Soil Bacterial Community of Medicinal Plant Rhizosphere in a Mediterranean System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is that Soil Bacteria Community of Medicinal Plants Rhizosphere in the Mediterranean System. The paper contains an adequate amount of data, however, the level of completion in terms of data analysis and writing is not satisfactory. Additionally, the purpose, results, and significance of this research are not clearly elucidated.
Major comments:
Abstract:
1. Comments: The abstract lacks clarity in presenting the research background and the specific results of this study, which are crucial in understanding the content of this research. I recommend addressing the following points to improve the abstract's comprehensibility. First of all, it is necessary to clarify the main research field of this paper, and what problems can be solved or new phenomena can be found in this field.
2. Comments: Secondly, it is essential to present a more comprehensive summary of the results, such as the total number of taxa detected or the specific changes in rhizosphere microbial communities between different species.
3. Comments: At last, the mention of root exudates in this context is not supported by any relevant content in the results. This section appears to be more suitable for inclusion in the discussion rather than the abstract
Results:
4. Comments: The title can be further optimized by making it more descriptive or conclusive.
5. Comments: It is advisable to employ visual representations, such as figures, instead of tables, in order to present the disparities in outcomes with greater clarity and intuitiveness.
Discussions:
6. Comments: The discussion should align with the objectives outlined in the Introduction. For instance, to expound further on the ramifications of this alteration and its underlying causes
7. Comments: Towards the conclusion of the discourse, it is imperative to highlight both the significance and corresponding limitations of this study.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer report 1.
Dear anonymous reviewer - many thanks for your suggestions - greatly appreciated.
Reply to reviewer report 2
I am very surprised that the authors do not have a photo, do they not keep any documentation?
I am attaching a picture as per your request – in addition will add a few more picture in case that you will wish to change between them.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors adapted the manuscript to the requirements of the journal, but unfortunately they did not take much into account the reviewer's comments. This is not very professional.
1.I am very surprised that the authors do not have a photo, do they not keep any documentation? This is very surprising.
I am attaching a picture in order to keep you happy
2.I don't understand why the authors don't want to include an OTU table for bacteria? The authors' current response is very evasive. As a reviewer, I repeat my request that the readers have access to this data.
I am sorry that is a misunderstanding – the data is available per request
- The answer to the authors' question "What about Table 5 is not clear enough?" is "no" because it only presents significance values (p<0.05) of the species indicator analysis based on OTU values along the bacterial taxa. If the authors are able, to write an entire chapter of the book based on one table, as they wrote in response to the review, then I sincerely congratulate them!
4.The authors also did not improve the Discussion chapter.
I am sorry however, had gave the manuscript to few scientist in field and they had found the suggestion innapropiate
I believe that the authors will make every effort to improve their manuscript.
Dear reviewers – many thanks for your many suggestions however, as doing review for many Journals on manuscript in the field of Terrestrial Ecology had never been so critical - greatly appreciate you suggestions !
Moreover, will be happy if you will be willing to propose some additional studies – to which you are welcome to attend.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The research presented in the manuscript "Soil Bacteria Community of Medicinal Plants Rhizosphere in the Mediterranean System" is the second part of the research described in the publication "Applebaum, I., Jeyaraman, M., Sherman, C., Doniger, T., & Steinberger, Y. (2022). Structure and function of soil rhizosphere fungal communities in medicinal plants - a preliminary study. Agriculture, 12(2), 152." It is a pity that the authors did not present all the results (bacteria and fungi) in one publication. This would have avoided a lot of repetition. For example, in the manuscript currently submitted for review, Table 1 is identical to that in the earlier paper. The same is true for subsection 2.1. Study site. In addition, please note that the manuscript has not been prepared according to the editors' requirements - see the guidelines for authors. Literature is cited incorrectly.
Nevertheless, the topics of the assessed work are in line with the thematic scope of the journal "Agriculture".
Introductory chapter - the current version is rather poor and does not exhaust the research topic. Please provide more details on the diversity of microorganisms in the rhizosphere of medicinal plants. Also describe the interactions between the root secretions of these plants and the microorganisms. In this chapter you should also present your research hypotheses.
In the Materials and Methods chapter, in subsection "2.1. Study site', present a photograph documenting the research project.
Results chapter - please present the types of bacteria from individual plants, for example on a heat map. Now only the dominant types have been listed and it is stated that there are no differences. This is very puzzling. Could it be that all the bacteria formed a common microbiome and there were no unique bacteria for individual plants? Include a table of OTUs for bacteria above e.g. 1% of all OTUs with assignment to individual taxa in the supplementary material. This is required.
Chapter Discussion - it is quite poorly written. Try to make it more detailed.
Conclusion chapter - this chapter does not exist in the current version of the manuscript. It needs to be added.
References chapter - is currently written against the Editorial Guidelines. Please do it according to the guidelines for authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors reflected all the reviewer's comments and corrected the text as required, and the manuscript is acceptable in its current form.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer report 1.
Dear anonymous reviewer - many thanks for your suggestions - greatly appreciated.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors adapted the manuscript to the requirements of the journal, but unfortunately they did not take much into account the reviewer's comments. This is not very professional.
I am very surprised that the authors do not have a photo, do they not keep any documentation? This is very surprising.
I don't understand why the authors don't want to include an OTU table for bacteria? The authors' current response is very evasive. As a reviewer, I repeat my request that the readers have access to this data.
The answer to the authors' question "What about Table 5 is not clear enough?" is "no" because it only presents significance values (p<0.05) of the species indicator analysis based on OTU values along the bacterial taxa. If the authors are able, to write an entire chapter of the book based on one table, as they wrote in response to the review, then I sincerely congratulate them!
The authors also did not improve the Discussion chapter.
I believe that the authors will make every effort to improve their manuscript.
Author Response
Reply to reviewer report 2
I am very surprised that the authors do not have a photo, do they not keep any documentation?
I am attaching a picture as per your request – in addition will add a few more picture in case that you will wish to change between them.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors adapted the manuscript to the requirements of the journal, but unfortunately they did not take much into account the reviewer's comments. This is not very professional.
1.I am very surprised that the authors do not have a photo, do they not keep any documentation? This is very surprising.
I am attaching a picture in order to keep you happy
2.I don't understand why the authors don't want to include an OTU table for bacteria? The authors' current response is very evasive. As a reviewer, I repeat my request that the readers have access to this data.
I am sorry that is a misunderstanding – the data is available per request
- The answer to the authors' question "What about Table 5 is not clear enough?" is "no" because it only presents significance values (p<0.05) of the species indicator analysis based on OTU values along the bacterial taxa. If the authors are able, to write an entire chapter of the book based on one table, as they wrote in response to the review, then I sincerely congratulate them!
4.The authors also did not improve the Discussion chapter.
I am sorry however, had gave the manuscript to few scientist in field and they had found the suggestion innapropiate
I believe that the authors will make every effort to improve their manuscript.
Dear reviewers – many thanks for your many suggestions however, as doing review for many Journals on manuscript in the field of Terrestrial Ecology had never been so critical - greatly appreciate you suggestions !
Moreover, will be happy if you will be willing to propose some additional studies – to which you are welcome to attend.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
