Effects of Variations in Soil Moisture and Phosphorus Concentrations on the Diversity of the Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Community in an Agricultural Ecosystem
Elsayed Mohamed
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript language needs major rewriting
The manuscript has lacked in the following points:
Abstract
The Study Problem?? Need for such work??
The manuscript lacks enough results
The recommendation is not convincing to the reader
Introduction
The research components and the title of the manuscript were not scientifically illustrated in the introduction section.
the methodology used as well as the methods used in similar scientific work also didn't highlight.
Methodology
Ø Soil moisture and other soil characteristic should highlighted in the methodology section Flowchart methodology for illustrated the steps of the work and the like each other.
Results and discussion
Ø All figures need to be reproduced, as the clarification is poor, and the details of the work and the key did not appear.
Ø The outputs of the work should be discussed in a good scientific manner and also the results should be compared with similar work
The manuscript language needs major rewriting
Author Response
Response to Reviewer1’s comments
Abstract
Q1: The Study Problem?? Need for such work??
The manuscript lacks enough results
The recommendation is not convincing to the reader
Reply1: Thank you for your suggestions, and we have revised the research questions and results in the abstract section based on your suggestions and comments. (page 1, line 19-20, 26-27)
Our purpose in conducting this study is to investigate the effects of different phosphorus concentrations and moisture on AMF diversity. Based on the reviewer's suggestions, we have made additions and modifications to the results section. (page 6, line 227-228), (page 5, line 210-211)
We have removed this suggestion from the summary.
Introduction
Q2: The research components and the title of the manuscript were not scientifically illustrated in the introduction section.
The methodology used as well as the methods used in similar scientific work also didn't highlight.
Reply 2: Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. According to your advice, we in the introduction to add the research content. (page 2, line 84-86)
We have also supplemented and emphasized the methodology section in the introduction. (page 2, line 87-93)
Methodology
Q3: Soil moisture and other soil characteristic should highlighted in the methodology section Flowchart methodology for illustrated the steps of the work and the like each other.
Reply 3: Thank you for the very valuable comments on our manuscript. Method section we added we measured soil moisture (Figure 1). And added other soil physical and chemical characteristics (Table 1). Specific work steps in the article also has carried on the detailed instructions. We are grateful for the constructive comments on the manuscript.
Results and discussion
Q4: All figures need to be reproduced, as the clarification is poor, and the details of the work and the key did not appear.
The outputs of the work should be discussed in a good scientific manner and also the results should be compared with similar work
Comments on the Quality of English Language: The manuscript language needs major rewriting
Reply 4: Thanks for your suggestions. All the clarity of the picture has been modified. The quality of the English language has also carried on the detailed modification. (page 6, line 219), (page 7, line 236), (page 8, line 253), (page 9, line 257)
We have revised the discussion section and compared it with other studies.
(page 9, line 266-169), (page 9, line 279-281) ,(page 10, line 304-)
Based on your suggestion, we have sent our manuscript to a professional (native English speaker) for polishing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are presented in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer2’s comments
Q1: Line 95-96. Maybe we should present a table with the chemical properties of
soil (pH, SOC, phosphorus, nitrogen, water-soluble salts…)?
Reply 1: Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. We add the form in the article (N、P、K) (Table 1)
Q2: Line 100-107. What water was used for irrigation? Perhaps the water contains.
additional phosphorus, nitrogen, water-soluble salts? How was soil moisture
strictly controlled?
Reply 2: The irrigation method in the study area is consistent with the local agricultural irrigation method. Control soil moisture and humidity through irrigation and precipitation, monitoring every two weeks. (page 3, line 120-121)
Q3: What was the control in the experiment (null option in relation to DNP, NNP, DLP and NLP)? What form of phosphorus was used in the experiment?
Reply 3: Thank you for your questions. The soil phosphorus content of our experimental area is between 10.3~12.6 mg/kg. We in the contrast as phosphorus content. Phosphorus is the main form of P2O5. (page 3, line 115-116)
Q4: Line 108-113. When in time after the start of the experiment were the soils
sampled for analysis?
Reply 4: Our sampling time is in June 2019, after the wheat mature for soil sampling. (page 3, line 126-127)
Q5: 4. 3. Result and 4. Discussion. The authors state that phosphorus and moisture
content influence the growth and activity of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi
Community, but they do not provide data on the phosphorus and water content of
the soil. It is also possible that other factors affect the growth of fungi, such as
changes in soil pH.
Based on the title of the article, it is necessary to add data and discussion on the
change in phosphorus content and moisture content during the experiment.
Reply 5: Thank you for the very valuable comments on our manuscript. According to the opinion of reviewer, provides moisture content and phosphorus concentration data. (Figure 1)
Reviewer 3 Report
Your paper is interesting and I believe very important to the field of agriculture. However there are several things that needs to be corrected. First, I would suggest English proofs.
Through the results section I'm missing p-values of statistical test to confirm the significance of the results.
Decide whether will you use AMF or AM fungi abbreviation.
Genus names must be in italic.
Line 39: rephrase into: Soil microorganisms plays an important role in nitrogen and phosphorus cycle, by directly affecting the soil nutrient content.
Line 43: AM fungi can form ...
Line 44: By root system, plants reproduce necessary carbohydrate for AM fungi growth in exchange for water and nutrients transport through the root system to the host plant.
Line 73: Glomus in italic.
Line 104 Method section: drought treatment was conducted in greenhouse? If I'm getting it correctly, you established four treatments with different regimes on the filed, but drought treatment was established in greenhouse? How? Did you have like a pot-experiment than in the greenhouse? Describe in more detail how did you do this?
Where did you upload you sequencing data? In which database? Add in line 131.
Figure 1 a and c are really hard to read due to small letters. Please change them, to be easier to read.
Section 3.2.: I'm missing the p-values of PERMANOVA to confirm the significance of your results - whether are AMF communities really different or not. Please add them.
Section 3.3.: again, add p-values to confirm which correlations are significant.
Figure 4: Name of the y-axis? Correct it.
References needs to be edited - now are they in the form as the reference management software output them.
English proofs needed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer3’s comments
Q1: Through the results section I'm missing p-values of statistical test to confirm the significance of the results.
Reply 1: Thank you for the very valuable comments on our manuscript. P value calculation have been made and add in this article. (page 6, line 227-228)
Q2: Decide whether will you use AMF or AM fungi abbreviation.
Genus names must be in italic.
Line 39: rephrase into: Soil microorganisms plays an important role in nitrogen and phosphorus cycle, by directly affecting the soil nutrient content.
Line 43: AM fungi can form ...
Line 44: By root system, plants reproduce necessary carbohydrate for AM fungi growth in exchange for water and nutrients transport through the root system to the host plant.
Line 73: Glomus in italic.
Reply 2: Thank you for the very valuable comments on our manuscript. All suggested corrections and comments have been modified based on your suggestions.
We have decided to use AMF.
Genus names have been changed to italics.
Based on your suggestion, the modifications have been completed. (page 1, line 43-44), (page 2, line 49-50)
Q3: Line 104 Method section: drought treatment was conducted in greenhouse? If I'm getting it correctly, you established four treatments with different regimes on the filed, but drought treatment was established in greenhouse? How? Did you have like a pot-experiment than in the greenhouse? Describe in more detail how did you do this?
Reply 3: Thank you for your advice. Our experiments in drought areas were mainly conducted in drought sheds. Detailed explanation was provided in the method section. The main purpose is to remove the influence of precipitation. Once every two weeks in water monitoring. (page 3, line 114-122)
Q4: Where did you upload you sequencing data? In which database? Add in line 131.
Reply 4: Thanks for your suggestions. All the microbial sequences from this study were uploaded to the SRA, BioProject ID: PRJNA977104. (page 4, line 166-167)
Q5: Figure 1 a and c are really hard to read due to small letters. Please change them, to be easier to read.
Figure 4: Name of the y-axis? Correct it.
Reply 5: Thank you for the very valuable comments on our manuscript. All suggested corrections and comments have been modified based on your suggestions. (page 6, line 219), (page 9, line 257)
Q6: Section 3.2.: I'm missing the p-values of PERMANOVA to confirm the significance of your results - whether are AMF communities really different or not. Please add them.
Section 3.3.: again, add p-values to confirm which correlations are significant.
Reply 6: We are grateful for the constructive comments on the manuscript.
We have added the P-value to the manuscript.
Section 3.2 P values have been calculated and added in the results. (page 6, line 227-228)
Section 3.3 P values have been calculated and added in the manuscript. (page 5, line 198-199)
Q7: References needs to be edited - now are they in the form as the reference management software output them.
Reply 7: Thanks for your suggestions. References have been revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the author/s covered my comments well
The manuscript is almost fine
Author Response
We are thankful for the comprehensive and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge your work and dedication invested—it helped us to thoroughly improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't have any complaints about the article
Author Response
We are thankful for the comprehensive and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge your work and dedication invested—it helped us to thoroughly improve the quality of our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Since you addressed all my comments and concerns, and modified the paper, I think the article is now well prepared and ready to be accepted in current form.
Author Response
We are thankful for the comprehensive and encouraging evaluation of our manuscript. We would also like to acknowledge your work and dedication invested—it helped us to thoroughly improve the quality of our manuscript.
