another statistical analysis method to compare treatments when there are interactions between factors.

 

Title: add Latin name of black rice.

Line 27: completely randomized design with two factors

Line 36: gave instead of exhibited.

Keywords: add AMF

Line 46: full stop instead of comma.

Line 175: cultivar

Line 268: were

Line 282: black rice.

Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4: As previous commented, if there is an interaction, the authors should use another statistical analysis method to compare all treatments together. In this case, the authors can use LSMEANS. At same time, this should be described in Data analysis section. It is not appropriate to do post hoc test directly after ANOVA.

Additionally, the fertilizer treatment should be the same as it is described in line 193.

Line 307: height.

Line 308-309: This is not proper English writing. Suggestion: Only the biomass of Maled Phai inoculated with …. was higher than … Please revise all sentences through the manuscript.

Line 310: than which treatment?

Line 311: the mineral treatment increased… compared to ….

Line 318: indication should be in discussion.

Line 350: delete the

Discussion: the authors should spend more time explaining why some treatments make a difference on agronomic parameters of black rice, instead of superficially comparing results with what found in other studies.

Line 376: the various environmental conditions

Line 379: delete in the paper.

Line 382: delete “that…”

Line 385: delete latter

Line 386: it is confusing where the results come from.

Line 391: delete that were

Line 396-399: please rewrite this sentence into two sentences.

Line 409-413: please refer to table(s). The explanation is not logic. How increase of yield result in lower concentrations of NPK? This doesn’t make sense.

Line 410: do you mean unfertilized?

Line 424-426: explain why it is an interesting result.

Line 437: needed? It is not normal to say future research is planned.

Line 497-499: delete who; and associated the increase with.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf