Different Response of Plant- and Microbial-Derived Carbon Decomposition Potential between Alpine Steppes and Meadows on the Tibetan Plateau
, Yanfang Liu 3, Chengjie Ren 4, Yaoxin Guo 5, Jun Wang 1,2,6, Ninglian Wang 1,2, Fazhu Zhao 1,2,* and Wenying Wang 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Abstract
Rewrite the abstract by starting from the objectives of the study, then methodology, results, conclusion and future recommendations.
Introduction
Provide the background of the research/study in the study area.
Soil sampling and processing
Line 128-140: Provide proper citation/reference for this part.
DNA extraction and sequencing
Line 154-167: Provide proper source citation/reference for this method. And why you selected this technique?
Statistical analysis
Before analysis, all data were tested for normal distribution. For what purpose?
What types of analysis were performed?
Results
Characteristics of CAZyme encoding genes in the alpine steppes and meadows
1. GTs were the most abundant enzymes in the alpine steppes and meadows, followed by GHs, CEs, AAs, CBMs, and PLs. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
2. NMDS showed that the structure of CAZyme-encoding genes in the alpine steppes was significantly different from that in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
3. The abundance of AAs, CBMs, and GTs were significantly different between the alpine steppes and meadows (Fig. 2A，p < 0.001), and all four sites showed the same trends. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
4. The abundance of AAs genes was higher in the alpine steppes than in the alpine meadows (4404.01 vs 3524.48 TPM) (Fig. 2A，p < 0.001). What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
5. The gene abundance of AAs had a negative relationship with NO3 − (r = -0.46, p < 0.01) in the alpine steppes and a positive relationship with SON (r = 0.46, p < 0.01) and a negative relationship with SWC (r = -0.37, p < 0.05) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
6. The gene abundance of CBMs was positively correlated with NH4 + (r = 0.52, p < 0.01), SON (r = 0.36, p < 0.05), SOC (r = 0.53, p < 0.001), and TN (r = 0.43, p < 0.01); negatively correlated with pH (r = -0.60, p < 0.001) in the alpine steppes; and positively correlated with SWC (r = 0.35, p < 0.05) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
7. The gene abundance for GTs had a positive relationship with NO3 − (r = 0.52, p < 0.01) in the alpine steppes. There were no significant differences in CEs, GHs, or PLs between the alpine meadows and steppes. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
8. The gene abundance of CEs was negatively correlated with pH (r = -0.44, p < 0.01), positively correlated with SOC (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and TN (r = 0.33, p < 0.05) in the alpine steppes, and positively correlated with SON (r = 0.41, p < 0.05) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
9. The gene abundance of GHs had a negative relationship with NO3 − (r = - 0.35, p < 0.05), a positive relationship with pH (r = 0.37, p < 0.05) in the alpine steppes, and a negative relationship with TP (r = -0.36, p < 0.05) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
10. The gene abundance of PLs was negatively correlated with SWC (r = -0.46, p < 0.01), NH4 + (r = -0.63, p < 0.001), SON (r = -0.39, p < 0.05), SOC (r = -0.61, p < 0.001), and TN (r = -0.65, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with pH and NO3 − (r = 0.42, p < 0.05) in the alpine steppes. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
Characteristics of CAZyme encoding genes involved in the degradation of plant- and microbial-derived components in the alpine steppes and meadows
11. The most abundant CAZyme-encoding genes were AA3, GH23, and GH16, which were involved in the degradation of plant-, bacterial-, and fungal-derived components, respectively. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
12. Specifically, gene abundances for the decomposition of plant- (4742.97 vs 4363.52 TPM) and fungal-derived carbon (342.42 vs 310.93 TPM) were higher in the alpine steppes than in the alpine meadows, respectively. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
13. Gene abundance for the decomposition of plant-derived carbon (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) showed a positive relationship with pH (r = 0.47, p < 0.01) in the alpine steppes and a negative relationship with SWC (r = -0.50, p < 0.01) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
14. Gene abundance for the decomposition of fungal-derived carbon (chitin and glucans) was positively correlated with pH (r = 0.50, p < 0.01) in the alpine steppe, positively correlated with NO3 − (r = 0.38, p < 0.01) and negatively correlated with pH (r = -0.37, p < 0.05) in the alpine meadows. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
15. Gene abundance for the decomposition of bacterial-derived carbon (peptidoglycan) was negatively correlated with NO3 − (r = -0.44, p< 0.01) in the alpine steppes. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
Changes of microbial composition and diversity involved in the degradation of plant- and microbial-derived components in the alpine steppes and meadows
1. Among them, Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria accounted for more than 60% in all groups. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
