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 am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted. Congratulations
After some minor changes, your manuscript will be accepted.
Dear author(s),
The manuscript titled " Effects of drought stress and Morchella inoculation on the physicochemical properties, enzymatic activities, and bacterial community of Poa pratensis L. rhizosphere soil (#85503)", which I had previously reviewed and suggested many corrections, was revised by the authors. However, when I checked the edits, I saw some shortcomings. The deficiencies in question are listed below.
Kind regards.
Abstract
Lines 28-30: The sentence “Morchella inoculation significantly increased the alkaline nitrogen (AN) content, available phosphorus (AP) content, protease activity (PA), and alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) of Poa pratensis rhizosphere soil.” can be replaced with “Morchella inoculation significantly increased the alkaline nitrogen (AN) and available phosphorus (AP) contents, protease activity (PA), and alkaline phosphatase activity (APA) of Poa pratensis rhizosphere soil.”
Keywords
The words in the title should not be used as keywords. Using different words related to the article increases the findability of your article as a result of internet searches. Please determine new keywords that are not in the title.
Introduction
The introduction is generally well written. However, some references used in the introduction are not included in the reference list.
Line 41: The reference “Das et al., 2022” not included in the reference list.
Lines 60-62: The reference “Liu et al., 2022” not related in question sentence.
Materials & Methods
The material and method are generally well written. However, there are some errors as listed below.
Line 93: What is the “PDA” mean. It should be clearly stated where it is first used.
Line 101: Need a space between “3000” and “lx”.
Line 115: The reference “Rajendra, 1965” not included in the reference list.
Line 117: The reference “Albert, 1958” not included in the reference list.
Lines 114-117: The three methods in question should be written clearly enough that any scientist who reads the article can repeat them without needing anything else.
Lines 132-144: The method need citation.
Results
The "Results" section of the manuscript is generally well-written. However, there are some errors as listed below.
Lines 241: There are two “analyses” word in the sentence. One of them can be delated.
Lines 257-258: There are two “analyses” word in the sentence. One of them can be delated.
Discussion
The "Discussion" section of the manuscript is generally well-written. But there are some errors as listed below.
Line 283: I think “l” is not necessary in “mycorrhizal” word. You can write it as “arbuscular mycorrhiza” or “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”.
Lines 291: The reference “Melissa et al., 2023” not included in the reference list.
Lines 215-217: There is just one citation end of the sentence. But you write “other studies”. Need more citation or rewriting the sentence.
Author Contribution
Lines 420-427: The names of the authors are different in this section and first page.
References
There are significant deficiencies and errors in the references section. The publications mentioned in the sections above are not included in the reference list. Several references are not written in accordance with the rules. In addition, the reference list is not listed alphabetically. Furthermore, several publications with the same names and dates are not listed as “a” and “b”. For example; Liu et al., 2017 and Wang et al., 2019. They should be used as Liu et al., 2017a; Liu et al., 2017b. And Wang et al., 2019a; Wang et al., 2019b.
You may have missed some as you proofread your manuscript according to the reviewer's instructions. One of the reviewers found the corrections inadequate, and I noticed that you didn't actually correct them. Review your manuscript and make all corrections. If you do not want to make the correction requested by the reviewer, explain why.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The authors have made the suggested corrections in the article.
İntroduction
There are inconsistencies in the sentences constructed with citations in the “Introduction” section of the manuscript. Additionally, there are instances of in-text citations in the “Introduction” section that do not adhere to journal guidelines. The identified errors are listed below, and the ones not mentioned should also be corrected. Furthermore, a literature search should be conducted to make additions to the “Introduction” section regarding the changes in microbial and soil properties occurring in the plant rhizosphere due to fungal applications.
The introduction of the article has been generally reviewed and generally corrected.
Line 38: According to the journal guidelines, in citations made to publications with 4 or more authors, the last name of the first author should be used with 'et al.' The manuscript contains similar errors throughout and should be corrected. Additionally, in citations to publications by authors with the same surname in the same year, the initial word of the first name has been used and should be corrected. Instead, the publications should be listed as a, b, and c. “Such as Yin et al., 2022a; Yin et al., 2022b.”
Criticism taken into account.
Line 40: The comma used after the second author in the citation to the three-authored publication (Hartmann, Lemanceau & Prosser, 2008) should be removed. If there are similar errors in the manuscript, they should be corrected.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 41: The same error as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 43-44: The same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 46: The uninterpretable space at the beginning of the line should be corrected or clarified.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 47: There is no direct study mentioned in the publication regarding the plants "Prunus" and "Lens (likely Lens culinaris)". However, a species from the genus "Festuca" is studied in the mentioned publication. If there are similar errors throughout the manuscript, they should be corrected. In this example, although the publication mentions the species Prunus lauracerasus L., the reference should be made to the publication that the mentioned publication itself refers to.
Sentence deleted.
Line 48: Although the mentioned publication refers to the overlap between the species mentioned in line, there is no specific reference to a publication discussing the overlap among these three species in 47th line. The criteria or basis on which this overlap was determined should be explained.
Sentence deleted.
Lines 59-62: The sentence that starts in the 59th line contains the word "and" four times. Similarly, throughout the manuscript, there are several instances where the same situation occurs and needs to be corrected. These types of sentences should be reconsidered and different conjunctions should be used.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 63-65: The same error as in line 59-62.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 65: The same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 72: Indeed, using "farmers" instead of "cultivators" may be more appropriate.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Materials & Methods
There are certain errors identified in the “Materials & Methods” section of the manuscript, as mentioned below. However, no issues have been detected regarding the experimental design and statistical analyses. The identified errors especially concern the referencing like throughout the manuscript. Specifically, when referring to the methods, citations should be made to the publications that originally developed or subsequently modified those methods.
Most of the requested corrections in the material-method section were not made. But it has been claimed that it was done.
Line 89: What was the basis for determining the light intensity of 3000Lx?
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. The reference should be made to the relevant section in the method, not to the response to reviewer’s report.
Lines 90-91: In nature, relative humidity increases as the temperature decreases during nighttime. However, in your experiment, you reduced the nighttime humidity by 1/4 to 60%. Since the purpose of the study was not to examine the effect of decreasing relative humidity during nighttime, the method studied does not align with natural conditions and appears artificial. Could you explain the reason behind this choice?
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 93-102: All the references to the preferred methods for determining soil chemical properties are essentially publications that have used those methods rather than publications that have developed the methods. In such cases, it is important to cite the publications that have developed or modified the methods being used. It is crucial to find and cite the original publications that have developed all three methods. Additionally, the errors made in the 38th line have been repeated in the citations. Moreover, in the references to be made starting with 'method of...', the format 'method of Wilson et al. (2020).' should be used.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 104: The publication by Kuscu (2019), which states the use of the method for determining soil catalase activity, does not even contain a single reference regarding this matter. Kuscu (2019) also did not specify the basis for determining catalase activity in his publication. It is crucial to make a reference to the original publication that first applied the method for determining soil catalase activity. Additionally, the citation format is not in accordance with the journal guidelines.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 105-106: The citation format is not in accordance with the journal guidelines.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 106-107: The publication by Pradeep & Narasimha (2012), which claims ownership of the method used to determine soil protease activity, states that the method they used is not their own. They also provide references to the publication of the developers of the method. If there are similar errors in the manuscript, it is of utmost importance to review the entire the manuscript.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 123-125: The citation pattern seems to be confused. After the method/methods used, reference should be made to the publication that developed or modified that method.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 124: The same errors as in line 38.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 126-127: The same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Results
The "Results" section of the manuscript is generally well-written. However, there is a common issue observed in both the "Materials & Methods" section and the "Results", which is the lack of clear explanation for abbreviations upon their first use. Additionally, the presence of long sentences and excessive use of the word "and" in these sentences detracts from the readability of the text.
Corrections have been made in general. However, the language of the article is still inadequate. It should be reviewed.
Lines 148-150: In the 149th line, another conjunction like "while" can be used instead of "and." Throughout the manuscript, there is an excessive use of "and" within sentences. It can be observed that in some sentences, "and" is used 5 times. Furthermore, within a sentence, the same word should not be used more than once if possible. For example, the word "treatment" may not be repeated after its initial usage. For instance, "AK increased in the 30% and 70% treatments, while PA decreased in the 30% and 50%.”
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 154-161: A single sentence spanning eight lines can not only disrupt the meaning but also hinder the understanding for the reader. Therefore, it is necessary to divide this sentence into multiple sentences.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 169-171, 176-178, 184-186, 194-196: It would be more appropriate to make comments about the results in the discussion section. Similar sentences among the results should be transferred to the discussion section.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 188 and 192: The second use of the word "soil" in the sentence can be removed.
Line 192: It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 188: Criticism taken into account.
Line 205: The meaning of the terms PCoA, PCoA1, and PCoA2 should be clearly stated when it is first used. If there are similar terms in the manuscript, they should also be clearly stated when they are first used.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 208: The words "of cases" at the beginning of the line can be removed.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 214-216: The sentence should be rewritten with a different conjunction.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 219: It would be more accurate to use the term "soil factors" instead of "environmental factors" because all of the mentioned factors are related to soil.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 221-222: The meaning of the terms RDA, RDA1, and RDA2 should be clearly stated when it is first used.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 229-237: The sentences between the lines contain an excessive use of the word "and." To improve the expression, the sentences need to be rewritten, replacing "and" with other conjunctions.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. Only one word "and" was deleted.
Discussion
The "Discussion" section of the manuscript is generally inadequate and contains numerous errors. Particularly, there is a lack of discussion regarding the main focus of your study, which is "the impact of fungal application on microbial presence in the plant rhizosphere". Additionally, the issue of inconsistency between the statements made in the discussion and the references cited is a significant problem that needs to be addressed. It is essential to thoroughly scanning the literature and provide a comprehensive discussion on the changes in microbial presence in the plant rhizosphere resulting from fungal applications.
The deficiencies seen before in the discussion section have not been corrected. Although it was stated that the criticisms were taken into consideration, mostly no changes were made. The changes made are simple reference rules and grammar corrections.
Lines 242-243: The sentence should be rewritten with a different conjunction.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. Only one word "and" was deleted.
Lines 248-249: The referenced publication does not provide any results regarding the mentioned features, except for microbial activity and N. It is necessary to make references to other publications for the mentioned features in the sentence.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 249-252: The cited studies do not involve any fungi, including Morchella. Therefore, there is no relevance between the mentioned features in the sentence and the referenced publications. The citations need to be changed, and new references should include/reflect the information mentioned in the sentence. Also, there are the same errors as in line 38.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 256: There is no need to use a word multiple times in a sentence. It would be beneficial to remove of the word "treatments" after its initial usage.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 262: The referenced study does not involve the use of a plant named "rambutan." The citation needs to be changed to include/reflect the information mentioned in the sentence.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 264: The study referenced as "de Carvalho et al. (2016)" does not support the sentence and is not relevant to the information used. It needs to be either changed or removed. Also, there are the same errors as in line 38 (second citation).
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 267: The second referenced publication is a review article and does not provide/produce any information related to the topics mentioned in the sentence. The sentence discusses the changes in soil structure, soil microbial structure, and nutrient element characteristics under water stress. It is necessary to make references to original studies that address these specific topics. Also, there are the same errors as in line 38.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Lines 268-282: It appears that the referenced study does not involve the use of any fungi and is not listed in the references. Additionally, the discussion “on the impact of the applied fungus on soil microorganisms”, which forms the foundation of your study, should not be kept so brief without a proper literature discussion. The absence of a specific study related to the fungus you used (Morchella) does not negate the need for such a discussion but rather adds value to your work. However, there are many fungi, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), which are extensively studied in the literature and have been applied to plants either alone or in combination with bacteria, examining their effects not only on soil microbial structure but also on various soil properties. It is crucial to read such publications and provide a more thorough discussion. This part seems to be the weakest aspect of your study, it should be reconsidered with a good point of view. The whole discussion should be rewritten by eliminating the above and below mentioned deficiencies.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. The paragraph looks as it is.
Line 285: There are the same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 291-293: There are the same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 291: The first citation in the line is not related to Pseudomonas which mentioned in the sentences.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 295: The cited article can be used in the paragraph between lines 268-282 to study the effect of fungi on the distribution of microorganisms in the rhizosphere soil.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 304-306: The sentence indicates that intercropping practices enhance both soil microbial diversity and abundance, so suitable references have been cited to support this assertion. However, since one of the species used in your study is a fungus, the publications to be used in the discussion should also be in line (same kind) with this. Also, there are the same error as in line 38.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. A new reference that has nothing to do with the sentence has been added at the end of it.
Line 308: There are the same errors as in line 38.
Criticism taken into account.
Line 311: The cited articles in the sentence are not relevant to the information stated. While the first cited article is entirely unrelated to the sentence, the second article only pertains to the Bacillus genus. Neither the Pseudomonas genus nor the AKYG587 strain is mentioned in either of the articles. References should be made to publications that specifically address the content mentioned in the sentence, or the sentence should be removed.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. The criticized reference was deleted without making any changes to the sentence. Since the information in the sentence is not produced by the authors, how do we know its accuracy?
Lines 314-315: The enzyme studied in the cited article is "catalase," not "peroxidase," as mentioned in the sentence.
Criticism taken into account.
