Functional Diversity of Soil Microorganisms in Taiga Forests in the Middle and Late Stages of Restoration after Forest Fires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is very actual now, under the global warming and forest fire increasing. In the study, the authors investigated the effects of different burning intensities on the carbon utilization capacity of soil microorganisms in fire sites from 2010 and 2000 using Biolog-Eco technology. The presented results are very important and interesting to readers. But the introduction part should be added with more information about topic relevance. The text in discussion part is a mix of the text from introduction part and description of results obtained, but not an analysis of results. The analysis that you have done is insufficient. A conclusion chapter should be more concisely and precisely.

However, there are some issues to address.

1.     Introduction part: could you, please, add a working hypothesis?

2.     Introduction part: could you, please, add more information about topic relevance? why did you decided to do this research?

3.     Introduction part: could you, please, add more information about Biolog-Eco technology?

4.     Materials and methods: you gave a very detailed information about climate, but no words about soil type and vegetation at studied soils.

5.     Materials and methods: how far were burnt and unburnt locations from each other?

6.     Line 122: please, give more details about AWCD – what is it? And why did you calculate it?

7.     Paragraph No. 2.4 – very sparse description, more details.

8.     Line 146: what does mean these abbreviations?

9.     Line 146: there is no analysis about this raw.

10.  Figure 2 – please, describe a legend – what does it mean? What are units of y axis?

11.  Figure 3 – there is no information in the text how did you calculate it.

12.  Figure 4 – please, describe a legend – what does it mean?

13.  Lines 193-196: it is not true according to figure 5.

14.  Line 203: why did you show a reference in this sentence – [22]? Is it not your results?

15.  Figure 6: you should add more information about carbon utilization in introduction.

16.  Paragraph No. 4 – Discussion: the text there is a mix of the text from introduction part and description of results obtained, but not an analysis of results. The analysis that you have done is insufficient.

17.  Line 268: the study does not link the results obtained with the larch forests.

18.  Conclusion part has a very sparse description. A conclusion chapter should be more concisely and precisely. Please, generalize all data that You have obtained.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please refer to the attachment for your response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is interesting, and it could be helpful to understand the different effects of forest fire intensity on the functional diversity of soil microorganisms in the unique Taiga forests in the middle and late stages of restoration. The experimental design was appropriate, and the authors measured many parameters to reveal the effects. The lens of current writing focused on generalized fire effects compared to control in all the sections of this manuscript with a limited fire intensity perspective, which drifted away from the goal of this study. Moreover, the authors didn’t present the interconnection of many parameters in understanding soil microbial functions in utilizing carbon resources, especially how fire intensity affects them, making this manuscript hard to read and comprehend. These need to be addressed before publication. More specific comments in each session are attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please refer to the attachment for your response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript examines the impact of fires on the functional diversity of soil microbial communities in forests. According to Authors, “this research aims to enhance our current understanding of the functions of cold temperate forest ecosystems and provide basic theoretical support for their protection and utilization in the future” (lines 61-63). However, it is not clear from the text of the manuscript how the research results can be used to create a theoretical basis for forest protection.

2. Why did Authors study only the late and middle stages of forest restoration? Why didn't they study the early stage of forest restoration?

3. In the Introduction, the purpose and hypothesis of the study should be more clearly formulated.

4. Authors emphasize that they studied the functional diversity of soil microorganisms in cold temperate forests. In the Discussion section there is no comparison of the results obtained with data on the functional diversity of soil microorganisms in forests of other climatic zones.

5. Section 2.2 is not written in sufficient detail. What trees grew in the sample and control plots? Was it just Larix gmelinii? Were the trees on the sample plots planted by humans or did these areas self-overgrow? What is the density of trees and their age? It is possible that the functional diversity of soil microorganisms was influenced, among other things, by tree root exudates, and not just by fires.

6. In the Abstract section and in the text of the manuscript, the designations 10H,10L, 00H, 00M,10M, 00L should be deciphered.

7. The list of keywords should be expanded.

8. In the Materials and Methods section, more detailed information should be given on what the Biolog-Eco method is based on.

9. Line 113. What does the phrase: “A portion of the soil samples was activated...” mean?

10. Lines 146-147. "...fire enhances the carbon source metabolism capacity of soil microorganisms." Please explain why you think so.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. Please refer to the attachment for your response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors corrected the paper in accordance with the comments. Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form. No more comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

I received answers to all my questions. The quality of the manuscript improved significantly after you made changes to it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.