Poultry Litter Biochar Increases Mycorrhizal Colonisation, Soil Fertility and Cucumber Yield in a Fertigation System on Sandy Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
179 tab. 2; should be tab. 3
211 Highest soil pH of 7.0 was observed in T3 and T4 that was statistically similar to pH 6.9, 6.8 and
6.7 observed in plots that were treated with T1, T2, T5 and T6, respectively, whereas, lowest pH of 6.1 was observed in control.
LSD was 0,2, so the different between 7 and 6,7 was statistically proofed
214 The maximum percent N of 0.06% was observed with application of T1, T2 and T3, should be T4
217 Similarly, percent TOC showed same trend with maximum concentration of 0.83% was noted
with application of T1 that was not statistically different than concentrations in T2, T3 and T4,
LSD = 0,12, so T3 and T4 are not statistically in the same group with T1.
222 organic matter (OM) content, but in table 4 is SOM
223 was statistically similar to OM contents of T3 T2 and T4
230 All micronutrients including Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn showed a definite increase with biochar
application only when applied with CPM and NP, whereas these nutrients showed lowest concentrations in T6 treatment where only 33 t ha-1 PLB was used. Not properly
239 Treatments T2, T4 and T6 produced significantly larger and large biomass leaves
The issues raised at work are interesting, but the principles of good experimental practice require that field experiments are conducted for at least three years.
The publication contains errors in the interpretation of the results
Author Response
Thanks for the valuable comments.
179 tab. 2; should be tab. 3.
Answer: No, it is in table 1. Revised in the manuscript (MS) text.
211 Highest soil pH of 7.0 was observed in T3 and T4 that was statistically similar to pH 6.9, 6.8 and 6.7 observed in plots that were treated with T1, T2, T5 and T6, respectively, whereas, lowest pH of 6.1 was observed in control.
LSD was 0,2, so the difference between 7 and 6,7 was statistically proofed
Answer: According to table 4, the correct answer will be ‘’Highest soil pH of 7.0 was observed in T3 and T4 that was statistically similar to pH 6.9, 6.9 and 6.8 observed in plots that were treated with T1, T2 and T6, respectively, whereas, lowest pH of 6.1 was observed in control.’’ Revised in MS text.
214 The maximum percent N of 0.06% was observed with application of T1, T2 and T3, should be T4.
Answer: Yes, T3 has been replaced with T4.
217 Similarly, percent TOC showed same trend with maximum concentration of 0.83% was noted with application of T1 that was not statistically different than concentrations in T2, T3 and T4,
LSD = 0,12, so T3 and T4 are not statistically in the same group with T1.
Answer: Revised accordingly.
222 organic matter (OM) content, but in table 4 is SOM
Answer: organic matter (OM) content has been changed to soil organic matter (SOM) content in the text.
223 was statistically similar to OM contents of T3 T2 and T4
Answer: yes, you are correct. Revised in MS text.
230 All micronutrients including Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn showed a definite increase with biochar application only when applied with CPM and NP, whereas these nutrients showed lowest concentrations in T6 treatment where only 33 t ha-1 PLB was used. Not properly
Answer: Revised as ‘’All micronutrients including Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn showed a general trend of increase with biochar application only when applied with CPM and NP, while their concentrations in some treatments, especially T4 and T5 were lower than other treatments and control. These nutrients showed lower concentrations in T6 treatment where only 33 t ha-1 PLB was used.’’
239 Treatments T2, T4 and T6 produced significantly larger and large biomass leaves
Answer: Revised as ‘’Treatments T2, T4 and T6 produced significantly larger biomass of leaves compared to T1, T3 and T5 treatments.’’
The issues raised at work are interesting, but the principles of good experimental practice require that field experiments are conducted for at least three years.
Answer: It was a one-year funded project.
The publication contains errors in the interpretation of the results
Answer: Revised accordingly.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is interesting both in scientific and practical terms. However, I suggest some changes.
I Please:
- Complete the introduction with a clear justification for the scientific novelty of the research.
- Add references to the methods used. Do not mix methods of biochar, soil and plant analyses (describe them in the appropriate subsections, i.e. Biochar and Sampling and analyses of soil and plant).
- Complete the meteorological data.
- Provide the information on soil types according to World Reference Base for Soil Resources.
- Provide the information about an experimental design (the randomized block design?) and a clear justification for the applied rates of fertilizers, poultry litter biochar and compound poultry manure.
- Tables and figures should be included in the manuscript in the order in which they are discussed, e.g. Table 2 should be inserted into subsection 2.3. Experimental design.
- All abbreviations and acronyms used in tables and figures should be defined in the table notes or figure captions.
- Please check the values, when discussing the results, e.g. The maximum percent N of 0.06% was observed with application of T1, T2 and T4 (not T3) according to the Table 4.
- Separate the Conclusion section.
- Please correct language and editing errors, e.g. shadow of text fragments – L. 47-51, font size (references), lack of words in the title of the Table 4.
II L. 142-143 all the nutrient concentrations in digest were measured by molybdenum-blue method [48] It is not possible.
III On what basis are these statements being made:
L.236 (…) and minimised nutrients runoff in sandy soils
L.237 Poultry litter biochar in a combination with fertilisers and CPM produced healthy fruit
L.238-239 (…) water holding capacity of soil making soil conducive for better plant growth and fruit development (Figs. 2 and 3).
L. 247 (…) fertilisers without compromising on any environmental issues.
L.249-251 These two treatments can be the most economical response of applied treatments without compromising on any environmental risk and lead towards sustainable agriculture (Fig. 3).
Author Response
The manuscript is interesting both in scientific and practical terms. However, I suggest some changes.
I Please:
1. Complete the introduction with a clear justification for the scientific novelty of the research.
Answer: Research gap in biochar study and further needs of the study, which can invent the scientific novelty of the research, have been depicted in the last paragraph of the introduction.
2. Add references to the methods used. Do not mix methods of biochar, soil and plant analyses (describe them in the appropriate subsections, i.e. Biochar and Sampling and analyses of soil and plant).
Answer: All the methods used to determine various properties of biochar used, and soil and plant analysis have been rechecked properly and amended as per suggestions.
3. Complete the meteorological data.
Answer: Metrological data have been updated as suggested.
4. Provide the information on soil types according to World Reference Base for Soil Resources.
Answer: USDA’s soil classification is stated at reference [53].
5. Provide the information about experimental design (the randomized block design?) and a clear justification for the applied rates of fertilizers, poultry litter biochar and compound poultry manure.
Answer: Information regarding the statistical design used is provided in the methodology section (lines 140-142). Rates of fertilizers, poultry litter biochar and compound poultry manure were applied based on standard farmers use in the region.
6. Tables and figures should be included in the manuscript in the order in which they are discussed, e.g. Table 2 should be inserted into subsection 2.3. Experimental design.
Answer: Position of the table has been changed and inserted into subsection 2.3. Experimental design.
7. All abbreviations and acronyms used in tables and figures should be defined in the table notes or figure captions.
Answer: Abbreviations and acronyms have been defined in the table notes or figure captions.
8. Please check the values, when discussing the results, e.g. The maximum percent N of 0.06% was observed with application of T1, T2 and T4 (not T3) according to the Table 4.
Answer: Yes, It has been corrected.
9. Separate the Conclusion section.
Answer: Conclusion section has been separated.
10. Please correct language and editing errors, e.g. shadow of text fragments – L. 47-51, font size (references), lack of words in the title of Table 4.
Answer: Revised accordingly and words have been added in the title of Table 4.
II L. 142-143 all the nutrient concentrations in digest were measured by molybdenum-blue method [48] It is not possible.
Answer: The line has been updated regarding nutrient analysis and wrote as P concentration was determined by using this method.
III On what basis are these statements being made:
L.236 (…) and minimised nutrients runoff in sandy soils
Answer: Availability of more nutrients to the plants and nutrients uptake by cucumber proved that in given soil conditions, application of biochar proved to be an effective nutrient binding agent in soil and reduced nutrient runoff/leaching.
L.237 Poultry litter biochar in a combination with fertilisers and CPM produced healthy fruit
Answer: Availability of excess of nutrients in the form of biochar, synthetic fertilizer and CPM, the plants were able to produce more fruits/yield. As we know that the chemical fertilizers are a more effective way to provide nutrients to the plants, where biochar and CPM as organic sources provide nutrients slowly. So we assume that vegetative growth of plants can be maximised by providing nutrients in the form of chemical fertilizers, while in the end, the slow release/ organic fertilizers provide ample supply of nutrients for fruit development.
L.238-239 (…) water holding capacity of soil making soil conducive for better plant growth and fruit development (Figs. 2 and 3).
Answer: As we know that the nature of biochar and CPM is porous, so because of this porous nature, biochar can improve soil water holding capacity. Availability of water in sandy soils improved plant growth.
L. 247 (…) fertilisers without compromising on any environmental issues.
Answer: Use of chemical fertilizers although provide nutrients to the plants and increase crop yield but on the other hand it also increases the waterway pollution, chemical burn to crops, increased air pollution, acidification of the soil and mineral depletion of the soil. So integrated use of chemical and organic fertilizers/amendments can reduce these environmental issues.
L.249-251 These two treatments can be the most economical response of applied treatments without compromising on any environmental risk and lead towards sustainable agriculture (Fig. 3).
Answer: Treatment 2 (having CPM, NP and PLB of 9, 5 and 13 respectively) produced more yield of cucumber and we can say that it was because of an excess of nutrients availability. While in the case of T4 (having CPM, NP and PLB of 1, 2 and 7) also produced more yield in comparison to other treatments with less use of chemical fertilizer. So with better nutrient management, very similar results can be obtained by less use of chemical fertilizers.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
As I have written in my original review, the main problem in the assessed work is the too short period of the experiment. The effectiveness of the action of fertilizing substances depends very much on the course of weather conditions, especially humidity. In my opinion, no reliable conclusions can be drawn from only one year's experience.
Author Response
Reviewer 1.
As I have written in my original review, the main problem in the assessed work is the too short period of the experiment. The effectiveness of the action of fertilizing substances depends very much on the course of weather conditions, especially humidity. In my opinion, no reliable conclusions can be drawn from only one year's experience.
Response: Thanks for this comment. We agree but this experiment has done in a particular area with replicated plots for each treatment. Therefore, we have concluded as "But further chronological studies in the fields of various agro-ecological conditions would help to utilise this technology on sustainable cucumber crop production."
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions I made in the review. However, tables and figures are still not included in the manuscript in the order in which they are discussed. Moreover, all statements should be based on the own results (studied parameters) and/or cited literature.
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
The authors have addressed the comments and suggestions I made in the review. However, tables and figures are still not included in the manuscript in the order in which they are discussed. Moreover, all statements should be based on their own results (studied parameters) and/or cited literature.
Response:
Thanks for the comments. We have now sorted out figures and tables in a chronological order based on text. Yes, we have tried mostly to be used published information to support our findings.
