Acaulospora as the Dominant Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Organic Lowland Rice Paddies Improves Phosphorus Availability in Soils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on sustainability-1501526
Title
Avoid the use of abbreviations in the title
Abstract
More than half of the abstract describes the fungi. It should be reduced to 2-3 sentences maximum. Then write 1-2 sentences regarding materials and methods and the rest part should be the presentation of main results, described quantitatively
Introduction
The introduction section needs to focus on the novelty of the present study. The last section seems like an abstract. It should be removed and there, proper justification with the novelty of the present study should be described and then hypothesis and objective/s
In the whole paper, only 2 references from 2021 were consulted and cited which is not a good thing, now 2022 is almost here. The authors are suggested to update the whole section with the latest papers from 2021 and even from 2022
Materials and methods
How Genomic DNA samples of SMP roots were taken, explain in details
The abbreviation used in the manuscript should be described in full form, appearing first time in the section. The whole manuscript should be cross-checked
“Experimental design for determination the role of Acaulospora fungi in rice seedling” needs to be highlighted
Line 147 “ssp.” Please check and correct
Line 158 “Soil property analyses” Please check and correct
Line 165 “electroconductivity” Is there any word in science?
In the whole manuscript, “ml” should be replaced with “mL”
Determination of plant growth performance, Pi content, and AMF colonization need references
The data analysis section is totally missing, it needs to be added
Results
The authors sometimes use “AMF OUTs” and sometimes “AMF OTUs”. This shows the authors carelessness
Conclusion
It should be a separate section and needs to be written in the past tense as the research work has been done
Author Response
We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and advices for improving the manuscript. We took all of your comment seriously to correct the work.
Comment 1 Title-Avoid the use of abbreviations in the title
Response 1
The title “Acaulospora as the dominant arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in organic lowland rice paddies improves P availability in soils” has been changed into “Acaulospora as the dominant arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in organic lowland rice paddies improves phosphorus availability in soils”
Comment 2: Abstract-More than half of the abstract describes the fungi. It should be reduced to 2-3 sentences maximum. Then write 1-2 sentences regarding materials and methods and the rest part should be the presentation of main results, described quantitatively
Response 2: The abstract has been rewritten.
Comment 3: Introduction-The introduction section needs to focus on the novelty of the present study. The last section seems like an abstract. It should be removed and there, proper justification with the novelty of the present study should be described and then hypothesis and objective/s
Response 3: The last section of introduction has been removed and rewritten in Line 72-83.
Comment 4: In the whole paper, only 2 references from 2021 were consulted and cited which is not a good thing, now 2022 is almost here. The authors are suggested to update the whole section with the latest papers from 2021 and even from 2022
Response 4: Five articles from 2021 have been added or replaced in the whole paper, attached below
- Chang, J.; Sun, Y.; Tian, L.; Ji, L.; Luo, S.; Nasir, F.; Kuramae, E.E.; Tian, C. The Structure of Rhizosphere Fungal Communities of Wild and Domesticated Rice: Changes in Diversity and Co-occurrence Patterns . Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 45. [number 9/adding]
- Wang, Y.; Bao, X.; Li, S. Effects of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Rice Growth Under Different Flooding and Shading Regimes . Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 3276. [number 10/adding]
- Andrino, A.; Guggenberger, G.; Sauheitl, L.; Burkart, S.; Boy, J. Carbon investment into mobilization of mineral and organic phosphorus by arbuscular mycorrhiza. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2021, 57, 47–64, doi:10.1007/s00374-020-01505-5. [number 11/replacing]
- Asano, K.; Kagong, W. V; Mohammad, S.M.; Sakazaki, K.; Talip, M.S.; Sahmat, S.S.; Chan, M.K.; Isoi, T.; Kano-Nakata, M.; Ehara, H. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Communities in the Roots of Sago Palm in Mineral and Shallow Peat Soils. Agric. 2021, 11. [number 41/adding]
- Yang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Wang, J.; Wang, L.; Li, X.; Zhang, D. Unique functional responses of fungal communities to various environments in the mangroves of the Maowei Sea in Guangxi, China. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 113091, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113091. [number 42/adding]
Comment 5: Materials and methods-How Genomic DNA samples of SMP roots were taken, explain in details. The abbreviation used in the manuscript should be described in full form, appearing first time in the section. The whole manuscript should be cross-checked.
Response 5: We used these genomic DNA samples for ITS2 amplicon sequencing and published the data in “Klinnawee, L.; Noirungsee, N.; Nopphakat, K.; Runsaeng, P.; Chantarachot, T. Flooding overshadows phosphorus availability in controlling the intensity of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization in Sangyod Muang Phatthalung lowland indica rice. ScienceAsia 2021, 47, 1–9, doi: 10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2021.025.” Based on the ITS2 sequencing, we could annotate the sequences in the order level. Thus, we used the same samples with the different AMF primer system to identify the sequences in the genus or species level. Therefore, in the manuscript, we stated “Genomic DNA samples of SMP roots grown under the non-flooded and flooded for 6 weeks were obtained from our previous study”.
Comment 6: “Experimental design for determination the role of Acaulospora fungi in rice seedling” needs to be highlighted
Response 6: The highlight has been done.
Comment 7: Line 147 “ssp.” Please check and correct
Response 7: ssp. has been changed into subsp. in Line 157.
Comment 8: Line 158 “Soil property analyses” Please check and correct
Response 8: The word “Soil property analyses” has been changed into “Analysis of soil properties” in Line 166.
Comment 9: Line 165 “electroconductivity” Is there any word in science?
Response 9: The word “electroconductivity” has been changed into “electrical conductivity” in Line 174.
Comment 10: In the whole manuscript, “ml” should be replaced with “mL”
Response 10: ml has been changed into mL in the whole manuscript.
Comment 11: Determination of plant growth performance, Pi content, and AMF colonization need references
Response 11: The relevant three citations have been added in Line 180, 184 and 202, respectively.
Comment 12: The data analysis section is totally missing, it needs to be added
Response 12: Data analysis has been added in Line 211-214.
Comment 13: Results-The authors sometimes use “AMF OUTs” and sometimes “AMF OTUs”. This shows the authors carelessness
Response 13: All of the typo errors have been corrected in the whole manuscript.
Comment 14: Conclusion-It should be a separate section and needs to be written in the past tense as the research work has been done
Response 14: The conclusion part has been separated in another section. The contents generated from this study have been written in the past tense but the implication is kept in the Simple tense.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript falls within the scope of the journal. However, I think that the manuscript will need revision before the work can be published.
Main comments:
- It is necessary to increase the expression of analysis in Abstract, especially the presentation of data.
- The introduction writing is very poor. Although I can roughly understand it, it is not logical, which is not conducive to readers' reading and needs to be rewritten.
- Line 30-39 does the author want to explain that phosphorus in the environment can affect AMF? How does that connect with the content behind the introduction? The growth of AMF under flooding is stressed, and then AMF regulates phosphorus?
- Line 48-58 writing logic is confused and needs to be re conceived. Does the author want to dissolve phosphorus or fix phosphorus?
- Fig. 2 The container sizes of A and B are different?
- The manuscript needs to be polished by professionals.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and advices for improving the manuscript. We took all of your comment seriously to correct the work.
Comment 1: It is necessary to increase the expression of analysis in Abstract, especially the presentation of data. The introduction writing is very poor. Although I can roughly understand it, it is not logical, which is not conducive to readers' reading and needs to be rewritten.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your comment. We took it seriously to rewrite the introduction.
Comment 2: Line 30-39 does the author want to explain that phosphorus in the environment can affect AMF? How does that connect with the content behind the introduction? The growth of AMF under flooding is stressed, and then AMF regulates phosphorus?
Response 2: We explained the two symbiotic benefits of AMF to P acquisition of rice plants. AMF solubilize unavailable forms of P to available inorganic P for plant uptake. Moreover, they prevent the leaching of available P from rice paddies, conserving the amount of available P for rice growth. Rewriting has been done.
Comment 3: Line 48-58 writing logic is confused and needs to be re conceived. Does the author want to dissolve phosphorus or fix phosphorus?
Response 3: The whole paragraph has rewritten. The concept is AMF increase P availability for mycorrhizal plants by two strategies. The first strategy is increase in P mineralization and the other is reduction of P leaching from soil.
Comment 4: Fig. 2 The container sizes of A and B are different?
Response 4: Yes, we used the different pot sizes deliberately. The pots for monosporeculture of Acaulospora is smaller because we were afraid that the big pot will dilute the density of AMF spores at the beginning of culture, reducing the possibility for AMF hyphae to colonize the host roots. The pot sizes were reported in trap culture in material and methods.
Comment 5: The manuscript needs to be polished by professionals.
Response 5: We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and advices for improving the manuscript. We took all of your comment seriously to correct the work. Moreover, English language and style in the manuscript has been corrected by a native speaker.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Now can be accepted
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been greatly improved after modification. I suggest it can be accepted.
