Effects of Compost Application of Green Waste on Soil Properties: A Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Author reported the Effects of Compost Application of Green Waste on Soil Proper- 2 ties: A Meta-analysis: idea Is interesting however article lacks clarity and need more clear analysis.

I suggest author should enhance the article with following comments;

1.        Please add all the affiliation of the author, only emails are there

2.        Main aim of the article should be clearly linked to the conclusion.

3.        Abstract need to be fully revised its review article so provide some background , problem and what’s the aim of this work.

4.        In methodology section add more details on the data collection and analysis

5.        Include a stronger comparison with previous studies to highlight the novelty of the research.

6.        Expand the discussion on the practical applications and implications of green waste compost, especially for its scalability in agriculture.

7.        The experimental data, especially regarding soil properties and compost application rates, need to be added

8.        I suggest adding some graphical representations, such as scatter plots or bar charts, comparing the effects of green waste compost on different soil properties (organic carbon, nitrogen levels, etc.)

9.        Author should adding a flowchart to explain the methodology, especially the screening process of the selected studies

10.   Last article have several grammatical erros author should recheck for clarity and flow

Comments on the Quality of English Language

several grammatical erros author should recheck for clarity and flow

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the manuscript is interesting and current. Overall, the selection of the article's theme is appropriate, and the analysis is logical. However, the text of the manuscript has to be corrected and improved at several places. 

Please see the specific comments below:

1. Line 16 “soil nutrient profiles” : Perhaps "status" or "conditions" should be used.

2. Line 34 Keywords: It is recommended to include additional terms not explicitly mentioned in the title as keywords.

3. Line 48 “the inevitable tendency of composting is”: “the inevitable tendency of composting, which is ......”

4. Line 64-72: The introduction to meta-analysis here is too general and lacks relevance to the main theme of this paper. It would be beneficial to incorporate the latest meta-analytic findings within this specific field.

5. Line 78 “soil properties”: Whether using "soil properties" as a search keyword can comprehensively retrieve articles containing the required data, and whether supplementary similar terms are necessary.

6. Line 90 “on the following conditions”: I would like to request clarification on the following two points in the conditions: (1) Are there any restrictions on the duration of each experiment? (2) Is there a requirement for the source of experimental data, whether it comes from field or laboratory settings? The absence of restrictions on these two points may affect the analysis results.

7. Line 100 Figure 1: I would suggest adjusting the scale and marker sizes of this figure to better distinguish the data from North China.

8. Line 130 “is no statistically”: Change the word no into not.

9. Line 166 “R for point plot”: Detailed information regarding the software, including its version, should be provided.

10. Line 183 Table 2: I am curious about the presence and placement of the heavy metal element Cd content here, particularly as the first element mentioned. If Cd is mentioned, what about other heavy metal elements?

11. Line 280 “reducing bulk density”: Further elaboration on the benefits of reduced soil bulk density for agricultural production and environmental conservation can be provided.

12. Line 290-291 “Moreover, subgroup analysis results suggest that the amount of GWC applied  does not affect the increase in soil organic matter and organic carbon.”: Inconsistent with the results of the meta-analysis, please provide reasons for the discrepancy.

13. Line 305 “was not affected by the content of GWC”: (1) Change the word was into were (2) Please analysis why available phosphorus and potassium were not affected.

14. Line 315-316 “urease, alkaline phosphatase, and dehydrogenase”: Please add the specific roles of three enzymes and their impact on soil fertility.

15. Line 328-338 conclusion: Enhance the quality of the conclusion by succinctly and clearly stating the results of this study.

16. Line 334 “reduces environment impacts”: environmental impacts

17. References: Please carefully review the content of the references, such as the missing content in reference [12]. In addition, please ensure that the reference format in the article is correct, specifically whether the authors should be mentioned by their full names rather than just their surnames.

I put some comments on your manuscript in order to improve the quality of your work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please polish the language and optimize the manuscript by referencing higher-quality literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article can  b accepted now