Differential Response of Soil Microbial Diversity and Community Composition Influenced by Cover Crops and Fertilizer Treatments in a Dryland Soybean Production System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• Its a very good research focus, as these kinds of studies helps in improving the soil health and conservation, in turn add value to the carbon reduction studies.
• I suggest to change the title, like words differently, etc.
• In the abstract add a sentence why/reason the difference for soil bacterial diversity.
• In the introduction, importance of soybean crop to the region/ US is missing, and the global implication of this research.
• add a paragraph about the current commercial soybean cultivation practices and the soil micro status if you can. This strengthens the quality of the paper.
• The results and discussion part was well written.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please find attached point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The composition and diversity of microbiome play a vital role in constructing the soil functions for the agricultural production system. Thus, in this study the investigation on the effect of different cover crops and fertilizer treatments (inorganic and poultry litter) on the soil microbiome and their relations with soil basic characteristics is very meaningful for the actual management of agriculture. Some comments as follow.

1. As seen from the description of Results and discussion, a lot of studies were conducted about the relevant field, so authors should better summarize the progress and problems on the influence of agricultural operation on soil microbial and fungal communities in the section of Introduction.
2. Although the key topic is about the soil microbiome, only expression at the phylum level was showed, this is not enough. The community structure at the genus level should be obtained from the sequencing method at the same time. In fact, the phyla change only mean a little information compared to genera results.

3. Why the application rate of poultry litter was based on the inorganic P content of the litter equivalent to soil test results for mineral fertilizer?
4. Corresponding to Figure 1, the chao1 of fertilizer treatments and shannon diversity index of cover crop species were missed.
5. In lines 201-202, in the current study poultry litter showed lower alpha diversity index, but in lines 220-222, organic fertilization source of addition increased the soil microbial community structure, why?
6. At the phylum level, showing the functions, such as disease suppression, growth promotion and plant health was obviously improper, since there are a large number of species within one phylum.
7. The bacterial and fungal communities at the genus level need supplemented, in order to better reveal the changes of soil microbiome between cover crops and fertilizer treatments in soils.
8. In the Table 1, the operation of sampling 0-15 cm depth for all the treatment was likely inconsistent to description in the Methods.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please find attached point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, 

I have some general comments. The article is well written and described. All the information is clear. I suggest increasing the letter and numbers size on figures.  

Comments.

The text in the figures needs to be bigger.  The numbers and letters in the X and Y axis.

Line 242.  Replace “21” with “Twenty one phyla…”

Please check the reference format.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments. We carried out those corrections. Please find  attached the revised draft

Author Response File: Author Response.docx