Interaction of Inherited Microbiota from Cover Crops with Cash Crops

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper "Interaction of Inherited Microbiota From Cover Crops with Cash Crops" is very interesting.

Authors selected five monocultures and mixtures in an experiment under semi-controlled conditions. This is very important topic in agronomy.

A principal component analysis is incorrect for data with repications. Authors should use canonical variate analysis and additionally estimate Mahalanobis distances. Results section needs re-write.

Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, S1, S2, S3, S5: letters should be after means, not after standard deviations.

Table S4 needs values of mean squares of F-statistics.

Paper needs major revision.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns you raised. Please, see the attached file. It includes a) answers to each concern b) manuscript without “track changes”, c) manuscript with “track changes” and d) supplementary tables and figure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study entitled “Interaction of Inherited Microbiota From Cover Crops with Cash Crops” is good. Although the experiment is well conducted, yet I suggest a rejection due to the following deficiencies.

Major Concerns

Abstract

• Introduce the topic in 1-2 lines.
• Give a problem statement
• Give reason for the selection of current strategy for the solution of the problem.
• Authors have stated that “The results showed the wide diversity of effects that different CC provided on the structure of the soil microbial population, and which largely depended on the interaction with the CaC.” I don’t understand why authors are making such general statements. Please specified what either change was significant or not. In scientific writing, there is no space for general statements.
• Quantitative data is also important to support your conclusion. Would you please provide some quantitative data in terms of percentage significant increase or decrease in the abstract? I don’t know why the authors had not declared a maximum increase when they applied statistics to evaluate significant changes.
• Please provide a conclusive conclusion with is withdrawn through research in a single line. The statement “Thus, this study deepens the knowledge on the interactions of the effects of the CC with the different cash crops in order to select the CC that most enhance the sustainability and yield of each agrosystem” is general. Please conclude with a statement that shows the knowledge gap covers, potential beneficiaries and specific recommendations.
• Give future prospective in a single line.
• As per standard suggestions, please avoid using title words as keywords

Introduction

• Please follow the title in the introduction section, i.e., Inherited Microbiota, then cover crop, cash crop, knowledge gap, hypothesis and aims.
• Also, provide a novelty statement at the end of the introduction. What new things authors have done?
• Would you please give a single line about the knowledge gap which your research has covered?
• No hypothesis is provided, which is tested by the authors.

Material and Methods

• No reference and method are provided for the analysis of soil texture, pH and organic matter.
• It’s quite astonishing for me that authors have declared the design of the experiment. They only stated that treatments were randomly distributed. Would you please guide me about this new design? Give treatment plan, design of experiment as a separate heading with details of replications.
• From where these levels were selected. “NPK (20-0-0 at the beginning of the experiment; 61-14-0 at the basal dressing of the CaC; 92-21-0 at the top dressing as NH4NO3 and (NH4)2HPO4).”. Give some reference or screening data for the selection of these levels.
• No details about irrigation are provided. Would you please provide time, frequency and amount of irrigation?
• What was the pot/plot dimension?
• Which cultural practices were performed during the experiment?
• Have authors applied any weedicide, pesticide or insecticide during the cultivation of the crop? It is very important to know for microbial survival.

Results and Discussion

• Giving highest or lowest values are also fine. But the main thing is that how much significant increase or decrease was noted in each attribute.
• Please mechanistic approach as supporting evidence for discussion of results.

Conclusion

• Please give a conclusive conclusion.
• Major portions of the introduction and results are incorporated in the conclusion. Please remove that. i.e.,  The microbiological variables in soil and the roots of the main crops depended on the type of cover crops previously used. The cover crops with vetch favoured mycorrhizal colonization in wheat and maize, the absorption of macro and micronutrients in wheat, and produced, in monoculture or a mixture with barley, the highest wheat biomass.
• If the authors are not sure, then give future recommendations for more research and investigation.
• Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefits from this research.
• Also, give clear-cut recommendations and future prospective regarding this research.

Minor

The English language needs extensive editing from native English speakers.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript. We have addressed all the concerns you raised. Please, see the attached file. It includes a) answers to each concern b) manuscript without “track changes”, c) manuscript with “track changes” and d) supplementary tables and figure.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the changes made by the authors. Paper can be accepted in its current form.