The Application of Tomato Plant Residue Compost and Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improves Soil Quality and Enhances the Ginger Field Soil Bacterial Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Xie et al. have investigated the effect of high-temperature composting and fermentation of tomato plant residue, and its return to the field is a simple and economical way to improve the soil quality of ginger fields.

 

The manuscript is written in a concise and very legible manner. In addition, the manuscript contains relevant paragraphs that have been discussed. The selection of the bibliography is appropriate to the content of the manuscript.

 

After analyzing the content, there are some minor comments.

 

1-    What do these abbreviations stand for SOM, TN, AN TP, AP, TK, and AK

2-    In Table (1), the significance letters should be beside the values.

3-    Why the authors did not measure other enzymes activity besides urease activity, neutral phosphatase activity, and sucrase activities, for example, dehydrogenase activity

4-    There are minor punctuation and English corrections in the attached file

 Best Regards

 

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

We sincerely appreciate your valuable and positive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The application of tomato plant residue compost and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improves soil quality and enhances the ginger field soil bacterial community”, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. We have accepted your comments and suggestions and have modified the manuscript accordingly.

A point-to-point response to the comments and/or suggestions have been included below, and the corresponding revisions in the revised manuscript were marked.

1. What do these abbreviations stand for SOM, TN, AN TP, AP, TK, and AK.

Response: SOM: soil organic matter

TN: total nitrogen

AN: alkali hydrolyzable nitrogen

TP: total phosphorus

AP: available phosphorus

TK: total potassium

AK: available potassium

2. In Table (1), the significance letters should be beside the values.

Response: Thank you for helping us point out the error and we have corrected it [Table (1)].

3. Why the authors did not measure other enzymes activity besides urease activity, neutral phosphatase activity, and sucrase activities, for example, dehydrogenase activity.

Response: Soil urease, sucrase and neutral phosphatase are hydrolytic enzymes, which are related to the contents of soil organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Therefore, this study chose to measure the activities of these three enzymes.

4. There are minor punctuation and English corrections in the attached file.

Response: Thank you for helping us to address our mistake, and we have corrected it in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the study entitled “The application of tomato plant residue compost and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improves soil quality and enhances the ginger field soil bacterial community” Xie et.al investigated the effect of tomato compost and plant growth-promoting rhizosphere (PGPR) bacteria on ginger soil. They evaluated the microbial community composition after treating the soil with vegetable residues along with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and B. subtilis. Current study helps to reduce the environmental impact of vegetable waste and suggests the possible use of vegetable compost as an eco-friendly fertilizer for crop improvement.

 

The article is well-articulated and easy to read. Please see my minor comments. Also, make sure the species names are following the taxonomic rules.

 

 

Line 378 – remove the repeated word “are the”

Author Response

对审稿人 2 的回复 评论

亲爱的审稿人，

我们衷心感谢您对我题为“番茄植物残渣堆肥和促进植物生长的根际细菌的应用改善土壤质量，增强姜田土壤细菌群落”的宝贵和积极的评论，这些评论有助于提高我们本研究的质量。我们已接受您的意见和建议，并相应地修改了稿件。

第1点：第378行 - 删除重复的单词“are the”。

响应 1：感谢您帮助我们指出错误，我们已经纠正了它（Line）。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editors, Dear Authors,

Thank you for the invitation for reviewing the MS entitled “The application of tomato plant residue compost and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improves soil quality and enhances the ginger field soil bacterial community”

Please see below my review concerning this article (Ms. ID.: Agronomy-1807050)

 

REVIEW

In this paper, the main objective of the authors is to explore whether the combined application of tomato residue compost and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) has a positive effect on the physicochemical properties and microbial community of ginger field soil.

The Manuscript is well structured; this research is interesting and meets the aims and scope of the journal.

However, there are several papers on the application of tomato residue compost and PGPR bacteria for soil improvement, so the manuscript should emphasize the novelty of this work. I would highlight in the “Introduction” what I consider as the strongest points of this article.

Furthermore, the manuscript needs to be thoroughly checked for appropriate professional language usage and for grammar and syntax. Grammatical editing of the paper is strongly recommended.

Please italicize scientific Latin names everywhere.

Besides, I have a few comments or suggestions which may indicate points for further improvement. Please see some selected specific comments below.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

 

Title

The title is in line with the content.

 

Abstract

The Abstract reflects the actual scope and main outcomes of this manuscript.

However, I think only the significant results should be highlighted in the Abstract. For example, a change of 0.03% is not considered significant.

 Line 19: Please replace “Compared” to “compared”.

 The keywords are correct.

 

 Introduction

The Introduction provides a good background of the topic. The literature cited is generally relevant to the study.

However, the manuscript should emphasize the novelty of this work in comparison with other articles in this topic.

Besides, a more detailed description of the hypotheses would be necessary at the end of this section.

 

Materials and methods

This part is also well arranged and clear, but information provided in some sections is not sufficient.

I miss a more detailed description of the soil characteristics of the field study, e.g. mechanical composition, nutrient supply (NPK), carbonate content, more detailed element and concentrations etc. These parameters are particularly important.

Please give the type of soil at the site.

Line 127: Please add the ATCC or other collection No of the bacteria.

 In the case of experimental design (2.1.), please specify in more detail how each treatment was performed.

Lines 138–139: Please provide information on how the fertilizer dose was determined.

It is not clear from the description how many parallels were used.

Please add information on the preparation of the PGPR bacterial inoculum.

 Please provide references to the each of the methods.

 

Results and analyses

Results are generally clearly presented and are in an appropriate format; the figures are illustrative.

Table 1: Please add more detailed descriptions of the significant results. There are significant differences in more cases, than has been highlighted.

Figure 2: Please add axes titles.

Table 2: Please provide more information about what each diversity index shows.

 

Discussion

Discussion part is well-written, the findings and outcomes of the complex study are properly described in the context of the published literature.

 

Conclusion

The Conclusions of the study are generally supported by appropriate evidence, except statements in lines 415—416. Please rephrase this sentence.

 

References

Reference formatting is not consistent. Usually, the journal full name/title is given, however in some cases by its abbreviated form. Please check capitalization regarding the article titles.

Please italicize scientific names of microorganisms.

Reference No.6, 28, 32, 33 etc. - Doi is missing.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear reviewers,

        We sincerely appreciate your valuable and positive comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The application of tomato plant residue compost and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improves soil quality and enhances the ginger field soil bacterial community”, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. We have accepted your comments and suggestions and have modified the manuscript accordingly.

         A point-to-point response to the comments and/or suggestions have been included below, and the corresponding revisions in the revised manuscript were marked.

 

Abstract

Point 1: I think only the significant results should be highlighted in the Abstract. For example, a change of 0.03% is not considered significant.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have deleted data on 0.03% in the abstract (Line 20-21).

 

Point 2: Line 19: Please replace “Compared” to “compared”.

Response 2: Thank you for helping us point out the error and we have corrected it (Line 19).

 

Introduction

Point 1: The manuscript should emphasize the novelty of this work in comparison with other articles in this topic. Besides, a more detailed description of the hypotheses would be necessary at the end of this section.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected it. We have added to that in the introduction. (Line 100-112)

 

Materials and methods

Point 1: I miss a more detailed description of the soil characteristics of the field study, e.g. mechanical composition, nutrient supply (NPK), carbonate content, more detailed element and concentrations etc. These parameters are particularly important.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected it in the manuscript. (Line 123-128).

 

Point 2: Please give the type of soil at the site.

Response 2: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The soil type is loam and we have added it in the revision (Line 118-119).

 

Point 3: Line 127: Please add the ATCC or other collection No of the bacteria.

Response 3: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens SQR9 were commercial PGPR, the company did not provided the collection number.

 

Point 4: In the case of experimental design (2.1.), please specify in more detail how each treatment was performed.

Response 4: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The execution of all treatments is described in the experimental design (2.3. Line 154-165).

 

Point 5: Lines 138–139: Please provide information on how the fertilizer dose was determined.

Response 5: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. This fertilizer was the base fertilizer, which was the conventional fertilizer application amount in the test base, namely CK in the treatment

 

Point 6: It is not clear from the description how many parallels were used.

Response 6: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have added in the revision (Line 159).

 

Point 7: Please add information on the preparation of the PGPR bacterial inoculum.

Response 7: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. The preparation method was three-stage liquid fermentation, completed by Jining Jinshan Biotechnology Co. Ltd, Shandong, China. We have noted it in the revision (Line 149-150).

 

Point 8: Please provide references to the each of the methods.

Response 8: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. References [27] and [28] have been added in the revision (Line 193 and 203).

 

Results and analyses

Point 1: Table 1: Please add more detailed descriptions of the significant results. There are significant differences in more cases, than has been highlighted.

Response 1: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected it (Line 228-229).

 

第2点：图2：请添加轴标题。

回应2：感谢审稿人的建议。我们已经纠正了它（图 2，第 273 行）。

 

第3点：表2：请提供更多关于每个多样性指数显示的内容的信息。

响应 3： 感谢审稿人的建议。我们在修订版中添加了（表 2 和第 263-269 行）。

 

结论

第1点： 该研究的结论通常有适当的证据支持，除了第415-416行的陈述。请改写这句话。

响应 1：感谢审稿人的建议。我们已经纠正了它（第443-444行）。

 

引用

第1点：引用格式不一致。通常，给出期刊的全名/标题，但在某些情况下，通过其缩写形式给出。请检查有关文章标题的大小写。

响应 1： 感谢审稿人的建议。我们在参考文献中更正了它（第465-601行）

 

第2点：请斜体化微生物的学名。

响应 2： 感谢审稿人的建议。我们已经在参考文献中更正了它（第500，504，507，510-511，514，516，544-545，555，563，568，584-585，590行）

 

第 3 点：参考文献 No.6、28、32、33 等 - 缺少 Doi。

响应 3： 感谢审稿人的建议。我们在修订版中添加了（第477，536，545，547行）。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.