How Important Are the Relations between Vegetation Diversity and Bacterial Functional Diversity for the Functioning of Novel Ecosystems?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research analysis is not sufficient, and the experimental design fully confirms the conclusions of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overview and recommendation：

In this paper, the authors used the BIOLOG method to explore the development of microbial communities in post-mining areas. Subsequently, the relationship between microorganisms and plant communities was explored. The results contribute to understanding vegetation-microbe interactions in new ecosystems in post-mining areas. Although there are still some problems in the article, it does not involve the modification of the core content. Therefore, I recommend minor revisions. I listed the comments in detail below, hoping these could help improve the manuscript.

Major comments:

1. Why does the author emphasize the use of BIOLOG technology? As far as I know, this is not a novel technology. If the technology is introduced into a new field, it is recommended that the author explain further.

2. The structure of the article is a little unreasonable. It is recommended to combine Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.1 into a single chapter named “2. Materials and Methods”, which includes 2.1 Theory and Methods and 2.2 Study Areas. The old Section 3.2 as new Chapter 3 named “3. Result”.

3. In section 3.1. Adding a picture of the study area here may be better than a mere description. Authors can refer to geography-related journals to learn the specific mapping methods of the study area.

Minor comments:

4. The introduction is redundant, and appropriate compression is recommended.

5. It is suggested that very short paragraphs can be combined with each other or with other long paragraphs.

6. It is recommended that the font in Figure 1 be consistent with the text.

7. Line 125. It might be better to replace “In many sites” with “In many sites,” .

8. Line 142-143. “The sites that appeared de novo, a novel ecosystems sensu Hobbs et al. [42], develop [33].” The expression here is confusing and it is suggested to rewrite the sentence.

9. In Figure 3, in addition to considering shapes, colors can also be added to distinguish vegetation types.

10. The author gives a wealth of references, but the proportion in the past five years is relatively small. Some new relevant references are proposed to be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the relations between the different vegetation communities and microbial functional diversity in novel ecosystems of post-mining areas. The studies were conducted on the post-coal mining heap (Upper Silesia, Poland). The authors studied the functional diversity of microbial communities by BIOLOG method. They identified that the microbial functional diversity differs between non-vegetation plots, plots with taproot plants and dominated by grasses. I read the paper with pleasure. It was interesting but some parts in the text need to be improved or added. The principal comments concern the structure of the paper. Introduction forms a very large chapter but Results is very short. The Discussion chapter should be devoted to the analysis of the obtained results and comparison of the obtained results with the data obtained by other scientists. So, I believe that Sub-chapter 4.1 should be seriously re-worked and partly transferred to Chapter 2 (Topicality). Conclusions also should be improved. Please, work on the structure of the paper, revise and shorten some chapters and significantly enlarge others.

Sub-chapter 3.1 ‘Study site and methods’ begs a row of questions. In its present form it does not allow for conducting analogous studies somewhere else.

 Lines 2. I did not find anything about the vegetation diversity in the text.

Lines 26. Maybe between the vegetation communities and functional diversity of bacterial communities?

Lines 26. Bacterial or microbial?

Lines 31. Four vegetation communities?

Lines 187. Possibly 'between the different vegetation communities and functional diversity of bacteria (or microorganisms?)'

Lines 192. Please describe the study site. Write about the bioclimatic conditions, characteristics of the heap (age, rocks (physical and chemical properties). Is it self-restoration or product of reclamation (re-cultivation) activities?

Lines 192. The Methods chapter should be enlarged. In this form, it does not allow for conducting analogous studies anywhere else.

Lines 198.What do you mean by 'types of microhabitats'? Please describe microhabitats.

Lines 199. What do you mean by 'vegetation type'? You seem to study different vegetation communities with different dominants. Please describe these communities in short (projective cover, length of stand, assumed age of communities). Provide numerical characteristics of vegetation communities (aboveground phytomass, underground phytomass, availability and content of roots in soil, mean root diameter and other parameters which significantly affect microbiota).

Lines 204. Did you make 10 replicates for one sample plot or several of them?

Lines 205. I do not understand how you sampled for microbiota. What material you took samples from (dead phytomass, soil) or rhizosphere? If you took samples from young soils at spoil heap, please give information on soil horizon and depth. Did you analyze only bacteria or whole microbiota?

Lines 252. In Discussion pay greater attention to the relations between the structure of vegetation communities and functional microbial diversity.

Lines 271. What do you mean by 'sparse'? Give values.

Lines 286. This sub-chapter is to be partly transferred to Chapter 2 (Topicality) and then seriously improved concerning the analysis of the obtained data and comparison of the obtained results with the data obtained by other scientists.

Lines 310-312. How did you reveal the reaction of rhizosphere microorganisms to the plant's aging? What is this paragraph for?

Lines 351-353. Please give the CO2 efflux measurement results.

Lines 364-366. What is the zinc content in soil materials from the study heap? Do its values allow for phosphate buffer?

Lines 310. What buffer type did you utilize?

Lines 373. How did you prepare the representative inoculum of the studied bacterial communities?

Lines 392. What were the dilutions?

Lines 400-402. Please explain what you mean by 'the complex system of habitat conditions'? I did not found evidence on the relations between microbial communities and the complex system of habitat conditions throughout the text.

Lines 407-409. The chapter devoted to the method's analysis looks strange against the paper's structure. Please revise the structure of the paper and conclusions, relatively.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

On behalf of the team preparing the manuscript I would like to thank you for all valuable comments and suggestions which helped us to improve manuscript effectively.

Best regards

Joanna Czarnecka