Microbial Community’s Dynamic Response to Fomesafen Usage in Chernozems of Northeast China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 43, correct by 2001 [2].
Line 49, correct months [5-7],
Line 56, correct Anhui area [8].
Line 59, correct 87 days [9].
Line 69, correct China [10].
Line 72, correct period [3].
Line 77, 78, correct regions [9].
Materials and Methods, there is no description of the course of the weather conditions
Line 90, in which years was the experiment carried out?
Line 90, please indicate soil type according to IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Update 2015;World Soil Resources Raport 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; 188 p.
Line 91-93, please indicate with which methods the soil properties were determined
Line 93, pH in KCl?
Line 101, at 150 L/hm2?
Line 168, correct metanol [17].
Line 227, correct dosage (Table 1).
Table 1, correct C0 (mg/kg)
Line 236, correct R2 = correlation
Figure 2, 3, 4, correct Time (d)?
Figure 3C, correct Actinomycetes (CFU …
Line 346, correct Figure 3.
Line 371 etc., correct GN/GP
Line 373, etc. the ratio of GN\ GP?
Line 384, etc. correct (P < 0.001)
Line 351, correct Treatment 2 represent the twice recommended dosage (A) Bacteria; (B) Fungi;
Line 396, correct (D) Stress indicator.
Line 425, n = ?
Line 440, correct was 84.9 d,
Line 472, correct was previous studies [10,14,20].
References, correct Yang F.S., Liu L., Liu C.G.
etc.
Author Response
Dear editor, Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank the reviewers for thoroughly checking our manuscript and providing very useful suggestions to guide our revision. Sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. We have corrected the issues raised in the manuscript. We describe a point-by-point response to the comments from the editor and the reviewers below, and also highlight the revisions red in the manuscript.
Line 43, correct by 2001 [2].
Respond: We changed [Fomesafen was first exported it to China in 1988 and was first produced in China in 42 1994, becoming a widely used and effective herbicide by 2001] to [Fomesafen was first exported to China in 1988, and was first produced in China in 1994, becoming a widely used and effective herbicide by the beginning of the 20th century] (line 39).
Line 49, correct months [5-7],
Respond: We have revised the text, hope it is clearer now. See lines 40-41.
Line 56, correct Anhui area [8].
Respond: We have changed the [Anhui area] to [Chuzhou] (line 48).
Line 59, correct 87 days [9].
Respond: We have made changes. The new sentence is as follows [with yielded half-lives of approximately 87 days for applications of both 18.75 mg/kg and 37.5 mg/kg] (line 51)
Line 69, correct China [10].
Respond: We deleted this extra word based on the actual meaning of the sentence. (Line 61)
Line 72, correct period [3].
Respond: We rewrite this sentence as [These changes did not recover, even after an incubation period of 90 days] (Line 64).
Line 77, 78, correct regions [9].
Respond: We have changed [regions] to [areas] (line 69).
Materials and Methods, there is no description of the course of the weather conditions
Line 90, in which years was the experiment carried out?
Respond: We have added the description of the sampling time and weather conditions, which is of great value to improving the accuracy of the manuscript. (Lines 83-85)
Line 90, please indicate soil type according to IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. Update 2015;World Soil Resources Raport 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; 188 p.
Respond: Thanks for the references, which are now included in the revised manuscript. We revised the soil types in the article based on reference materials. The specific references are as follows: World reference base for soil resources 2014 International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps[M]. 2014.
Line 91-93, please indicate with which methods the soil properties were determined
Respond: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have added specific experimental methods. See lines 88-95.
Line 93, pH in KCl?
Respond: Thank you for your good suggestion. We have explained how to measure the PH value more accurately (line 213).
Line 101, at 150 L/hm2?
Respond: We have changed [150 L/hm2] to [150 L·hm-2] (line 103).
Line 168, correct metanol [17].
Respond: We have changed [metanol] to [methanol] (line 171).
Line 227, correct dosage (Table 1).
Respond: We have made new corrections as suggested. See line 243.
Table 1, correct C0 (mg/kg)
Respond: We have changed [C0 (mg/kg)] to [C 0 (mg·kg -1)] (line 244).
Line 236, correct R2 = correlation
Respond: We have changed [R2 = correlation] to [R2 = correlation] (line 248).
Figure 2, 3, 4, correct Time (d)?
Respond: We have corrected the abscissa of the picture to [Days] according to your friendly suggestion.
Figure 3C, correct Actinomycetes (CFU …
Respond: We have corrected the ordinate format and unit of the picture.
Line 346, correct Figure 3.
Respond: We changed [Figure 3] to [Figure 3] (line 365)
Line 371 etc., correct GN/GP
Line 373, etc. the ratio of GN\ GP?
Respond: We have corrected the content to GN/GP. See line 387
Line 384, etc. correct (P < 0.001)
Respond: We have changed [P<0.001] to [p <0.001] (lines 392, 394)
Line 351, correct Treatment 2 represent the twice recommended dosage (A) Bacteria; (B) Fungi;
Line 396, correct (D) Stress indicator.
Respond: We have revised the punctuation at the end of the sentence to make the meaning of the sentence more fluent.
Line 425, n =?
Respond: Thank you for your kind suggestion, we added this content. See line 448.
Line 440, correct was 84.9 d,
Respond: We have changed [84.9 d] to [84.9 days]. (Line463)
Line 472, correct was previous studies [10,14,20].
References, correct Yang F.S., Liu L., Liu C.G.
etc.
Respond: Thank you for your suggestion. We have cited more accurate documents based on your suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled “Dynamic Influence of Different Dosage of Fomesafen on Soil Enzyme and Microbial Community Structure in Black Soil of Soybean Field in Northeast China” presents an interesting study, well-organized and executed. The structure of the study is good and the statistical analysis used was the proper one to highlight the main findings.
I do suggest the acceptance of the paper after some corrections that the authors should take under consideration.
- The abstract must be re-written again. There is no need to explain the analysis that you conducted. A short description of the experiment is needed and the main findings
- Keywords in alphabetical order
- Lines 95-97: This is quite complicated. More details must be given to explain the exact number of soil samples. Stating that you have 6 fields and 10 ridges and later 3 replicates, is not very clear to the reader the exact experimental design and this is an important issue that the authors must explain. Did they collect mixed samples?
- Line 185: 16:1ω5c is a typical PLFA biomarker of AMF (correctly stated in line 181) and not of Gram-positive bacteria. If you used it in your calculations, then please adjust the values accordingly
- Figure 3 the x-axis is missing from the first two graphs
- The text must be edited by a native speaker. Several linguistic issues exist
Author Response
Dear editor, Dear reviewer,
We are glad that the editor and the reviewers find the work important, and very much appreciate the comments, which have helped improve our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript carefully. We describe a point-by-point response to the comments from the editor and the reviewers below, and also highlight the revisions green in the manuscript.
The article entitled “Dynamic Influence of Different Dosage of Fomesafen on Soil Enzyme and Microbial Community Structure in Black Soil of Soybean Field in Northeast China” presents an interesting study, well-organized and executed. The structure of the study is good and the statistical analysis used was the proper one to highlight the main findings.
I do suggest the acceptance of the paper after some corrections that the authors should take under consideration.
- The abstract must be re-written again. There is no need to explain the analysis that you conducted. A short description of the experiment is needed and the main findings
Respond: Thank you for your kind suggestion, we have rewritten the summary in the manuscript and deleted the redundant analysis process.[(line 18-32) The main purpose of this study was to explore the effects of the recommended usage level and twice the recommended usage level of the long-acting herbicide fomesafen on the soil enzymes and mi-crobial community structure in chernozems of soybean fields. Culturable microbial biomass and phospholipid fatty acids were used as the main references for this evaluation. The digestion curve of fomesafen in soil conforms to the law of a single exponential function. The activities of four soil enzymes decreased significantly when exposed to twice the recommended amount, and then re-turned to the control level. The inhibition of the fungal and bacterial biomass section of culturable microorganisms in soil at twice the recommended usage level was greater than that under the recommended usage level, and this dosage also stimulated the rapid recovery of the initial level of fungal biomass before the application of fomesafen. The PLFA analysis showed that the ratio of GN/GP decreased significantly, and soil pressure increased significantly. Compared with the recommended usage level, the effect of twice the recommended usage level of fomesafen on soil microbial community structure was more significant. This provides a reference for environmental location recommendations, environmental safety assessments, and the rational use of herbicides.]
- Keywords in alphabetical order.
Respond: We have changed the keywords. (line 34)
- Lines 95-97: This is quite complicated. More details must be given to explain the exact number of soil samples. Stating that you have 6 fields and 10 ridges and later 3 replicates, is not very clear to the reader the exact experimental design and this is an important issue that the authors must explain. Did they collect mixed samples?
Respond: We added this part to the manuscript to explain the specific process in more detail.[(line 96-110) Keywords: culturable microorganism; fomesafen; phospholipid fatty acid; soil enzyme]
- Line 185: 16:1ω5c is a typical PLFA biomarker of AMF (correctly stated in line 181) and not of Gram-positive bacteria. If you used it in your calculations, then please adjust the values accordingly
Respond: Thank you for your kind suggestion. We have re-examined our manuscript. Due to the ambiguity caused by the writing error, we have corrected the writing error and the calculation process is the same as that of our predecessor(line 190-191)
5.Figure 3 the x-axis is missing from the first two graphs
Respond: Thank you for your suggestion, we have revised the picture.
