Next Article in Journal
An Improved Wood Recognition Method Based on the One-Class Algorithm
Next Article in Special Issue
Variation Characteristics of Soil Organic Carbon Storage and Fractions with Stand Age in North Subtropical Quercus acutissima Carruth. Forest in China
Previous Article in Journal
Dendroclimatological Analysis of Chinese Fir Using a Long-Term Provenance Trial in Southern China
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Nitric Acid Rain Increased Bacterial Community Diversity in North Subtropical Forest Soil

Forests 2022, 13(9), 1349; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091349
by Meijia Zhou, Haibo Hu *, Jinlong Wang, Ziyi Zhu and Yuanyuan Feng
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Forests 2022, 13(9), 1349; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091349
Submission received: 1 July 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 23 August 2022 / Published: 25 August 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled Nitric acid rain increased bacterial community diversity in north subtropical forest soil is, in my opinion, very interesting and well written. I have no specific comments about it, only small suggestions for corrections:

Figure 2a – At first, this figure was confusing to me, and until I read the text in lines 154-161, I didn't understand it. However, it represents the common and unique OTUs across the 4 sample types. I think it is better expressed in the form of a Venn diagram, which is universally applicable and immediately understandable across a spectrum of readers without having to read the text for it. There are many freely available online tools for creating a Venn diagram, e.g. Venny 2.1 (https://bioinfogp.cnb.csic.es/tools/venny/index.html) or jvenn (http://jvenn.toulouse.inra.fr/app/example.html).

Line 200 – Correct to “Bray-Curtis” distance

Line 202 – Total variance contribution for PC1 and PC2 is 64.96% and not 69.96%. Please, correct it.

Line 222 – Correct this sentence, because the Simpson index was negatively correlated with soil TC but was POSITIVELY correlated with NO3--N.       

Figure 4 caption – Remove the text about “**” from the description of the figure, because there is no significance at the p<0.01 level in the figure itself. However, Figure A1 shows it correctly.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting topic for a research paper. The abstract fully reflects the content of the article, it is written in clear and understandable language. Test methods described in sufficient detail, statistical analyzes also explained and described correctly. The entries in the tables are explained in detail.
High-level discussion, citations from recent years, which increases the value of the work.
Please expand the conclusions as well.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop