Biochar Is Superior to Organic Substitution for Vegetable Production—A Revised Approach for Net Ecosystem Economic Benefit

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General 

Considering the revised version of the MS, authors did not submit any “Response to the reviewer” file reporting point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments which makes it hard to understand how they response to the reviewer concerns. I noticed that authors have submitted a track change version of the MS, but that does not really represent all the required changes. Having said that, I think revision improved the manuscript (agronomy-3047663) quality and can be publish in this journal after some minor corrections as follows:

Specific comments

Abstract

-In line 3: “However, few comprehensive ………….”.,  instead write “Considering its high potential very few comprehensive valuations……………………substitution.”

3.2. EDC of biochar amendment and organic substitutions.

- ............................to organic substitution [2]. Is that a citation here???

- Table 1, describe all treatments (CK, SN,.....), as done for Table 2 and 3.

- Check the Reference list, follow Journal instructions, use Abbreviated Journal Name, homogenize all the references.

 

Author Response

Considering the revised version of the MS, authors did not submit any “Response to the reviewer” file reporting point-by-point responses to the reviewer comments which makes it hard to understand how they response to the reviewer concerns. I noticed that authors have submitted a track change version of the MS, but that does not really represent all the required changes. Having said that, I think revision improved the manuscript (agronomy-3047663) quality and can be publish in this journal after some minor corrections as follows:

Response: Thank you for recognizing our work and for your constructive comments on the improvement of the manuscript! Appreciated for your patience and comments. That previous “Response to the reviewers” file was missing due to the mixed procedures for re-submission though we have incorporated all comments into the revised version.

Comments 1: Abstract

-In line 3: “However, few comprehensive ………….”.,  instead write “Considering its high potential very few comprehensive valuations……………………substitution.”:

Response: Thanks for your comments. We have modified the expression in line 3.

Comments 2: 3.2. EDC of biochar amendment and organic substitutions.

- ............................to organic substitution [2]. Is that a citation here???

Response: Thanks for your questions! Yes, the results of studies on N₂O emissions and reactive nitrogen losses from various treatments are cited in [2] (now [3] from our previous research) for calculating the cost of environmental damage.

Comments 3: 3.2. EDC of biochar amendment and organic substitutions.

- Table 1, describe all treatments (CK, SN,.....), as done for Table 2 and 3:

Response: Thanks for your suggestions! We have supplemented all the descriptions of the treatments for all Tables.

Comments 4: - Check the Reference list, follow Journal instructions, use Abbreviated Journal Name, homogenize all the references:

Response: Thanks for your comments! We have modified all journal names in the literature list with abbreviations according to the journal format.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like the authors also additionally provide a separate list with all the abbreviations explained.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language is OK to me.

Author Response

Comments 1: I would like the authors also additionally provide a separate list with all the abbreviations explained.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments on the improvement of the manuscript! We have supplemented an “Abbreviations” section before “Introduction” as also pointed out by Reviewer #3. 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled ’’ Biochar is superior to organic substitution for vegetable pro-duction-A revised approach for net ecosystem economic benefit’’ investigated the effects of biochar amendment, organic substitution, and their mixtures on crop production, carbon and nitrogen footprints, and net ecosystem economic benefit during 5 consecutive years of vegetable crop rotations using the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The idea of the paper is good but there are serious problems that should be cleared. Please see the comments as below:

 

Abstract

The current research is focused on life cycle assessment, but there is not any information about the methodology in the abstract section, like as functional unit, software and …

Keywords should differ from the title, make them specific.

I would suggest that the authors incorporate an "Abbreviations" section in the manuscript, providing explanations for the abbreviations used to enhance understanding. Because the current research consists of variety of abbreviations.

 

Introduction

The introduction needs to be improved and the innovation of the study should be clear at the end of this section. The background of the research is not enough.

I would suggest that In the second paragraph of the abstract section add some information about the effect of biochar of crop yield. Here is a recently published work and you can use it. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.109053

The novelty of the research is missing, there is not any connection between the previous research and the current one. What is the gap of knowledge and how the current research can fill this gap?

Why there is not any information about life cycle assessment in the introduction section?!! What is the previous LCA research and why is need for this research?

The research hypothesis is generally stated and should be rewritten. This hypothesis is clear and its no need for more research!

 

Material and method

Add the longitude and latitude of the field in the section 2.1. Experimental site description!

The LCA methods are not enough, Figure 1 is not clear, and is confusing. It doesn’t help the readers understand the models, inputs, and outputs. I recommend replacing it.

Add the inventory data with all the inputs and outputs.

Add the models that are used for calculating the emissions.

Add the LCA software, that is used for your research.

Which databases are used for the study?

How to make the inventory for biochar in software, because there is not background information about biochar in LCA software!

 

Results and discussion

The inputs and outputs of Table 3 are not match with the system boundary!

Results and Discussion, or it’s better say just results. In fact, the paper has NOT any discussion. You have earned results. To interpretation of those you need to compare them with other studies. What are the strength or weakness of your results? What is your interpretation for them? Make your interpretation strong with other works.

 

Conclusion

I noticed that the conclusion section tends to repeat abstract and results. The conclusion paragraph should be impactful, and direct the reader to this research’s next steps and opportunities. There are 14 abbreviations in the conclusion, it is totally confusing way for provide conclusion! Please rewrite this section.

 

References

 

The number of used references is too low (31), and some of them are out of date. There is not any 2024, only one 2023 and one 2022!!! So it clearly came from failure to make a good background and discussion due to unused updated studies and related research. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

The manuscript entitled “Biochar is superior to organic substitution for vegetable production-A revised approach for net ecosystem economic benefit” investigated the effects of biochar amendment, organic substitution, and their mixtures on crop production, carbon and nitrogen footprints, and net ecosystem economic benefit during 5 consecutive years of vegetable crop rotations using the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. The idea of the paper is good but there are serious problems that should be cleared. Please see the comments as below:

Response: Thank you for your recognition of our work and constructive comments for improving the manuscript! We have made revisions on all the comments and tried our best to improve the presentation of the manuscript.

Comments 1: Abstract

The current research is focused on life cycle assessment, but there is not any information about the methodology in the abstract section, like as functional unit, software and …

Response: Essential information about the methodology has been provided in the Abstract for the revised version: Here, comprehensive environmental damage costs from carbon and Nr footprints using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology followed a cradle-to-gate approach and carbon storage benefits were incorporated into the newly constructed net ecosystem economic benefit (NEEB) assessment frame in addition to the conventional product income - input cost benefit methods. One kilogram of harvested vegetables for carbon/ Nr footprints and one hectare of cultivated land per crop for cost and benefit are adopted as functional units considering the multi-cropping characteristics for intensive vegetable production.

We constructed the framework as shown in the revised Figure 1, not an existing software package. Thank you for pointing this out to emphasize the novelty of the current study.

Keywords should differ from the title, make them specific.

Response: Yes. Specific keywords different from title were provided in the revised version: Biochar amendment; Manure; Carbon footprint; Carbon sequestration; Reactive nitrogen; Sustainability

I would suggest that the authors incorporate an "Abbreviations" section in the manuscript, providing explanations for the abbreviations used to enhance understanding. Because the current research consists of variety of abbreviations.

Response 1: Thank you for your constructive comments on the improvement of the manuscript! We have supplemented an “Abbreviations” section before “Introduction” as also pointed out by Reviewer #2.

Comments 2: Introduction

The introduction needs to be improved and the innovation of the study should be clear at the end of this section. The background of the research is not enough.

I would suggest that In the second paragraph of the abstract section add some information about the effect of biochar of crop yield. Here is a recently published work and you can use it. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.109053

The novelty of the research is missing, there is not any connection between the previous research and the current one. What is the gap of knowledge and how the current research can fill this gap?

Why there is not any information about life cycle assessment in the introduction section?!! What is the previous LCA research and why is need for this research?

The research hypothesis is generally stated and should be rewritten. This hypothesis is clear and its no need for more research!

Response 2: Thanks for your constructive comments! In the introduction section we have re-added relevant background information, including the results of our previous study, and given the great potential of biochar for carbon sequestration, there are currently deficiencies in the assessment of biochar in terms of its economic benefits, and the failure to adequately take into account the long term contribution of carbon sequestration when calculating the NEEB, which may underestimate the role of biochar in the sustainability of agriculture. Therefore, the innovation of this study, and therefore of this paper, is to consider the dual benefits of biochar-improving agricultural productivity and efficiency through carbon sequestration on the one hand, and reducing the costs of environmental damage through lower greenhouse gas emissions on the other.

Thanks to your recommendation, we have added information in the second paragraph about the impact of biochar on crop yields in addition to improving soil structure.

The third paragraph of the introduction contains information on the life cycle assessment methodology, including the composition of the net economic benefits and sources of environmental damage costs of crops from the processing of pre-processed agricultural inputs to the production of the crop in the field and the harvesting of the crop.

At the end of the introduction we have reworked the research hypotheses.

Comments 3: Material and method

Add the longitude and latitude of the field in the section 2.1. Experimental site description!

The LCA methods are not enough, Figure 1 is not clear, and is confusing. It doesn’t help the readers understand the models, inputs, and outputs. I recommend replacing it.

Add the inventory data with all the inputs and outputs.

Add the models that are used for calculating the emissions.

Add the LCA software, that is used for your research.

Which databases are used for the study?

How to make the inventory for biochar in software, because there is not background information about biochar in LCA software!

Response 3: Thanks for your constructive comments! We have added the latitude and longitude of the experimental site in Materials and Methods 2.1.

We reconstructed the system boundary diagram in Figure. 1. The LCA includes GHG emissions and reactive N losses from fertilizer (synthetic fertilizers, manure, and biochar) production, pesticide and plastic film production, transportation of agrochemicals and fuel and electricity consumptions for farm operation at the foreground interface and the field interface. Table 3 provided the list of data for Nr at the foreground interface. The field N₂O and NO emissions are the observations in the field, NH₃ volatilization, nitrogen runoff and nitrogen leaching are empirical model statistics, see Appendix for model statistics. The list of overall environmental damage costs data is Table 4. Net economic benefits are the difference between yield gains (Y) from harvested vegetable production and the costs of agricultural inputs (F), and also consider the gains from soil organic carbon sequestration (C), which together constitute the net ecosystem economic benefits.

We constructed the framework as shown in the revised Figure 1, not an existing software package. Thank you for pointing this out to emphasize the novelty of the current study.

Comments 4: Results and discussion

The inputs and outputs of Table 3 are not match with the system boundary!

Results and Discussion, or it’s better say just results. In fact, the paper has NOT any discussion. You have earned results. To interpretation of those you need to compare them with other studies. What are the strength or weakness of your results? What is your interpretation for them? Make your interpretation strong with other works.

Response 4: The data tabulated in Table 3 (now Table 4) are the net ecosystem economic benefit components, which are the foreground interface agricultural input costs (F), the crop yield benefits (Y), the environmental damage costs at the foreground and field interfaces, and the carbon sequestration benefits at the field interface (C), as shown in Figure 1.

We focused only Results now and added a discussion section that discusses the latest findings in comparison to the previous ones to highlight why considering the multiple benefits of biochar leads to the conclusion that biochar is superior to organic alternatives and is the most beneficial practice for net ecosystem economic benefits in intensive vegetable production.

Comments 5: Conclusion

I noticed that the conclusion section tends to repeat abstract and results. The conclusion paragraph should be impactful, and direct the reader to this research’s next steps and opportunities. There are 14 abbreviations in the conclusion, it is totally confusing way for provide conclusion! Please rewrite this section.

Response 5: We apologize for the reading hassle we caused and we have remodified the conclusion section.

