Short-Term Simulated Warming Changes the Beta Diversity of Bacteria in Taiga Forests’ Permafrost by Altering the Composition of Dominant Bacterial Phyla

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by Jiang et al., written well and reports interesting findings. The authors already they have already studied fungal communities for the same soil and kept bacteria for second shot.

L51 may be modified  CO₂ and CH_4 
L373 positive correlation between Acidobacteriota and Amino acid metabolism.-please justify

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Effects of changes in temperature on the permafrost microbiota are very interesting. They really are some model experiments on possible trends produced by some climate changes. I have no recommendations for this main theme, it is OK.

However, there is another interesting topic in frame of the work too. It is correlations of the mentioned changes with some physicochemical properties of the studied soil. This theme has to be supplemented, at least, in the methodical part of the paper. Please pay your attention: there are a lot of paragraphs which describe facts of the correlations: Lines 29-31, 34-35, 336-337, 342-344, 347, and Table 1 – they all show some final results.

Meanwhile, any description of methods and procedures is absent in the section “Study site, soil sampling and soil physical and chemical analyses “. Readers can only find (Lines 114-115): “The permafrost soil had been sampled and analyzed for changes in soil physical and chemical properties, with results described in this article [26].” So, the readers have to go to another journal which sends them to the third one, and finally they will find that microbial biomass carbon (MBC) was found as the difference between the organic C extracted from fumigated and non-fumigated soils. Please describe shortly (1-3) paragraphs: sampling, physical and chemical analyses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the study on simulating the effect of climate change on the soil corresponding to permafrost, studying the diversity of microbial communities and the changes caused by warming, is interesting. On a global scale,

- The study is conclusive, but methodologically it was quite confusing to me. It seems that this study is based on a previous study, and most of the section on sampling and experimental design is taken for granted, which makes it very difficult to understand directly. Furthermore, there are parameters that are not quoted or described and are found in the graphs, such as the soil parameters analysed.

- The methods used to study the data obtained are also difficult to understand, as they do not provide the necessary detail or follow the structure of the results. I think that this section should be reorganised in a more understandable way and include all the details of the methods used and the justification for their use.

- The results are presented in such a way that the graphs are not detailed enough for direct understanding. Their size, the lack of description of abbreviations and the confusion of colours used make them difficult to interpret. There are contradictory results in the alpha biodiversity analyses that are not justified.

- At the background level, although it could be improved, I think it is sufficiently detailed. However, the text needs to be refined to avoid redundancies and to ensure that there is a logical sequence to the argument. This comment can be extended to the rest of the manuscript, where the text and the English used should be polished.

Further comments can be found in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

In my opinion, English and writing requires extensive improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, thank you to answer to my questions. I observed that most of my previous comments were included. In my opinion I think this version was sufficiently improved for publication. Please, include in the manuscript the following suggestions:

- Abstract: include quantitatively observed differences, include previously global conclusions.

- Revise and include legends of the supplementary tables in the manuscript.

- Check formatting, and although in some parts or the text the English was improved, I recommend you a final revision by a native speaker.

In my opinion, the manuscript should be checked by a professional English proof-reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf