Effects of Marquandomyces marquandii SGSF043 on Maize Growth Promotion and Soil Enzyme Activity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to evaluate the effects of Marquandomyces Marquandii SGSF043 on maize growth promotion and soil enzyme activity. Overall, the article is interesting. However, there are some concerns.
In Introduction
Page 2 line 48: “S. aeruginosa” should be the full name first.
Page 2 line 50: “M. brunneum” should be the full name first.
Page 2 line 51: “Arabidopsis thaliana” should be “arabidopsis”
Page 2 line 80: “the seeds” should be “the maize seed”
In Materials and Methods
Page 4 line 159: “Uidase” should be "urease"
In Results
The interpretation of statistical analysis results was incorrect.
In the case of statistical analysis, it was found that there were no statistical differences. It will not be possible to compare large or small values.
Page 5 line 183-184: “the radicle thickness, radicle length, endosperm thickness, and embryonic axis length of maize seeds” The names used should be consistent for ease of understanding (Table 2: Radicle length, Radicle coarse, Plumule length, Plumule coarse, Hypocotyl length)
Page 5 line 184-185: “the treatment group of 1,000 times dilution increased compared to the other treatment groups.” Table 1 shows that control, 10 and 1000 times dilution were in the same group when compared statistically.
Page 6 line 204: “thickness” It does not appear in Fig 2.
Page 6 line 203-205: “the indicators of plant height, root length, diameter and thickness, aboveground fresh weight and underground fresh weight are higher than those of the control treatment.” Only the root length and ground diameter were higher than the control.
Page 6 line 208-209: “the difference in plant height slightly higher than the 100 times and 1,000 times treatment groups.” There is no static difference. Therefore, it cannot be said to be higher than this.
Page 6 line 213-214: “The height of maize seedlings in each fungal dilution treatment group was higher than that of the control treatment group” The control, 100 and 1000 times dilution, had no statistical difference.
In Discussion
There is no discussion regarding the effects of M. Marquandii on maize germination.
The discussions should be critiqued to show the continuity of the analyzed experimental results.
Page 8-9 line 291-304: It should be moved to the introduction.
Page 9 line 308-309: “it was found that the seeds of undiluted fungal fermentation broth did not germinate” Table 1 shows that the undiluted treatment had a germination rate of 15.
Page 9 line 341-316: “the germ and embryonic axis of seeds in the groups treated with 100 times fermentation solution and 1,000 times fermentation solution were the best in growth” Table 2 shows that the 10 and 1000 time dilution belong to the same group.
Page 9 line 337, 340 and 341, Page10 line 385, 398, 399: “Marquandomyces marquandii” should be “M. marquandii”
Page 10 line 370-372: “In this experiment, the inter-root soil alkaline phosphatase and soil urease contents of the fermentation solution treatment group were slightly higher than those of the control group.” There was no statistical difference.
In Conclusions
Page 10 line 390-392: “It was found that the 100 times dilution and 1000 times dilution treatment groups had the best effect. Table 2 shows that the control group, the 10 and times dilutions were not statistically different.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript ID: seeds-2864778, “Effects of Marquandomyces Marquandii SGSF043 on Maize Growth Promotion and Soil Enzyme Activity” has been reviewed.
In this study, the authors showed the effects of Marquandomyces marquandii SGSF043 on maize seed germination, maize seedling biomass (plant height, root length, stem thickness, fresh aboveground weight and fresh underground weight), photosynthetic indices and chlorophyll content (SPAD) in seedlings, and inter-root enzyme activity in soil in "Meiyu" sweet and glutinous maize seedlings with a harvest period of 75-80 days. In the study, they showed that Marquandomyces marquandii SGSF-043 fermentation broth can promote corn seed germination and increase the biomass of corn seedlings at the appropriate concentration. The germination effect of seeds treated with a 10-fold dilution of Marquandomyces marquandii fermentation broth was the best. There were no significant differences in chlorophyll content. The results of measured data on maize growth and development, photosynthesis and rhizosphere soil-related enzyme activity showed that the best effect of promoting maize growth and development was when Marquandomyces marquandii fermentation broth was diluted 100 times. It shows that Marquandomyces marquandii has the potential for development and utilization, which can be further studied and applied.
