Wildfires’ Effect on Soil Properties and Bacterial Biodiversity of Postpyrogenic Histic Podzols (Middle Taiga, Komi Republic)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

your interesting manuscript seems now improved in all parts.

Best.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank You for constructive comments on our manuscript that have greatly helped us to improve the paper.

We wish you and your family with lots of happiness, success, good health and prosperous New Year!

Sincerely Yours,

Corresponding author

02-01-2024

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors addressed all suggestions made. It seems to me that the results are now presented in a clearer way compared to the previous version. For future studies, it would be useful to consider multivariate analyzes such as path analyses, which would be more useful to test some of their hypotheses, from the design of the study. As I originally stated, only a few studies cover this spectrum of variables, so the information must work together, hence the importance of presenting the information in the best way.

If the authors consider that it is the best way to report the results of their study, it seems appropriate to me.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank You for constructive comments on our manuscript that have greatly helped us to improve the paper.

We wish you and your family with lots of happiness, success, good health and prosperous New Year!

Sincerely Yours,

Corresponding author

02-01-2024

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The authors did good work enhancing the manuscript and addressing all the comments and it's now suitable for publishing after this correction.

Gammaproteobacteria, Actinobacteriota, Verrucomicrobiota, Planctomycetota, etc are bacterial groups, not scientific names so the authors should remove the italics and correct them throughout the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank You for constructive comments on our manuscript that have greatly helped us to improve the paper. We would like to thank you for the chance to revise the paper. We are keen to publish our research in the Special Issue "Soil Microbial Ecology in Forest Ecosystems"; hence we have made minor revisions to the whole manuscript in line with the reviewer' comments and suggestions.

The revisions are marked in green color: the italics were removed from all bacterial groups throughout the manuscript. Sorry for this mistake.

We wish you and your family with lots of happiness, success, good health and prosperous New Year!

Sincerely Yours,

Corresponding author

02-01-2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The submitted manuscript is much better than the previous version. Nevertheless, there are still minor shortcomings that should be corrected before printing the manuscript.

Comments:

1. The length of the abstract should be adapted to the requirements of the journal.

2. The words microbiological, microbiome, and microorganisms are used in the abstract. These terms are too broad because the authors only studied bacteria.

3. Explanations of the symbols for soil profile levels should be provided under Figure 3.

4. The "References" chapter should be adapted to the requirements of the Journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank You for constructive comments on our manuscript that have greatly helped us to improve the paper. We would like to thank you for the chance to revise the paper. We are keen to publish our research in the Special Issue "Soil Microbial Ecology in Forest Ecosystems"; hence we have made minor revisions to the whole manuscript in line with the reviewer' comments and suggestions.

The revisions are marked in green color. The comments to the revisions are in attached file. 

We wish you and your family with lots of happiness, success, good health and prosperous New Year!

Sincerely Yours,

Corresponding author

02-01-2024

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

topic is very interesting and the manuscript reports many important aspects that should be analyzed in postfire conditions.  However there are text sections and figures that could be improved. Some suggestions are reported in the attached pdf. 

Regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See suggestions in .pdf attached file.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "Wildfires effect on soil properties and microbiome biodiversity of postpyrogenic Histic Podzols (middle taiga, Komi Republic)"

This manuscript is very relevant and interesting. However, there needs to be more information in many details. Besides, the information needs to be integrated into a unique model that highlights the important findings of the study. Only a few studies cover this spectrum of variables, so the information must work together, something that is missing even in the presentation of the information. Many details on the statistical analyses still need to be included. 

L81 - define what authors mean by "fire type". Include fire intensity as a main factor that determines the impact of fire on soil's physical, chemical, and biological properties. 

L124 - include criteria to determine fire severity (reference to the manual used).

The authors must specify how the ANOVA was carried out. All depths in the control soil were compared to all depths in the postfire soils? Ideally, the layers must be compared with the equivalent layer. 

Mention the relevant information to the construction of the PCoA. 

Specify equations used for Shannon index, evenness, and beta diversity. Provide reference to use PCoA as a proxy of beta diversity. There are other more informative, robust, and soundness proxies; see: Legendre, P. & De Cáceres, M. (2013). Beta diversity as the variance of community data: dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecology Letters 16(8), 951-963. doi:10.1111/ele.12141

Considering the variables set studied, some multivariate analyses can be carried out to determine which variables are influencing the alpha and beta biodiversity of soil microorganisms.

Results and discussion I strongly recommend indicating subsections of the section (i.e., the effect of fire on the soil properties, the effect of fire on soil heavy metals, and the effect of fire on soil microbial community).

Table 1. Place the table without cutting it.

Table 2. Place the table without cutting it. C/N values do not correspond with those reported for C and N; use decimal values. Specify F values in all cases. Use classic significant notation * p<0.05; ** p>0.01; *** p>0.001. 

L283 - the affirmation "An increase in pH with depth is observed in the lower mineral horizons" is not entirely true. Specify.

L314-L320 - It is important to specify between which horizons the variance analysis was carried out. Some differences can be detected in the first view, but as one p-value is provided, it is difficult to understand how the treatments are being compared. 

L337- this affirmation is valid only in the case of basal respiration, not all respiration processes. Specify. 

L345 – change is for was.

L349 - L352 Redundant.

L394 – check grammar.

L360 – L406 – this section must be rewritten to avoid repetition and include a proper discussion with references. 

Table 2. Place the table without cutting it. Specify F values in all cases. Use classic significant notation * p<0.05; ** p>0.01; *** p>0.001. 

Figure 5 PCA is not very clear and informative. It is preferable to use other ordination techniques, such as PCoA or NMDS, with cluster analyses to have more clarity.

L419- L429 – This paragraph is more an introduction than a Results and Discussion. Review.

L430 - L433 – Unnecessary sentence. 

Figure 6 – Is "number of phylotypes (Observed)" equal to richness? All other results present first the control and then the post-fire layer. Keep the same order. 

L452-456 – If the change in the normalization type modifies the results, why include this analysis? There are more robust technics to determine soil microbial beta diversity. 

L457- 459 – Remove this affirmation since Soil temperature was not determined in their study. 

Figure 7 - Describe the PCoA method in the M&M section. 

L468, L 479 – change is for was.

Figure 8 and 10 – relative representativity is the same as relative abundance? If so, relative abundance needs to be expressed using 1 as the total. All other results present first the control and then the post-fire layer. Keep the same order. 

Figures 9 and 11 –All other results present first the control and then the post fire layer. Keep the same order. Describe the ANCOM-BC method in the M&M section. 

L486-487 – This can be easily tested by the envfit function in an NMDS ordination, or using the Mantel test, or other proper multivariate analyses. 

Changes in the phylogenetic distribution of the microbial community were poorly or non-discussed. The authors can include a discussion on the ecological consequences of their findings. To accomplish their justification of "assessing ecosystem resilience and restoration strategies in fire-prone ecosystems."

L543-545 – generic information of fires, not a conclusion. Remove.

L546 – Check grammar.

Conclusions must be entirely rewritten to focus on this study's novelty; many of the results have been previously reported in very similar soils (as acknowledged by the same authors). However, this is a very complete study with many variables included that need to be integrated and have a strong conclusion of their novel findings.

Some typos, redundancies, and incorrect verbal times were detected. See suggestions for authors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comment 1: The abstract needs to be fortified with numerical results.

Comment 2: Line 42 and line 44 there is no need for all these references [4-8], [9-11] especially with general sentences, diminish the references in these sentences.

Comment 3: Line 57 remove etc from the reference part [16, etc.].

Comment 4: Line 76 why does this sentence (The difference in the research methodology is also necessary to take into account [3,27-30]) need all these references?

