Influence of Bacterial Fertilizers on the Structure of the Rhizospheric Fungal Community of Cereals South of Western Siberia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, there a major shortcomings with the manuscript that need to be addressed. The introduction is chaotic and needs to follow a more structured approach with a broader background of justification. The results are not analysed to the required degree for publication as there are also little description to cover the appropriate analysis of this data. This had resulted in superfluous statements made in the results section and conclusions that are not fully supported by critical analysis of the presented data.

Line 60 - 'our country'? Which is? 

Line 60 - Why is it unsustainable? Lack of information and background provided.

The introduction need to be completely re-written. There is no clear progression through the information to make a clear argument or statement to support the purpose of the study. The current information is disjointed and does no support statements to follow.

Line 107 - Not enough detail about site location 

Lines 113 to 129 - This section needs to be re-written to make it more clear about the conditions of the study sites

The use of subheading is needed throughout the methods section. It is unclear where each of the sections are and which paragraph is supposed to link to another.

Why are you making discussion points in the results section? Remove them.

No statistical analysis has been provided or described in the methods. This is inappropriate for a diversity study.

Why do you have 2 discussions? You're discussing and justifying data in the results section, and then doing it again in the discussion section.

The conclusions are not strong enough and not supported by the data shown due to the lack of proper analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a lot of section written in broken English that impede the accessibility of the test and information. This may also be the cause for the lack of background information and unclear flow between sections

Author Response

Good afternoon, dear colleagues!

Thank you for the detailed analysis of the manuscript.

We tried to make the necessary edits to the article.

 

 

1. The authors have changed the title of the article.
2. Materials and methods are divided into subsections.
3. The conclusions are optimized.
4. The authors believe that the signatures are correct.
5. The arrangement of options in the experience is systematic. This explanation was added to the manuscript.

6.The analysis of the fungal component of the rhizosphere microbiome was carried out in a third-party organization Scientific Equipment "Genomic Technologies, Proteomics and Cell Biology" of the FSBSI ARRIAM, the section "Methodology" provides detailed information about this analysis, which was provided by the organization that conducted the sequencing.

7. Introduced bacteria of the genera Arthrobacter mysorens 7 and Flavobacterium sp. L-30, under certain soil conditions, can have a positive effect on the vital activity of fungi. They can affect the physiology of the fungus, changing its differentiation and development. Bacterial-induced changes in the development and differentiation of fungal cells include inhibition or improvement of germination, branching of hyphae, growth, survival, reproduction, composition of exudates and production of antibacterial metabolites. We have not conducted any studies on the analysis of genes or enzyme activity.
8. The authors have finalized the discussion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript does cover novel aspects but can be improved. Following are the recommendations and queries for the revision

1. The title of the manuscript is too general and does not describe any specified connection to the study. Make it more specific, especially including the geographical location of the study.

2. Material and methods may better be divided into sub-portions.

3. Conclusions is typically too long and may better be condensed.

4. The captions of figures and tables do not qualify the standalone description modes.

5. How were the plots for each treatment randomized to avoid potential site-specific biases? Was there any replication beyond the described experimental plots?

6. Can the authors provide more details on the metagenomic sequencing process? Specifically, what platform and sequencing depth were used? How were the sequences processed and analyzed to ensure accuracy?

7. Can the authors elaborate on the potential mechanisms through which these bacterial preparations influence the fungal communities? Are there any functional gene analyses or enzyme activity assays that support these findings?

8. The discussion could be strengthened by relating the findings to broader ecological and agricultural contexts, such as the implications for sustainable farming practices in similar climatic regions.

Author Response

Good afternoon, dear colleagues!

Thank you for the detailed analysis of the manuscript.

We tried to make the necessary edits to the article.

1 The introduction is structured with a broader justification, the necessary changes have been made to the manuscript.

2. The research results have been finalized.
3. Line 60 - the sentence has been rearranged, in accordance with the remark.

4.Lines 113 to 129 of the section need to be finalized

5. Subheadings have been added, the methodology has been divided.
6. Statistical analysis was provided or described in the "Methodology" section earlier.
7. The discussion was excluded from the section "research results".
8. The conclusions have been finalized.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There's still a poor structure of the methods. Why are they divided into 2 totally different sections? Methods are a single section with subheadings. You need to revise this and make the sections clear. If each paragraph is a different method, it needs it's own subheading and labelling correctly.

 

The title also needs looking at as it is poor grammatical English and doesn't make sense.

Author Response

Good afternoon, dear colleagues!

Thank you for the detailed analysis of the manuscript.

We tried to make the necessary edits to the article.

1. The authors understood and accepted your comments, made the necessary changes to the breakdown of the methodology in the manuscript.
2. The title of the article has been finalized.