Effect of Forest Fires on the Alpha and Beta Diversity of Soil Bacteria in Taiga Forests: Proliferation of Rare Species as Successional Pioneers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled “Effect of forest fires on the alpha and beta diversity of soil bacteria in taiga forests: proliferation of rare species as successional pioneers” is dealing with a contemporary concern for most of the countries of the world i.e forest fire and trying to evaluate its effect on alpha and beta diversity of soil bacteria which seems to be very crucial in terms of soil quality management of fire burnt sites. However the manuscript cannot be processed in the present form and needs substantial modification in certain sections.

 

·    1. The introduction is not complete and looking only like a compilation of        statements. Clear state of art in terms of the title of paper is missing in the introduction section.

 

·     2. In this study the authors have determined various soil properties of the sites and correlated the data with soil bacterial diversity but the introduction lacks any discussion or elaboration in this context. There should be mention of this correlation and past studies in the introduction.

 

·    3. The objective of the study has not been stated properly. The last paragraph of the introduction should have clearly mentioned the aim and objectives of the paper.

 

·    4. The material and methods section is not providing detailed information about soil sampling from the fire affected forest. The samples were taken from the site burnt in 2010 but when? The year/month of soil sampling should also be provided.

 

·    5. The weather data from 2010 to the year when samples were taken for study should have been given in a table or as supplementary data. The climatic conditions experienced by the study site after the fire incidence will have decisive impact on soil biodiversity. This essential information should not be avoided in such study.

 

·    6. The information about methods used for determining soil physicochemical properties i.e moisture content, pH, microbial biomass carbon, organic carbon, total nitrogen, available nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium is also lacking.

 

·   7. How much time gap was there between real forest fire and when the control plots were laid and samples were collected? Did the soil of burnt sites and the control plots were subjected to similar time span or received similar instances of rainfall etc. to restore microbial biodiversity? Since the complete information is not provided in the materials and method section many other questions arrive in the mind of readers and open up a little area of dubiety which deserves more elaboration regarding the soil sampling in this study.

 

·    8. Line no. 163: What were the methods employed to determine relative abundance and bacterial diversity?

 

·   9. In line no. 168-170, the sub-heading is “Differences in Physicochemical Properties of Fire Burnt Site Soils” and authors have just provided a reference of their previous paper, in which unlike this study, fire intensity is grouped into only light and moderate fire. The physicochemical properties are correlated with the bacterial biodiversity in this paper and the data is provided in another research paper, again making a room for lot of confusion among the readers. The data related to soil physicochemical properties may be provided in a table or as supplementary document.

 

·    10. Line no. 182-183: What was the level of alpha diversity of bacteria in the site before fire? No data is provided regarding initial levels of soil properties and microbial diversity before fire.

 

·    11. Table no. 4 is describing the correlation between soil properties and Shannon and Simpson index for soil bacteria. The formula used to determine both the index is missing in the materials and method section.

 

·    12. In the result section, supplementary data file for table no. 5 should be made available. Else a separate table/figure describing the statistical difference between mean values of soil properties in the burnt site and control plots may be added.  

 

·     13. Line no. 285 states “exhibiting a significant negative correlation with AP and a significant positive correlation with SOC, which is consistent with previous findings”. What were the initial and later values of AP and SOC?

 

·     14. Line no. 205-206: What were the pre-fire levels?

 

·     15. Line no. 315-316: Data relating to this statement is missing.

 

·    16. The conclusion is not decisive and convincing rather it is just the repetition of results. I suggest the authors to rewrite the conclusion and describe the outcome of their study in terms of its relevance to the present status of forest ecology including the limitations (if any) and possible future strategies.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing the article, the responses are detailed in the attached table.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is interesting, cause it is dealed  with characterisation of post-fire soil microbiological diversity. It is well written and organized. The article utilizes modern methods of soil microbiology, including high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatic data processing techniques. Data on alpha- and bethabiodiversity of microbial communities provided and well analyzed. 

Nevertheless, some remarks should be made to improve the presentation of the data:

1. cite more up-to-date articles, including on post-fire soils, published in Forests. 

2. descriptions of soil types, their morphology and horizon organization should be translated. 

3. Photos of soil profiles and photos of general ecosystem views should be provided.

4. it is necessary to give not only correlation of chemical properties with microbiome parameters, but also to give these chemical properties in a separate table.

the sequencing data processing methods themselves are arranged in such a way that they will result in visible differences, especially with regard to betabiodiversity. In this sense, there are no complaints about the article. But, the article is a soil science article, and it should discuss soil-forming processes. It is not clear what are the microbiological drivers of soil processes. It is necessary to name these processes, not only to state the levels of alpha- and beta-diversity parameters of the microbial community.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you to the expert for reviewing the article, see attached for responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As mentioned by the authors  in their response that "The pre-fire data are the control data  and refers to soil that have not been subjected to fire". Please add this information in the manuscript for the information to the readers. 

The manuscript have now been efficiently improved by the authors and may be considered for further processing.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that this study from least investigated larch forests represent certain piece of new knowledge, however the quality of the explanation and presentation is poor. First of all I could not find any explanation on burn severity exept dividing into L M H. What does it means? How authors estimate for example High fire damage? If this information published previously in those papers 21-23 I could not find them. I think that  clear explanation of forest condition is necessary to understand the difference between Ck od different levels of degradation.

Next is combining all damage classes in one category "fire burn site". What was the resaon to divide them if no discussion related to different class?

Method section is in the end of paper it is much surprising.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English and scientific terms need to be improved majorly. I've made several marks in the attached PDF.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf