Comments on abstract, title, references

The objective is clear, the study was developed in a pertinent way to the methods proposed in the appropriate scenarios, my criticism goes to the evaluation of mycorrhization in temporality, the title can be improved, it is unclear about the research carried out. The references are relevant, although some are not so reliable, the format of the journal has been correctly referenced. If you include key works in your state of the art.

Comments on introduction/background

The authors make clear the issue of salinity led to soil sodification, this leaves aside the intervention of other types of ions that can lead to alkalinity of soils and their elects in plants in general. It is clear that microorganisms play an important role in abiotic stress mitigation and he mentions many plants as evidence of the questionable, which is a positive aspect. It also focuses in a subtle way on the direct benefits, it would have been more advisable to deepen why inoculate if these are already present in the soils and see from the point of view of microbial consortium. The research question is posed partially correct, the doubt remains that they can be inoculated naturally and can respond in the same way in real conditions.

Comments on methodology

The biological material selection process was correct starting from seeds, the variables are adequately defined, and defined according to the equipment used, the methodologies are validated with replicates according to the variables defined to contract the results. To validate the studies and it could be partially trusted since for each method there may be a percentage of error and uncertainty, the measurements were taken 25 days after the treatment, a progressive measurement was not taken to observe the saline increase. There are indeed enough details to replicate the essay.

Comments on data and results

The data if presented in an adequate, orderly and systematic way, although it should be improved in specifying and clarifying the ideas to give each result, since it can provide a misinterpretation to the reader, it must indicate why they are higher and why they are low , referring to what. The figures are clearly identified, although they are not well described, it could be improved in that aspect, in table 1 a total with two decimal places is shown and the rest with 1 decimal must be homogeneous, unless the journal requires it in such Format. Titles are descriptive and properly labeled. The content of salt in the substrate is very basic, its increase over time should have been analyzed, it is a bit repetitive with the content in the tables and figures, bioaccumulation and translocation of the element must have been evaluated to follow the level of absorption of Foliar and root absorption, if they have significant differences, if it is clear what a statistically significant result is.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

Indeed, the effect of salinity in plant tissues of the species under study is discussed from different points of life. If you answer, however, the discussion is a bit confusing since it repeats the objectives set for research can confuse the reader, you must be more careful in the expressions, it is mentioned that the slight exposure to salinity affects the species, and you should note a parameter maximum tolerance to carry out the test since it is not clear if it is due to tolerance or the use of microorganisms in the form of a consortium, initially it is assumed as individual tests which provides false and confusing expectations, they are supported with non-references. However, the coherence of the work must be improved, the limitations of the study are confusing, the conclusions leave more questions than doubts or research opportunities since it refers to field conditions, when the analysis should be under controlled conditions. For a field study, it should start from the beginning with a study of communities with quasi-experimental and multifactorial trials.