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.
I would like to congratulate the authors on their insightful study on the use of a grass C. esculentus plantation in arid area, to boost microbial biomass and analysis of associated parameters.
The authors have now made changes to the text (addition of new references) and elaborated on the methodology, filling the missing information. All reviewer points were addressed and the quality of the manuscript is now fine for acceptance.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Reviewers have now commented on your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
This study examined the short-term (1 year) impact of a grass species on soil microbial
biomass, community composition, and enzymatic activities in a sandy land in China.
The experimental design is simple but robust.
Multiple statistical tools have been used by the authors to thoroughly present their results. The language of this manuscript is good, but it could be further improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 43, 134, 282. Overall, the paper was well written, although I believe the paragraph regarding unchanged enzyme activities between groups in the Discussion needs to be thoroughly revised. Detailed comments could be found below.
Line 38, SOC and N seem to repeat each other. Similarly for sandy land and arid regions
Line 55-75, I expect more relevant literature on links between microbial changes and planting, especially in sandy soils. What about responses of microbial community composition to planting?
Line 79, “change” is too general. Do you have some specific expectations, i.e., increase?
Line 122, please justify why you would measure acid not alkaline phosphatase for the alkaline soils (pH > 7).
Line 156 delete “based on xxx” and add “bioinformatics analysis”
Line 177-185, you did not trim any rare OTUs?
Line 186-191, this paragraph should go to 2.6. Statistical analysis. So PCoA was based on Bray-Curtis distance? Please clarify. Line 190-191 is exactly what Mantel test does, consider combine line 187-188 and 190-191.
Line 196-200, you forgot Pearson correlations in Fig. 7
Line 207, I think you mean higher
Line 235, not clear. 1% of what and 6.9% of what?
Line 272, double check relationship between soil C/N and fungal community composition
Line 280, add Table S3.
Line 295, I am afraid I don’t agree. Soil enzyme activities are impacted by many factors and I have seen numerous papers reporting increased enzyme activities with increased SOC and nutrients. The authors need to thoroughly revise this paragraph.
Line 313, eukaryote phyla name should be expressed in italic
Line 330, check the first comparison carefully as compared to Fig. 6
Line 337, here is another relevant citation that you may consider adding here.
Yu, W., Lawrence, N.C., Sooksa-nguan, T., Smith, S.D., Tenesaca, C., Howe, A.C., Hall, S.J., 2021. Microbial linkages to soil biogeochemical processes in a poorly drained agricultural ecosystem. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 156, 108228. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108228
Fig. S1B is very impressive as compared to Fig. S1A!
Table S6 and S6 showed absolute not relative abundance.
Authors evaluated microbial biomass, enzymatic activity, and microbial diversity in soil samples of two different sites with semi-arid monsoon temperate climate in Neiman, China. This study filled the knowledge gap on an increasingly promoted commercial crop, Cyperus esculentus, growing in semi-arid regions. Data analysis, writing, presentation, and interpretation in this study have no problem. However, the two sites chosen in this study might not be comparable. Usually studying the effects of cultivation on soil need to collect soil samples before the cultivation and after cultivation. Authors may explain more background in this two sites and provide more information such as soil test results about them to prove they can be compared. Although major revision is recommended, the following points can be considered.
In general, English language has no big problem. I believe audience can read it smoothly. However, small typos and grammar problems need to be carefully checked before acceptance. Reference need to be added for some parts in introduction and materials and methods.
Major points:
Materials and methods: Did you do a soil test on BSL and CE plots before C. esculentus were planted? How far is BLS to CE? How could you confirm the soil conditions in the two sites are comparable?
What is your experimental design?
Do you have pictures showing exactly the sampling plots in the field? In Figure S1, the plots location and details can not be found.
Minor points:
L49-53: Please add references.
L94-95: When was the fertilization was applied? How many times? How about the irrigation condition?
L117-118: Please explain kEC, kEK, and kEP.
L149: were used ‘to’ confirm
L180-181: Can you add references for Chao1, Shannon, and Simpson indices?
Major points:
Figure 4: Since BLS1-5, CE1-5 are replications, respectively, why not present them in a mean form as in Figures 1-3? If Figure 6 present the means, Figure 4 may not be necessary.
L249-254: Before presenting samples were clustered at PC1 or PC2 axis, you may explain PC1 and PC2 accounted for which parameters.
L295: Soil acidification can limit soil microbial activity. However, soil in this study is alkaline (Table S3). Authors may search for more references and explain why BG, CBH, LAP, and NAG were similar between BLS and CE, and ACP was significantly lower in CE compared to BSL.
Minor points:
L249: It should be Figure 5 instead of Figure 4.
L284-285: ‘Clearly’ and ‘may’ in the same sentence are contradictory. Similar problem can be found in line 353.
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.