Cambisol Mycobiome in a Long-Term Field Experiment with Korean Pine as a Sole Edificator: A Case Study

Point 1

Line 33    it is ‘Pinus koraeansis’    it should be Pinus koraiensis;  it is ‘Sieboldd’   it should be Siebold

Response 1

Corrected

Point 2

Line 36    in Introduction, a paragraph should be devoted to the synthetic characteristics of Korean pine, its occurrence in the world, properties, features, ecology, importance in the ecosystem, etc.

Response 2

I absolutely agree with you here, and added some relevant text in the introduction. However, addressing all the aspects you indicated seems to be a bit of an overkill in this paper, doesn’t it?

The amended paragraph in the revised version is as following: “Forests dominated by Korean pine (Pinus koraiensis Siebold et Zucc.), a magnificent ornamental tree, producing high quality nuts and timber [], form large ecosystems in forest biomes, occupying vast areas in the north-eastern China, the Russian Far East, Japan and Korea [].  Because of overexploitation, the species natural stands are fragile and diminishing, and its plantations are extending: for instance, Korean pine is the most important plantation tree species in northeast China []. Breeding, selection and seedling production, as well as pine tree growth and development  have been receiving marked research attention [, 4, 6-8] due to its high productivity and aesthetics, with the main aim to introduce it into some other areas, different from their natural habitats.”

Point 3

Line 43, a paragraph on soil mycobiome in forest ecosystems known from other countries should be added to the Introduction, depending on the type of forest stands.

Response 3

I am afraid it is a bit too much to add; the more so that that it is a long-term plantation experiment. Besides, the aspect is discussed later in the appropriate section of the manuscript. Moreover, adding such a lot of information into the introduction would make it a big review, markedly diluting the focus, which may would be counterproductive.

Point 4

Line 56 ‘Pinus koraeansis’ should be corrected as given in line 33, while the authors "Sieboldd et Zucc.,"  should be deleted, as they were already given in the Introduction

Response 4

Corrected

Point 5

Reference 20   it is et al.2015       it should be et al. 2015

Response 5

Corrected

Point 6

Reference 29       Suillus it should be in italic

Response 6

Corrected

Point 7

Reference 39       gryndleri it should be in italic

Response 7

Corrected

Point 8

Line 61 should be deleted (IUSS, 2015), otherwise it should be [4], not ^[4]

Response 8

Corrected

Point 9

Line 102 should be deleted (Fadrosh et al., 2014), similarly line 165, check throughout the text

Response 9

Corrected

Point 10

Line 130 all tables and figures where these results are given should be cited

Response 10

Rarefaction curves are given in a supplementary material.

Point 11

Table 3 - enter in the head of the table what do the data in the first column contain

Response 11

Corrected

Point 12

Fig. 1a    whether 'unc_fungi' can be treated as phylum - requires explanation in the text (in line 127). It is rather difficult to treat it as a separate phyllum, so the authors found fungi from 15 or 14 phylum?

Response 12

Yes, you are absolutely right. However, as I see it, there is a practical point important to respect: many specialists in the field want to know how many sequences could not be attributed below the Fungi level, as it gives some information about the database used, the habitat studied etc. Therefore the percentage of the unclassified Fungi should be given, and preferably, if it’s a graph, together with phyla.  I added the required elucidation in the Fig.1 caption: “unc_Fungi” stands for the relative abundance of sequences, that could not be assigned to any taxa below the Fungi level, and it does not represent “a phylum” in a strict sense.

Point 13

Fig. 1b  what is "Pezizomycotina _is", check all names in Fig. 1 and correct them,  or add explanations

Response 13

Checked and corrected, and the following text added in the Figure caption: “Abbreviations in the names of some taxa: “unc_” stands for “unclassified”, and “_is” denotes “incertae sedis”.

Point 14

Line 133       ca.70% - spacing should be corrected throughout the manuscript

Response 14

If you mean spacing between the digits and %, then it should not be corrected as many Journals, including MDPI-Applied Microbiology, prefer no spacing in such cases.

Point 15

Line 183 correction required

Response 15

Corrected by removing unnecessary repetition of “phytomass input”.

Point 16

Line 246  correction required

Response 16

The size of macroaggregates corrected.

Point 17

Line 307 References are not written according to the rules applicable in MDPI Journals and bibliography are not written according to the same principle

Response 17

Corrected as required by the MDPI template. However, currently MDPI allows submitting manuscripts for reviewing in a free format. Unfortunately, being in a hurry to respect the deadline for the Special Issue, I totally forgot to correct the References’ format. But personally, as a reviewer for some of the MDPI journals, I also absolutely prefer the entire manuscript to follow the MDPI-template.

Point 18

Discussion - It is suggested to discuss to what extent the use of culture dependent methods would allow to bring new aspects to the knowledge in the studied area

Response 18

Culture-dependent methods would enable studying the biochemistry and physiology of the fungus/fungi in a colony, which is needed as an indispensable preliminary stage for developing any practical applications; however, the cultivation methods do not allow to assess soil fungal biodiversity and in situ functioning. This is a truism; yet, if addressing it, one should contribute a lot of text about it, which, I am afraid, is beyond the scope of the manuscript.

Point 19

Discussion -It is suggested to discuss how the way fungi of the identified genera are spread / reproduced may affect the frequency of detected OTUs

Response 19

As long as the coverage in a study is sufficient to compare diversity, i.e. the rarefaction curves reach a plateau, the number of OTUs is about the same. However, as is indicated in the discussion, the ITS copy number may depend on the reproduction stage. How the number of identified OTUs depends on the ITS copy number, is an interesting and challenging question, deserving a separate full-fledged paper.