Effects of Pruning on Growth, Rhizosphere Soil Physicochemical Indexes and Bacterial Community Structure of Tea Tree and Their Interaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- Improve Formatation of the text
2- The material and methods:
- In line 104 which means 0.7 in the equation leaf area = leaf length × leaf width ×0.7,
- DNA extraction has not been previously described.
- The content of line 122 is very confusing
I suggest the review of this iten.
Results
- Pg 149 the increase values are in percentage increase?? It wasn't clear
- Figures 2 (A, B, C, D and F) should be improved.
- The note from figure 2 must be formated
- The pH value for MC and MP for me is equal. There was no increase in pH
The text must be reviewed
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- Improve Formatation of the text
A: Thanks to the reviewer. There may have been a problem in the format conversion. The authors have adjusted the formatting.
2- The material and methods:
- In line 104 which means 0.7 in the equation leaf area = leaf length × leaf width ×0.7,
A: Thank you to the reviewer. 0.7 is the leaf area coefficient. The authors have added it in Material Methods.
- DNA extraction has not been previously described.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added the method of DNA extraction and highlighted it in red.
- The content of line 122 is very confusing
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have sorted out the textual expression.
I suggest the review of this iten.
Results
- Pg 149 the increase values are in percentage increase?? It wasn't clear
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have redescribed and highlighted it in red.
- Figures 2 (A, B, C, D and F) should be improved.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. Problems with format conversion have been adjusted by the authors.
- The note from figure 2 must be formatted
A: Thank you to the reviewers. Problems with format conversion have been adjusted by the authors.
- The pH value for MC and MP for me is equal. There was no increase in pH
A: Thank you to the reviewer.The pH of MC is 4.21, and that of MP is 4.62. The significance test found a difference between them. Thank you very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article Effects of pruning on growth, rhizosphere soil physicochemical indexes and bacterial community structure of tea tree and their interaction is of scientific importance, however, some revision is required.
General suggestions
Revise English to make some sentences shorter and the whole text more easy to read and understand.
Abstract
Avoid abbreviations in the abstract. If they are absolutely necessary, then decrypt them. It is not clear what it is about (MP, MC).
Keywords
No need to write each word capitalized. It is recommended to add some more specified words connected to the topic of the research.
Introduction
Page 1, line 38: please, revise whether you talk about chemical elements or compounds to write the words Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur correctly (capitalized or not). There is a mixture now.
The Introduction section is too short. It doesn’t highlight enough the necessity and importance of the proposed work. The goal of the work is recommended to make more clear.
Page 2, line 63-66. Remove the gap in between the sections.
Page 2, line 72: Please, rephrase “…i.e., three replicates,…”. Not clear statement.
Page 2, line 77: no need to be capitalized “…(Weeding, pest control) were…”.
2. Materials and methods
Section 2.2. Determination of physichemical properties of soils
Here authors give the methods used: “The methods for the determination 94 of soil physicochemical indexes were briefly described as follows…”. Please give the reference where these methods described in detail or describe by yourself. The methodology of the article should be described correctly so that it can be analyzed and reproduced.
Check for typos: 2.4.16. S rDNA amplicon sequencing analysis.
Page 3, line 123: revise the table number: Table S1.
Revise English: To inspect the diversity between different samples were used Alpha diversity indices, including Shannon-Weaver index, Simpson index and Chao1 [26].
Page 4, line 140-143. Remove the gap in between the sections.
3. Results
Page 4, line 145 “tea trees showed (table 1)” - capitalized
Page 4, line 147. No need to used several times (MC), abbreviation in brackets if mentioned at the beginning of the text.
Page 4, line 152-154. Remove the gap in between the sections.
3.2. Effect of pruning on soil physicochemical properties
In this section, the authors describe the effect of pruning. However, as it is seen from the section 2.1. Site description the effect of change of the concentration of N, P, etc. was observed because “pruning litter was left on the surface of the original tea tree soil”, but not via the pruning itself. From this, it would be more correct to revise the text mentioning this important action. In the way the work is now described, reader gets the impression that all changes in the soil occur precisely because of the pruning, completely missing the fact that the pruning litter was left in the soil. The revision is recommended.
From here, the question appears if there is some positive effect if there is no pruning, but leave pruning litter from other sites or other kinds of organics? It is expected to observe the changes in the content of elements in soil via the addition of biomass.
Did the authors conduct the study of soil indexes before any kinds of treatment? This information (like a zero line showing the soil condition before experiment) could be useful for the comparison of the experimental results?
Page 4, line 166-168. Remove the gap in between the sections.
“It can be seen that the bacterial community richness of the rhizosphere soil of tea tree increased significantly after MP treatment, but the difference in diversity was not significant.” - Similar consideration to revise the statement of pruning itself and pruning litter application should be highlighted to analyze the changes of soil microbial community.
Page 5, line 247 – revise the gap between the sections.
5. Conclusion
Figure 4 appeared after conclusions looks confusing. It is recommended to transfer into the discussion section. Revise font size. Inscriptions are hard to read. Maybe, this figure will be more useful as the base for the graphical abstract?
Revise conclusions to make them more precise. Avoid once more description of the results.
Revise English to make some sentences shorter and the whole text more easy to read and understand.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article Effects of pruning on growth, rhizosphere soil physicochemical indexes and bacterial community structure of tea tree and their interaction is of scientific importance, however, some revision is required.
General suggestions
Revise English to make some sentences shorter and the whole text more easy to read and understand.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised the entire text manuscript. Change long sentences to short ones.
Abstract
Avoid abbreviations in the abstract. If they are absolutely necessary, then decrypt them. It is not clear what it is about (MP, MC).
A: Thank you to the reviewer. The authors have revised the abbreviation to the full title.
Keywords
No need to write each word capitalized. It is recommended to add some more specified words connected to the topic of the research.
A: Thank you to the reviewer. The authors have revised the keywords.
Introduction
Page 1, line 38: please, revise whether you talk about chemical elements or compounds to write the words Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur correctly (capitalized or not). There is a mixture now.
A: Thank you to the reviewer. The authors have revised the textual expression. Hopefully, it will meet the requirements.
The Introduction section is too short. It doesn’t highlight enough the necessity and importance of the proposed work. The goal of the work is recommended to make more clear.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised the introduction and added references. We hope that they can meet the requirements.
Page 2, line 63-66. Remove the gap in between the sections.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
Page 2, line 72: Please, rephrase “…i.e., three replicates,…”. Not clear statement.
A: Thank you to the reviewer. The authors have revised the textual expression.
Page 2, line 77: no need to be capitalized “…(Weeding, pest control) were…”.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
- Materials and methods
Section 2.2. Determination of physichemical properties of soils
Here authors give the methods used: “The methods for the determination 9 of soil physicochemical indexes were briefly described as follows…”. Please give the reference where these methods described in detail or describe by yourself. The methodology of the article should be described correctly so that it can be analyzed and reproduced.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised and highlighted it in red.
Check for typos: 2.4.16. S rDNA amplicon sequencing analysis.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Page 3, line 123: revise the table number: Table S1.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have made an error in presentation, which has been removed by the authors.
Revise English: To inspect the diversity between different samples were used Alpha diversity indices, including Shannon-Weaver index, Simpson index and Chao1 [26].
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have redescribed and highlighted it in red.
Page 4, line 140-143. Remove the gap in between the sections.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
- Results
Page 4, line 145 “tea trees showed (table 1)” – capitalized
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Page 4, line 147. No need to used several times (MC), abbreviation in brackets if mentioned at the beginning of the text.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Page 4, line 152-154. Remove the gap in between the sections.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
3.2. Effect of pruning on soil physicochemical properties
In this section, the authors describe the effect of pruning. However, as it is seen from the section2.1. Site description the effect of change of the concentration of N, P, etc. was observed because “pruning litter was left on the surface of the original tea tree soil”, but not via the pruning itself. From this, it would be more correct to revise the text mentioning this important action. In the way the work is now described, reader gets the impression that all changes in the soil occur precisely because of the pruning, completely missing the fact that the pruning litter was left in the soil. The revision is recommended.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The paragraph describes the results measured in the authors' experiment. In 2.1, the authors mention pruning litter to be left in the tea plantation. Your suggestion is very good. And since the format of the article is to describe the results first and then discuss them, the authors have added the expert's suggestion to the discussion.
From here, the question appears if there is some positive effect if there is no pruning, but leave pruning litter from other sites or other kinds of organics? It is expected to observe the changes in the content of elements in soil via the addition of biomass.
A: Thank you very much reviewer. Your suggestions are very good. After pruning, pruning litter do change the elemental composition of the soil, as does the application of other organic matter, for example, different types of organic fertilizers. In tea tree pruning studies, researchers usually leave pruning litter in tea plantations, in line with what is done in production practices. The key of this study is to analyze the soil microbial changes and its effect on the growth of tea tree after pruning. Of course, regarding the effect of pruning litter, different organic fertilizers or organic matter on soil elements and soil microorganisms, the author's team is already in the process of carrying out, and the study on the effect of different organic fertilizers on the diversity of soil microbial communities in tea plantations has already been completed. Thank you very much for your professional advice.
Did the authors conduct the study of soil indexes before any kinds of treatment? This information (like a zero line showing the soil condition before experiment) could be useful for the comparison of the experimental results?
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors studied the same tea plantation, only the pruned and unpruned areas were separated and the initial state of the soil was the same. herefore, the authors did not measure soil indexes before the treatment. This study focused on analyzing changes in soil indexs after pruning. Theoretically, the total nutrients in the rhizosphere soil of the tea tree should be more due to the pruned litter left in the tea plantation, but in fact, they are low and the available nutrients are high. The author describes it in the discussion. Thank you very much for your suggestion and I hope it will fit the requirement.
Page 4, line 166-168. Remove the gap in between the sections.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
“It can be seen that the bacterial community richness of the rhizosphere soil of tea tree increased significantly after MP treatment, but the difference in diversity was not significant.” - Similar consideration to revise the statement of pruning itself and pruning litter application should be highlighted to analyze the changes of soil microbial community.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. α-diversity indexes evaluates the difference of microbial diversity within the same sample, while β-diversity indexes evaluates the difference of microbial diversity between different samples. In this study, it was found that the difference of microbial diversity within the same sample was not significant, but the difference of microbial diversity between different samples was significant. Thank you to your suggestion. The authors have provided appropriate additional descriptions in the discussion.
Page 5, line 247 – revise the gap between the sections.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
- Conclusion
Figure 4 appeared after conclusions looks confusing. It is recommended to transfer into the discussion section. Revise font size. Inscriptions are hard to read. Maybe, this figure will be more useful as the base for the graphical abstract?
A: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Figure 4 summarizes the entire manuscript and just echoes the paragraph. The authors hope that a combination of text and graphics will enable the reader to better understand the entire manuscript. We hope to get your approval.
Revise conclusions to make them more precise. Avoid once more description of the results.
A: Thanks to the reviewers . The authors have revised the conclusions appropriately.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Revise English to make some sentences shorter and the whole text more easy to read and understand.
A: Thanks to the reviewers. The authors have made appropriate revisions throughout the manuscript, changing long sentences into shorter ones as much as possible to make them easier to understand.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I believe that the authors need to improve the readability of their result description and rewrite the discussion section. This is crucial because, in its current form, it appears to be a description of the main findings of other studies rather than directly related to their own results. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a research hypothesis to better understand the significance of their work.
There are no materials and methods presented in the abstract, making it confusing to understand the obtained results.
Line 38: Please change to "carbon."
Line 44: I find the term "plant ecosystem" confusing.
Line 48: Please provide the scientific name of the tea tree in full the first time and define the species that will be referred to as "Tea" upon its first mention in the text.
Line 60: Is Meizhan a variety of the tea tree?
Line 63: The last paragraph of the introduction lacks a hypothesis and aim.
Line 76: Please change "AND" to a more appropriate term.
Lines 91 to 93: Remove "Total" and "Available" from inside the parenthesis.
Line 94: Improve the wording for clarity.
Lines 126 to 127: Add the specific R packages used to analyze the data.
Line 150: Replace significance letters with an asterisk for significance or "ns" for non-significance.
Line 164: Make the same change as the previous comment.
Line 247: Consider separating this section.
Line 254: Correct "rhizosphere."
In the results section, I suggest reducing the number of figures to only include the essential ones, while the rest should be moved to the supplementary materials section. Figure 2 is too large for the page margins. Additionally, please shorten the result descriptions.
The sentence in line 291 is confusing and needs clarification.
Line 292: Specify how much time passed after pruning.
The sentence in line 300 is speculative and cannot be proven with the analysis performed. Consider discussing this in relation to the results from soil chemical analyses. Please rewrite this section.
Lines 310 to 317: This segment seems more appropriate for a review article than for a discussion.
Line 318: Clarify how much time passed after pruning.
Lines 322 to 330: This section appears to be a result description and should be revised accordingly.
Line 331: Check if something is missing in this sentence.
Sentence in line 334: The authors mention a treatment with fungicides that is not directly related to the experimental design of this manuscript.
Line 338: The authors discuss seed germination, which was not evaluated in their analyses.
The conclusion section appears to resemble a result description rather than a paragraph highlighting the main contribution of the manuscript to the field.
I hope my comments help improve the manuscript's quality
-
Author Response
Dear Editor,
After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I believe that the authors need to improve the readability of their result description and rewrite the discussion section. This is crucial because, in its current form, it appears to be a description of the main findings of other studies rather than directly related to their own results. The manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a research hypothesis to better understand the significance of their work.
There are no materials and methods presented in the abstract, making it confusing to understand the obtained results.
Line 38: Please change to "carbon."
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 44: I find the term "plant ecosystem" confusing.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 48: Please provide the scientific name of the tea tree in full the first time and define the species that will be referred to as "Tea" upon its first mention in the text.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Line 60: Is Meizhan a variety of the tea tree?
A: Thanks to the reviewers.Meizhan is a variety of the tea tree. The authors have provided additional clarification.
Line 63: The last paragraph of the introduction lacks a hypothesis and aim.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Line 76: Please change "AND" to a more appropriate term.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Lines 91 to 93: Remove "Total" and "Available" from inside the parenthesis.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 94: Improve the wording for clarity.
A: Thank you to the reviewing experts. The authors have revised the entire paragraph taking into account your comments and those of other experts.
Lines 126 to 127: Add the specific R packages used to analyze the data.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have labeled the R package used for both analysis and graphing.
Line 150: Replace significance letters with an asterisk for significance or "ns" for non-significance.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 164: Make the same change as the previous comment.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 247: Consider separating this section.
A: Thank you to the reviewer. This section of the analysis is continuous and the authors suggested that it would be more appropriate to put it together. Hopefully, it will meet the requirements.
Line 254: Correct "rhizosphere."
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
In the results section, I suggest reducing the number of figures to only include the essential ones, while the rest should be moved to the supplementary materials section. Figure 2 is too large for the page margins. Additionally, please shorten the result descriptions.
A: Thank you to the reviewer. The problem in Figure 2 belongs to the formatting problem, which has been adjusted by the authors. In the results section, since some experts suggested that it should be described in detail, the authors have synthesized your comments and made appropriate changes. Hopefully, it will meet the requirements.
The sentence in line 291 is confusing and needs clarification.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 292: Specify how much time passed after pruning.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
The sentence in line 300 is speculative and cannot be proven with the analysis performed. Consider discussing this in relation to the results from soil chemical analyses. Please rewrite this section.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have made appropriate additional comments.
Lines 310 to 317: This segment seems more appropriate for a review article than for a discussion.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors were trying to describe a small summary of the foregoing discussion. Hopefully, it will meet the requirement.
Line 318: Clarify how much time passed after pruning.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Lines 322 to 330: This section appears to be a result description and should be revised accordingly.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have made appropriate revisions.
Line 331: Check if something is missing in this sentence.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Sentence in line 334: The authors mention a treatment with fungicides that is not directly related to the experimental design of this manuscript.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 338: The authors discuss seed germination, which was not evaluated in their analyses.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
The conclusion section appears to resemble a result description rather than a paragraph highlighting the main contribution of the manuscript to the field.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have made appropriate revisions.
I hope my comments help improve the manuscript's quality
A: Many thanks to the reviewers for their suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was significantly improved. The one thing I propose, is to put Figure 4 inside the text directly after the sentence where it was mentioned. In the way it is situated now (after all conclusions) the figure looks a little bit confusing. The figure would have look more integrated if it could be inside the text.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript was significantly improved. The one thing I propose, is to put Figure 4 inside the text directly after the sentence where it was mentioned. In the way it is situated now (after all conclusions) the figure looks a little bit confusing. The figure would have look more integrated if it could be inside the text.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. Since Figure 4 is a summary of the full text, the author tried to place the figure in the text, but felt that it was not particularly appropriate, and only in the conclusion can it correspond to the text. Thank you very much for your advice.
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: I recommend deleting the phrase "and their interaction" from the title as it is confusing.
Lines 23 and 24: Adding quantitative data will enhance the quality of the abstract.
Line 31: This study assessed only bacteria.
Line 32: Specifically, only NPK was evaluated?.
Line 37: change to 'are' .
Line 46 (and line 14): Please include the botanical authority. After that, mention only "C. sinensis" (line 69).
Line 89: Please provide a comprehensive explanation of weeding and pest control.
Line 194: Please provide the statistical test that establishes such significance.
Conclusion: To clarify, the coclussion is not intended to offer an abstract or a summary of results. This section needs improvement.
-
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Title: I recommend deleting the phrase "and their interaction" from the title as it is confusing.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have removed it.
Lines 23 and 24: Adding quantitative data will enhance the quality of the abstract.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Line 31: This study assessed only bacteria.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 32: Specifically, only NPK was evaluated?.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 37: change to 'are' .
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
Line 46 (and line 14): Please include the botanical authority. After that, mention only "C. sinensis" (line 69).
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Line 89: Please provide a comprehensive explanation of weeding and pest control.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Line 194: Please provide the statistical test that establishes such significance.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have added.
Conclusion: To clarify, the coclussion is not intended to offer an abstract or a summary of results. This section needs improvement.
A: Thank you to the reviewers. The authors have revised it.
