Effects of Planting Cash Crops on the Diversity of Soil Phosphorus-Functional Microbial Structure in Moso Plantations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe Manuscript ID: sustainability-3501389 examines the effects of planting cash crops on the diversity of soil phosphorus functional microbial structure in Moso bamboo plantation. The paper is aptly named as it explores function of moso bamboo forest to switch to two kinds of economic crops, i.e. persimmon and tea-oil, on soil phosphorus microbial community composition and the effect of moso bamboo forest soil. It addresses an important and interesting subject. The authors found that soil basic properties were significantly improved after the replanting of persimmon and tea-oil plantations, and the degree of nutrient improvement in persimmon trees was better than that in tea-oil plantations, but pH was decreased. The planting of other crops, not moso bamboo, affected the structure of soil phosphorus-functional microbial communities, among which persimmon tree had the most unique bacterial species. They concluded that planting of cash crops promoted the expression of functional genes in soil phosphorus metabolism pathways. They stressed that the conversion of Moso bamboo plantation to cash crops can not only change vegetation types, but also significantly affect the transformation of soil basic properties and P function. These shifts may be closely related to the adaptability of different crops to soil environment and their influencing mechanisms.
Generally, the subject is worth publication and the authors did a good job but further insights should have improved this research. I’d suggest the following points:
- It is better to differentiate between the target plant species and related ones, at least by stating its scientific name (Phyllostachys edulis is the mōsō bamboo). It is a temperate species of giant timber bamboo native to China and Taiwan and naturalized elsewhere, including Japan where it is widely distributed from south of Hokkaido to Kagoshima.
- On the contrary to their one-way direction, the authors should have also mentioned the fact that one reason that bamboo can also be a great cash crop, especially for small land-owned farmers, is that it is a renewable resource. Bamboo generates significantly more fiber than many other trees, regrows annually, and captures much more carbon than a comparable timber. This makes bamboo great for the environment and farmers' bank accounts. Briefly, bamboo plants can mitigate carbon emissions, improve ecosystems and provide sustainable regime of plantations. Yet, the authors can support their trend by explaining how alternative cash crops can be more profitable with sustainable regime too. This does not negate the fact that other researchers may promote working in the opposite direction, e.g. (REF): Exploring the shift to bamboo alternatives: A Case Study on wood and plastic replacement in Ethiopia. REF: Amsalu Nigatu Alamerew, Zhen Zhu, Robert Kozak, Anil Kumar Shrestha, Samuel Agdew, Guangyu Wang (2025) Exploring the shift to bamboo alternatives: A Case Study on wood and plastic replacement in Ethiopia. Journal of Cleaner Production 486, 144507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144507
- Figures and table 1 should be adequately described. For instance, in table 1, abbreviations like TN and TK…. should be written in full as footnotes. Also, in Figure 1. “(b) Abundance of dominant bacteria”, and “(c) Abundance of dominant bacteria” are the same. Please, write (b) Bacterial abundance on the phylum level, and “(c) Bacterial abundance on the genus level. Figure 3. Letters on graphs should better be more clarified.
- Many typos and mistakes were found in the MS and should be corrected, to name but a few:
- …Tea-oil soil samples were analyzed, Soil physical and chemical measurements…
- available phosphorus (AP) instead of "AP in the abstract". Please, write the full name in the first mention.
- A 0.5 g fresh Soil sample was
- among the treatments. (P < 0.05).
Therefore, I would suggest resubmitting after major revision.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: It is better to differentiate between the target plant species and related ones, at least by stating its scientific name (Phyllostachys edulis is the mōsō bamboo). |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In response to the key questions you raised, we have refined the scientific and popular names of the target plants and related plants and explained them in detail in the paper. |
||
|
Comments 2: The authors can support their trend by explaining how alternative cash crops can be more profitable with sustainable regime too. |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added that to the introduction in lines 63-72. |
||
|
Comments 3: Figures and table 1 should be adequately described. For instance, in table 1, abbreviations like TN and TK…. should be written in full as footnotes. Also, in Figure 1. “(b) Abundance of dominant bacteria”, and “(c) Abundance of dominant bacteria” are the same. Please, write (b) Bacterial abundance on the phylum level, and “(c) Bacterial abundance on the genus level. Figure 3. Letters on graphs should better be more clarified. |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a detailed footnote below Table 1 with a clear explanation of the abbreviations TN, TK, etc. At the same time, when these abbreviations are first mentioned in the text, their full names are also clearly marked to enhance the readability and transparency of the paper. Moreover, we have made changes to the comments in Figure 1. In addition, we have optimized the clarity of the charts to ensure that the data presentation is more intuitive and understandable. |
||
|
Comments 4: Many typos and mistakes were found in the MS and should be corrected, to name but a few: …Tea-oil soil samples were analyzed, Soil physical and chemical measurements… available phosphorus (AP) instead of "AP in the abstract". Please, write the full name in the first mention. A 0.5 g fresh Soil sample was among the treatments. (P < 0.05). |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We attach great importance to the issues you have pointed out and have carried out a comprehensive revision and proofreading of the manuscript. Below are the responses and revisions to the specific questions you mentioned: (1) Correction of typos and grammatical errors You pointed out that there were many typos and grammatical problems in the manuscript. We have carefully proofread the full text and corrected any errors found. (2) Standardized use of abbreviations and terms We have clearly indicated the full name when it first appeared and have corrected it in the abstract. (3) We have made clear corrections for the unclear expression (4) Modification of other problems We have also carried out a comprehensive check and correction on other possible problems in the article to ensure that the language expression is accurate and logical. |
||
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe scope of the manuscript « Effects of planting cash crops on the diversity of soil phospho- 2
rus functional microbial structure in Moso bamboo plantation » is very important.
