A Meta-Analysis in Nine Different Continuous Cropping Fields to Find the Relationship between Plant Species and Rhizosphere Fungal Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "A meta-analysis in nine different continuous cropping fields to find the relationship between plant species and rhizosphere fungal community" presents interesting and important results on agronomic technologies related to the interaction between plants and fungal microbiome from the rhizosphere.

There are some suggestions that can improve the work of the authors and the output from the research.

 The last paragraph of the Introduction should present the aim and the objectives of the research. The authors need to consider to split the sentences "However, less attention has been paid to comparing plant spe-cies with continuous cropping histories, and it is still unclear whether plant species affect the com-position and diversity of the fungal community. In order to find the relationship between plant spe-cies and soil fungal community under different years of continuous cropping, we have chosen to focus on eight fields that have been continually cropped with various plant varieties, such as con-tinuous cropped of C. chinensis for six years, maize for 2 and 6 years, Polygonum multiflorum for 2 and 6 years, sweet potato for 2 years, Fritillaria thunbergia for 2 years, cabbage for 2 years, and fallow as an indicator to investigate the fungal community structure, composition, and diversity." in shorter sentences to specifify the specific objectives and position them after the sentence "This study aims to find a suitable cropping system for C. chinensis and other cash crops and mitigate the continuous cropping obstacles."

Material and Methods section is well written and present in a clear manner the methodology used by the authors.

Both Results and Discussion present well the results of the research, in an appropriate manner and a balanced separation between the sub-sections in the results section. 

The Conclusion section should be expanded to present the main findings of the research.

Overall, is an interesting manuscript and deserve to be improve. 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the manuscript entitled "A meta-analysis in nine different continuous cropping fields to find the relationship between plant species and rhizosphere fungal community" presents interesting and important results on agronomic technologies related to the interaction between plants and fungal microbiome from the rhizosphere.

Responses: We thank the reviewer for his/her interest in our work.

There are some suggestions that can improve the work of the authors and the output from the research.

 The last paragraph of the Introduction should present the aim and the objectives of the research. The authors need to consider to split the sentences "However, less attention has been paid to comparing plant species with continuous cropping histories, and it is still unclear whether plant species affect the composition and diversity of the fungal community. In order to find the relationship between plant species and soil fungal community under different years of continuous cropping, we have chosen to focus on eight fields that have been continually cropped with various plant varieties, such as continuous cropped of C. chinensis for six years, maize for 2 and 6 years, Polygonum multiflorum for 2 and 6 years, sweet potato for 2 years, Fritillaria thunbergia for 2 years, cabbage for 2 years, and fallow as an indicator to investigate the fungal community structure, composition, and diversity." in shorter sentences to specifify the specific objectives and position them after the sentence "This study aims to find a suitable cropping system for C. chinensis and other cash crops and mitigate the continuous cropping obstacles.

Responses: thank the reviewer for this comment which we found very constructive and valuable for improving our manuscript. We have revised the paragraph and shortened it. Here is the revised version of the paragraph “However, less attention has been paid to comparing plant species with cropping histories, and it is still unclear whether plant species affect the composition and diversity of the fungal community or not. In this study, we have selected eight fields that have been continuously cropped with different plant species, such as C. chinensis for six years, maize for 2 and 6 years, Polygonum multiflorum for 2 and 6 years, sweet potato for 2 years, Fritillaria thunbergia for 2 years, cabbage for 2 years, and fallow fields as control. This study aims to find the relationship between plant species and fungal community composition and diversity and find a suitable crop rotation for C. chinensis (one of the most important medicinal plants in the area) and other cash crops and mitigate the continuous cropping obstacles.”

The changes are also highlighted in blue in the manuscript.

Material and Methods section is well written and present in a clear manner the methodology used by the authors.

Both Results and Discussion present well the results of the research, in an appropriate manner and a balanced separation between the sub-sections in the results section. 

The Conclusion section should be expanded to present the main findings of the research.

Overall, is an interesting manuscript and deserve to be improve. 

Responses: we thank the reviewer for the invaluable comments. We have expanded the conclusion and added the main finding of this study. The changes are highlighted in blue in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear,

The paper “A meta-analysis in nine different continuous cropping fields to find the relationship between plant species and rhizosphere fungal community” brings an interesting approach on fungal communities in cropping systems with some cultures. Molecular, enzymatic and some soil chemical attributes approaches are presented. The statistics are adequate and the data interpreted correctly. However, here are some important notes about the article:

- Names of plants and fungi must be accompanied by the classifier (first time it appears in the text); then, the genus is abbreviated and no longer need to mention the classifier;

- Tables and figures must be self-explanatory and all acronyms must have their meaning shown in the caption; the names of fungi and plants must be followed by the classifier;

- The hypothesis must be presented, both in the abstract and in the introduction; it is important to address in the discussion whether it was corroborated or refuted;

- Present the experimental design clearly (factors and levels of factors tested); it is important to mention how many technical and biological replicates were considered in the study;

- Enzyme activity must be expressed per hour and not per 24 h! Present the standard curve and R2 for enzymatic assays;

- In figure 9, the colors of the “Arbuscular mycorrhizal” and “Others” bars are very similar; to review.

- The discussion needs to be substantially improved, as much of it is written considering comparisons with other articles; I suggest that the data obtained (which are excellent!) be used to explain the diversity registered in the different systems; an example: Glomeromycota had a positive relationship with enzyme activity; why did this occur? Soil fertility and pH data may answer. There are recent articles correlating some soil biochemical attributes with pH,​​for example. This is just one example; data from other phyla also need this approach!

 

I believe that major adjustments are needed, especially in the discussion, for the paper to be considered for publication.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “A meta-analysis in nine different continuous cropping fields to find the relationship between plant species and rhizosphere fungal community” brings an interesting approach on fungal communities in cropping systems with some cultures. Molecular, enzymatic and some soil chemical attributes approaches are presented. The statistics are adequate and the data interpreted correctly. However, here are some important notes about the article:

- Names of plants and fungi must be accompanied by the classifier (first time it appears in the text); then, the genus is abbreviated and no longer need to mention the classifier;

Responses: we thank the reviewer for this comment. We double-checked the entire manuscript and added the classifier for plant species when appears for the first time and remove the classifier when it was repeated.

- Tables and figures must be self-explanatory and all acronyms must have their meaning shown in the caption; the names of fungi and plants must be followed by the classifier;

Responses: we have revised and added all the classifiers for the plant name in the figures’ captions.

- The hypothesis must be presented, both in the abstract and in the introduction; it is important to address in the discussion whether it was corroborated or refuted;

Responses: we thank the reviewer for constructive comments, we have mentioned the study hypothesis in Abstract lines 19-20, and in Introduction lines 64-65. We have the discussion entirely and added the necessary information regarding our hypothesis and our finding.

- Present the experimental design clearly (factors and levels of factors tested); it is important to mention how many technical and biological replicates were considered in the study;

Responses: in lines 84-85 we have mentioned “Four soil samples were taken from the fallow fields, each consisting of five cores.” In this study, we have four biological replicates from 10 randomly selected plants.

- Enzyme activity must be expressed per hour and not per 24 h! Present the standard curve and R2 for enzymatic assays;

Responses: we have checked the experiment records and modified them accordingly.

- In figure 9, the colors of the “Arbuscular mycorrhizal” and “Others” bars are very similar; to review.

Responses: we have modified the figures and changed the color of “others”.

- The discussion needs to be substantially improved, as much of it is written considering comparisons with other articles; I suggest that the data obtained (which are excellent!) be used to explain the diversity registered in the different systems; an example: Glomeromycota had a positive relationship with enzyme activity; why did this occur? Soil fertility and pH data may answer. There are recent articles correlating some soil biochemical attributes with pH,​​for example. This is just one example; data from other phyla also need this approach!

 I believe that major adjustments are needed, especially in the discussion, for the paper to be considered for publication.

 Responses:  We thank the reviewer for his/her invaluable comment and suggestions. We have revised the discussion substantially and added more necessary information. The changes are highlighted in blue in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx