Effects of Glucose Addition on Dynamics of Organic Carbon Fractions and cbbL-Containing Bacteria in Wetlands
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Effects of glucose addition on organic matter fractions and cbbL-containing bacteria in wetland sediments” for applsci-1900256 was reviewed. It presented the responses of LFs, HFs, RubisCO activities and cbbL-containing bacteria to the glucose addition in rhizospheric sediments and bulk sediments. The results were abundant, the LFs and HFs indicated the changes in domestic carbon accumulation, while other variables suggested the potential exogenous CO2 fixation. Its research perspective is novel, results are comprehensive, of course, certain questions should be revised before it is accepted, which listed below:
(1) This manuscript had no line numbers and page numbers, please add them.
(2) The first sentence of the introduction: “The accumulation of glucose, organic acid and other small molecule of organic matter (OM) in rivers and lakes are partly from human activities and sewers discharge, and also the root exudate and catabolite of hydrophyte [1].” : you should present the root exudate and catabolite of hydrophyte first, and then human discharge.
(3) There are language logic problems in the sentence in P2:“ Moreover, the impacts of glucose addition on bacteria were more significant than fungi and bacterial abundance was remarkably elevated [4]”. Please iterate.
(4) The format error in the first sentence of P3: ”...in forms of I, II, III, and IV, ...”
(5) There are grammar problems in the sentence in P4: “HFOM accounting for more than 60%, is ...” . Please iterate.
(6) There are grammar problems in the sentence in P2 of 3.4: “In genus level, Acidithiobacillus, Cupriavidus, Variovorax, and Vitreoscilla were the typical and dominant genus, which were both significantly or relatively higher in RS than in BS (Figure 6b). ”. Please iterate.
(7) The meaning should be explained when “LFs ” first came out.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
-This manuscript, by the authors, studied “
“Effects of glucose addition on organic matter fractions and cbbL-containing bacteria in wetland sediments”.
Overall, the topic is of interest to Applied Sciences, readers. However, the following are the specific comments on the article concerns, before publication as a major revision.
- Check manuscript font and text, should be consistent. i.e. Section 2.1 and 2.2.3 and so on.
- Can improve all figures and check units again on X-axis.
Specific Comments and Suggestions
-Title
Can improve title showing concern with wetland, glucose, and soil carbon cycle as well.
-Abstract
-Add more results in detail.
-Significance of your study? Specific findings?
-Check again with abbreviations and full forms “bacterial communities encoded by CO2-assimilating function genes (cbbL)and the corresponding activities of the key enzyme (RubisCO), and the light fraction and heavy fraction of organic carbon and nitrogen (LFOC, LFON, HFOC, and HFON) were dynamically monitored and determined.”
-Introduction
-Need to summarize and be specific with your concerned study.
Add more details on the relationship between organic fertilization and wetland profile for nutrients and the soil carbon cycle. May consider this and more related
“Application of wetland plant-based vermicomposts as an organic amendment with high nutritious value -Revise introduction section with summarizing and significance of the study.”
-Mention specific objectives of your study.
-Can add more references and avoid repetition of citations.
-Why is wetland-related discussion? Importance?
-Materials and Methods
-2.1 sections have problems with the font (In the text).
-Methodology also needs to summarize and be specific.
-Figure 1 can be improved by showing more details and significance.
-Unnecessary details make the manuscript confusing.
The table can provide better details.
- Please add an experimental setup of constructed wetland (field and lab experiments), pictures, and more figures to make the manuscript more attractive.
-Results and Discussion
-A little weak discussion about the effects of glucose on wetlands. Please add other studies references to support your current study and its significance
-Conclusions
-More specific, please?
-Significant differences on which basis?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
General comments
The authors did great work to improve the manuscript but it still needs more effort to make better quality of the manuscript
“Effects of glucose addition on organic carbon fractions, cbbL-2 containing bacteria and carbon cycle in wetlands”.
, before publication as a major revision.
- Can improve all figures and check units again on X-axis.
Figures can be improved more or with a large resolution
Specific Comments and Suggestions
-For improvement of “Title” is related to the whole manuscript body but still needs to fill the gap of wetlands in the introduction and discussion as well
Can improve title showing concern with wetland, glucose, and soil carbon cycle as well.
-Add more results in detail.
-Need to summarize and be specific with your concerned study.
Add more details on the relationship between organic fertilization and wetland profile for nutrients and the soil carbon cycle. May consider this and more related
This is the title for adding references as an example. Please check and read it.
“Application of wetland plant-based vermicomposts as an organic amendment with high nutritious value.
It was not a sentence to add as it is in the manuscript. Please do it carefully as the given references are wrong and not related.
Please add more references to support your study in every section.
-Why is wetland-related discussion? Importance?
Please add an experimental setup of constructed wetland (field and lab experiments), pictures, and more figures to make the manuscript more attractive.
Still need to provide the site or where you have done this.
Showing area, experimental place, and more details plz. If you lost former pictures you can add new as in supplementary files providing actual study.
-Results and Discussion
-A little weak discussion about the effects of glucose on wetlands. Please add other studies references to support your current study and its significance
-Conclusions
“pH values were also significantly decreased in experimental units compared with the con-418 trol units.”
Check units in the manuscript.
Significantly? Please provide detail.
References
References styles are not the same i.e. References 1, 2, and 3 are consistent? And so on
Check guidelines carefully
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
