Review Reports - Application of a Multi-Component Conditioner as a Sustainable Management Practice for Enhancing Soil Properties and <i>Hordeum vulgare</i> L. Growth and Yield

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates a multi-component soil conditioner (Solactiv, primarily containing zeolite–clinoptilolite and other ingredients) and its combined effects on soil physicochemical properties, microbial and enzymatic activity, water-holding capacity, and the growth and yield of spring barley. The topic is timely and relevant to soil improvement and sustainable agriculture. Through multi-site field trials integrating physicochemical analyses and biological measurements, the authors systematically assessed the short-term effects of the conditioner. Overall, the experimental design is generally sound, the discussion draws on extensive literature, and the findings provide useful insights for related research and practice.

However, the manuscript has several notable shortcomings:

The abstract is overly long and somewhat disorganized, mixing background information with results. It should be shortened and focus on the study’s objective, key methods, principal findings, and conclusions, while avoiding redundant background details.
The introduction provides ample background, but the problem statement is insufficiently focused. The authors should more clearly identify the scientific gaps in current soil conditioner applications (e.g., low-dose effects, adaptability to different soil types) to highlight the novelty of the work. The research hypothesis and specific objectives should also be stated concisely at the end of the introduction.
Some critical information is missing in the materials and methods section (e.g., baseline soil properties, site environmental conditions, detailed composition of the conditioner), which limits reproducibility.
The results and discussion sections are not tightly integrated; parts of the discussion read more like a literature review and lack in-depth analysis of the study’s own data.
The conclusions are too general. The authors should better emphasize the significance of low-dose application and outline clear directions for future research.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. Below, we address all comments and suggestions in a point-to-point manner. Appropriated changes has been introduced to the manuscript using “track changes” function.

However, the manuscript has several notable shortcomings:

The abstract is overly long and somewhat disorganized, mixing background information with results. It should be shortened and focus on the study’s objective, key methods, principal findings, and conclusions, while avoiding redundant background details.

Abstract was shortened and reworked as was suggested by the Reviewer.

The introduction provides ample background, but the problem statement is insufficiently focused. The authors should more clearly identify the scientific gaps in current soil conditioner applications (e.g., low-dose effects, adaptability to different soil types) to highlight the novelty of the work. The research hypothesis and specific objectives should also be stated concisely at the end of the introduction.

We have added: “Soil conditioners are often applied in relatively high doses (e.g. zeolites and biochar are applied in the dose of 5 -10 t ha^-1), what can have an adverse environmental effect, caused by conditioner compounds or their degradation products, and generate higher costs of plant cultivation. Using appropriate doses helps avoid excessive applications that could be uneconomical or lead to negative environmental impacts. An unexplored scientific gaps in current soil conditioner application is to apply multiple conditioners as mixtures, thus reducing individual application rates by possible complementarities derived from the interaction of diverse components. Integrated approaches that combine soil conditioners with other strategies can enhance the positive feedback loops and the effectiveness of the conditioner over time. Additionally, the effect of low application rate is also important from an economic point of view.”

We have added: “Soil conditioners should be dedicated to specific soil types; for example, use materials like compost, mulch, or biochar to improve sandy or coarse soils by enhancing water retention and fertility. For heavy clay soils that hold too much water, materials such as gypsum or other conditioners that improve drainage and aeration are more suitable. The choice of conditioner depends on the soil's specific deficiencies, such as poor water retention, drainage issues, or low fertility.”

We have reworked the section related with hypothesis and study aim to be more clear.

Some critical information is missing in the materials and methods section (e.g., baseline soil properties, site environmental conditions, detailed composition of the conditioner), which limits reproducibility.

Baseline soil properties in this study are the same that those determined at the 1^st sampling time. Site environmental conditions are characterized in lines 185-190. As regards the studied conditioner, all available data are presented in the manuscript (lines 208-227). No more data are available.

The results and discussion sections are not tightly integrated; parts of the discussion read more like a literature review and lack in-depth analysis of the study’s own data.

Since we provided the separate section of results description, in the discussion section we have gave key findings and compare own results with results of other researchers. This is most often practices in discussion section of the paper. We preferred to support explanation of own results based on the literature to avoid being accused of confabulation. We have did our best to explain the obtained results but based on the range of properties determined and obtained data as well as gaps in the literature we are not able to conduct the deeper analysis. For example, the key factors such as soil pH, organic matter and microbial biomass content, the range of physico-chemical properties which play pivotal roles in affecting soil enzymatic activity were not significantly changed by the applied conditioner, which was confirmed by the lack of significant correlations between these properties (lines 708-712). This made the analysis of the obtained results more difficult

The conclusions are too general. The authors should better emphasize the significance of low-dose application and outline clear directions for future research.

The significance of low-dose application and clear directions for future research are provided (lines 837-853).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript investigates the effects of a multi-component soil conditioner on soil properties and spring barley performance. The topic is of interest, and the experimental design, with three distinct field sites, is a significant strength. The data is generally well-presented, and the statistical analysis appears robust. Some points should be improved as following.

Line 26-33, these sentences can be deleted.

Line 102, "reach in humic acids" -> rich in humic acids. "soil heath" -> soil health.

Line 156, please provide the name and information (geographical location) of the three experimental sites.

Figure 1, which station located nearest to the Samsieczynek study site?

Figure 2-5, the legend (Mean, Std. error) can be deleted.

Figure 6-8 the error bar can be added to the graph column.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer,

Line 26-33, these sentences can be deleted.

Deleted.

Line 102, "reach in humic acids" -> rich in humic acids. "soil heath" -> soil health.

Corrected.

Line 156, please provide the name and information (geographical location) of the three experimental sites.

Provided in lines 176-179

Figure 1, which station located nearest to the Samsieczynek study site?

We have corrected as follows: “Chrząstowo weather station is located nearest to the Samsieczynek study site, while Głębokie weather station is located nearest to the Janocin and Kobylnica study sites.

Figure 2-5, the legend (Mean, Std. error) can be deleted.

Since in figure descriptions there is no explained that mean and standard error were calculated we did not remove the legend.

Figure 6-8 the error bar can be added to the graph column.

Error bars are added

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the specific application of multi-component conditioners in soil management and their impact on specific crops in Poland. It has certain research significance, but the overall length of the paper is too long, and there is redundancy in the content. The expression should be further condensed to reduce the length of the paper. More emphasis should be placed on the innovation of the methods. My specific opinions are as follows:
1. The overall length of the paper is too long. The content should be further condensed to highlight the key points and reduce the number of words.
2. The abstract is too long.
3. Soil improvement is closely related to the physical and chemical properties and hydrological and climatic conditions of the local soil. Whether the conditioners mentioned by the author are also applicable to the improvement of soil in other regions and whether they have a promoting effect on other types of crops in Poland, or whether the use of such conditioners, although promoting the growth of certain specific crops mentioned by the author, will have a negative impact if the same soil is used to grow other crops.
4. In the introduction, the existing soil improvement schemes, the application and influence mechanism of conditioners, etc. are not elaborated enough, and the literature coverage is too small. It lacks the explanation and summary of existing research. It is recommended to supplement with sufficient references.
5. The introduction does not explain the mutual compatibility of existing conditioners, especially the synergistic effect at low doses, and the theoretical basis is lacking.
6. The selection basis of conditioners such as humic acid in this study lacks innovation and is not significantly different from existing research.
7. How to consider the differences in soil type factors?
8. The introduction of the study area should provide images of the setting and distribution of the study area and sampling points, which is convenient for readers to read and refer to.
9. Although a large amount of detailed information on soil parameters and characteristics is provided, the method for truly analyzing the data is too simple, only using statistical methods, which does not have obvious innovation. The author should consider the corresponding physical and chemical models and quantitatively and deeply analyze and describe the corresponding mechanism from the perspective of the impact of conditioners on the growth process of crops.
10. How to consider the systematic influence of environmental factors such as precipitation, wind, and temperature? It is recommended to specifically explain this in future research and provide research ideas for this part in the main text.
11. How to consider the causes of spatial heterogeneity of indicator parameters?
12. How to ensure the consistency of the influence of field management factors such as fertilization and irrigation? This part of the experiment does not show that it is controllable.
13. The soil used in the study itself has relatively good fertility, which may mask the true improvement potential of the conditioners and limit their application effects. There are limitations in this part of the experimental design.
14. How to consider the seasonal interaction effect of the results?
15. The explanation of the impact on soil enzymes and organisms is not deep enough.
16. There is no clear connection between soil physical properties and the growth mechanism of the mentioned crops.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer,

We have shortened the length of the paper as was suggested by the Reviewer. However, all five reviewers suggested to add new content or expanded existing one, which again increased the volume of the text.

The abstract is too long.

Abstract was shortened as was suggested by the Reviewer

Soil improvement is closely related to the physical and chemical properties and hydrological and climatic conditions of the local soil. Whether the conditioners mentioned by the author are also applicable to the improvement of soil in other regions and whether they have a promoting effect on other types of crops in Poland, or whether the use of such conditioners, although promoting the growth of certain specific crops mentioned by the author, will have a negative impact if the same soil is used to grow other crops.

We are not able to answer these questions since previously we have tested Solactiv only under maize cultivation (Długosz et al. 2020) with quite positive response. Recently, we have conducted short- and long-term experiments with application of Solactiv to the range of soils (different types) and various plants but the data are not elaborated statistically and published yet. Based on the row data set we expect also the positive response as regards soil and plant properties. Directions for future research on the studied conditioner are provided in the conclusion section. Solactiv is the only product on the market containing zeolite -clinoptyloide, Ascophyllum nodosum extract and potassium humate and calcium carbonate. A unique combination of four raw materials gives synergistic effect and significantly better fertilizing effect than individual components.

In the introduction, the existing soil improvement schemes, the application and, etc. are not elaborated enough, and the literature coverage is too small. It lacks the explanation and summary of existing research. It is recommended to supplement with sufficient references.

The description of the soil improvement schemes is not a subject of our work, especially since the Reviewer stated that “The overall length of the paper is too long”. As regards the continued of the above remark (…., the application and, etc. are not elaborated enough….) is difficult to guess what is going on and what to do. In this paper we focused on application of the conditioner on soil and barley properties in strictly defined tillage system.

The introduction does not explain the mutual compatibility of existing conditioners, especially the synergistic effect at low doses, and the theoretical basis is lacking.

We have added: “It was previously mentioned that the synergistic effect of soil conditioner components refers to the enhanced performance and combined benefits that go beyond the sum of individual components, leading to more effective improvements in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. For example, combining biochar and compost can improve water retention, microbial activity, and nutrient sorption more effectively than either material alone. Similarly, organic conditioners mixed with bio-organic fertilizers and micronutrients boost microbial communities and nutrient availability, resulting in better crop growth. Other mixed conditioner such gypsum and biochar, can have a significant synergistic effect in improving salt-affected soils by reducing exchangeable sodium and increasing microbial biomass “

The synergistic effect at low doses was indicated in the introduction section as an unexplored scientific gaps in current soil conditioner application. Application of multiple conditioners as mixtures reduce individual application rates by possible complementarities derived from the interaction of diverse components. Integrated approaches that combine soil conditioners with other strategies can enhance the positive feedback loops and the effectiveness of the conditioner over time (lines 103-119).

The selection basis of conditioners such as humic acid in this study lacks innovation and is not significantly different from existing research.

Potassium humate (no humic acids) is one of four raw materials, which gives synergistic effect, significantly better fertilizing effect than single components – and this is innovation.

How to consider the differences in soil type factors?

We do not know what “soil type factors’ exactly mean. Soil formation factor (climate, organisms, topography, parent material, time)? In this study soil properties were similar in all study sites and that is why no significant relationship was noted for soil physical properties and properties related to barley crop and development.

The introduction of the study area should provide images of the setting and distribution of the study area and sampling points, which is convenient for readers to read and refer to.

Dane, Figure 1.

Although a large amount of detailed information on soil parameters and characteristics is provided, the method for truly analyzing the data is too simple, only using statistical methods, which does not have obvious innovation. The author should consider the corresponding physical and chemical models and quantitatively and deeply analyze and describe the corresponding mechanism from the perspective of the impact of conditioners on the growth process of crops.

The amount of data and purpose of the work not allow to perform modelling suggested by the Reviewer. Moreover, we do not know what are these models supposed to be used for? What should be modeled? Yield of barley? Root length?

How to consider the systematic influence of environmental factors such as precipitation, wind, and temperature? It is recommended to specifically explain this in future research and provide research ideas for this part in the main text.

We have no considered the influence of environmental factors such as precipitation, wind, and temperature in this study. However, we are going to do it in the previous research, what was mentioned in the conclusion section (lines 793-795: Furthermore, environmental parameters such as temperature and rainfall patterns at various study locations should also be considered to validate the study's findings). An appreciate research ideas for this part will be included in the main part of manuscript.

How to consider the causes of spatial heterogeneity of indicator parameters?

Generally, soil spatial heterogeneity is common phenomenon observed in soils but commonly it is not considered in the experiment like this one. To determine soil spatial heterogeneity /variability, different soil sampling scheme and statistic approach is undertaken.

How to ensure the consistency of the influence of field management factors such as fertilization and irrigation? This part of the experiment does not show that it is controllable.

As regards fertilization (kind of fertilizers, doses and time of application), it was the same in part of field with conditioner and control soil (which were located close to each other). That is why we assumed that these factor did not influence the studied properties.

The soil used in the study itself has relatively good fertility, which may mask the true improvement potential of the conditioners and limit their application effects. There are limitations in this part of the experimental design.

Yes, it is true suggestion and that is why other studies are conducted and/or planed to be conducted on different soil types, especially the low-fertility sandy soils with limited productivity to get a clearer picture of how well it affects soil system. We have mentioned about it in conclusion section (It should be stressed that the Luvisols used in this study have moderate fertility and relatively high nutrient levels, which may have obscured the true potential of the soil conditioner. Future studies should test the long-term impact of Solactiv on various agricultural systems (e.g no-till), different soil types, especially the low-fertility sandy soils with limited productivity to get a clearer picture of how well it affects soil fertility, water and nutrient retention in realistic field-scale conditions).
14. How to consider the seasonal interaction effect of the results?

