Soil Bacterial and Fungal Richness and Network Exhibit Different Responses to Long-Term Throughfall Reduction in a Warm-Temperate Oak Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well-designed and interesting paper that adds to the literature on the bacterial/fungal community changes that can occur with climate change.  Of particular note, the authors describe results from a fairly long-term experiment;  as long-term experiments tend to be the exception, the data and insights here make this an interesting contribution to the literature.  Also, the data are examined from several perspectives, adding depth to the papter. 

The data are well analyzed, the conclusions logical and careful, and the paper is generally very well organized and well written. There are a few problems with the English language, but these can be easily corrected.

General questions/comments:

Why did you mix the soil samples?  It might have been interesting to compare variation in community composition in covered vs uncovered plots, but those data were lost by combining samples.

This paper could be improved by including a bit more discussion of the meaning and significance of the changes observed in the bacterial community.  Can the authors speculate on why rarer bacteria declined in drought? What do the changes mean for longer-term ecosystem services?  What are the likely broader effects of the differences in the surviving metabolic pathways  versus the more complex community not subjected to drought?  The effects of the changes in particular bacterial taxa?

 

Specific Questions:

L.113.  It is a good idea to refer to published work for details about methods, but there should be enough in the current MS for a reader to understand what was done.  How large was each exclusion sheet?  When 50% of the plot area was covered, was that a single block, or were there alternating square of TFR and control within each plot?  Give the size of the TFR blocks to clarify this.  

Samples were taken at 10 random locations in each plot.  Did you check to see whether their location mattered, i.e. whether those near the edge of the covered area were less likely to change?

Please clarify the last sentence of the paper (line 380, copied just below); the last 4 words are difficult to make sense of.  I think you mean 'increased bacterial degradation of recalcitrant organics in the soil.'  Also, explain briefly here in this conclusion why this matters.

380 potential consequences such as soil recalcitrant organics degradation.

Grammar: Overall, this is well written, but there are mistakes.  Here are some examples:

l. 111 "each of 20 X 20 m' should be 'each 20 X 20 m'

l. 140.  Use mass 'lost after drying 10 g of soil' rather than mass 'loss after drying of 10 g soil.'

l. 141.  an Em50 data logger   [not loggers;  currently the verb disagrees with the subject in number]

l. 147.  A fresh soil sample [not Fresh soil sample]

l. 200-202.  In the first sentence it's 'composition were assessed,'  which is incorrect.  The second sentence correctly has 'was assessed.'

l. 244  Change to this:  Pearson correlation analysis revealed that bacterial richness had a significantly positive correlation with soil moisture but a negative correlation with fine root biomass

226 'fungal richness' not 'fungi richness.'

l. 283 Connectivity was used [not 'were used']

l. 286.  'in' the control plots'  [not 'under control']

l. 303.  'Similar results' [not 'The similar results']

l. 305.  'Previous studies' [not 'The previous studies']

Similar errors to these can be easily found and corrected. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their interest, and for their helpful comments and suggestions. We agree that our manuscript remain has some problems, especially in English language. We believe we have addressed these concerns, and our specific responses to your comments are below. Thank you once again for your time and thoughts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This article discusses the effect of throughfall experimental reduction on bacterial and fungal biomass. I think the authors have done considerable work concerning the literature review and experimental design. They also analyzed plenty of parameters. However, in my opinion, the results of the statistical analysis on soil parameters’ data are not discussed sufficiently in the Discussion section.  

Comments

Lines 1-3: I think the title should be revised, “more” than what?

Lines108-109: Why this information is given?

Line 124: In paragraph 2.3 of Materials and Methods the enzymes are not referred however the authors use them in the Results section. Please, explain which enzymes have been estimated and why did the authors use these enzymes.

Line225: Possibly the word “despite” could be more appropriate than “while”.

Line 299: In the Discussion section the authors have not justified all the results. For example, the fact that almost all biochemical parameters have not been affected by throughfall reduction is not mentioned and explained in that section.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments and criticisms. We agree that we lacked enough discussion about soil biochemical parameters. We believe we have addressed these concerns, and our specific responses to your comments are below. Thank you once again for your time and reviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx