The Coupling Response between Different Bacterial Metabolic Functions in Water and Sediment Improve the Ability to Mitigate Climate Change

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In some places grammatical corrections are required.

In Fig. 6 it is mentioned  Red lines represent positive 355 correlations, and green lines represent negative correlations. The negative correlations are not shown anywhere in the Fig.6.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Point 1: In some places grammatical corrections are required.

Response 1:

I have made grammatical corrections in manuscript.

Point 2: In Fig. 6 it is mentioned Red lines represent positive 355 correlations, and green lines represent negative correlations. The negative correlations are not shown anywhere in the Fig.6.

Response 2:

It can be seen from supplementary tables S1, S2 that only C and V in Fig. 6 (a) are negatively correlated, and there is no green line in other graphs in Fig. 6, because there is no negative correlation.

Supplementary figures S1 and S2 are as follows:

Table S1. Topological properties of co-occurrence network of bacterial function related to the carbon cycle in water and sediment.

	Factors	Nodes	Edges	Average Clustering Coefficient	Average Path Length	Modularity	Graph Density	Positive Relationship (%)
Water	Total	25	39	0.77	1.07	0.73	0.13	100.00
	C	25	56	0.67	2.23	1.40	0.19	82.14
	T	25	46	0.79	1.09	0.77	0.15	100.00
	V	25	68	0.71	2.68	2.40	0.23	72.06
Sediment	Total	23	40	0.62	1.35	0.68	0.16	100.00
	C	23	52	0.72	2.06	0.47	0.21	100.00
	T	23	58	0.70	2.28	0.55	0.23	100.00
	V	22	36	0.82	1.18	0.67	0.16	100.00

Table S2. Topological properties of co-occurrence network of bacterial function related to the nitrogen cycle in water and sediment.

	Factors	Nodes	Edges	Average Clustering Coefficient	Average Path Length	Modularity		Graph Density		Positive Relationship (%)
Water	Total	13	28	0.85	1.00	0.49		0.36		100.00
	C	13	43	0.73	1.35	0.22		0.55		100.00
	T	13	28	0.85	1.00	0.50		0.36		100.00
	V	13	26	0.84	1.00	0.39		0.33		100.00
sediment	Total	13	30	0.77	1.32	0.44	0.39		100.00
	C	13	32	0.63	1.39	0.45	0.41		100.00
	T	13	44	0.81	1.18	0.15	0.56		100.00
	V	13	26	0.83	1.00	0.65	0.33		100.00

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overview and general comment:

This topic has long-term value and is at the forefront of recent advances in toxicological research of the environment. It provides insight into the impacts of climate change. Unfortunately, its current form is challenging to accept. It is hard to determine the scientific significance of this study since it was conducted in such a field. For more information, please see recently published articles. The abstract captures the essence of the manuscript appropriately. An introductory paragraph provides a concise summary. A clear purpose is stated in the abstract. Using a review of existing literature, the authors support their decision to conduct the study. Their methodology was accurately described. Another investigator can repeat the study using those methods. Clearly explained and reasonable results were obtained. The results support the authors' conclusion. Please identify relevant functional genomes for the nitrogen cycle and expand on the Introduction and Discussion sections.

A few minor issues:

While the author argued that tens of references were cited in this section, the motivations and current research advances were not presented in the introduction. It is unclear what findings and new methods the study intends to present. A summary of the significance to the scientific community should also be provided since microbiome were studied in freshwater research. A manuscript for solely the presentation of data was not accepted by a science journal. The following issues need to be addressed:

See figure 2. Is this the metal composition of metabolic function and the total abundance of bacteria under different treatments of the carbon and nitrogen cycle in water and sediment? Could this be a human-induced phenomenon?

Fig. 6. A practical method is needed to assess the Co-occurrence network of bacterial functions related to the carbon and nitrogen cycle. Are these specific nodes chosen because their size indicates the degree of bacterial connection?

Constructive feedback:

In this article, the author confirms the phenomenon of studying the capabilities and characteristics of the chemical behaviors of bacterial functional communities. A study on the evaluation model for the impacts on water reservoir function was conducted in order to determine the characteristics of trends in environmental physicochemical properties. Using sequence denoising, clustering of OTUs, and FAPROTAX function prediction exposure, this manuscript examined theoretical and practical approaches for assessing human health risks. However, some parts could be improved. Journal scope & scientific community are both concerned with theoretical soundness of methodological rigidity. The manuscript needs to be improved for readability and logical flow in some parts. Details comments are listed below. The author used many paragraphs to describe the background of the bacterial functional community and interactions across the aqua ecosystem considering the importance of its own ecological functions but was sparse with a literature review. As far as I can see, there are no details regarding how the methods develop and what conceptual decision-making is done when considering the value of the services provided by the microbial extracellular polymeric substance. Since the basis for the study and the calculation method of enhancing water chemistry in mesocosms by T, C, and V treatments in river/aqua methods were mentioned several times in the text, I believe the goals and innovations should be summarized through a review of the most recent publications.

What improved or regulated the author's model to take into account the complexities of chemical components of bacterial functionality?

How did the different taxonomic levels affect the results? What is the significance of the differences between them? The article should clearly answer these questions.

In addition, to study the impact of bacterial functional abundance on their respective fates, precise data from Co-occurrence network analysis was required, which was not included in the manuscript.

It is my opinion that this publication should be revised greatly, but this will require the author to thoroughly examine the article and provide missing information and cover the gaps, particularly in the material and methods section, and the discussion section. I also found several grammatical mistakes which should be corrected in the next revision. Please refer to the list of my comment below for further details. Please refer to my list below for more information on my remarks. I also found several grammatical errors in the text that should be corrected in the next revision.

There is no doubt that the paper reports the preliminary results of the experimental mesocosm. An empirically justified method of assessing changes in bacterial metabolic function structure in the water column and sediment resulting from temperature rise in different seasons is presented in this paper. Similarly, in section Discussion, information gathering is somewhat ad hoc and has several attributes related to potential functions. Despite their ability to capture a lot of information, dimensionality may be a concern, as the development of functional groups related to carbon synthesis in water generates a vast number of variables. Although the paper presents a surprisingly practical technique, I think it could be very useful. Authors can establish empirically sound sets of autumnal heatwave events to stimulate autotrophic biofilm growth in rivers diversity that can be used in different kinds of research. I think, at its present form, with improvements suggested in the previous section, the paper makes an acceptable case for publication. I think this will generate research interest in improving the two components mentioned above.

Summary:

There are several gaps in the methodology parts which raise critical questions of the methods the authors have to build their study upon it (please refer to my detailed comments). The methodology section is not organized and needs major improvement. No description of the data source and how they were used is provided. The results part is also vague. Overall, the purpose of the study is generally clear and appears to be of value to the respective research community. The reach design and manuscript layout are well-developed. The largest issue is the manuscript’s writing style. There are several grammatical errors, unclear sentences, and misused words. I will not detail all the issues as they are far too extensive. I strongly recommend the author put the manuscript through a thorough technical writing review. There are several words/terms that are not typically used in this scientific discipline. The authors have only reported the statistical results with no physical interpretation and discussion.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.