Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In line 149-line 151, "The epigeic species of Eisenia fetida were selected for this study because this species is widely distributed in the world and has been commonly fed and used in laboratory experiments", although one has been provided articles of literature, it is recommended to provide more relevant literature, which will help the appropriateness of the species selection in this paper.

2. Among rows 183-184 in this study, please explain the reasons for choosing the corn varieties of these two companies (American Pioneer Seed Company and Shandong Denghai Seed Company).

3. I suggest that the "5. Conclusions" should point out and emphasize the differences between the results of this research and the past literature to highlight the value of the research.

Author Response

Response: We would like to thank reviewers for their careful review to improve our manuscript quality. Please find our responses to address their constructive comments and suggestions below.

 

In line 149-line 151, "The epigeic species of Eisenia fetida were selected for this study because this species is widely distributed in the world and has been commonly fed and used in laboratory experiments", although one has been provided articles of literature, it is recommended to provide more relevant literature, which will help the appropriateness of the species selection in this paper.

Response: Very good suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided following relevant literature to support the appropriateness of the species selection in this paper.

Moreover, Mokgophi et al. [1] found E. fetida have great potential to be used to improve soil fertility and thus reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers in crop production; Raza et al. [2] indiated E. fetida as ecological engineers that helps to enhance reactive nutrients in a sustainable way; Wen et al. [3] demonstrated that E. fetida has beneficial effects on the bioavailability of rare earth elements in soil, thereby increased biomass of wheat shoots and roots.

 

Among rows 183-184 in this study, please explain the reasons for choosing the corn varieties of these two companies (American Pioneer Seed Company and Shandong Denghai Seed Company).

Response: Very good comment. Firstly, we apologize for the typo error here. The correct corn variety used in this study should be “Xianyu335” which jointly produced by American Pioneer Seed Company and Shandong Denghai Seed Company rather than “Pioneer 335”. In the revised manuscript, we have corrected the typo error and explained the reasons for choosing the corn varieties.

The maize hybrid Xianyu335 (jointly produced by Pioneer Corp of USA and Shandong Denghai Seed Corp of China) with the characteristic of high yield and suitable of machine-harvesting that widely cultivated field crop maize in China, was used as the test object in the current study[4-7].

 

I suggest that the "5. Conclusions" should point out and emphasize the differences between the results of this research and the past literature to highlight the value of the research.

Response: We appreciate for these great comments. We added more discussions that address the novelty and highlight the value of the research.

 

References:

1. Mokgophi, M.M.; Manyevere, A.; Ayisi, K.K.; Munjonji, L. Characterisation of Chamaecytisus tagasaste, Moringa oleifera and Vachellia karroo Vermicomposts and Their Potential to Improve Soil Fertility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9305.
2. Raza, S.T.; Tang, J.L.; Ali, Z.; Yao, Z.; Bah, H.; Iqbal, H.; Ren, X. Ammonia Volatilization and Greenhouse Gases Emissions during Vermicomposting with Animal Manures and Biochar to Enhance Sustainability. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021, 18, 178.
3. Wen, B.; Liu, Y.; Hu, X.-y.; Shan, X.-q. Effect of earthworms (Eisenia fetida) on the fractionation and bioavailability of rare earth elements in nine Chinese soils. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 1179-1186, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2005.09.002.
4. Sun, J.; Gao, J.; Wang, Z.; Hu, S.; Zhang, F.; Bao, H.; Fan, Y. Maize Canopy Photosynthetic Efficiency, Plant Growth, and Yield Responses to Tillage Depth. Agronomy 2019, 9, 3.
5. Shen, D.; Zhang, G.; Xie, R.; Ming, B.; Hou, P.; Xue, J.; Li, S.; Wang, K. Improvement in Photosynthetic Rate and Grain Yield in Super-High-Yield Maize (Zea mays L.) by Optimizing Irrigation Interval under Mulch Drip Irrigation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1778.
6. Wang, D.; Li, G.; Mo, Y.; Cai, M.; Bian, X. Effect of Planting Date on Accumulated Temperature and Maize Growth under Mulched Drip Irrigation in a Middle-Latitude Area with Frequent Chilling Injury. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1500.
7. Li, Y.; Huang, G.; Guo, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Duan, L. Coronatine Enhances Stalk Bending Resistance of Maize, Thickens the Cell Wall and decreases the Area of the Vascular Bundles. Agronomy 2020, 10, 807.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article contains interesting results of the development of a preparation based on earthworm mucus to stimulate the growth of corn seeds. The topic is interesting and innovative and corresponds to the profile of the journal.
I suggest introducing minor editorial changes, ie Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 are hardly legible. I suggest you turn them into tables or move them to supplementary files. There is no designation for Table 2a in supplementary materials.
I also propose to improve the discussion chapter. In the current version, the authors conduct a discussion with the results achieved by their own team. The discussion should refer to the results achieved by other scientists and not only from your own country. The journal has a global reach. The discussion chapter refers only to items [81] and [82] of the reference list. The positions 2,5,8,9,11 and others seem to be promising.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the careful review and for many insightful comments and constructive suggestions towards improving our manuscript. Please find our responses to address these constructive comments and suggestions below.

We have replaced the 3- D bar graph in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 with 2-D bar graph to make sure they are more legible. We have made revisions on figures and tables in supplementary materials to make sure the designations are more appropriate. We added more discussions in the Results and Discussion section. However, bionic fertilizer is a relatively new field of research. Although few references directly covered the subject area, this study could drive subsequent researches and follow-up studies, then this will move this field forward.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author's reply I accept in principle, the four suggestions I made during the first review, the author also did his best to make some corrections. Although some of my suggestions could not be effectively resolved, the author also explained the reasons, and I agree with the author as a future research topic. As a result, the paper can now be accepted for publication as is.