Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Your paper is interesting, well written. Please harmonize the technical work with the requirements of the journal.
Best Regards
Author Response
Comment 1:- Please harmonize the technical work with the requirements of the journal.
Response 1:- As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, I have made changes in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper provides a comprehensive overview of the crucial role that plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) play in promoting plant growth and enhancing agricultural sustainability. The review highlights various mechanisms through which PGPR exert their beneficial effects on plants, including nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone secretion, and enhancement of plant tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses.
One of the strengths of the paper is its discussion of the multifaceted ecological and practical functions of PGPR in the rhizosphere. The authors effectively outline how PGPR contribute to soil health and fertility, reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and enhance nutrient availability and absorption by plants. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the role of PGPR in promoting plant growth through the synthesis of phytohormones and other metabolites, as well as their ability to bolster a plant's natural defenses against phytopathogens.
Overall, this paper effectively underscores the ecological and economic benefits of employing PGPR for sustainable agriculture, including improved crop yield, decreased environmental pollution, and enhanced food security. However, it would be beneficial if the paper could provide more specific examples or case studies to support its claims and illustrate the practical applications of PGPR in real-world agricultural settings. Additionally, further exploration of the challenges and limitations associated with the use of PGPR, as well as potential future research directions, could enhance the comprehensiveness of the review.
additionally, more data in tables should be added to make comprehensive tables. Also more review of literature should be added since the number of cited references are enough in present.
Author Response
Ref:
New Title of the manuscript “Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review, have been revised as per comments and suggestions of the learned reviewers and members of the editorial boards. Our explanation on corrections and modification are as follows-
Reviewer 2
As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 2, the statements have been rectified as under-
Comment 1:- This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the crucial role that plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) play in promoting plant growth and enhancing agricultural sustainability. The review highlights various mechanisms through which PGPR exert their beneficial effects on plants, including nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, hormone secretion, and enhancement of plant tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses.
One of the strengths of the paper is its discussion of the multifaceted ecological and practical functions of PGPR in the rhizosphere. The authors effectively outline how PGPR contribute to soil health and fertility, reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and enhance nutrient availability and absorption by plants. Additionally, the paper emphasizes the role of PGPR in promoting plant growth through the synthesis of phytohormones and other metabolites, as well as their ability to bolster a plant's natural defenses against phytopathogens.
Overall, this paper effectively underscores the ecological and economic benefits of employing PGPR for sustainable agriculture, including improved crop yield, decreased environmental pollution, and enhanced food security. However, it would be beneficial if the paper could provide more specific examples or case studies to support its claims and illustrate the practical applications of PGPR in real-world agricultural settings. Additionally, further exploration of the challenges and limitations associated with the use of PGPR, as well as potential future research directions, could enhance the comprehensiveness of the review.
additionally, more data in tables should be added to make comprehensive tables. Also more review of literature should be added since the number of cited references are enough in present
Response 1:- As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, I have made changes in the manuscript and added some more literature in it.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript, entitled "Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review", publishes information on the beneficial qualities of rhizosphere bacteria, with a focus on applied fields such as agriculture. The text is written with semantic errors, often without references to literary sources. It is necessary to add a Discussion chapter in which the authors can present their thoughts without references. The narrative is consistent, the conclusions are generally based on the postulates mentioned in the article. The graphic illustrations are satisfactory. The number of references to literary sources is sufficient. It is necessary to align the text with the links so that it is clear which articles the authors refer to. It is also desirable to deepen the study of the material, provide more detailed data. In some places, the authors use only general phrases. The article is recommended for adoption after significant revision.
1) Line 161. It is better to place the title and the text of the chapter on the same page.
2) Lines 355 and 481. There is too much free space at the end of the page that is not occupied by the text.
3) Lines 604-606 seem to be written in a larger font than lines 607-608. In general, the text in the References list is written in fonts of different sizes.
4) The captions to Tables 1 and 2 are written in a font different from the font of the text of the article.
5) It is advisable to place Table 2 slightly to the right so that it is in the center of the page.
6) Lines 53-54. The phrase "our requirements" is not quite successfully applied. It is better to replace it with "requirements of environmentalists" or "principles of sustainable development".
7) Lines 61-63. The phrase "environmentally friendly" occurs twice in this sentence. It is advisable to preface it.
8) Line 64. The phrase "the crop benefits in many ways" is used unsuccessfully here. You can replace it, for example, with the phrase "the benefits for the crop are achieved in many ways."
9) Lines 91-93. A hard-to-understand sentence.
10) Lines 109-110. It is not clear what was meant by the phrase "each of these regions".
11) Line 133. Apparently, "competing" was meant instead of "comparable".
12) Lines 122-150. The text is not supported by references to literature sources.
13) Line 137. This short sentence is not related in meaning to either the previous one or the subsequent one.
14) Line 139. Pesticides are essentially a substance, and bacteria are living organisms. The meaning is clear, but this is not a very good comparison.
15) Line 152. The authors write at the beginning of the article that PGPR are microorganisms. And here they claim that PGPR is secreted by rhizobacteria. We need to decide what we are talking about – microorganisms or substances?
16) Lines 161-164. Information that is not supported by references to literary sources.
17) Line 167. Here we mean the element nitrogen, you should write "N". "N2" is the molecular formula of atmospheric nitrogen. When they say that plants need nitrogen, they mean an element, and plants need it only in a convenient form, for example, in the form of nitrates. Plants do not need molecular nitrogen. They don't assimilate it. This is a semantic mistake.
18) Line 222. What is AMF? There is no transcription of this abbreviation in the text. Is this Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi?
19) Lines 298-301. It is advisable to rephrase the sentence or divide it into two, for easier perception.
20) Sub-chapter 3.1.6., apparently, refers more to indirect mechanisms, that is, to Chapter 3.2.
21) Lines 371-373. Pseudomonas, Bacillus and other taxonomic units are not families, but genera. And they don't "produce" species. They include different types of bacteria.
22) Lines 382-384. In an article by Mahmood et al. there is a lot of other information about exopolysaccharides. It is advisable to deepen the topic a little and add details. The authors used only one non-meaningful sentence with reference to this source.
23) Lines 399-400. Perhaps these substances should not be called antibiotics, but bactericides?
24) Lines 403-405. Processes… work together. Please rephrase it.
25) Line 403: "soil organic material production"; line 404: "breaking down organic matter into minerals". These are essentially opposite processes that are mentioned in relation to bacteria. I think PGPR are still reducers, especially since the authors previously wrote that they use organic matter, completely relying on its influx from the outside, that is, from plants. Therefore, organic material production is an unnecessary phrase.
26) Line 408. The expression "soil health" is quite colloquial.
27) Line 431. It is not clear what "adjust the atmosphere's N2" means. It may seem that this refers to the correction of the gas composition of the atmosphere. It is better to replace the phrase with a more specific one.
28) Lines 487-506. A large piece of text is confirmed by only one reference to a literary source.
29) Lines 519-547. A large piece of text without references to literary sources.
30) Lines 551-553. The phrase "increased sustainability among farmers" needs to be replaced. It seems that we are talking about farmers – people engaged in agriculture. Apparently, the authors had something else in mind.
31) Line 563. In conclusion, the authors mention metal nanoparticles, which were not mentioned in the main text of the article.
Author Response
Ref:
New Title of the manuscript “Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review, have been revised as per comments and suggestions of the learned reviewers and members of the editorial boards. Our explanation on corrections and modification are as follows-
Reviewer 3
As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 3, the statements have been rectified as under-
Comment 1: Line 161. It is better to place the title and the text of the chapter on the same page.
Response 1: As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer, i have kept the title and the text on the same page, but due to difference of the PC windows the format is getting change.
Comment 2: Lines 355 and 481. There is too much free space at the end of the page that is not occupied by the text.
Response 2: As per the kind suggestion I have removed the space.
Comment 3: Lines 604-606 seem to be written in a larger font than lines 607-608. In general, the text in the References list is written in fonts of different sizes.
Response 3: As per the kind suggestion, I have changed the font size.
Comment 4: The captions to Tables 1 and 2 are written in a font different from the font of the text of the article.
Response 4: As per the kind suggestion, I have changed the font of both the tables.
Comment 5: It is advisable to place Table 2 slightly to the right so that it is in the center of the page.
Response 5: As per the kind suggestion, I have placed the table in the center
Comment 6: Lines 53-54. The phrase "our requirements" is not quite successfully applied. It is better to replace it with "requirements of environmentalists" or "principles of sustainable development".
Response 6: As per the suggestion, I have changed the phrase.
Comment 7: Lines 61-63. The phrase "environmentally friendly" occurs twice in this sentence. It is advisable to preface it.
Response 7: As per the suggestion, I have prefaced the entire sentence.
Comment 8: Line 64. The phrase "the crop benefits in many ways" is used unsuccessfully here. You can replace it, for example, with the phrase "the benefits for the crop are achieved in many ways."
Response 8: I have prefaced the entire sentence.
Comment 9: Lines 91-93. A hard-to-understand sentence.
Response 9: As per the suggestion I have changed the sentence.
Comment 10: Lines 109-110. It is not clear what was meant by the phrase "each of these regions".
Response 10: As per the suggestion, I have prefaced the sentence.
Comment 11: Line 133. Apparently, "competing" was meant instead of "comparable".
Response 11: As per the suggestion, I have changed the word.
Comment 12: Lines 122-150. The text is not supported by references to literature sources.
Response 12: As per the kind suggestion, I have supported the sentence with references.
Comment 13: Line 137. This short sentence is not related in meaning to either the previous one or the subsequent one.
Response 13: As per the kind suggestion I have changed the sentence
Comment 14: Line 139. Pesticides are essentially a substance, and bacteria are living organisms. The meaning is clear, but this is not a very good comparison.
Response 14: As per the kind suggestion I have made changes in the sentence.
Comment 15: Line 152. The authors write at the beginning of the article that PGPR are microorganisms. And here they claim that PGPR is secreted by rhizobacteria. We need to decide what we are talking about – microorganisms or substances?
Response 15: As per the kind suggestion I have made changes in the sentence.
Comment 16: Lines 161-164. Information that is not supported by references to literary sources.
Response 16: As per the kind suggestion, I have supported the sentence with references.
Comment 17: Line 167. Here we mean the element nitrogen, you should write "N". "N2" is the molecular formula of atmospheric nitrogen. When they say that plants need nitrogen, they mean an element, and plants need it only in a convenient form, for example, in the form of nitrates. Plants do not need molecular nitrogen. They don't assimilate it. This is a semantic mistake.
Response 17: As per the kind suggestion I have made changes in the sentences.
Comment 18: Line 222. What is AMF? There is no transcription of this abbreviation in the text. Is this Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi?
Response 18: I have prefaced the entire sentence.
Comment 19: Lines 298-301. It is advisable to rephrase the sentence or divide it into two, for easier perception.
Response 19: I have rephrased the entire sentence.
Comment 20: Sub-chapter 3.1.6., apparently, refers more to indirect mechanisms, that is, to Chapter 3.2.
Response 20: As per the kind suggestion, I have shifted sub-chapter 3.1.6 to the indirect mechanisms.
Comment 21: Lines 371-373. Pseudomonas, Bacillus and other taxonomic units are not families, but genera. And they don't "produce" species. They include different types of bacteria.
Response 21: As per the kind suggestion, I have made the changes accordingly.
Comment 22: Lines 382-384. In an article by Mahmood et al. there is a lot of other information about exopolysaccharides. It is advisable to deepen the topic a little and add details. The authors used only one non-meaningful sentence with reference to this source.
Response 22: As per the kind suggestion, I have added some more literature.
Comment 23: Lines 399-400. Perhaps these substances should not be called antibiotics, but bactericides?
Response 23: As per the kind suggestion, I have made changes accordingly.
Comment 24: Lines 403-405. Processes… work together. Please rephrase it.
Response 24: I have rephrased the entire sentence.
Comment 25: Line 403: "soil organic material production"; line 404: "breaking down organic matter into minerals". These are essentially opposite processes that are mentioned in relation to bacteria. I think PGPR are still reducers, especially since the authors previously wrote that they use organic matter, completely relying on its influx from the outside, that is, from plants. Therefore, organic material production is an unnecessary phrase.
Response 25: As per the kind suggestion, I have made changes accordingly.
Comment 26: Line 408. The expression "soil health" is quite colloquial.
Response 26: As per the kind suggestion, I have changed the word.
Comment 27: Line 431. It is not clear what "adjust the atmosphere's N2" means. It may seem that this refers to the correction of the gas composition of the atmosphere. It is better to replace the phrase with a more specific one.
Response 27: As per the kind suggestion, I have made changes accordingly
Comment 28: Lines 487-506. A large piece of text is confirmed by only one reference to a literary source.
Response 28: As per the kind suggestion, I have supported the text with references.
Comment 29: Lines 519-547. A large piece of text without references to literary sources.
Response 29: As per the kind suggestion, I have supported the text with references
Comment 30: Lines 551-553. The phrase "increased sustainability among farmers" needs to be replaced. It seems that we are talking about farmers – people engaged in agriculture. Apparently, the authors had something else in mind.
Response 30: As per the kind suggestion, I have made changes in it.
Comment 31: Line 563. In conclusion, the authors mention metal nanoparticles, which were not mentioned in the main text of the article
Response 31: As per the kind suggestion, I have made changes in it.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors!
Thank you for the time you took to improve the text of the article.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review manuscript " Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review" targeted the agricultural field. Some ambiguities should be considered. They emphasized the potential of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) in strengthening plant tolerance to biotic and abiotic challenges, minimizing the reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and augmenting nutrient availability, soil fertility, and nutrient uptake.
After minor revision, this manuscript can be accepted.
Please answer the following comments in detail:
1. Abstract can be up to 200 words. The author wrote the abstract very short. It should be improved.
2. The introduction is very poor and should be improved. Nowadays, PGPRs are the main portion of sustainable agriculture. There are recently comprehensive publications in this context. The authors need to broadly discuss the potential of PGPR in sustainable agriculture in enhancing plant growth and reducing biotic and abiotic stresses. In this regard, the authors should discuss and cite proper papers such as: DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11050846
3. Is Figure 3 drawn by the author? If No, please mention its reference.
4. It is recommended that authors mention future prospects for future studies before the conclusion or in the merge with the conclusion
5. It is recommended that authors update old references, if possible.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English language is acceptable
Minor editing of the English language required
Author Response
As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, the statements have been rectified as under-
Comment 1:- Abstract can be up to 200 words. The author wrote the abstract very short. It should be improved.
Response 1:- As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, I have improved abstract in the manuscript.
Comment 2:- The introduction is very poor and should be improved. Nowadays, PGPRs are the main portion of sustainable agriculture. There are recently comprehensive publications in this context. The authors need to broadly discuss the potential of PGPR in sustainable agriculture in enhancing plant growth and reducing biotic and abiotic stresses. In this regard, the authors should discuss and cite proper papers such as: DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11050846.
Response 2:- As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, I have improved introduction.
Comment 3:- Is Figure 3 drawn by the author? If No, please mention its reference
Response 3:- Yes, it is drawn.
Comment 4:- It is recommended that authors mention future prospects for future studies before the conclusion or in the merge with the conclusion
Response 4:- As per the kind suggestions of the reviewer 1, I have merged future prospects along with conclusion
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
After reviewing the manuscript entitled "Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) as a Plant Growth Enhancer for Sustainable Agriculture: A Review", I wish to express the following:
There are minor formatting errors (e.g., citations) that the authors should address. The aim of the manuscript is not stated and the conclusions are very extensive.
It is undoubtedly a good review, well written and organised, which clearly shows the importance of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPR) as a sustainable alternative to address the problems of chemical fertiliser use and sustainable food production in 2050. However, I am very concerned that there are numerous reviews just like this one, for example: (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms11041088; 10.3390/molecules21050573; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fsufs.2021.667150; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111118). I did not clearly see what the contribution of this review was to the scientific community. Nor did I see a critique of PGPR or anything of the sort, nor did it address innovative aspects that could improve the effect of PGPR in the field, to cite one example of many that could give the manuscript a "plus".
My decision is reconsider after major revision, but if the authors include a modified manuscript, which brings something new to the issue, I will gladly revise it thoroughly again.
Best regards,
Author Response
Comment 1:- There are minor formatting errors (e.g., citations) that the authors should address. The aim of the manuscript is not stated and the conclusions are very extensive.
Response 1:- As per the kind suggestion of the reviewer 2 , I have improved minor formatting errors, manuscript aims and conclusion.
Comment 2:- It is undoubtedly a good review, well written and organised, which clearly shows the importance of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPR) as a sustainable alternative to address the problems of chemical fertiliser use and sustainable food production in 2050. However, I am very concerned that there are numerous reviews just like this one, for example: (https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms11041088;10.3390/molecules21050573; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fsufs.2021.667150; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111118). I did not clearly see what the contribution of this review was to the scientific community. Nor did I see a critique of PGPR or anything of the sort, nor did it address innovative aspects that could improve the effect of PGPR in the field, to cite one example of many that could give the manuscript a "plus".
Response 2:- As per the kind suggestion of the reviewer 2, I have improved to all scientific contributions of this review.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Athors:
Unfortunately the manuscript did not improve on the Journal formatting as well as what I requested in my previous review. I will explain below: although the authors did indeed enrich the conclusions with the following information:
Nanomaterials, biosensors, and nanofertilizers are just a few examples of the ways in which recent developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology have influenced the agricultural industry. Through the application of genetic manipulation, better or more original PGPR strains can be created. PGPR-biotechnologies are effective, sustainable, and environmentally friendly in dealing with plant stresses. Developed nations like the United States, China, and Japan are using nanotechnology to improve agricultural output. In order to satisfy the demands of its growing population, India will need to greatly increase its use of biotechnological products.
This is not sufficient to accept the manuscript, since these issues are not discussed in depth, but only superficially. The rest of the information is already written in numerous reviews. If the authors wish to publish on this topic, they should delve deeper into the topics they addressed at the end of the manuscript. I know that means rewriting the article, so I would suggest you to rewrite the article under the characteristics I suggest and resubmission.
Sincerely,
