Response of Capsicum annuum L. Seedlings Raised in Pro Trays to Inoculation with AM Fungus Glomus bagyarajii and K Solubilizing Bacterium Frateuria aurantia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript describes the use of inoculation of plants with symbiotic microorganisms and their effect on the growth of pepper plants in the juvenile stage. The topic is actual, but the manuscript has some shortcomings. Some parts are too brief, on the contrary, somewhere the text is unnecessarily extensive.
Major comments:
Chapter Material and Methods is too brief. Authors should at least add information concerning to watering of plants. If you are measuring the growth parameters of plants, it is important to ensure that the humidity of the substrate is uniform for each plant. It is not enough to state: “…watered as and when necessary” (row 100). Also add formulas for biovolume index and vigor index (rows 105 and 106).
The main question is concerning to statistic test used. Author mentioned about using T test, but this test is used for pairwise comparison, and in the experiment, 4 treatments were used (control + 3 inoculations). Results in tables rather look like to be analyzes by ANOVA with post-hoc test (Tukey, or LSD). If not, how did you calculated differences among treatments (which groups are different from each other)? You should also add SD to each mean, not one SD for all treatments. Also add explanation of “CD” because such form of table is not standardly used in Europe.
Discussion should be widened. The text is mostly just: "it was reported earlier, "made by earlier workers" without further information and consideration.
Some parts of chapter Conclusions belongs to the discussion. Do not use citations there. This chapter must be completely rewrite.
It would be appropriate to add photos documenting the experiment.
References are not formatted according to Author instruction.
Minor comments:
There are grammar, typing and formatting errors in the text. The text needs to be carefully checked.
r. 33: you should rather use “rhizosphere microorganisms” instead of “rhizomicrooragnisms”
r. 51: Capsicum annuum L.
r. 81: “shoots of grass” - Did you mean “shoots of pepper plants”?
r. 107: 60°C
r. 136: reference 32 is the same as 1
r. 139: “hormone” instead of “harmone”
r. 141-144: citation should be added
Table 2: Why the statistics for dry weight only is added?
r. 167, 196: “was significantly higher” instead of “was significantly more”
r. 169: Why the citation was added to your results?
r. 175-192: The text is unnecessarily stretched; the data are described in the table. Describe the results more concisely.
r. 255-258: Initials, not full names are usually used.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 1 comments
The manuscript describes the use of inoculation of plants with symbiotic microorganisms and their effect on the growth of pepper plants in the juvenile stage. The topic is actual, but the manuscript has some shortcomings. Some parts are too brief, on the contrary, somewhere the text is unnecessarily extensive.
Major comments: Chapter Material and Methods is too brief. Authors should at least add information concerning to watering of plants. If you are measuring the growth parameters of plants, it is important to ensure that the humidity of the substrate is uniform for each plant. It is not enough to state: “...watered as and when necessary” (row 100). Also add formulas for biovolume index and vigor index (rows 105 and 106).
Reply: Information on watering of plants is added and formulas of biovolume index and vigor index are included.
Comment: The main question is concerning to statistic test used. Author mentioned about using T test, but this test is used for pairwise comparison, and in the experiment, 4 treatments were used (control + 3 inoculations). Results in tables rather look like to be analyzes by ANOVA with post-hoc test (Tukey, or LSD). If not, how did you calculated differences among treatments (which groups are different from each other)? You should also add SD to each mean, not one SD for all treatments. Also add explanation of “CD” because such form of table is not standard.
Reply: T-test was wrongly mentioned. ANOVA with post-hoc test (LSD) is now mentioned in the revised version. SD to each mean is not commonly followed now-a-days, hence SD is given for each parameter only. CD is same as LSD and is now presented as LSD in the revised manuscript.
Comment: Discussion should be widened. The text is mostly just: "it was reported earlier, "made by earlier workers" without further information and consideration. Some parts of chapter Conclusions belongs to the discussion. Do not use citations there. This chapter must be completely rewrite.
Reply: Discussion slightly modified and conclusion revised removing citations, as suggested.
Comment: It would be appropriate to add photos documenting the experiment. References are not formatted according to Author instruction.
Reply: A Photo is included. The journal guidelines defines free format of reference writing and hence all the references has been written in one format uniformly.
Minor comments:
There are grammar, typing and formatting errors in the text. The text needs to be carefully checked.
Reply: Grammar, typing and formatting errors in the text are rectified to the extent possible throughout the manuscript.
- 33: you should rather use “rhizosphere microorganisms” instead of “rhizomicrooragnisms”
Reply: Corrected as rhizobacteria (Line 39)
- 51: Capsicum annuum L.
Reply: Corrected as Capsicum annuum L. (Line 61)
- 81: “shoots of grass” - Did you mean “shoots of pepper plants”?
Reply: It is shoots of Rhodes grass (Line 95).
- 107: 60°C?
Reply: Yes it is 60°C.
- 136: reference 32 is the same as 1
Reply: Rectified
- 139: “hormone” instead of “harmone”
Reply: Corrected (Line 157)
- 141-144: citation should be added
Reply: Added (Line 170)
Table 2: Why the statistics for dry weight only is added?
