Distribution of Genes and Microbial Taxa Related to Soil Phosphorus Cycling across Soil Depths in Subtropical Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research deals with interesting and important issues concerning the functioning of the soil ecosystem and the microorganisms inhabiting it. It would be worth emphasizing in the conclusions the importance of the obtained results and indicating the direction of further research on the microbial mechanisms underlying the P cycle in soil
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site description – in the last sentence the Authors refer to the work of Ouyang et al. 2016. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to provide brief information about the examined stands, e.g. in the form of a table covering the number of tree species, dbh and tree density.
3. Results
Fig.1 - it is worth providing an explanation of the abbreviations PLF and LGF in the caption under the drawing.
Fig.4 - In the caption under the figure, it would be worth providing an explanation of the value of R2
Fig.5 - In the caption under the figure, it is worth giving an explanation of the abbreviations LGF and PLF. Please explain the value of R2 in the caption of the drawing.
Fig. 6 - In the caption under the figure, it is worth providing an explanation of the abbreviations LGF and PLF and what the values in % mean
Conclusions
The conclusions could more clearly relate to the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the manuscript. The scheme shown in Figure 6 would actually do the job. It is enough to discuss it in more detail in relation to the hypotheses.
Author Response
The research deals with interesting and important issues concerning the functioning of the soil ecosystem and the microorganisms inhabiting it. It would be worth emphasizing in the conclusions the importance of the obtained results and indicating the direction of further research on the microbial mechanisms underlying the P cycle in soil
R: Good comment. We have added a sentence to emphasize the importance and revelation of the obtained results in Conclusions section (see line 355-357 on page 16-17).
- Materials and Methods
2.1. Site description – in the last sentence the Authors refer to the work of Ouyang et al. 2016. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to provide brief information about the examined stands, e.g. in the form of a table covering the number of tree species, dbh and tree density.
R: We have added a table covering the stand characteristics including stand density, average diameter at breast height, average height, total basal area and dominant tree species in the Supplemental file (See Table A1) and referred this table in the Materials and Methods section (see line 106 on page 5).
- Results
Fig.1 - it is worth providing an explanation of the abbreviations PLF and LGF in the caption under the drawing.
R: Thanks. Done as suggestion (See line 562-564 on page 27).
Fig.4 - In the caption under the figure, it would be worth providing an explanation of the value of R2
R: We have added a sentence to describe the coefficient of determination (R2) and significance level (p) (see line 591-592 on page 28).
Fig.5 - In the caption under the figure, it is worth giving an explanation of the abbreviations LGF and PLF. Please explain the value of R2 in the caption of the drawing.
R: Done as suggestion (see line 600-603 on page 28).
Fig. 6 - In the caption under the figure, it is worth providing an explanation of the abbreviations LGF and PLF and what the values in % mean
R: We have added the information accordingly (see line 606-609 on page 29).
Conclusions
The conclusions could more clearly relate to the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the manuscript. The scheme shown in Figure 6 would actually do the job. It is enough to discuss it in more detail in relation to the hypotheses.
R: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. We have rewritten the Conclusions section based on our hypotheses (see line 344-357 on page 16-17).
Firstly, we have clarified that soil microorganisms have the potential to both mineralize organic P and solubilize inorganic P in organic soil, whereas have a higher potential to solubilize inorganic P in mineral soil. This supported our first hypotheses. Secondary, we have clarified that the P cycling genes were contained in bacteria, archaea, and fungi. In addition, the distributing of P cycling genes and microbial taxonomic groups significantly differed between the organic and mineral soil. Lastly, we have highlighted the importance and revelation of this study. We hope this revision is better than it was before.
Reviewer 2 Report
The science presented is original with plenty of detail. In general, the authors have done a good job explaining the background information necessary to appreciate the rationale and results of the experiments. The MS is well written. There are no objective errors in the methods and results. However, some minor amendments are needed. Conclusions are a little poorly written.
Author Response
The science presented is original with plenty of detail. In general, the authors have done a good job explaining the background information necessary to appreciate the rationale and results of the experiments. The MS is well written. There are no objective errors in the methods and results. However, some minor amendments are needed. Conclusions are a little poorly written.
R: Many thanks for your positive comment. We have rewritten the Conclusions section based on our hypotheses and findings (see line 344-357 on page 16-17).
Firstly, we have clarified that soil microorganisms have the potential to both mineralize organic P and solubilize inorganic P in organic soil, whereas have a higher potential to solubilize inorganic P in mineral soil. This supported our first hypotheses. Secondary, we have clarified that the P cycling genes were contained in bacteria, archaea, and fungi. In addition, the distributing of P cycling genes and microbial taxonomic groups significantly differed between the organic and mineral soil. Lastly, we have highlighted the importance and revelation of this study. We hope it is clearer than it was before.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The language and grammar of the manuscript may be improved.
2. Page 2, Line 18-19: What do you mean by “…P starvation response regulating genes would be more abundant in deeper soil”? Where in soil genes can be located? Should you want to indicate genes of (contained in) the soil microbiome, please specify this at least for once in the beginning.
3. Instead of giving the coordinates for the entire Dashanchong forest park, it is better to provide the coordinates of the experimental plots.
Errors in grammar can be removed by a careful reading of the manuscript.
Author Response
The language and grammar of the manuscript may be improved.
R: All the authors have carefully checked the language of this manuscript and removed the errors in grammar (see line 27, 30, 33, and 36 on page 2; line 73 and 76-77 on page 4; line 113-114 on page 5-6; line 126-128 on page 6; line 181 and 194 on page 9; line 202, 204, 206, 212, and 220 on page 10; line 225 and 227 on page 11; line 249-250 and 263-264 on page 12; line 270 on page 13; line 291 and 311 on page 14; line 316, 320-322, and 325 on page 15; line 334 and 340 on page 16). We hope this revision is satisfactory to be accepted.
Page 2, Line 18-19: What do you mean by “…P starvation response regulating genes would be more abundant in deeper soil”? Where in soil genes can be located? Should you want to indicate genes of (contained in) the soil microbiome, please specify this at least for once in the beginning.
R: Many thanks for your helpful comment. we have changed this sentence to “It is reasonable to deduce that the P starvation response regulating genes containing in the soil microorganisms would be more abundant in deeper soil.” (see line 78 on page 4).
Instead of giving the coordinates for the entire Dashanchong forest park, it is better to provide the coordinates of the experimental plots.
R: We have added the coordinates of the experimental plots in the Materials and Methods section (see line 101-102 on page 5).
Errors in grammar can be removed by a careful reading of the manuscript.
R: We have carefully checked and removed the errors in grammar of the manuscript (see line 27, 30, 33, and 36 on page 2; line 73 and 76-77 on page 4; line 113-114 on page 5-6; line 126-128 on page 6; line 181 and 194 on page 9; line 202, 204, 206, 212, and 220 on page 10; line 225 and 227 on page 11; line 249-250 and 263-264 on page 12; line 270 on page 13; line 291 and 311 on page 14; line 316, 320-322, and 325 on page 15; line 334 and 340 on page 16).
