All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Your changes are sufficient for your manuscript to be accepted. Congratulations
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The Section Editor noted:
> Please note that the abstract on page 1 still erroneously says 24 treatments and has not been updated with added sentences while the abstract on page 2 contains the appropriate corrections. I wondered why the word "Preliminary" was used in the title. This was not explained in the text and I think "Preliminary" could be deleted from the title (or the reason for describing it as "Preliminary" could be discussed in the text.
1) Abstract L 33 – This experiment did not have 24 treatments; there were 8 treatments: 4 water treatments X 2 soil treatments (with or without AMF) = 8 total treatments.
2) The hypothesis is that AMF can enhance drought tolerance but the abstract only summarized overall effects of AMF on growth (independent of water treatment). It is important that the Abstract concisely convey whether the hypothesis was supported while providing summary evidence for this from key Results.
3) Methods – Since 5 seeds were planted in each pot, is the plant weight shown in the Results summed for 5 plants in a pot? Please clarify how “plant weight” for each pot was determined if there were multiple plants in each pot, so that this work is repeatable.
4) Figures 2-5 The font size used for labels on some of these graphs is microscopic and will likely not be legible to readers. Can the label font size be increased?
5) Figure 7 – For published micrographs, it is standard practice to include a scale bar. Can scale bars be added?
I appreciate your efforts to improve your manuscript, but the following corrections must be made before it can be accepted. You should go through your manuscript carefully and remove all spelling mistakes.
Correct what is written in different font sizes throughout the text.
Line 90: “understanding” should start with a lower case letter. Because you wrote it after “therefore,”.
Line 100-105: please edit. Don't mention the method when you write the purpose. Delete lines 100-105 completely. You can write “This study tested the validity of our hypothesis by examining the effects of Funneliformis mosseae AMF inoculation on plant growth, mineral element content and EOs yield of O. onites under drought stress.”
Line 128: Did you start the drought treatments from the time the plants were planted or after a certain period of time? Clarify this.
Line 130: “growth and yield analyses” is not a correct statement. Write “plants were harvested for the analyses detailed below”
Line 181-183: write the abbreviations for the elements.
Line 190: write the abbreviation “plant fresh weights”
Line 206-210: Give the changed values for EOs. Highest, lowest.
Line 216-217-217-221-221-226-227-229-230-263: give abbreviations of elements.
Line 247: The title “statistical analyses” is not appropriate. ANOVA is also a statistical analysis. Change it to “correlations and principal components analysis”.
Line 252: abbreviation for (F and SN). I don't remember you explaining this before.
Line 278-279: You have already abbreviated “plant fresh and dry weight”. Check all abbreviations throughout the text. If you want to abbreviate them, explain them the first time they appear and then just write them as abbreviations. One abbreviated and one long version makes a scientific paper look sloppy.
Line 305: Replace “water use” with “irrigation level”.
Line 346: “salt stress”? Are you sure? Could it be “drought”?
Line 356-393: I'm not sure if this fits here, it's more like a conclusion. It should be edited. You should also write discussion sentences about your correlations and PCA findings. Why those features might be related to each other.
Line 406: correct “O. inites”.
In the conclusions section, suggest a suitable and economical irrigation level to produce the most productive and high quality oregano with mycorrhiza application. Since your study lacks analyses to explain a complete drought tolerance mechanism, it would be better to write how mycorrhiza treatments contribute to the changes in growth, mineral content and EOs of oregano at different irrigation levels.
It is also essential that the manuscript is proofread in English by a proficient speaker.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
*The manuscript now exhibits improved readability and clarity.
*The introduction has been refined for better structure and fluency.
*Long, dense sentences have been simplified.
*Grammar and typographical errors have been corrected.
*The background section now better justifies the study’s novelty by highlighting the gap in research on Origanum onites and AMF interactions.
*Older references have been replaced with more recent studies, improving the study's relevance.
*The figures and tables have been improved in quality and are appropriately labeled.
*Missing figure citations have been addressed.
*The experimental setup is now clearer with the addition of a flowchart.
*Additional soil characteristics (texture, pH, and organic matter content) have been added to the Greenhouse Experimental Setup section.
*The rationale for selecting Funneliformis mosseae has been explained.
*The protocol for determining essential oil content has been specified and supported with a reference.
*The sequence of parameters in Materials & Methods, Results, and Discussion sections has been standardized.
*The factorial design and statistical analysis remain robust and well-documented.
*The discussion of statistical analyses has been improved for clarity.
*The interaction effects between irrigation levels and AMF treatment, particularly regarding essential oil content and nutrient uptake, have been better explained.
*The discussion now contextualizes results in comparison to findings from similar studies on medicinal and aromatic plants under stress conditions.
*The revised manuscript includes an expanded discussion on the implications of the study for sustainable agriculture and commercial oregano production.
*The potential scalability of AMF inoculation in field conditions has been discussed, including economic feasibility concerns.
*The authors have added a section discussing the broader implications of AMF use for sustainable agriculture.
*Suggestions for future research, including long-term field trials and exploring different AMF strains, have been introduced.
*The abstract now includes specific data on observed increases/decreases in plant parameters.
*Keywords have been added and alphabetized.
*Formatting inconsistencies have been corrected.
*References now follow the PeerJ guidelines.
No
No
No
Please italicize the O. onites in Abstract background.
I have examined in detail the study titled "Preliminary evaluation of Funneliformis mosseae inoculation effects on growth, nutrient uptake, and essential oil content in Turkish oregano under drought stress" sent to me for evaluation. The authors have significantly improved the study by taking into account the deficiencies and suggestions for improvement that I have indicated during the initial evaluation process. Below, I present my evaluations and general opinion regarding each section of the article.
Abstract: The abstract section has been made clearer and more understandable with the changes made. Introduction: The purpose, method, main findings and results of the study are clearly summarized.
The authors have expanded the introduction section as suggested by me during the previous evaluation process. The place and importance of the study in the literature has been emphasized more clearly. References: The list of references has been largely corrected and updated. Missing or incorrectly cited sources appear to have been corrected.
Meterial and Methods: In this section, the explanation of the methods used has been made more detailed and their comprehensibility has been increased. In particular, the explanations regarding the experimental design and statistical analyses are satisfactory.
Results: The findings section is better structured compared to the previous version. Significant improvements have been made in terms of presentation and interpretation of data. The discussion section has been made more comprehensive by strengthening the links to the literature.
Conclusion: The results section has been made clearer and more consistent with the findings of the study. Practical recommendations and the contribution of the study to the field are clearly stated.
In general, the authors have improved the study in accordance with my previous comments. The study has reached a sufficient level of scientific knowledge and is satisfactory in terms of method, data analysis and presentation of results. In this context, I recommend that the article be accepted for publication.
Your manuscript needs major revisions - please refer to the reviewer reports and respond appropriately
The manuscript is well-structured and written in clear, professional English. The authors have successfully provided a comprehensive background on Turkish oregano (Origanum onites L.) and the significance of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) under drought conditions. Relevant literature is cited appropriately, supporting the context and rationale for the study. Figures and tables are of high quality, labeled clearly, and effectively illustrate the findings.
Suggestions:
-Improve the clarity of certain dense sentences in the introduction (e.g., lines 44–50) to enhance readability.
-Add a brief explanation of the novelty of the study compared to similar prior research on AMF and drought stress.
The study addresses an important research gap by investigating the synergistic effects of AMF and drought stress on Turkish oregano. The experimental design is robust, employing a factorial approach with clear differentiation between irrigation levels and AMF treatments. The methods are described in sufficient detail to allow replication, including greenhouse conditions, AMF inoculation, and nutrient analysis procedures.
Suggestions:
-Provide additional details on the soil characteristics used in the experiment, such as pH, organic matter content, and texture.
-Include a flowchart or diagram of the experimental setup to further clarify the factorial design.
-Explain the rationale for using Funneliformis mosseae as the chosen AMF species, considering its potential advantages over other strains.
The findings are well-supported by statistical analysis, and the manuscript includes detailed results on plant growth, nutrient uptake, and essential oil content. The use of correlation and principal component analyses effectively highlights the relationships among variables.
Suggestions:
-Expand on the interpretation of the interaction effects between irrigation levels and AMF treatment, particularly for essential oil content and iron accumulation.
-Include a discussion on the broader implications of these findings for sustainable agriculture and commercial oregano production.
The manuscript provides valuable insights into the role of AMF in enhancing drought tolerance and nutrient efficiency in medicinal plants. The conclusions are well-supported by the data and align with the study’s objectives.
Suggestions:
-Discuss potential scalability of AMF inoculation in field conditions and its economic feasibility for farmers.
-Highlight future research directions, such as long-term field trials or exploration of other AMF strains.
-Incorporate a comparative discussion with other medicinal and aromatic plants studied under similar stress conditions.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Authors of the manuscript “Preliminary evaluation of Funneliformis mosseae inoculation effects on growth, nutrient uptake, and essential oil content in Turkish oregano under drought stress” revealed that the AMF inoculation significantly improved the fresh and dry weight as well as potassium, nitrogen, sodium, and iron contents, however some nutrients like calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium levels remained unchanged. The essential oil ratio was also significantly higher in AMF-Inoculated plants. Additionally, increasing water stress levels significantly decreased the number of AMF spores and the percentage of fungal colonization .
It is an interesting study. However, authors need to address the following issues:
1. Please add the implication of this research.
2. Please add data in results section of abstract.
3. Please add keywords in the manuscript. (And rearrange keywords in alphabetical order, available at online section).
4. Introduction: The introduction and background are reasonable. Some modifications must be incorporated.
A) Please delete unnecessary detail from the introduction section.
B) Some references used in introduction sections are very old; it is better to replace with latest ones.
5. Methodology:
A) Please provide the protocol/reference used to determine essential oils ratio.
6. Results: Clearly explained, however please avoid discussing the results in this section, like suggesting that.... or indicating that.....
B) Please follow the same sequence of all parameters throughout the manuscript (Materials and methods, results and discussion section)
C) Figures should be in High Resolution.
Discussion: There is a lack of mechanistic approach. Improve discussion with the help of logics and further relevant recent literature.
B) All scientific names should be italicised (L # 329, 330, 356 etc).
C) In line 343, please remove typo error.
D) Line 346, please provide references of that literature.
8. Conclusions: The contents of this section are appropriate.
9. References: Check the reference formatting manually, there are a lot of errors. Keep uniformity among references. Please add recent references.
*The introduction is well written but too long. It needs to be shortened a bit.
*There is no complete narrative connection between the 3rd, 4th and 5th paragraphs in the introduction. *The narrative should be connected to each other for a fluent understanding of the subject.
*The spelling errors in lines 52, 62, 63, 65, 85, 97, 121, 221, 222, 256, 289, 303 and 343 should be corrected.
*All Latin names in the article should be written in italics.
*The reference section has not been prepared according to the PeerJ rules. It should be rewritten, especially paying attention to the italicization of Latin names.
*Figures 4 and 5 are not cited in the text.
*The given references are sufficient.
*Tables and figures are well prepared.
The research methods, the trial design and the examined features are well selected and explained.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated.
The introduction is written in accordance with the grammatical rules. However, the integrity of the subject is not fully achieved.
Writing rules and necessary corrections should be made. I believe that the subject is up-to-date and will contribute to the literature
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.