Higher Biochar Rate Can Be Efficient in Reducing Nitrogen Mineralization and Nitrification in the Excessive Compost-Fertilized Soils
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled “Higher Biochar Rate Can Be Efficient in Reducing Nitrogen Mineralization and Nitrification in The Excessive Compost-Fertilized Soils" presents the results of a study which aimed to determine the effect of biochar feedstock and rate on nitrate and ammonium content in three soils with diverse properties and define the most restricting soil factor. Moreover the authors tested the N mineralization (ammonification and nitrification) and immobilization to assess the interaction between soil and biochar under the condition of co-application of excessive compost, which may lead to changes in increasing or decreasing effects and natural changes in N mineralization.
The research carried out is very interesting and in line with the current trends. The pyrolysis of organic materials is becoming more and more common. This raises the need to develop methods for the management of the biochar that is formed after the process. For years, research has been conducted to assess the fertilizer value of the biochar. Unfortunately, the obtained results are varied, which necessitates further research. The data presented are of more than national interest.
However, there is a need to improve and/or clarify some aspects.
The article is a bit long. The authors probably unnecessarily provided a description of the results of the content of P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Pb, and Zn. These analyzes and their description are not related to the title and purpose of the reviewed article.
In the title, the authors mention "The Excessive Compost-Fertilized Soils", while neither in the description of the results nor in the discussion they refer to the influence of compost addition on the obtained results. This is a bit strange because the addition of the compost could modify the influence of the tested biochars.
INTRODUCTION
The Introduction section contains the justification for undertaking the research and a quite detailed review of the literature.
Line 33 - Please consider deleting “etc”
Line 39 - The abbreviation used in the text for the first time should be clarified. Applies to “wt”
Line 43 - Remove the extra space
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This section is very well prepared. The methodology of conducting the experiment is described in great detail.
Line 157 – there is Mewhlich-3 – there should be Mehlich-3
Line 179 - no spaces
RESULTS
Line 183 – “the water extractable organic nitrogen (WEON) (NH4 +-N and NO3 --N)” This sentence suggests that NH4 +-N and NO3 --N is the organic form of nitrogen.
Line 255 – “(TIN, NH4 + -N+NO3 - -N)” - consider changing to (TIN = NH4 + -N+NO3 - -N);
Figure 2 - I have doubts whether this figure is needed since the same data are included in tables 3 and 4.
DISCUSSION
Lines 387-433 The first part of the discussion is interesting. It is a literature review. However, this description does not fully apply to the research results obtained by the authors. It is therefore difficult to call it a discussion of results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank referee’s valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript carefully and in details based on the valuable comments of reviewers, and have made the presentation and discussion of manuscript more complete.
sincerely.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with high scientific and practical importance.
The introduction is presented correctly, in accordance with the subject. Numerous scientific articles, in concordance to the topic of the study, were consulted.
Methodology of the study was clearly presented, and appropriate to the proposed objectives.
The obtained results are important and have been analyzed and interpreted correctly, in accordance with the current methodology.
The discussions are appropriate, in the context of the results, and was conducted compared to other studies in the field.
The scientific literature, to which the reporting was made, is recent and representative in the field.
Some suggestions and corrections were made in the article.
The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.
1.
It is recommended to use the Equation Editor to write the forms of nitrogen correctly.
“NO3-“, respective “NH4+” instead of current forms
Not “3-“ but “NO-“, respective “NO3-“
Not “4+” but “NH+”, respective “NH4+”
eg
Page 3, Table 1; Page 5, Row 167, Rows 170 – 171; Page 6, Row 228; Page 12, Row 364, 366
Many other cases are indicated in the article
It is recommended to check and correct this aspect throughout the paper
Page 14, Table 6:
“NO3” instead of current form
“NH4” instead of current form
“CO2-C” instead of current form
2.
Page 15, Row 464: The „meta-analysis” instead of „mata-analysis”
3.
References chapter
Most bibliographic sources presented the DOI number. However, at some sources it is missing, and some suggestions have been made.
eg
Page 19, Bibliographic source 22, Row 667: “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.06.002”, DOI number can be added
Page 19, Bibliographic source 23, Row 669: “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.02.015”, DOI number can be added
Page 20, Bibliographic source 37, Row 705: “https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.08.019”, DOI number can be added
Page 20, Bibliographic source 42, Row 716: “https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00084-5”, DOI number can be added
Page 20, Bibliographic source 45, Row 723: “https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00407.x”, DOI number can be added
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank referee’s valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript carefully and in details based on the valuable comments of reviewers, and have made the presentation and discussion of manuscript more complete.
sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
