Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

Suggested Title: Effects of Biochar on Properties of Saline Soil and Productivity of Tomato

1.       On abstract, you may remove the parenthesis with acronyms.

2.       Abstract is published separately, so reader might not understand the treatments used, so better remove the T1. T5 etc. Just describe the content of those treatments.

3.       Abstract, Line 36: You may remove this statement – “The ANOVA table F value and T value of”.

4.       In Introduction, discuss the biochar’s characteristics that are important in soil development.

5.       Line 78: As reported by the author or the source, not the reference number.

6.       Lines 86-88: Name which plant that being discussed here.

7.       Lines 116-117: Cite the reference of this sentence.

8.       Materials and Methods: Make this section really concise. Include Experimental period in the above paragraph. Geographical location may be rename as “Study Area”.

9.       Materials and Methods: Soil characteristics is not a method, it should be “Soil characterization”. Include the methods and equipment used in soil characterization.

10.   Chemical Properties of Biochar, Biochar Production and collecting biochar – provide the characteristics of biochar that actually used in the experiment.

 

11.   Section 2.6 Agricultural supplies must be merged with the Section 2.7. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer response sheet -1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract requires revision. Highlight the main findings with values from the study. 

The statistical naming is incorrect. Completely randomized block design naming is incorrect. It needs to be randomized completely block design (RCBD).  

The soil is stated as acidic, then alkaline, the acid sulfate soil with texture ranging from sandy to clay. The range of values for the selected initial soil properties would support the study and the statistical data. Otherwise, it is very unclear. 

Soil reliability? What does this mean?

 

Source of biochar plays a vital role in the effectiveness of biochar as soil amendment. What is the source and what are the background values of the biochar, such as surface size/area etc. 

Please proofread parts of the discussion for better and sound presentation of the data. 

Stated are only a few of the flaws of the manuscript. 

Thanks. 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer response sheet-2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please be very specific about the significance differences. Add numbers and mention in two lines the change or add the final interpretation of the significant changes.

 

Line 43: Please be specific about the significant challenges, mention some challenges name.

Line 66: pls add your reference perfectly, it should be like this “stages of plant growth [8].”

 

Line 78: Pls mention the report or research title.

Can you please justify about the jump of EC for T7 (Table 6)?

I have also have some confusion about the duration of the study time. Don't you think, the period of time is too short to come up with a conclusion about biochar. Please justify your answer.

Author Response

Reviewer response sheet-3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Review report: sustainability-2245757

The findings could be interesting for researchers. However, following comments should be addressed before proceeding this manuscript for further. Authors are strongly advised to correct manuscript as per following suggestions for enhancing readability and reproducibility of results.

1. Lines 25-27: please include treatments used in the experiments.

2. Lines 29-36, What is the T1, T5, N, K, S…Details are missing. Abbreviations used throughput the manuscript needs to be defined the first time they are used in the abstract and/or other sections.

3. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented in the last paragraph of introduction section.

4. The scientific name should be defined the first time they are used.

5. Lines 112-121, Please include references for each sentence.

6. Lines 164-167, How the soil properties were determined? Please include specify soil analysis methods.

7. There are some typographical errors in the paper and authors should correct them in the revised version. For example, Line 174, have you it in 1050 ºC? Please pay attention to the number superscript in the writing units. Units should be written uniformly.

8. Hypothesis and justification of the selection of recommended fertilizer and biochar dose were not explicitly mentioned in the material and methods.

9. Please provide the brands of chemicals and equipment’s used during the experiments throughout the materials and methods section.

10. How long does your experiments take? At line 211, You have mentioned March 11, 2012, and at line 213, March 15, 2022? Which one is correct?

11. There was no information about plant protection management during the growth stage.

12. How many replicates have been done for each assay. Please indicate it in the related sections.

13. In general, legends of some tables are not all self-explainable. I am recommending that tables must be self-explanatory. That is, all statistics and abbreviations used must be clearly explained. I highly recommend the authors to introduce standard error/deviation in the tables.

14. In the discussion section, authors are repeating some results without any discussion about it. I highly recommend the authors to move the results introduced in the discussion section to the related ones and compare their own results with previous studies in the discussion section.

Author Response

Reviewer response sheet-4

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Include in section 2.2 Soil characterization the instrument, apparatus, equipment used in determining the Bulk density, Particle density, Soil Porosity, Soil pH, EC, Salinity, Organic Matter, Organic Carbon, Total N,  Available P, Exchangeable K, Available S.

 

Author Response

Response Sheet-Reviewer-1

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, 

The revision is in good order, however, please proofread and strengthen the discussion part. The impact of salinity related to soil retention and tomato yield parameters. 

Please read and revise the abstract to strengthen the main study objectives. 

Syntax errors are still prevalent within the manuscript. 

A minor revision is required. 

Keep up the good work. Thanks. 

Author Response

Response Sheet-Reviewer-2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear editor,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to re-evaluate this paper. Taking into account the revision has been done by the author, i can confirm that although the authors respond to some issues raised. I think the following references maybe helpful for this paper and recommended to be cited.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jof8121275; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13040517; 

Author Response

Response Sheet-Reviewer-4

Author Response File: Author Response.docx