Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254076

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

Masoumeh Khalvandi 1,*, Mohammadreza Amerian 1, Hematollah Pirdashti 2, Sara Keramati 2
Editor: Mayank Gururani3
PMCID: PMC8270468  PMID: 34242262

Abstract

Symbiotic associations with endophytic fungi are ecologically important for medicinal and aromatic plants. Endophytic fungi highly affect the quantity and quality of herbal products. In this study, a pot experiment was carried out in the greenhouse to investigate the interactive effects of Piriformospora indica and arbuscular mycorrhizal (AMF) inoculation on the chlorophyll fluorescence, essential oil composition, and antioxidant enzymes of peppermint under saline condition. The results showed that Fo, YNPQ, YNO, and NPQ values were obviously increased under salinity conditions, while essential oil content, chlorophyll a and b, gs, Fm, Fv, ETR, ФPSII and Fv/Fm ratio decreased by increasing salinity. In addition, salt induced the excess Na+ uptake, whereas the opposite trend was observed for P and K+. The synergistic association of P. indica and AMF caused a considerable increase in the antioxidant ability, essential oil content, Fv/Fm ratio, ФPSII, and amount of P and K+ uptake in salt-stressed plants. The main peppermint oil constituents, menthol, menthone, and 1,8-cineole increased considerably in inoculated plants. Besides, the applied endophytic fungi positively enhanced the ability of peppermint to alleviate the negative effect of the salinity stress.

1. Introduction

Mentha piperita is one of the most important medicinal plants of Lamiaceae family, the demand of which has grown dramatically in recent decades. The essential oil of peppermint is widely used in food, fragrance, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries [1, 2]. It is evident that the essential oil contains a high proportion of cytotoxic, antioxidant, and anti-microbial compounds with health‐beneficial effects such as antifungal effects, cancer prevention activities as well as scavenging of reactive oxygen species (ROS) activity because of its valuable constituents [1, 3, 4]. The sustainability of medicinal plants’ yield is negatively affected by salt stress in many parts of the world [5]. Salinity causes a broad range of physiological changes in plants, induces impairments of metabolic processes, such as photosynthesis, pigment synthesis, secondary metabolite accumulation, destruction of the chloroplast and thylakoid systems, and inhibits the photosystem II (PSII) activity, which results in the excess accumulation of ROS [6, 7]. In this regard, chlorophyll fluorescence is widely used to detect plant physiological status and to determine photosynthetic damage under various stresses, because the same can show the integrity of the thylakoid membrane, the quantum yield of photosystem II (PSII), and the balance between the metabolism process and energy production [8, 9]. It has been proved that salinity has a negative effect on the photochemical efficiency of PSII as shown by chlorophyll fluorescence parameters such as qP, ΦPSII, and Fv/Fm [10, 11]. In this regard, previous research showed that salt stress reduced the quantum yield of photosystem II; whereas, it increased non-photochemical extinction in lettuce plants [10], and decreased the ratio of the quantum yield of actual PSII photochemistry in durum wheat [12]. Monoterpenes play an important role in plants’ response to environmental stresses. Nevertheless, there are few studies focusing on the relationship between terpene biosynthesis and the efficiency of PSII. Terpenoid biosynthesis patterns are mostly affected by photosynthetic carbon assimilation and partly regulated by environmental stresses [13, 14]. There are also some reports about the anti-stress activity of monoterpenes in plants under stressful conditions. For example, it has been reported that the Monoterpenes in Quercus ilex can improve membrane integrity by ROS-scavenging, photoprotective, and thermotolerance roles [15, 16].

Applying plant beneficial rhizospheric microorganisms (PBRMs) like symbiotic fungi is an important environmental strategy to overcome the deleterious effects of salinity stress, and to improve plants’ yield and performance. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Piriformospora indica (also named as Sebacinales indica) are two of these beneficial endophytic fungi which increase plant resistance to various environmental stresses through a wide range of mechanisms; mechanisms such as stimulating the immune system of plants [17, 18], promoting nutrient uptake [19], and stimulating root growth [20]. It is believed that symbiotic relationship with P. indica can help to ameliorate photo-oxidative damages to PSII and electron transfer chain [21], also, it increases the synthesis of secondary metabolites in various plants [22, 23]. Several studies have shown that symbiotic relationship with P. indica can stimulate the human health-promoting compounds synthesis in various plants. For example: podophyllotoxins in Linum album, thymol and carvacrol in Thymus vulgaris, menthol in Mentha piperita [24], and estragole in Ocimum basilicum, pharmaceutically useful compounds [25, 26]. Moreover, it can reduce undesirable compounds for human nutrition, such as erucic acid and glycosylates contents in Brassica napus [27].

The present study aims to investigate the hypothesis that co-inoculation of AMF and P. indica can protect peppermint plants against adverse effects of the salt stress through modifying some physio-biochemical characteristics.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Growth conditions

Plants were grown in the greenhouse at Genetics and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute of Tabarestan at Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University. A factorial experiment was carried out in a completely randomized design with three replications. Plants were treated with four levels of fungal inoculation including no-inoculation (control), Piriformospora indica (P. indica), Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), and co-inoculation with P. indica and AMF (P. indica + AMF) under four salinity levels including 0, 3, 6 and 9 dSm−1 (the Caspian Sea water and distilled water mixture was used for irrigation) (Table 1). In order to reach each level of salinity stress: determined amount of the Caspian Sea water and distilled water were mixed and then the desired salinity was determined by EC meter. Mycorrhiza fungi inoculum (consisted of spores in a sand and mycorrhizal roots mixture) was prepared from Turan Biotechnology Company, Shahrood, Iran. The Piriformospora indica culture was kindly gifted by Prof. Karl-Heinz Kogel, Institute of Phytopathology and Applied Zoology, University of Giessen, Germany. P. indica was cultured in liquid Kafer’s medium at 24°C for 10 days [28]. 10 g of Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum (with a density of 120 active spores per gram) and 10 ml of Piriformospora indica suspension (1× 109) were added to the pots. Peppermint rhizomes were planted in plastic pots, and were irrigated with saline water after four weeks of planting. Plant physiological measurements and sampling for the desired traits were carried out after two months of planting in all plants. The roots were bleached in a solution of KOH 10%, they were painted, using 5% solution of ink and vinegar. Then, 40 pieces of stained root were spread out in a Petri dish. The colonization percentage was measured by using the gridline intersects method optical microscope (10- 40X) [2931].

Table 1. Chemical analysis of Caspian Sea water [18].

parameter unit amount
EC dS m-1 15
pH - 8.2
sodium ppm 376.48
potassium ppm 77.11
calcium ppm 17
magnesium ppm 54.5

2.2. Physiological parameters

Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured in the last fully developed leaf by using pulse amplitude modulated fluorometer (PAM-2500, Walz, Germany). First, leaves were placed in darkness for 30 minutes using specific leaf clamps. The samples were exposed to low-intensity light [< 0.1 μmol (photon) m−2 s−1, red light]. Then, a saturating light pulse [> 8,000 μmol (photon) m−2 s−1, white light) was turned on for 1 s (one pulse). The minimum fluorescence (Fo) and maximum fluorescence (Fm) were determined in dark-adapted leaves. The variable fluorescence (Fv) and maximum quantum photosystem II efficiency (Fv/Fm) were evaluated based on Eqs 1 and 2. and the effective photochemical quantum efficiency II [ФPSII], electron transfer rate [ETR, μmol(electron) m–2 s–1), non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), the quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation (YNPQ), and Quantum yield of non-regulated energy dissipation in PSII (Y (NO)) were calculated by using Eqs 3 and 6 [12].

Fv=FmFo 1)
Fv/Fm=(FmFo)/Fm 2)
ΦPSII=(FmF)/Fm 3)
NPQ=(Fm/Fm')1 4)
Y(NPQ)=(F/Fm')(F/Fm) 5)
Y(NO)=F/Fm 6)

F = steady-state fluorescenc

Fm’ = maximum fluorescence measured in light-exposed leaf samples.

Stomatal conductance (gs) was determined by using a porometer data. Chlorophyll a and b concentrations were calculated following Hameed et al. [32].

The minerals Na+ and K+, P in peppermint leaves were determined according to Ntatsi et al. [33]. The amount of K+, P and Na+ were assayed via an atomic absorption spectrophotometer, microplate spectrophotometer, and flame photometer, respectively.

Membrane permeability was monitored based on procedures described in Lutts et al. [34].

Essential oil extraction:

The essential oil of peppermint was extracted from dried leaves by using hydro-distillation in Clevenger’s apparatus. Chemical composition of peppermint essential oil (Fig 1) was analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) [18].

Fig 1. Mentha piperita essential oil chromatogram.

Fig 1

2.3. Statistical analysis

SAS (9.2) statistical program was used for statistical analysis and a mean between treatments was compared using an LSD (Least Significant Difference) test (P <0.05). Principal component analysis (PCA) and Heatmap was performed with the R language.

3. Results

Analysis of variance showed that salinity stress, P. indica, and AMF significantly affected all measured traits. According to the results, a significant two-way interaction was observed between salinity and inoculation treatment in essential oil, Na, membrane electrolyte leakage, Fv/Fm, ФPSII, Fo, and stomatal conductance (Tables 2 and 3); however, no significant Interaction was observed in other parameters. The main effects were significant for Fm, Fv, P, K, ETR, NPQ, Y(NPQ), Y(NO), chlorophyll a, and chlorophyll b (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2. Variance analysis of salinity and P. indica and AMF effects on measured chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of peppermint.

S.O.V df fo YII Fv/fm fm fv Y(NPQ) Y(NO) NPQ ETR
Replication 2 0.0017 0.00337 0.00116 0.7396 0.7337 0.0004 0.0011 0.0045 14.7708
Salinity (S) 3 0.6930** 0.14945** 0.09022** 13.4999** 20.2384** 0.0446** 0.0456** 0.3145** 300.055**
Fungi (F) 3 0.0412** 0.01461** 0.00362** 0.4269** 0.6231** 0.0054** 0.0031** 0.0153** 41.50**
S × F Interaction 9 0.0047** 0.00097** 0.00049** 0.1005ns 0.0988ns 0.0015 ns 0.0005ns 0.0042ns 3.7037 ns
Error 30 0.0015 0.00034 0.00013 0.0772 0.0736 0.00072 0.00026 0.0027 3.304
CV% 3.04 3.26 1.52 4.83 6.11 15.44 8.3 5.42 3.304

ns = no significant

* significant (P < 0.05)

** significant (P < 0.01)

Table 3. Variance analysis of salinity and P. indica and AMF effects on measured physiological and biochemical parameters of peppermint.

