Effects of Four-Year Oilseed Flax Rotations on the Soil Bacterial Community in a Semi-Arid Agroecosystem

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "agronomy-2922426" should be rejected for publication due to serious errors. This study analyses the effects caused on the soil microbial community due to the use of six different crop cyclings in semi arid soils in Chinese soil. Below, I provide detailed comments on the aspects that i considerr necessary to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript: Abstract: I suggest a thotough revision of the abstract to address wording issues and treatment acronyms. In addition, it is critical to include a clear explanation of the analyses employed and to consider the effects of interactions between the microorganisms and cultures tested in the conclusions. Introduction: The introduction fulfils its general purpose, but it is recommended that some details be revised and expanded to provide a more complete context on the topic and objectives of the study. Methodology: Significant reformulation of the methodology is required. It is essential to provide detailed information on all techniques used, ensuring their replicability. In addition, adequate references should be included to support the methodologies mentioned in the text. Results: Modification to figures an tables are essential to ensure that they adequately support the research findings. They should be clear and correctly labelled to facilitade readers understanding. Discussion: The current discussion is minimal and simplistic. Further analysis of the data obtained, and exploration of relevant physical relationships is recommendend to provide a more complete understanding of the results.

 

The specific comments were placed in the pdf file, in the yellow highlights.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this manuscript is majorly lacking in relevant methods and statistical analysis. Most of the manuscript is missing relevant information and justification for the results obtained. The journal's English editing services are required before this manuscript can progress further. Once all concern are addressed in detail with major improvements, the manuscript could be of interest to a large range of researchers. 

 

The manuscript would benefit from the journal's English language services.

Line numbers would help to pinpoint where you need to make amendments.

Introduction:

You need to define 'healthy soil'.

You keep saying 'we'. Who's 'we'?

Never use 'significant' or 'significantly' without supporting it with statistics.

There doesn't seem to be a comprehensive account of the influences of bacteria on crop development and roles in the soil microbiome. This is supposed to be the focus of the manuscript, but is not given enough background here.

The introduction could be communicated better with improved English.

 

Methods:

Your soil classification is not descriptive enough.

'soil developed from loss' makes no sense.

You need to explain your crop rotations more clearly. What was the rotation pattern? How long was the growing season? What's 50% flax seed?

'usually planted between 1 and 15 April', why usually? Did you do something different? 

'6 times from 0.5g', what does this mean?

You need to briefly give the methods of Zhou et al.

You need to state the makes and models of the equipment.

You have a huge section missing in the methods. You've said you've set up the field trials, DNA extraction, but nothing about what you're doing with the DNA and what you're looking for. These methods cannot support the results and are incomplete, resulting in the results, discussion, and conclusion being unsupported.

A 1 way ANOVA is not appropriate to be used on it's own. Where are the diversity statistics? You have OTU numbers, you need to give the diversity. Correlations tests? T tests? Chi squared? You haven't provided a robust analysis of the data.

 

Results:

Figure 1 has error bars, but you haven't said what the error bars are made from.

What do all the coloured bars mean in figure 1? Your text is too small to be read properly.

The stats in this section are not appropriate.

What do the symbols in figure 3 mean? Each figure has be complete. You cannot use a key from another figure elsewhere in the manuscript for a totally different figure.

Text on figure 5 is too small.

 

Discussion:

You say 'both cropping systems', what are they?

The discussion needs to be rewritten. There's very little information here that shows what you have found and put it into a relevant context with literature.

Section 4.3 is completely unsupported by the methods you have described. It is not possible to have any data for this section if the methods you state are the actual methods you used.

Section 4.4 will be improved when you carried out the correct level of statistical analysis.

 

Conclusions:

These are totally unsupported by any results presented. This discussion is lacking in relevant details and needs to be rewritten to support the findings of the data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a lot of English errors throughout that need to be addressed. This is making the text difficult to follow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

 

The manuscript "agronomy-2922426" should be corrected due to serious errors for publication. This study analyzes the effects caused on the soil microbial community by the use of six different crop cycles in semiarid soils of China. Below, I provide detailed comments on the aspects that I consider necessary to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript: Abstract: This section was improved, however, errors in the acronyms used are still present. Introduction: The introduction fulfills its general purpose, but it is recommended to revise the way in which the different citations are applied. Methodology: Although the section was improved, problems persist in the amount of information provided for the reproducibility of the studies. In addition, adequate references should be included to support the methodologies mentioned in the text. Results: The section was improved, however, there are still questions about the way in which PCA and CCA analyses are applied and the objectives for which they are applied, these should be clarified by the authors demonstrating the correct use. Discussion: The discussion was improved, however, there are still some inconsistencies that should be clarified and modified by the authors.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NONE

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our article and providing valuable feedback.

Your suggestions are very professional, and we were deeply inspired by the revisions in the previous draft. Once again, we express our gratitude to you.

In this round of revisions, your professional suggestions have impressed us immensely. In this field, you are unquestionably an expert. We noticed that you mentioned, "The specific comments were placed in the pdf file, in the yellow highlights." We highly value your suggestions, as this is a rare learning opportunity for us. However, unfortunately, we were unable to access the PDF file you referred to. The file uploaded in the system was "peer-review-36133675.docx". At the same time, we would like to explain to you that the editor has instructed us to submit the revised manuscript before March 31st, so we made revisions according to the information provided in "peer-review-36133675.docx". There may still be many shortcomings, and we have already contacted the editor to explain this issue. Once we receive the PDF file mentioned by you, we will immediately start the modifications and complete your requirements in the shortest time possible to send to the editor, and request the editor to convey it to you.

Once again, we express our gratitude to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: This section was improved, however, errors in the acronyms used are still present.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our article. We highly value your suggestion regarding the abbreviation errors and have carefully revised the article to ensure improvement in the quality of the abstract and other sections.   However, as we are unable to access the PDF document you mentioned, our revision may not fully meet your satisfaction, and we apologize for this. At the same time, we assure you that upon receiving the PDF document from the editor, we will immediately proceed with the revision.   We hope that you will be satisfied with the modifications we have made based on your suggestions, and we would be happy to revise the article again if there are further areas for improvement or if you have any other suggestions.   Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback.

Comments 1: Introduction: The introduction fulfills its general purpose, but it is recommended to revise the way in which the different citations are applied.

Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing our article and providing valuable comments. Regarding your suggestions for the introduction section, I am very willing to make changes and improvements to improve the quality of the article.   Here, I will respond point by point to the specific suggestions you have made:   The introduction achieves its general purpose: Thank you for recognizing the overall purpose and intention of the introduction section in our article. We strive to ensure that the introduction can clearly and accurately introduce the research background and issues, laying the foundation for the subsequent content.   Suggestions for modifying the application of different citations: You mentioned the need to modify the application of different citations, and I understand that this may be due to the previous unclear or logically inconsistent citation methods. In the revised version, we carefully reviewed the application of citations and made corresponding adjustments based on your suggestions to ensure that the use of citations complies with academic norms and better supports the argument.   Based on this, we have reorganized the introduction section comprehensively, aiming to make it more concise, clear, and ensure that the application of citations meets your expectations and standards.   Once again, thank you for your review and valuable comments. We will immediately revise the article according to your requirements upon receiving your PDF document. We look forward to receiving your valuable feedback on the modified article.

Comments 1: Methodology: Although the section was improved, problems persist in the amount of information provided for the reproducibility of the studies. In addition, adequate references should be included to support the methodologies mentioned in the text.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our article and providing valuable suggestions.   Regarding the issues you raised in the methods section, we would be happy to further improve the article and provide you with a detailed explanation of our improvement plan:   There are still problems with the amount of information provided for the reproducibility of the research: We deeply apologize for the issues you pointed out in our methods section regarding the reproducibility of the research. We have conducted a comprehensive review of the methods section to ensure that sufficient information is provided for other researchers to accurately and clearly replicate our experiments and studies. We have reorganized and revised our descriptions in experiment design, operational steps, data processing, and other details to enhance the clarity and operability of the methods section.   Including sufficient references to support the methods mentioned in the paper: You mentioned the need for the methods section to include sufficient references to support the methods mentioned. We have carefully checked and improved the literature citations in the methods section to ensure that the methods used are fully supported and endorsed. We have further expanded the relevant literature to support the scientific and effective nature of the methods we have adopted.   Based on this, we will comprehensively revise and improve the methods section according to your professional advice upon receiving your PDF document, to enhance its reproducibility and scientificity. Thank you again for your review and valuable suggestions.

Comments 1: Results: The section was improved, however, there are still questions about the way in which PCA and CCA analyses are applied and the objectives for which they are applied, these should be clarified by the authors demonstrating the correct use.

Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing our article and providing valuable suggestions.   In response to the questions you raised in the results section, we are very willing to further improve the article and provide you with detailed explanations of our improvement plan:   There are still issues with the application and goals of PCA and CCA analysis, and we deeply regret any inconvenience caused by our unprofessional expressions and apologize to you. In the manuscript, PCA analysis was conducted to analysis the relationship between different crop rotation methods and soil bacterial communi-ties. The CCA was chosen toanalyze how much of the variation in the microbial community composition can be explained by environmental variables.   At the same time, we have conducted a comprehensive review of the results section to ensure that the explanations and applications other than PCA and CCA analysis are accurate and clear.   Based on this, after receiving your professional advice in the PDF document, we will comprehensively revise and improve the results section to enhance its scientific and comprehensible nature.   Once again, thank you for your review and valuable suggestions. We look forward to your valuable feedback on the revised article.

Comments 1: Discussion: The discussion was improved, however, there are still some inconsistencies that should be clarified and modified by the authors.

Response 1: Thank you very much for reviewing our article and providing valuable suggestions.   Regarding the issues you raised in the discussion section, we are more than willing to further improve the article and provide you with a detailed explanation of our improvement plan:   Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies in the discussion section. We have further checked the content of the discussion section to ensure that the viewpoints and conclusions are consistent and accurate.   At the same time, we have made preliminary modifications, but without seeing your professional advice, our modifications may not meet your satisfaction, for which we apologize.   Based on this, after receiving your professional advice in the PDF document, we will revise and clarify the discussion section to make it more accurate and consistent, to meet your requirements.   Once again, thank you for your review and valuable suggestions, and we look forward to your valuable feedback on the revised article.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great improvement. I have noticed there are many uses of the word 'significant' in the results section that have no p value and do not state the type of statistical test carried out. This must be corrected before the manuscript can progress further.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

First of all, thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments. Secondly, we want to apologize to you and the editor for the negligence in our work. We acknowledge that it was a serious oversight on our part not to provide sufficient statistical information to support the conclusions in the results analysis section. In the further revision of the manuscript, we have rigorously reviewed all the places where the word "significant" is used and added corresponding p-values to ensure that our results are more reliable and convincing. Thank you again! We have revised the manuscript according to your suggestions and look forward to the opportunity to receive more guidance from you in future work.

 

Sincerely yours,