Continuous Wheat/Soybean Cropping Influences Soybean Yield and Rhizosphere Microbial Community Structure and Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presented Wheat/soybean rotation on soybean yield and rhizosphere microbial community structure and function. However, there are some shortcomings for that should be revised.

 Line 10-11, The sentence is wrong grammatically replace the world inhibited with inhibition.

Line 18-20 how much was the variation mention in quantitative terms.

Line 41-42 should be cited with the previous studies.

Line 54 should be cited with recent study.

https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27196281,

Section 2.3 should be cited with recent study. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050954,

Overall, the study is well designed and presented in a good way, but mostly the literature is not cited. Grammatical and typos must be revised

Conclusion is well presented. However, future recommendations based on the obtained results must be added in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks very much for your comments concerning our manuscript. The comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have thought the comments carefully over and have made correction which we hope meet with your approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and responds to the comments are as following:

1. Line 10-11, The sentence is wrong grammatically replace the world inhibited with inhibition.

Reply: Thanks for your attention. As suggested, we have changed “inhibited” to “inhibition”.

2. Line 18-20 how much was the variation mention in quantitative terms.

Reply: Thanks for your question. For the fungal community, the Pielou_e and Shannon indexes of the W/S group was 23.01% and 22.08% higher than that of the W/S-W/M group, respectively. As suggested, we have added the variation in the revised manuscript.

3. Line 41-42 should be cited with the previous studies.

Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We are very sorry that the relevant data has not been published. In the previous study, we have found that the dry weight aboveground decreased by 18% in the continuous wheat/soybean cropping group which is consistent with Figure 1A. 

4. Line 54 should be cited with recent study.

https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27196281.

Reply: As suggested, we have cited the recommended literature in the revised manuscript.

5. Section 2.3 should be cited with recent study.

https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10050954.

Reply: As suggested, we have cited the recommended literature in the revised manuscript.

6. Overall, the study is well designed and presented in a good way, but mostly the literature is not cited. Grammatical and typos must be revised.

Reply: Thank you for your proposal. As suggested, the recommended references and some other related literatures have been added in the revised manuscript. We have carefully edited throughout for typos and grammar errors.

7. Conclusion is well presented. However, future recommendations based on the obtained results must be added in the conclusion section.

Reply: Thank you for your comments. As suggested, we have added future recommendations based on the obtained results in the conclusion section.

 

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research (Continuous wheat/soybean cropping influences soybean yield and rhizosphere microbial community structure and function) investigates the effects of continuous wheat/soybean cropping on soybean rhizosphere microbes. Although the manuscript idea is good, there are some modifications needed through the manuscript:

Major revision:

1.      Why the authors studied the rhizosphere microbial community and missed the rhizoplane and endophytic microbial communities which are more significant during plant life?

2.      Why the authors recorded the soybean Yield only and missing all other plant parameters which is a huge defect of the manuscript????

3.      Introduction part needs more recent and significant information’s about the rhizosphere microbial community associated with wheat and soybean plants (there is much research in this part).

4.      In the method part, what is the humidity range of the investigated site?

5.      What are the irrigation rates and fertilizers used and their quantities?

Minor revision:

1.      In the whole manuscript (P < 0.05), P should be in italics.

2.      In all figures the statistical letters above columns need to be in italics.

3.      Authors need to check the reference part (especially the journal names) and performed it according to the journal style.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thanks for the quick handling of our manuscript and we are pleased with the received comments. The comments are all valuable and very helpful for improving our paper. We have thought the comments carefully over and have made correction which we hope meet with your approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:

Major revision:

1. Why the authors studied the rhizosphere microbial community and missed the rhizoplane and endophytic microbial communities which are more significant during plant life?

Reply: Thanks for your proposal. The rhizosphere, rhizoplane, and endophytic microbial communities dwelling in root-associated zones all play essential roles in ecosystem functioning and plant health. Among them, rhizosphere microbes benefit plants by supplying nutrients and growth-stimulating hormones, inhibiting phytopathogens and enhancing tolerance to environmental stress (Ding et al., 2019). Therefore, we tried to explore the changes of rhizosphere microbial communities between treatments. We agree with you that the rhizoplane and endophytic microbial communities are also significant during plant life. We have addressed them for the future research in the conclusion section.

Ding LJ, et al. Microbiomes inhabiting rice roots and rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2019 May 1; 95(5): fiz040.

2. Why the authors recorded the soybean yield only and missing all other plant parameters which is a huge defect of the manuscript?

Reply: Thanks for your attention and questions. In our previous study, we observed that the soybean root and shoot was notably stunted in the continuous wheat/soybean cropping group (Figure 1A). We intended to investigate the changes of rhizosphere microbial community underground to explain the reason why continuous wheat/soybean cropping induce soybean yield reduction. Therefore, we only used yield to illustrate the differences between treatments. We agree with you that all other plant parameters were also critical part of the soybean continuous cropping obstacles investigations. As suggested, we will investigate the changes of the plant parameters aboveground for the further research.

3. Introduction part needs more recent and significant information’s about the rhizosphere microbial community associated with wheat and soybean plants (there is much research in this part).

Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. As suggested, we have added some more recent and significant literature and updated the old literature in the introduction part.

4. In the method part, what is the humidity range of the investigated site?

Reply: Thanks for your question. This region has a temperate continental monsoon climate, and belongs to semi humid and drought prone area. We have added it in the method part.

5. What are the irrigation rates and fertilizers used and their quantities?

Reply: Thanks for your attention. As suggested, the irrigation rates and fertilizers used and their quantities have been inserted in the revised manuscript.

Minor revision:

1. In the whole manuscript (P < 0.05), P should be in italics.

Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. As suggested, we have changed all the “P” into “P” in the revised manuscript.

2. In all figures the statistical letters above columnsneed to be in italics.

Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have italicized the statistical letters above columns in all figures as suggested.

3. Authors need to check the reference part (especially the journal names) and performed it according to the journal style.

Reply: Thanks for your attention. As suggested, we have re-reviewed the reference part to make sure that they meet the journal format requirements.

 

Thank again for your comments and suggestions.

Best wishes!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did a great job of enhancing the manuscript quality and giving sufficient answers to the questions. I recommend accepting the manuscript.