Next Article in Journal
Allometric Models for Estimating Aboveground Biomass in Short Rotation Crops of Acacia Species in Two Different Sites in Chile
Previous Article in Journal
Tree Rings Reveal the Impact of Soil Temperature on Larch Growth in the Forest-Steppe of Siberia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Mycobiota of Fine Roots of Pseudotsuga menziesii Introduced to the Native Forest Environment

Forests 2021, 12(12), 1766; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121766
by Marta Damszel 1, Hanna Szmidla 2,*, Katarzyna Sikora 2, Agata Młodzińska 3, Sławomir Piętka 1 and Zbigniew Sierota 4
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Forests 2021, 12(12), 1766; https://doi.org/10.3390/f12121766
Submission received: 14 October 2021 / Revised: 19 November 2021 / Accepted: 9 December 2021 / Published: 14 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper set an interesting hypothesis, without which it would became a merely descriptive study on temperate forest mycobiota. Such a hypothesis provides relevant insights to the study and have important ecological implications. However, considering this as the main question the literature review section (Introduction) could provide some evidences in support of it. Are there some evidences of this kind with other tree species? Why 130-yrs might be a sufficient time lapse to allow for the species of fungi to colonize the roots regardless of tree species.

Consequently, the discussion section could deepen in these questions to draw conclusions that are more robust in relation to the main hypothesis. For instance, the finding that most of the Douglas-fir´s mycobiota are symbiotrophs might have a significant biological meaning in the context of the hypothesis.  

In rejecting the hypothesis (which seems to be the case), what possible implications would have for alien species like Douglas fir?

Author Response

The answer to the review is attached.

Reviewer 2 Report

This study presents interesting data that assess whether the mycobiota of fine roots of Pseudotsuga men-ziesii can be a measure of adaptation of this alien species under new soil and climatic conditions. The data presented are therefore very valuable for understanding the locally differentiated strategy of naturalness of fungi inhabiting soil and roots of P. menziesii and how they are affected by climate and other factors such as other species. However, I think that the analyses performed and sampling method detail could be strengthened, and I have added some suggestions below.

 

One of my main concerns is the sampling method of rhizosphere microorganisms. I noticed that the author took samples within two meters and three or four meters away from the corresponding tree species. Does this mean that the samples collected within two meters are rhizosphere samples? Although there is still no consistent method to judge the rhizosphere soil at this stage, we generally divide the soil on the root surface into rhizosphere soil. Few people directly divide the soil around trees into rhizosphere soil, even if there are many roots growing around the tree. I don't know how many samples the author took at each site. In Figure 6 of data analysis, I found that there are only two data points at each location. Does that mean that only two data points have been collected at each location? Please provide more details on data collection.

 

In addition, please provide more details on the statistical analyses. In particular, please provide the following information: (a) standard error should be added when displaying soil property data; (b) An important goal of this manuscript is to explore the impact of environmental factors on microbial community, so the analysis results of microbial community and environmental factors should be presented in the text rather than in supporting materials. Did you run a simple spearman correlations between identified microbiome and soil properties? Why not explore the overall impact of environmental factors on community structure? (c) what were the results of the Shapiro and Leven tests? This could be provided in the supplementary material. Overall, the data analysis is relatively simple, only showing some basic data, such as the relative abundance of fungi. I suggest that the author can try some other data analysis methods to better show the differences of microbial communities and functions in different species and locations.

 

Minor comments:

  1. Abstract: Only the proportions of some species are shown in the abstract, which may not represent the main findings of this manuscript. Considering the limitation of the number of words in the abstract, you can consider deleting the background introduction and adding the main results and conclusions.
  2. Introduction: The introduction is OK. The possible effects of environmental factors and geographical differences on microbial community structure were introduced. However, in the presentation of the results, the differences of microorganisms in different sites at the taxonomic level such as phylum were not compared, which may not well show the effects of geographic sites differing in soil. There is no good correspondence between the introduction and the results, which needs the author's attention.
  3. Materials and Methods: As mentioned above, the author is expected to provide more details in this chapter.
  4. I have no specific comments on the current results and discussion part. I am just curious to know whether there would be some new results if my suggestions on the methods are considered.

Author Response

The answer to the review is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper shows the mycobiota of fine roots of  Pseudotsuga menziesii  introduced to the native forest environment, which give the biota from the roots of P. menziesii had a less diverse taxonomic composition and was characterized by the highest proportion of symbiotrophs (71.8%) versus saprothrophs (5.6%) and pathogens (0.24%). However, there are some points to be revised:

1 add the species level dataset

2 the introduction is poor, which is lack of lastest references

3 the references part is not carefully writing 

4 the discusion is poor to analysis your datasets with our studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The answer to the review is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank the authors for their modifications to the manuscript. The quality of the current version is much higher than that of the previous version. I have carefully read the manuscript and should be of interest to a large number of readers. this manuscript should be accepted. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I have checked the reviesed manuscript and respond, which is find and interesing to readers. 

Kind Regards,

Changlin Zhao

Back to TopTop