Comment 5:  The introduction part is very poor and lacks recent information’s; the majority of the introduction references must be included from 2016 to 2023 years.

Comment 6: Acronyms/Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear, check it throughout the manuscript.

Comment 7: Figure 2 title needs to be more informative to the reader, add the place and description.

Comment 8: Line 148- 149; The complex analytical soil characteristics included the determination of chemical, physical and physicochemical soil indicators using generally accepted methods [37,38], add the analytical parameters and more information’s about the method used to increase the validity of your research.

Comment 9: Table 2. Characteristics of studied soils. Add a more informative title to the table and add identification of all abbreviations in the table footer.

Comment 10:  The first part of the results lakes any discussion only two discussion lines (277-278), add acceptable discussion to the results, and compare your results with other research.

Comment 11: The authors must separate the results and discussion into two parts to enhance the very poor discussion.

Comment 12: What are the reasons that the pyrogenic horizon lakes acidobacteriota, verrucomicrobiota and planctomycetota?

Comment 13: The microbiological analysis lakes any discussion, add propertied discussions to this part.

Comment 14: The reference part needs to be revised one by one to meet the journal requirements.

Comment 15: English editing and grammar correction are recommended at this stage.

English editing and grammar correction are recommended at this stage.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this manuscript data on the main morphological, physico-chemical, chemical, and some microbiological properties of Histic Podzols in pine forests of semi-hydromorphic landscapes in the middle taiga of the Komi Republic after forest fires are presented.

The aims of the research were to analyze soil morphology and chemical characteristics of the fine earth; to characterize heavy metal concentrations in postpyrogenic soil and assess the regularity of their migration throughout the soil profile, to investigate the taxonomy composition of soil microbiome; and to analyze the parameters of alpha- and beta biodiversity of soil microorganisms in relation with pyrogenic impact.

The research topics fit the scope of the journal. The goals are original and well-defined, and the results obtained represent an advance in existing knowledge. The results are significant, but not always well interpreted. A similar remark also applies to applications. The article is not written correctly, the chapter "Results and Discussion" should be divided into two separate chapters "Results" and "Discussion of Results".

The "material and methods" chapter requires supplementation because its description in its current form makes it impossible for another researcher to reproduce the results.

Detailed comments

1. In the "Material and methods" chapter, a detailed soil sampling scheme should be presented, and the number of profiles examined, both from control objects and after the fire.

2. Microbiological analyses should not be performed on dry soil, and the authors provided such information in line 146.

3. Citing the literature is not always correct, e.g. lines 159-162, quote: "The level of basal respiration (BR) was measured according to method [41]. Basal respiration (Vbasal) is based on recording the CO2 response in native soil. The microbial biomass content (Cmic) in soil was determined by the fumigation method [42-44].”

4. When quoting literature, you should quote only the surname, not the initials of the names, e.g. line 175.

5. Figure 3 - the abbreviations of soil profile levels should be explained and these explanations should be referred to in the remaining tables and Figures.

6. Tables 2 and 3 - provide homogeneous groups.

7. I have doubts whether it is justified to present beta diversity with such low Axis values - Figure 7.

8. Figure 8 - it should be explained in what units the relative representativity of bacteria is presented.

9. In the title of Figure 8, I propose replacing "microorganisms" with "bacteria", and on the Y axis, eliminating the name bacteria and leaving only phylum, because only bacteria were examined.

10. Figure 9 – not all microorganisms were tested, only bacteria. Therefore, please clarify your signature.

11. Figure 10 - same note as Figure 9. Additionally, please leave only the genus names on the Y axis.

12. Conclusions - paragraph lines 562-572 should be reworded so that it correspond to the truth, i.e. not the entire soil microbiome was examined, only bacteria.

13. Since the authors did not study the diversity of fungi, I propose to clarify the title of the manuscript and its content and limit the vocabulary to bacteria.

14. Please organize your literature. Now it's chaos, because sometimes you write the titles of magazines with abbreviations, and sometimes with full names.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf