Exploring the Potential of Biochar in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed this manuscript and found that it follows the scope of Regional Science and Environmental Economics. However, the whole text was not formatted according to this journal's style. I suggest the author format this manuscript according to this journal's style.

The manuscript is a review paper addressing biochar's Potential in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture. The main sections contain biochar applications, biochar production and market implications, and economics of biochar in the U.S. The framework is suitable for the title.

The Introduction helps the audience understand this manuscript's background information, significance, and objectives. In this chapter, The author also introduces the approach used in this manuscript and the structure of the whole text. I only have one suggestion: Can the last two sections be combined into one?

The current year is 2025, and some information could be renewed.

In the Biochar Applications chapter, this chapter analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of various biochar applications. However, from Table 2, the audiences might not understand whether the advantages are higher or lower than the disadvantages. If possible, the authors should introduce for each item.

Each section in "Biochar production and market implications" is suitable. Figure 1 is vague and should be improved. I have another concern about this Figure. Was the author authorized to publish it?

In sections 4 and 5, I suggest the author find some references to compare B/C for and without applying biochar, especially in various fields of agriculture. This is an essential economic analysis that will help the audience understand the advantages of biochar applications.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work.

We are pleased to hear that you found the manuscript within the scope of Regional Science and Environmental Economics and that the framework aligns well with the paper’s objectives and title. We have carefully addressed each of your comments as outlined below:

• Journal Formatting:
  Thank you for pointing this out. We have reformatted the entire manuscript to fully comply with the journal’s style and submission guidelines.
• Combining Final Sections:
  As suggested, we have combined the last two sections into one consolidated section. This revision improves the flow and strengthens the overall structure of the paper.
• Updating to 2025:
  We reviewed the manuscript and updated relevant data and references to reflect the most current information available as of 2025.
• Clarifying Table 2:
  We revised Table 2 to better highlight the relative weight of advantages and disadvantages. Explanatory notes have also been added to guide the reader’s understanding of each item’s significance.
• Figure 1 Quality and Permission:
  Figure 1 has been removed. Thanks for your guidance.
• Benefit-Cost Comparisons:
  As recommended, we have added recent references comparing benefit-cost outcomes with and without biochar application in various agricultural contexts. This addition enhances the economic analysis and supports the practical relevance of biochar adoption.

Once again, thank you for your valuable suggestions. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The Abstract section should contain answers to the following questions: What problem was studied, and why is it important? What methods were used? What are the important results? What is the novelty of the work, and where does it go beyond previous efforts in the literature? Include specific and quantitative results in the Abstract section.
• Some references appear outdated. It would be great if you replaced the old studies with more recent studies from 2021 to 2024.
• In the last paragraph of the introduction, the gap that the paper fills in the literature, its differences from previous studies, and aspects that can shed light on future studies should be emphasized.
• The general structure of the paper has been prepared more like a lecture note than a research article, and in this respect, the paper needs serious polishing.
• The quality of the paper's figures and tables is quite low. Please refine.
• The conclusion section of the paper should include key conclusions for readers and critical findings that will guide future studies. Readers now expect clear conclusions and critical findings in the conclusion section. The conclusion section should be rewritten in bullet points to include the specified criteria.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

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

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful review and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our work.

We have carefully addressed each of your comments as outlined below:

• Abstract Improvements:
  The Abstract has been revised to clearly address the key questions you highlighted. It now includes:

• The central problem studied and its importance
• The review-based methodology
• Key findings with specific, quantitative highlights
• The novelty of our review and how it advances the existing literature

• Updated References:
  We carefully reviewed and updated several citations to include more recent studies from 2021 to 2024. Older references have been replaced or supplemented with up-to-date sources to better reflect the current state of research.
• Introduction Enhancements:
  The final paragraph of the Introduction has been rewritten to clearly identify:

• The literature gap the paper addresses
• How our study differs from previous reviews
• Insights that can guide and inform future research directions

• Structural Revisions:
  We have thoroughly revised the structure and tone of the manuscript to transition it from a lecture-style format to a polished research review article. Section transitions, academic tone, and overall coherence have been improved for clarity and consistency.
• Figures and Tables:
  All figures and tables have been refined for improved visual quality. Resolutions have been enhanced, and formatting has been standardized to ensure they meet the journal’s expectations.
• Conclusion Rewritten:
  The Conclusion section has been completely rewritten in bullet point format, as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 174. Do you mean thermochemical carbonization?

Table 1 is missing

Table 3. mins – hours : plurals not used for units. Change it to min – h

Biochar production by other non-conventional methods can be mentioned briefly.

Line 174: citation to “table 1” is not appropriate here

CAGR reported in line no 186 (2021-23) & 200 (2019-25) are drastically different. Is there any other source available to cross check the data?

Table 4. please change the caption. Remove the word “current” it is already 3 years old data

Table 5 and in other places, the number can be expressed in millions, for easy readability

Figure 1. clarity is poor

L255 – reactors?

Section 3. the data is old. Need to check availability of recent data.

Section 4. price of biochar. Both 2014 data and 2024 data are presented. Is there any trend available? Wide variation in biochar price is reported. Possibility due to different specifications. what are the typical characteristics of biochar (affecting the price, other than supercritical vetting)?

Figure 2. correct “BulK”, “Mkt”,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed and helpful feedback on our manuscript, "Biochar’s Potential in Enhancing U.S. Agriculture: Applications, Market Sustainability, and Economic Considerations." We greatly appreciate your insights and have addressed your comments as follows:

• Line 174 – Thermochemical Carbonization:
  We have corrected the terminology to thermochemical carbonization for accuracy.
• Missing Table 1:
  Table 1 has now been added to the manuscript and properly cited.
• Table 3 – Unit Formatting ("mins – hours"):
  Units have been corrected to "min – h" following standard conventions.
• Non-Conventional Biochar Production Methods:
  A brief section covering non-conventional production methods has been included.
• Line 174 – Citation to Table 1:
  The inappropriate citation to Table 1 at Line 174 has been removed.
• CAGR Inconsistencies:
  We rechecked the CAGR figures with additional sources and clarified the differences with explanations in the text.
• Table 4 Caption:
  The word “current” was removed to accurately reflect the data year.
• Numerical Formatting:
  Large numbers in Table 5 and elsewhere are now expressed in millions for easier readability.
• Figure 1:
  To improve manuscript clarity, the original Figure 1 has been removed. Consequently, Figure 2 has been renumbered as Figure 1.
• Line 255 – Clarification on Reactors:
  The term “reactors” has been clarified in context.
• Section 3 – Updated Data:
  Section 3 has been updated with the most recent data available (2022–2024).
• Section 4 – Biochar Price Trends and Characteristics:
  We added a discussion on the price trends between 2014 and 2024 and detailed key biochar characteristics that influence pricing beyond supercritical vetting.
• Figure 1 (formerly Figure 2) – Text Corrections:
  Typographical errors such as “BulK” and “Mkt” have been corrected to “Bulk” and “MKT.”

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have largely addressed the deficiencies identified in the previous review.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestions and for helping us improve the quality of this manuscript. We truly appreciate your support and guidance.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised significantly.

In table 5, i wonder why reactor is shown as a product along with biochar?

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The issue has been addressed — the reference to "reactor" has been removed from the table, and a revised version has now been included.

Thank you again for your guidance.