Review Reports

Reviewer 1

Response

1) In the section 3, effects of insecticides are shown as relative estimations “decreased”, “increased”, “decline”, and only changes in catalase activity are specified as 133% and 154% increase compared with the control soil after 100 days (lines 207-208). It is recommended to specify effects in values (increase/decrease in … times, percent, cells/g, etc.) as much as possible. It helps readers to estimate these effects as significant or not significant and make their own conclusion about cumulative effect of neonicotinoids on soil microorganisms. To avoid excess of numbers in the text and leave it readable, values can be added to the Table 2 for each example.

We agree and appreciate the comment.

We improved all tables of the manuscript including, whenever possible, the values described by the author in either percentages, days, or times, or by elucidating them from the results. The main changes were marked in each table.

2) It is recommended to verify Latin names for phyla and change them with valid ones. For example, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes are already not validly published and synonyms for valid names Actinomycetota, Pseudomonadota, Bacillota, and Bacteroidota. The new valid names for 42 phyla were published in the paper of Oren and Garrity, Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2021;71:005056, DOI 10.1099/ijsem.0.005056. Valid names for all prokaryotic taxa can be found in the List of Prokaryotic Names with Standing in Nomenclature https://lpsn.dsmz.de/.

We agree with the reviewer´s comment. Recently, the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) decided to use the ending –ota for phylum names, hence the phylum Actinobacteria was changed by Actinomycetota, Bacteroidetes is now named Bacteroidota, etc. (Oren and Garrity, 2021). Therefore, we have corrected the phyla names along the whole manuscript.

3) Lines 133-150 – One sentence is repeated 4 times. Line 139 – It is recommended to change “Biodegradation process such as Bacillus …” with “Biodegradation by Bacillus…”.

According to the reviewer suggestion, the repeated sentences were delete and the grammatical modification was made. See Lines 133-141

4) Section 3.2 – How authors could explain why various NNI act on microbial communities in different ways and show different effects?

We include a paragraph to explain possible causes why NNI can affect in different ways. Please revise lines 360 to 366.

5) In the article, it is concluded that the total effect of NNI on soil microorganisms is negative. However, in some cases, increases in activities or some taxon abundances are observed. Are such increases good for soil and microbial communities?

The conclusion was drawn up again and a paragraph was included with the objective of clarifying the doubts raised according to the previous writing. Please, revise 564-580.

Carelessness and some mistakes are detected. For example, lines 139-140 – “Biodegradation processes such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Burkholderia, Rhodococcus, Strepto-139 myces, etc. have been reported”, or lines 388 and 394 - "de insecticide".

According to the reviewer suggestion, writing and grammar were revised and improved throughout all the manuscript.

Reviewer 2

Response

Abstract. Microbial communities at the phylum level may not be attractive. Authors should focus more on microorganisms at the genus level or even at the species level. Also, how these bacteria play an important role in the nitrification process?

In Figure 2 we incorporate the highlighted microorganisms at the genus level and the associations made by the authors in their studies. These same genera were highlighted in the abstract, which was rewritten.

Introduction. Line70-74: Please articulate more clearly the research gap and innovativeness of this study.

According to the reviewer suggestion, we added a new paragraph in order to deepen the importance of carrying out this type of research. Please, revise lines 87 to 95.

Line 133-138. This sentence is repetitive, please double-check it.

According to the reviewer suggestion, the repeated sentences were delete and the grammatical modification was made. See Lines 133-141

Line 180-210. The authors elaborate on the findings of a large number of others.

The information from the text was condensed and presented in tables.

Line 459-461. Please provide relevant literature to support this explanation. Why is “sp.”?

We agree with the reviewer that “sp” is not necessary; therefore, only the names of the genera were used. This paragraph was supported by the reference of Hussain et al. (2016).

Authors should summarize and condense the results of others to find new conclusions.

The results in the text were condensed and presented in tables 3-5.

Recommended that the length of paragraphs in manuscripts be standardized.

Length of paragraphs were standardized throughout all the manuscript.

Recommended that add the challenge for current research about Neonicotinoids.

According with the reviewer suggestion, we include, we include a paragraph in the conclusions and future projections section, please review the lines 593-606.

References are too old, please update them with recent research advances.

Initially, 50% of the references were from the last five years. However, more recent references were incorporated into the manuscript, increasing to 61%.

Suggest for English to be checked by a native English speaker.

The manuscript was fully revised and corrected in writing and grammar by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 3

Response

The abstract need to rewrite, mostly sentence are unclear.

According to the reviewer suggestion, the abstract was rewritten.

Line 19: Add few lines about NNIs, as NNIs are widely used insecticide groups. What actually alarming about this specific type of insecticide? As it is a review paper, so the abstract need to be informative.

Relevant information about neonicotinoid pesticides was added in the abstract

(lines 21 to 24).

Line 55: add a line on there effect on honey bees

According to the reviewer suggestion, effect of neonicotinoids on pollinators was added, please check line 62-68. 

Line 104-105: Need to add a comprehensive table of Figure 2 mentioned NNIs with target pests, and mode of application, and PHI and degradation time.

Figure 2 was changed for the Table 1 to incorporate information required. In this item was not incorporated the degradation time in soil, because it was included in the next table (table 3).

Line 133-138: Repetition need to compile as one. (141-142)

According to the reviewer suggestion, the repeated sentences were delete and the grammatical modification was made. See Lines 133-141

Line 456-488: Mostly data is available in the text formate. It is a review paper. My suggestion is add table of microbes that effect and by NNIS and also a table of microbes list that biodegrade the NNIS. This review lacks of table and figures.

According to their suggestion, the information was organized and presented in tables. Currently the manuscript has 6 tables and 2 figure. In Table 6 we add some microorganisms related to the degradation of neonicotinoids, although the text also mentions that there are recent reviews on this topic.