Combined Application of Organic Materials Regulates the Microbial Community Composition by Altering Functional Groups of Organic Matter in Coastal Saline–Alkaline Soils

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/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We appreciate your suggestion and have incorporated the changes in the revision.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Line 35. Add more details about the characteristics of saline-alkali soil.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue.The characteristics of saline-alkali soil have been supplemented in the revision (Page 1, paragraph 1, lines 36-38).

Comments 2: Line 40. List which organic materials are most commonly used.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added it in the revision (Page 1, paragraph 2, lines 41-43).

Comments 3: Line 67. Write the advantages and disadvantages of using crop straw.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added it in the revision (Page 2, paragraph 3, lines 68-71).

Comments 4: Line 329. Add more results from other authors.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have supplemented the relevant content in the revision (Page 10, paragraph 3, lines 341-346).

Comments 5: Line 341. Add more results from other authors.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have searched the relevant literature from other researchers and incorporated the content into the revision (Page 11, paragraph 2, lines 357-361).

Comments 6: Line 351. Add more results from other authors.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added it in the revision (Page 11, paragraph 2, lines 368-372).

Comments 7: Line 353-355. The addition of exogenous organic materials did not alter the dominant bacterial composition at the phylum level in saline-alkali soil; however, it did enhance their relative abundance. Describe why?

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. The dominant bacterial phyla have adapted to the saline-alkali soil envrionment, and their widespread distribution stems from their rapid utilization of organic matter. The composition of these microbial communities is generally stable, so the input of organic matter primarily affects the relative abundance of species rather than the structural composition. We have supplemented the relevant content in the revision (Page 11, paragraph 3, lines 380-384).

Comments 8: Line 364. Add references?

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have supplemented the references (Page 11, paragraph 3, lines 393).

Comments 9: Line 372. Add more data for humic acid.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have incorporated the relevant content into the revision (Page 12, paragraph 1, lines 400-404).

Comments 10: Line 383. Add more details.

Response 10: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added the details in the revision (Page 12, paragraph 2, lines 414-418).

Comments 11: Line 389. Provide specific results from several authors.

Response 11: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have incorporated the specific conclusions from other researchers in the revision (Page 12, paragraph 2, lines 424-429).

Comments 12: Line 397. State the importance of the genera Pseudoxanthomonas and Devosia in crop production.

Response 12: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added the relevant supplementary content in the revision (Page 12, paragraph 3, lines 437-440).

Comments 13: Line 399. State what the genera Fusarium and Paraphoma do to plants.

Response 13: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added the details in the revision (Page 12, paragraph 3, lines 440-444).

Comments 14: The entire discussion section is weak and needs to be expanded with a comparison of the results from other studies.

Response 14: We agree with your perspective and have incorporated the suggested modifications based on your feedback. We sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions, which are essential for improving our article.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your review.

5. Additional clarifications

In the revised version, additional references were incorporated, necessitating the renumbering of nearly all citations, which are now highlighted in red within the text.

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/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

We appreciate your suggestion and have incorporated the changes in the revision.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

We appreciate your suggestion and have incorporated the changes in the revision.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you for your review.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

We appreciate your suggestion and have incorporated the changes in the revision.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

We appreciate your suggestion and have incorporated the changes in the revision.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Lines 73–80, 96–99: For coherence, the objectives, research question, and treatments should be clearly aligned. At present, the role of inorganic fertilizers is unclear, and there is also a lack of an absolute control (soil only) for proper comparison.

Response 1: We apologized for the inconsistency in the descriptions of the two places. The application of chemical fertilizers serves two purposes: first, to align more closely with actual agricultural production practices, and second, to provide essential nutrients for saline-alkali soils, thereby avoiding disturbances caused by chemical stoichiometric imbalances due to fertilizer deficiency. Moreover, the focus of this study is primarily on the differential effects of applying different organic materials on soil properties under identical conditions. We have supplemented the missing descriptions in the revision (Page 2, paragraph 4, lines 81-86).

Comments 2: Line 88: Regarding Table S1, since the target soil is saline-alkaline, it would be important to include relevant variables for correct characterization, such as electrical conductivity (EC), exchangeable sodium, the alkali-to-neutral salts ratio, in addition to soil pH.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We added it in the supplementary material revision (Page 4, paragraph 1, line 34).

Comments 3: Line 93: In soil science, expressing salinity as a percentage (apparently % salt by weight of dry soil) can be ambiguous. Using electrical conductivity or total soluble salts (TSS) is more appropriate.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have corrected it in the revision (Page 3, paragraph 2, lines 102-103).

Comments 4: Lines 107–108: Scientific names should be italicized.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have corrected the font in the revision (Page 3, paragraph 3, lines 117-118).

Comments 5: Line 127: Does “extraction” actually mean “suspension”? Please clarify.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have modified the words in the revision (Page 3, paragraph 5, lines 137).

Comments 6: Lines 172–173: Revise wording such as “to quantified” and “to sequenced” → should be “to quantify” and “to sequence”?.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have corrected it in the revision (Page 4, paragraph 4, lines 181, 183).

Comments 7: Lines 193–195: Spell out abbreviations such as SF, SHCV, SHA, etc., at their first appearance at the beginning of the section.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added the complete meaning to the corresponding positions in the revision (Page 5, paragraph 2, lines 204-207).

Comments 8: Lines 199, 206: Review all figure and table captions for redundancy (e.g., “three replicates ± SE (n=3)” and “differences between different”).

Response 8: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have made modifications respectively in the revision (Page 5, paragraph 3, line 212; Page 6, paragraph 1, line 219; Page 7, paragraph 1, line 247) and the supplementary materials revision (Page 2, paragraph 1, line 19; Page 2, paragraph 2, line 22; Page 3, paragraph 2, line 32).

Comments 9: Lines 212–215: Check these sentences to avoid redundancy with the methodology section.

Response 9: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have deleted the duplicate parts in lines 212-215 (Page 6, paragraph 2, lines 225-226).

Comments 10: Line 362: In “Treatments straw with …”, it should be either “treatments of straw” or “straw treatments” for correct grammar.

Response 10: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have corrected it in the revision (Page 11, paragraph 3, line 391).

Comments 11: Line 406: This illustration is pertinent and comprehensive. Consider moving it from the end of the discussion, or it could also serve as the basis for a graphical abstract.

Response 11: We agree with your perspective and will use this figure as the graphical abstract for this paper.

Comments 12: Lines 420–422: Clarify for this statement that results requires further validation (mainly under field conditions), as the present experiment was conducted under controlled conditions.

Response 12: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We have added appropriate content in the revision (Page 13, paragraph 2, lines 463-467).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your review.

5. Additional clarifications

In the revised version, additional references were incorporated, necessitating the renumbering of nearly all citations, which are now highlighted in red within the text.