Effects of Cover Crop and Tillage Method Combinations on the Microbiological Traits of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors showed very interesting results on the main factor differentiating soil microbial count and activity, but discordant with the title "An Analysis of the Effects of Cover Crop and Tillage Method Combinations on the Microbiological Traits of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Using Multivariate Methods ".
It is not clear the novelty with respect to the state of the art and what are the concrete new results and potential implications and applications.
The methodology requires additions, starting with the definition of the experimental theses with reference to the scientific literature on the subject. "Simplified tillage" is improper.
The methodologies used to investigate microbial community are appropriate but the authors should have accompanied them by more innovative and recent technologies (e.g. NGS). Have the authors the opportunity to carry out these investigations? These could be carried out on samples stored at -80°C. These could add relevance to the study since also the not culturable community would be considered.
In section 2.2. Line 139. Please enter how the soil samples were stored after field sampling. Sampling and measurements check "nine locations" and "nine treatments".
In figure 1, on the abscissa axis, report the months of the year and not the Roman numbers. Figures 2 to 6 are not clearly legible. The legend in figure 8 is not developed.
The conclusions are excessively concise.
The manuscript needs a major improvement before accepting for publication.
The manuscript is loosely structured; therefore, the manuscript requires comprehensive rewriting and correction of coherence and logical consistency.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Reviewer #1
Point 1: The authors showed very interesting results on the main factor differentiating soil microbial count and activity, but discordant with the title "An Analysis of the Effects of Cover Crop and Tillage Method Combinations on the Microbiological Traits of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Using Multivariate Methods ".
Response:
We agree with the Reviewer 1 and we corrected.
New title is "Effects of Cover Crop and Tillage Method Combinations on the Microbiological Traits of Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)".
Point 2: It is not clear the novelty with respect to the state of the art and what are the concrete new results and potential implications and applications.
Response:
The novelty of this manuscript is using of multivariate methods to comparison of all study parameters after using cover crop and soil tillage methods in spring wheat cultivation. It’s describe in vers 87-96.
Point 3: The methodology requires additions, starting with the definition of the experimental theses with reference to the scientific literature on the subject. "Simplified tillage" is improper.
Response:
The experimental these was added: Methods of soil tillage and cover crop influence on soil microbial and enzymatic activity and depended on the phase of plant development.
The term “Simplified tillage” is use in the international literature (https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10020200), (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(98)00103-2), (https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11051000)
Point 4: The methodologies used to investigate microbial community are appropriate but the authors should have accompanied them by more innovative and recent technologies (e.g. NGS). Have the authors the opportunity to carry out these investigations? These could be carried out on samples stored at -80°C. These could add relevance to the study since also the not culturable community would be considered.
Response:
We agree with the Reviewer’s advice that there are new innovation technologies for determining the bacterial community, such as NGS, and currently performing such analyzes. The present results in the manuscript come from 2011-2013. Unfortunately, we do not have these soil samples collected anymore and we cannot analyze them for NGS
Point 5: In section 2.2. Line 139. Please enter how the soil samples were stored after field sampling. Sampling and measurements check "nine locations" and "nine treatments".
Response:
Soil samples were placed into a ziplock bag and were transported in refrigerator at 50C. Microbial analyses were performed immediately.
Point 6: In figure 1, on the abscissa axis, report the months of the year and not the Roman numbers. Figures 2 to 6 are not clearly legible. The legend in figure 8 is not developed.
Response:
We corrected Figures 1-6. We developed legend in Figure 8. Now: “Figure 8. Heatmaps for linear Pearson’s correlation coefficients between Mahalanobis distance, estimated for all pairs of treatments at the five terms. I – 1st term – pre-sowing, II – 2nd term − tillering phase (BBCH 23), III – 3rd term − second node (BBCH 32), IV – 4th term − heading (BBCH 55), and V – 5th term − post-harvest.”.
Point 7: The conclusions are excessively concise.
Response:
According suggestion we corrected conclusion section.
Point 8 : The manuscript needs a major improvement before accepting for publication. The manuscript is loosely structured; therefore, the manuscript requires comprehensive rewriting and correction of coherence and logical consistency.
Response:
We corrected all manuscript according the suggestion of Reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
see attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Reviewer #2
Point 1: It is unclear why the paper by Piazza et al (2019) on the same argument and on the same crop has been overlooked
Piazza G., Ercoli L., Nuti M., Pellegrino E. (2019)
Interaction between conservation tillage and nitrogen fertilization shapes prokaryotic and fungal diversity at different soil depths: evidence from a 23-year field experiment in the mediterranean area.
Frontiers of Microbiology, vol.10, Article 2047, August 2019 | doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02047
The Aa should cite it and discuss it.
Response:
We added paper by Piazza et al (2019) to the references list and we citied and discuss it according to suggestion of reviewer 2
Point 2: Minor revision for english language.
Response:
This work language was corrected by native speaker from England, David Wilson.
We corrected all manuscript according the suggestion of Reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscripts that do not meet excellent English language standards will not be considered for publication
Reviewer 2 Report
corrections are fine, conclusions are fine