In my opinion, these are interesting studies. The methodological assumptions were well developed and the results of the research presented in the form of tables and figures, along with statistical analisys, were well elaborated. However, I have a few comments about the study:
Lines 88-89 – transfer as new section: 2. Materials and Methods.
Line 127 – „…. recorded daily…” – complete for how many days.
Line 149 - „On September 2, 2022 ….” – complete, after how many days after sowing.
Lines 318-322 - „…..many studies…” – only one Reference was cited [28].
In my opinion, the discussion needs to be corrected. Now, it is a description of the results. Therefore, the discussion needs to be supplemented and expanded about new items of references.
Use of "maize" or "corn" - should be standardized.
With minor corrections, I recommend the manuscript for publication in Seeds (MDPI).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for MS ID: Seeds 2864778
Article Title: Effects of Marquandomyces Marquandii SGSF043 on Maize 2 Growth Promotion and Soil Enzyme Activity.
The research article by Zheng et al is an informative study on endophytes and their impact on maize growth. The major limitations of this study is that it is a known fact that entophytes have synergistic effect on the host plant that authors are reporting. However, the finding is still relevant and some of the points need to be clarified before the final decision.
Major Concern:
1. The finding that entophyte Marquandomyces Marquandii increses some of the physiological parameters such as photosynthetic properties, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, and interstitial carbon dioxide concentrations (Fig. 3) seems unexplainable. Authors are requested to explain the mechanism or basis of such beneficial effect on host plant must be included in the discussion.
2. The morphological growth of the endophyte Marquandomyces Marquandii may be shown in petri-dish with single cell morphological to ascertain phenotypic characteristics.
Minor concerns:
1. Authors must read the MS very carefully to correct syntax and English errors. Some of them are pointed to improve the MS. Also see the attached MS that are highlighted for attention and correction.
· Line 23, 24, 27 : Instead of words like Certain, Significantly, Increase biomass..provide the data or % increase to substantiate the claim in abstract.
· Line 34-36: Provide statistical data in the introduction for production costs and environmental pollution etc.
· Line 44/45: Seems no difference between Metarhizium and Metarhizium..pl clarify or correct as appropriate.
· Line 48: Italicise S aeruginosa.
· Line 52, 146: Indexes or indices…Pl use the correct one.
· Line 54: Liao et al is the correct way.
· Line 54-56: Rewrite this complex sentence.
· Line 63-67: Pl. fragment this long sentence to simple sentence.
· Line 71: Pl cite instead of writing some studies.
· Line 81: Meiyu..Pl provide the scientific name or correct if it stand for maize.
· Line 103-105: Write in past tense passive voice…as done on the next paragraph.
· Line 114: the word “FULL” does not make any sense..pl read and correct appropriately.
· Line 126: Instead of leaved out..pl write sprouted out.
· Line170: Either quantify or delete the word “some”
· Line 190,193, 199 : Superscript the letters and see the comment in the attached MS.
· Line 207-210: The data presented in this finding seem varying a lot and cannot be accepted. Authors must come up with reproducible result/data.
· Line 250: it should effect on photosynthetic....not of
· Line 304: Other PGPRs can be added as a separate paragraph. Some of the indicative references to be included are cited in suggestions.
· Line 320: some suggested references for previous work done on entophytes may be included
Dash et al (2022). Isolation, cloning and characterization of phl B gene from an Indian strain of Gram negative soil bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens. Indian J Exp Biol, 58 (06), 412-419.
· Line 367: Directly/ indirectly---means what in this sentence. Pl rewrite this sentence to make it meaningful.
· Line 397: use the word concluded instead of determined.
Go through the attached edited MS with comments carefully. All red marks need your attention for modification while blue and yellow marks need modification as per the sentences.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor corrections can be done by the authors after carefully reading the MS.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
