Synergy of Biochar and Organic Fertilizer Reduces Phosphorus Leaching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a high-quality article that I believe can be published, but some issues should be addressed before publication. The figures should be completely remade, as the current quality is difficult to see clearly. The data in Table 2 should all provide standard deviation. The yield of biochar is too high. Please provide the data and explain the reason. In addition, the author provided the original data in the attachment, which is not necessary. Please delete it.
Author Response
Please see my replys in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see my comments in the attached document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see my reply in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a new combination of materials to reduce phosphorus loss that might be tested in soil/crop systems to prove its effectiveness in the future. The article concept, though not new, can be considered as an alternative where applicable. However, the article needs major revisions of the whole manuscript based on the points mentioned below. The article cannot be accepted in its current form.
Introduction:
Not organized; many sentences contradict the next sentence. Sentences can be expressed more precisely. There is excessive use of linking words like “This is largely attributable,” “In response,” “Thus,” “Consequently,” etc., which are unnecessary.
- Line 47–50: The statement outlines a decision based on a single problem (lines 44–46). More concrete evidence is needed.
- Line 51–53: The statement contradicts the one in lines 47–50, where a lack has been presented, but the next statement starts with “significant improvement.” Lines 47–53 can actually be deleted.
- Line 59–61: China is suddenly mentioned, but it is not indicated in the abstract or title.
- Line 61–63: These statements are useless and not relevant, not really narrowing down the research gap.
- Line 64–65: If your study area is focused on southeastern China, you cannot say “exemplify.”
- Line 77–78: Suddenly comes with a statement that looks like a concluding remark, but in the next paragraph, you move back to the literature review again.
- Line 79–100: The research gap and the aim of the work are very confusing. The research gap presented is that the combination of biochar and fertilizer has not been studied properly, not mentioned as their property, but the aims also cover biochar production. Why?
Materials and Methods:
- Line 93, 106 mention chicken manure-based organic fertilizer, but line 103 mentions cow manure.
- Sample preparation (lines 108–112) says organic fertilizer + cow manure. Why is cow manure presented as a third component, while the abstract and introduction mention organic fertilizer + biochar?
- Careful checking and reconfirmation of sample preparation are needed.
- Line 115: These terms are not mentioned before and suddenly appear.
- Treatments in Table 1 are not presented anywhere.
- Treatments should be grouped by 400°C and 700°C for easier understanding in Table 1.
- Lines 115–116 should be in Section 2.2.
- The Materials and Methods section needs a complete revision. The methods described are not cited. It looks like a self-developed method but is not clearly described in terms of experimental processes and sampling.
- Line 168 is the first place where it is mentioned that biochar was from cow manure. This needs to be referred to clearly in the methods section.
- What is the significance of the data in the 6th and 7th columns in Table 2?
- Line 178: “42.17 mg·g⁻¹—more than 60 times that of 700 °C biochar (7BC)”—how was this calculated?
- Line 180: 67.81%—in my observation, it comes out to be 60% higher?
Results and Discussion:
- There is no mention of why cow manure biochar reduces phosphorus leaching.
- The results/statements indicate that the use of biochar and organic fertilizer reduces phosphorus leaching in the lab only. Nothing has been proven regarding the effectiveness for crops. Please change the title to clearly mention what has been targeted in this research.
- Please provide a chemical bond structure to support the discussion. It is necessary, as the text explanation is very difficult to follow.
Conclusions:
This section needs to be rewritten as a single paragraph. Lines 364–367 are not a conclusion but rather a discussion. Overall, the conclusion needs full revision.
Author Response
Please see my reply in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have exceeded the 200 word limit in the summary.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Please refer to the attachment for our reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are no critical issues to report, and the previous comments have been adequately addressed. However, the introduction and discussion sections still exhibit a tendency to jump between ideas without clear transitions.
In particular, the lines from 62 to 73 in the introduction lack a coherent connection to the preceding two paragraphs. This section does not sufficiently reference existing literature or highlight the gaps in previous studies. The introduction primarily focuses on the benefits of biochar and compost for phosphorus (P) reduction, but it fails to contextualize these benefits within the broader scope of current research or to identify the limitations of prior work.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Please refer to the attachment for our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