Here are some specific comments to the authors:
Authors can more explain the table 1 and justify each obtained value.
Authors should add a list of abbreviation
Authors can improve the quality of figures, its difficult to read some ones.
Authors can more improve the conclusion part.
Authors can add a comparison of their results with some like studies reported in literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: Authors can more explain the table 1 and justify each obtained value. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for your reminder and correction. We have explained the contents of the table in detail and fully explained each obtained value. |
||
|
Comments 2: Authors should add a list of abbreviation. |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a detailed footnote below Table 1 that clearly explains the abbreviations TN, TK, etc. At the same time, when these abbreviations are first mentioned in the text, their full names should be clearly marked. |
||
|
Comments 3: Authors can improve the quality of figures, it is difficult to read some ones. |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have comprehensively optimized and improved the presentation of data in the paper |
||
|
Comments 4: Authors can more improve the conclusion part. |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for your reminder and correction. We have made a comprehensive revision and optimization of the conclusion. |
||
|
Comments 5: Authors can add a comparison of their results with some like studies reported in literature. |
||
|
Response 5: Thank you a lot. We have made a comprehensive revision and optimization of the conclusion |
||
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled " Effects of planting cash crops on the diversity of soil phospho-2 rus functional microbial structure in Moso bamboo plantation " was reviewed, and appropriate comments were indicated.
The subject deals with an important issue to explore function of moso bamboo forest switch to economic crops on soil phosphorus microbial community composition with satisfied experiments and clear presentation with tables and figures.
It could be suitable for publication after some modifications. Here are some suggestions/revisions:
- The syntax and grammar were advised to be thoroughly improved for better understanding.
- Make sure to unify “moso bamboo” / “Moso bamboo” / “Moso Bamboo” throughout the manuscript.
- Make sure to unify “persimmon” throughout the manuscript.
- Make sure to unify “tea-oil” throughout the manuscript.
- Revise letters capitalization and specific words italicization.
Lines 14-19: Please, split this long sentence.
Line 24: Please clarify what does “CK” refers to? As it was mentioned as an abbreviation for first time without meaning.
Line 33: Please clarify what does “AP” refers to?
Materials and Methods
- Please, State the scientific names of moso bamboo and persimmon.
Line 102: State “camellia oleiferis” according to scientific nomenclature basis.
Line 120: Revise the content/abbreviation “Soil Organic matter (SOC)”.
Line 143: Revise “of the differences 142 among the treatments. (P < 0.05).” to “of the differences among the treatments at p < 0.05.” Also, revise “P < 0.05” to “p < 0.05” throughout the manuscript.
Results
- Revise Table 1. as letters of significance should be superscript and with in the same line with the numerical results.