- The text must be edited by a native speaker. Several linguistic issues exist
Respond: Thanks for your constructive suggestion, which is highly appreciated.We have carefully scrutinized the manuscript, and made corresponding revisions including some typos, grammatical errors and long sentences, etc.This manuscript has been revised extensively according to the reviewers' constructive suggestions. In addition, the expression of the manuscript has been improved with the help of a native English speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor, Dear reviewers,
We thank the reviewers for their time and efforts in reviewing the manuscript. Their suggestions enable us to improve our work. According to the instructions provided in your letter, we have uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Therefore, we uploaded a copy of the original manuscript, with all changes shown directly in blue. In the process of revising the manuscript, we supplement the early design of the experiment and restate the experimental results, so that the whole experimental results can better support our conclusion.
This letter is accompanied by our point-by-point response to the comments made by the reviewers. We would also like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a copy of the revised manuscript.
A report for: Dynamic Influence of Different Dosage of Fomesafen on Soil Enzyme and
Microbial Community Structure in Black Soil of Soybean Field in Northeast China
I have read the paper carefully and find the topic is interesting. The introduction provides
sufficient information to understand the objectives. The result and discussion was in-depth. A
huge amount of literature was listed in the reference. I value this article positively, because
provides a reference for the environmental destination, environmental safety assessment and
rational use of herbicides. My major concern on this paper was that generally, the structure of
this manuscript is somewhat confused. I believe I have to propose major revisión.
I have a few comments and suggestions that authors must consider before publication:
- Keywords: fomesafen; soil enzyme; phospholipid fatty acid; microbial community structure.
Tittle and key words must not conntain the same words.
Respond: We have revised the title and key words according to your kind suggestion.
- -I am not sure, but from line 40 to 50 is left over, except Fomesafen, which is a diphenyl ether herbicide y que is used to remove broadleaf weeds in soybean, fruit tree, and rubber estate fields in China.
Respond: Thank you for your kind advice, which will make our article more concise and concise.We have deleted the superfluous parts, and the remaining contents are mainly intended to show that fomesafen is a long-acting residual herbicide and is still widely used in China, so as to serve as a background for this study.We hope you will continue to give us your constructive suggestions on this issue. (line 36-41)
- -Line 52. but its degradation is affected by many factors, including soil type, pH, organic matter content and soil microbial communities. I think that this sentence is speculative, please add references.
Respond: According to your constructive suggestions, we have added relevant references and reinterpreted the meaning of this passage. (line 45)
- -Line 55 You have to be more rigorous, indicate the type of soil using an international taxonomy (Soil taxonomy or FAO-UNESCO-ISRIC)
- -Line 57 soft soil. The same
- -Line 75 These four studies were conducted on brown 75 soil, cinnamon soil, soft soil, and silty loam. The same
- -Line 80 black soil soybean fields. The same
Respond: Thank you for your reference. We have revised the soil type in the article according to the reference. (line 74 77 80 )
8 -Line 81 The objectives of this study were to study the effects of fomesafen on soil enzyme
activities, culturable microorganisms and phospholipid fatty acids in soybean fields. What are
these soils of interest? Justify
Respond: According to your suggestion, we stated the meanings of different indexes in soil, which provided theoretical basis for the research results. (line 70-76)
- -Line 89 Soil samples used were collected from soybean fields in Hulan (45.90°N latitude and 126.58°E longitude) in Heilongjiang Province, China. The characteristics of the soil samples was as follows: organic matter 31.2 g/kg, total potassium 18.77 g/kg, total nitrogen 1.67 g/kg, total phosphorus 0.54 g/kg, maximum water holding capacity 18.31%, clay 34.26%, powder 27.31%, and sand 38.43%; pH 5.6. The crop was soybean for the previous 3 5 years. You have to be more rigorous, indicate the type of soil using an international taxonomy (Soil taxonomy or FAOUNESCO-ISRIC)
Respond: According to the reference materials provided by you, we have increased the soil type to Mollisols.(line 211)
- -Line 498. Subsequently, the residual concentration of fomesafen decreased gradually, which provided additional effective energy for microbial growth and promoted microbial growth. With the decrease of energy, the increase of secondary metabolites and competition among populations led to the recovery of microbial biomass. Justify
Respond: Thank you for your kind suggestion, re-citing specific references, and re-expounding the relationship between fluosulfonamide residues and microbial biomass.(line 517-522)
- -Line 537. This study clearly showed that compared with the recommended dosage the soil enzyme activities of the four kinds of soil decreased significantly at twice the recommended dosage and then returned to the level of the control group. This conclusion is important but must be supported by known soils.
Respond: Thank you for your clear suggestion, we summarized in more detail the effects of fluosulfonamide residues on soil enzymes. Since this error is in the conclusion of the manuscript, we have added references to the discussion section.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I recommend publication, my comments were taken into consideration.
