Study of the Relationship Between Nitrogen, Phosphorus Content, and Microbial Community Changes in Deer Manure Compost with Different Conditioners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments#

 

In the study entitled “Study of the relationship between nitrogen、phosphorus content and microbial community changes in deer manure compos of with different conditioners,” Xu et al. investigated the effect of different conditioners, such as biochar and zeolite, on the nutrition indices during the composting process, and their impact on the microbial diversity.

 

The current study continues its previous investigation (Fermentation 2024, 10(11), 575; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110575) and uses the last data to validate current hypotheses. It indeed adds value to the existing composting process to produce toxic-free fertilizer.

 

Though the manuscript is understandable, it requires rigorous editing, especially in the abstract, introduction, and materials section. The results and discussion part are well-articulated. Some of them are mentioned below.

 #Major Comments

Line 3 – Please check the spelling of ‘compost’ in the title

Consider better and insightful title for the manuscript

 Lines 17- 30 – Please rewrite it for better readability.

 Lines 20-21 –  Please clarify “humification process of deer manure aerobic compost was studied.”

 Line 24 – What is ‘Coryneba、Acinetob’?

 Line 58 – Rephrase the sentence. What is ‘from dry’?

 Lines 121- 127 – Primer information with proper citation is required here for both the bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal ITS (or explicitly designed for this work?)

Could you please add more details such as –

Which platform was used for NGS? What is the amplicon size, single-end or paired-end? How many reads were sequenced? What percentage is retained after quality filtering?

How were QIIME2 analyses performed in this study? For instance, the parameters for preprocessing the amplicon reads, quality filtering, primer and adaptor removal, and denoising steps (DADA or deblur). 

A detailed workflow is necessary to reproduce the analyses within the manuscript in the materials and methods section or as a supplementary document.

 Lines 128-137—How was the data from the QIIME2 transformed into PRISM? Again, the methods need clarification and details.

 Line 209 – ‘gate level or genus level’?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language needs improvement.

Author Response

Dear  reviewer：

Thank you so much for your letter. We are so appreciating for the chance to revise, and also thank the reviewers for giving us many constructive suggestions, which would help us to improve the quality of the paper. The letter provides valuable suggestions not only for the current article but also for our further studies. The manuscript has been revised in the light of all comments from the editor and reviewers, and we have embellished the manuscript. We have addressed the comments point by point and all modified parts have been highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. The responses to the comments from editor/reviewers are listed as follows:

Reviewer #1: In the study entitled “Study of the relationship between nitrogen、phosphorus content and microbial community changes in deer manure compos of with different conditioners,” Xu et al. investigated the effect of different conditioners, such as biochar and zeolite, on the nutrition indices during the composting process, and their impact on the microbial diversity. The current study continues its previous investigation (Fermentation 2024, 10(11), 575; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10110575) and uses the last data to validate current hypotheses. It indeed adds value to the existing composting process to produce toxic-free fertilizer. Though the manuscript is understandable, it requires rigorous editing, especially in the abstract, introduction, and materials section. The results and discussion part are well-articulated. Some of them are mentioned below.

Comments 1: Line 3 – Please check the spelling of ‘compost’ in the title

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I have checked and revised “compost” in the title.

Comments 2: Lines 17- 30 – Please rewrite it for better readability.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, lines 17-30 have been rewritten to improve their scientific and readability.“Composting is an environmentally friendly method for disposing of solid waste. To address the challenge of cellulose degradation ……… the resulting compost product exhibited low toxicity, achieving …….. conditioner is the optimal choice for reducing the phytotoxicity of compost and promoting its decomposition.”

Comments 3: Lines 20-21 – Please clarify “humification process of deer manure aerobic compost was studied.”

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. The intention was to emphasize the study of organic matter degradation and microbial activity during composting. However, in the context of the entire text, the generalization of humification falls outside the scope of this paper, so it has been removed.

Comments 4: Line 24 – What is ‘Coryneba、Acinetob’?

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. It has been acknowledged and amended to“Corynebacterium, Acinetobacter, and Glutamicibacter”

Comments 5: Line 58 – Rephrase the sentence. What is ‘from dry’?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. It is due to the fact that the porous nature and water retention properties of biochar provide a source of moisture for microorganisms, preventing them from drying out. Additionally,  has been changed “dry” to “desiccation” to ensure the accuracy of the vocabulary.

Comments 6: Lines 121- 127 – Primer information with proper citation is required here for both the bacterial 16S rRNA and fungal ITS (or explicitly designed for this work?). Could you please add more details such as –Which platform was used for NGS? What is the amplicon size, single-end or paired-end? How many reads were sequenced? What percentage is retained after quality filtering?How were QIIME2 analyses performed in this study? For instance, the parameters for preprocessing the amplicon reads, quality filtering, primer and adaptor removal, and denoising steps (DADA or deblur). A detailed workflow is necessary to reproduce the analyses within the manuscript in the materials and methods section or as a supplementary document.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected the primer information and added a more detailed workflow, including the kits used for PCR amplification, sequencing platforms, and sequence analysis platforms. Additionally, we have cited the relevant literature. （Line:173-189）“PCR amplicons were purified with Vazyme VAHTSTM DNA Clean Beads (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) and quantified using the Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). …….The sequences were then quality filtered, denoised, merged, and chimera removed using the DADA2 plugin [27].”

Comments 7: Lines 128-137—How was the data from the QIIME2 transformed into PRISM? Again, the methods need clarification and details.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out, it has been added. （Line:190-191）“Sequence data analyses were mainly performed using QIIME2，ASV class richness was calculated using the ASV table in QIIME2, then export the data.”

Comments 8: Line 209 – ‘gate level or genus level’?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. Changed to “Phylum”.

Comments 9: The English language needs improvement.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We have touched up the grammar and revised the paper

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

Sincerely yours

Jianling Xu

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript by Jianling Xu et al. “Study of the relationship between nitrogen, phosphorus content and microbial community changes in deer manure compos of with different conditioners” is devoted to studying the influence of various additives on the process of composting deer manure and on the properties of the compost.

The presented material corresponds to the profile of the journal Fermentation. However, the manuscript needs significant revision. This applies to both the description of the research methods and the elaboration of the presented results, including captions to the figures.

Please, clarify the Title of the MS: “compos of with”, “conditioners” Should it be “Compost”? “Additives”?

Line 22 “TOC” First, provide with the full name, then use abbreviation.

Line 23-24. expression “the final TN content of the reactor” nitrogen probably not of the reactor, but in the reactor.

Line 24. “The changes of Coryneba、Acinetob and Glutamic” please, provide with the appropriate name of the bacteria.

Line 27 “GI” what is it?

Over all the text: “annually[1,2]” it should be the gap between word and brackets.

Line 67. “quality[22]; The” should it be dot?

Line 136 please, check the space in: “series;ρ stands for the resolution factor,”

There is no “ρ” in the Formula 2

Please, add to the Method section the description for TN, TP, Electric conductivity(EC) determination.

The Figure 4 is called “Figure 4. The relative abundance of bacterial populations for four composts at the phylum-level” but presents the results of fungal populations fluctuation.

Figure 5 represents the diversity of the bacterial community not at the genus level, but at the phylum level.

Line 261 “Turicibc, Rombouts, and Clostrid” what is this?

Line 348-350. Please, use Italics for Latin names. And species or genera?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you so much for your letter. We are so appreciating for the chance to revise, and also thank the reviewers for giving us many constructive suggestions, which would help us to improve the quality of the paper. The letter provides valuable suggestions not only for the current article but also for our further studies. The manuscript has been revised in the light of all comments from the editor and reviewers, and we have embellished the manuscript. We have addressed the comments point by point and all modified parts have been highlighted in green in the revised manuscript. The responses to the comments from editor/reviewers are listed as follows:

Reviewer #2: The manuscript by Jianling Xu et al. “Study of the relationship between nitrogen, phosphorus content and microbial community changes in deer manure compos of with different conditioners” is devoted to studying the influence of various additives on the process of composting deer manure and on the properties of the compost. The presented material corresponds to the profile of the journal Fermentation. However, the manuscript needs significant revision. This applies to both the description of the research methods and the elaboration of the presented results, including captions to the figures.

