The Effect of Mycorrhizal Fungi and Organic Fertilizers on Quantitative and Qualitative Traits of Two Important Satureja Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled: "The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative traits of two important Satureja species" is interesting, relevant statistical methods were used to evaluate the influence of factors on the monitored parameters, but I have a few comments:

The authors used 25 literary references in their manuscript. I recommend expanding some sections (Introduction, discussion) with more publications that deal with similar issues. The results are not sufficiently confronted.

In Table 1, I recommend adding explanations for each abbreviation. Also, for the EC, I recommend using the standard unit designation.

At the end of line 129, end the parentheses.

Line 137 reads "The plants were sown ..."; I recommend using "The planting was realized ...".

Based on what methodology were the plants irrigated? In what doses?

Based on what formula was the LAI calculated? The CL-202 leaf area meter measures only the basic parameters of the leaf.

Line 149 states, "The samples were dried in shadow as long as required". This is insufficient. What time is needed? It needs to be specified.

At line 175, correct the Tecator Kjltec auto 10 analyzer.

In the range of lines 179-201, the information is appropriate to chapter 2.1, I recommend moving.

In Table 2, I recommend using the standard unit designation.

In Tables 4 and 5, I require uniform labeling of SOV (f.e. treat / treatment).

On line 232, use italics for Latin names.

At what concentration were the foliar application forms of organic fertilizers? What were they diluted with? I recommend adding.

In the conclusions, the authors missed the evaluation of which of the Satureja species is more suitable for cultivation in the area.

Author Response

 

 

Reviewer 1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful review of the manuscript. They raised important issues and their inputs are very helpful for improving the manuscript. We agree with their comments and we have revised our manuscript accordingly as highlighted text and respond in detail to each of the reviewer’s comments.

We hope that the reviewers and managing editor will find our responses to their comments satisfactory. Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

Authors response: The manuscript entitled: "The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative traits of two important Satureja species" is interesting, relevant statistical methods were used to evaluate the influence of factors on the monitored parameters, but I have a few comments:

• The authors used 25 literary references in their manuscript. I recommend expanding some sections (Introduction, discussion) with more publications that deal with similar issues. The results are not sufficiently confronted\

 

Authors’ response: The number of references has been increased to 45.

• In Table 1, I recommend adding explanations for each abbreviation. Also, for the EC, I recommend using the standard unit designation.

Authors’ response:  The unit has been changed to mmho/cm

• At the end of line 129, end the parentheses.

Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

• Line 137 reads "The plants were sown ..."; I recommend using "The planting was realized ...". .

Authors’ response: The correction has been made

• Based on what methodology were the plants irrigated? In what doses.

Authors’ response: The initial furrow irrigation was performed every day. But, after the plants were fully established, it was reduced to once times a week according to the climatic conditions

• Based on what formula was the LAI calculated? The CL-202 leaf area meter measures only the basic parameters of the leaf.

Authors’ response: Leaf area index (LAI) were measured  using a Leaf area meter AM200 (ADC BioScientifc Ltd, UK) in each replication.

• Line 149 states, "The samples were dried in shadow as long as required". This is insufficient. What time is needed? It needs to be specified.

Authors’ response: According to the results of following paper, the highest percentage of savory essential oil is obtained in the drying method under the shade condition, so it is used in this research. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1282355..... https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=389915

 

 

 

8) At line 175, correct the Tecator Kjltec auto 10 analyzer. .

Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

• In the range of lines 179-201, the information is appropriate to chapter 2.1, I recommend moving.

Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

10) In Table 2, I recommend using the standard unit designation.

Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

• In Tables 4 and 5, I require uniform labeling of SOV (f.e. treat / treatment).

 Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

12) On line 232, use italics for Latin names.

Authors’ response: The correction has been made.

13) At what concentration were the foliar application forms of organic fertilizers? What were they diluted with? I recommend adding.

Authors’ response: In order to prepare foliar application, organic fertilizer solution was prepared with an organic fertilizer/distilled water ratio of 1:10, so that one kilogram of the organic fertilizer was soaked in 10 liters of distilled water for 48 hours. Then the resulting extract was smoothed with two layers of thin cloth. In order to foliar application, first the field was irrigated in the morning and then foliar spraying was done in the evening, thus, the relative humidity of the atmosphere was increased and the plants had enough time to absorb the solution. Foliar application was performed when the plants were at 15-leafed stage, it was about 30 days after planting in each growing season

14) In the conclusions, the authors missed the evaluation of which of the Satureja species is more suitable for cultivation in the area.

Authors’ response: According to the results, both S. khuestanica and rechingeri cultivars were high in dry matter yield and essential oil percentage, respectively. Therefore, depending on the purpose of cultivation, it can be recommended which species would be used in this area.

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the comments and suggestion for the manuscript entitled" The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative traits of two important  Satureja species.

1. Suggestions -Please follow the new pattern for the fungal identification names --- ex intraradices is now known as Rhizophagus irregularis, please change all accordingly in the whole manuscript---
2. Authors say that they used vermicompost as foliar application, its not clear how can vermicompost be applicable via foliar applications—
3. Please take help of some native English speaker and enhance the language used in the whole manuscript.
4. Section 2.1, please clearly indicate which applications were applied in soil and which via foliar application, its confusing in the present pattern---
5. The research design needs to be presented more clearly, please rewrite---
6. Section 2.2.1 please also provide the citation for the method section dealing with essential oil isolation -----
7. Results – Authors used ANNOVA for analysis, its my suggestion to use stastical letter for the indication of significant differences in the tables 4 and 5 too as depicted in table 6, instead of stars  so it will be better for the understanding of the readers too----
8. Take 6- Using of treatments names as Mycorrhiza mosseae , Mycorrhiza intraradiceae is not relevant please follow the standard classification as suggested in comment no 1. ---
9. Conclusions- the section looks like a repetition of the results- Strongly suggested to rewrite with inclusion of what were the concluding remarks along with few lines of future implications ---  

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the comments and suggestions for the manuscript entitled" The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative traits of two important Satureja species.

Authors' response: We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful review of the manuscript. They raised important issues, and their inputs are constructive for improving the manuscript. We agree with their comments, and we have revised our manuscript accordingly as highlighted text and respond in detail to each reviewer’s comments.

We hope that the reviewers and managing editor will find our responses to their comments satisfactory. Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely,

The corrections of reviewer 1 are marked red, and reviewer 2 are marked green in a manuscript.

 

1.Suggestions -Please follow the new pattern for the fungal identification names --- ex intraradices is now known as Rhizophagus irregularis, please change all accordingly in the whole manuscript--- intraradices =

Authors’ response: Changed as per the suggestion

Rhizophagus irregularis, Glomus mosseae= Funneliformis mosseae, Glomus fasciculatum=it does not have a new name.

 

2. Authors say that they used vermicompost as a foliar application; it's not clear how can vermicompost be applicable via foliar applications—

Authors’ response: To prepare the foliar application, organic fertilizer solution was prepared with an organic fertilizer/distilled water ratio of 1:10 so that one kilogram of the organic fertilizer was soaked in 10 liters of distilled water for 48 hours. Then the resulting extract was smoothed with two layers of thin cloth. To a foliar application, first, the field was irrigated in the morning, and then foliar spraying was done in the evening. Thus, the relative humidity of the atmosphere was increased, and the plants had enough time to absorb the solution. The foliar application was performed when the plants were at the 15-leafed stage; it was about 30 days after planting in each growing season.

 

3.Please take the help of some native English speakers and enhance the language used in the whole manuscript.

 

Authors’ response: The manuscript has been paraphrased again.

 

 

4. Section 2.1, please clearly indicate which applications were applied in soil and which is confusing in the present pattern- The correction has been done.

Authors’ response:  Mycorrhiza inoculant was used as a soil fertilizer, and the phosphate biofertilizer was used only as a solution. Fish manure, cattle manure, and vermicompost were applied in both soil and solution form.

 

5.The research design needs to be presented more clearly, please rewrite---

Authors’ response:  The correction has been done.

The experiment was carried out as a factorial study based on a randomized complete block design. The first factor was assigned to three mycorrhizal fungi, phosphate biofertilizer (Baravar-2), fish manure (800 kg ha-1), cattle manure (20 t ha-1), vermicompost (5 t ha-1), and control (no fertilization), and the second factor was considered as two savory species including S. khuzestanica and S. rechingeri.

 

6. Section 2.2.1, please also provide the citation for the method section dealing with essential oil isolation ----

 

Authors’ response:  The correction has been done.

 

7.Results – Authors used ANNOVA for analysis; it's my suggestion to use the statistical letter for the indication of significant differences in tables 4 and 5 too, as depicted in table 6, instead of stars so it will be better for the understanding of the readers too----

Authors’ response:  For analysis, firstly, the differences among means of treatments have to be shown, that one of the most important ways is ANOVA (Analysis of variance, by F test). The results of ANOVA are shown in Tables 4&5.

Secondly, the significant differences in the previous step were compared by some mean comparison tests (such as LSD, Least significant differences) at some statistical levels (like 0.05 or 0.01), which were presented in Tables 6&7&8.

 

8.Take 6- Using treatments names as Mycorrhiza mosseae , Mycorrhiza intraradiceae is not relevant. Please follow the standard classification as suggested in comment no 1. ---

 

Authors’ response: The correction has been done.

 

9.Conclusions- the section looks like a repetition of the results- Strongly suggested to rewrite with the inclusion of what were the concluding remarks along with few lines of future implications ---  

Authors’ response: The correction has been done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments and suggestions on the manuscript entitled "The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and organic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative traits of two important Satureja species has been well addressed by the authors and I found it satisfactory.  

The authors have worked on all the concerns raised and included suggested changes in the revised manuscript.

I recommend for further perusal –

 Thanks for the revision.