Aquatic Macrophytes and Local Factors Drive Bacterial Community Distribution and Interactions in a Riparian Zone of Lake Taihu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the manuscript is consistent with the scope of the Journal. The present paper is prepared in the usual manner for scientific work, both the division into chapters collected results in the form of tables. The authors applied correct analytical methods and received many interesting results. The obtained results usually do not raise any substantive or scientific objections. The results are correctly interpreted and developed.

I agree with the authors that research of this type is important. The authors should make an effort to point out specificity of this study, and what is its continuation to the scientific existing knowledge.

Fig. 2. and Fig. 3 are hardly visible. Improve their quality, please.

Please, be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

 

Point 1: I agree with the authors that research of this type is important. The authors should make an effort to point out specificity of this study, and what is its continuation to the scientific existing knowledge.

Response 1: Phragmites australis grow in different hydrology conditions along the riparian zone, and local factors are different along the gradient of lake riparian zone. Thus, gradient environment conditions of riparian zone can be considered as a good model to evaluate the effect of local factors and aquatic macrophytes on bacterial community characteristics of riparian zone. The effect of aquatic macrophytes on bacterial community composition and interactions is important to elucidate the biological mechanisms guiding bacterial assembly in the lake riparian zone. We have revised the introduction (e.g. Line 84) to illuminate the specificity of the study.

 

Point 2: Fig. 2. and Fig. 3 are hardly visible. Improve their quality.

 

Response 2: We have improved the quality of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

 

 

 

Point 3: Please, be sure that all the references cited in the manuscript are also included in the reference list and vice versa with matching spellings and dates.

 

Response 3: We have checked all the references carefully by the format requirements.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study focused on relationships between macrophytes and bacterial communities in one lake in Chine. The paper is interesting and the manuscript was prepared very well. The only weak point of the paper is that it is based on one lake. Results from other lakes would increase its impact. Nevertheless, I highly recommend the paper for publication after minor changes. It should be clearly presented by the authors what was the aim of the study. This is not clearly stated in the text. Of course, the reader can guess this by reading the article, but a clear presentation of the goal should be found in the introduction and/or in the abstract. Research hypotheses that would also be appreciated. I suggest removing abbreviations from graphical abstract: RZa, RZb, NZc and NZd. They are explained later in the text, but in the graphical abstract they are unclear and should be skipped. Graphical abstract should explain itself and not require searching for information (in this case for an explanation of abbreviations) in the text. I suggest removing references to figures and tables from the discussion (e.g. Line 329). References to figures should be in the results where they are showed and there is no need to repeat this in the discussion in which we discuss the results, of course, mentioning them again, but there is no need to refer back to figures, tables etc. that were showed in the previous parts (eg. in results).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

 

Point 1: It should be clearly presented by the authors what was the aim of the study. This is not clearly stated in the text. Of course, the reader can guess this by reading the article, but a clear presentation of the goal should be found in the introduction and/or in the abstract.

Response 1: The aim of the study is to evaluate the relative contribution of local factors and Phragmites australis on bacterial community characteristics of riparian zone. Meanwhile we hope to get insight into the effect of Phragmites australis on the bacterial community distribution and interactions along the gradient of lake riparian zones. We have revised the abstract (e.g. Line 14) and introduction (e.g. Line 45 and 84) to illuminate the purpose of the study.

 

 

Point 2: I suggest removing abbreviations from graphical abstract: RZa, RZb, NZc and NZd. They are explained later in the text, but in the graphical abstract they are unclear and should be skipped. Graphical abstract should explain itself and not require searching for information (in this case for an explanation of abbreviations) in the text.

 

Response 2: We have removed the abbreviations in the graphical abstract.

 

 

 

Point 3: I suggest removing references to figures and tables from the discussion (e.g. Line 329). References to figures should be in the results where they are showed and there is no need to repeat this in the discussion in which we discuss the results, of course, mentioning them again, but there is no need to refer back to figures, tables etc. that were showed in the previous parts (eg. in results).

 

Response 3: We have removed the references to figures and tables in the discussion.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf