Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is well organized and summarized the previous work associated with the push-pull technology (PPT). Firstly, the PPT has been introduced and then its effect on Beneficial Microbes in the Plant-Soil Continuum was well summarized. Then application of biofertilizers in PPT were detailly introduced, involving its effects on pest management, soil health and water management. In addition, authors suggested the future directions and proposed the research needs in the future. So the review is convenient for researchers in the scope to know the progress.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a comprehensive discussion on the role of biofertilizers in the PPT system, with innovative content. It is recommended for publication.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is devoted to application of biofertilizers in enhancing beneficial microbiomes within Push-Pull technologies. The authors consider Push-Pull technology in detail, but provide rather limited information about changes in microbiomes when adding biofertilizers to the soil. Since the journal is called Bacteria, I think more attention should be paid to the problem of changing microbiomes. I think readers would like would like to receive detailed information on changes in soil microbial biodiversity when applying biofertilizers, including metagenomics data. Information about the influence of biofertilizers on the microbiome of soils that differ in their parameters from normal ones (arid regions, saline, alkaline, anthropogenically polluted soils) will also be useful and interesting. I believe that the review needs to be expanded in this direction and provide more in-depth and detailed information on changes in microbial biodiversity with data concerning changes in the ratio of bacterial phyla. The review also lacks clear, reasoned conclusions that could be useful in practice.

I suggest looking at the following references: 

Sun et al (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105989) Bacillus subtilis biofertilizer mitigating agricultural ammonia emission and shifting soil nitrogen cycling microbiomes;

Mącik et al (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2023.104941) New insight into the soil bacterial and fungal microbiome after phosphorus biofertilizer application as an important driver of regenerative agriculture including biodiversity loss reversal and soil health restoration;

Zhang et al (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103573) Medicago sativa and soil microbiome responses to Trichoderma as a biofertilizer in alkaline-saline soils;

Wei et al (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chmed.2022.01.008) Bacillus and microalgae biofertilizers improved quality and biomass of Salvia miltiorrhiza by altering microbial communities;

Sivaprakasam et al (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2024.104217) Metagenomics approaches in unveiling the dynamics of Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganisms (PGPM) vis-à-vis Phytophthora sp. suppression in various crop ecological systems

 

Author Response

Comment 1: I think readers would like to receive detailed information on changes in soil microbial biodiversity when applying biofertilizers, including metagenomics data.

Response 1: On behalf of the authors, we appreciate the constructive suggestions provided by the reviewer. The revision was made to incorporate the suggestion raised and a section on "biofertilizer-mediated changes in microbial diversity" was included in the review.

Comment 2: Information about the influence of biofertilizers on the microbiome of soils that differ in their parameters from normal ones (arid regions, saline, alkaline, anthropogenically polluted soils) will also be useful and interesting.

Response 2: The revision was made to incorporate the suggestion raised and a section on "microbial mechanisms for sustainable crop production in challenging soils" was included in the review.

Comment 3: The review also lacks clear, reasoned conclusions that could be useful in practice.

Response 3: The conclusion was revised to give more practical conclusions and recommendations that can be useful in practice.

Comment 4: I suggest looking at the following references.

Response 4: The references provided were useful and the authors thank the recommendation by the reviewer.