Overall, this is a well-structured and informative article that successfully unravelling that the conversion of Moso bamboo plantation to cash crops significantly affected the transformation of soil basic properties and phosphorus function. Apart from these suggested improvements, the content aligns well with the article's title and objectives, making it a robust and useful piece of scientific literature.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- The syntax and grammar were advised to be thoroughly improved for better understanding.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
|
|||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
|||
|
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
|||
|
Comments 1: The syntax and grammar were advised to be thoroughly improved for better understanding. Make sure to unify “moso bamboo” / “Moso bamboo” / “Moso Bamboo” throughout the manuscript. Make sure to unify “persimmon” throughout the manuscript. Make sure to unify “tea-oil” throughout the manuscript. Revise letters capitalization and specific words italicization. |
|||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. (1) Grammar and syntax improvement We have thoroughly checked and corrected the grammar and syntax of the full text to ensure that the language expression is more clear and accurate. (2) Unity of terminology To ensure consistency in terminology, we have uniform treatment of the following terms: "moso bamboo"/" Moso bamboo "/" Moso Bamboo ": After careful consideration, we decided to use "Moso" uniformly, in line with botanical nomenclature conventions and to be consistent throughout the text. "persimmon": We have unified all related "Persimmon" into this form, ensuring consistency throughout the text. "tea-oil": We have unified "tea-oil" into the "Tea-oil" serial form. (3) Letter case and italic format We have revised the italic formatting of letter case and specific words |
|||
|
Comments 2: Lines 14-19: Please, split this long sentence. |
|||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have separated this long sentence in lines. |
|||
|
Comments 3: Please clarify what does “CK” refers to? As it was mentioned as an abbreviation for first time without meaning. |
|||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. CK refers to Moso in the text, and we have replaced CK with Moso in the whole text. |
|||
|
Comments 4: Please clarify what does “AP” refers to? |
|||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. In this context, AP stands for available phosphorus. We have explained this clearly in a footnote below Table 1, and indicated the full name when it first appeared. In addition, relevant content in the abstract has been revised accordingly. |
|||
|
Comments 5: Please, State the scientific names of moso bamboo and persimmon. |
|||
|
Response 5: Thank you for your reminder and correction. We have supplemented and standardized the scientific names of relevant plants in the paper to ensure their accuracy and completeness. The scientific name of Moso bamboo is Phyllostachys edulis, Persimmon is Diospyros kaki, and Tea-oil is Camellia oleifera Abel (lines:). |
|||
|
Comments 6: Line 102: State “camellia oleiferis” according to scientific nomenclature basis. |
|||
|
Response 6: Thank you a lot. We have made changes to this content. |
|||
|
Comments 7: Line 120: Revise the content/abbreviation “Soil Organic matter (SOC)” |
|||
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the content Soil Organic Matter (SOM). |
|||
|
Comments 8: Line 143: Revise “of the differences 142 among the treatments. (P < 0.05).” to “of the differences among the treatments at p < 0.05.” Also, revise “P < 0.05” to “p < 0.05” throughout the manuscript. |
|||
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the expression in 143 lines and changed all occurrences of "P < 0.05" to "p < 0.05". |
|||
|
Comments 9: Revise Table 1. as letters of significance should be superscript and with in the same line with the numerical results. |
|||
|
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have overhauled the table to ensure that significant letters are superscripted and displayed on the same line as numerical results. |
|||
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors studied the effects of planting cash crops on the diversity of soil phosphorus functional microbial structure in Moso bamboo plantation. The study is of value to provide a scientific basis for optimizing soil management, and it is suitable for this journal. However, the manuscript needs a major revised before publication. The main problem with the manuscript is that it cannot determine whether parallel experiments have been conducted for microbiome analysis. If there are no parallel experiments, how can statistical analysis be conducted.
Abstract
Line 24 The full name of CK should be provided.
Line 40 The format of the first letter of the keywords should be modified.
Material and Methods
Line 113 Change punctuation semicolons to periods.
Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 How many parallel samples are included in each group for soil property analysis?
Section 2.3 and Section 3.2 How many parallel samples are included in each group for high-throughput sequencing analyses?
Section 2.3 What is the sequencing strategy? By metagenome or 16S rDNA?
Results
Fig. 1 What’s the difference between subfigures (b) and (c)?
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 If there were parallels samples, the results should be added to these figures.
Author Response
|
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the re-submitted files.
|
||
|
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The main problem with the manuscript is that it cannot determine whether parallel experiments have been conducted for microbiome analysis. If there are no parallel experiments, how can statistical analysis be conducted. |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the experimental design, The microbiome analysis was performed by extracting DNA from three repeat samples and then sequencing the mixed samples, each of which contained about 12 grams of raw data. This information has been supplemented in the "Materials and Methods" section of the article. |
||
|
Comments 2: Line 24 The full name of CK should be provided. |
||
|
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added to the full name of CK. |
||
|
Comments 3: Line 40 The format of the first letter of the keywords should be modified. |
||
|
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made changes to the format. |
||
|
Comments 4: Line 113 Change punctuation semicolons to periods. |
||
|
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made changes to this content. |
||
|
Comments 5: Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 How many parallel samples are included in each group for soil property analysis? |
||
|
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 have 3 parallel samples in each group for soil property analysis, which we have supplemented. |
||
|
Comments 6: Section 2.3 and Section 3.2 How many parallel samples are included in each group for high-throughput sequencing analyses? |
||
|
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. DNA was extracted from three soil samples and mixed to produce one sample for high-throughput sequencing, with each sequencing result containing about 12G of raw data. |
||
|
Comments 7: Section 2.3 What is the sequencing strategy? By metagenome or 16S rDNA? |
||
|
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. Section 2.3 is metagenomic sequencing, and we have made supplementary modifications in the paper. |
||
|
Comments 8: Fig. 1 What’s the difference between subfigures (b) and (c)? |
||
|
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. In Figure 1, (b) and (c) respectively refer to (b) Bacterial abundance on the phylum level, and “(c) Bacterial abundance on the genus level. We have made changes in the article. |
||
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept after editorial revision
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript has been revised according to the comments and can ben accepted for publication.