Reply: Statistics for all the parameters with DMRT are provided.
- 167, 196: “was significantly higher” instead of “was significantly more”
Reply: Corrected
- 169: Why the citation was added to your results?
Reply: Citation removed.
- 175-192: The text is unnecessarily stretched; the data are described in the table. Describe the results more concisely.
Reply: The text is modified in the results section to the extent possible.
- 255-258: Initials, not full names are usually used.
Reply: The journal guidelines defines free format of reference writing and hence all the references has been written in one format uniformly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors presented a good approach in the manuscript entitled “Response of Capsicum Seedlings Raised in Pro Trays to Single and Dual Inoculation with the AM Fungus Glomus Bagyarajii and K Solubilizing Bacterium Frateuria Aurantia”. The manuscript is well-written. Researchers examined AMF and K solubilizing bacterium alone and together on capsicum seedling growth. Growth metrics, nutrition intake, mycorrhizal root colonization, and Frateuria aurantia population were observed. Glomus bagyarajii alone showed better growth and biovolume index than combined applications. Most plant growth parameters were decreased in the dual inoculation of Glomus bagyarajii + Frateuria aurantia. This interaction decreases plant growth. However, the manuscript required a revision to be published in esteemed journals.
The authors should improve the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and overall English of the manuscript.
The scientific names of the species and the names of the genes must be italicized in the manuscript.
The abbreviations should be fully explained during the first mention in the abstract and introduction.
1. Authors have to provide details cohesively and logically. The authors should consider elaborating and be specific on the future scenarios of one of the important resources.
2. Line 51: This sentence should be started in a new paragraph.
3. Please write more about Capsicum concisely. Please indicate the genus and family name of capsicum.
4. Line 53: Please give recent data about the production and consumption of capsicum (13).
5. Line 67, 67: The Capsicum variety (Arka Mohini); please mention here whether it is a hybrid or land race?
6. Authors should explain why it is important to improve plant growth with a Single
and Dual Inoculation with the AM Fungus and K Solubilizing Bacterium instead of using other methods. Are other methods not effective, not environment friendly, more expensive, etc.?
7. It could better reflect the title if you use the complete generic name of the plant in title.
8. References should be according to journal guidelines. Revisit all references, correct according to journal guidelines or follow a recently published article
TRANSLATE with x English
| Arabic | Hebrew | Polish |
| Bulgarian | Hindi | Portuguese |
| Catalan | Hmong Daw | Romanian |
| Chinese Simplified | Hungarian | Russian |
| Chinese Traditional | Indonesian | Slovak |
| Czech | Italian | Slovenian |
| Danish | Japanese | Spanish |
| Dutch | Klingon | Swedish |
| English | Korean | Thai |
| Estonian | Latvian | Turkish |
| Finnish | Lithuanian | Ukrainian |
| French | Malay | Urdu |
| German | Maltese | Vietnamese |
| Greek | Norwegian | Welsh |
| Haitian Creole | Persian |
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 2 comments
Comments: The authors presented a good approach in the manuscript entitled “Response of Capsicum Seedlings Raised in Pro Trays to Single and Dual Inoculation with the AM Fungus Glomus Bagyarajii and K Solubilizing Bacterium Frateuria Aurantia”. The manuscript is well-written. Researchers examined AMF and K solubilizing bacterium alone and together on capsicum seedling growth. Growth metrics, nutrition intake, mycorrhizal root colonization, and Frateuria aurantia population were observed. Glomus bagyarajii alone showed better growth and biovolume index than combined applications. Most plant growth parameters were decreased in the dual inoculation of Glomus bagyarajii + Frateuria aurantia. This interaction decreases plant growth. However, the manuscript required a revision to be published in esteemed journals.
Reply: Thanks for the good words expressed.
Comments: The authors should improve the grammar, spelling, punctuation, and overall English of the manuscript. The scientific names of the species and the names of the genes must be italicized in the manuscript. The abbreviations should be fully explained during the first mention in the abstract and introduction.
Reply: The English grammar, spelling and punctuation have been improved throughout the manuscript. The scientific names of species and genera in all places are italicized and abbreviations at first mention in the abstract and introduction are explained
- Authors have to provide details cohesively and logically.
Reply: Provided to the possible extent as suggested.
- Line 51: This sentence should be started in a new paragraph.
Reply: Done (Line 52).
- Please write more about Capsicum concisely. Please indicate the genus and family name of capsicum.
Reply: Details about capsicum is concisely given now in the revised manuscript. The genus and family name of capsicum is provided (Line 61-67).
- Line 53: Please give recent data about the production and consumption of capsicum.
Reply: Recent data about the production of capsicum is provided (Line 68-69).
- Line 67, 67: The Capsicum variety (Arka Mohini); please mention here whether it is a hybrid or land race?
Reply: Mentioned now in line 82.
- Authors should explain why it is important to improve plant growth with a Single and Dual Inoculation with the AM Fungus and K Solubilizing Bacterium instead of using other methods. Are other methods not effective, not environment friendly, more expensive, etc.?
Reply: Necessary information is given in the revised manuscript, lines 31-44.
- It could better reflect the title if you use the complete generic name of the plant in title.
Reply: Complete generic name of the plant is mentioned in the title.
- References should be according to journal guidelines. Revisit all references, correct according to journal guidelines or follow a recently published article.
Reply: The journal guidelines defines free format of reference writing and hence all the references has been written in one format uniformly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Introduction redaction should be improved, since some matches with DOI: 10.23880/oajmb-16000217, were detected. Besides, the information order should be improved, comments regarding this aspect are on the attached document.
In key words, try not to repeat the words of the title, it is suggested to include Capsicum annuum, micronutrients.
Some references can be updated, especially in the introduction.
It is recommended that each results table be described, referenced and discussed to improve the order of the results section. In some cases, results description repeats the information that is clearly shown in tables. It is recommended to carry out correlation analysis in order to better explain the results and to be able to reach accurate conclusions.
Rewrite the conclusions, since those, presented, are still part of the discussion.
No references should be used in conclusions.
Additional comments and suggestions are found on the attached document. I hope they are useful.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 3 comments
Comment: Introduction redaction should be improved, since some matches with DOI: 10.23880/oajmb-16000217, were detected. Besides, the information order should be improved, comments regarding this aspect are on the attached document.
Reply: Introduction redaction which is matching with the article mentioned is of our own recently published article. Present study is similar to the published one. However the introduction part is now revised as much as possible to reduce redaction. Also information order is rearranged and improved.
Comment: In key words, try not to repeat the words of the title, it is suggested to include Capsicum annuum, micronutrients.
Reply: Repeating keywords are replaced with new keywords including Capsicum annuum, and micronutrients.
Comment: Some references can be updated, especially in the introduction.
Reply: Recent references are included in Introduction, as well as in other sections.
Comment: It is recommended that each results table be described, referenced and discussed to improve the order of the results section. In some cases, results description repeats the information that is clearly shown in tables. It is recommended to carry out correlation analysis in order to better explain the results and to be able to reach accurate conclusions.
Reply: Tables are referenced, discussed and now placed right after its mention in results section. Correlation analysis is performed when there are two treatments. In this study there are 4 treatments, hence ANOVA followed by DMRT is carried out.
Comment: Rewrite the conclusions, since those, presented, are still part of the discussion. No references should be used in conclusions.
Reply: Conclusion part is revised now with no references, as suggested.
Comment: Additional comments and suggestions are found on the attached document. I hope they are useful.
Reply: All the comments and suggestions made on the attached file are corrected and rectified.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved. But there are still discrepancies regarding statistics. The authors now claim that they used the LSD test, which they also state in the tables, but the text says that they used Duncan’s multiple range test (r. 133-134). So what test was actually used? I also do not agree with the constatation that “the SD to each mean is not commonly followed now-a-days”. SE for each parameter says about the variability between samples, and SD quantifies the variability within a sample. The authors used 100 plants per treatment and treatment SEs are low, so it may be supposed, there was low variability among plants. Nevertheless, it is advisable to mention the SD for each treatment. If the editors accept the publication of the results without SD, I do not insist that the authors must supplement them.
The authors should correct typing error: „stength“ to „strength“ in the formula of plant strength (r. 121).
Author Response
Comment: The manuscript has been sufficiently improved. But there are still discrepancies regarding statistics. The authors now claim that they used the LSD test, which they also state in the tables, but the text says that they used Duncan’s multiple range test (r. 133-134). So what test was actually used? I also do not agree with the constatation that “the SD to each mean is not commonly followed now-a-days”. SE for each parameter says about the variability between samples, and SD quantifies the variability within a sample. The authors used 100 plants per treatment and treatment SEs are low, so it may be supposed, there was low variability among plants. Nevertheless, it is advisable to mention the SD for each treatment. If the editors accept the publication of the results without SD, I do not insist that the authors must supplement them.
Reply: We have used ANOVA for analysis of data and not LSD test. LSD given is Least Significant Difference. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to compare the treatment means. SD value for each treatment mean is also provided as suggested by the reviewer.
Comment: The authors should correct typing error: „stength“ to „strength“ in the formula of plant strength (r. 121).
Reply: Corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version can be accepted.
TRANSLATE with x English| Arabic | Hebrew | Polish |
| Bulgarian | Hindi | Portuguese |
| Catalan | Hmong Daw | Romanian |
| Chinese Simplified | Hungarian | Russian |
| Chinese Traditional | Indonesian | Slovak |
| Czech | Italian | Slovenian |
| Danish | Japanese | Spanish |
| Dutch | Klingon | Swedish |
| English | Korean | Thai |
| Estonian | Latvian | Turkish |
| Finnish | Lithuanian | Ukrainian |
| French | Malay | Urdu |
| German | Maltese | Vietnamese |
| Greek | Norwegian | Welsh |
| Haitian Creole | Persian |
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 2 comments
Comments: The revised version can be accepted.
Reply: Thanks for recommending the revised version for acceptance.
