Comparison of the Structure of Soil Microbial Communities of Different Ecosystems Using the Microbiome Sequencing Approach
, Diana Sivojienė 1, Renata Gudiukaitė 2, Eugenija Bakšienė 1, Aistė Masevičienė 1 and Lina Žičkienė 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line-47; At least, enlisting the process through microorganisms has a significant role in climate regulation.
Line-160-170;You have taken the soil sample from a different site, where the soil may have varying physical and chemical compositions, which also play a great role in defining the diversity of microbes. Then how can you state that these variations are linked to climate change?
Line-193; Your treatments contain varying levels of nutrients, which play a role in determining the microbial community of the individual treatment. Then, how you can correlate these changes may be due to the effects of climate change.
To justify the objective of the study, you have to link the climate data with microbial diversity and taxonomy.
How you compare the effect of climate changes on microbial communities without using any basic data from past periods.
Author Response
When revising the manuscript, we decided to declain the climate change position.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents the initial idea of changes in soil microbiota due to climate change, a very appropriate topic. However, the authors do not promote an adequate text.
Title
Title is too long, and should be shortened
Introduction
The introduction is adequate. But it is very extensive.
line 71 – This paragraph can be shortened. The authors describe the study region a lot. What should be rewritten. Because the place is described in the methodology.
M&M's
The article is about the characterization of the areas. Because in M&M there is no experimental design, randomization and repetition. Describe this in the methodology.
Figure 1 figure not adequate
Improve the figure, the writing of the months is on top of the figure.
Results
The objective of this work is to compare climate changes in soil microbiota.
Authors should focus on this approach, the content of chemical elements in soils is another discussion.
Thus, either the authors put this in the title and objective, or the authors do not remove this part of the text.
Since Figure 3 does not compare the Treatments it has, as it only describes the observed values.
Figure 3 has to be profoundly modified. The aim is to compare agricultural and natural systems.
It got confusing, part of the description is at the top. Put pH, P and K together in one figure, separate that. Very difficult to understand this figure.
The results do not show correlation with the climate changes reported in Figure 2.
Have all locations experienced the same climate change in this region?
I don't understand how the authors want to report the issue of climate change since it is impossible to see it in figure 2 due to the dispersion of the data, and its explanation in a single sentence.
Dicussion
The discussion is clear and precise, and supports the results.
However, the climate change part is not explicit in the results. Thus, the discussion based on climate change is precarious to sustain the results.
Conclusion
The authors cannot maintain that after 20 years the microorganisms have decreased 10 times, as they do not have the analysis of 20 years ago. Also, it does not support observations about climate change.
I suggest a major revision in the article removing the part of climate change and soil chemical attributes.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1. Title: Title is too long, and should be shortened
Response 1: Because we decided to refuse the interpretation of climate change, the title was changed and shortened
Point 2. Introduction
The introduction is adequate. But it is very extensive.
line 71 – This paragraph can be shortened. The authors describe the study region a lot. What should be rewritten. Because the place is described in the methodology.
Response 2: Since we decided to refuse the interpretation of climate change, the introduction has been revised and shortened.
Point 3. M&M's
The article is about the characterization of the areas. Because in M&M there is no experimental design, randomization and repetition. Describe this in the methodology.
Figure 1 figure not adequate
Improve the figure, the writing of the months is on top of the figure.
Response 3: The sampling methodology was described in more detail.
Figure 1 has been reorganized.
Point 4. Results
The objective of this work is to compare climate changes in soil microbiota.
Authors should focus on this approach, the content of chemical elements in soils is another discussion.
Thus, either the authors put this in the title and objective, or the authors do not remove this part of the text.
Since Figure 3 does not compare the Treatments it has, as it only describes the observed values.
Figure 3 has to be profoundly modified. The aim is to compare agricultural and natural systems.
It got confusing, part of the description is at the top. Put pH, P and K together in one figure, separate that. Very difficult to understand this figure.
The results do not show correlation with the climate changes reported in Figure 2.
Have all locations experienced the same climate change in this region?
I don't understand how the authors want to report the issue of climate change since it is impossible to see it in figure 2 due to the dispersion of the data, and its explanation in a single sentence.
Response 4: As we decided to refuse climate change interpretations, the objective and the interpretation of the results were adjusted accordingly.
For that reason, Figure 3 was excluded.
Figure 2 was excluded, and the agrochemical analysis data are presented in table form (Table 2).
Point 5. Dicussion
The discussion is clear and precise, and supports the results.
However, the climate change part is not explicit in the results. Thus, the discussion based on climate change is precarious to sustain the results.
Response 5: Since we have decided to refuse interpretations of climate change, the discussion section has been edited accordingly).
Point 6. Conclusion
The authors cannot maintain that after 20 years the microorganisms have decreased 10 times, as they do not have the analysis of 20 years ago. Also, it does not support observations about climate change.
I suggest a major revision in the article removing the part of climate change and soil chemical attributes.
Response 6: As we decided to abandon climate change interpretations, the conclutions/summarising were rewritten accordingly).
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the invitation to meet your manuscript titled:
Comparison of the structure of soil microbial communities of different ecosystems by the microbiome sequencing approach under the background of global climate changing
The conducted experiment provides sufficient information on the microorganisms inhabiting the soil system of various biocenoses against the background of climate change, which has recently received more and more attention.
It seems obvious that this fauna differs in composition and functionality between the ecosystems included in the study. Agrocoenoses, including the distinguished grasslands, differ significantly from forest ecosystems in this respect. The authors must take into account that the soil environment is the most complex system in forest ecosystems and not only. There are a number of interactions with other groups of animals, e.g. with Acari, which also take part in the decomposition and processing of matter, increasing the active surface for decomposers (bacteria, mushrooms).
The authors defined the purpose of the observation.
The material and methods are described in some detail. Statistical analyzes are selected appropriately and carried out correctly.
The results are discussed accordingly.
Tables and graphs are legible and understandable.
Literature is selected accordingly.
Please correct typos and punctuation marks e.g.
Line 288 – (0.84–0.99%)
Line 293 - (1.65-3.17 mg kg-1).
Line 205 - at 20 ± 2 ◦C to correct the celsius symbol, in other cases also.
I find no other inaccuracies.
Author Response
All observed inaccuracies have been corrected.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Now, I am satisfied with the improved version of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made the necessary corrections and increased the quality of the paper.
