Synergistic Effects of N Fertilization and Irrigation on Soil Bacterial Community in Super Rice Paddies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI evaluated the article. Nowadays, the tendency towards PGPR bacteria is increasing. Thanks to these beneficial bacteria, the use of chemical inputs decreases and clean products come to the table. This study is about the rice plant. The article provides important conclusions. The article is well discussed with other studies and correlates well with previous studies. However, some points need to be addressed before accepting it for publication. I divided them into Major and Minor.
Minor;
The title is too long and complicated. Simplify. Also add the Latin word for princ.
Summary
The names of bacteria can be italicized in the summary section. Additionally, numerical data must be included in the study.
Line 33; Replace the number 0 in front of the word introduction with 1.
Add a few sentences such as the importance of rice for human health and its herbal properties in the first paragraph of the introduction section. Additionally, world production values etc. should be added.
The following articles may be useful in terms of the design of the introduction section. It can also be used in the discussion section.
10.3390/horticulturae8060550
In the first sentence of the materials and methods section, the years in which the study was conducted should be stated.
In addition, it should be stated which years the climatic data given here belong to. If possible, it can be given as a table as the average of 5 years.
A few sentences can be written in the method section about the care procedures for rice.
Reference to the calculation given in section 2.3 on line 164 should be added.
The full name should be written where abbreviations are first used in the study. It has been overlooked in some places; Line 175 PCR.
Major recommendation;
It would be more accurate to give a table instead of the heatmap shown in Figure 6.
Additionally, correlation analyzes between years should be included in the study.
As I mentioned in my previous referees, references from other countries should also be included in the references section.
As a result of the edits made, I would like to review the article again.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We have carefully considered the comments from the reviewers, and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
We have make extensive revisions to the manuscript as suggested. There are several things I would like to mention:
- To make it less complicated and easier to understand, as suggested, we only keep the data from the fourth year.
- Since the manuscript has been thoroughly edited by a professional language editor, it is rather confusing if we mark all changes. It is also challenging to make a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, as the manuscript has been almost rewritten. Therefore, we have included a file with track changes, in case you need it.
- Please be informed that we have adjusted the authorship to reflect the contribution to the revision.
Please feel free to contact us if you need any additional information.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your efforts!
Sincerely yours,
Guiliang Wang
Yangzhou University
West Huayang Rd 196#, Yangzhou, China
Tel.: 86-13511769207; E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' submission entitled "Integrated N fertilization and irrigation managements increased rice yield and altered the succession of the soil bacterial community in super rice cultivation systems" for consideration in the Journal of Agronomy. The work aligns with the journal's aims and scope but requires major revisions for full consideration.
Please see below for specific comments:
1. Authors are advised to thoroughly review their manuscript and improve syntax, correct grammatical errors, and enhance overall English writing. For example, please revise lines 234, 95, and 238, among others. Rewrite lines 91-100, as they appear disorganized.
2. The introduction lacks a critical outlook and sufficient literature review. It is unclear how the authors identified their research gaps, and there is a deficiency in background knowledge regarding integrated farming and its relationship with soil bacteria.
3. In lines 80-90, the authors discuss the role of soil microbes in nutrient cycling, but they do not provide enough information on why they chose to focus solely on the soil bacterial community instead of the broader soil microbiome.
4. Please clarify the term "integrative effects" in line 96.
5. Consider reconstructing and rewriting the objectives and hypotheses.
6. Lines 187-193 should be part of section 2.4.3.
7. In section 3.1, the sudden introduction of the term "soil fertility parameters" lacks sufficient background details.
8. The current discussion is insufficient. Please justify your findings within the discussion section instead of discussing literature that is not relevant to your study.
9. What is "f__norank_o__norank_c__norank_p__Latescibacterota, w" in line 291?
Please see previous comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We have carefully considered the comments from the reviewers, and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
We have make extensive revisions to the manuscript as suggested. There are several things I would like to mention:
- To make it less complicated and easier to understand, as suggested, we only keep the data from the fourth year.
- Since the manuscript has been thoroughly edited by a professional language editor, it is rather confusing if we mark all changes. It is also challenging to make a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, as the manuscript has been almost rewritten. Therefore, we have included a file with track changes, in case you need it.
- Please be informed that we have adjusted the authorship to reflect the contribution to the revision.
Please feel free to contact us if you need any additional information.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your efforts!
Sincerely yours,
Guiliang Wang
Yangzhou University
West Huayang Rd 196#, Yangzhou, China
Tel.: 86-13511769207; E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, there is a need for English language editing as some information and points made are lost. However, there is a generally a good degree of data analysis. A major concern is the method employed for the identification and study of bacterial diversity. There is a sever error in using only 16s sequencing which needs to be addressed.
The first paragraph of the introduction seems to jump around between rhizospheres and nitrogen. Consider rephrasing or re-ordering the information to make the background information flow in a logical order.
Line 46 - Give an example of the consequences.
Line 52 - Check at all the stated values are correct.
Line 82 - You mention 'studies' but only use a single reference. This either needs a minimum of 3 references or the sentences needs rewording.
Your aims mention bacterial communities, however, you barely touch on these in the introduction. You have a paragraph that talks about the microbiome, but this is not well linked with the rest of the introduction. This means that your points are lost and your aims are not supported.
Section 2.3 - The heading needs to be reworded to be more appropriate for the text in this section.
Section 2.4 - There is a huge limitation with 16s primers that you need to address in the discussion. This is also very likely to change the patterns of your results.
Figure 2 - You could also draw attention to the beta and gamma diversity shown in this diagram as well. This could also be a talking point in the discussion.
Line 369 - Your points are valid, however, Illumina sequencing is not considered a 'gold standard' anymore and hasn't been since 2020. Your measures of bacterial diversity have many errors that need to addressed as limitations in the discussion. It would have been more beneficial to have ran the same DNA extractions with at least 2 other bacterial house keeping genes, followed by a BLAST analysis. You can then compare identification confidences to determine bacterial diversity.
Your conclusion is supported, however methodological limitations need to be acknowledged. Your data and findings are circumstantial.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are many sentences and section throughout that suffer from poor English. This can be aided by asking a native speaker to edit the document or using a proof reading service.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
We have carefully considered the comments from the reviewers, and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We appreciate the editor and reviewers for the insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript.
We have make extensive revisions to the manuscript as suggested. There are several things I would like to mention:
- To make it less complicated and easier to understand, as suggested, we only keep the data from the fourth year.
- Since the manuscript has been thoroughly edited by a professional language editor, it is rather confusing if we mark all changes. It is also challenging to make a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments, as the manuscript has been almost rewritten. Therefore, we have included a file with track changes, in case you need it.
- Please be informed that we have adjusted the authorship to reflect the contribution to the revision.
Please feel free to contact us if you need any additional information.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your efforts!
Sincerely yours,
Guiliang Wang
Yangzhou University
West Huayang Rd 196#, Yangzhou, China
Tel.: 86-13511769207; E-mail: [email protected]
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMs is ready for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is much improved. A couple of minor things need adjusting.
Page 11 needs a figure legend
Figure on page 14 needs to be formatted correctly