2. The relative abundances of Actinobacteria in decomposing plant-, bacterial-, and fungal-derived carbon accounted for 43.7%, 32.8%, and 54.6% in the alpine steppes and 26.2%, 14.4%, and 33.2% in the alpine meadows, respectively. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
3. In addition, Acidobacteria and Chloroflexi accounted for more than 10% in all groups. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
Relationships between soil microbial communities and soil properties
4. In the alpine steppes, Mantel test analysis showed that SWC, pH, SOC, and TN (Mantel’s r < 0.2, Mantel’s p < 0.05) were significantly related to the microorganism degradation of plant-derived carbon. In addition, pH, SON, SOC, and TN (Mantel’s r > 0.2, Mantel’s p < 0.05) had a stronger correlation with the microorganism degradation of bacterial-derived carbon. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
5. In the alpine meadows, SWC, pH, SOC, and TN (Mantel’s r < 0.2, Mantel’s p < 0.05) were strongly correlated with the microbial degradation of plant-derived carbon. Only SWC (Mantel’s r < 0.2, Mantel’s p < 0.05) was significantly related to microbial degradation during bacterial-derived car bon decomposition. SWC, pH, NH4 + , SOC, and TN (Mantel’s r < 0.2, Mantel’s p < 0.05) were correlated with the microbial degradation of fungal-derived carbon. What is the possible reason of it? Please support your result with the help of available literature.
Conclusion
1. Please rewrite conclusion which includes highlights of your results.
2. What you recommend for future?
3. What are the benefits of this study?
Minor changes required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues!
Thank you so much for the opportunity to get acquainted with the manuscript. A very interesting article, as it opens up the possibility of understanding the relationship in the soil-microorganisms-plants system. It allows us to study in more detail the biochemical foundations of the functioning of ecosystems of undisturbed territories. At the same time, Tibet has always had specific ecological conditions, the formation of its terrestrial microecosystems can now be considered as an indicator of the ongoing processes in the biosphere. Thank you for the interesting materials.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Dear colleagues!
Thank you so much for the opportunity to get acquainted with the manuscript. A very interesting article, as it opens up the possibility of understanding the relationship in the soil-microorganisms-plants system. It allows us to study in more detail the biochemical foundations of the functioning of ecosystems of undisturbed territories. At the same time, Tibet has always had specific ecological conditions, the formation of its terrestrial microecosystems can now be considered as an indicator of the ongoing processes in the biosphere. Thank you for the interesting materials.
While reading the manuscript, there were some small comments, which are presented below.
I wish the authors good work and success in their scientific life!
19-24 - it is not necessary to write about it, it is known and understandable, in the introduction
23 - where the study was conducted
34 - the type of soil, it is possible in brackets
34-36 - it is known!
101 - write 1 goal and 2 tasks (after all, there is one goal!)
52-105 - very little has been written, it is necessary to expand this part. Find (decrypt) the answer to the question: what is the mechanism of the impact of environmental factors on the genome, for example. You can also write in more detail about microbial-biochemical interactions in soils of different granulometric composition, about biofilms, for example.There are many options!
112 - map of the area
126- what soils are common in this area, what is their peculiarity
135 - soil type according to WRB (if possible)
218 and further - (r = -0.46, p < 0.01) in the alpine steps and a positive relationship with SON (r = 218
0.46, p < 0.01 may not be worth all the data show, I recommend only those where r>0.6...
250 - site1, site2 ...?specify in the Objects
277-287 - not earlier than r>0.6...can indicate for everyone that they have not installed ...
311- other (specify in the materials)
354 - order is everywhere: plants, fungi, bacteria
428- I recommend not to start the paragraph like this!
434- point
439 - specify the pH in parentheses
470 - a big request to write a few words about other bacteria, because a small number does not mean high activity
499- the sentence is not very clear. We need to expand it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript is well written and may be of interest to other researchers. However, I have a question:
Line 129
“However, we did not find a significant difference in the CAZyme genes among the three seasons”
This suggests that there is no qualitative and quantitative influence of organic matter e.g. in the form of supplied plant remains during the year?
Line 147
„and” without italics
Line 166
The sequence was obtained or deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology website under as a PRJNA916885 project? Is this your project?
Line 434
Use a dot instead of a comma.
Lines 517 - 637
Format the References according to the journal's requirements. Use initials of first names, abbreviated journal name etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
