Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reports interesting data on soil and root bacterial communities and their interactions. All the data are comprehensively analysed and discussed.

In materials and methods, the authors have not explained why results refer to 35 samples (line 140) and not to 36 (6 farms x 3 spots x 2 sample types = 36 samples) and, more important, how the sampling plans were arranged across the farms to select the three "spots". How can you ensure the samples reflects the diversity of the field and are comparable? this is the basis of all the work, and the consistency of samples to be compared is essential, as the different farms and soils have not been characterised (or data have not been reported in the manuscript) and this represents a possible bias. I suggest to revise the manuscript to provide essential sampling details and, if available, farm soil characterization.

A minor check of English language is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Conventional farming practices with chemical fertilizers and tillage weaken the soil and damage the environment. On the other hand, organic farming is expected to maintain the health of agricultural soil and the safety of agricultural products.

The characteristic aspects of these conventional and organic farming methods must be identified in several ways for sustainable agriculture. This study found the difference in the soil microbiome, and it can cay that it is basic research with great potential for future application.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your time to review the manuscript. Thank you very much for your comments.

Sincerely,

Wei-Yi Lin

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

authors response and manuscript revision solved most of the problems, and the text was improved.