Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments about abstract: The abstract should be based on data obtained from the experiments.

The authors should add the name of the methods used for the extraction of the worms and also report their efficiency.

The title of the study is 'Can foraging for earthworms significantly reduce global famine in a catastrophe?' However, I do not find any conclusive findings from the data presented in the abstract.

The abstract of the article should be based on findings inferred from the data.

Please add the three to four highlights of the findings.

Comments about Introduction:

Please add a figure of a flow diagram depicting the workflow.

Please add the nutritional value of the resilient food. Also, compare earthworms as a resilient food with other resilient foods in terms of nutritional value and ease of growth and extraction of nutrients.

The authors should introduce the methods used to extract the earthworms.

 

Comments about Materials and Methods: 

The subheading 'Estimating the global biomass and nutritional potential of earthworms' does not demonstrate any method that was used for estimating the global biomass and nutritional potential of earthworms. Please mention the methods used for this purpose. I do not know how the content of table 1 were estimated.

Comments about Result and Discussion: In result and discussion,  the results of this study should be discussed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work raises a very important problem regarding alternative forms of matter processing. The authors described the current state of knowledge very well. Literature sources are selected correctly. The research methodology comprehensively presents population estimation and energy potential.

The research results comprehensively present the potential of their use. They vary depending on the method of obtaining research material. The factors determining population changes and harvesting potential have been well described.

The authors actually pointed out the main problems and uncertainties regarding the issue. Further analyzes based on species specificity are necessary. The analysis can be extended to a wider scale, e.g. soil from other parts of the globe.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest authors to address the following minor and major issues before this manuscript is considered for publication in the journal.

1.      Please ensure that the number of keywords meets the journal's requirements and include only the most important ones accordingly.

2.      Please review this sentence in the introduction carefully. “…due to the random generation of samples, the values in the model may differ slightly from those shown below.”

3.      The authors should clearly state in the introduction section any similar studies in the area, emphasize the gaps in previous research, and explain how their study will address these gaps and differ from previous studies.

4.      Please rearrange the wording in section 2.1 to address the issue where it appears that the authors separately estimate "the global biomass" and "the nutritional potential of earthworms," as this could potentially mislead readers.

5.      The decision to include results within the Materials and Methods section warrants further explanation. Typically, this section is reserved for describing the methodology and procedures employed in the study rather than presenting results. However, it's important to consider the context and purpose behind including results in this section. If these results directly relate to the methodology, their inclusion may provide clarity and context for readers. Nevertheless, it's essential to ensure that the primary focus remains on outlining the methods employed, with any associated results serving to support or illustrate these methods rather than detract from them. Authors included results in the Materials and Methods section. Detailed results are not required in this section.

 

6.      Authors should ensure proper citation of the sources used for Table 1.

7.      Please correct the superscripts and other typos throughout the manuscript.

 

8.      In the Results and Discussion section, it's unclear whether some of the results mentioned in the manuscript are derived from the current study or from previous literature studies. Clarifying the origin of these results would enhance the understanding of readers and provide proper attribution to previous research if applicable

 

9.      Extensive citation in the Results and Discussion section gives manuscript the appearance of a review paper rather than a research article. Authors should prioritize presenting the findings of their study and only incorporate citations as necessary to support or compare their results with related works. This will ensure a clearer focus on the original research contributions and maintain the integrity of the manuscript as a research article.

10.  Including graphical representations in the manuscript would enhance its accessibility and help readers grasp the study's findings more easily.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a document with unconventional and, to some extent, daring information as it anticipates catastrophes of apocalyptic magnitude. However, the information presented is at the level of literary compilation and includes many assumptions aimed at warning about the risks of consuming worms as a protein source.

There is specific literature regarding the topic of radioactive contamination of worms in areas affected by actual radioactive disasters. It would be interesting to discuss this information with real data to make a more realistic projection.

Fujiwara, K., Takahashi, T., Nguyen, P., Kubota, Y., Gamou, S., Sakurai, S., & Takahashi, S. (2015). Uptake and retention of radio-caesium in earthworms cultured in soil contaminated by the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Journal of environmental radioactivity, 139, 135-139.

Maystrenko, T., & Rybak, A. (2022). Radiation exposure and risk assessment to earthworms in areas contaminated with naturally occurring radionuclides. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(10), 706.

Rybak, A. V., Belykh, E. S., Maystrenko, T. A., Shadrin, D. M., Pylina, Y. I., Chadin, I. F., & Velegzhaninov, I. O. (2020). Genetic analysis in earthworm population from area contaminated with radionuclides and heavy metals. Science of the Total Environment, 723, 137920.

Krivolutzkii, D. A., Pokarzhevskii, A. D., & Viktorov, A. G. (1992). Earthworm populations in soils contaminated by the chernobyl atomic power station accident, 1986–1988. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24(12), 1729-1731.

Furthermore:

The manuscript does not present a specific objective.

It is suggested to provide a list of abbreviations used in the document.

Adjust the referencing style to match the format of the journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the additions made by the authors following my recommendations. The manuscript has improved a lot; therefore, I recommend it for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been addressed by the authors.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

"Thank you for addressing the comments. The only thing left pending is marking the modifications in the references for review, but I hope everything is alright."