Effects of Canopy Damage and Litterfall Input on CO2-Fixing Bacterial Communities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for the invitation to review this important study. The authors evaluated tree species of relevance to the ecosystem. Some care with the unit and standardization should be seen.
Some observations are described below:
Line 26: Is the acronym cbbL written in italics or not? You are using both ways in the text, please standardize.
Line 46: Add some more to this statement. I suggest you look at the work: A systematic review of energy and mass fluxes, and biogeochemical processes in seasonally dry tropical forests and cactus ecosystems
Line 75: As per taxonomy rules, the species name is misspelled. Change “sp” to “sp.”
Line 101: It would be really interesting if you added nice pictures of the species.
Line 253: What statistical test was used? What do uppercase and lowercase letters mean? Are the bars standard deviation or standard error?
Line 294: What statistical test was used?
Line 324: What statistical test was used? What do uppercase and lowercase letters mean? Are the bars standard deviation or standard error?
Line 415: Please increase the font size of the figures.
Line 441: What are the asterisks in the figure? Is it the significance? This must be described in the text.
Some adjustments are needed.
Author Response
Ref: forests-2542424: Effects of canopy damage and litterfall input on CO2-fixing bacterial communities
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your reviews and for providing comments and suggestions on my manuscript entitled “Effects of canopy damage and litterfall input on CO2-fixing bacterial communities”. I found both reviews fair and very helpful.
We have studied comments carefully and have revised, which we hope meet with approval. Revised part are labelled in yellow in the paper. We revise our manuscript according to the comments.
Response to comment of reviewer
Line 26: Is the acronym cbbL written in italics or not? You are using both ways in the text, please standardize.
Response: Done.
Line 46: Add some more to this statement. I suggest you look at the work: A systematic review of energy and mass fluxes, and biogeochemical processes in seasonally dry tropical forests and cactus ecosystems.
Response: Done. We have added some content of the recommended literature in the introduction.
Line 75: As per taxonomy rules, the species name is misspelled. Change “sp” to “sp.”
Response: Done.
Line 101: It would be really interesting if you added nice pictures of the species.
Response: Done. We added the picture to the supplementary picture.
Line 253: What statistical test was used? What do uppercase and lowercase letters mean? Are the bars standard deviation or standard error?
Response: Done.
Line 294: What statistical test was used?
Response: Done.
Line 324: What statistical test was used? What do uppercase and lowercase letters mean? Are the bars standard deviation or standard error?
Response: Done.
Line 415: Please increase the font size of the figures.
Response: Done.
Line 441: What are the asterisks in the figure? Is it the significance? This must be described in the text.
Response: Done.
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the manuscript corresponds to the subject of the journal. In general, the authors tried to shed light on the role of soil microorganisms in carbon sequestration, which is still underestimated. Appropriate methods and approaches have been selected to achieve the objectives. The text of the manuscript is also fairly well written.
I would like to encourage the authors to state in the Introduction the working hypothesis or hypotheses that they tested in this study.
Also fig. 3 can be colored or enlarged to increase its visibility.
Finally, the Discussion may need to be divided into subchapters for a more complete interpretation of the results.
Author Response
Ref: forests-2542424: Effects of canopy damage and litterfall input on CO2-fixing bacterial communities
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your reviews and for providing comments and suggestions on my manuscript entitled “Effects of canopy damage and litterfall input on CO2-fixing bacterial communities”. I found both reviews fair and very helpful.
We have studied comments carefully and have revised, which we hope meet with approval. Revised part are labelled in yellow in the paper. We revise our manuscript according to the comments.
Response to comment of reviewer
I would like to encourage the authors to state in the Introduction the working hypothesis or hypotheses that they tested in this study.
Response: We add hypothesis in the introduction.
Also fig. 3 can be colored or enlarged to increase its visibility.
Response: Done.
Finally, the Discussion may need to be divided into subchapters for a more complete interpretation of the results.
Response: Done. We have added sub-chapter headings to the discussion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
Thank you very much for providing a corrected version of the manuscript. I noticed that the authors worked hard on the corrections and I thank them for their effort. However, some modifications still need to be made.
Below are some observations:
Line 75: Rubisco or RubisCO? I understand that both forms are correct, but should you standardize, or is there a difference between the words?
Line 269: The correct spelling is “Figure 1.” and not “Figure 1”
Line 312: The correct spelling is “Table 1.” and not “Table 1”
Line 347: The correct spelling is “Figure 2.” and not “Figure 2”
Line 379: The correct spelling is “Figure 3.” and not “Figure 3”
Line 420: The correct spelling is “Figure 4.” and not “Figure 4”
Line 433: The correct spelling is “Figure 5.” and not “Figure 5”
Line 450: The correct spelling is “Figure 6.” and not “Figure 6”
Line 477: The correct spelling is “Figure 7.” and not “Figure 7”
Some changes.