S.O.V df Chlorophyll a (μg/ml) Chlorophyll b (μg/ml) P (meq/gdw-1) K+ (meq/gdw-1) Na+ (meq/gdw-1) Essential oil (%) Stomatal conductance (mmol (H2O) m–2 s–1) Membrane electrolyte leakage % colonization rate (%)
Replication 2 0.3765 0.50701 0.00255 0.02985 0.0043 0.00316 0.0593 2.9203** 11.583
Salinity (S) 3 13.9547** 5.57805** 0.12515** 3.99761** 2.1872** 6.81303** 655.0106** 4835.1701** 2267.629**
Fungi (F) 3 1.7688** 1.00595** 0.07111** 0.15185** 0.0690** 0.82588** 28.2901** 133.2135** 424.750**
S × F Interaction 9 0.0399ns 0.07208ns 0.00281ns 0.02509ns 0.0145* 0.04237** 0.4364* 13.5865** 13.824*
Error 30 0.08101 0.1196 0.00227 0.02054 0.0061 0.0068 0.1701 6.0838 5.2500
CV% 5.03 6.95 14.21 13.2 14.12 4.59 3.34 6.44 3.25

ns = no significant

* significant (P < 0.05)

** significant (P < 0.01)

3.1. Colonization rate

In the microscopic investigation, not only chlamydospores and hyphae of P. indica, and vesicles, arbuscules, and intraradical hyphae of AMF were observed in the peppermint root cortex, but also a mycelial network of AMF and P. indica was spread around the roots (Fig 2). The investigation into the AMF and P. indica and co-inoculation of them with plants showed 87%, 77%, and 89% colonization rate, respectively. Salt stress significantly reduced the ability of endophytic fungi to colonize with peppermint root. The decline was more noticeable when plants were inoculated with P. indica under medium level of salinity (6 dS m-1). Generally, the highest decline in the percentage of root colonization in both fungi (AMF and P. indica) was observed in the 9 dS m-1 level of salinity. The synergistic association of P. indica and AMF considerably increased the colonization ability of them with peppermint roots even under intense salt stress (Fig 3).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Piriformospora indica interacellular chlamydospores in cortex (a), P. indica spore and hyphae (around the roots) (b) and interadical hyphae, exteradical hyphae, vesicles and arbuscules formation of AMF (c and d) were formed in the Mentha piperita roots. The root-pieces were examined under light microscope at the magnification of 10–40 X.

Fig 3. Effect of salinity on root colonization (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) in peppermint.

Fig 3

In each figure, means with the same letter are significantly different according to LSD test at P < 0.05.

3.2. Drought stress increases membrane Electrolyte Leakage (EL)

Membrane electrolyte leakage was increased under salinity stress by up to 70.4% (9 dSm−1) (Fig 4 and S1 Table), while microbial inoculation significantly alleviated oxidative damage to the membrane permeability even under severe salt stress. However, the difference between P. indica and AMF was not significant. The decrease in the percentage of EL was more noticeable when plants were co-inoculated by both P. indica and AMF. The results showed that co-inoculation was more effective than either single inoculation with P. indica or AMF for reducing membrane electrolyte leakage in the high level of salinity (9 dSm-1).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Effect of salinity on Membrane electrolyte leakage (a), Essence (b) and Na (c) in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica AMF and co-inoculation).

3.3. Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters

3.3.1. Primary fluorescence (Fo), maximum fluorescence (Fm), variable fluorescence (Fv)

It is known that salinity stress causes photosynthetic apparatus injury. Our data showed that salinity and microbial inoculation remarkably affected the Chlorophyll fluorescence; as salt stress led to a remarkable increase in Fo value, with maximum enhancement (29.6% and 28.9%, respectively compared to the control treatment) in plants which were grown under medium and high levels of salinity (Fig 5 and S1 Table). In addition, the increase in Fo was consistently accompanied by a decline in Fm and Fv values in salinity-treated leaves compared to the control (33.3%, and 48.81% reduction, respectively, when plants were subjected to the severe stress) (Fig 6 and S2 Table). As indicated in the Fig 5, symbiotic relationship with P. indica and AMF and their co-inoculation significantly reduced Fo, while the same treatments significantly enhanced Fm and Fv. The highest Fm and Fv were observed in P. indica -inoculated plants (7.09%, and 24.33% higher, respectively compared to the control) (Fig 6 and S3 Table).

Fig 5.

Fig 5

Effect of salinity on Fo (a), ΦPSII (b), Fv/Fm (c) and Stomatal conductance (d) in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation).

Fig 6.

Fig 6

Changes in various physiological traits in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) (a), and caused by salinity stress in peppermint plant (b) P. indica; AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; AMF* P. indica–Mycorrhizae and P. indica treatment.

3.3.2. Maximum photochemical quantum yield of PSII (Fv/Fm) was reduced under salt stress

The Fv/Fm ratio considerably decreased when plants were subjected to salinity stress; the reduction was even greater when the higher salinity level (9 dSm−1) was applied (Fig 5). As expected, the symbiotic relationship with endophytic fungi was associated with the increased Fv/Fm ratio under both normal and salinity conditions. This improvement was more noticeable when salinity reached 9 dS m-1, as almost increased by 11.47%, 9.83%, and 6.55%, with single and co-inoculation with P. indica and AMF respectively compared to the control plants (Fig 5 and S1 Table).

3.3.3. Salt stress significantly reduced photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (ФPSII) and ETR

In this experiment, ФPSII and ETR values were sharply decreased under saline condition (S2 Table), with maximum reduction (39.7% and 53.36% lower respectively, compared to the control) in plants grown under high salinity (9 dSm−1) (Figs 5 and 6). In general, endophytic fungi and especially their co-inoculation significantly improved the ability of plants to respond to the negative effects of salinity, with the most obvious improvement of ФPSII in 9 dSm−1, (13.86% compared to control plants) (Fig 5). ETR was also positively affected by endophytic fungi inoculation, as the highest ETR (24.11%) was observed in co-inoculated plants (Fig 6 and S3 Table)

3.3.4. Nonphotochemical chlorophyll quenching (NPQ), YNPQ and YNO were increased under salt stress

Salinity had significant effects on NPQ, YNPQ and YNO values in peppermint plants. The plants subjected to salt stress showed a remarkable increase in NPQ, YNPQ and YNO values in comparison to the control plants. The highest NPQ, YNPQ and YNO values (30.76%, 52.17% and 49.09%, respectively compared to controlled plants) was observed in plants which were grown under salt stress (9dsm-1) (Fig 6 and S2 Table).

The results indicated that the fungi inoculation significantly reduced the NPQ, YNPQ and YNO values compared to controlled plants. The most reduction was observed in co-inoculated plants (Fig 6 and S3 Table).

3.3.5. Stomatal conductance (gs) is decreased under salt stress

The effect of saline condition on the stomatal conductance (gs) in the peppermint plants is shown in Fig 5. Increasing salinity led to a reduction in stomatal conductance. As indicated in Fig 5, gs reached to the lowest level under 9 dSm-1 of salinity (84.2% lower compared to the control). In contrast, fungi inoculation remarkably increased gs (53.87%, 47.91%, and 57% higher in P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation, respectively compared to un-inoculated plants grown under salt stress (9dsm-1)) (Fig 5 and S1 Table).

3.3.6 Salt stress reduces chlorophyll content

Salt stress led to a remarkable decrease in chlorophyll a and b compared to the control. The lowest contents of chlorophyll a and b, were observed in the plants treated with sever salinity (35.82% and 26.87%, respectively compared to the control plants) (Fig 6 and S2 Table). As it can be seen in Fig 6 and S3 Table, fungi inoculation and especially co-inoculation significantly enhanced chlorophyll a and b contents (14.71% and 12.66%, respectively compared to controlled plants).

3.3.7. P, K, Na

The effect of saline condition on the minerals (P, K+ and Na+) concentrations in the peppermint plants is shown in Figs 4 and 6. According to the results, Na content was dramatically increased in the peppermint leaves when plants were exposed to salt stress. Fungi inoculation ameliorated salinity negative effects, and the alleviation ratio (25.11% lower than control plant) was more considerable in co-inoculated plants under high (9 dSm−1) level of salinity (Fig 4 and S1 Table). However, the opposite trend was observed for K+ and P, as increasing in Na level was accompanied by a decline in P and K+ content. This reduction was even greater when the higher salinity concentration (9 dSm−1) was used (49.53% and 76.27% respectively, compared to the control) (Fig 7 and S2 Table). Our data shows that microbial inoculation positively affected the absorption of P and K in rhizosphere soil. The highest P content (43.58%) was observed in co-inoculated plants (Fig 7 and S3 Table).

Fig 7.

Fig 7

Box Plots of P and K in peppermint under salinity stress (a) and in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) (b). P. indica; AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; AMF* P. indica–Mycorrhizae and P. indica treatment.

3.3.8. Principal component of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters

Principal component analysis was conducted on the data of the salinity stress × 9 traits selected of leaf chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. The association between the traits were compared across the control, AMF, P. indica and co-inoculation treatments (Fig 8). The score plot displayed four different groups, which were associated with four salinity samples, indicating a distinct separation of the chlorophyll fluorescence profiles under salinity conditions (Fig 8). The PC1 mainly explained the separation of samples caused by 6 and 9 sm-1 of salinity (inoculation and non-inoculation), which was significantly positively correlated with YNPQ, YNO, Fo and, NPQ; whereas, PC2 mainly described non-stressed peppermint plants under low and mild salinity (inoculation and non-inoculation), it also showed the positive correlation with the Fm, Fv, Fv/Fm, ETR and, ФPSII. Additionally, PCA findings, showed a tight positive association between Fm and Fv while they were associated negatively with Fo.

Fig 8.

Fig 8

Principal component analysis (PCA) (a) and 2D score plot (b) of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters in peppermint leaves. The score plot for the four-salinity levels; 0, 3, 6 and 9 dsm-1 were indicated in blue, orange, green and red, respectively. Abbreviations: P. indica; AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; P. indica*AMF–P. indica and Mycorrhizae treatment.

3.3.9. Essential oil content and composition

Salinity stress negatively affected essential oil content. Generally, salinity levels decreased essential oil content, and the lowest amount was recorded under 9 dSm−1. Surprisingly, fungal symbiosis had a positive impact on essential oil content under all evaluated conditions. However, when the higher salinity concentration (9 dSm−1) was used, co-inoculation was more effective in improving essential oil content compared to those of single inoculated plants (Fig 4 and S1 Table).

Essential oil composition was affected by P. indica, AMF, co-inoculation, salinity, and their interactions (Table 4 and Fig 10). In all essential oil samples, the major constituents were Menthone, Menthol, 1,8-Cineole, and iso-menthone, respectively. As it can be seen in Table 4, the pattern of Menthone and Menthol increase differed in stress and non-stress conditions, indicating that microbial inoculation positively enhanced Menthone and Menthol content in both conditions. The highest Menthone content was recorded in the AMF-inoculated plant’s essential oil, whereas the highest Menthol content as the second main component was observed in co-inoculated plants grown under salt stress (Table 4). A similar pattern was also observed for 1,8-Cineole, while the pattern for Menthofuran, another major component, was completely different, where salinity and Microbial inoculation reduced this content compared to the control plants (Table 4).

