Construction and Demolition Waste as Substrate Component Improved the Growth of Container-Grown Duranta repens

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The issues contained in the article are very important and topical if only due to the China is one of the largest CDW producers in the world. Therefore, methods of their safe disposal are sought, especially small size of CDW, which is of little use so far. One of the possibilities of its development is to use it as a component of container substrate to plant, on example Duranta repens. The article is exemplary in every respect (methodical, substantive, editorial). He suggests abandoning the appendix and moving two tables to the main text.

Author Response

尊敬的审稿人，

它已根据您的建议进行了修改。请参阅附件。

此致敬意

贾菁菁

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents some useful results concerning the use of construction and demolition waste to increase soil fertility through the release of compounds important for plant growth, such as potassium and phosphorus.

However, before being considered for publication,  the paper should be thoroughly revised  and a number of issues would need to be analysed.

A) General considerations

·        While CDW can be beneficial in soil remediation (e.g. in areas degraded by mining) due to the absorption of toxic substances, it can be itself a source of contamination when used in agriculture due to the possible release of highly polluting substances (chrome, lead, copper, etc.) and the subsequent accumulation of toxic metals in the leaf and root systems and in the leachate generated either by irrigation or in run-off water. Therefore, the content of these metals should be analysed both in CDW samples and in the biomass. It is not clear whether this information is contained in what the Authors call Supplementary 1 and 2 that I was not able to find anywhere in the text. It is not enough to write that the concentration of heavy metals in the specific CDW samples considered was below the limit foreseen by the law. In the general case, the amounts could be non negligible.

·       The Discussion section contains more results and considerations taken from the literature than following from the analysis that has been carried out. The approach should be upended by first highlighting the results obtained and showing how they agree with previous analyses.

·       The Conclusions section is too cursory. It should be expanded and provide some discussion about the limitations of the study and suggestions for future research directions.

B) Statistical analysis

·       The sequence of operations carried out to prepare the samples is not completely clear. In particular, wet substrates are obtained by letting the water trickling out of the container or before the water dripping?

·       The Authors should provide an interpretation for the principal components that account for 80% of the variance (possibly biomass, nutrients, etc.). Again, there probably is some information in Supplementary 3, but unfortunately I couldn't find it.

·       Some data is obtained by using "photos of the leaves [that] were input into Computer Aided Design software".  This is a very rough statement that specifies neither how the photos were taken nor what type of CAD software was used.

·       "The third fully expanded leaf on the top was used for the measurement of gas exchange". Please provide a rationale for this choice.

·       "The leaves were randomly selected". What does "randomly" mean in this context?

·       In equations 7 and 8 the variables m,V and p should be defined even if their meaning  can be guessed.

·       Eigenvalues corresponding to principal components,  not eigenvalues of principal components

·       In table (3), the p-value should be in lowercase according to the common convention

·       The significance of the cluster analysis for the results of this study should be illustrated more in detail and the heattmap (a)  in fig.4 should be made visually more intelligible by increasing the scale

C) Presentation

The quality of the presentation should be improved by

·       removing typos (ration, caliper, to be compared, significance of within group, etc.)

·       replacing was/were with is/are etc. when elucidating the meaning of symbols in equations

·       replacing the imperative form (Standardize,etc.)

If possible, the text should be vetted by a native English speaker.

Author Response

尊敬的审稿人，
已根据您的建议进行了修改。请参阅附件。
最好的问候，
贾晶晶

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors explored the feasibility and function of CDW as a component of container substrate.

The management of CDW is a global problem due to the accelerating urbanization. So the study is interesting from this perspective.

There are problems in format and referencing of the paper. It should be re-checked considering the author guideliness.

The author should clearly write the novelty of the study considering similar studies.

The authors made a suggestion for CDW. I think it will be better if they make a comparative analysis considering the other alternatives for CDW management in the literature.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
It has been modified according to your suggestion. Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Jingjing Jia

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The text has been improved. However, some issues  have not been addressed. They correspond to the points that have not been Ok'd in the rejoinder document.

In general, the revision appears somewhat rushed (as evidenced by the incorrect numbering of the changes made).

The 'minor revision' that has been suggested might in fact be a new 'major revision'. The Editor may decide whether to subject the next version to a new round of revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
It has been modified according to your suggestion. Please see the attachment.
Best regards,
Jingjing Jia

Author Response File: Author Response.docx