Fungal Microfeatures in Topsoils Under Fairy Rings in Pyrenean Grasslands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Fungal microfeatures in topsoils under fairy rings in Pyrenean grasslands" aims to analyze the various biological structures of fungi present in the soil layers. 

1. Besides the information on fungal structure given, the manuscript must focus on the ecological role of the fungus in a given layer using the literature survey. 
2. In the Introduction  section, it can be further strengthened by addressing the purpose of the study. 
3. Does the study find that the roots of grasses and other seeds  in soil layers?
4. The discussion section can be more focused on identifying genera of fungus. 
5. Minor comments are mentioned below. 

Line 51- "Rodríguez et al. (in prep.)" If not published, please remove the line

Line 65 and 66, "Mestre et al. in prep." The issue remains unchanged from before. Is it due to a referencing error? 

Line 94- Please define 0.44 LSU

Line 142 _ Check Spelling  "modal"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Currently, the problem of changes at all levels of the organization of natural ecosystems against the background of global climate change is very relevant. Disruption of the natural connections that have been formed for centuries in the natural community, the connections between fungi-prokaryotes-plants-animals can be disrupted, which leads to irreversible consequences in terrestrial ecosystems. The soil is a part of ecosystems, which is a mirror of the processes taking place. In this regard, the changes that are gradually occurring in the biosphere may also affect the biotic component of soils. This is especially true of one of the most interesting zones of the formation of the biota-biotope system: magic rings. In this ring, the morphological, physico-chemical properties of soils and biota are connected in a single space of environmental factors. The latter includes plant roots, animals, and microorganisms. This whole system works smoothly, ultimately ensuring the maintenance of biospheric processes. Currently, despite the fact that there is a lot of information about their formation, the question remains, what is the root cause, what determines the vector of their initial development, the "boiling point". The unresolved nature of these issues and their great importance in the study of the role of ecological and biological factors in the formation of the genetic foundations of ecosystem functioning have determined the relevance of the research.

The work makes a very good impression, it is written competently, in a very correct scientific language, all the terms are used correctly. The latter determines the possibility for researchers from different countries to familiarize themselves with the presented results. In the proposed article, the objects and methods of research are described carefully, the tables and figures are very informative, and the list of references is complete. The comments are of a recommendatory nature and are given below.

2-3 is not a very informative name, it needs to be "smoothed out" a little

Fungal microfeatures in topsoils under fairy rings in Pyrenean  grasslands…

The composition of microscopic fungi

Structural features of soil microbiocenosis

9-15- not clearly written. This is the introduction. You only need to write 1 sentence.Next are the Objects and research methods.

19- The name of soils in the International Classification (WRB)

20 -Methods should be more clearly defined

20-21- results. It is necessary to specify the numbers, there are none at all! There are no results!

21- The absence of mi- 21 crostructural or compositional differences suggests.

This sentence should be removed! You shouldn't write this anywhere! Please review the ENTIRE article and change the general concept. It is necessary to write "not confirmed". Maybe you used methods that did not allow you to identify the changes? I kindly ask you to "listen" to my main point.

24- words should not repeat the title of the article

41-50- is very simply written, it needs to be made more scientific. To answer questions, for example, how to change the stoichiometric interaction of protein molecules when soil properties change? What role do enzymes play in shaping the biochemical status of soils? Can microbial metabolites disrupt micro-processes? How does the active center of the enzyme change when the microelement composition of soils is disrupted? and so on

62-70- is data from previous years. This can be moved to the discussion.

80-86- it is necessary to propose a hypothesis and then either confirm or reject it, otherwise it turns out to be a mess again, everything is not clear

91- a big request to make a drawing with a map, for visualization

Next, you need to make a drawing with a photo to confirm the work.

100- it is necessary to write in detail. No one will read old articles and see how it was

141- and macromorphology? This is not specified in the methods

152- Where is the WRB classification, why didn't they describe the diagnostic horizon? What soil-forming processes occur and are dominant?

215-what is it?

213- which microscope was used, which brand, it is necessary to specify in the methods

216- it is necessary to write in detail! Everywhere! and further along the text

All the photos are very good, clear, well done

269 is not good  start for a discussion. Please start with a general idea, general questions.

Here it is necessary to make a general drawing-a diagram of the work, so it will be clear what you did and why. Otherwise, it's very difficult to figure it out.

Why are the paragraphs so small? A big request is to combine those parts that are possible!!!

326- why is this allocation? After all, it wasn't in the beginning..

339-paragraph?error?

342- add ... in the soil where?

355- kindly indicate where the data obtained can be used, the practical significance of the work.

In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for the interesting materials, very subtle and painstaking work, good photos and wish the authors success and financial well-being in our hard work!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Everything was clear to me, so I hope that other scientists will easily read the article and draw their conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article presents results of research on the micromorphological soil effects in topsoils under fairy rings in Pyrenean grasslands.  Authors analyzed three fairy rings at four zones: the ring center, the zone of peak growth in 2013, the predicted growth zone for 2019 , and outside the ring. From each zone, two thin soil sections were prepared.

The presented data are novel and quite interesting, although Authors performed only soil macromorphology, analysis and classification; micromorphological analysis and described fungal structures. The actual  identification of fungal taxa through genomics was published elsewhere.

The data presented in the manuscript are relevant to the field of the journal. They are presented in a well-structured manner. The references are relevant, but most of them are from the past 25 years (79%) or more. The manuscript is scientifically sound, and the experimental design is appropriate. The manuscript's results can be reproduced based on the details in the methods section. The figures and tables are appropriate and relatively easy to understand. The conclusions are supported by the results. 

However, I am not certain if Authors should cite publications that are not yet published, especially in introduction (line 51, line 66: Rodríguez et al. (in prep.); line 65: Mestre et al. in prep.; line 85" Lobo et al. in prep.)

There are some editorial errors that should be improved:

• line 126: "[22." (bracket is missing);
• line 343: how did Authors define "Absent: -, Scarce: +, Common: ++, Frequent: +++, Abundant: ++++, Very abundant: +++++" (number, size?)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx