Karst Soil Patch Heterogeneity with Gravels Promotes Plant Root Development and Nutrient Utilization Associated with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, Li et al. investigated the effects of AM fungi on root morphology and nutrient uptake under different soil patch sizes and gravel content in karst habitats. The manuscript is well written and with an interesting methodology. This work is important and relevant to readers of Agronomy. However, there are some reparable points that authors should adjust before this can be published in this journal. My suggestions and comments for improving the manuscript are provided below:

Line 34-35. I suggest that the keywords are not the same as those in the title.

Line 144-145. Authors say, "incredibly, although there are three different substrates, the total amount of soil and gravel components was the same in any treatment microcosm except for the patch size" How was that determined or calculated?

Line 159. What do the authors mean by pure soil?

Line 178-179. I suggest that since there are several methodologies to determine mycorrhizal colonization and regardless of whether the methodology is cited here, please provide some details about this method for a better understanding of potential readers.

Line 195-208. Here, there was or not interaction between the factors

Line 220-221. Please check the wording of this sentence.

Line 498. Based on the conclusions, what are the practices implications that this study would throw for future related research?

 

Author Response

Response

Dear editor,

Many thanks for the comments on our revision to the very positive original reviewer. We appreciate that our manuscript still needed further work, which entitled "Karst Soil Patch Heterogeneity with Gravels Promotes Plant Root Development and Nutrient Utilization Associated with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi" (agronomy-1674396). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have made the corrections. We hope it will meet with your approval, and also hope that you now find our paper meets the quality standard for publication in agronomy. Revised portions are marked in blue fonts in the new version. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the comments of reviewers are as follows by Journal Requirements, Response to Reviewer 1 Comments and Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.

 

 

All best regards

Yours sincerely,

Qing Li, Yuejun He

Behalf of all authors

 

 

Journal Requirements

Point 1: Authority on Latin binomial should be provided after each common name the first time referred to in the text.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have modified the Latin name of the species in the revised manuscript; see Line 20 and Line 136. 

 

Point 2: The number of significant digits should be based on the precision of the analytical method and be rounded accordingly, and the variables presented should be correct and consistent.

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. We checked these tables and modified it. Table 1 reserves two decimal places and Tables 2-6 reserve three decimal places.

 

Point 3: Conc.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the abstract and used the short form, see Line 23, Line 25, Line 27 and Line 28 of the revision.

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Line 34-35. I suggest that the keywords are not the same as those in the title.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestions, we further refined the keywords to "Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Karst; Gravel; Patch; Heterogeneity; Root morphology; Nutrients" in the revised manuscript, see Line 32-33.

 

 

Point 2: Line 144-145. Authors say, "incredibly, although there are three different substrates, the total amount of soil and gravel components was the same in any treatment microcosm except for the patch size" How was that determined or calculated?

 

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. Each square microcosm has a certain amount of soil and gravel. Especially, the soil and gravel were measured with a measuring cylinder, see Line 144 of the revised version.

 

Point 3: Line 159. What do the authors mean by pure soil?

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. After careful consideration, We don't think it's very scientific to use “pure soil” and now we have modified it to “100% soil” in the revised manuscript, see Line 157.

 

Point 4: Line 178-179. I suggest that since there are several methodologies to determine mycorrhizal colonization and regardless of whether the methodology is cited here, please provide some details about this method for a better understanding of potential readers.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We describe the methodologies to determine mycorrhizal colonization rate to "Specially, fresh plant roots were selected and stained by fuchsin after clearing the roots in 10% KOH. After staining, the percentage of AM colonization was determined with the gridline intersection method." in the revised manuscript, see Line 177-179 of the revised version.

 

Point 5: Line 195-208. Here, there was or not interaction between the factors.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. The interaction of patch heterogeneity and substrate heterogeneity significantly affected the root mycorrhizal colonization rates of Bidens pilosa, see Line 207-208 of the revised version.

 

 

Point 6: Line 220-221. Please check the wording of this sentence.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We checked and modified the sentence to "The interaction of patch heterogeneity and substrate heterogeneity significantly affected the dry weight of B. Pilosa roots", see Line 222-223 in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 7: Line 498. Based on the conclusions, what are the practices implications that this study would throw for future related research?

 

Response 7: Thank you for your comments. We widely agree with your view and refined the implications of the practice for future research, which is "This result will contribute to studies 

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Abstract is well written, explain properly the MS content also for the readers, who are not so familiar with the subject. However, int he following sentence, repeated word treatment is very disruptive and confusing. I would suggest to use SoT instead of the full, set of treatment,.  Equally,  was should be omitted from, was included, and single, included, should be used. Sentence then could be as follows: This experiment included three sets of treatments; the first -mycorrhizal fungal set, which included treatment with the AM fungi (M⁺) and without AM fungi (M^-), second-patch heterogeneity set, which included treatment with homogeneous patch (Homo), heterogeneity-large patch (Hetl) and heterogeneity-small patch (Hets) and the third-substrate heterogeneity set, which included treatment with gravel-low substrate (GL), gravel-free substrate (GF), gravel-high substrate (GH) "

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we revised the abstract and used a short form instead of the full in the revised manuscript, see Line 15-20, Line 23, Line 25, Line 27 and Line 28.

 

Point 2: Similarly, I would emphasize, that the experiment was controlled – no the field experiment, neither under absolutely laboratory condition, but ratherly controlled.

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. We have revised the "An experiment" to” "A controlled experiment" in abstract and Experimental treatments, see Line 14 and Line 129 of the revised revision.

 

Point 3: Please, add the L. to the Bidens pilosa latin name at least when mentioned for first in the MS – Bidens pilosa L.  same as to Glomus etunicatum = Glomus etunicatum L.

 

Response 3: Many thanks for your good comments. We have modified the Latin name of the species in the revised manuscript, see Line 20 and Line 136.

 

Point 4: I would suggest to add the picture of at least one set of experiment. Introduction, Material and Methods, Discusion, - I have no reservations.

 

Response 4: Many thanks for your good comments. We have supplemented a picture of the experiment in the revised manuscript, see Fig 1.

 

Point 5: Conclusions – I would suggest to emphasize the fulfillment of your hypothesis, mentioned in the Introduction.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comments and questions. We widely agree with your view and modified the discussion and these hypotheses were reflected in the discussion, see Line 391-393, Line 421 and Line 499-502 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the MS quality, I have some small reservation and suggestions:

Abstract is well written, explain  properly the MS content also for the readers, who are not so familiar with the subject. However, int he following sentence, repeated word treatment is very disruptive and confusing. I would suggest to use SoT instead of the full, set of treatment,.  Equally,  was should be omitted from, was included, and single, included, should be used. Sentence then could be as follows: „This experiment included three sets of treatments; the first -mycorrhizal fungal set, which included treatment with the AM fungi (M+) and without AM fungi (M-), second-patch heterogeneity set, which included treatment with homogeneous patch (Homo), heterogeneity-large patch (Hetl) and heterogeneity-small patch (Hets) and the third-substrate heterogeneity set, which included treatment with gravel-low substrate (GL), gravel-free substrate (GF), gravel-high substrate (GH)“.

Similarly, I would emphasize, that the experiment was controlled – no the field experiment, neither under absolutely laboratory condition, but ratherly controlled.

Please, add the L. to the Bidens pilosa latin name at least when mentioned for first in the MS – Bidens pilosa L.  same as to Glomus etunicatum = Glomus etunicatum L.

I would suggest to add the picture of at least one set of experiment.

Introduction, Material and Methods, Discusion, - I have no reservations

Conclusions – I would suggest to emphasize the fulfillment of your hypothesis, mentioned in the Introduction.

Author Response

Response

Dear editor,

Many thanks for the comments on our revision to the very positive original reviewer. We appreciate that our manuscript still needed further work, which entitled "Karst Soil Patch Heterogeneity with Gravels Promotes Plant Root Development and Nutrient Utilization Associated with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi" (agronomy-1674396). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have made the corrections. We hope it will meet with your approval, and also hope that you now find our paper meets the quality standard for publication in agronomy. Revised portions are marked in blue fonts in the new version. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the comments of reviewers are as follows by Journal Requirements, Response to Reviewer 1 Comments and Response to Reviewer 2 Comments.

 

 

All best regards

Yours sincerely,

Qing Li, Yuejun He

Behalf of all authors

 

 

 

 

Journal Requirements

Point 1: Authority on Latin binomial should be provided after each common name the first time referred to in the text.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We have modified the Latin name of the species in the revised manuscript; see Line 20 and Line 136. 

 

Point 2: The number of significant digits should be based on the precision of the analytical method and be rounded accordingly, and the variables presented should be correct and consistent.

