Artisanal Biochar Application: Enhancing Sandy Soil Fertility and Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Productivity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript presents a detailed analysis of the impact of artisanal biochar on rice productivity in sandy soils. However, some areas require improvement to enhance the clarity and strength of the study. It is recommended to improve the coherence between findings and their interpretation, ensuring a clearer connection between the results and their agronomic relevance. Additionally, redundancy should be reduced in some sections, and the discussion could be streamlined by integrating references more concisely. In the conclusions, it is suggested to reinforce the practical applicability of the results, better highlighting the differential performance of the evaluated biochars and the importance of long-term studies. A brief mention of possible study limitations and their impact on data interpretation would also be beneficial. Detailed comments are included in the attached document for your review.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to improve the clarity and flow of the text, avoiding overly long or complex sentences that may affect readability. Additionally, reducing redundancy in some sections and using more precise technical terms would enhance coherence. Reviewing the sentence structure to ensure smoother transitions between ideas and better integration of references within the text would also be beneficial.

Author Response

Comments 1: I suggest highlighting more directly the main contribution of the study, i.e., how artisanal biochar improves rice productivity and agricultural sustainability, without losing technical precision.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The abstract has been revised to clearly indicate that the biochar with the highest aromatic structure (AB4) significantly improved root growth, biomass accumulation, and photosynthetic efficiency, reinforcing its role in crop productivity and sustainable agriculture.

Comments 2: Please improve the keywords to be more specific and better reflect the content of the study.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. We have revised the keywords to be more specific and accurately reflect the content of the study.

Comments 3: The introduction is informative, but could benefit from greater clarity and precision in the wording, especially in the transition between the characterization of biochar and its effects on soil, ensuring that the relationship between its chemical structure, physics and functionality is clearer. In addition, it is suggested to emphasize the originality of the study by highlighting more explicitly how it addresses the lack of evidence on the impact of artisanal biochar on fragile sandy soils. Some studies cited, such as those related to Zea mays and soybean, could be summarized to avoid unnecessary length and improve the flow of the text. It is also recommended that the last part be reworded to present the objective of the study in a more structured manner, ensuring that its relevance and contribution to the scientific literature are clearly established.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The introduction has been rewritten to better understand the study and the effects of the biochars studied.

Comments 4: It is recommended to improve the clarity and flow of the text, especially in the description of the methodology, ensuring more natural transitions between sections. The justification for the selection of artisanal biochar could be reinforced with references that support its suitability for small-scale producers. In addition, it is suggested to simplify the explanation of spectroscopic and chemometric analyses to make them more accessible to the reader, avoiding excessive technical details that can be transferred to supplementary materials. Finally, it would be useful to include a brief explanation of how the biochar application levels were selected, providing more agronomic and experimental context.

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. The methodology text has been revised and the recommended information has been added.

Comments 5: I suggest improving the coherence and fluency in the presentation of the results, ensuring that each finding is clearly connected to its agronomic relevance. It would be useful to summarize the most relevant effects of each biochar on the different parameters evaluated, avoiding unnecessary repetitions. In addition, it is suggested to emphasize more clearly the differential impact of AB4, which showed the most positive effects on biomass, root morphology and photosynthetic efficiency, facilitating a better interpretation of its performance.

R - Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The results have been reviewed and necessary adjustments made.

Comments 6: I suggest improving the consistency between the findings and their interpretation, ensuring a clear connection between the results and their agronomic relevance. It would be useful to emphasize more directly the differential impact of AB4, avoiding unnecessary repetitions on the chemical stability of biochar. Finally, the conclusion on future applications could be strengthened by highlighting more concisely the importance of functionalized biochar and its potential in sustainable agriculture.

Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The conclusion has been revised to improve consistency between the results obtained and the agronomic effects. The importance of the study and future implications have also been included.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The iThenticate similarity score of 29% is still high for a research article. Please reduce this percentage.
2. Include representative images of root and shoot samples to enhance visual understanding.
3. Add X and Y axis labels to Figure 1B and Figure 1C for clarity.
4. Provide a clear explanation for the notations (bA, bAB, bB, aA) used in Figures 4, 5, and 6, preferably in the figure captions or methods section.
5. Revise Figure 7 to improve clarity. Consider using a different chart type that better illustrates the data.
6. In line 189, explain the term "OJIP" upon first use. Avoid abbreviations unless the expression is used frequently throughout the manuscript. Review all abbreviations for consistency with this guideline.
7. Define "TPU" in line 200.
8. Address the discrepancy between Table 1 (showing P, K, Ca, and Mn) and the EDS analysis (not showing K and Ca). Provide an explanation for this inconsistency.
9. Expand the conclusion section to include future research directions based on your findings.

10. It is suggested to thoroughly proofread the manuscript for grammatical and typographical errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is suggested to thoroughly proofread the manuscript for grammatical and typographical errors.

Author Response

Comments 1: The iThenticate similarity score of 29% is still high for a research article. Please reduce this percentage.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your contribution. The article has been revised and the similarity reduced.

Comments 2: Include representative images of root and shoot samples to enhance visual understanding.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you for your contribution. Root images have been inserted in Figure 6 to better visualize the results.

Comments 3: Add X and Y axis labels to Figure 1B and Figure 1C for clarity.

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The axes have been added to the Figure 1B and Figure 1C.

Comments 4: Provide a clear explanation for the notations (bA, bAB, bB, aA) used in Figures 4, 5, and 6, preferably in the figure captions or methods section.

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. An explanatory paragraph has been inserted in the material and methods, in the statistical analysis section 2.3.5 and also in the figure legends for better understanding of the notation.

Comments 5: Revise Figure 7 to improve clarity. Consider using a different chart type that better illustrates the data.

Response 5: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The figure has been revised.

Comments 6: In line 189, explain the term "OJIP" upon first use. Avoid abbreviations unless the expression is used frequently throughout the manuscript. Review all abbreviations for consistency with this guideline.

Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. The term OJIP refers to the transient or polyphasic fluorescence emission kinetics curve. This information was included in the methodology.

Comments 7: Define "TPU" in line 200.

Response 7: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. TPU (Additional Light Unit) is a component of the WinRHIZO system, which allows measuring and analyzing plant roots.

Comments 8: Address the discrepancy between Table 1 (showing P, K, Ca, and Mn) and the EDS analysis (not showing K and Ca). Provide an explanation for this inconsistency.

Response 8: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. A paragraph about this inconsistency has been inserted on lines 436-442.

Comments  9: Expand the conclusion section to include future research directions based on your findings.

Response 9: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. Future directions for the study have been included in the conclusions.

Comments 10: It is suggested to thoroughly proofread the manuscript for grammatical and typographical errors.

Response 10: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. The manuscript has been revised to eliminate possible typographical errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Torchia et al. is devoted to a current scientific problem and is characterized by scientific novelty and significance. The experimental part of the research was carried out on high-tech modern equipment. The statistical analysis of a fairly large array of data does not raise any questions. I have several minor comments and questions that do not affect the high assessment of the manuscript.

The authors used CP-NMR spectroscopy to analyze biochar, which is widely used in wood research. This method has been successfully used to analyze the ratio of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in wood. However, biochar obtained from wood waste will be a complex preparation, which will probably contain a large amount of bark, with a high content of tannins. The composition of biochar depends on both the type of wood and the conditions of its production, such as temperature, etc. I believe that it would be very useful to compare the analysis of the  biochar used by the authors with the analysis of its feedstock and the conditions of its production, which would explain the significant differences in the composition of the biochar samples and also allow for recommendations to its manufacturers.
Line 65 The beginning of the sentence with reference [11] does not correspond to academic scientific style. I believe that the sentence should be edited.
Line 85 The sentence contains an extra period, which divided it into two incomplete sentences. Line 125 "Sixty to 100..." should be edited to "sixty to one hundred"
Table S1 Why is the phosphorus content not reported? What do the bottom three parameters in the table mean?
Section 2.2.2 How were the spectra normalized? What standard was used? This is important because peak ratios were used to estimate important parameters for the biochar samples.
Section 2.3.4 The software used to determine root diameter and surface area should be specified.
Table 1, lines 236–242 P, K, and Ca in mg g-1?

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors used CP-NMR spectroscopy to analyze biochar, which is widely used in wood research. This method has been successfully used to analyze the ratio of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin in wood. However, biochar obtained from wood waste will be a complex preparation, which will probably contain a large amount of bark, with a high content of tannins. The composition of biochar depends on both the type of wood and the conditions of its production, such as temperature, etc. I believe that it would be very useful to compare the analysis of the  biochar used by the authors with the analysis of its feedstock and the conditions of its production, which would explain the significant differences in the composition of the biochar samples and also allow for recommendations to its manufacturers.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. A paragraph (lines 286-292) was inserted with a comparative analysis with biochar from the same raw material as the biochar studied.

Comments 2: Line 65 The beginning of the sentence with reference [11] does not correspond to academic scientific style. I believe that the sentence should be edited.

Response 2: Dear reviewer, thank you for your correction. The citation format has been corrected.

Comments 3: Line 85 The sentence contains an extra period, which divided it into two incomplete sentences. 

Response 3: Dear reviewer, thank you for your correction. The extra period has been corrected.

Comments 4: Line 125 "Sixty to 100..." should be edited to "sixty to one hundred"

Response 4: Dear reviewer, thank you for your correction. The line has been corrected.

Comments 5: Table S1 Why is the phosphorus content not reported? What do the bottom three parameters in the table mean?

Response 5: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. There was a typo in the table, which has been corrected.

Comments 6: Section 2.2.2 How were the spectra normalized? What standard was used? This is important because peak ratios were used to estimate important parameters for the biochar samples.

Response 6: Dear reviewer, thank you for your collaboration. The spectra were processed using the ACD/Processor 2020.1.1 software (Acd/labs), in which Baseline correction and smoothing (3rd degree and 25 number of points) were applied. This information was added to session 2.2.2.

Comments 7: Section 2.3.4 The software used to determine root diameter and surface area should be specified.

Response 7: Dear reviewer, thank you for the correction. The software used was WinRHIZO Arabidopsis 2022 (Regent Instruments). This information was inserted in the section 2.3.4.

Comments 8: Table 1, lines 236–242 P, K, and Ca in mg g-1?

Response 8: Dear reviewer, thank you for the question. The table in question was transferred to the supplementary material, as it is a citation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear

Authors

The new version of manuscript its ok.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear

Authors

The new version of manuscript its ok.

Best regards

Response: Dear reviewer, the authors are grateful for the time devoted to the process of correcting our manuscript. Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx