Influence of Acidified Biochar on CO2–C Efflux and Micronutrient Availability in an Alkaline Sandy Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article entitled “Influence of acidified biochar on CO2–C efflux and 2 micronutrient availability in an alkaline sandy soil” is an interesting report on the preparation of biochars designed for improving soil micronutrient availability. The authors have characterized the prepared materials, measured the properties of soils treated with these biochars models and carried out statistical analysis of their results. This paper can be granted publication in "Sustainability" after some minor changes are completed:
Line 131-133 – Authors need to clarify the exact meaning of different letters. Is the least significant difference a and the most significant difference h? Please include this in text and Figure caption for clarity purposes.
Lines 147-148 This is not clear. Rewrite considering only what is most important.
Line 155 – these are not really application rates
Line 156 – profound? Significant is better than profound
Line 169 – Give detail of what different letters mean, i.e. what intervals of values do these correspond to according to the LSD test.
Line 189-194 – This sentence is very difficult to understand. Why not including maxima and minima here?
Line 244 – Same as line 169
Line 250-56 – Same as 189-194
Line 259-60 + 299-230 + 311-312 – Same as 169
Author Response
Reviewer # 1
The authors have characterized the prepared materials, measured the properties of soils treated with these biochar models, and carried out statistical analysis of their results. This paper can be granted publication in "Sustainability" after some minor changes are completed
Response: Thank you for your encouraging comments. We are highly thankful to the reviewer for valuable comments/suggestions, which helped us a lot in improving the quality of our manuscript significantly.
Comment 1: Line 131-133 – Authors need to clarify the exact meaning of different letters. Is the least significant difference a and the most significant difference h? Please include this in the text and Figure caption for clarity purposes.The manuscript should be revised for English language and grammatical mistakes.
Response: We have clarified the meaning of the letters used for the differences in treatments.
Comment 2: Lines 147-148: This is not clear. Rewrite considering only what is most important.
Response: The information has been clarified.
Comment 3: Line 155 – these are not really application rates
Response: The percentage used signifies the application rate. For example, a 1% biochar application rate means 1 g of biochar was mixed with 100 g of soil and so on.
Comment 4: Line 156 – profound? Significant is better than profound
Response: This has been modified as suggested.
Comment 5: Line 169 – Give detail of what different letters mean, i.e. what intervals of values do these correspond to according to the LSD test.
Response: The details of the different letters have been given.
Comment 6: Line 189-194 – This sentence is very difficult to understand. Why not including maxima and minima here?
Response: The sentence has been modified to your suggestion.
Comment 7: Line 244 – Same as line 169
Response: The details of the different letters have been given.
Comment 8: Line 250-56 – Same as 189-194
Response: The sentence has been modified to your suggestion.
Comment 9: Line 259-60 + 299-230 + 311-312 – Same as 169
Response: The details of the different letters have been given.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors have selected poultry manure at two different temperatures (350 and 550) to investigate the CO2-C efflux and micronutrient availability. This is an interesting study. However, minor revisions need to be done.
1) Remove too much use of abbreviations in the abstract.
2) In the introduction, it is needed to include some latest research on a similar topic and a detailed literature review is needed.
2) Authors need to add some application perspective in the introduction.
3) authors need to present a clear experimental plan (like a replicate of each sample ) in material and methods.
4) why the authors have used LSD method over statistical methods such as ANOVA. Do complete Post hoc analysis and check the significance of results.
Author Response
Reviewer # 2
In this paper, the authors have selected poultry manure at two different temperatures (350 and 550) to investigate the CO2-C efflux and micronutrient availability. This is an interesting study. However, minor revisions need to be done.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for appreciating our study. We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the valuable comments/suggestions, which helped us in improving the quality of our manuscript. We have incorporated the changes suggested by the reviewer in the revised version of the manuscript.
Comment 1: Remove too much use of abbreviations in the abstract.
Response: The abbreviations have been reduced.
Comment 2: In the introduction, it is needed to include some latest research on a similar topic and a detailed literature review is needed
Response: The introduction has been improved base on your suggestion
Comment 3: Authors need to add some application perspective in the introduction
Response: New information have been added to the introduction.
Comment 4: Authors need to present a clear experimental plan (like a replicate of each sample ) in material and methods.
Response: The experimental plan has been more clarified.
Comment 5: 4) why the authors have used LSD method over statistical methods such as ANOVA. Do complete Post hoc analysis and check the significance of results.
Response: Post hoc analysis was all used to check the significance of the treatments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article was very well stated as an approach and data representation.
The plots are clearly presented and comment on as well.
Author Response
The article was very well stated as an approach and data representation.
The plots are clearly presented and comment on as well.
Response: We are thankful to the reviewer for appreciating our study. We express our gratitude for your positive comments.
