Microbiological Attributes and Performance of the Bacterial Community in Brazilian Cerrado Soil with Different Cover Crops
, Eduardo Pradi Vendruscolo 3, Maria Gabriela de Oliveira Andrade 4, Lucymara Merquides Contardi 5, Ana Paula Leite de Lima 1, Meire Aparecida Silvestrini Cordeiro 1 and Mariele Silva Abreu 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript the authors evaluated the microbiological attributes and performance of the bacterial community in the Brazilian Cerrado soil with 7 different cover crops.
The work was well described and with many details.
As far as I'm concerned, I only have one request to make to the authors.
The work statistics have been approached correctly but for completeness it would be necessary to carry out tests for the hypotheses of variance (homogeneity of variance, for example the Levene test, and the normal distribution, for example the D'Agostino-Pearson omnibus normality test)
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Research shows an interesting level of knowledge, since it is always important to know and make trials concerning soil indicators, according to different management practices, such as no-till, cover crops…etc.
From my point of view, the methodology set is sound and it depicts in a very detailed way the method followed within this research.
However, there are some minor mistakes over the document that could be improved.
Different lines. Sometimes it is written CO2 and some others CO2. Please it is CO2
Line 81. Attributes
Line 93. Figure 1. The continuous line referring to MINT in the graphic is not the same. Please, be coherent.
Line 115. Table 1. I guess it is cover crop not only cover.
Line 223. Figure 2. Rap. Capital letter, not rap (Raphanus sativus)
Line 384. Figure 4. I would recommend authors to extend the y-axe in order to have an extended box-and-whisker plot, and easy to read and interpretate (for both A and B graphics).
In the text of fig. 4. LSD there are two =. Please delete one.
The discussion part of the paper discusses very well what other authors have developed and said concerning this paper’s findings.
I sum, this research is valuable to increase knowledge regarding the microbiological activity in soil, under different management.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this study the authors investigated the soil bacterial community existing in various cover crops in the Brazilian Cerrado. They measured various microbial attributes as well as soil characteristics. They found that cover crops do affect the soil bacterial community, dependent on crop.
A lot of work was done in this study, however the paper itself is not presented in a way that is easy to read. The authors change how they talk about things randomly throughout the paper, which makes it difficult to follow. One thing that really stood out was the acronym for microbial biomass carbon. Commonly MBC is used, but this paper varies the use of MCB, CMB, C-MB, and C-BM. The same can be said for basal respiration, the paper varies between BR and C-CO2. The aerial biomass was also called vegetable biomass and the Shannon H Index was referred to in various ways as well. While these issues aren’t the end of the world, they do make it difficult to understand what is going on as I often had to look up the acronym again as I thought I was missing something. This accompanied with the strange wording of sentences make it difficult to read the paper.
In addition, I think the results need to be explained in more detail. The body of the paper does not explain the significantly differences among the treatments, or even mention if they were significantly different.
Specific line comments
L47. Change “not” to “unavailability”
L73 and L76. Maize or corn, be consistent. Also, when introducing new plant species, provide Latin names and the author.
L100. The sentence indicates that cover crops were sown in March 2018, but climate data is provided for 2017. If cover crops were sown in 2018, then the climate data is not helpful. Also, how long were the crops grown before soil samples were taken for microbial analysis? Aerial biomass was taken after 60 days, but there is no indication of when soil samples were collected.
L104-106. Latin names need authors the first time they are mentioned. For example, Sorghum bicolor ((L.) Moench).
L106. Lowercase “r” for Ruziziensis.
L106. Remove “composed”
L113. Put a space between “Table” and “1”
L113. Where are the methods for the soil chemical and texture analysis? This is a huge omission.
Table 1. Did you measure soil nitrogen?
L129. End the sentence with “again”
L132. Delete “microbial biomass carbon” and just say MBC – this acronym has already been introduced.
L159 and L160. CBM or MBC – be consistent.
L171. Where is the location of Life Technologies? Any sort of equipment needs a location.
L179. Same comment as above.
L195. Same comment as above.
L169-180. What bacteria did you use for the standard for the concentration curve in qPCR?
L203. Start the sentence with “An” instead of “The”
L209. Change “between” to “among”
L209. Delete “of the experiment”
L211. Use MBC and BR.
L219. Change “the biomass of cover crops” to “cover crop biomass”
Figure 2. What do the letters mean?
L227. Vegetable biomass? Do you mean aerial biomass?
L230. C/N ratio is mentioned with results. Did you measure this? If so, how?
L240-241. You say that P. miliaceum is not a good cover crop – what defines a good amount of coverage?
L242. Vegetable biomass is mentioned again, do you mean aerial biomass? Be consistent.
L243. Remove “Carbon from” and just use “Microbial biomass carbon”
L245-246. This is a very vague sentence. Explain what happened.
L248. Microbial biomass carbon consistency
L257-258. I don’t agree with the statement about Urochloa having the lowest C-MB (which should be changed to MBC) based on the values in Table 2. According to Table 2, U. brizantha has an MBC of 123.06, which is higher than P. miliaceum and R. sativus.
L259-264. This paragraph is about invasive species. Did the fallow field have a lot of invasives? If so, what were they? Also, all the species mentioned need authors as it is their first time being mentioned.
L266. Crotalaria should be in italics.
L276. You mention a turnip. What cover crop are you referring to? At this point, only Latin names have been used, so it is strange that common names are randomly being used here.
L281-283. Starting at The lower and ending with the soil – delete, it is just a repeat of the sentence before.
L288. Italics are needed for P. americanum.
L288. Why are results (2.38E +08) all of the sudden in the body? If is not down for anything else.
L291. Quantitative PCR can just be qPCR.
L300. Common names used again. I have no idea what Latin names go with forage turnip.
L338-340. I’m not seeing any significant results in Table 3. All R values are followed with an “ns”, which according to the table means non-significant values.
L365. What 12 cover crops were used in Romdhane et al.? Were any the same or related to this study?
L370. Change “between” to “among”
L384 -389. What does “a” mean?
Table 4. “qCO2” should be “qCO2”
L405. What does “genus species” mean?
L410. You mention bacterial community, but what measure are you referring to (e.g. qCO2 or qPCR)?
L413. Americanum should be lowercase.
L425. Be consistent with names: Sorghum bicolor should be S. bicolor. The same goes for the other two mentioned in this line.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Line specific comments:
L56: CMB should be consistent as MBC as indicated in response comments.
L112: Add a comma after "sowing"
L255: qCO2 should be qCO2
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
