Distribution of soil microorganisms in different complex soil layers in Mu Us sandy land

Zhen Guo; Haiou Zhang; Juan Li; Tianqing Chen; Huanyuan Wang; Yang Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283341

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 23, 2022
10 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-22-35140Distribution of soil microorganisms in different complex soil layers in Mu Us Sandy LandPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Guo Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 27th March 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://peerj.com/articles/13561/ In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: I Don't Know ****** 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: Author are recoomended to improve manuscript 1."The soft rock in Mu Us Sandy Land has rich resources and high content of clay minerals" In abstract pl write full form of Mu Us . 2."The four volume ratios of soft rock to sand were respectively 0:1 (CK), 1:5 (P1), 1:2 (P2) and 1:1 (P3)."In abstract pl explain about CK,P1,P2.P3 3.I strogly recommend for publication of this work.soil parameter with meta genomics provide insight about soils are remarkable 4.Author are strongly suggested to pl write full farm of abbreviation at least once in manuscript so that reader feel easy. 5.Author are suggested to write future prospective of this work in conclusion.How this work might be helpful to increase diversity, conservation and crop production. Reviewer #2: 1. The study was well-structured, yet some areas of the manuscript need attention. 2. Please correct the grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Write in passive voice (Line no. 169 & Line no.173) 3. It will be Phylum Actinobacteria. The word Phylum must be written first, then the name of the Phylum. 4. There were observations but adequate discussions were missing. 5. Explain the observed relationships between soil properties and the bacterial abundances from previous literatures. 6. The significance of the study results was not reflected in the discussions/conclusions. ****** 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: Kuldip Jayaswall Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283341.r001
Revision 1
18 Feb 2023 Author Response Response to Reviewers 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. Response: The author has modified according to the journal template requirements. 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://peerj.com/articles/13561/ In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. Response: The author rewrote the repeated text. References are cited. Thank you. 3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. Response: The author provided ORID iD: 0000-0003-3383-6341 Reviewer #1: Author are recoomended to improve manuscript 1."The soft rock in Mu Us Sandy Land has rich resources and high content of clay minerals" In abstract pl write full form of Mu Us . Response: "Mu Us Sandy Land" is an official name that refers to a specific place, and therefore does not exist in the full form of Mu Us. 2."The four volume ratios of soft rock to sand were respectively 0:1 (CK), 1:5 (P1), 1:2 (P2) and 1:1 (P3)."In abstract pl explain about CK,P1,P2.P3 Response: The four volume ratios of soft rock to sand were respectively 0:1, 1:5, 1:2 and 1:1. And CK, P1, P2 and P3 were used to represent the above four volume ratios in turn. 3.I strogly recommend for publication of this work.soil parameter with meta genomics provide insight about soils are remarkable Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Other questions have been modified. 4.Author are strongly suggested to pl write full farm of abbreviation at least once in manuscript so that reader feel easy. Response: The author gives a complete explanation where the abbreviations first appear in the whole text. In addition, the author of each part makes a complete description of abbreviations. Thank you！ 5.Author are suggested to write future prospective of this work in conclusion.How this work might be helpful to increase diversity, conservation and crop production. Response: The author has added the future prospective of this work in conclusion. “The improvement of comprehensive properties of aeolian sandy soil will provide a good theoretical basis for the development of green agriculture and carbon emission reduction effect in the next step. Therefore, in the future, the author will continue to study the function and metabolism of microorganisms in sandy land, and carry out the isolation and identification of relevant carbon-fixing microorganisms.” Reviewer #2: 1. The study was well-structured, yet some areas of the manuscript need attention. Response: The author revised the full text according to the comments. Thank you. 2. Please correct the grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Write in passive voice (Line no. 169 & Line no.173) Response: The author has modified the sentence in the passive voice. 3. It will be Phylum Actinobacteria. The word Phylum must be written first, then the name of the Phylum. Response: The author has revised the whole text. Thank you. 4. There were observations but adequate discussions were missing. Response: The author adds a detailed discussion to the research results. Details are as follows: Kang et al. [26] showed that the spatial structure of soil and the thickness of different soil layers had significant effects on soil nutrients, which was similar to the results of this study. Among many wetlands, Phylum Proteobacteria has the highest relative abundance because of their strong adaptability to the environment [28]. The Phylum Actinobaciota has the highest abundance in this study, followed by Phylum Proteobacteria, indicating that Phylum Proteobacteria has high abundance in both dry land and wetland. Moreover, the increase of diversity in the surface layer was greater than that in the bottom layer. It may be due to the addition of soft rock clay minerals in the surface soil, which was greatly affected by the soil parent material [31]. Bacteria have the highest diversity and the most stable community structure in medium-alkaline soil, but small changes in pH value may lead to the formation of different community structures [32]. In this study, the pH values of P1 and P3 in 0-30 cm soil layer were basically the same, and the pH values of P1 and P2 in 30-60 cm soil layer were basically the same, showing the similarity of community structure. …… 5. Explain the observed relationships between soil properties and the bacterial abundances from previous literatures. Response: The author has added. “However, the study of Kong et al. [26] was inconsistent with the results of this paper, arguing that pH was the main reason for affecting the bacterial community structure of surface soil, and ammonium nitrogen was the main reason for affecting the bacterial community of deep soil. This was because deep soil was more stable, while surface soil was susceptible to temperature, humidity and human activity.” 6. The significance of the study results was not reflected in the discussions/conclusions. Response: The authors add research significance to the conclusion. “The results of this study provide practical significance for the reclamation of sandy land and the increase of cultivated land resources.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283341.r002
6 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Distribution of soil microorganisms in different complex soil layers in Mu Us Sandy Land PONE-D-22-35140R1 Dear Dr. Guo 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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283341.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-22-35140R1 Distribution of soil microorganisms in different complex soil layers in Mu Us Sandy Land Dear Dr. Guo: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283341.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .