Biochar Characteristics and Application: Effects on Soil Ecosystem Services and Nutrient Dynamics for Enhanced Crop Yields

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

“Biochar characteristics and application: effects on soil ecosystem services, nutrient dynamics and crop yields” systematically reviews the interplay between biochar properties and their impacts on ecosystem functioning and agricultural sustainability. It elucidates how physicochemical traits—such as surface area, porosity, pH, and nutrient content—vary with feedstock and pyrolysis conditions, and in turn, modulate soil fertility parameters, carbon sequestration efficiency, and greenhouse gas dynamics. The review critically assesses how these interdependencies can be aligned with targeted soil and environmental conditions to optimize biochar application, thereby enhancing nutrient retention and crop yields in a sustainable manner, while also mitigating adverse environmental impacts.

However, up to my opinion the current form of the manuscript should be improved in various sections.

In the following, please find my recommendations for this manuscript.

Introductive section.

• The manuscript should discuss and integrate relevant literature references that underscore the evolution of biochar studies and critically assess recent advancements
• This section of the manuscript should consider ongoing research and assert their relevance in mitigating environmental challenges // Delineate potential contribution to the optimization of agro-ecological practices
• As introductive part, here the manuscript should present the major challenges and knowledge gaps in biochar research (implications for theoretical understanding and practical applications in sustainable agriculture)
• The manuscript should explicitly delineate the broader scientific context and the specific objectives of the study

Specific sections (2-5).

• The section as it is dedicated to “Biochar definition and generation” should present in a clear and systematic manner the relationships between pyrolysis parameters (temperature gradients, residence time, heating rates) and the resultant physicochemical properties of biochar
• The manuscript should refer to advanced characterization techniques such as XPS, NMR, SEM/TEM to elucidate the structural evolution during pyrolysis
• As the manuscript wish somehow to focus on “how biochar's characteristics influence key soil ecosystem services” in my opinion, this section should also incorporate quantitative models that describe thermodynamic aspects of biochar formation – that allow a prediction and control of desired properties through process optimization
• I recommend that the manuscript classify the biochar based on multiple parameters including feedstock characteristics, production conditions, and resultant physicochemical properties.
• I recommend that the manuscript in section 3 to consider also to describe methods/models used to evaluate the biochar influence on ES; please consider different spatial and temporal scales
• Consider evaluating the cascading effects of biochar characteristics on micro-, meso-, and macro-scale ecosystem processes – compare/discus available data from literature
• This section as it is dedicated to “Biochar characteristics and their influence on delivery of ecosystem services” should address the complex interplay between biochar's physicochemical properties and their temporal evolution in relation to ES delivery. The manuscript could consider also to identify key parameters influencing ES delivery and potential threshold effects
• Discuss cutting-edge monitoring technologies and assessment methodologies for evaluating biochar's impact on ES
• In section 4 the manuscript should take into account the significance of site-specific factors that modulate biochar efficacy – this should be discussed
• For section 5 please detail and discuss how “Effects of biochar on ecosystem services, nutrient dynamics and crop yields” were established; discuss selection criteria

Having these in mind I recommend this manuscript to be “Reconsidered after major revisions”

Author Response

We agree with your assessment of our manuscript and have carried out a comprehensive revision guided by your suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We can find a lot of papers on this topic and there is a lot more done in this field using different techniques to modify biochar, so how this review paper contributes substantially to the subject? The main gaps must be highlighted in the abstract. 

According to the title, role of biochar on ecosystem services and crop yields is completely overlooked in the paper. Subheading 4.1-4.5 look irrelevant and Table 3 doesn't make nay sense to me. 

Same headings are repeated in the section 5. tables mentioned in the paper describe are very general and not giving useful information for the readers. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the time taken to review our manuscript. We have carried out a comprehensive review as seen in the revised manuscript with track changes and believe we have fully responded to your concerns. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

Thank you for considering the recommendations in your manuscript. After analysing the current format of the manuscript, I feel that some minor things should be considered in the manuscript:

 

L553-558: “The effectiveness of biochar characteristics in delivering ecosystems services is based on their physicochemical properties as influenced by the application rates, soil properties, climate conditions and other factors like site specific management practices, crop types etc. [26,27]” Here the discussion around site-specific factors influencing biochar efficacy (e.g., soil properties, climate) should be more clearly presented and discussed.

Line 757: When the manuscript considers different spatial and temporal scales when discussing ecosystem services, the methods/models for scaling (e.g., GIS techniques or statistical weighting) should be more explicitly connected to the evaluation framework. In my opinion, a stronger methodological link would help readers understand how these scales influence the outcomes.

References - in my opinion the number of references should be reconsidered. Although it is a review article, in my opinion citing 284 works is too much

 

General recommendations:

1. The manuscript should be consistently formatted. Check section headings and numbering. Streamlining the heading hierarchy can improve navigation and reader comprehension.
2. Be clear in definitions, please standardise the used terminologies as “ecosystem services”, “soil ecosystem services”, “ecosystem functions” – this creates ambiguity
3. Some references lack complete citation details (e.g., missing page numbers or DOIs). Ensuring that all references adhere to the same citation style and are complete. 

 

Considering these, I recommend the current form of the manuscript for minor revisions.

Author Response

We agree with your assessment of our manuscript and have carried out a minor revision guided by your suggestions. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have made significant changes in the revised version, I am satisfied with it now.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 report

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Manuscript-ID nitrogen-3525482

Title    Biochar characteristics and application: effects on soil ecosystem services and nutrient dynamics for enhanced and crop yields

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript a second time. We appreciate the comments you gave. We have carried out a minor revision of the manuscript as you suggested. We believe the quality has been enhanced. Please find our responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Comment 1: Authors have made significant changes in the revised version, I am satisfied with it now.

Response 1: Thank you very much for taking time to review our manuscript and we appreciate your comment above.