All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
I am pleased to inform you that, following the revision made based on the reviewer’s comments, your manuscript is now acceptable for publication in PeerJ.
Best regards
Xiaoming Kang
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Li and co-authors,
Please, consider all comments and suggestions provided by both reviewers during the revision of your manuscript.
Don't forget to include a letter response along with the revised version of the manuscript. In this letter you must respond point by point to each question.
Best regards,
Xiaoming Kang
Overall, this version is better than before, but there are still some parts that need to be modified.
1. Abstract: Methods, is more appropriate than Methodology.
2. Results: There may be misunderstandings. My comment was “The Result part should NOT take the statistical method as the sub title”,the authors could read more papers and learn how to write a scientific paper, including the title of the results part.
no comment
no comment
The manuscript is well written. Besides the data support the conclusion and the research results have certain reference value. References are properly cited. The structure of the article and the pictures are suitable.
The experiment is designed rigorously. There are very interesting data in this manuscript.
The data support the conclusion and the research results have certain reference value.
Dear Dr. Li and co-authors,
I just received the reviews of your manuscript. Please, consider all comments and suggestions provided by both reviewers during the revision of your manuscript.
Don't forget to include a letter response along with the revised version of the manuscript. In this letter you must respond point by point to each question.
Best regards,
Xiaoming Kang
No comment
No comment
Is it possible for the author to validate and justify the work carried out in this study using the following reference, specifically with reference to the use of primers and the bias in sequencing outcome?
Bellemain et al. BMC Microbiology 2010, 10:189
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/10/189
ITS as an environmental DNA barcode for fungi: an in silico approach reveals potential PCR biases (Eva et al. 2010).
The research paper titled "High-throughput sequencing reveals rhizosphere fungal community composition and diversity at different growth stages of Populus euphratica in the lower reaches of the Tarim River" explains the details of the rhizosphere fungal communities at the different growth stages of P. euphraria.
The outcomes of this piece of research provide scientific basis for the detail study and importance of rhizosphere fungal communities and their interaction with plants in arid ecosystem.
This study provides a base for future investigation of differences in the composition and structure of soil fungal community in the rhizosphere of diverse ecosystem.
The authors are interested in the diversity, community structure, and relationship between rhizosphere fungi and environmental factors at different growth stages of Populus euphraria. The MS is basically well-written with the information clearly-presented.
Overall, the experimental design and data analysis seem solid.
The Result part should not take the statistical method as the sub title, please reorganized the Result part based on scientific problems mentioned above.
1.The Abstract needs to be rewritten, with the following parts for your reference:
Aim,
Methods,
Results, specially this part should be briefly presented important findings, not all your results.
Main conclusions
2.A figure about the location of study and samping sites is needed at the "Study sites and sampling" in M&M part.
3.Please provide higher resolution pictures in the MS.
The hierarchical structure of the paper “High-throughput sequencing reveals rhizosphere fungal community composition and diversity at different growth stages of Populus euphratica in the lower reaches of the Tarim River (#69932) ” is clear, and the research results have certain reference value. But there are many problems that need to be modified. After minor revision, it can be accepted for publication in "Peerj."
1.In order to clarify the difference of fungal function of spesies level between different comparison groups, if it is better to add KEGG passway t test analysis?
2. The clarity of the drawing is too poor to see the details.
3. In the part of “Soil physicochemical properties”. Please add the number of replicates for the experiment.
4. Line 36: P. euphraria ? Moreover, the abbreviate of Populus euphraria in the manuscript should be unified.
5. Line 36 have-had; is-was. In the manuscript, there were a lot of such problems in the article. Please amend.
no comment
no comment'
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.