Ameliorative Effects of Biochar for Cadmium Stress on Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Growth
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer comments for the manuscript titled ''Ameliorative Effects of Biochar for Cadmium Stress on Bean Growth'' (ID: sustainability-2026883)
Brief summary
The authors discuss the combined effect of biochar and cadmium on several morphological and biochemical traits of bean plants under greenhouse conditions. The work is original and its main contribution is the knowledge gained on the role of biochar in ameliorating bean plants exposed to cadmium stress.
General concept comments
The section of ‘Materials and Methods’ lacks important information and needs improvement in order to be more comprehensive. Specifically, where is the greenhouse located? Which are the coordinates of the experimental area? Nothing is mentioned about its aerial environment, regarding some meaningful meteorological parameters such as air temperature and relative humidity. The significance level should be mentioned in the ‘Statistical Analyses’.
The various images of Figures 1 and 2 should be marked with 'a' 'b', 'c' etc. and standard deviations should be added, as bars, on the respective columns.
Authors should discuss their results with more details, making an attempt to relate them with the results of other pertinent works, if possible. A more detailed review of literature is required.
Regarding my specific comments, I numbered the lines starting with number 1 for each chapter (and subchapter).
Specific comments
1. Title. Please provide the full scientific mane of the bean plant.
Abstract
Page 1
2. Line 1. in the morphological, physiological and... Remove ', physiological'.
3. Lines 12-13. In concluded, biochar...bean seedlings. Is the sentence correct, for example, regarding 'alleviate bioinhibition of Cd stress'?
Introduction
Page 2
4. Line 19. increases ROS and... What is 'ROS? First define and then abbreviate. Follow 'Instructions for Authors'. Check for similar cases throughout the text.
5. Lines 30-34. In general, biochar...energy production [9]. Rephrase the sentence. It is too long, better to split it.
6. Lines 48-53. Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)...losses in crops. Provide one reference source at least.
Materials and Methods
Page 3
7. Table 2. Authors use both decimal comma and decimal point (see pH). Use either decimal comma or decimal point but not both. Check for similar cases throughout the text. In addition, is the unit of pH correct?
Results
Page 4
8. Table 3. 'Root wet weight' or 'Root fresh weight' as in line 9? Be consistent with terminology.
Pages 6-7
9. Figure 1. Figures should be self-explanatory. For example, what do the letters above the columns denote?
Discussion
Page 8
10. Line 18. ...for chickpea... Chickpea is a generic name. Provide the full scientific name and check for similar cases throughout the text.
11. Lines 24-26. Stobort et al. [31]...chlorophyll biosynthesis. Authors mention that 'Cd reduces chlorophyll biosynthesis' but no chlorophyll measurement exists in the current manuscript. Check for similar cases. Authors should discuss their own results providing explanations for them as much as possible.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of all of the co-authors, I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for careful reading, and constructive suggestions for our manuscript. According to comments from editor and reviewers, we comprehensively revised our manuscript. We are looking forward to your feedback and further comments/suggestions are welcome.
The reviewers' comments are reproduced in black; our responses are detailed below in red:
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
First of all, I would like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for forwarding very constructive criticism of the MS and giving us an opportunity to improve the standard of the MS. We are glad to state that all suggestions forwarded by the reviewers have been incorporated in their entirety and none has been left unaddressed.
Brief summary
The authors discuss the combined effect of biochar and cadmium on several morphological and biochemical traits of bean plants under greenhouse conditions. The work is original and its main contribution is the knowledge gained on the role of biochar in ameliorating bean plants exposed to cadmium stress.
Thank you very much
General concept comments
The section of ‘Materials and Methods’ lacks important information and needs improvement in order to be more comprehensive. Specifically, where is the greenhouse located? Which are the coordinates of the experimental area? Nothing is mentioned about its aerial environment, regarding some meaningful meteorological parameters such as air temperature and relative humidity. The significance level should be mentioned in the ‘Statistical Analyses’.
Please see that required corrections were made
The various images of Figures 1 and 2 should be marked with 'a' 'b', 'c' etc. and standard deviations should be added, as bars, on the respective columns.
Please see that required corrections were made
Authors should discuss their results with more details, making an attempt to relate them with the results of other pertinent works, if possible. A more detailed review of literature is required.
Please see that required corrections were made
Regarding my specific comments, I numbered the lines starting with number 1 for each chapter (and subchapter).
Specific comments
- Title. Please provide the full scientific mane of the bean plant.
Done
Abstract
Page 1
- Line 1. in the morphological, physiological and... Remove ', physiological'.
Done
- Lines 12-13. In concluded, biochar...bean seedlings. Is the sentence correct, for example, regarding 'alleviate bioinhibition of Cd stress'?
Please see that we have changed bioinhibition as adverse impacts.
Introduction
Page 2
- Line 19. increases ROS and... What is 'ROS? First define and then abbreviate. Follow 'Instructions for Authors'. Check for similar cases throughout the text.
Please see that we have corrected
- Lines 30-34. In general, biochar...energy production [9]. Rephrase the sentence. It is too long, better to split it.
Done
- Lines 48-53. Bean (Phaseolus vulgarisL.)...losses in crops. Provide one reference source at least.
Done
Materials and Methods
Page 3
- Table 2. Authors use both decimal comma and decimal point (see pH). Use either decimal comma or decimal point but not both. Check for similar cases throughout the text. In addition, is the unit of pH correct?
Done
Results
Page 4
- Table 3. 'Root wet weight' or 'Root fresh weight'as in line 9? Be consistent with terminology.
Done
Pages 6-7
- Figure 1. Figures should be self-explanatory. For example, what do the letters above the columns denote?
Done
Discussion
Page 8
- Line 18. ...for chickpea... Chickpea is a generic name. Provide the full scientific name and check for similar cases throughout the text.
Done
- Lines 24-26. Stobort et al. [31]...chlorophyll biosynthesis. Authors mention that 'Cd reduces chlorophyll biosynthesis' but no chlorophyll measurement exists in the current manuscript. Check for similar cases. Authors should discuss their own results providing explanations for them as much as possible.
Thank you very much. The reviewer is right. This reference is provided solely to support the findings.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of all of the co-authors, I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for careful reading, and constructive suggestions for our manuscript. According to comments from editor and reviewers, we comprehensively revised our manuscript. We are looking forward to your feedback and further comments/suggestions are welcome.
The reviewers' comments are reproduced in black; our responses are detailed below in red:
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
First of all, I would like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for forwarding very constructive criticism of the MS and giving us an opportunity to improve the standard of the MS. We are glad to state that all suggestions forwarded by the reviewers have been incorporated in their entirety and none has been left unaddressed.
The authors concerned very actual problem - human food safety, because heavy metals accumulate in the environment and have a toxic effect on plants and adversely affect their morphological, physiological and biochemical properties. The issue is not new. And in this connection I want to ask the authors: what was the background of their investigation? Why the latter was processed in laboratory conditions and not in the field? Or really why the contaminated territory had not been chosen?
The referee is right. However, in this study, we wanted to determine the mitigating effects of biochar applications under fully controlled conditions in beans grown under cadmium stress. Of course, further studies should be carried out under field conditions.
The major note concerns statistical analysis. The great achievement of the authors is their taking into analysis large number of independent variables in plants morphometry and mineral contents as well. Such the amount of data can not be processed in SPSS by Duncan multiple range tests. Factorial analysis in ANOVA or some other multivariate exploratory techniques should be used to receive statistically significant and illustrative results about ameliorative effects of biochar for cadmium stress on bean growth.
Data obtained from the measurements were evaluated statistically using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Means were separated by Duncan’s multiple-range test.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer comments for the manuscript titled ''Ameliorative Effects of Biochar for Cadmium Stress on Bean Growth'' (ID: sustainability-2026883) - revised version
The manuscript is a new revised version and discuss the combined effect of biochar and cadmium on several morphological and biochemical traits of bean plants under greenhouse conditions. The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my concerns, however, there are still some issues that need to be addressed for the improvement of the quality of the manuscript. The authors must consider the following:
1. Line 92. Please provide the correct longitude.
2. Table 2. Replace '1:2.5 w/s' with '-'.
3. Figures 1, 2. The various images of figures should be marked with 'a', 'b' etc., making proper changes.
4. Please move 'Biochar is rich in...properties of soils [9].' (lines 307-308) next to '...bioavailability of cadmium in the soil.' (line 292).
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of all of the co-authors, I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for careful reading, and constructive suggestions for our manuscript. According to comments from editor and reviewers, we comprehensively revised our manuscript. We are looking forward to your feedback and further comments/suggestions are welcome.
The reviewers' comments are reproduced in black; our responses are detailed below in red:
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
First of all, I would like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for forwarding very constructive criticism of the MS and giving us an opportunity to improve the standard of the MS. We are glad to state that all suggestions forwarded by the reviewers have been incorporated in their entirety and none has been left unaddressed.
The manuscript is a new revised version and discuss the combined effect of biochar and cadmium on several morphological and biochemical traits of bean plants under greenhouse conditions. The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of my concerns, however, there are still some issues that need to be addressed for the improvement of the quality of the manuscript. The authors must consider the following:
Thank you very much
- Line 92. Please provide the correct longitude.
Done
- Table 2. Replace '1:2.5 w/s' with '-'.
Done
- Figures 1, 2. The various images of figures should be marked with 'a', 'b' etc., making proper changes.
Done
- Please move 'Biochar is rich in...properties of soils [9].' (lines 307-308) next to '...bioavailability of cadmium in the soil.' (line 292).
Please see that we have corrected
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
you did not give me the answer about the statistical analysis. Your tables are not the results of ANOVA. The latter should be presented as follows
|
Factor |
SS |
DF |
MS |
F |
p-level |
|
Cadmium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biochar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CadmiemxBiochar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residuals |
|
|
|
|
|
otherwise, all your conclusions are questioned
Author Response
Dear Editor,
On behalf of all of the co-authors, I would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for careful reading, and constructive suggestions for our manuscript. According to comments from editor and reviewers, we comprehensively revised our manuscript. We are looking forward to your feedback and further comments/suggestions are welcome.
The reviewers' comments are reproduced in black; our responses are detailed below in red:
RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS
First of all, I would like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for forwarding very constructive criticism of the MS and giving us an opportunity to improve the standard of the MS. We are glad to state that all suggestions forwarded by the reviewers have been incorporated in their entirety and none has been left unaddressed.
you did not give me the answer about the statistical analysis. Your tables are not the results of ANOVA. The latter should be presented as follows
|
Factor |
SS |
DF |
MS |
F |
p-level |
|
Cadmium |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biochar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CadmiemxBiochar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residuals |
|
|
|
|
|
otherwise, all your conclusions are questioned
Please see that we have done the changes requested by reviewer. But, we have given df, P and F values because it will take up a lot of space.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
No
