Organic or Inorganic Amendments Influence Microbial Community in Rhizosphere and Decreases the Incidence of Tomato Bacterial Wilt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this Manuscript (Organic or inorganic amendments influence microbial community in rhizosphere and decreases the incidence of tomato bacterial wilt). The study has a great idea and demonstrates Soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested. However, I can review the whole manuscript because there are no Figures and Tables in text. Therefore, there is some aspect that should be reviewed by authors, but the Manuscript is well-written until the Results and Discussion .

 

Where are the Figures and tables??

The tittle is not clear. In the title, the authors could describe the amendments.

ABSTRACCT

Be clear “inhibiting diseases”

Explain the “Material and Methods” of study.

Do need ((SPGCN)

In general, the abstract could be clearer.

INTRODUCTION

The paragraph 63-91 is long and confused. I suggest rewritten with a separate paragraph about the biochar.

The objective is not clear. Check it

Information about the Soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Line 115: the soil available phosphorus is correct?

Study was in or out harvesting period?

How many varieties

More details about the Tomato varieties

Explain what is basal fertilizer

Add a table with characterization of all soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested.

In general, the soil amendments should be better characterized.

Explain the experimental design

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Where are the Figures and tables?

The data of 62d and 82d were for each variety and Soil amendments

Sorry, but I can not explore the idea if there are not Figures and Tables.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers’ comments

We really appreciated the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. According to these comments and suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript point by point and please kindly refer to below responses.

Reviewer #1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this Manuscript (Organic or inorganic amendments influence microbial community in rhizosphere and decreases the incidence of tomato bacterial wilt). The study has a great idea and demonstrates Soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested. However, I can review the whole manuscript because there are no Figures and Tables in text. Therefore, there is some aspect that should be reviewed by authors, but the Manuscript is well-written until the Results and Discussion.

 

Point 1. Where are the Figures and tables?

Response: Sorry, the Figures and Tables were uploaded separately at the time of submission. Now, we also put the Figures and Tables at the end of the Manuscript.

 

Point 2. The tittle is not clear. In the title, the authors could describe the amendments.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Five kinds of amendments were used in our experiment, including organic amendments biochar (BC) and bio-organic fertilizer (BOF), inorganic amendments potassium silicate (PS) and calcium silicate (CS), and organic and inorganic amendments calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA). We think five kinds of amendments may be well summarized by using organic or inorganic amendments in this title. So we intend to keep the title.

 

Point 3. Be clear “inhibiting diseases”

Response: Have been deleted, the abstract was rewritten.

Point 4. Explain the “Material and Methods” of study.

Response: Agreed. We have added “In the present study, we investigated the influences of five contrasting soil amendments (i.e. potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio-organic fertilizer (BOF)) on tomato bacterial wilt. In addition, we dissected the mechanism with high-throughput sequencing” in abstract. Please see Line 34-38.

 

Point 5. Do need ((SPGCN)

Response: Sorry, “SPGCN” means “the numbers of soil pathogens Revised”. Now, we revised “SPGCN” as “NSP (abbreviations, the numbers of soil pathogens)”. Please see Line 58.

 

Point 6. The paragraph 63-91 is long and confused. I suggest rewritten with a separate paragraph about the biochar.

Response: Agreed. We have rewritten with a separate paragraph. Please see Line 115-127.

 

Point 7. The objective is not clear. Check it

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised our objective as: “The objectives of this study were to: (1) assess the influence of PS，CS，BC，SCHA，BOF ameliorators on soil physical and chemical properties; (2) examine the amelioration effect of five amendments on the incidence of tomato bacterial wilt; and (3) explore the potential interaction of five different ameliorators with soil microorganisms”. Please see Line 150-154.

 

Point 8. Information about the Soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have done. Please see Table 1 below and in Manuscript.

Table 1 Main physicochemical properties of soil amendments

 

Sample	TN g·kg-1	TP g·kg-1	TK g·kg-1	pH	SOM g·kg-1	ASi g·kg-1
PS			631.67±0.33	12.07±0.02		185.86±1.41
CS	2.89±0.09	1.04±0.03	2.94±0.69	10.72±0.12	108.24±0.85	8.57±0.41
BC	9.33±0.93	2.97±0.01	17.47±0.12	9.96±0.05	138.78±5.08	0.46±0.01
SCHA	3.27±0.47	0.27±0.01	62.80±0.65	9.52±0.06	97.84±0.43	0.58±0.02
BOF	29.87±3.37	14.24±0.03	7.57±0.52	4.68±0.15	380.13±8.39	0.20±0.02

Note: total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total potassium (TK), available silicon (ASi). PS (The potassium silicate); CS (Calcium silicate); BC (Biochar); SCHA (Calcium silicate Humic Acid); BOF (Bio-organic fertilizer).

 

Point 9. Line 115: the soil available phosphorus is correct?

Response: The soil available phosphorus is higher than ordinary farmland soil. The reason may be that the residue of oil extracted from rapeseed is returned to the field every year before planting vegetables, in order to improve organic matter.

 

Point 10. Study was in or out harvesting period?

Response: Our studies cover the whole growth stage, with 3 samplings at day 46, 62 and 82 after transplanting. Please see Line 208-209.

 

Point 11. How many varieties? More details about the Tomato varieties.

Response: We planted only one susceptible variety in the experiment field, variety number 20B861. Please see Line 173-174.

 

Point 12. Explain what is basal fertilizer.

Response: Basal fertilizer were applied before sowing, which is mainly to supply the basic nutrients required by plants throughout the growth period, create good soil conditions for crop growth and development, and improve soil and cultivate soil fertility. The five amendments in the experiment were applied to the soil as basal fertilizers.

 

Point 13. Add a table with characterization of all soil amendments of the potassium silicate (PS), calcium silicate (CS), biochar (BC), calcium silicate humic acid (SCHA) and bio organic fertilizer (BOF) is requested.

Response: Done. Please see Table 1 below or in Manuscript.

Table 1 Main physicochemical properties of soil amendments

Sample	TN g·kg-1	TP g·kg-1	TK g·kg-1	pH	SOM g·kg-1	ASi g·kg-1
PS			631.67±0.33	12.07±0.02		185.86±1.41
CS	2.89±0.09	1.04±0.03	2.94±0.69	10.72±0.12	108.24±0.85	8.57±0.41
BC	9.33±0.93	2.97±0.01	17.47±0.12	9.96±0.05	138.78±5.08	0.46±0.01
SCHA	3.27±0.47	0.27±0.01	62.80±0.65	9.52±0.06	97.84±0.43	0.58±0.02
BOF	29.87±3.37	14.24±0.03	7.57±0.52	4.68±0.15	380.13±8.39	0.20±0.02

Note: total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total potassium (TK), available silicon (ASi). PS (The potassium silicate); CS (Calcium silicate); BC (Biochar); SCHA (Calcium silicate Humic Acid); BOF (Bio-organic fertilizer).

 

Point 14. Explain the experimental design.

Response: Please Line 183-191. A one-way factor randomized block design was used in this experimental design. This experiment was carried out at this site from April to July 2021. The loofah-tomato rotation mode has been used for planting before, and the tomato planting season has shown serious symptoms of bacterial wilt infection. The experiment was set up with 6 treatments, namely CK (without basal fertilizer), PS (potassium silicate 781.64 kg/ha), CS (calcium silicate 1563.28 kg/ha), BC (biochar 15632.81 kg/ha), SCHA (calcium Silicate Humic acid, 1563.28 kg/ha) and BOF (bio-organic fertilizer, 7816.41 kg/ha). Each treatment plot was 9.6 m² (length × width = 6 m × 1.2 m), with 4 replicates.

 

Point 15. Where are the Figures and tables? The data of 62d and 82d were for each variety and Soil amendments. Sorry, but I can not explore the idea if there are not Figures and Tables.

Response: Sorry, the Figures and Tables were uploaded separately at the time of submission. Now, we also put the Figures and Tables at the end of the Manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed work concerns organic or inorganic amendments influence microbial community in rhizosphere and decreases the incidence of tomato bacterial. The topic is interesting, the work has been well prepared. Material and methods adequately described, discussion properly described. Correct conclusions. My remark is only about units, the record for all work should be the same. Please see line 145, 153, 154, 155.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers’ comments

We really appreciated the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. According to these comments and suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript point by point and please kindly refer to below responses.

 

Review2:

Point 1. The reviewed work concerns organic or inorganic amendments influence microbial community in rhizosphere and decreases the incidence of tomato bacterial. The topic is interesting, the work has been well prepared. Material and methods adequately described, discussion properly described. Correct conclusions. My remark is only about units, the record for all work should be the same. Please see line 145, 153, 154, 155.

Response: Thank you for your recognition of our work, and thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have revised “kg/plot” as “kg/ha” in the Manuscript. Please see line 188-190. For Line 169, the unit of total soil nutrient is general expressed in term of g/kg, and the available nutrient is generally expressed in mg/kg.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Bacterial wilt disease is a devastating disease of crops, which leads to huge economic loss worldwide. It is hypothesized that the occurrence of bacterial wilt may be related to changes in soil chemical properties and microbial interactions.

Soil fertilization is a factor influencing soil properties and the composition of the soil microbiome. The results obtained provide information that can be used in selecting appropriate soil control measures to prevent and control bacterial wilt of tomatoes.

However, the following problems need to be improved:

1. Line  134 - the classification of soils should be given in accordance with the WRB classification

2. Line 134-137 - provide the source on the basis of which the properties of the soil on which the experiment was conducted were given

3. Complete the information about the composition of the fertilizers used

4. Explain how the doses of fertilizers were determined

Author Response

Response to Editor and Reviewers’ comments

We really appreciated the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. According to these comments and suggestions, we have carefully revised the manuscript point by point and please kindly refer to below responses.

 

Review3:

Point 1. Line 134 - the classification of soils should be given in accordance with the WRB classification.

Response: Have revised as “Hortic soil” accordance with the WRB classification. Please see Line 167.

 

Point 2. Line 134-137 - provide the source on the basis of which the properties of the soil on which the experiment was conducted were given.

Response: Sorry, the Tables were uploaded separately at the time of submission. Now, we also put the Tables at the end of the Manuscript. Please see Table 2 for the physical and chemical properties of each experimental treatment below or in Manuscript.

 

Table 2 Variance analysis of disease incidence and soil physical and chemical properties in different treatments at 62 days after transplanting

Treatment	Incidence (%)	pH	NH4+-N (mg/kg)	NO3--N (mg/kg)	AP (mg/kg)	AK (mg/kg)	ASi (mg/kg)	ECa (cmol/kg)
CK	30.00±5.31a	4.77±0.11a	21.00±7.81b	64.09±23.78b	400.20±14.50a	477.36±40.56c	30.45±3.07b	3.95±0.26ab
PS	27.50±2.63a	4.45±0.11abc	45.10±14.82ab	110.76±30.30ab	577.80±20.94a	656.88±43.98ab	52.08±10.06b	3.03±0.43b
CS	36.00±8.45a	4.59±0.06ab	33.29±11.88ab	84.54±34.53ab	594.98±61.56a	502.10±40.78c	187.12±85.11a	4.04±0.58ab
BC	12.75±1.65b	4.22±0.13c	47.50±14.61ab	93.85±28.54ab	539.29±64.82a	538.56±24.88bc	39.53±11.31b	2.47±0.32b
SCHA	13.25±4.66b	4.31±0.12bc	72.55±12.35a	180.15±44.36a	454.41±122.32a	781.07±74.84a	32.38±1.92b	4.81±1.05a
BOF	9.00±0.07b	4.46±0.12bc	55.21±18.31ab	176.78±34.56a	404.37±50.21a	503.37±26.68c	26.97±1.92b	3.60±0.27ab

Note: Different letters represent significant differences between mean. Control (CK), PS (The potassium silicate); CS (Calcium silicate); BC (Biochar); SCHA (Calcium silicate Humic Acid); BOF (Bio-organic fertilizer); Available phosphorus (AP), available potassium (AK), available silicon (ASi), available calcium (ECa). 

 

Point 3. Complete the information about the composition of the fertilizers used.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have done. Please see Table 1 below and in Manuscript.

Table 1 Main physicochemical properties of soil amendments

Sample	TN g·kg-1	TP g·kg-1	TK g·kg-1	pH	SOM g·kg-1	ASi g·kg-1
PS	-	-	631.67±0.33	12.07±0.02	-	185.86±1.41
CS	2.89±0.09	1.04±0.03	2.94±0.69	10.72±0.12	108.24±0.85	8.57±0.41
BC	9.33±0.93	2.97±0.01	17.47±0.12	9.96±0.05	138.78±5.08	0.46±0.01
SCHA	3.27±0.47	0.27±0.01	62.80±0.65	9.52±0.06	97.84±0.43	0.58±0.02
BOF	29.87±3.37	14.24±0.03	7.57±0.52	4.68±0.15	380.13±8.39	0.20±0.02

Note: total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), total potassium (TK), available silicon (ASi). PS (The potassium silicate); CS (Calcium silicate); BC (Biochar); SCHA (Calcium silicate Humic Acid); BOF (Bio-organic fertilizer).

 

Point 4. Explain how the doses of fertilizers were determined.

Response: Thank you. The fertilizers were applied in accordance with crop requirements and the local farmer's fertilizer habits.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor, the manuscript has been sufficiently improved and can be publish in Agronomy.