Effect of Differently Matured Composts from Willow on Growth and Development of Lettuce^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled "Effect of differently matured composts from willow on growth and development of lettuce" is much improved compared to the initial version. The authors improved the manuscript by responding to all my comments

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review.
As suggested, we have corrected minor language and grammatical errors.
Regards
Jakub Bekier & co-authors

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments were ignored. I would recommend to authors to find the previous version of my review and address it step by step.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review.
Please be kindly informed that the previous comments have not been ignored. Most of them have been included, while those not introduced into the text have been explained.
Please find attached a file with the comments incorporated (underlining) and an explanation of the others.
Kind regards
Jakub Bekier & co-authors

Reviewer 3 Report

“Biomass production from differently matured compost” is a good article. The article lacks scientific writing style. Following comments are suggested for the improvement of the article.

1. The term “fertilizing value” may be removed….You may use “nutrient content”
2. Revise abstract and keywords. Abstract is very general. What is the process or how the addition of hay and Nmin improve the composting process? Define Nmin in the abstract as well.
3. Check or revise “humic substances (HS) resources”
4. The method of composting, i.e., heap or aerobic should be described in the Introduction and Materials and Method sections.
5. Check grammar throughout the manuscript.
6. Line 103……Use “and” content of total phosphorus (TP). Which method was followed for total phosphorus?
7. Check headings in Results and Discussion

          3.1. Changes in pH, TOC, TN and TP contents…….of what?? specify

         3.2. Results of the pot experiment……..specify…..There are no                                 subheadings under this

      8. Some more data may be provided to enrich the article.

      9. Discussion section should be elaborated.

      10. As the article highlights compost maturity, but there is a lacuna of the decomposition process, value-addition, and organic matter information in the article.

 11. “Summary and conclusions” should be changed to “Conclusions”

12. Why Patent part included? “Several of the results presented in this article obtained”…….Specify

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your review.
Please find attached the answers to the suggested improvements.
Best regards
Jakub Bekie r& co-author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

my comments were ignored or not understood. If you want me to give a green light to this manuscript, you should read my comments more carefully and address them with more care.

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend accepting the MS in the present form.

Thank You

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s),
this manuscript brings some inspiring insights to compost production. However, there are some issues that can be immediately addressed to improve the overall communication of your work:

Title:

1/ remove the Latin (shortening advisable)

2/ clearly present the main discovery (not the field of yours or the methods used)

Abstract:

3/ better describe what positive impacts were expected from the addition of willow chips (justify the significance and urgency of the research hypothesis, clarify how will humanity benefit from your work) better aeration will lead to faster mineralization and humification?

4/ please understand that changes in pH, TN, TP and TOC are self-evident (similar conclusions can be reached without reading the manuscript), better explain the originality and novelty of your work (speeding up the production process?)

Introduction:

5/ please understand that humus is a substance produced over thousands of years, its levels have nothing to do with composts (besides sounding similar)

6/ do not refer to "international organizations", refer to peer-reviewed papers if you want to get published in scientific literature

7/ deeper review the latest trends in compost production and the latest findings in the field (present the key indicators of compost quality), also do not ignore the economic reality (comment on cost competitiveness etc.)

8/ better justify the research hypothesis (why "selected chemical properties"? are these the most significant?; why "influence on  germination and growth of lettuce" is it commercially farmed on composts?)

Materials and Methods:

9/ kindly note that analysis on "TOC" is irrelevant since it does not reflect the energy availability of C to consortia of soil microorganisms

10/ please understand that "TN" says nothing about its agronomic value, only mineral and easily mineralizable N is usable for plant production

11/ it has been repeatedly and independently confirmed that "TP" is a completely misguided analysis since only the Ca and Al phosphates plays role in plant nutrition

12/ please understand that if a plant is germinating (or growing) is a sign that it can withstand the surrounding condition, however, it is not a proof that it is not poisonous or that it has nutritional value for the consumer

Results and Discussion:

13/ show more self-criticism to your methods (most of them don't prove anything), discuss all limitations of your results

14/ be aware that no technology is sustainable unless it is profitable (provide polemics on the economic point of view), indicate whether you have proved just theoretical feasibility or whether there is some industrial application on the horizon (comment on cost competitiveness)

15/ each Fig. and Tab. should be provided with detailed caption that will explain A/ what can be seen; B/ why is it important and C/ how is it related to the research hypothesis

16/ more intensely compare your findings with existing literature (check your email for a list of recommended papers), discuss industrial implication

17/ take your research to the next level, provide a deeper synthesis of your results and reveal the mechanisms that shape them, this will allow you to uncover original theoretical insights

18/ indicate direction for future research and propose some improvements

Conclusions:

19/ all the conclusions sound quite obvious, better explain the novelty and environmental/industrial significance

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled “Effect of differently matured compost produced from willow (Salix viminalis L.) on growth and development of lettuce (Lacuca sativa L.)” is an interesting one, but it needs a major revision in order to be published.
Below are my suggestions for improving this manuscript:
Abstract: the explanation for the abbreviation TOC is missing
Introduction
Line 58 “still inconclusive” - detailed
The introduction lacks data from the literature on the use of willow for the described purpose of the manuscript.
2. Materials and Methods
Details for variants A, B, C
2.1. Detail the methods of analysis, or cite a bibliographic source where they are detailed
2.3. Statistical analyzes
How many repetitions were used for each analysis?
3.1. Changes in pH, TOC, TN and TP contents
Table 1: Write the unit of measure for TOC, TN, TP correctly. Under the tables explain what A, B, C, and 1, 32,71,167 represent
check the units of measurement throughout the manuscript
The results are presented, but not discussed. Bibliographic sources are passed, without any explanation, discussion, comparative. I suggest improving the discussions.
Explain why those increases and decreases occur, according to the results presented in Tables 2 and 3.
3.2. Results of the pot experiment - the results are not discussed and analyzed according to the cited bibliographic sources. I suggest reformulating and detailing according to the cited sources.
There is no correction between the analyzes performed in 3.1 and the results obtained in 3.2