Does fungal competitive ability explain host specificity or rarity in ectomycorrhizal symbioses?

PONE-D-20-14490

Dear Dr. Kennedy,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Cheng Gao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a good paper on the relationship between ectomycorrhizal (EM) fungal competitive ability and fungal specificity or rarity, by using two common EM fungal species (Suillus americanus and Suillus spraguei) and one rare species (Suillus subaureus) in a seedling bioaasay. The results indicated that fungal identity has no effect on dry biomasses of seedlings, and the timing of fungal colonization is important for the results of fungal interspecific competition. Meanwhile, the The study shed a new light on the tradeoff between fungal specificity and its competitive ability, and I believe many fungal biologists will find these results interesting and the paper deserves to be published. In general, the manuscript is well-written and clear, and the methods, statistical analysis and results seem very robust. However, I have a few suggestions of my own. They are all fairly minor but I feel that they should be addressed prior to publication.

Line 158: add the reference for the “>5 m apart to try to maximize genetic diversity”

Line 277: “In” should be corrected as “in”

Tables 1: I am not familiar with the format of Tables in this journal, but I suggest you use three-line form to make it looking better.

Reviewer #2: Your article is very interesting, and I also learned a lot from it. Here are some minor suggestions, hoping to help you improve your article.

1. Your article is innovative, however the references you cited are a little out of date. Please add more recent references (especially in the introduction part).

2. The whole article is very organized and logical, which makes it easy for readers to follow. However, some parts may be described a little too much. For example, in page 4 lines 80-85, you described enzymatic activities produced by ECM fungi, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with your article.

All in all, your article is interesting and of great quality, it is a pleasure to participate to its review.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yonglong Wang

Reviewer #2: No