Fermentation Characteristics, Microbial Compositions, and Predicted Functional Profiles of Forage Oat Ensiled with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript studied the effect of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation characteristics, microbial compositions and predicted functional profiles of oat silage. In addition, they also did correlation analysis between the dominant microorganisms and ensiling performance in the silage. This manuscript provided a basic foundation about the changes of microbiota and ensiling performance by Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri. However, they are some minor issues and the manuscript cannot be accepted at this form.

1. the associations between fermentation characteristics and microbiome should be added in the abstract.

2. L25-27 could be rewrite.

3. L26 the full name of the abbreviation should be given at the first time.

4. L 27-28 the result should be more details.

5. L141 the species should be replaced by genus.

6. L149 the sentence should be rewrite.

7. the abbreviation CFU/cfu should be consistent.

8. the abbreviation of LB and LP should be checked and revised.

9. L194-196 similarly with previous sentence.

10. L204 PCA or PCoA?

11. L266 species level? Please check.

12. L273-275 associated with?

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper.

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Fermentation Characteristics, Microbial Compositions and Predicted Functional Profiles of Oat Ensiled with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri” (No. Fermentation-2041698). We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from editor and reviewers. We appreciate the editor very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are not only helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, but also benefit our further research. We hope that our paper much better quality than before.

Best regards,

Dr. Yanzi Xiao

E-mail: xiaoyz1113@126.com

Dr. Shuai Du

E-mail: dushaui_nm@sina.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This Study explored the influence of L. plantarum or L. buchneri on ensiling performance and microbiome of forage oat silage. The associations between fermentation characteristics and microbiome were also investigated. The changes of the fungal community of forage oat silage during the fermentation process was also highlighted in this study that impacted this routine work. The paper is well designed, written and discussed. It is my pleasure to recommend this paper, however, the authors should just enhance the resolution/size of the presented figures at the last version.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper.

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Fermentation Characteristics, Microbial Compositions and Predicted Functional Profiles of Oat Ensiled with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri” (No. Fermentation-2041698). We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from editor and reviewers. We appreciate the editor very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are not only helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, but also benefit our further research. We hope that our paper much better quality than before.

Best regards,

Dr. Yanzi Xiao

E-mail: xiaoyz1113@126.com

Dr. Shuai Du

E-mail: dushaui_nm@sina.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Xiao et al., provided the effects of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri on oat silage. This an interesting study and the authors spend a lot of time in planning and executing of the project. The results could interest the readership of fermentations, especially animal scientist. However, the manuscript requires extensive English editing to enhance clarity of its content. Below are some comments to help improve the manuscript.

Line 21 to 25…please clarify the objective, treatment and the control. Is not currently clear. I presume ………”The forage oat was inoculated with distilled water” is your control? Also if you added LB (1 × 10^6 colony-forming unit/g) and LP (1 × 10^6 colony-forming unit/g) as separate treatments how did you achieve the right inoculation for the LB or LP? Please you need a table in the material section showing your treatments and the control. This will help readership of the manuscript.

Line 25 please state the parameters used to monitor the fermentation before diving into the results.

Line 26 please define “NH3-N”

Line 27 .. 4.39%DM??? what is DM? please define

Line 32 do you to capitalized the “Proteobacteria” and “Firmicutes”???

Line 33 please consider deleting “treatment”

Line 39 please delete “in turn”

Line 48 please space before [3,4]

Line 48 to 51 please rephrase to enhance clarity

Line 54 please delete critical

Line 57 please delete “different aspects of” and expand the sentence

Line 48 please delete “the retention of”

Line 61 to 63 it will good if the authors could explain in brief what “obligately homofermentative, obligately heterofermentative and facultatively heterofermentative” are.

Line 64 have suggested should be suggests that…………..

Line 66 to accelerate…should be “which enhanced”

Line 69 add “d” to improve

Line 79 influence should be “effects”

Line 81 researched should be “assessed”

Line 83 please include a table per comments on Line 21-25

Line 84 from Hulunber…………………. Not “in”.

Line 85 please add city before China

Line 87-88 harvest (Fulida Tool Co., Ltd., Linyi, China)???? What is this??

Line 88 An amount (400 g) of …………not “Totally 400 g of”

Line 89 what are the dimensions of the cryoboxes? Did the author sterilized the box or not?

Line 90 please these are results so delete “The forage oat constituents are listed in Table 1.” You don’t jump into results when describing methods

Line 91 to 93 what form did the authors receive the cultures??? Please state. Also don’t abbreviate the cultures as you have defined them in the introduction.

Line 93 to 97 please rephrase and see comments above

Line 98 “and vacuum sealed”

Line 99 delete process

Line 101 clean containers ???how were they clean? State please

Line 103 please state details of oven (manufacturer, city and county)

Line 105 space before []

Line 107 amounts should be delete and the sentence checked please

Line 108 used not utilized….avoid using that terminology

Line 109 delete amounts

Line 110 to 116 please improve

Line 119 please replace utilised with the appropriate word

Line 126 public database …please provide a URL to this database

Line 148 delete analysed

Line 149 of triplicate measurements………….. not the means in triplicate assays

Line 150 replace assessed with analysed

Line 166 decreased not “was markedly (p < 0.05) dropped” please

Line 167 …………was tested???? Please rephrase

Line 155 to 465 needs extensive English editing.

Also Figure 1, 2, 4 are of low quality. Please provide higher-resolution ones.  

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer

Thank you very much for evaluating our paper.

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Fermentation Characteristics, Microbial Compositions and Predicted Functional Profiles of Oat Ensiled with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum or Lentilactobacillus buchneri” (No. Fermentation-2041698). We will be happy to edit the text further, based on helpful comments from editor and reviewers. We appreciate the editor very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions. The comments and suggestions are not only helpful for us to revise and improve our manuscript, but also benefit our further research. We hope that our paper much better quality than before.

Best regards,

Dr. Yanzi Xiao

E-mail: xiaoyz1113@126.com

Dr. Shuai Du

E-mail: dushaui_nm@sina.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been improved. Accept in the present form