Table 4. Effect of microbial inoculation on Mentha piperita essential oils composition under salinity stress.
No  Compound Concentration (%)
Salinity* P. indica *AMF Salinity*AMF Salinity* P. indica Salinity P. indica *AMF P. indica AMF control
1 limonene 2.4 1.93 1.42 3.5 2.63 2.89 2.73 5.36
2 Carvacrol, methyl ether 1.38 1.77 2.08 1.23 2.01 2.21 1.9 1.38
3 Menthyl acetate 1.21 1.13 1.22 1.07 1.12 1.16 1.15 1.08
4 α-Pinene 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.03 1.05 0.93 1.02 0.85
5 sabinene 0.92 0.88 0.75 0.72 0.82 0.84 0.82 0.86
6 β—Pinene 0.92 0.51 0.61 0.43 0.61 0.6 0.63 0.52
7 β—Bourbonene 0.72 0.65 0.78 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.54 0.32
8 Terpinolene 0.43 0.14 0.35 0.31 0.49 0.48 0.53 0.81
9 α- Terpinene 0.28 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.41 0.48 0.42 0.64
10 cis-Ocimene 0.14 0.29 0.6 0.33 0.52 0.62 0.54 0.64
11 Piperitone 0.1 0.31 0.13 0.29 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.28
12 Menthol 19.87 19.37 18.03 15.39 18.12 18.89 17.3 14.86
13 neoisomenthol 5.41 5.27 6.18 4.46 5.37 6.09 5.35 5.07
14 Trans sabinene hydrate 0.92 0.61 0.98 0.68 0.87 0.81 0.8 0.85
15 1,8-Cineole 10.66 9.62 9.23 9.01 9.14 9.04 9.12 8.87
16 Menthofuran 5.22 6.18 5.07 5.87 5.63 5.61 5.48 7.33
17 α-Terpineol 0.87 0.52 0.85 0.58 0.75 0.63 0.72 0.61
18 Linalool 0.68 0.54 0.26 0.56 0.5 0.49 0.47 0.52
19 Menthone 34.52 31.27 32.98 31.04 34.75 34.95 35.2 29.41
20 iso-menthone 4.9 5.74 4.57 6.15 6.12 5.95 5.97 8.34
21 Pulegone 0.23 0.33 0.34 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.26 0.15
22 Caryophyllene 0.81 0.36 0.76 0.45 0.75 0.73 0.75 0.68
23 β—Farnesene 0.37 0.33 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.31
24 germacrene D 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.17 0.2 0.25 0.22 0.15
25 Caryophyllene oxid 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.1 0.06
26 α-Humulene 0.15 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.15 0.27 0.1 0.16
27 Viridiflorol 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.18 0.31 0.21 0.43

Salinity (9dsm-1); P. indica; AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; P. indica

*AMF–P. indica and Mycorrhizae treatment.

Fig 10. Changes in terpenoid content in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) under salinity stress in peppermint plant.

Fig 10

S–Salinity; P. indica; AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; AMF* P. indica–Mycorrhizae and P. indica treatment.

Piperitone content was increased under high salinity stress (9 dSm−1) while β–Pinene and Terpinolene decreased compared with control samples under the same salinity level. Under both control and salinity conditions, fungi inoculation enhanced α-Pinene, β–Pinene, 1,8-Cineole, Menthone, Menthol, neoisomenthol, Pulegone, α-Terpineol, Menthyl acetate, Carvacrol, methyl ether, β–Bourbonene, Caryophyllene, and germacrene D. In addition, higher levels of Menthone, Menthol and 1,8-Cineole were considerable in co-inoculated plant under salinity stress.

3.3.10. Heatmap and principal component of the essential oil constituents

As it can be seen in Figs 9 and 10, Dim1 or PC1 accounted for 42.3% of the total variation and was mainly influenced by hydrocarbon monoterpenes (which is mainly due to the relative percentage variation of menthol), hydrocarbon sesquiterpenes, and alcohol monoterpenes. The PC1 mainly explained the separation of samples caused by endophytic fungi (salinity and non-salinity conditions), whereas, PC2 mainly explained salinity-treated and control peppermint plants (Fig 9).

Fig 9. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of metabolites in peppermint leaves.

Fig 9

AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment.

A Heatmap analysis was carried out in order to identify the significantly changed metabolites between inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint under salinity and non-salinity conditions (Fig 11). Interestingly, salinity and non-salinity treatment (inoculated plants and non-inoculated plants) were separated from each other by two opposing groups (Fig 11). Based on cluster analysis, two clusters of metabolites can be identified; all metabolites of the PC1, except α-Humulene, were classified in the first cluster, whereas the other group consisted of the PC2. However, linalool, Piperitone and Menthofuran were not included in either of the first two components. Controlled plants contained the higher iso-menthone, Terpinolene, and limonene together with Menthofuran and Viridiflorol which is related to oxygenated terpenes. It is possible to observe that co-inoculation treatment largely altered the relative percentage proportion of the essential oil compounds, with a high relative percentage of Menthol, Menthone, β—Pinene, 1,8-Cineole, Caryophyllene oxid, α-Terpineol, Menthyl acetate, β—Bourbonene, linalool, β–Farnesene, and sabinene. However, some metabolites showed higher percentages in control plants and co-inoculation had no significant effect on their production. The significantly changed metabolites in peppermint leaves under salinity stress were shown in Fig 12.

Fig 11. Heatmap pattern of the essential oil constituents from peppermint.

Fig 11

AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; P. indica *AMF–P. indica and Mycorrhizae treatment.

Fig 12. Leaf metabolites involved in the terpenoied pathways in peppermint plant under salinity stress.

Fig 12

The relative abundance of metabolites in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica and AMF) under salt stress was shown as box plots. Regulated metabolites under salinity and non-salinity condition were indicated in orange and green, respectively.

4. Discussion

The reduction of root colonization by P. indica and AMF in response to increasing salinity (6 to 9 dSm−1) observed in the current study is similar to previous reports in other plants [35, 36]. It is well documented that oxidative damage to the thylakoid membrane under salinity induces generation of ROS and impairs electron transport function [37]. In the current study, salt stress decreased ETR, Fm, Fv/Fm ratio, and ΦPSII, while the Fo and NPQ rates increased under salinity conditions. Such alterations in fluorescence parameters can mainly be linked to the impairment of PSII function and inhibition of the electron transfer process. In our study, it may probably be due to 1: the membrane system damage in peppermint, which increases membrane electrolytic leakage (Fig 4), and 2: an increase in toxic ions such as Na+ (Fig 4).

A decrease of Fm in response to salinity was along with a reduction in chlorophyll content (Fig 6). The Fm reduction may be linked to the deactivation of chlorophyll protein compounds due to leaf chlorosis as well as alterations in biochemical reactions [38]. Similar findings of increased Fo and decreased Fm are also reported in maize under salt stress [39], and low-temperature stress [40], and in winter wheat under drought stress [8]. An increase in Fo rate can indicate potential damages to the PS II; damages include D1 protein degradation, a decrease in thylakoid membrane integrity, damages to the photosystem II electron transport chain, the reduction of plastoquinone electron receptors, the lack of complete oxidation of plastoquinone, and the separation of light-harvesting protein complexes in chlorophyll a/b [41, 42]. The current observation of a reduction in Fv/Fm under salinity stress can be due to the limitation in the electron transport chain, which can destruct PSII reaction centers and reduce PSII maximum efficiency [9, 43]. In the present experiment, the decrease in chlorophyll was accompanied by a decline in ΦPSII (Fig 11), which can be explained by a lower energy transfer efficiency from antenna chlorophylls to the photosystem II reaction centers.

Similar findings were reported in other plants in which salinity induced changes [44, 45]. It is known that reduction in the chlorophyll content under salt stress reduces light reactions and electron transport in PS II from primary to secondary acceptor [46]. Furthermore, there was an inverse relationship between ΦPSII and NPQ value in peppermint (r2 = 0.81; p < 0.001) (Fig 13). The decrease in ΦPSII and the significant increase in NPQ in peppermint leaves under salinity stress indicates a decrease in photosynthetic process and carbon fixation capacity. Such impairment in photosynthetic process can lower utilization of electron transport products which leads to a greater thermal dissipation of light energy [47]. It is assumed that although salinity affected the rate of colonization of P. indica and AMF and their co-inoculation symbiosis in peppermint, the presence of these fungi in the plant’s roots improves the function of the plant photosynthetic apparatus. It can be due to the fact that symbiotic fungi improve PSII function in plants under salinity stress [48]. Similar positive effects of plant-microbe interactions on PSII photochemical activity were recorded in many other plants [49, 50]. The positive effect of endophytic fungi against salinity impacts on chloroplast and chlorophyll in peppermint can also be due to fungal stimulation of antioxidant synthesis in the plant or due to an improvement in ROS scavenging activity of the newly synthesised secondary metabolites such as phenolic compounds or alleviation of damage to the cell membranes caused by salt stress [18, 51, 52]. The observed correlation between increasing chlorophyll content and high ΦPSII in microbial treated plants under salinity stress reveals that the fungi alleviate the adverse effects of salinity on light-harvesting and electron transfer to plastoquinone through stimulation of chlorophyll accumulation in the plants.

Fig 13. Relationship between some physiological parameters in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) under salinity stress in peppermint plant.

Fig 13

AMF–Mycorrhizae treatment; AMF* P. indica–Mycorrhizae and P. indica treatment.

A remarkable reduction in P and K+ uptake observed in non-inoculated plants under severe salinity stress might be because of the high rate of Na+ absorption. Moreover, the inhibitory effect of ion toxicity, such as Na+ and Cl–, on the mineral absorption directly influences photosynthetic performance. Such a direct correlation of nutrient imbalance and a simultaneous decline in PSII function in salt-stressed plants is already reported [53, 54]. The reason could be a reduction in membrane permeability leading to an increasing rate of ion leakage (Fig 4), and antagonistic relationship between excess uptake of Na+ and mineral nutrient such as P and K+ under severe salinity stress (Fig 13). The same can lead to an imbalance in cellular ion homeostasis [37]. The results show that the endophytic fungal symbiosis increased P and K+ content (Fig 6), but decreased Na+ uptake in peppermint leaves (Fig 4). The observation of a positive relationship between the chlorophyll and gas exchange with PSII efficiency (Fig 13) can mainly be through elevation in the mineral absorption and improvement in water status [55]. It is also well documented that AMF inoculation positively influences chlorophyll biosynthesis by alleviating the detrimental effects of salinity on Mg2+ absorption and improves Fv/Fm values [56].

In the present experiment, a correlation observed between the ETR and some essential oil (Fig 14) confirms the fact that monoterpene emissions maintain PSII stability in stressed plants by partitioning excess electrons into other sinks of the terpenoid biosynthetic pathway [57]. A similar relationship between monoterpene emission, increasing Fv/Fm ratio, and ETR was reported in many other plants under different kinds of stress [57, 58]. Besides, high ETR values observed in mycorrhizal plants can be attributed to a better physiological status, changes in the pattern of carbon partitioning, and accumulation and biosynthesis of terpenes. The enhanced biosynthesis of terpenoids in endophytic fungi treated plants can be attributed to the role of the fungi in mineral nutrients uptake [22, 59].

Fig 14. Relationship between some metabolites in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation) under 9 dsm-1 salinity stress in peppermint plant.

Fig 14

The salinity and non-salinity condition were indicated in orange and green, respectively.

5. Conclusion

Co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi had a synergic effect on the enhancement of peppermint essential oil and its physiological characteristics. Fungal co-inoculation protected peppermint plants under salinity conditions. There are many reports about the synergistic effect of symbiotic fungi on the improvement of plant function under various environmental conditions; however, there are other research which did not support the synergistic effect and emphasized that separate application of endophyte fungi had more significant effect on the antioxidant activity and Fv / fm [60, 61]. Thus, it needs further research in the future because applying microbial treatments for boosting plant secondary metabolite production could be a natural way as well as a sustainable approach in the promising herbal medicine industry.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Effect of salinity on membrane electrolyte leakage, stomatal conductance, essential oil, Na+, Fv/Fm, YII and Fo in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica AMF and co-inoculation).

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Effect of salinity on fm, fv, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, Y(NPQ), Y(NO), P, K+, NPQ and ETR.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Changes in various physiological traits in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation).

(DOCX)

S1 Graphical abstracts

(TIF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

There was no funding for this article. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sun Z., et al., Chemical composition and anti-inflammatory, cytotoxic and antioxidant activities of essential oil from leaves of Mentha piperita grown in China. PloS one, 2014. 9(12): p. e114767. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dolatabadi H.K., et al., Evaluation of different densities of auxin and endophytic fungi (Piriformospora indica and Sebacina vermifera) on Mentha piperita and Thymus vulgaris growth. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2012. 11(7): p. 1644–1650. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Miguel M.G., Anthocyanins: Antioxidant and/or anti-inflammatory activities. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science, 2011. 1(6): p. 7–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Moghaddam M., et al., Composition and antifungal activity of peppermint (Mentha piperita) essential oil from Iran. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants, 2013. 16(4): p. 506–512. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Abdelshafy Mohamad O.A., et al., Beneficial endophytic bacterial populations associated with medicinal plant Thymus vulgaris alleviate salt stress and confer resistance to Fusarium oxysporum. Frontiers in plant science, 2020. 11: p. 47. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ashraf M., et al., Salinity effects on nitrogen metabolism in plants–focusing on the activities of nitrogen metabolizing enzymes: A review. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 2018. 41(8): p. 1065–1081. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Monetti E., et al., Deciphering early events involved in hyperosmotic stress-induced programmed cell death in tobacco BY-2 cells. Journal of experimental botany, 2014. 65(5): p. 1361–1375. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lu C. and Zhang J., Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition in wheat plants. Functional Plant Biology, 1998. 25(8): p. 883–892. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giardi M., et al., Long-term drought stress induces structural and functional reorganization of photosystem II. Planta, 1996. 199(1): p. 118–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Aroca R., et al., Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis influences strigolactone production under salinity and alleviates salt stress in lettuce plants. Journal of plant physiology, 2013. 170(1): p. 47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2012.08.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Radić S., et al., Salt tolerance of Centaurea ragusina L. is associated with efficient osmotic adjustment and increased antioxidative capacity. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2013. 87: p. 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yaghoubi Khanghahi M., Strafella S., and Crecchio C., Changes in photo-protective energy dissipation of photosystem II in response to beneficial bacteria consortium in durum wheat under drought and salinity stresses. Applied Sciences, 2020. 10(15): p. 5031. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Valifard M., et al., Effect of salt stress on terpenoid biosynthesis in Salvia mirzayanii: from gene to metabolite. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 2019. 94(3): p. 389–399. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Haberstroh S., et al., Terpenoid emissions of two Mediterranean woody species in response to drought stress. Frontiers in plant science, 2018. 9: p. 1071. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Peñuelas J. and Llusià J., Linking photorespiration, monoterpenes and thermotolerance in Quercus. New Phytologist, 2002. 155(2): p. 227–237. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Loreto F., et al., On the monoterpene emission under heat stress and on the increased thermotolerance of leaves of Quercus ilex L. fumigated with selected monoterpenes. Plant, Cell & Environment, 1998. 21(1): p. 101–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen J., et al., Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis alleviates salt stress in black locust through improved photosynthesis, water status, and K+/Na+ homeostasis. Frontiers in plant science, 2017. 8: p. 1739. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01739 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Khalvandi M., et al., Essential oil of peppermint in symbiotic relationship with Piriformospora indica and methyl jasmonate application under saline condition. Industrial Crops and Products, 2019. 127: p. 195–202. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wu M., et al., Piriformospora indica enhances phosphorus absorption by stimulating acid phosphatase activities and organic acid accumulation in Brassica napus. Plant and Soil, 2018. 432(1): p. 333–344. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mansotra P., Sharma P., and Sharma S., Bioaugmentation of Mesorhizobium cicer, Pseudomonas spp. and Piriformospora indica for sustainable chickpea production. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, 2015. 21(3): p. 385–393. doi: 10.1007/s12298-015-0296-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yun P., et al., Piriformospora indica improves salinity stress tolerance in Zea mays L. plants by regulating Na+ and K+ loading in root and allocating K+ in shoot. Plant growth regulation, 2018. 86(2): p. 323–331. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zolfaghari M., et al., Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on plant growth and essential oil content and composition of Ocimum basilicum L. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dolatabadi H.K., et al., Effects of Piriformospora indica and Sebacina vermifera on growth and yield of essential oil in fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) under greenhouse conditions. Journal of basic microbiology, 2011. 51(1): p. 33–39. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201000214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Dolatabad H., et al., Potential effect of Piriformospora indica on plant growth and essential oil yield in Mentha piperita. Plant Pathol. Quarantine, 2017. 7: p. 96–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Baldi A., et al., Enhanced production of podophyllotoxins by co-culture of transformed Linum album cells with plant growth-promoting fungi. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2010. 82(1): p. 227–241. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Keramati S., et al., Essential oil composition of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) in symbiotic relationship with Piriformospora indica and paclobutrazol application under salt stress. Acta Biologica Hungarica, 2016. 67(4): p. 412–423. doi: 10.1556/018.67.2016.4.7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Su Z.-z., et al., Piriformospora indica promotes growth, seed yield and quality of Brassica napus L. Microbiological research, 2017. 199: p. 29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2017.02.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yaghoubian Y., et al., Bio-removal of cadmium from aqueous solutions by filamentous fungi: Trichoderma spp. and Piriformospora indica. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2019. 26(8): p. 7863–7872. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-04255-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Vierheilig H., et al., Ink and vinegar, a simple staining technique for arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi. Applied and environmental microbiology, 1998. 64(12): p. 5004–5007. doi: 10.1128/AEM.64.12.5004-5007.1998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Norris J.R., Read D.J., and Varma A., Techniques for the study of mycorrhiza. 1991: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Varma A., et al., Piriformospora indica, a cultivable plant-growth-promoting root endophyte. Applied and environmental Microbiology, 1999. 65(6): p. 2741–2744. doi: 10.1128/AEM.65.6.2741-2744.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hameed A., et al., Seed treatment with α-tocopherol regulates growth and key physio-biochemical attributes in carrot (Daucus carota l.) plants under water limited regimes. Agronomy, 2021. 11(3): p. 469. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ntatsi G., et al., Salinity source alters mineral composition and metabolism of Cichorium spinosum. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2017. 141: p. 113–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lutts S., Kinet J., and Bouharmont J. , NaCl-induced senescence in leaves of rice (Oryza sativaL.) cultivars differing in salinity resistance. Annals of botany, 1996. 78(3): p. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wu Q.-S., Zou Y.-N., and He X.-H., Contributions of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to growth, photosynthesis, root morphology and ionic balance of citrus seedlings under salt stress. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2010. 32(2): p. 297–304. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hadian-Deljou M., Esna-Ashari M., and Mirzaie-asl A., Alleviation of salt stress and expression of stress-responsive gene through the symbiosis of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with sour orange seedlings. Scientia Horticulturae, 2020. 268: p. 109373. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Yang M., et al., Physiological and proteomics insights into salt tolerance of two Jerusalem artichoke cultivars. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2021: p. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gilmore A.M. and Björkman O., Temperature-sensitive coupling and uncoupling of ATPase-mediated, nonradiative energy dissipation: similarities between chloroplasts and leaves. Planta, 1995. 197(4): p. 646–654. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sheng M., et al., Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on photosynthesis and water status of maize plants under salt stress. Mycorrhiza, 2008. 18(6–7): p. 287–296. doi: 10.1007/s00572-008-0180-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zhu X.-C., Song F.-B., and Xu H.-W. , Arbuscular mycorrhizae improves low temperature stress in maize via alterations in host water status and photosynthesis. Plant and Soil, 2010. 331(1): p. 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Baker N.R., Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 2008. 59: p. 89–113. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092759 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ashraf M. and Harris P.J., Photosynthesis under stressful environments: an overview. Photosynthetica, 2013. 51(2): p. 163–190. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Porcar-Castell A., et al., Linking chlorophyll a fluorescence to photosynthesis for remote sensing applications: mechanisms and challenges. Journal of experimental botany, 2014. 65(15): p. 4065–4095. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wang H., et al., Arbuscular Mycorrhizas Regulate Photosynthetic Capacity and Antioxidant Defense Systems to Mediate Salt Tolerance in Maize. Plants, 2020. 9(11): p. 1430. doi: 10.3390/plants9111430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Athar H.u.R, Zafar Z, and Ashraf M, Glycinebetaine improved photosynthesis in canola under salt stress: evaluation of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters as potential indicators. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 2015. 201(6): p. 428–442. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Murchie E.H. and Lawson T., Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: a guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. Journal of experimental botany, 2013. 64(13): p. 3983–3998. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert208 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Tavakkoli E., Rengasamy P., and McDonald G.K., High concentrations of Na+ and Cl–ions in soil solution have simultaneous detrimental effects on growth of faba bean under salinity stress. Journal of experimental botany, 2010. 61(15): p. 4449–4459. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Evelin H., et al., Mitigation of salinity stress in plants by arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: current understanding and new challenges. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2019. 10: p. 470. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00470 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ghorbani A., et al., Piriformospora indica inoculation alleviates the adverse effect of NaCl stress on growth, gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Plant Biology, 2018. 20(4): p. 729–736. doi: 10.1111/plb.12717 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhang H., et al., Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus mosseae) improves growth, photosynthesis and protects photosystem II in leaves of Lolium perenne L. in cadmium contaminated soil. Frontiers in plant science, 2018. 9: p. 1156. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01156 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zai X., et al., Effect of Glomus mosseae on chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, and chloroplast ultrastructure of beach plum (Prunus maritima) under NaCl stress. Photosynthetica, 2012. 50(3): p. 323–328. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sun C., et al., Piriformospora indica confers drought tolerance in Chinese cabbage leaves by stimulating antioxidant enzymes, the expression of drought-related genes and the plastid-localized CAS protein. Journal of plant physiology, 2010. 167(12): p. 1009–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2010.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Loudari A., et al., Salt stress affects mineral nutrition in shoots and roots and chlorophyll a fluorescence of tomato plants grown in hydroponic culture. Journal of Plant Interactions, 2020. 15(1): p. 398–405. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Qu C., et al., Impairment of maize seedling photosynthesis caused by a combination of potassium deficiency and salt stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2012. 75: p. 134–141. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Xu H., Lu Y., and Zhu X., Effects of arbuscular mycorrhiza on osmotic adjustment and photosynthetic physiology of maize seedlings in black soils region of northeast China. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 2016. 59. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Qiu Y.-J., et al., Mediation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth and biochemical parameters of Ligustrum vicaryi in response to salinity. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 2020. 112: p. 101522. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Bertamini M., et al., Leaf Monoterpene Emission Limits Photosynthetic Downregulation under Heat Stress in Field-Grown Grapevine. Plants, 2021. 10(1): p. 181. doi: 10.3390/plants10010181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Ouzounis T., et al., Predawn and high intensity application of supplemental blue light decreases the quantum yield of PSII and enhances the amount of phenolic acids, flavonoids, and pigments in Lactuca sativa. Frontiers in plant science, 2015. 6: p. 19. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sirrenberg A., et al., Piriformospora indica affects plant growth by auxin production. Physiologia plantarum, 2007. 131(4): p. 581–589. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.00983.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Shahabivand S., et al., The effects of root endophyte and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on growth and cadmium accumulation in wheat under cadmium toxicity. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2012. 60: p. 53–58. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.07.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ray J.G. and Valsalakumar N., Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Piriformospora indica individually and in combination with Rhizobium on green gram. Journal of plant nutrition, 2010. 33(2): p. 285–298. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mayank Gururani

24 Feb 2021

PONE-D-21-02576

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khalvandi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10th March 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 7, 10 and 12 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figures.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Critical comments

General comments

This is a well written article explaining the results of a well conducted experiment on synergistic influence of AM and Pirimorphospora sp. on salinity stress in Peppermint. The article has impressive findings, acceptable for publication in the esteemed Plos-1 journal. However, the language need minor corrections. It seems that the authors have some self-contradictory arguments in the discussion. The authors may do minor corrections giving due credit to the specific comments given below.

Specific comments

Page 1: Introduction: line 1-2: “which its demand has grown dramatically in recent decades” – may be corrected as: ‘the demand of which has grown dramatically in recent decades’

Line 3: “It is evident that peppermint essential oil” – may be modified as: ‘it is evident that the essential oil’

Line 5-6: “as well as the reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging activity because of its valuable constituents” – ‘as well as scavenging of reactive oxygen species (ROS)’

2nd Para – line 1: - avoid ‘Nowadays’; the sentence may begin as ‘The sustainability …’

Line 5: no need of repeating – ‘reactive oxygen species (ROS)’, better put the short form only – ROS because the same is already defined above

Line 7: “stresses; it can show’ – ‘stresses, because the same can show’

Page 3: 2nd para – 2nd line: not ‘sever’ – but ‘severe’

Page 4: para 3- line 2: not ‘fungi symbiosis’ – ‘fungal symbiosis’

Discussion:

Page 4-5: line 1-4: “In the present study, the root colonization with P. indica and AMF were remarkably reduced by increasing salinity (6 to 9 dSm−1). Similar observations were reported in other plants (Wu et al., 2010; Hadian-Deljou, et al, 2020; khalvandi et al, 2019). The reason that salinity decreased fungal colonization might be attributed to the adverse 5 effects of salinity on photosynthesis, along with a reduction in carbon supply”

The above statements seem contradictory to the claim below on page 5, para 5 – line 1-4: “Our findings showed that P. indica, AMF and their co-inoculation symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salinity on the photosynthetic capability of peppermint”

Last para – line 1-2: “The endophytic fungus can mitigate the toxic influence of salinity on chloroplast and chlorophyll by releasing cytokinin-like substances which maintain the relative stability of the organelle” – how can the fungi mitigate the toxic influence, when the fungi themselves are negatively affected by salinity?

“Nevertheless, endophytic fungi symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salt stress on the mineral uptake. It has been well documented that endophytic fungi can prevent the toxicity of Na+ in aerial parts of plants through accumulation of Na+ ions in fungal cytosol, hyphae wall and vesicles” – more explanations are required for this argument, especially when the fungi are harmfully affected by salt stress

• Overall, the researchers have observed evidence for synergistic effect Pirimorphospora and AM in alleviating salt stress in peppermint; however, their arguments need more explanations to avoid self-contradictory appearance as they found salt stress also negatively affecting the plant metabolism as well as fungal colonization. Although, they provide evidences of previous positive findings of synergistic influence of AM and Pirimorphospora in certain plants, they need to report findings showing no such influences as well ( for example: DOI: 10.1080/01904160903435409 )

Reviewer #2: The study applied single P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation of these two endophytic fungi to investigate the potential of enhancing the ability of peppermint to alleviate the negative effect of the salinity stress. Therefore, they are sure interesting and meaningful. However, there are some issues to be addressed before the manuscript is ready for publication. Some language mistakes need to be revised and re-checked. Below are the few comments that can provide the glimpse of flaws in the manuscript.

Q 1 [Introduction] Piriformospora indica, also named as Sebacinales indica, the author needs to add it.

Q 2 [Materials and Methods] Give more specific info on inoculum: e.g. mycelia mass or chlamydospores per ml of P. indica and AMF. And provide the method or reference of fungi inoculation and detection.

Q 3 [Results] This study has many figure, but author doesn’t or good explain the result of the figure.

Q 4 [Discussion] The conclusions drawn by the authors that P. indica, AMF and their co-inoculation symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salinity on the photosynthetic capability of peppermint is not really supported by those parameters. The authors mention that higher photosynthetic capability attributed to the better physiological status. Why the author not measure the ROS scavengers related enzyme activity to support the point? Kindly explain.

Q 5 The Fig. 2 was not clear, please replace it and provide the scale or microscope magnification. The microscopic observation pictures of the control plant roots are also need provided. “chlamidospore” probably “chlamydospore”? Please check it.

Q 6 Fig. 3, add the abbreviation of Pi. Give the test sample number of root colonization of each group.

Q 7 All the column figures in this study have no error bars, please check/add it.

Q 8 Fig. 5 (a-c) different with other column figure like Fig. 4, please check/replace it.

Q 9 Fig. 6, “AMF* Pi” or “Pi *AMF”? “PI” or “Pi”? Same with Fig. 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, keep one unified format. please check/replace it.

Q 10 I suggest the authors provide an intuitive picture of each treatment group sample peppermint to show the result of this study.

Here two excellent publications on symbiosis of P. indica and Mentha piperita should be read in this study to give some reference. Dolatabadi, H.K., Goltapeh, E.M., Moieni, A., Varma, A., 2012. Evaluation of different densities of auxin and endophytic fungi (Piriformospora indica and Sebacina vermifera) on Mentha piperita and Thymus vulgaris growth. Afr J Biotechnol, 11: 1644–1650.

Dolatabadi, H.K., Goltapeh, E.M., Safari, M., Golafaie, T.P., 2017. Potential effect of Piriformospora indica on plant growth and essential oil yield in Mentha piperita. Plant Pathol Quar, 7: 96–104.

Overall, the MS needs to be comprehensively revised both in respects of writing and analysis/interpretation of results.

Reviewer #3: Introduction:

1st Para- line 1:- ‘Which its’ can be written as ‘and its’

2nd Para- line 1:- Yield is negatively affected (Kindly add references)

3rd Para- 2nd last line:- ‘Quercus ilex’ should be italics

Material and Methods

Growth Conditions:-

1st para- line 3:- ‘Three replications’; always use minimum five replications

Line 5:- Kindly mention the spore counts of P indica and AMF

Line 6:- Kindly specify the ratio of Caspian sea water and distilled water

Physiological parameters:

Line 3-5:- Kindly elaborate the methods used for analysis

Results:

1st Para- 2nd last line:- Kindly confirm the synergistic association between P indica & AMF through plating techniques.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof Joseph George Ray

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Md. Nafe Aziz

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments PLOS ONE.doc

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254076.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Mar 2021

Prof. Mayank Gururani

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE Journal

Dear Prof., Mayank Gururani

Attached please find our revised manuscript entitled: Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea? (No.: PONE-D-21-02576) for publication in PLOS ONE Journal.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and the suggestions made by referees to improve the manuscript. We responded to all of the reviewers' suggestions.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication; however, we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Masoumeh Khalvandi

In behalf authors

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-02576)

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

Reviewer point #1: Page 1: Introduction: line 1-2: “which its demand has grown dramatically in recent decades” – may be corrected as: ‘the demand of which has grown dramatically in recent decades’

Author response #1: the correction has been made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer point #2: Line 3: “It is evident that peppermint essential oil” – may be modified as: ‘it is evident that the essential oil’

Author response #2: “It is evident that peppermint essential oil” was modified to ‘it is evident that the essential oil’

Reviewer point #3: Line 5-6: “as well as the reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging activity because of its valuable constituents” – ‘as well as scavenging of reactive oxygen species (ROS)’

Author response #3: This has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer point #4: 2nd Para – line 1: - avoid ‘Nowadays’; the sentence may begin as ‘The sustainability …’

Author response #4: (Nowadays) was removed in the introduction.

Reviewer point #5: Line 5: no need of repeating – ‘reactive oxygen species (ROS)’, better put the short form only – ROS because the same is already defined above

Author response #5: done

Reviewer point #6: Line 7: “stresses; it can show’ – ‘stresses, because the same can show’

Author response #6: “stresses; it can show’ was modified to ‘stresses, because the same can show’

Reviewer point #7: Page 3: 2nd para – 2nd line: not ‘sever’ – but ‘severe’

Author response #7: ‘sever’ was changed to ‘severe’

Reviewer point #8: Page 4: para 3- line 2: not ‘fungi symbiosis’ – ‘fungal symbiosis’

Author response #8: the correction has been made in the revised manuscript. ‘fungi symbiosis’ was modified to ‘fungal symbiosis’

Reviewer point #9: Discussion: Page 4-5: line 1-4: “In the present study, the root colonization with P. indica and AMF were remarkably reduced by increasing salinity (6 to 9 dSm−1). Similar observations were reported in other plants (Wu et al., 2010; Hadian-Deljou, et al, 2020; khalvandi et al, 2019). The reason that salinity decreased fungal colonization might be attributed to the adverse 5 effects of salinity on photosynthesis, along with a reduction in carbon supply” The above statements seem contradictory to the claim below on page 5, para 5 – line 1-4: “Our findings showed that P. indica, AMF and their co-inoculation symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salinity on the photosynthetic capability of peppermint”

Reviewer point #10: Last para – line 1-2: “The endophytic fungus can mitigate the toxic influence of salinity on chloroplast and chlorophyll by releasing cytokinin-like substances which maintain the relative stability of the organelle” – how can the fungi mitigate the toxic influence, when the fungi themselves are negatively affected by salinity?

“Nevertheless, endophytic fungi symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salt stress on the mineral uptake. It has been well documented that endophytic fungi can prevent the toxicity of Na+ in aerial parts of plants through accumulation of Na+ ions in fungal cytosol, hyphae wall and vesicles” – more explanations are required for this argument, especially when the fungi are harmfully affected by salt stress

Author response #9 & 10:

In this experiment, symbiotic relationship with fungi under no stress and mild stress conditions had a positive significant effect on the examined traits. On the other hand, we observed negative effects of high salinity levels on colonization and physiological parameters of peppermint plants. Although, fungi themselves are negatively affected by salinity, but the results showed that compared to the control plants, symbiotic relationship with these fungi improved the photosynthetic apparatus function. Based on the reports of some researchers, these changes in the presence of fungi and under severe salinity stress can be due to:

The participating AMF induces expression of genes involved in N+ extrusion to the soil solution, K+ acquisition (by phloem loading and unloading), and release into the xylem, therefore maintaining a favorable Na: K ratio. Colonization by AMF differentially affects the expression of the plasma membrane and tonoplast aquaporins (PIPs and TIPs), which consequently improves the water status of the plant. The formation of AM (arbuscular mycorrhiza) surges the capacity of the plant to mend photosystem-II (PSII) and boosts the quantum efficiency of PSII under salt stress conditions by mounting the transcript levels of chloroplast genes encoding antenna proteins involved in the transfer of excitation energy. Furthermore, AM-induced interplay of phytohormones, including strigolactones, abscisic acid, gibberellic acid, salicylic acid, and jasmonic acid have also been associated with the salt tolerance mechanism (Heikham Evelin et al, 2019).

Reviewer point #11: Overall, the researchers have observed evidence for synergistic effect Pirimorphospora and AM in alleviating salt stress in peppermint; however, their arguments need more explanations to avoid self-contradictory appearance as they found salt stress also negatively affecting the plant metabolism as well as fungal colonization. Although, they provide evidences of previous positive findings of synergistic influence of AM and Pirimorphospora in certain plants, they need to report findings showing no such influences as well ( for example: DOI: 10.1080/01904160903435409 )

Author response #11: The correction was made in Conclusion section.

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments

Reviewer point #1: [Introduction] Piriformospora indica, also named as Sebacinales indica, the author needs to add it.

Author response #1: "Sebacinales indica" was added to the text

Reviewer point #2: [Materials and Methods] Give more specific info on inoculum: e.g. mycelia mass or chlamydospores per ml of P. indica and AMF. And provide the method or reference of fungi inoculation and detection.

Author response #2: The methods of fungi inoculation and amount of AMF and P. indica spores were added to the Materials and Methods.

Reviewer point #3: [Results] This study has many figure, but author doesn’t or good explain the result of the figure.

Author response #3: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, we checked all figures and we found in Fv/fm some mistake was made because of careless writing. This has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Also, Analysis of variance was added to the Results.

Figures 7, 10, and 12 were referred to the text.

Reviewer point #4: [Discussion] The conclusions drawn by the authors that P. indica, AMF and their co-inoculation symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salinity on the photosynthetic capability of peppermint is not really supported by those parameters. The authors mention that higher photosynthetic capability attributed to the better physiological status. Why the author not measure the ROS scavengers related enzyme activity to support the point? Kindly explain.

Author response #4: Thank you for your suggestion. We studied the antioxidant enzymes, such as catalase and superoxide dismutase, and we have considered it for another article. But if necessary, we can also represent them.

Reviewer point #5: The Fig. 2 was not clear, please replace it and provide the scale or microscope magnification. The microscopic observation pictures of the control plant roots are also need provided. “chlamidospore” probably “chlamydospore”? Please check it.

Author response #5: the scale or microscope magnification was (10- 40X). the scale was added to the pictures. We separated the pictures to make the pictures clearer.

“chlamidospore” was modified to “chlamydospore

Reviewer point #6: Fig. 3, add the abbreviation of Pi. Give the test sample number of root colonization of each group.

Author response #6: The correction was done in text.

Reviewer point #7: All the column figures in this study have no error bars, please check/add it.

Author response #7: Error bars was added to the all figures.

Reviewer point #8: Fig. 5 (a-c) different with other column figure like Fig. 4, please check/replace it.

Author response #8: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, this mistake was made because of using the wrong way of lettering Means. We learned from one of our colleagues that there is a more accurate way to Lettering means. then, we did the Lettering method through the SAS program itself, and all figures have been corrected.

Reviewer point #9: Fig. 6, “AMF* Pi” or “Pi *AMF”? “PI” or “Pi”? Same with Fig. 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13, keep one unified format. please check/replace it.

Author response #9: The reviewer is correct; the correction has been made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer point #10: I suggest the authors provide an intuitive picture of each treatment group sample peppermint to show the result of this study.

Author response #10: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. This research has already been done and we only have some pictures from the time of planting that we present.

Reviewer point #11: Here two excellent publications on symbiosis of P. indica and Mentha piperita should be read in this study to give some reference. Dolatabadi, H.K., Goltapeh, E.M., Moieni, A., Varma, A., 2012. Evaluation of different densities of auxin and endophytic fungi (Piriformospora indica and Sebacina vermifera) on Mentha piperita and Thymus vulgaris growth. Afr J Biotechnol, 11: 1644–1650.

Dolatabadi, H.K., Goltapeh, E.M., Safari, M., Golafaie, T.P., 2017. Potential effect of Piriformospora indica on plant growth and essential oil yield in Mentha piperita. Plant Pathol Quar, 7: 96–104.

Author response #11: These references were added to the revised manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #3 Comments

Reviewer point #1: 1st Para- line 1:- ‘Which its’ can be written as ‘and its’

Author response #1: ‘Which its’ was modified to ‘and its’

Reviewer point #2: 2nd Para- line 1:- Yield is negatively affected (Kindly add references)

Author response #2: The appropriate reference was added to "Yield is negatively affected"

Reviewer point #3: 3rd Para- 2nd last line:- ‘Quercus ilex’ should be italics

Author response #3: The correction was done in text.

Reviewer point #4: 1st para- line 3:- ‘Three replications’; always use minimum five replications

Author response #4: Thanks to the referee’s suggestion, definitely conducting the experiment with five replications would be more accurate. However, we found authoritative articles that tested their experiment with three repetitions, such as:

1. Bharti, N., Pandey, S. S., Barnawal, D., Patel, V. K., & Kalra, A. (2016). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Dietzia natronolimnaea modulates the expression of stress responsive genes providing protection of wheat from salinity stress. Scientific reports, 6(1), 1-16.

2. Gururani, M. A., Venkatesh, J., Ghosh, R., Strasser, R. J., Ponpandian, L. N., & Bae, H. (2018). Chlorophyll-a fluorescence evaluation of PEG-induced osmotic stress on PSII activity in Arabidopsis plants expressing SIP1. Plant Biosystems-An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 152(5), 945-952.

3. Li, X., Zhao, C., Zhang, T., Wang, G., Amombo, E., Xie, Y., & Fu, J. (2021). Exogenous Aspergillus aculeatus Enhances Drought and Heat Tolerance of Perennial Ryegrass. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12, 307.

4. Varghese, N., Alyammahi, O., Nasreddine, S., Alhassani, A., & Gururani, M. A. (2019). Melatonin positively influences the photosynthetic machinery and antioxidant system of Avena sativa during salinity stress. Plants, 8(12), 610.

5. Yamane, K., Oi, T., Enomoto, S., Nakao, T., Arai, S., Miyake, H., & Taniguchi, M. (2018). Three‐dimensional ultrastructure of chloroplast pockets formed under salinity stress. Plant, cell & environment, 41(3), 563-575.

6. Ji, J., Yue, J., Xie, T., Chen, W., Du, C., Chang, E., ... & Shi, S. (2018). Roles of γ-aminobutyric acid on salinity-responsive genes at transcriptomic level in poplar: involving in abscisic acid and ethylene-signalling pathways. Planta, 248(3), 675-690.

Reviewer point #5: Line 5:- Kindly mention the spore counts of P indica and AMF

Author response #5: 10 g of Arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculum (with a density of 120 active spores per gram) and 10 ml of Piriformospora indica suspension (1× 109) were added to the pots.

Reviewer point #6: Line 6:- Kindly specify the ratio of Caspian sea water and distilled water

Author response #6: In order to reach each level of salinity stress: determined amount of the Caspian Sea water and distilled water were mixed and then the desired salinity was determined by EC meter.

Reviewer point #7: Physiological parameters: Line 3-5:- Kindly elaborate the methods used for analysis

Author response #7: The methods used for analysis were added to the Materials and Methods section.

Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured in the last fully developed leaf by using pulse amplitude modulated fluorometer (PAM-2500, Walz, Germany). First, leaves were placed in darkness for 30 minutes using specific leaf clamps. The samples were exposed to low-intensity light [< 0.1 μmol (photon) m−2 s−1, red light]. Then, a saturating light pulse [> 8,000 μmol (photon) m−2 s−1, white light) was turned on for 1 s (one pulse). The minimum fluorescence (Fo) and maximum fluorescence (Fm) were determined in dark-adapted leaves. The variable fluorescence (Fv) and maximum quantum photosystem II efficiency (Fv/Fm) were evaluated based on Equations 1 and 2. and the effective photochemical quantum efficiency II [ФPSII], electron transfer rate [ETR, μmol(electron) m–2 s–1), non-photochemical quenching (NPQ), the quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation (YNPQ), and Quantum yield of non-regulated energy dissipation in PSII (Y (NO)) were calculated by using Equations 3 and 6 (Khanghahi et al, 2012).

1) Fv= Fm- Fo

2) Fv/Fm= (Fm- Fo)/ Fm

3) ФPSII= (Fm´ − F)/Fm´

4) NPQ = (Fm/Fm') – 1

5) Y(NPQ) = (F/Fm') – (F/Fm)

6) Y(NO) = F/Fm

F= steady-state fluorescenc

Fm'= maximum fluorescence measured in light-exposed leaf samples.

Reviewer point #8: Results: 1st Para- 2nd last line:- Kindly confirm the synergistic association between P indica & AMF through plating techniques.

Author response #8: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we definitely investigate the synergistic association between P indica & AMF through plating techniques in our future research; however, this research has already been conducted and done; thus, we can't add a new experiment.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Mayank Gururani

20 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-02576R1

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khalvandi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5th May 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments: The article is improved a lot after the revision, but the authors were not thorough in a critical review of the entire text. Some minor corrections in the abstract, introduction and materials & methods part of the article are pointed out below.

But the discussion part needs thorough revision. The authors discuss many physiological effects in plants concerning salt stress based on previous literature but not specific to their findings. Discussion in a research paper is meant to discuss the results and not the previous literature. Some contradictions are also in their argument. They must thoroughly revise the discussion. Let them go through the specific comments pointed out below while reviewing the discussion. If they limit the discussion to their actual findings, the entire discussion can be summarized to 1/3rd of what is presented.

Specific comments

1. Abstract: First sentence of the abstracts seems complex and needs to be simplified

2. Introduction – 2nd paragraph – 3rd line: ‘Photosynthesis process’ – please delete ‘process’

3. Introduction – 4th paragraph – Line No.12: ‘which are all pharmaceutical useful’ – please modify as ‘pharmaceutically useful’

4. Material and Methods: 1st paragraph – 2nd line: ‘This research was carried out in a factorial experiment in a….’ – may be modified as: ‘A factorial experiment was carried out in a....’

5. Discussion – 9th paragraph: ‘Several reports have reported a direct correlation between nutrient imbalance and the simultaneous decline in PSII function in salt-stressed plants’ - the sentence may be modified as ‘Several reports suggest a direct correlation between nutrient imbalance and the simultaneous decline in PSII function in salt-stressed plants’ – which are these reports? Please refer to the reports; the reference of Yang et al. (2021) is not sufficient to substantiate the argument of ‘several reports’; otherwise, modify the sentence.

9th paragraph – line 7: ‘fungi symbiosis’ – may be modified as fungal symbiosis

9th paragraph: lines 6-7: ‘Nevertheless, endophytic fungi symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salt stress on the mineral uptake’ – please mention the evidence which the authors have presented as results in their study to substantiate this argument; otherwise delete this speculative argument. (the first sentence of this paragraph is ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake because of the high rate of Na+ absorption’, is contradictory to this argument.

Line 11: ‘osmotic stress)’ – delete the bracket

10th paragraph: lines 5-7: ‘In agreement with the present results, Xu et al. (2016) reported that the positive effect of AMF on Fv/Fm increasing in maize seedlings can be attributed to the absorption of mineral nutrients, activating mediated genes and sink stimulation’ – how can it be in agreement with, especially when the authors argue in the 9th paragraph that ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake because of the high rate of Na+ absorption’ ? - please note the contradiction and revise

I think the 11th and 12th paragraph are unnecessary as these do not discuss any specific findings of the researchers.

Overall, the discussion need to be thoroughly revised

Reviewer #3: The manuscript describe a technically sound piece of scientific research. Authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in a previous round of review and this manuscript is now acceptable for publication

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joseph George Ray

Reviewer #3: Yes: Md Nafe Aziz

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254076.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 May 2021

Prof. Mayank Gururani

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE Journal

Dear Prof., Mayank Gururani

Attached please find our revised manuscript entitled: Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea? (No.: PONE-D-21-02576) for publication in PLOS ONE Journal.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and the suggestions made by referees to improve the manuscript. We responded to all of the reviewers' suggestions.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication; however, we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Masoumeh Khalvandi

In behalf authors

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-02576)

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

Reviewer point #1: If they limit the discussion to their actual findings, the entire discussion can be summarized to 1/3rd of what is presented.

Author response #1: The length of the discussion part has been reduced. And these sentences were removed in the discussion part.

• The reason that salinity decreased fungal colonization might be attributed to the adverse effects of salinity on photosynthesis, along with a reduction in carbon supply from plant to endophytic fungus. This can also be supported by the fact that salinity induced changes in morphological features of fungal hyphae. Besides,

• These results are similar to what has been recorded in wheat (lyas et al, 2020), and maize (Wang et al, 2020).

• inhibition of QA re-oxidation, and degradation of D1 and D2 proteins in the PSII which

• Salinity stress probably saturates the electron transport chain that leads to accumulation of protons, followed by an increase in the amount of NPQ. The increase in NPQ, which is actually an indicator of heat loss in the processes of the excessive energy removal, shows the high capacity of the xanthophyll cycle (Nilkens et al., 2010; Murchie and Lawson, 2013).

• Higher values of photochemical activity of PSII in plants which have a symbiotic relationship with fungi are mainly associated with: the increased density of photosynthetic units, the improved reaction center activity, enhancing the plants’ ability to use light energy, and facilitating the electron transport to NADP (Xu et al, 2016; Moreira et al. 2015; Zhang et al, 2018; Shahabivand et al, 2017; Ghorbani et al, 2018; Shahabivand et al, 2012). Furthermore, microbial inoculation can alleviate the adverse impacts of salinity on the photochemical activity of PSII through expression of the genes encoding D1 and D2 proteins, improving water absorption, modulating membrane damage, and improving chlorophyll content (Chen et al, 2017).

• AMF has been reported to regulate root permeability by doubling the expression of the LSPLP1 gene, the strategy which leads to a higher tolerance to osmotic stress) (Heikham Evelin et al, 2019).

• In addition to what is mentioned above, salinity suppresses the biosynthesis of essential oil. The reason for the reduction in the synthesis of essential oils can be related to the low availability of assimilates as a result of reduced photosynthetic activity and inactivation of the PSII reaction center (Zuo et al, 2017). However, even when photosynthesis assimilation approaches zero (due to stomatal restriction, damage to chlorophyll, and chloroplast membrane system under severe stress conditions) monoterpenes biosynthesis still occurs due to alternative carbon sources allocation (Lavoir et al, 2009). Naturally, monoterpenes are biosynthesized through MEP/ DOXP pathway and are fueled by a constant supply of substrates, high amounts of acetyl-CoA, and ATP and NADPH+H cofactors (Niinemets et al., 2002, Behn et al, 2010). This can be the reason for the tight link between methyl erythritol-4-osphate (MEP) and photosynthesis, as the Calvin cycle in chloroplasts is the main carbon sources for terpenoid biosynthesis and the MEP pathway is a place for reducing excess electron flow in the photosynthetic electron transfer chain (Valifard et al, 2018).

• It is believed that the monoterpene pattern is mostly determined by NADPH+H+ -dependent reductive interconversions, like a reduction of menthone to menthol (Behn et al, 2010). These modifications in the biosynthesis of monoterpenes can be linked to alterations in the photosynthetic electron transfer chain, the production of photosynthetic NDPH2 (Maffei and Codignola, 1990), and oxidation of monoterpenes by ROS to generate oxygenated forms under environmental stress (Zuo et al, 2017).

These references were also removed in the revised manuscript.

1. Agron. 10, 160–162.Wu, M., Wei, Q., Xu, L., Li, H., Oelmüller, R., & Zhang, W. (2018). Piriformospora indica enhances phosphorus absorption by stimulating acid phosphatase activities and organic acid accumulation in Brassica napus. Plant and Soil, 432(1-2), 333-344.

2. Behn, H., Albert, A., Marx, F., Noga, G., & Ulbrich, A. (2010). Ultraviolet-B and photosynthetically active radiation interactively affect yield and pattern of monoterpenes in leaves of peppermint (Mentha× piperita L.). Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 58(12), 7361-7367.

3. Flexas, J., Escalona, J. M., & Medrano, H. (1999). Water stress induces different levels of photosynthesis and electron transport rate regulation in grapevines. Plant, Cell & Environment, 22(1), 39-48.

4. lyas, N., Mazhar, R., Yasmin, H., Khan, W., Iqbal, S., Enshasy, H. E., & Dailin, D. J. (2020). Rhizobacteria isolated from saline soil induce systemic tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) against salinity stress. Agronomy, 10(7), 989.

5. Lavoir, A. V., Staudt, M., Schnitzler, J. P., Landais, D., Massol, F., Rocheteau, A., ... & Rambal, S. (2009). Drought reduced monoterpene emissions from the evergreen Mediterranean oak Quercus ilex: results from a throughfall displacement experiment. Biogeosciences, 6(7), 1167-1180.

6. Maffei, M., & Codignola, A. (1990). Photosynthesis, photorespiration and herbicide effect on terpene production in peppermint (Mentha piperita L.). Journal of Essential Oil Research, 2(6), 275-286.

7. Sebastian, A., & Prasad, M. N. V. (2019). Photosynthetic light reactions in Oryza sativa L. under Cd stress: Influence of iron, calcium, and zinc supplements. The EuroBiotech Journal. 3(4): 175-181.

8. Zuo, Z., Wang, B., Ying, B., Zhou, L., & Zhang, R. (2017). Monoterpene emissions contribute to thermotolerance in Cinnamomum camphora. Trees, 31(6), 1759-1771.

Reviewer point #2: Abstract: First sentence of the abstracts seems complex and needs to be simplified

Author response #2: The correction was done in Abstract.

Reviewer point #3: Introduction – 2nd paragraph – 3rd line: ‘Photosynthesis process’ – please delete ‘process’

Author response #3: process was deleted in ‘Photosynthesis process’

Reviewer point #4: Introduction – 4th paragraph – Line No.12: ‘which are all pharmaceutical useful’ – please modify as ‘pharmaceutically useful’

Author response #4: ‘which are all pharmaceutical useful’ was modified to ‘pharmaceutically useful’

Reviewer point #5: Material and Methods: 1st paragraph – 2nd line: ‘This research was carried out in a factorial experiment in a….’ – may be modified as: ‘A factorial experiment was carried out in a....’

Author response #5: ‘This research was carried out in a factorial experiment in a….’ was modified to ‘A factorial experiment was carried out in a....’

Reviewer point #6: Discussion – 9th paragraph: ‘Several reports have reported a direct correlation between nutrient imbalance and the simultaneous decline in PSII function in salt-stressed plants’ - the sentence may be modified as ‘Several reports suggest a direct correlation between nutrient imbalance and the simultaneous decline in PSII function in salt-stressed plants’

Author response #6: The correction has been made in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer point #7: which are these reports? Please refer to the reports; the reference of Yang et al. (2021) is not sufficient to substantiate the argument of ‘several reports’; otherwise, modify the sentence.

Author response #7: Thank you for pointing this out. The following articles were added to the references.

• Loudari, A., Benadis, C., Naciri, R., Soulaimani, A., Zeroual, Y., Gharous, M. E., Kalaji, H M., & Oukarroum, A. (2020). Salt stress affects mineral nutrition in shoots and roots and chlorophyll a fluorescence of tomato plants grown in hydroponic culture. Journal of Plant Interactions, 15(1), 398-405.

• Qu, C., Liu, C., Gong, X., Li, C., Hong, M., Wang, L., & Hong, F. (2012). Impairment of maize seedling photosynthesis caused by a combination of potassium deficiency and salt stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 75, 134-141

Reviewer point #8: 9th paragraph – line 7: ‘fungi symbiosis’ – may be modified as fungal symbiosis

Author response #8: ‘fungi symbiosis’ was modified to ‘fungal symbiosis’

Reviewer point #9: 9th paragraph: lines 6-7: ‘Nevertheless, endophytic fungi symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salt stress on the mineral uptake’ – please mention the evidence which the authors have presented as results in their study to substantiate this argument; otherwise delete this speculative argument. (the first sentence of this paragraph is ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake because of the high rate of Na+ absorption’, is contradictory to this argument.

Author response #9: ‘Nevertheless, endophytic fungi symbiosis mitigated the inhibitory effect of salt stress on the mineral uptake’ was modified to ‘Nevertheless, in inoculated plant endophytic fungal symbiosis increased P and K+ content (Figure. 6a) and decreased Na+ uptake in peppermint leaves (Figure. 4c).’

In order to avoid ambiguity and contradiction, ‘in non-inoculated plant’ and ‘in inoculated plant’ were added to the text of this paragraph.

Reviewer point #10: Line 11: ‘osmotic stress)’ – delete the bracket

Author response #10: done

Reviewer point #11: 10th paragraph: lines 5-7: ‘In agreement with the present results, Xu et al. (2016) reported that the positive effect of AMF on Fv/Fm increasing in maize seedlings can be attributed to the absorption of mineral nutrients, activating mediated genes and sink stimulation’ – how can it be in agreement with, especially when the authors argue in the 9th paragraph that ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake because of the high rate of Na+ absorption’ ? - please note the contradiction and revise

Author response #11:

In order to avoid ambiguity and contradiction, ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake because of the high rate of Na+ absorption’ was modified to ‘The results of this study showed that severe salinity stress remarkably reduced P and K+ uptake in non-inoculated plant because of the high rate of Na+ absorption.’

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. After reviewing articles in various journals, we found that they also reported such contradictions, and in all of them, although the rate of colonization and formation of fungal hyphae and spores decreased under salinity stress, its presence in the plant roots was able to reduce the negative effects of salinity stress on the plant and improves the amount of some plant parameters.

• Klinsukon, C., Lumyong, S., Kuyper, T. W., & Boonlue, S. (2021). Colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improves salinity tolerance of eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) seedlings. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-10.

• Zai, X. M., Fan, J. J., Hao, Z. P., Liu, X. M., & Zhang, W. X. (2021). Effect of co-inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphate solubilizing fungi on nutrient uptake and photosynthesis of beach palm under salt stress environment. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1-11.

• Parvin, S., Van Geel, M., Yeasmin, T., Verbruggen, E., & Honnay, O. (2020). Effects of single and multiple species inocula of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the salinity tolerance of a Bangladeshi rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivar. Mycorrhiza, 30(4), 431-444.

