Effects of Transformation of Inefficient Camellia oleifera Plantation on Soil Quality and Fungal Communities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Please use abbreviated versions of Latin species names after they were given full for the first time. 

-All keywords belong to the title. Keywords should be different than the title to provide a wide range of accessibility.

-Species names such as "Basidiomycota" or "Glomeromycota" must be written italics. Please check all Latin names, and ensure they are italic.

-Lines 248-249, the sentence misses an evaluation about the K

-In Table 1, please write Latin names italics.

If possible, please provide high-resolution figures. Most are hard to read.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is not bad.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have made the necessary revisions to our manuscript in response to your valuable feedback point-by-point. Kindly find the updated version attached for your review.

Thank you for your time and expertise. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the further progress of our manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author required to clear some of the quarry regarding research work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have made the necessary revisions to our manuscript in response to your valuable feedback point-by-point. Kindly find the updated version attached for your review.

Thank you for your time and expertise. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the further progress of our manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Effects of transformation of inefficient Camellia oleifera forest on soil quality and fungal community" is in the Forest Journal area. The work brings new values to the represented discipline. The research was correctly conducted and its purpose was to analyze changes in soil physicochemical properties after forest conversion, assess critical indicators of soil quality, and elucidate changes in soil fungal communities with a focus on key AMF species. The individual chapters were well described. Results were statistically verified. Conclusions are based on the scope of the research conducted. However, the authors should respond to the following comments before the manuscript is published.

Comments

1.     Table S1. - where the units of activity of each enzyme are given, the name of the product of the enzymatic reaction should be given. This comment also applies to Figure 2.

2.     Figure 2 - there is incorrect notation of activity units on the y-axis.

3.     Figure 2 - I suggest that homogeneous groups be labeled with letters.

4.     Figure 1 and Figure 2 - letter labels (O, Y, M, L) on the X-axis are unnecessary. The color legend included in the figures is sufficient.

5.     Figure 1 - are you sure that the N-NO₃ or NO₃ content is shown as given in Table S1 and described in the manuscript and conclusions? There is a significant difference between these values.

6.     Line 249 and 250 - the end of the sentence ".....and A when K compared to other plantations" is incomprehensible.

7.     Line 247 - I doubt that it is possible to write that the SOC content of the soil of the young plantation increased by 20% compared to the old plantation. Figure 1 shows that this increase was not statistically significant.

8.     The references section should be corrected and adjusted to meet editorial requirements. Among other things, it is not possible to use abbreviations for some journals and full names for others.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have made the necessary revisions to our manuscript in response to your valuable feedback point-by-point. Kindly find the updated version attached for your review.

Thank you for your time and expertise. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the further progress of our manuscript.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author required to mention the time period of the study.Whereas all the doubt raised are being answered well.