Comments 6: References

The number of used references is too low (31), and some of them are out of date. There is not any 2024, only one 2023 and one 2022!!! So it clearly came from failure to make a good background and discussion due to unused updated studies and related research.

Response 6: Thanks for your constructive comments! We have re-read the relevant and latest literature and cited it to make the background presentation and discussion of the article more convincing.

Comments 7: Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 7: Thanks for your comments, we rechecked the English language and improved it including reorganization 2.2 and 2.3 and many other points throughout the whole manuscript, even several typos.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #4:

In the present manuscript (ID agronomy-3196762) entitled "Biochar is superior to organic substitution for vegetable production—A revised approach for net ecosystem economic benefit," the authors described an idea of assessing biochar amendments and organic fertilisers substituting in producing vegetable crops. They used updated calculations considering the benefits of "C" storage and looked at various fertilisation methods for five years. They also looked at "C" and "N" footprints and emissions, the costs of environmental damage, and net economic benefits. Ultimately, their findings showed that using biochar was a promising method for long-term vegetable farming.

Generally, the data set obtained, the presented results, the discussion, and the conclusions are all sound scientific. However, having reviewed this paper, I have the following comments and queries, and my suggestion about the manuscript is that it needs revision.

Response: Thank you for recognizing our work and for your constructive comments to improve the manuscript! We have revised and responded to all comments.

Comments 1: General comment:

The five-year study on biochar amendment is exceptional, as it yielded robust long-term data rarely observed in agricultural research. The primary concern in the present work is the feasibility of large-scale biochar implementation. Despite the optimistic results indicating enhanced net ecosystem economic advantages over time, the substantial initial cost of biochar continues to pose a considerable challenge. The paper might enhance its analysis by examining options to render biochar more economically viable for farmers, including cost-efficient production techniques or possible legislative incentives. Furthermore, exploring how the advantages of biochar may persist or evolve beyond the five-year timeframe bolsters the case for its implementation in sustainable

agricultural techniques.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! That's right, the initial cost of biochar is substantial, and our research has also found that due to the relatively high input costs of biochar applications, biochar is higher than organic alternatives as far as final NEEB is concerned, but the difference is not significant. We also noted in the discussion section that this poses a significant barrier to its widespread application, and therefore, we believe that biochar remains the most economically viable strategy by exploring alternative sources of feedstock to develop cost-effective production methods, and by realizing that the supply of biochar production exceeds the demand for it in order to reduce procurement costs. In addition, when biochar is added to the soil, it conserves carbon in a long-term and stable manner, thus creating a “carbon sink” in the farmland, and the benefits of biochar for increased crop yields and carbon sequestration can offset its input costs. Although our research cycle is only 5 years, biochar can be stabilized in the soil for decades or even hundreds of years, which means that it can effectively convert atmospheric carbon dioxide into stabilized carbon in the soil over a long period of time. This long-term carbon sequestration not only helps mitigate climate change reducing EDC, but also creates additional economic gains for farmers in the carbon trading market.

Comments 2: General inquiries to the authors:

This manuscript appears to closely like the paper published in Biochar (Bi et al., Biochar 2022, doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00168-9) in terms of text arrangement, methodologies with treatments, and some figures (refer to Figure 1 in both documents). The present work underscores the necessity of decreasing biochar expenses via enhanced production, whereas the published paper advocates optimising biochar production and organic manure substitution rates. The current study's authors propose that NMB (a combination of biochar and organic substitution) improved NEEB. However, the published paper indicates that SNMB diminished NEEBs compared to SN. This divergent outcome is significant and requires attention. Please clarify this contradictory outcome.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! This study is a further complementary improvement to the previous study. The article emphasizes that biochar as a multifunctional soil amendment not only improves soil quality and crop yield but also has a unique carbon storage function. Considering that the multiple benefits of biochar are not only through improved crop yield, we conclude that biochar is superior to organic alternatives in terms of improved efficiency and reduced EDC, and that it is the most beneficial practice for NEEBs in intensive vegetable production. Biochar and organic alternative linkage application improved NEEB, however, contrary to our previous results, this is due to our inclusion of carbon benefits in the newly constructed NEEB assessment framework. In the Results 3.3 section we add the related finding that the high carbon benefits of the NMB treatment compared to the SN treatment resulted in a better NEEB than the SN, suggesting that the carbon sequestration capacity of biochar makes it uniquely suited for agricultural production. In addition, we also added an explanation in the Discussion section about the reasons why the latest findings differ from the previous ones.

Comments 3: Specific comments:

In the materials and methods section, could you please explain the reason for using 500 ◦C for 4 hrs to produce biochar? Why were these pyrolyzing times and temperatures selected? Are there references for this? Moreover, please write the necessary references for all methods used to characterise soil and biochar and the dark box methods to reproduce your current processes easily.

Response: Thank you for your constructive comments! We have added a rationale for the biochar production conditions in the Materials and Methods 2.1 section. The reason for pyrolysis of biochar at 500^◦C for 4 hours is to obtain the best product characteristics and economic efficiency. As the pyrolysis temperature increases, the yield, organic carbon content and CEC of biochar gradually decrease, while the pH gradually increases. Usually, biochar produced at low temperatures (e.g., 400^◦C) is more suitable for agricultural soil improvement, while biochar produced at high temperatures (e.g., 600^◦C) is more suitable for the remediation of organic and inorganic polluted environments. Therefore, choosing 500^◦C as the pyrolysis temperature can take into account the product characteristics and application needs. The usually recommended pyrolysis time for biochar is 2-6 hours. Choosing 4 hours as the pyrolysis time can ensure that the biomass is fully decomposed, and at the same time, avoid the possible degradation of product quality caused by too long pyrolysis.

In addition, we have added references to all the methods used to characterize soil and biochar as well as the dark box method in the Materials and Methods 2.1 section, so we apologize for any confusion!

 

Thank you very much once again for your helpful comments!

Best Regards!

Zhengqin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prof. Zhengqin Xiong, PhD

College of Resources and Environmental Sciences

Nanjing Agricultural University

Weigang #1, Nanjing, 210095 PRC

zqxiong@njau.edu.cn

86-13605188915 (cell)

86-25-84395148 (O)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is acceptable. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The current manuscript (agronomy-3047663) focuses on organic substitutions and biochar amendment and its impact on carbon footprint and net ecosystem economic benefit for intensive vegetable production. The study is a follow-up to authors earlier published study. Although, the general scientific content of the manuscript is sound, and overall, the manuscript is well written, I ended up having the following concerns about this manuscript which needs to be attended before publication:

 

General comments

- I recommend making hypothesis to be tested

- Please add some details about biochar used in the study. I noticed that the author has referred to their earlier published study to look up details and that is fine. But considering the major focus of this study, I would present some details on biochar (eg., feedstock type, pyrolysis process etc.) in the methodology section.

- Discussion section lacks adequate literature support. Please add some recent regarding literature to support and discuss your findings.

- Please check the reference style in the text, as the journal recommend References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends). In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ].

 

Specific comments

Introduction

In the last paragraph, I would write “The role of biochar in carbon storage…….”  instead of “Biochar’s role in carbon storage,...............”

 

Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental site description

Add some details about biochar used.

2.3. System boundaries

In this study, we complemented..............

 

Results

Spell out “Figure” instead of “Fig.” throughout the text.

 

Discussion

-Furthermore, In addition, the combined.....................?? Please correct it.

-In 2nd paragraph, “This finding sup-ports the potential for biochar to be used as a sustainable fertilizer ................... in agricultural pro-duction (ref, ref)”.

 

-In the 3rd paragraph, please delete “Additionally, our research contributes to the ongoing discussion on the effective use of biochar and organic substitution in agriculture”. Its already stated in the 2nd paragraph.

 

Reference

Please format all references according to the Journal instruction.

 

Table and Figures

Table and Figures title should be stand alone. Please describe all treatments (CK, SN,.....) adequately in the Figures and Tables title.

Author Response

Reviewer #1: General comments

- I recommend making hypothesis to be tested

- Please add some details about biochar used in the study. I noticed that the author has referred to their earlier published study to look up details and that is fine. But considering the major focus of this study, I would present some details on biochar (eg., feedstock type, pyrolysis process etc.) in the methodology section.

- Discussion section lacks adequate literature support. Please add some recent regarding literature to support and discuss your findings.

- Please check the reference style in the text, as the journal recommend References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends). In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ].:

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments on our research. We have supplemented the research hypotheses in the last paragraph of introduction, the biochar details information in materials and methods for clarity, and the relevant references in the discussion to make it more readable. We have modified the full text reference format to conform to journal standards. Thank you very much!

1. Introduction

In the last paragraph, I would write “The role of biochar in carbon storage…….”  instead of “Biochar’s role in carbon storage,...............”.

Response: Thanks for your comments. Revised accordingly.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental site description

Add some details about biochar used.

2.3. System boundaries

In this study, we complemented..............

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have supplemented the first paragraph of Materials and Methods with the test soil conditions and biochar properties to make it more specific.

3. Results

Spell out “Figure” instead of “Fig.” throughout the text.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The entire text has been changed according to the correct formulation.

4. Discussion

4.1 Furthermore, In addition, the combined.....................?? Please correct it.

4.2 In 2nd paragraph, “This finding sup-ports the potential for biochar to be used as a sustainable fertilizer ................... in agricultural pro-duction (ref, ref)”.

4.3 In the 3rd paragraph, please delete “Additionally, our research contributes to the ongoing discussion on the effective use of biochar and organic substitution in agriculture”. Its already stated in the 2nd paragraph.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have corrected the language irregularities and supplemented the references [30,31] in the second paragraph to make the language justifiable. We have deleted the repetitions in the third paragraph. Sorry for the inconvenience!

5. Reference

Please format all references according to the Journal instruction.

Response: Thanks for your comments. You are right. We have modified the format of full-text reference citations.

6. Table and Figures

Table and Figures title should be stand alone. Please describe all treatments (CK, SN,.....) adequately in the Figures and Tables title.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have reorganized the figure and table descriptions to explain each treatment in detail. We apologize for any inconvenience!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a revision of already published results on the benefits of alternative treatments for agricultural crops to the traditional N-fertilizers’ application. These treatments consist on organic substitution, biochar application and a combination of both.

Although the subject is interesting, the paper is difficult to understand with lacking data (due to previous publication, I guess) and missed calculated data. Also, the adequacy, meaning and significance of the indicators and indices used for the evaluation of the different treatments are not clearly explained. NEEB, basis of the study, is calculated as the difference between NEB and EDC which values are not clearly reported (Table 3 is stated to contain their values but these values are not clear). Also, following the difficulties with indicators, EDC units are CNY ha^-1, deducing from the equation where this indicator is defined, or CNY crop^-1 in Figure 3 or again CNY ha^-1 in table 3…

In addition, and relating the objectives of the paper and the main outcome of it (I understand that it is Figure 4), I do not consider that the results presented here are worth for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments. Minor mistakes

Author Response

The paper presents a revision of already published results on the benefits of alternative treatments for agricultural crops to the traditional N-fertilizers’ application. These treatments consist on organic substitution, biochar application and a combination of both.

Although the subject is interesting, the paper is difficult to understand with lacking data (due to previous publication, I guess) and missed calculated data. Also, the adequacy, meaning and significance of the indicators and indices used for the evaluation of the different treatments are not clearly explained. NEEB, basis of the study, is calculated as the difference between NEB and EDC which values are not clearly reported (Table 3 is stated to contain their values but these values are not clear). Also, following the difficulties with indicators, EDC units are CNY ha-1, deducing from the equation where this indicator is defined, or CNY crop-1 in Figure 3 or again CNY ha-1 in table 3…

In addition, and relating the objectives of the paper and the main outcome of it (I understand that it is Figure 4), I do not consider that the results presented here are worth for publication.

Response: Thank you for recognizing our work! We supplemented the introduction section with the importance of assessing EDC and NEEB and their specific meanings to make it informative and clear. We also added the related fertilization information in Materials and Methods to make the source of data in Table 2 and Table 3 clearer. In addition, the Output and EDC data in Table 3 are derived from Table 1 Yield and Figure 3. You are right, the unit of EDC is CNY ha^-1, which was previously omitted in Figure 3.We apologize for the inconvenience, and we have readjusted the unit in Figure 3 and Figure 4. In conclusion, we believe that the results of this paper are in line with the expectations of the article, and the highest NEEB was obtained by adding biochar treatment when considering the carbon sequestration potential of the biochar, which is a significant advancement compared with the results of previous studies. Thank you for your understanding! 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled ‘’ Biochar is superior to organic substitution in total benefits and less environmental damages for intensive vegetable production-A revised approach for net ecosystem economic benefit ‘’ is a very interesting work regarding environmental and economic aspects of biochar application in vegetable cultivation through LCA. This point of view is valuable in biochar literature since it is always one of the discussable issues regarding biochar that whether it could be cost-effective practice or not. The abstract is well structured and covers all aspects of the idea properly. However, there are some points need to be improved before further process.

If it is possible please think about a shorter title! The current one is three lines! Please use a title with concise content.

Table 1, 2, and 3: Abbreviations should be defined in the caption below each table.

Figure 2, 3, and 4: Treatments should be defined in the caption below each figure.

The number of used references in discussion section are not enough! Most of this section are based on self-interpretation of the author without referring to other works. That makes the text unreliable! I would suggest using and add already published works in terms of LCA-biochar, compare their results with yours, and finally accept or reject the initial hypothesis of the study.

Page 10: ‘’ In summary, considering the multiple benefits of biochar in sequestering carbon, improving soil fertility and promoting crop growth, we conclude that biochar is significantly outperforms organic substitution in terms of improved benefits and reduced environmental damages for intensive vegetable production.‘’ -> please bring at least one ref in front of each of those benefits! I could suggest to add this one for carbon sequestration but please find some by yourself and increase the reliability of the text: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097158

Author Response

The manuscript titled “Biochar is superior to organic substitution in total benefits and less environmental damages for intensive vegetable production-A revised approach for net ecosystem economic benefit” is a very interesting work regarding environmental and economic aspects of biochar application in vegetable cultivation through LCA. This point of view is valuable in biochar literature since it is always one of the discussable issues regarding biochar that whether it could be cost-effective practice or not. The abstract is well structured and covers all aspects of the idea properly. However, there are some points need to be improved before further process.

1. If it is possible please think about a shorter title! The current one is three lines! Please use a title with concise content.

Response: Thank you for recognizing our work! We have shortened the title to make it more concise within two lines.

2. Table 1, 2, and 3: Abbreviations should be defined in the caption below each table.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented the full name of the relevant abbreviation in the caption below each table.

3. Figure 2, 3, and 4: Treatments should be defined in the caption below each figure.

Response: We apologize for the inconvenience. We have supplemented the definitions of the treatments in the caption below each figure.

4. The number of used references in discussion section are not enough! Most of this section are based on self-interpretation of the author without referring to other works. That makes the text unreliable! I would suggest using and add already published works in terms of LCA-biochar, compare their results with yours, and finally accept or reject the initial hypothesis of the study.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion and sorry for the inconvenience! We have included references [25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31] in the discussion section to make the presentation justified properly.

5. Page 10: In summary, considering the multiple benefits of biochar in sequestering carbon, improving soil fertility and promoting crop growth, we conclude that biochar is significantly outperforms organic substitution in terms of improved benefits and reduced environmental damages for intensive vegetable production. -> please bring at least one ref in front of each of those benefits! I could suggest to add this one for carbon sequestration but please find some by yourself and increase the reliability of the text: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097158.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added relevant references [25, 26, 27] including the one you suggested [26] in the discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors put valuable efforts in upgrading the paper and now it has potential to be published.