Comments 1: Please, clarify the Title of the MS: “compos of with”, “conditioners” Should it be “Compost”? “Additives”?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Confirmation has been made, “compos” has been corrected to “compost”, and it has been confirmed to be “conditioner”.

Comments 2: Line 22 “TOC” First, provide with the full name, then use abbreviation.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. Changes have been made to “total organic carbon (TOC)”.

Comments 3: Line 23-24. expression “the final TN content of the reactor” nitrogen probably not of the reactor, but in the reactor.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Changes have been made to “Biochar addition enhances nitrogen retention in the compost heap, allowing the final total nitrogen (TN) content to reach as high as 39.55 g/kg.”

Comments 4: Line 24. “The changes of Coryneba、Acinetob and Glutamic” please, provide with the appropriate name of the bacteria.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. Full name has been added. “Corynebacterium, Acinetobacter, and Glutamicibacter”

Comments 5: Line 27 “GI” what is it?

Response 5: Thanks for pointing this out. gi is seed germination rate, have added the full name.“germination index (GI)”

Comments 6: Over all the text: “annually[1,2]” it should be the gap between word and brackets.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Replaced “automatically” with “each year”.

Comments 7: Line 67. “quality[22]; The” should it be dot?

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. It has been modified to dot.

Comments 8: Line 136 please, check the space in: “series;ρ stands for the resolution factor,”

There is no “ρ” in the Formula 2

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. Changes have been made to replace “ρ” with “ ”

Comments 9: Please, add to the Method section the description for TN, TP, Electric conductivity(EC) determination.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out, it has been added based on the research metrics. （Line:142-150,162-170）“The determination of total organic carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN), and total phosphorus (TP) during the composting process was conducted according to the methods outlined in Organic Fertilizer ………a certain concentration range, the absorbance of the yellow solution is proportional to the phosphorus content and is measured spectrophotometrically at 440 nm.”

Comments 10: The Figure 4 is called “Figure 4. The relative abundance of bacterial populations for four composts at the phylum-level” but presents the results of fungal populations fluctuation.

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out, it has been acknowledged and corrected. Changed to“The relative abundance of fungal populations for four composts at the phylum-level”

Comments 11: Figure 5 represents the diversity of the bacterial community not at the genus level, but at the phylum level.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out, it has been acknowledged and corrected. Changed to“The relative abundance of bacterial populations for four composts at the phylum -level”

Comments 12: Line 261 “Turicibc, Rombouts, and Clostrid” what is this?

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. Changes have been made. Modified to “Turicibacter, Romboutsia, and Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1”

Comments 13: Line 348-350. Please, use Italics for Latin names. And species or genera?

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. It has been confirmed that the species is genus level and the formatting has been changed to italics.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

Sincerely yours

Jianling Xu

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript is pretty interesting because it addresses a novel topic (deer manure) investigating several key parameters. At the same time the experimental methods are not sufficiently described to allow the reproducibility of the results. In my opinion the current paper should be rejected. However I provided some suggestion that the authors can consider for the next submission

-          Line 38 onwards. It is unlikely that deer manure can be a serious environmental problem with respects to the much larger issues such as the 4 billion tons of agricultural waste mentioned in the text. It is not clear why the authors focus on deer manure

 

-          Line 75. I doubt this can be true outside of small local markets. The production of deer manure if any is not much and not standardized which would not make it for an industrial product

 

-          Line 90-91. These can be better specified at least including the name of the actual zeolite used. The origin of the biochar (which material was pyrolized?) is also not specified. A key parameter for both biochar and zeolite is the surface area, which is not reported in Table1.

 

-          Is the content of N in the biochar within expected limits? It seems quite high.  

 

-          The techniques for the determination of TOC, TN, etc. are not given. The protocol for composting is not fully clear. Was this composted in a bin? How was the moisture kept constant throughout? Was the temperature monitored?

 

-          Line 141. Does the TOC analyzer actually pick up the entirety of the pyrolized biochar carbon?

 

-          Line 182 onwards. Again, how the nitrite, ammonia and nitrate N as well as P was determined is not reported in the experimental section

 

-          Line 198. I am not sure I understand the meaning of monitoring the total P. The amount of P cannot change so that it’s increase is likely due to the mass decrease. This does not look like an interesting or useful finding. Was the mass monitored? In the case of biochar there is a sudden increase at some point. If I understand properly the authors run the experiment in triplicates and the error bar is very small. So, what does that sudden increase in total P for the biochar means?

 

 

-          Line 270. Which seeds were used? It is not sufficient to say “cabbage”. In 272 the authors say that GI is a crucial indicator of compost toxicity. Why? First of all, it would depend on the seed species chosen, then on the concentration chosen. If the composts have been used at the same rate and dilution (1:10 in water), then the NPK is not constant so it is not surprising the GI is different. The result has nothing to do with toxicity, is simply due to different NPK content supplied to the seed. Additionally, in the field compost is a soil amendment that would be tilled in the soil so the germination would depend on many other parameters. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer：

Thank you so much for your letter. We are so appreciating for the chance to revise, and also thank the reviewers for giving us many constructive suggestions, which would help us to improve the quality of the paper. The letter provides valuable suggestions not only for the current article but also for our further studies. The manuscript has been revised in the light of all comments from the editor and reviewers, and we have embellished the manuscript. We have addressed the comments point by point and all modified parts have been highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript. The responses to the comments from editor/reviewers are listed as follows:

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is pretty interesting because it addresses a novel topic (deer manure) investigating several key parameters. At the same time the experimental methods are not sufficiently described to allow the reproducibility of the results. In my opinion the current paper should be rejected. However I provided some suggestion that the authors can consider for the next submission.

Comments 1: Line 38 onwards. It is unlikely that deer manure can be a serious environmental problem with respects to the much larger issues such as the 4 billion tons of agricultural waste mentioned in the text. It is not clear why the authors focus on deer manure

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Most of the manures used in the composting of agricultural waste include cow, pig, and chicken manure, each supported by established composting technologies. However, due to the diverse characteristics of various fertilizers, there is a need to explore high-value organic fertilizers. The economic value of organic fertilizers derived from deer manure is significantly higher than that of other types of fertilizers. Consequently, the growth rate of deer in recent years has surpassed that of other livestock species. As deer breeding scales expand, so does the pollution from deer manure affecting the factories' surrounding environment. Therefore deer manure composting was studied. Corresponding rationale has been added to the text. （Line:35-41）“Most of the manures used in the composting of agricultural waste include cow, pig, and …….. Consequently, the growth rate of deer in recent years has surpassed that of other livestock species[4].”

Comments 2: Line 75. I doubt this can be true outside of small local markets. The production of deer manure if any is not much and not standardized which would not make it for an industrial product

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. With the global emphasis on environmental protection and green agriculture, as well as the improvement of consumers' requirements for the quality of agricultural products, the market demand for organic fertilizers is increasing. The preparation and use of deer manure fertilizer has also formed a certain scale in Northeast China, and because it is rich in a variety of functional microorganisms and rich in trace elements, it is widely used in farmland, woodland, flower gardening, vegetable garden planting, aquaculture and other fields, such as flower farming, ginseng and ganoderma lucidum crop planting, orchard planting and so on, which has a huge market potential. Although the fermentation of deer manure to prepare organic fertilizer still belongs to the category of primary agricultural products, not industrial products, but its production and application range is still broader.

Comments 3: Line 90-91. These can be better specified at least including the name of the actual zeolite used. The origin of the biochar (which material was pyrolized?) is also not specified. A key parameter for both biochar and zeolite is the surface area, which is not reported in Table1.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Specific information on the zeolites and biochar used has been added to the materials section. The methods and raw materials used for the preparation of biochar and the characterization of its properties have been added, (Table 1), and the natural zeolite has not been further analyzed due to the inability to observe localized deformations in the zeolite pore structure by conventional structural characterization methods (Science, 2022, 376: 491).

Comments 4: Is the content of N in the biochar within expected limits? It seems quite high. 

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. The value of total nitrogen in the biochar measured in the paper is 11.62 g/kg, It’s 1.62% nitrogen. The nitrogen content of straw biochar prepared from cereal straw (wheat, corn, etc.) is usually not higher than 2%, so it falls within the appropriate range.

Comments 5: The techniques for the determination of TOC, TN, etc. are not given. The protocol for composting is not fully clear. Was this composted in a bin? How was the moisture kept constant throughout? Was the temperature monitored?

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The method for TOC/TN determination has been added, as well as the steps for composting. Composting was carried out in a compost reactor (Figure 1), which was fitted with a thermometer for temperature monitoring. The raw materials were weighed according to a set material ratio, the moisture content was adjusted, and then stirred well and allowed to rest in a black plastic bag for at least 12 h, after which the well-mixed raw materials were transferred into the composting reactor. The ventilation rate was selected to be 0.6 mL/min, and the compost was ventilated for 15 min per hour and stopped for 45 min, and the compost was turned over during the sampling process to replenish the water at appropriate time. （Line:108-117）“Composting was performed in a compost reactor (Figure 1), …….Turning the pile during the sampling process and replenishing moisture at the appropriate time.”

Comments 6: Line 141. Does the TOC analyzer actually pick up the entirety of the pyrolized biochar carbon?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The total organic carbon content of the composted material is measured in the paper, and the composted material will be turned before sample collection, after which samples will be taken from the top, middle and bottom layers to ensure the representativeness and accuracy of the results. Before composting, the composting material is also fully turned and mixed well to ensure that the biochar is evenly distributed in the composting material.

Comments 7: Line 182 onwards. Again, how the nitrite, ammonia and nitrate N as well as P was determined is not reported in the experimental section

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. It has been added in the methodology.

Comments 8: Line 198. I am not sure I understand the meaning of monitoring the total P. The amount of P cannot change so that it’s increase is likely due to the mass decrease. This does not look like an interesting or useful finding. Was the mass monitored? In the case of biochar there is a sudden increase at some point. If I understand properly the authors run the experiment in triplicates and the error bar is very small. So, what does that sudden increase in total P for the biochar means?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. The change of total phosphorus content in the composting process was studied because total phosphorus content is also one of the important indicators to assess the quality of compost. By determining the total phosphorus content of compost, it is possible to know the organic matter content and the degree of decomposition of the compost. Biochar, as a carbon source, promotes microbial activity, accelerating the decomposition of organic matter and the release of phosphorus. Therefore it will increase the amount of phosphorus in the composting process.

Comments 9: Line 270. Which seeds were used? It is not sufficient to say “cabbage”. In 272 the authors say that GI is a crucial indicator of compost toxicity. Why? First of all, it would depend on the seed species chosen, then on the concentration chosen. If the composts have been used at the same rate and dilution (1:10 in water), then the NPK is not constant so it is not surprising the GI is different. The result has nothing to do with toxicity, is simply due to different NPK content supplied to the seed. Additionally, in the field compost is a soil amendment that would be tilled in the soil so the germination would depend on many other parameters.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. Your comments will serve as a valuable guide for our future research. In this study, we focused solely on cabbage seeds for the seed germination rate test because cabbage seeds are particularly sensitive to environmental changes and can quickly respond to the degree of compost decomposition. We will take your suggestions into account in subsequent studies and include additional seed types to more comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of composting. The content has been revised, and the reason for maintaining the same ratio and dilution is that the dilution ratio was determined according to the standard method for assessing the seed germination index (NY525-2021). In the paper, the analysis of phytotoxicity was added on the basis of the analysis of the degree of decomposition of fertilizers, through the review of the literature, it is known that the seed germination rate not only reflects the toxicity of fertilizers, but also reflects the degree of decomposition of fertilizers, the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of fertilizers is different under different degrees of decomposition, which will affect the germination of the seeds.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Reviewer’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

Sincerely yours

Jianling Xu

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made corrections to the text of the article. In this form, it can be accepted for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 3: Line 90-91. These can be better specified at least including the name of the actual zeolite used. The origin of the biochar (which material was pyrolized?) is also not specified. A key parameter for both biochar and zeolite is the surface area, which is not reported in Table1.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Specific information on the zeolites and biochar used has been added to the materials section. The methods and raw materials used for the preparation of biochar and the characterization of its properties have been added, (Table 1), and the natural zeolite has not been further analyzed due to the inability to observe localized deformations in the zeolite pore structure by conventional structural characterization methods (Science, 2022, 376: 491).

Counter comment: while the authors reported the surface area of the biochar they did not report the surface area of the zeolite. There is no need to analyze the pore structure of the zeolite, however at least the surface area should be reported. The authors should also report which type of zeolite was used (clinoptilolite, chabaizate, etc.)

 

Comments 6: Line 141. Does the TOC analyzer actually pick up the entirety of the pyrolized biochar carbon?

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The total organic carbon content of the composted material is measured in the paper, and the composted material will be turned before sample collection, after which samples will be taken from the top, middle and bottom layers to ensure the representativeness and accuracy of the results. Before composting, the composting material is also fully turned and mixed well to ensure that the biochar is evenly distributed in the composting material.

Counter comment: the authors did not reply to the question of the reviewer whether the TOC analyzer is able to analyze the C content from the biochar or not

 

Comments 8: Line 198. I am not sure I understand the meaning of monitoring the total P. The amount of P cannot change so that it’s increase is likely due to the mass decrease. This does not look like an interesting or useful finding. Was the mass monitored? In the case of biochar there is a sudden increase at some point. If I understand properly the authors run the experiment in triplicates and the error bar is very small. So, what does that sudden increase in total P for the biochar means?

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. The change of total phosphorus content in the composting process was studied because total phosphorus content is also one of the important indicators to assess the quality of compost. By determining the total phosphorus content of compost, it is possible to know the organic matter content and the degree of decomposition of the compost. Biochar, as a carbon source, promotes microbial activity, accelerating the decomposition of organic matter and the release of phosphorus. Therefore it will increase the amount of phosphorus in the composting process.

Counter comment: the authors did not reply to the question of the reviewer. The total P cannot change if the system is closed and does not exchange P with the outside world. Perhaps the authors are confusing the bioavilable P with the total P

 

Comments 9: Line 270. Which seeds were used? It is not sufficient to say “cabbage”. In 272 the authors say that GI is a crucial indicator of compost toxicity. Why? First of all, it would depend on the seed species chosen, then on the concentration chosen. If the composts have been used at the same rate and dilution (1:10 in water), then the NPK is not constant so it is not surprising the GI is different. The result has nothing to do with toxicity, is simply due to different NPK content supplied to the seed. Additionally, in the field compost is a soil amendment that would be tilled in the soil so the germination would depend on many other parameters.

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. Your comments will serve as a valuable guide for our future research. In this study, we focused solely on cabbage seeds for the seed germination rate test because cabbage seeds are particularly sensitive to environmental changes and can quickly respond to the degree of compost decomposition. We will take your suggestions into account in subsequent studies and include additional seed types to more comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of composting. The content has been revised, and the reason for maintaining the same ratio and dilution is that the dilution ratio was determined according to the standard method for assessing the seed germination index (NY525-2021). In the paper, the analysis of phytotoxicity was added on the basis of the analysis of the degree of decomposition of fertilizers, through the review of the literature, it is known that the seed germination rate not only reflects the toxicity of fertilizers, but also reflects the degree of decomposition of fertilizers, the nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content of fertilizers is different under different degrees of decomposition, which will affect the germination of the seeds.

Counter comment: the authors should indicate at least the species and genus of the cabbage used. It is not clear what the authors mean by "degree of decomposition of the fertilizer". I assume they mean the bioavailability of the fertilizer. Potentially if a fertilizer is more bioavailable it could be more toxic so I could not understand the comment of the authors