Effects of Transplantation and Microhabitat on Rhizosphere Microbial Communities during the Growth of American Ginseng
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, first I would like to congratulate you for the excellent work you have done.
I really liked the manuscript. However, I have some suggestions/criticisms to be evaluated by you to add to your manuscript, mainly in the written part of the abstract and introduction to better situate the reader.
I liked the work not only for the metagenomics approach in the steps of the American ginseng production process, but also for the fact that they explored the statistics well considering the phylogenetic diversity indices, the uniformity of the fungal and bacterial communities, and the correlation between the properties of the soil and the influence on productivity. In the latter case, the key factor in my suggestion/criticism regarding the introduction, as I feel that there was a lack of information about the Chinese cultivation system and the clarity of how it is carried out.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
In general, the manuscript presents an interesting theme from the point of view of the cultivation of American Ginseng; However, the writing does not make a direct connection with the agronomic scope of this research, for example, in the communities of dominant microorganisms, which functions could provide for or against the crop, which are considered important from the agronomic point of view and because. In addition, what could mean the change of the communities of bacteria and fungi from the point of view of the functions that these microorganisms present?
I present some observations and suggestions that could help improve your manuscript.
Best regards
1. Introduction
L 49-50. Improve the wording repeats terms.
L 55-56. The sentence is too short, it loses context.
L 74. The costs come out of contexts, if you incorporate it you must look for the reason or justify why this knowledge could help reduce costs.
L 81-86. This paragraph should be in the materials and methods section, usually, the introduction does not specify what was done. You could supplement your abstract or move it to materials and methods.
L 86-89. I suggest putting this paragraph in conclusions as it relates to the results of your study.
2. Materials and Methods
L 104. You should indicate what type of roots were selected.
L 110. Did you consider any special conditions in the sampling? I suggest providing more background on the sample.
L139. What was the output variable of your analysis? It is not clear to me.
L142. What size was the sample, any depth, volume, humidity, any given time?
L 153-155. I suggest separating this paragraph since it is not related to the physicochemical variables. What test is it related to and for what purpose are growth parameters measured?
L 157-189: I suggest organizing the statistical analysis based on the output variables to be evaluated in each experiment. It is not easy to read and understand.
3. Results
L 202-205. is it correct? “These findings suggested that the transplanting process primarily impacted bacterial community diversity, while the ginseng rhizosphere's bacterial community remains relatively stable post-trans plantation.” and the fungi?
L209-210. You do not mention this analysis in the materials and methods.
L233-235. This corresponds to materials and methods.
L 254-256. I suggest you do this discussion in the next section (“discussion”).
L 264-266. This should be incorporated into materials and methods, in this section limiting itself to presenting the results obtained.
L 283-285. This is part of the discussion.
L 314-322. Move this paragraph to materials and methods.
L 336-339. Move this paragraph to materials and methods.
4. Discussion
L 410-419. The hypothesis has already been stated, you need to discuss whether it is accepted or rejected.
In general, I recommend making a better discussion of the results and comparing their results with other authors, making a critical review of the experiments, inferring relationships, and making relationships from the agronomic point of view.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This work deals with the understanding of the composition of the microbiota surronding the soil environment of american gingseng root. As we can understand the relevance of the study with statistical analysis of bacteria and fungal patterns before and after transplanting, the objective of the study is not clearly adressed. What is the purpose of this study? To improve the growth of the American gingseng?, to regulate continuous cropping obstacles ?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
The article is devoted to a rather interesting topic of changing the microbial and fungal community of the soil under the influence of cultivation of medicinal plants on the example of ginseng. In my opinion the work is well done. This study greatly expands our understanding of the interaction between microbial, fungal communities and soil properties during the American ginseng transplanting process.
However, there is a comment to the article regarding Figures 2, 4, and 6. They are poorly readable, I would like the authors to improve the quality of the captions. In addition, this paper is similar to Chang F, Jia F, Lv R, Guan M, Jia Q, Sun Y, Li Z. Effects of American Ginseng Cultivation on Bacterial Community Structure and Responses of Soil Nutrients in Different Ecological Niches published in J Microbiol Biotechnol. It would be nice if the authors would point out the principal differences with this article. In addition, there is the question of the role of ginseng in regulating interactions with the microbial and fungal community. Perhaps stimulation by certain root secretions. I would like to see a discussion on this issue.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author:
I consider that your article has improved substantially, so I believe that it has the merit to be published in this journal. I only recommend making minor revisions in the wording of some paragraphs. Supplementary information allows for better understanding.
Kind regards