• Kaya, C., Ashraf, M., Sonmez, O., Aydemir, S., Tuna, A. L., & Cullu, M. A. (2009). The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonisation on key growth parameters and fruit yield of pepper plants grown at high salinity. Scientia horticulturae, 121(1), 1-6.

• Jahromi, F., Aroca, R., Porcel, R., & Ruiz-Lozano, J. M. (2008). Influence of salinity on the in vitro development of Glomus intraradices and on the in vivo physiological and molecular responses of mycorrhizal lettuce plants. Microbial Ecology, 55(1), 45.

Reviewer point #12: I think the 11th and 12th paragraph are unnecessary as these do not discuss any specific findings of the researchers.

Author response #12: These 11th and 12th paragraphs was delated in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Mayank Gururani

21 May 2021

PONE-D-21-02576R2

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khalvandi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5 June 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the improvements done in the submitted revision text, but feel that the authors need to summarize the discussion further. The lengthy and imprecise debate can only tarnish the brilliance of findings in any good research. Therefore, I request the authors to revise the ‘discussion’ to clarify the exact relevance of their findings. Please use the comments given in the ‘discussion’ part of the revised 'manuscript with track changes' as a model for the revision. Please avoid excessive references to previous findings; limit the citations to a maximum of 1-2 most relevant authorities in each case. Please also thoroughly check the entire text before submission of the revision for spelling and grammar; summarize or rephrase sentences to improve clarity wherever necessary. Finally, check the references thoroughly after deletion of unnecessary citations in the text during revision of the text.

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately addressed the points raised by the previous reviewers and the manuscript can be accepted for publication. However, the article will look more authentic if you could mention the source of both the Piriformospora indica and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi used in this work. If available, mention the culture depository details as well.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joseph George Ray

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-02576_R2 - with corrections.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0254076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254076.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


10 Jun 2021

Prof. Mayank Gururani

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS ONE Journal

Dear Prof., Mayank Gururani

Attached please find our revised manuscript entitled: Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea? (No.: PONE-D-21-02576) for publication in PLOS ONE Journal.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We appreciate your comments and the suggestions made by referees to improve the manuscript. We responded to all of the reviewers' suggestions.

We hope that after these enhancements the manuscript can now be accepted for publication; however, we are certainly willing to consider further changes if necessary.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Masoumeh Khalvandi

In behalf authors

Response to Review Comments

(Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-02576)

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

Reviewer point #1: The lengthy and imprecise debate can only tarnish the brilliance of findings in any good research. Therefore, I request the authors to revise the ‘discussion’ to clarify the exact relevance of their findings. Please use the comments given in the ‘discussion’ part of the revised 'manuscript with track changes' as a model for the revision. Please avoid excessive references to previous findings; limit the citations to a maximum of 1-2 most relevant authorities in each case. Please also thoroughly check the entire text before submission of the revision for spelling and grammar; summarize or rephrase sentences to improve clarity wherever necessary. Finally, check the references thoroughly after deletion of unnecessary citations in the text during revision of the text.

Author response #1: All requested corrections were made in the revised manuscript. The comments made in the ‘discussion’ part of the 'revised manuscript with track changes' were used as a model for revision. citations were reduced to a maximum of 1-2 most relevant authorities in each case. unnecessary references were deleted. The text was grammatically reviewed and corrected.

The following references have been deleted:

1. Calatayud, A., Roca, D., Martínez, P.F., (2006). Spatial-temporal variations in rose leaves under water stress conditions studied by chlorophyll fluorescence imaging. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 44, 564e573

2. Coban, O., Göktürk Baydar, N., (2016). Brassinosteroid effects on some physical and biochemical properties and secondary metabolite accumulation in peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) under salt stress. Ind Crops Prod. 86, 251-258.

3. Gupta, R., Singh, A., Srivastava, M., Singh, V., Gupta, M. M., & Pandey, R. (2017). Microbial modulation of bacoside A biosynthetic pathway and systemic defense mechanism in Bacopa monnieri under Meloidogyne incognita stress. Scientific reports, 7(1), 1-11.

4. Hasan, M., Ma, F., Prodhan, Z., Li, F., Shen, H., Chen, Y., & Wang, X. (2018). Molecular and physio-biochemical characterization of cotton species for assessing drought stress tolerance. International journal of molecular sciences, 19(9), 2636.

5. Khatri, K., & Rathore, M. S. (2019). Photosystem photochemistry, prompt and delayed fluorescence, photosynthetic responses and electron flow in tobacco under drought and salt stress. Photosynthetica, 57(1), 61-74.

6. Kromdijk, J., Głowacka, K., Leonelli, L., Gabilly, S.T., Iwai, M., Niyogi, K.K., Long, S.P. (2016). Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 354, 857–861.

7. Kumar, G. (2020). Unit 7 Topic: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Colonization In Plant Roots.

8. Li, D., Liu, H., Qiao, Y., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Dong, B., Shi, C., Liu, Y., Li, X., and Liu, M. (2013). Effects of elevated CO2 on the growth, seed yield, and water use efficiency of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) under drought stress. Agricultural Water Management, 129, 105-112.

9. Li, Y., Song, H., Zhou, L., Xu, Z., & Zhou, G. (2019). Tracking chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of drought and rewatering across the entire leaf lifespan in a maize field. Agricultural Water Management, 211, 190-201.

10. Loomis, W.D., Corteau, R., 1972. Essential oil biosynthesis. Recent Adv Phytochem. 6, 147-185.

11. McMillen, B.G., Juniper, S., Abbott, L.K., (1998). Inhibition of hyphal growth of a Vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus in soil containing sodium chloride limits the spread of infection from spores. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30, 1639–1646.

12. Moreira, B. C., Junior, P. P., Jordao, T. C., da Silva, M. D. C. S., Stürmer, S. L., Salomão, L. C. C., ... & Kasuya, M. C. M. (2016). Effect of inoculation of symbiotic fungi on the growth and antioxidant enzymes’ activities in the presence of Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. ananas in pineapple plantlets. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 38(10), 1-14.

13. Niinemets, Ü., Hauff, K., Bertin, N., Tenhunen, J. D., Steinbrecher, R., & Seufert, G. (2002). Monoterpene emissions in relation to foliar photosynthetic and structural variables in Mediterranean evergreen Quercus species. New Phytologist, 153(2), 243-256.

14. Nilkens, M., Kress, E., Lambrev, P., Miloslavina, Y., Müller, M., Holzwarth, A.R., Jahns, P. (2010). Identification of a slowly inducible zeaxanthin-dependent component of nonphotochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence generated under steady-state conditions in Arabidopsis.

15. Ormeño, E., Olivier, R., Mévy, J. P., Baldy, V., & Fernandez, C. (2009). Compost may affect volatile and semi-volatile plant emissions through nitrogen supply and chlorophyll fluorescence. Chemosphere, 77(1), 94-104.

16. Rai, M., Acharya, D., Singh, A., Varma, A., (2001). Positive growth responses of the medicinal plants Spilanthes calva and Withania somnifera to inoculation by Piriformospora indica in a field trial. Mycorrhiza. 11, 123-128.

17. Rapparini, F., Llusià, J., & Peñuelas, J. (2008). Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) colonization on terpene emission and content of Artemisia annua L. Plant Biology, 10(1), 108-122.

18. Shahabivand, S., Parvaneh, A., & Aliloo, A. A. (2017). Root endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica affected growth, cadmium partitioning and chlorophyll fluorescence of sunflower under cadmium toxicity. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 145, 496-502.

19. Sun, C., Johnson, J. M., Cai, D., Sherameti, I., Oelmüller, R., & Lou, B. (2010). Piriformospora indica confers drought tolerance in Chinese cabbage leaves by stimulating antioxidant enzymes, the expression of drought-related genes and the plastid-localized CAS protein. Journal of plant physiology, 167(12), 1009-1017.

20. Tarraf, W., Ruta, C., Cillis, F.D., Tagarelli, A., Tedone, L., Mastro, G.D., (2015). Effects of mycorrhiza on growth and essential oil production in selected aromatic plants. J.

21. Vickers, C. E., Gershenzon, J., Lerdau, M. T., & Loreto, F. (2009). A unified mechanism of action for volatile isoprenoids in plant abiotic stress. Nature chemical biology, 5(5), 283.

22. Tsai, M.L., Wu, C.T., Lin, T.F., Lin, W.C., Huang, Y.C., Yang, C.H., (2013). Chemical composition and biological properties of essential oils of two mint species. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 12, 577–582.

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately addressed the points raised by the previous reviewers and the manuscript can be accepted for publication. However, the article will look more authentic if you could mention the source of both the Piriformospora indica and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi used in this work. If available, mention the culture depository details as well.

Author response #1: The source of both the Piriformospora indica and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi used in this work was added in text.

We obtained both he Piriformospora indica and Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi from Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University. But the main source of these two fungi was as follows: Mycorrhiza fungi inoculum (consisted of spores in a sand and mycorrhizal roots mixture) was prepared from Turan Biotechnology Company, Shahrood, Iran. The Piriformospora indica culture was kindly gifted by Prof. Karl-Heinz Kogel, Institute of Phytopathology and Applied Zoology, University of Giessen, Germany. P. indica was cultured in liquid Kafer’s medium at 24◦C for 10 days (Yaghoubian et al., 2019).

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Author response #1: reference list has been corrected in the revised manuscript.

"Arnon, D. I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenol oxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant physiology, 24(1), 1" was replaced with "Hameed, A., Akram, N. A., Saleem, M. H., Ashraf, M., Ahmed, S., Ali, S., ... & Alyemeni, M. N. (2021). Seed treatment with α-tocopherol regulates growth and key physio-biochemical attributes in carrot (Daucus carota l.) plants under water limited regimes. Agronomy, 11(3), 469".

"Hemming, D., (2013). Plant sciences reviews 2012. CABI. 280 pp. (online ISSN 1749-8848)" was replaced with " Sun, Z., Wang, H., Wang, J., Zhou, L., Yang, P., (2014). Chemical composition and anti-inflammatory, cytotoxic and antioxidant activities of essential oil from Leaves of Mentha piperita grown in china. PLoS One. 12, e114767."

"Bertamini, M., Faralli, M., Varotto, C., Grando, M. S., & Cappellin, L. (2021). Leaf Monoterpene Emission Limits Photosynthetic Downregulation under Heat Stress in Field-Grown Grapevine. Plants, 10(1), 181" was corrected.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Mayank Gururani

21 Jun 2021

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

PONE-D-21-02576R3

Dear Dr. Khalvandi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I think the authors have addressed all the comments satisfactorily and corrected the language to the extent possible from their side.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Mayank Gururani

1 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-02576R3

Does co-inoculation of mycorrhiza and Piriformospora indica fungi enhance the efficiency of Chlorophyll fluorescence and essential oil composition in peppermint under irrigation with saline water from the Caspian Sea?

Dear Dr. Khalvandi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mayank Gururani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Effect of salinity on membrane electrolyte leakage, stomatal conductance, essential oil, Na+, Fv/Fm, YII and Fo in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica AMF and co-inoculation).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Effect of salinity on fm, fv, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, Y(NPQ), Y(NO), P, K+, NPQ and ETR.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Changes in various physiological traits in inoculated and non-inoculated peppermint with (P. indica, AMF and co-inoculation).

    (DOCX)

    S1 Graphical abstracts

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments PLOS ONE.doc

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-02576_R2 - with corrections.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES