Mixed Compost Application: A Sustainable Tool for Improving Soil Carbon Dynamics in a Peach Orchard Under Mediterranean Conditions
, Mariagrazia Piarulli, Carolina Vitti, Marcello Mastrangelo, Alessandro Azzolini, Alessandro Ciurlia, Gianfranco Rana and Rossana Monica Ferrara *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigated the role of mixed compost amendment (MCA) in soil carbon dynamics in peach orchards. Through a three-year field experiment, the effects of MCA on soil respiration, carbon storage, soil physical properties, and fruit yield and quality were analyzed. The research design was reasonable, the data were detailed, and the analysis methods were rigorous. The results have significant reference value for sustainable soil management in orchards in the Mediterranean region. The research content conforms to the theme of Sustainability and can be published. However, the article still needs improvement in some details and expressions.
General comments:
The text mentioned that actual respiration (FCO₂_a) was only measured in 2022 and 2023, but the reason for the absence in 2021 was not explained. It is suggested to provide additional explanations.
The measurement time points of potential respiration (FCO₂_p) were inconsistent in different years (for example, 5 times in 2021 and 4 times in 2022), and it is necessary to explain whether this difference affects the comparability of the results. The results indicate that MCA enhances carbon storage but does not improve carbon emission efficiency (CEE), and this contradiction requires more in-depth discussion. For example, does the MCA increase microbial activity, leading to a short-term increase in CO₂ emissions? What about the long-term effect? The hail event in 2022 had a significant impact on production, but its potential disruption to soil respiration and carbon dynamics was not discussed. It is suggested to supplement the analysis of the potential impact of extreme events on the results. This study fills the knowledge gap on the impact of MCA on carbon dynamics in Mediterranean orchards, but it can further highlight the differences from similar studies.
Detailed comments/suggestions
1 Line 108: Check the superscript of the unit.
2 line 123: Please explain the application of organic materials in 2023 delayed by one month.
3 Line 303: Please check the title and vertical coordinate of the figure.
4 Line 307: The horizontal coordinate is not clear.
5 Unified expression “mixed composted amendment” and “mixed compost application”.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors-
Organic amendments are the recommended fertilization to improve the peach yield and quality in the peach orchard, but soil carbon dynamics should be studied in detail. The research in this manuscript will be instructive to the management and fertilization of orchard. There were some suggestion according to the content of manuscript as followed.
- Three growing seasons (2021-23) were studied in this manuscript. What is the effect trend of the three amendments on soil carbon dynamics with time?
- Soil carbon balance is one of the important indexes to show the soil carbon dynamics, which should be calculated according to the CO2 emission and crop yield.
- How did soil physics and chemical characteristics affect the soil carbon dynamics with the mixed compost application?
- The recommended dose of the mixed compost should be listed as the conclusion to guide the fertilization in a peach orchard.
- In experiment design, 35 days of incubation time was too short and should be extended, because the emission of CO2 emission is not stable, still increasing on the 35 day in incubation time.
- The references is old, suggest to supply the new ones republished in the last five yeas.
- The data of Figure 2 and Figure 4 should be added statistics results.
- The language normalization of this manuscript should be improved, because of some mistakes. “depth” in Figure 2 should be “Depth”.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study of Bruno et al. is scientifically valid, suitable for a wide audience of readers and falls within the aims and scope of the journal. However, it seems that the authors did not put much care into the preparation of the publication, as much information is missing and there are several errors. Here are my suggestions:
-Line 11 (three amendment): two amendment treatments (A1 and A2) and control (A0).
-L 12, L 47 (MCA, mixed compost application): application or amendment (Line 130)? According to D.Lgs. 75/2010, “amendment” is correct (ammendante compostato misto).
-Too many abbreviations are used. I recommend an “Abbreviations” section.
-Please eliminate the use of redundant words. Eg. Consequently (L.31), furthermore (L.38), additionally (L. 44), nevertheless (L.46), etc. Please revise all similar cases, as removing these terms would not significantly affect the meaning of the sentence. This will keep the manuscript as concise as possible.
-L.73-74 (see…..): the round bracket at end is missing.
-L.101 (the soil): unamended soil? Please specify.
-L.111: cv? Redcall or Red Call?
-L.115 (meteoreological statio): make and model?
-L.120 (amendment MCA ……): a brief description (feedstocks, process temperature, timing, etc.) of the compost production process is required.
-L131 (Table 2): some parameters required by Legislative Decree 72/2010 are missing. The analytical methods are missing.
-L.133-134 (gravimetric method): the reference is missing.
-L.167 (acidified water): H2SO4? HCl? Concentration? pH? pHL. of the mixture after addition of acidified water?
-L.172 (HCl): concentration?
-L.176 (automatic tritator): make and model?
- The percentage purity and company of all reagents/chemicals utilized must be reported.
-L. 219: ACM?
-L.246 (growing season): please specify.
-L.277-278; L.279-280: same sentence.
-L.304 (Figure 2): standard deviations are missing. You can insert a table in the appendix with the means and standard deviations.
-L.375 (standard deviations were omitted): You can insert a table in the appendix with the means and standard deviations.
-L.415: Table 1? It is Table 3.
-L.426: Table 2? It is Table 4.
-Table 4: Trt?
-L.420-425: results of table 4 (year, Trt, year x trt) are difficult to understand. Please comment clearly.
-L.436 (Discussion): the discussion must be enriched by an accurate commentary on the comparison (similarities and differences) with the results of studies published in the literature.
-Appendix (figure A1 to A5): the vertical axis scale is too large, please reduce it. Eg. Figure A1 (a): max 250 gC CO2 m-2; Figure A1 (b): max 600, etc…….
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEnglish syntax and style were already modified with the expert revision.
The dynamics of C as affected by the amendment was already described in the revised version.
It is suggested that soil carbon content should be measured in the harvested fruit during the trials.
It is suggested to supply the correlation of soil physics and chemical characteristics and the soil carbon dynamics.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno further action
Author Response
We thank the reviewer