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. We checked these tables and modified it. Table 1 reserves two decimal places and Tables 2-6 reserve three decimal places.

 

Point 3: Conc.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the abstract and used the short form, see Line 23, Line 25, Line 27 and Line 28 of the revision.

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: Line 34-35. I suggest that the keywords are not the same as those in the title.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestions, we further refined the keywords to "Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Karst; Gravel; Patch; Heterogeneity; Root morphology; Nutrients" in the revised manuscript, see Line 32-33.

 

 

Point 2: Line 144-145. Authors say, "incredibly, although there are three different substrates, the total amount of soil and gravel components was the same in any treatment microcosm except for the patch size" How was that determined or calculated?

 

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. Each square microcosm has a certain amount of soil and gravel. Especially, the soil and gravel were measured with a measuring cylinder, see Line 144 of the revised version.

 

Point 3: Line 159. What do the authors mean by pure soil?

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. After careful consideration, We don't think it's very scientific to use “pure soil” and now we have modified it to “100% soil” in the revised manuscript, see Line 157.

 

Point 4: Line 178-179. I suggest that since there are several methodologies to determine mycorrhizal colonization and regardless of whether the methodology is cited here, please provide some details about this method for a better understanding of potential readers.

 

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We describe the methodologies to determine mycorrhizal colonization rate to "Specially, fresh plant roots were selected and stained by fuchsin after clearing the roots in 10% KOH. After staining, the percentage of AM colonization was determined with the gridline intersection method." in the revised manuscript, see Line 177-179 of the revised version.

 

Point 5: Line 195-208. Here, there was or not interaction between the factors.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comments. The interaction of patch heterogeneity and substrate heterogeneity significantly affected the root mycorrhizal colonization rates of Bidens pilosa, see Line 207-208 of the revised version.

 

 

Point 6: Line 220-221. Please check the wording of this sentence.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We checked and modified the sentence to "The interaction of patch heterogeneity and substrate heterogeneity significantly affected the dry weight of B. Pilosa roots", see Line 222-223 in the revised manuscript.

 

Point 7: Line 498. Based on the conclusions, what are the practices implications that this study would throw for future related research?

 

Response 7: Thank you for your comments. We widely agree with your view and refined the implications of the practice for future research, which is "This result will contribute to studies 

 

 

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Abstract is well written, explain properly the MS content also for the readers, who are not so familiar with the subject. However, int he following sentence, repeated word treatment is very disruptive and confusing. I would suggest to use SoT instead of the full, set of treatment,.  Equally,  was should be omitted from, was included, and single, included, should be used. Sentence then could be as follows: This experiment included three sets of treatments; the first -mycorrhizal fungal set, which included treatment with the AM fungi (M⁺) and without AM fungi (M^-), second-patch heterogeneity set, which included treatment with homogeneous patch (Homo), heterogeneity-large patch (Hetl) and heterogeneity-small patch (Hets) and the third-substrate heterogeneity set, which included treatment with gravel-low substrate (GL), gravel-free substrate (GF), gravel-high substrate (GH) "

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestions, we revised the abstract and used a short form instead of the full in the revised manuscript, see Line 15-20, Line 23, Line 25, Line 27 and Line 28.

 

Point 2: Similarly, I would emphasize, that the experiment was controlled – no the field experiment, neither under absolutely laboratory condition, but ratherly controlled.

 

Response 2: Thanks a lot for your good suggestions. We have revised the "An experiment" to” "A controlled experiment" in abstract and Experimental treatments, see Line 14 and Line 129 of the revised revision.

 

Point 3: Please, add the L. to the Bidens pilosa latin name at least when mentioned for first in the MS – Bidens pilosa L.  same as to Glomus etunicatum = Glomus etunicatum L.

 

Response 3: Many thanks for your good comments. We have modified the Latin name of the species in the revised manuscript, see Line 20 and Line 136.

 

Point 4: I would suggest to add the picture of at least one set of experiment. Introduction, Material and Methods, Discusion, - I have no reservations.

 

Response 4: Many thanks for your good comments. We have supplemented a picture of the experiment in the revised manuscript, see Fig 1.

 

Point 5: Conclusions – I would suggest to emphasize the fulfillment of your hypothesis, mentioned in the Introduction.

 

Response 5: Thank you for your comments and questions. We widely agree with your view and modified the discussion and these hypotheses were reflected in the discussion, see Line 391-393, Line 421 and Line 499-502 in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx