AeroHydro Culture: An Integrated Approach to Improve Crop Yield and Ecological Restoration Through Root–Microbe Symbiosis in Tropical Peatlands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised and addressed the previous comments accordingly. I would suggest the acceptance of this manuscript now.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors have revised and addressed the previous comments accordingly. I would suggest the acceptance of this manuscript now.

Response: We are very grateful for your careful review and positive evaluation. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tropical peatlands played important roles in global carbon cycle via carbon storage, yet they are increasingly degraded by conventional oil palm practices involving drainage and chemical fertilizers. The present study was designed to evaluate the roles of AeroHydro-Culture (AHC), a method applying microbe-enriched organic media aboveground, in maintaining high groundwater levels while supporting plant productivity based on field trials. The aims of the study were good, and some findings of the study were useful. Additionally, the manuscript was well written. Overall, there are some places to improve the manuscript, please refer to the following comments.

Comments and suggestions

L37 Please explain the AMF

L53-55 Please provide references to support these statements

L161 Please provide more details about Table 1

L163 Can you merge the Table 2 and Table 3?

L239 How to obtain the rainfall? Please explain

L260 and others In my opinion, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 9, and Figure 11 were pictures, not the figures. Please merged them to other figures (such as Figure 3, Figure 6, and so on)

L375 There are some places for the Discussion to improvement. For example, sub-title for each section was necessary to better understand the study. Additionally, authors should focus on the main findings and conclude the implications

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main contribution of the article is the documentation and presentation of the impact of the application of the "aerohydro culture" method after several years of its implementation. And a comparison of the impact of two different types of landscape (oil palm production culture and abandoned oil palm culture).

Thanks to the presentation of the benefit for vegetation development, economic production at one location and landscape restoration at another location over a longer period of time, this is a very important source of information not only from a research point of view, but also for practical use.

This is outweighed by the fact that a number of articles have already been published on the topic, and several monographs have also been issued.

Therefore, I recommend publishing the article.

I did not find any errors in the article. I have no reservations about the formal structure or presentation of results. The article contains a description of all important results and their discussion.

I have no reservations about the methodology of the work, and it is in line with other similar research.

I agree with the conclusions and recommendations for further research.

Author Response

We are sincerely grateful for your encouraging review. We truly appreciate your recognition of our findings, as well as the practical relevance of this approach.

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

This study presents a valuable exploration of balancing peatland conservation and economic development through the innovative AeroHydro Culture technique within oil palm cultivation systems. While the nature-based solution (NbS) approach demonstrates promising potential for enhancing both productivity and root-microbe symbiosis, the manuscript requires substantial methodological clarifications and analytical enhancements to meet publication standards. Key revisions include:

1. Introduction, Strengthen the NbS context by:

a) Reviewing comparable peatland restoration case

b) Detailing AeroHydro Culture's developmental trajectory and theoretical basis

c) Explicitly stating knowledge gaps this study addresses

2. Study Sites: Characterize with quantitative descriptors:

Justify the differential experimental layouts between sites

Provide pedological rationale for 0-25 cm/25-50 cm sampling depths

3. Develop a composite performance index integrating or implement coupling coordination degree model for system synergies

4. 3.2. Plant Morphology Observation requires quantitative data support.

5. Redundant figures should be consolidated (retain only one), with statistical significance markers added.

6. The discussion lacks depth and should elaborate on the applicable conditions and limiting factors of AeroHydro Culture.

7. Figure 14 must clearly annotate the areas where AeroHydro Culture was applied.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. L2: The meaning of the innovative term “AeroHydro Culture (AHC)” is not clear so it should be defined and explained.
2. L26-43: The results and conclusions presented in the abstract are somewhat vague. Please provide more specific details about the key findings.
3. L47-90: AeroHydro Culture (AHC) was not well-defined. The authors should provide a more sufficient and detailed description of it.
4. L75-90: Clearly state the research question and hypothesis. It is not immediately obvious what specific problem you are addressing.
5. L94-112: Map of the study area should be provided so that the study sites can be visualized.
6. L109-111: The surface layer of the soil shouldn’t be 0–50 cm and it is recommended to further explain the stratification criteria between different soil layers.
7. L120: The word “compost” should be corrected and the meaning is not clear.
8. L125-131: The content and format in Table 1, 2 and 3 are not standardized and should be consistent with those of Table 4.
9. L220-236: The results obtained merely from observing the pictures are not rigorous enough and statistics regarding to root density and number of leaves should be added to make the conclusion more reliable.
10. L239-240: The conclusion “In general, there was no significant difference in leaf nutrient content between control and treatment” can not be drawn from Table 4 and Table 5. The authors should indicate whether there are duplicate samples and conduct statistical analysis.
11. L274-275, L290-291: It is recommended to add scale bar beneath Figure 7 and Figure 9.
12. L363: The word “altered” should be corrected to “alter”.There are many other minor language errors throughout this manuscript. The authors should carefully proofread to correct these errors and refine the overall quality of the writing.
13. L347-428: The discussion does not fully interpret the results. Analyze each finding in depth and explain its significance within the context of the research question.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper present a study on AeroHydro Culture which is presented as an innovative cultivation system for enhancing oil palm productivity and root–microbe symbiosis under high groundwater conditions in tropical peatlands.

Abstract: It includes all the necessary information and well represents the study presented in the paper.

Introduction: It clearly presents the background of the study.

Materials and Methods: The authors presented the study sites, preparation of the application of the cultivation method tested, experiment design and all the other necessary details fully presenting the methodological approach applied and the whole experimental procedure.

Results: The authors described the experiment’s impact on the ground water level, plant morphology, plant nutrient content, chlorophyll analysis, AMF colonization, soil microbial characteristics as well as yield analysis. The results are robust, compelling and clearly presented.

Discussion: It is based on the study findings and well-written,

Conclusions: In my opinion this section is much too short (even shorter than the abstract). The results should be presented in more detail. I also suggest including a paragraph on the study limitations and future study needs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the revisions, the manuscript is now publication-ready.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has revised the manuscript according to the reviewers′ suggestions. But, I recommend authors to fully rewrite the text, focusing on what is new in their data. Research gap should be defined in a much more obvious and clear manner without tons of general points.