Next Article in Journal
Morphological and Molecular Evidence Reveal Eight New Species of Gymnopus from Northeast China
Next Article in Special Issue
Metabolic Diversity of Xylariaceous Fungi Associated with Leaf Litter Decomposition
Previous Article in Journal
Antifungal Effect of Copper Nanoparticles against Fusarium kuroshium, an Obligate Symbiont of Euwallacea kuroshio Ambrosia Beetle
Previous Article in Special Issue
Timing of Resource Addition Affects the Migration Behavior of Wood Decomposer Fungal Mycelia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Grazing Effects of Soil Fauna on White-Rot Fungi: Biomass, Enzyme Production and Litter Decomposition Ability

J. Fungi 2022, 8(4), 348; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8040348
by Yunru Chen 1,2, Tingting Cao 1, Meiqi Lv 1, You Fang 1, Run Liu 1, Yunchao Luo 1, Chi Xu 1,* and Xingjun Tian 1,3,4,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
J. Fungi 2022, 8(4), 348; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8040348
Submission received: 27 February 2022 / Revised: 25 March 2022 / Accepted: 25 March 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fungi in Decomposition Processes)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I did several remarks in the attached reviewed pdf.

Olaf Schmidt

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript on the Grazing effects of soil fauna on white rot fungi: biomass and enzyme production and litter decomposition ability is of interest regarding the grazing. The research is interesting, quite novel and but paper is rather not well written and presented.

Abstract is not well written; it is only a mere conscript of the study. Better would be to give some introduction followed by the gap in knowledge, hypothesis, general results and then conclusion. The abstract is the only part of the paper that the vast majority of readers see. Therefore, it is critically important for authors to ensure that their enthusiasm or bias does not mislead the reader.

The introduction resembles that of a review article and not that of a research article. What’s the gap of knowledge? Which is the scope of the manuscript? What hypothesis have been made? The introduction should be revised accordingly.

Experimental section:. A more succinic yet complete writing should be done. Moreover the author state that a statistical analysis has been made. I believe that the authors should give more details about the analysis performed.

Discussion: Again this part requires re-writing. The results should be more accurately being related with previous studies and possible interpretation of the findings should be more clearly stated.

Check the below references for the improvement of your introduction and discussion portion.

Fahad, S., Sonmez, O., Saud, S., Wang, D., Wu, C., Adnan, M., Turan, V. (Eds.), 2021b. Climate change and plants: biodiversity, growth and interactions, First edition. ed, Footprints of climate variability on plant diversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Fahad S, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M, Ullah H, Saeed M, Ali Khan I, Adnan M. (Eds.) (2020) Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth. Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49732-3

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted as it stands

Back to TopTop