The Effect of Pelletized Lime Kiln Dust Combined with Biomass Combustion Ash on Soil Properties and Plant Yield in a Three-Year Field Study
, Kristina Bunevičienė 1, Regina Repšienė 1, Danutė Karčauskienė 1, Romas Mažeika 1 and Jonas Baltrusaitis 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Fig. 8 shows the heavy metal Cr in the soil increased significantly. Please give the reason and give the solving method.
Author Response
Response for Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Fig. 8 shows the heavy metal Cr in the soil increased significantly. Please give the reason and give the solving method.
Response 1: We want to thank reviewer for his comments. The amount of Cr in the soil can vary over a wide range, depending on the heterogeneity of the soil and the type of plant grown. Fertilization with mineral fertilizers (especially phosphorus) can also increase the amount of this heavy metal in the soil.
In our studies, plants with different accumulation potentials were grown annually, which were fertilized with various mineral fertilizers, and soil samples were not taken at fixed sites. We believe this can explain the increase in Cr content over time. The solving method to remove Cr from soil can be to use phytoremediation techniques - grow the plants, which absorb heavy metals from soil.
We included this explanation on page 13 of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper covers the effect of Lime kiln dust + wood ash on soil properties and three plants yield for three years in Lithuania. The method and results are described in detail and the results must be referred in other researchers. I want to recommend this paper to be acceptable with this form.
Author Response
we thank the reviewer for positive comments
Reviewer 3 Report
General note concerning introduction :
Particularly in the first part, there is much book information, constituting the background but not related to the problem of fertilizers. Lots of generalizations. I would expect information about the (ash in biomass???.) This is a diverse range that can be contaminated! Abbreviations cannot be used in the abstract. I suggest rebuilding the abstract
(line 33) Couldn’t the acid rain be caused by volcanoes?
(line42) acidification increases ...... which are then washed away - otherwise we would have a continual increase in the content
(l-44) special species… ..
(l-54) acidification of this soil layer
(l-93) I don't understand east, west?
(l-116) why Al and Fe ?- justify
(l-119-124) provide formulas, because in the table there are %
Chapter 2.3 Source of methods – because the methods are specific for the countries of central Europe
Chapter 2.4 Please give your opinion on the thermal and moisture needs of the cultivated plants. Was the fertilization the same for different plants each year? Why is there so little nitrogen used? The methodology chapter does not contain the methodology for determining the water content
(l-221) Do not mix the oxide and elemental forms at work
(l-230) low against what?
(l-232 there should be no experiment or a different hypothesis - in the context of this in
(l -497) these are not conclusions from the work (other combinations were not analyzed), therefore it is not a conclusion, it can be discussed.
Fig. 2 with regard to what the share of elements in % is calculated ?- it should be harmonized The order of the figures does not correspond to the citation in the text, e.g. No. 5
There are non-scientific terms in the text (slight increase) in line 266.;
Please calculate the statistical significance of the changes, e.g. for the data in Fig. 3 There is no description of the whiskers, e.g. in Fig. 3
Fig. 4 What does it mean in the caption- “defined mobility” - no unambiguous tests
Fig. 5 is not a correlation but a relationship; in what medium?
Fig. 5 was the normal distribution tested for the variables - no information about the statistical test
The pH is not compatible in figures 3 and 5 why?
Comment in lines 350-364 does not apply to various materials but to known knowledge! I disagree with the interpretation and selection of the heavy metal content method. This is the place where metal fractionation is needed. There is no such situation that after liming the general form decreases - what happened to it - wrong method chosen !!!
These are not conclusions but a summary - please focus on the hypothesis - differentiation of fertilizer combinations and not the effect of liming!
Author Response
Response for Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: General note concerning introduction :
Particularly in the first part, there is much book information, constituting the background but not related to the problem of fertilizers. Lots of generalizations. I would expect information about the (ash in biomass???.) This is a diverse range that can be contaminated! Abbreviations cannot be used in the abstract. I suggest rebuilding the abstract
Response 1: We want to thank reviewer for his comments. Abbreviations were removed from abstract.
Point 2: (line 33) Couldn’t the acid rain be caused by volcanoes?
Response 2: The acid rain can be caused by natural sources and anthropogenic sources. One of the natural sources of acid rain is caused by volcanic emissions.
Point 3: (line42) acidification increases ...... which are then washed away - otherwise we would have a continual increase in the content
Response 3: Acidification increases nutrients losses via leaching such as potassium, sodium, calcium and magnesium.
Point 4: (l-44) special species… ..
Response 4: We want to thank reviewer for his comments but we will keep our term “many crops” because we mentioned just the most popular crops and term “special species” is more suitable for small specific group.
Point 5: (l-54) acidification of this soil layer
Response 5: “acidification in the upper layers of these minerals” is the preferred term
Point 6: (l-93) I don't understand east, west?
Response 6: East, west are two of four cardinal directions. We rephrased it to Eastern and Western Lithuania
Point 7: (l-116) why Al and Fe ?- justify
Response 7: Al and Fe were determined since they have major implications in ionic mobility for different pH of soil. While they were not critical, they do contribute to, say, mobile P2O5 content, as shown in Figure 5, hence were measured.
Point 8: (l-119-124) provide formulas, because in the table there are %
Response 8: The formulas of calculation of neutralizing value and reactivity added to the article (l-130-143).
Point 9: Chapter 2.3 Source of methods – because the methods are specific for the countries of central Europe
Response 9: Soil mobile K2O, P2O5, Ca and Mg were determined according to Egner, Riehm and Domingo (A-L) method, which is described in method section. Heavy metals in soil were determined according to these standards: ISO 11466:1995, ISO 11047:1998, ISO 22036:2008. Soil pH - ISO 10390:2005.
Point 10: Chapter 2.4 Please give your opinion on the thermal and moisture needs of the cultivated plants. Was the fertilization the same for different plants each year? Why is there so little nitrogen used? The methodology chapter does not contain the methodology for determining the water content
Response 10: The demand amount of soil moisture and temperature for the studied plants (spring barley, wheat, and peas) depends on the stage of development. During the germination period of plants (especially peas) the needed moisture content is higher (about 18-22%) of the full soil moisture, and in the later growth stages the optimum moisture and air regime exist, when the soil moisture is 16-18%. The most favorable soil temperature for the plant seed germination is 8-10 ° C or at later growth stages 15-17 ° C.
The same mineral fertilizer application rate 60 kg/ha N, 60 kg/ha P2O5 and 60 kg/ha K2O was used before sowing for spring barley and spring wheat, later at bushing stage of spring barley and spring wheat was additionally fertilized with 60 kg/ha N. Before sowing the pea fertilizer application rate was 20 kg/ha N, 40 kg/ha P2O5 and 60 kg/ha K2O. On the day of sowing, the pea seeds were coated with the bacterial preparate Rizogen and sown immediately. The detailed description is added to the text (l-164-168). Nitrogen fertilization rate is not low – 120 kg/ha N.
The methodology chapter was improved with description of water content determination (l-145-146).
Point 11: (l-221) Do not mix the oxide and elemental forms at work
Response 11: We thank reviewer for the comment. We chose to keep the oxide form because in original article which we are citing the composition is expressed in oxides.
Point 12: (l-230) low against what?
Response 12: Low levels of Cd were obtained in GC, CD and PLKD without WA compared to soil in which PLKDWA and WA were applied.
Point 13: (l-232 there should be no experiment or a different hypothesis - in the context of this in
Response 13: We want to thank reviewer for the comment, we chose to determine the content of heavy metals in liming materials because they were made from industrial waste and we don’t think that for this different hypothesis is needed.
Point 14: (l -497) these are not conclusions from the work (other combinations were not analyzed), therefore it is not a conclusion, it can be discussed.
Response 14: The sentence was removed from the conclusions.
Point 15: Fig. 2 with regard to what the share of elements in % is calculated ?- it should be harmonized The order of the figures does not correspond to the citation in the text, e.g. No. 5
Response 15: The share of the elements in % is calculated from the sum of all determined elements. We want to thank reviewer for his comment but we didn‘t attempt to present the results in the same order as in the citations.
Point 16: There are non-scientific terms in the text (slight increase) in line 266.;
Response 16: Term of “slight increase” was changed to “slightly statistically not significant increase”
Point 17: Please calculate the statistical significance of the changes, e.g. for the data in Fig. 3 There is no description of the whiskers, e.g. in Fig. 3
Response 17: The table with statistical calculations was added to the text (l-277-280). The whiskers in the Fig.3 shows standard deviation.
Point 18: Fig. 4 What does it mean in the caption- “defined mobility” - no unambiguous tests
Response 18: Mobile – means that is available for plants.
Point 19: Fig. 5 is not a correlation but a relationship; in what medium?
Response 19: We want to thank reviewer for his comment. The word “correlation” changed to “relationship”.
Point 20: Fig. 5 was the normal distribution tested for the variables - no information about the statistical test.
Response 20: The statistical software package SAS was used for analysis.
Point 21: The pH is not compatible in figures 3 and 5 why?
Response 21: The pH in Fig3. is shown as a mean from four replicates of each treatment or in Fig5. the results of replicates are shown separately.
Point 22: Comment in lines 350-364 does not apply to various materials but to known knowledge! I disagree with the interpretation and selection of the heavy metal content method. This is the place where metal fractionation is needed. There is no such situation that after liming the general form decreases - what happened to it - wrong method chosen !!!
Response 22: We want to thank reviewer for his opinion, we agree that heavy metal fractionation would show better view of metal content in soil, but in our case the detection of heavy metals in the column was not the main purpose of the research, rather the liming properties. Column experiments indeed would have provided better information on the distribution of these metals. However, these would present a picture too complex since over the experiment there very likely metals added with fertilizers and removed with plants.
Point 23: These are not conclusions but a summary - please focus on the hypothesis - differentiation of fertilizer combinations and not the effect of liming!
Response 23: We want to thank reviewer for his opinion. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of recovered waste from lime processing plants as soil liming materials on soil properties and crop yield but not to differentiation of fertilizer combinations.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The conclusions and the text show that liming is expected to reduce the total heavy metal content. I do not agree. It's just blocking a form of heavy metals and reducing detectability with a specific method. That is why I have to reject this paper.
Author Response
We addressed all the comments