Lines 315-317: The sentence mentions the increase in certain soil properties and microbial activity with fungi application. But, the first cited article is not related to agriculture, and the second article does not involve the use of fungi.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
Line 322: The cited article did not investigate the N and P content of the soil.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. The citation has been changed, but the sentence has not changed. The sentence and the reference are irrelevant.
Line 324, 326: The similar surnames and publication years in both lines should be cited following the journal's guidelines. For example, Liu et al., 2017a; Liu et al., 2017b.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not. The reference writing style does not comply with the journal rules.
Line 325: As seen in the example above, the cited article does not mention a plant or species called "rambutan." It is unclear what is meant by "rambutan" in this context. The reason why it is not mentioned in the cited publications is unknown. If it is a local usage, should explanation be in the manuscript.
It was stated that the criticism was taken into consideration, but it was not.
References
Due to time constraints, the “References” could not be controlled. The citation formatting in the text and literature section should comply with the journal's guidelines. If the article was written using a program such as "EndNote," the citations should be made using the journal's "style" file, if there is. Otherwise, the journal style should be created to ensure proper citations. If the article was not written using such programs, in-text citations and the literature should be written following the rules provided by the journal for authors.
There is still the use of references that do not comply with the journal rules. References must be edited according to the journal rules.
Dear author(s),
Dear Authors, your manuscript titled "The impact of Morchella application under limited irrigation conditions in horticulture on bacterial diversity and abundance in the plant root zone", which I had previously reviewed and suggested many corrections, was revised by you and re-uploaded to the journal. In the author response letter you prepared, you stated that you took each criticism into consideration. However, I could not see any significant improvement in the text. I would suggest revising the text according to referees’ suggestions. Please find attached document for detailed report.
Kind regards.
While the subject matter of your manuscript is interesting, it needs a lot of improvement, as the reviewers have pointed out. I think a literature review is also necessary. I would also like to see some Poa plant related findings in this manuscript. However, I think you wanted to make it the subject of a separate article. I request you to submit the enhanced version of your current manuscript in due time.
Best regards
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1. English should be revised to be more fluent.
2. Literature is enough and the manuscript has been supported by them. However, some references are quite old and should be reviewed. For example: Line 63-66: Please check the literature again for the following sentence. There are lot of wrong knowledge about Poa pratensis and literatures are too old.“Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) is a widespread perennial grass that exhibits superior drought tolerance, hardiness, and regeneration qualities and is commonly used as a turf grass and for animal feed (Jordan, Zurqiyah, De Mur, & Clerx, 1975; Shearman, Pedersen, Klucas, & 66 Kinbacher, 1979)”
3. All tables and graphics supporting the article have been shared.
Material and Method are clearly shared and described with sufficient information to be reproduced by another researcher. There is no problem with the experimental design.
The findings are discussed by giving sufficient literatures. But the conclusion part can be a little more detailed.
This article is good in terms of its subject and findings. However, the biggest drawback is that the effects of its application on the plant have not been investigated. Because ultimately how it affects the plant is important. Although it has very good results in terms of soil, it is meaningless if the effect on the plant is negative. Moreover, it has been observed that fungi, which have a negative effect on plants, have increased due to this application. This and similar factors affecting the plant should be examined.
See detailed comments in the additional comment section.
Basically, the article is written in acceptable structure.
The English language (language and grammar) should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text.
There is not enough base of justification in the introduction section, and need more literature evidence.
See detailed comments in the additional comment section.
Research question is not well defined. What is already known on the interaction between Morchella and the plant?
The introduction presents the morel in very general aspects, and not much information related to any previous work performed on Morchella and Poa pratensis L. Is this interaction presented here for the first time? Why have you chosen this plant?
Some methods are poorly described, and very important information is lacking.
For example-
1. What was the Morchella species used. The Morchella genus has many species and strains, each of which possess different activities. There is no indication in the MS as to the species of Morchella used. It is obligatory to mention these details.
2. he present MS shows no data on the effect of Morchella inoculation on plant yield or health. To my view, this of necessity and must be included. To that, characterization of the effect of Morchella on the rhizospheric microbiome will add value to the MS. More specific comments:
Editing
3. What was the morchella inoculant made of? What were the PCR conditions? and more.
See detailed comments in the additional comment section.
The paper shows novel data on the changes of the soil microbiome along with soil inoculation with Morchella and along with different watering regimes. However, adding more details in the methods and material section and more data on plant yield could improve the paper.
The data are mostly statistically sound.
Adding information on plant yield and health, information on the Morchella species, details description of the Morchella inoculant, a control treatment of Morchella alone in the three moisture levels is important.
It is important to improve soil properties for crop production and in this regard, fungi play important roles in soil health and productivity. There is increasing interest in soil and rhizospheric microbiomes and their effects on the crop growth.
The topic in general is important, but I feel that the MS needs more improvements to be suitable for publication.
General:
1. The Morchella genus has many species and strains, each of which possess different activities. There is no indication in the MS as to the species of Morchella used. It is obligatory to mention these details.
2. The introduction presents the morel in very general aspects, and not much information related to any previous work performed on Morchella and Poa pratensis L. Is this interaction presented here for the first time? Why have you chosen this plant?
3. The present MS shows no data on the effect of Morchella inoculation on plant yield or health. To my view, this of necessity and must be included. To that, characterization of the effect of Morchella on the rhizospheric microbiome will add value to the MS. More specific comments:
Editing
The English language (language and grammar) should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. For example:
1. Line 46, extra spacing. There are more such instances.
2. Citations: Ensure uniformity of citation type. E.g. 100- Q. Zhang, Li, Xing, Brookes, & Xu, 101 2019) whereas Line 99 : Wilson, Mulla, Vetsch, & Sands, 2020). There are more such instances throughout the MS.
3. I suggest to write the keywords in an order: either alphabetic or of importance.
4. I suggest to submit the paper for professional editing and re-arranging paragraphs (see below regarding the result section).
Abstract
The abstract does not clearly outline the aim of the study and the main achievement of the work.
Introduction
Your introduction needs more details. I suggest that you improve upon the following description to provide more justification for your study (specifically, expand upon the knowledge gap being filled).
The introduction presents the morel in a very general manner and not much information related to any previous work done with Morchella and Poa pratensis L.
1. Line 46: "The wide range of Morchella overlaps with species of Prunus, Festuca, and Lens (Winder & Keefer, 2008), and a correlation between these genera would be expected given their overlapping distributions (Buscot & Roux, 1987)." Please explain. How is this point relevant to the current work? There are many plants associated with Morchella.
2. Line 66- “However, little is known regarding the effects of Morchella inoculation and
drought stress on the P. pratensis rhizosphere soil.s physicochemical characteristics, enzymatic” Why is this relevant? What is the relationship between this grass and Morchella?
Materials and Methods
1. The Morchella genus has many species and strains, each of which possess different activities. There is no indication in the MS as to the species of Morchella used. It is obligatory to mention these details
2. What is the soil type and history? Since it was used previously for Brassica chinensis L., do pesticide and artificially added NPK residues exist in this soil?
3. Line 85- “10 g of Morchella inoculant”. Please provide more details on Morchella inoculation. What do you mean by "10 g inoculant"? What does it contain and whether additional compounds besides the fungal entity, were present?
3. Was plant yield determined? This is of major significance, as there is no corresponding indication in the introduction.
4. The condition of treatment of soil inoculated with Morchella without the plant, is missing. This will give much more information. on the microbiome behaviors related to the beneficial effect of Morchella to the plant soil.
6. Line 114-Please add PCR conditions
5. Please change the abbreviation of A to clarify between "Available", "Alkali" and "Activity". You can use the second letter to differentiate as: Av, Al. and Ac.
Results
1. There seems to be confusion in the order of the topics dealt with in the "Results" section. I suggest to move the first paragraph to the section dealing with the molecular identification of the microbiome, i.e., after the paragraph on the physiochemical and enzymatic properties.
2. My advice is to separate the enzymatic activities from the NPK results into two figures
Figures and Table
1. Figure 2- I suggest to separate the NPK results and the enzymatic activity results, either to two separated figures or in one figure but as an ordered panel. i.e. the NPK on one half and the enzymatic activity on the other half. The figures of all the parameters are mixed.
2. Figure 2- the results are presented per g or kg soil. Does this refer to dry or wet matter?
How did you account the results for the different soil moisture contents in the sample?
3. Figure 2D- Looking at the column result and the STD bar, it seems that X50 and K50 are significantly different. I do not see how X50 is marked as "ab" and K50 is "a". i.e. they do not differ significantly.
4. Figure 12- Change "B" in figure to "C"
5. Figure 11- “Comparison of -diversity between Morchella-inoculated and uninoculated” please add - b-diversity of what?
6. Line 283- what is meant by “bacterial biofertilizer?
Author contribution
Clearly mention the name of the author who wrote the MS.
Please find attached document for specific comment and queries
Please find attached document for specific comment and queries
Please find attached document for specific comment and queries
Please find attached document for specific comment and queries
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.