As regards seasonal conditions, they were the same in part of field with conditioner and control soil (which were located close to each other). That is why we assumed that these factor did not influence the studied properties.

The explanation of the impact on soil enzymes and organisms is not deep enough.

Based on the obtained data we have analyzed as deeply as possible the influence of applied conditioner on soil enzymes and microorganisms. We did not want to be accused of confabulation.

There is no clear connection between soil physical properties and the mentioned crops.

Spring barley was the only one cultivated plant that was considered in the study. Generally, the literature data indicate that soil physical properties like soil compactness, porosity, soil texture, water content, and soil temperature significantly influence barley growth by affecting root development, nutrient uptake, and water access. Compacted soils hinder root penetration and air/water movement, while balanced properties, such as those found in sandy loam or loamy soils with good soil organic matter, support extensive root systems and provide optimal water and nutrient availability for higher yields. In this study however soil properties were similar in all study sites and that is why no significant relationship was noted for soil physical properties and properties related to barley crop and development.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

line 164: insert a more recent reference for WRB
line 164: insert a reference that defines the soil type at the sampling locations
line 195: provide data on the proportion of fulvic acids and humic acids within the total content
line 210: specify the sampling technique used for soil microbiological analyses
line 215: insert a reference for the Casagrande method using the modification by Prószyński
line 216: provide the size ranges for the fractions determined by these methods. Specify whether organic matter was removed prior to sand fraction determination. Clarify whether the fraction sizes are consistent with the American methods cited in reference 52. Indicate whether the sand fraction is defined as 0.05 mm – 2 mm or 0.063 mm – 2 mm. State which edition of the standard method (Polish Norm PN-ISO 11277) was used for the analysis.
line 218: insert a reference for TOC and TN determination
line 220: insert a reference for DOC and DNt determination. If the manufacturer of the Multi N/C 219 3100 analyser is provided, also provide the manufacturer of the Vario Max CN analyser.
line 224: insert a reference for the determination of Mg extracted with 0.0125 M CaCl₂
line 225: specify the technique used to determine K and P content
line 226: insert a reference for the determination of exchangeable nutrients (Mg, Ca, K, Na)
line 226: the standard method defines a different soil-to-1 M KCl ratio. Insert the correct reference for pH determination.
line 227: specify the technique and reference for hydrolytic acidity determination
line 228: insert a reference for moisture content determination
line 229: insert a reference for CEC determination. Specify whether it refers to effective or potential CEC, and insert the method and reference for BS determination.
line 230: insert a reference for particle-size analysis
line 232: insert a reference for bulk density and water retention determination
line 232: insert a reference for the formula used to calculate TP
line 235: insert a reference for the water retention method covering the reported pressure range
line 244: insert a reference for pore volume categories and corresponding water capacities
line 247: provide additional details on soil sampling and sample preparation for microbiological analyses
line 254: specify the instrument used for measurements conducted spectrophotometrically at 546 nm
line 261: specify the instrument used for measurements conducted colorimetrically at 490 nm wavelength
line 270: specify the instrument used for quantification conducted spectrophotometrically at 690 nm
line 305: insert a reference for plant material water content determination
line 312: provide the software manufacturer
in section 2.4 Plant characteristics: insert references on which the characterization was based
line 320: provide the software manufacturer
in section 2.5 Statistical calculations: state whether measurement uncertainty of sampling and analytical procedures was considered, as interpretation of results changes significantly if measurement uncertainty plus a 95% confidence interval is taken into account.
lines 341 and 348: specify whether CEC refers to effective or potential values
line 368: provide the size ranges of the fractions. This should be included in the methods description, clearly specifying the size limits for all three fractions (clay, silt, sand).

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Dear Reviewer,

Line 164: insert a more recent reference for WRB

Done: IUSS Working Group WRB. 2022. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. 4th edition. International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS), Vienna, Austria.

line 164: insert a reference that defines the soil type at the sampling locations

line 195: provide data on the proportion of fulvic acids and humic acids within the total content

The preparation contains only humic acids, therefore it does not contain fulvic acids.

line 210: specify the sampling technique used for soil microbiological analyses

Microbial biomass C and N content was determined in the same soil samples as the enzyme activity was. That is why the technique of soil sampling was the same for all these properties (lines 240-245).

line 215: insert a reference for the Casagrande method using the modification by Prószyński Polish Norm PN‐ISO 11277. 2005. Soil Quality Determination of Particle Size Distribution in Mineral Soil Material

line 216: provide the size ranges for the fractions determined by these methods. Specify whether organic matter was removed prior to sand fraction determination. Clarify whether the fraction sizes are consistent with the American methods cited in reference 52. Indicate whether the sand fraction is defined as 0.05 mm – 2 mm or 0.063 mm – 2 mm. State which edition of the standard method (Polish Norm PN-ISO 11277) was used for the analysis.

The range of fractions determined is consistent with those given in Keys to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2014) (2- <0.002 mm). The range of sand fractions was 2-0.05 mm. Humus was not removed before analysis. Sand fractions (2-0.5 mm) were determined using sieve analysis, while fractions with a diameter <0.05 mm were determined using the Casagrande method, modified by Prószyński. PN-ISO 11277.2005 standard.

line 218: insert a reference for TOC and TN determination

Gonet, S.S.; Dębska, B.; Pakula, J. The content of dissolved organic carbon in soils and organic fertilisers (in Polish), 1st edn. PTSH Wrocław, 2002

line 220: insert a reference for DOC and DNt determination. If the manufacturer of the Multi N/C 219 3100 analyser is provided, also provide the manufacturer of the Vario Max CN analyser.

Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany

Gonet SS, Dębska B, Pakula J (2002) The content of dissolved organic carbon in soils and organic fertilisers (in Polish), 1st edn. PTSH Wrocław

Manufactered by Analytik Jena GmbH+Co. KG, Jena, Germany

line 224: insert a reference for the determination of Mg extracted with 0.0125 M CaCl₂

PN-R-04020:1994: Chemical-agricultural analysis of soil – Determination of available magnesium content. PKN Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2018

line 225: specify the technique used to determine K and P content The potassium content in the solution was determined by Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) using a Philips PU 9100X apparatus. Phosphorus was determined by the colorimetric method using a was measured using a spectrophotometer UV Vis Evolution 220 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA)

line 226: insert a reference for the determination of exchangeable nutrients (Mg, Ca, K, Na) PN-ISO 11260:2018. Soil Quality—Determination of Effective Cationic Exchange Capacity and Base Saturation with Barium Chloride; PKN Press: Warsaw, Poland, 2018

line 226: the standard method defines a different soil-to-1 M KCl ratio. Insert the correct reference for pH determination.

The soil to solution ratio when measuring soil pH according to PN-ISO 10390:1997P is 1:2.5 (10g of soil 25 ml of 1M KCl solution). Therefore, the reference to this standard is correct

Polish Norm PN-ISO10390:1997P. Soil Quality. pH Determination; PWN Press: Warsaw, Poland, 1997.

line 227: specify the technique and reference for hydrolytic acidity determination

Hydrolytic acidity was determined by the Kappen method described by Jaremko et al. [58]

line 228: insert a reference for moisture content determination

Moisture content of soil samples was determined using the gravimetric method in accordance with the PN-EN ISO 11464:2006 standard.

line 229: insert a reference for CEC determination. Specify whether it refers to effective or potential CEC, and insert the method and reference for BS determination.

This is the effective CEC determined according to ISO 11260:2018 Soil quality — Determination of effective cation exchange capacity and base saturation level using barium chloride solution

line 230: insert a reference for particle-size analysis

This line has been removed because it was written by mistake. In these studies, the Cassagrande method, modified by Prószyński, was used to determine the particle-size.

line 232: insert a reference for bulk density and water retention determination

Walczak R., Ostrowski J., Witkowska -Walczak B., Sławiński C., 2002. Hydrophysical characteristics of mineral arable soils in Poland. Acta Agrophysica, 79(5), 64 pp. (in Polish).

line 232: insert a reference for the formula used to calculate TP

Walczak R., Ostrowski J., Witkowska -Walczak B., Sławiński C., 2002. Hydrophysical characteristics of mineral arable soils in Poland. Acta Agrophysica, 79(5), 64 pp. (in Polish).

line 235: insert a reference for the water retention method covering the reported pressure range

Walczak R., Ostrowski J., Witkowska -Walczak B., Sławiński C., 2002. Hydrophysical characteristics of mineral arable soils in Poland. Acta Agrophysica, 79(5), 64 pp. (in Polish).

line 244: insert a reference for pore volume categories and corresponding water capacities

Walczak R., Ostrowski J., Witkowska -Walczak B., Sławiński C., 2002. Hydrophysical characteristics of mineral arable soils in Poland. Acta Agrophysica, 79(5), 64 pp. (in Polish).

line 247: provide additional details on soil sampling and sample preparation for microbiological analyses

We have added: “To determine soil enzymatic activity and soil microbial biomass C and N the soil samples were placed in plastic containers (which permitted gas exchange) and chilled to 4 ◦C in order to minimize any changes in the populations of microorganisms. The microbial and enzymatic activity was determined within two weeks based on fresh soil samples. The soil samples used to determine the physicochemical properties of the soil were air-dried and sieved (2 mm).”

line 254: specify the instrument used for measurements conducted spectrophotometrically at 546 nm

The absorbance at 546 nm was measured using a spectrophotometer UV Vis Evolution 220 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA)

line 261: specify the instrument used for measurements conducted colorimetrically at 490 nm wavelength

The absorbance 490 nm was measured using a spectrophotometer UV Vis Evolution 220 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA)

line 270: specify the instrument used for quantification conducted spectrophotometrically at 690 nm

The absorbance at 690 nm was measured using a spectrophotometer UV Vis Evolution 220 (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA)

line 305: insert a reference for plant material water content determination

PN-88/R-04013 Chemical-agricultural analysis of plants. Determination of air-dry and dry mass. PKN Press: Warsaw, Poland, 1997

line 312: provide the software manufacturer
WinRHIZO v. 5.0 software) from Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec city, Canada, which is sold with the scanner

in section 2.4 Plant characteristics: insert references on which the characterization was based
line 320: provide the software manufacturer

Statistica v. 13.3 is TIBCO Software Inc., based in Palo Alto, USA.

in section 2.5 Statistical calculations: state whether measurement uncertainty of sampling and analytical procedures was considered, as interpretation of results changes significantly if measurement uncertainty plus a 95% confidence interval is taken into account.

In order to assess the measurement uncertainty, the standard error of mean was calculated and is included in the tables with the averages of the tested properties.

lines 341 and 348: specify whether CEC refers to effective or potential values

Due to the fact that in the research we determined the effective cation exchange capacity, in the text we will replace the term cation exchange capacity with effective cation exchange capacity and the abbreviation CEC with ECEC

line 368: provide the size ranges of the fractions. This should be included in the methods description, clearly specifying the size limits for all three fractions (clay, silt, sand).

The size ranges of the fractions were given in line 413-414. The sand fraction is from 2 – 0.05 mm.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This article demonstrates in field trials that the application of the nutrient significantly reduced the micropore share of total porosity, increased macropore content, increased the percentage of available water capacity, and increased readily available water capacity and enzymatic activity. Cellulase was the only enzyme that Solactiv significantly and positively affected, and it also improved the length and surface area of barley roots. Barley grain yield was significantly higher in the Solactiv-amended soil. While often optimistic laboratory results do not translate into practical applications, in this case, the results of research conducted under ecological conditions suggest the need for soil restoration in the face of stress associated with extreme events, such as prolonged drought.. Maybe the authors agree to improve and increase the value of MS.

In line 68, I propose to expand the cited extreme phenomena with information about fires.

In line 78, I propose to add that in the State Treasury land resources (KOWR), there is approximately 1 million unusable land of the worst quality classes (V and VI) intended for agricultural and forest reclamation and agroforestry management systems.

In line 83, I propose to add broader key importance for the future of sustainable agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry management systems.

In line 98, I propose to add a note that microbiological preparations containing most likely beneficial bacteria and fungi (the influence of probabilistic, cumulative, and latent human changes on the environment).

In line 149, I suggest adding a note that these are the results of using Solactiv in a tillage system. In the discussion about the amount of microbial biomass (line 680), it should be mentioned that the species composition may have changed significantly. As Alexander von Humboldt wrote, it's not the composition itself that matters, but the richness of relationships between species that develops over a broad timeframe, e.g., 700 years. The number of identified microorganisms (bacteria, mold fungi, Azotobacter spp., and actinomycetes) in line 116 provides some guidance on soil health. The share increased spectacularly by 1600%.

In line 788, I propose to consider testing Solactiv in agriculture, additionally in no-till farming systems, and in forest and agroforestry systems with the entire range of cellulolytic enzymes in mixed coniferous habitats. This takes into account the need to overcome other formal barriers, such as obtaining appropriate consents, e.g., from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ministry of Climate and Environment.

Yours faithfully, Reviewer

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Dear Reviewer,

This article demonstrates in field trials that the application of the nutrient significantly reduced the micropore share of total porosity, increased macropore content, increased the percentage of available water capacity, and increased readily available water capacity and enzymatic activity. Cellulase was the only enzyme that Solactiv significantly and positively affected, and it also improved the length and surface area of barley roots. Barley grain yield was significantly higher in the Solactiv-amended soil. While often optimistic laboratory results do not translate into practical applications, in this case, the results of research conducted under ecological conditions suggest the need for soil restoration in the face of stress associated with extreme events, such as prolonged drought. Maybe the authors agree to improve and increase the value of MS.

In line 68, I propose to expand the cited extreme phenomena with information about fires.

The sentence “Extreme weather events, especially long-term droughts and floods, drastically affect soil dynamics and soil–plant interactions.” Was deleted to reduce the length of the paper as was suggested by other reviewers. That is why we did not expand the cited extreme phenomena with information about fires.

According to the latest statistical yearbook from the Central Statistical Office, the KOWR manages 1.4 million hectares, 90% of which are class IV-VI soils, making it the largest landowner in Poland. However, most of these soils are leased by other economic entities, such as companies and individual farmers, which means they determine their condition through their cultivation. However, this represents only a small portion of Poland's agricultural land, not exceeding 10%. The remainder is owned by entities conducting agricultural activities and influencing the condition of the soils that constitute the cover of agricultural land in Poland

In line 83, I propose to add broader key importance for the future of sustainable agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry management systems.

The sentence “Consequently, preserving and enhancing soil quality represents one of today's most pressing challenges and is critical to the future of sustainable agriculture” was deleted to reduce the length of the paper as was suggested by other reviewers. That is why we did not add broader key importance for the future of sustainable agriculture, forestry, and agroforestry management systems.

We have added: “contain carefully selected strains of microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, We do not understand the significance of the info in brackets.

In line 149, I suggest adding a note that these are the results of using Solactiv in a tillage system.

We have added: “ Based on the previous promising results of using Solactiv in a tillage system (under maize cultivation) we also predicted…..”

In the discussion about the amount of microbial biomass (line 680), it should be mentioned that the species composition may have changed significantly. As Alexander von Humboldt wrote, it's not the composition itself that matters, but the richness of relationships between species that develops over a broad timeframe, e.g., 700 years. The number of identified microorganisms (bacteria, mold fungi, Azotobacter spp., and actinomycetes) in line 116 provides some guidance on soil health. The share increased spectacularly by 1600%.

We have corrected the sentence : “What is more, the conditioner did not significantly affect the amount of microbial biomass (measured by the C and N content), although the species composition may have changed significantly.

We plan to extend research to other agricultural system (also no-till). Since only cellulase activity responded positively toward the applied conditioner and was significantly increased by the tested conditioner at two out of three study sites, we have decided to study the range of cellulolytic enzymes as affected by the applied conditioner in different agricultural systems. Since the studied conditioner is designed to agricultural (mainly arable) system we will not plan to use it in forest and agroforestry systems. Clear directions for future research on the conditioner are provided in Conclusion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript according to the previous review comments. The revised version is clear, coherent, and adequately addresses all major concerns raised earlier. I have no further comments, and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the author's revised manuscript, I believe that most of my comments have been well considered and covered. The current version is fine with me and I think we can proceed with the next steps.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 162:
A reference is missing for the soil map of the research area or for a scientific paper that defines the soil types at these locations. On what basis did the authors state that Haplic at Janocin, Haplic Luvisols at Kobylnica, and Albic Luvisols at Samsieczynek?

Line 213:
The authors stated: “the particle size was assessed based on the Casagrande method using the modification by Prószyński, and the sand fraction content was evaluated using the sieving method [52].”
However, reference [52] refers only to the standard method:
52. Polish Norm PN-ISO 11277.2005. Soil Quality — Determination of Particle Size Distribution in Mineral Soil Material.
A reference is missing for the Casagrande method using the modification by Prószyński.
The authors should provide a complete reference that ensures traceability for the method linking these modifications with the standard procedure.

Line 230:
The standard method for determining soil pH requires a 1:5 soil-to-solution volume ratio. The authors should cite an appropriate reference that ensures traceability for the method applying the 1:2.5 ratio used in this study.

Relevant ISO references:

ISO 10390:2021 — Soil, sludge and treated biowaste — Determination of pH
https://www.iso.org/standard/75243.html
This document specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH within the range 2 to 12 using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (volume fraction) suspension of soil, sludge, and treated biowaste in either water (pH in H₂O), 1 mol/L KCl, or 0.01 mol/L CaCl₂ solution.
ISO 10390:1994 — Soil quality — Determination of pH
https://www.iso.org/standard/18454.html
This document specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (V/V) suspension of soil in water, 1 mol/L KCl, or 0.01 mol/L CaCl₂ solution. It applies to all types of air-dried soil samples, e.g., pretreated according to ISO 11464.

Line 232:
For water content determination, the cited reference corresponds to a standard method for sample preparation, which does not describe the procedure for determining water content itself. An adequate analytical method and corresponding reference must be provided.

Line 367:
The stated size range for the silt fraction is inconsistent with the standard method ISO 11277. The authors should either adjust the size range or provide an appropriate reference describing the applied method that allows determination of the 0.002–0.050 mm fraction.
ISO 11277 defines the silt fraction as 0.002–0.063 mm, which differs from the Keys to Soil Taxonomy, where the silt fraction is defined as 0.002–0.050 mm. The Keys to Soil Taxonomy provide a clear reference for a method that can be used to determine this particle size range (2–50 µm). Based on this, the authors should compare their procedure and clearly describe the method used, including any modifications.

The reference must allow other researchers to reproduce these analyses and apply them in their own studies. The current references for determining particle size distribution do not ensure methodological reproducibility.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript. Below, we address all comments and suggestions in a point-to-point manner.

References were not provided for the Soil Systematics, as the soil classification was performed personally by the authors during the selection of experimental fields based on the completed soil excavation (soil profiles). During the initial qualification of the research fields, agricultural soil maps at a scale of 1:5,000 were used for the study areas. However, due to their age and the presence of archival (non-binding) Polish soil classifications, rather than typologies according to the Polish Agricultural Research Council, they were not included in the literature references.

Prószyński's modification of the Casagrandea method involves the use of a hydrometer of his own design and the development of sedimentation tables, which allowed for the direct determination of the percentage of particles remaining in suspension at the time of measurement. A detailed description of the method can be found in the publication by Professors Domżał and Słowińska-Jurkiewicz.

Position 52: Domżał, H; Słowińska-Jurkiewicz, A.; Turski, R. Przewodnik do ćwiczeń z gleboznawstwa z elementami geologii i mechaniki gleb, 1-st ed. Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej: Lublin, Poland, 1976, 12-16 (in Polish)

Relevant ISO references:

ISO 10390:2021 — Soil, sludge and treated biowaste — Determination of pH
https://www.iso.org/standard/75243.html
This document specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH within the range 2 to 12 using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (volume fraction) suspension of soil, sludge, and treated biowaste in either water (pH in H₂O), 1 mol/L KCl, or 0.01 mol/L CaCl₂ solution.
ISO 10390:1994 — Soil quality — Determination of pH
https://www.iso.org/standard/18454.html
This document specifies an instrumental method for the routine determination of pH using a glass electrode in a 1:5 (V/V) suspension of soil in water, 1 mol/L KCl, or 0.01 mol/L CaCl₂ solution. It applies to all types of air-dried soil samples, e.g., pretreated according to ISO 11464.

The 1:2.5 soil-to-solution ratio for determining soil pH has been recommended since 1926. Currently, the Commission on Soil Reaction of the International Soil Science Association also recommends this ratio. A link to the methodology is provided below and in the reference section. This ratio is also permitted by the Polish standard.

Van Reeuwijk, L.P. Procedures for Soil Analysis. 6th ed. ISRIC Technical Paper 9: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2002, 4, p.14

The reviewer was right while preparing the references we mixed up the standard and instead of the PN-ISO 11465.1999 standard we entered PN-ISO 11464.1999. We apologize for our mistake and thank you for discovering it.

PN- ISO 11465.1999 Soil quality – Determination of soil dry matter and soil water content expressed as dry matter of soil – Gravimetric method. PKN Press: Warsaw, Poland, 1999

We thank the reviewer for identifying the incorrect literature reference for the procedure for determining particle size distribution. Indeed, the revised standard specifies a particle size range of 0.063-0.002 mm. However, as stated in the methodology, we determined particle size distribution using the Casagrande method, modified by Prószyński, assuming a particle size range of 0.05-0.002 mm, consistent with The Keys to Soil Taxonomy range. We explained the nature of this modification in our response to the reviewer's question on line 213. We also provided a literature reference there, which we also included in the reference section.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

line 162: The authors stated that “the soil classification was performed personally by the authors during the selection of experimental fields based on the completed soil excavation (soil profiles).” It should be clarified which methods were used for this classification. If the soil type was determined based on soil sampling from profiles followed by physicochemical analyses, the authors should specify the methods used, provide appropriate references, and present the results. If the soil type was determined using other approaches, the type of soil and the corresponding references for such classification should be provided.
If the classification was done subjectively, based on old soil maps, this should also be clearly stated in the manuscript. Traceability of results must be ensured in a scientific paper, which includes the procedure used for determining the soil type. The soil type is crucial for the further transfer and application of knowledge derived from this study.
This is especially important when referring to the WRB classification system.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.

The reviewer is right about the importance of correct classification of the soil in the selected study area. This would be particularly important if the research concerns the impact of a specific soil-forming process on the subject of the study or when examining the effect of the tested soil conditioner on the entire soil profile. In these cases, soil property analyses should be conducted across all genetic horizons and a precise systematic classification of the studied soil should be provided. In this study however, the effect of the tested conditioner was examined as regards properties of the Ap horizon only, which was thoroughly characterized in the paper. However, the systematic classification of the soils in a given area was provided to give a general description of the studied soil cover and its homogeneity in terms of the WRB soil group. Therefore, the classification of these soils was based on morphological confirmation of the presence of a specific diagnostic horizon. In this study, samples were not collected from individual genetic horizons, so we do not have profile results. In our opinion, in this study, providing only the group affiliation is sufficient and allows for the transfer of knowledge gained from our study. We have not provided references to soil and agricultural maps that use outdated Polish soil classifications because they would be incomprehensible to most readers. The Polish soil classification used on these maps is not the same as the WRB classification due to different criteria used in the then-current classification of Polish soils.

We have added one sentence of explanation „The basis for this classification was the finding of the presence of agric diagnostic horizon in all profiles studied, and also the albic horizon in the soil from the Samsieczynek site” (line 162-164)