Enhancement in Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Plants with Application of Roholtiella sp. (Nostocales) under Soilless Cultivation
, Imen Saadaoui 2, Talaat Ahmed 3, Helmi Hamdi 2, Maroua Cherif 2, Tasneem Dalgamouni 2, Ghamza Al Ghazal 2 and Radhouane Ben-Hamadou 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review of the manuscript ‘Enhancement in Bell Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) plants with application of Roholtiella sp. (Nostocales) under soilless cultivation’ submitted to the Journal of Agronomy. In this manuscript,extracts and biomass of three nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria such as Roholtiella sp. (QUCCCM97), Nostoc ellipsosporum (QUCCCM99), and Desmonostoc danxiaense (QUCCCM112) isolated from Qatar desert environment were tested for their ability to enhance seedlings of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) growth.This is a well written manuscript with not a lot of typo or grammatical errors. The background and literature review is written well with relevant citations.However there are some concerns that should be appropriately addressed before accepting this work for any possible publication.
1. Abstract should be revised and describe specific results of these experiments.
2. Line 169, “The amplification of 16rDNA genes was conducted by utilizing a standard/universal primer p27f (5‘-AGA GTT TGA TCM 170TGG CTC AG-3’). ” What is the other primer sequence? Please state clearly.
3.The quality of the figure2 is severely lacking. There is no specific description of the model used to build the phylogenetic tree, and there is no outgroup.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The methodology used has been described in detail and clearly.
Results section
Point 1. In the results of this study there are discrepancies between the results presented in table 2 and figure 4. For example, the shoot length according to the results of table 2 decreases from Tr1 to Tr3, on the other hand in figure 4 the shoot length increases from Tr1 to Tr3. Please check the data in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Point 2. In lines 393-394 it is incorrectly stated that the application of low doses led to differences in the parameters in relation to the control. According to the results, only Tr3 treatment differed from the control. Please it must be fixed.
Discussion section
Point 3. The results described in the discussion should be corrected due to the discrepancy between the data of Table 2 and Figure 4. You must change the discussion based on the correct results.
Point 4. I would like to be analyzed from you the fact why while cyanobacteria are a source of nitrogen (lines 468-469), the spad index, which measures chlorophyll, where nitrogen promotes its synthesis, was not affected.
Conclusion section
Point 5. In line 532 "all treatments" is wrong. Please correct it.
Point 6. Similar in lines 534-536, according to the results of table 2 and figure 4, positive results only at the high dose were observed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the corrections and I think this study is able to be published.
