Effects of Biochar on Methane Emissions and Crop Yields in East Asian Paddy Fields: A Regional Scale Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is interesting and well-organized. The manuscript could be published after minor revision.

1.     Line 17 CH4 should be CH₄.

2.     Line 78/94 The key information of 42 published studies should be listed in table.

3.     Line 131/167/219……  (p<0.000) is weird.

4.     Line 210 Figure 4 is blurry.

5.     Line 217 4. Discussion?

6.     Line 305 The conclusion should be more detailed and specific.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entiled "Effects of biochar on methane emissions and crop yields in East 2 Asian paddy fields: A regional scale meta-analysis" has interesting findings an is suitable to publish in Sustainability.  In general, the manuscript is well writen and clearly presented, however, still needs to address some comments which represents minor revision before its acceptance.

My recommendations and comments are below:

In the introduction, the authors could briefly comment on what is known about the effect of biochar on the East Asian paddy fields. How represented have these soils been in global meta-analyses? What are the contrasting results that require a more detailed review at the regional level?

In Table 1,  "(^oC)" must be after "Pyrolysis temperature" , not before to "Biochar pH"

Standarize the subscript used in formulas (1) (page 3) and (3) (page 4) to refer to biochar treatment.

In Table 2, correct the subscript in "CH4"

Decide whether to use the superscript “-1” as you did on page 3 (text and Table 1) or “/ “as it appears in the text and Table 2 on page 4 and in page 6.

Make grid not visible in Figures 1-3.

Page 7, lines 201-209: define all notations used in "3.5 Correlation analyses". Notations are defined in Figure 4 (page 8) but not in the text of page 7.

Page 8, Figure 4 would be clearer if only the top diagonal is shown.

Page 8, line 221, change the citations "Wu et al. 2019" and "Jeffery et al. 2016" to their corresponding numerical citations.

References:

#1: Missing the journal name

#2: Change the number of the second reference "1. Zhang,.." to "2. Zhang,..."

#6: doi does not correspond to the article

#10: correct the format of the reference (capital letters, year in bold).

#11: subscript in CH4 and N2O

#20: Change "PH" to "pH"

#22, 24 and 27: write year in bold

#29, 31, 39 and 41subscripts 

#45: change "agronomy" to "Agronomy"

#49: change "PH" to "pH"

#53: Is correct "Lee, SIl"? subscript in N2O

#56: subscript in N2O

 

 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled ‘’ Effects of biochar on methane emissions and crop yields in East Asian paddy fields: A regional scale meta-analysis’’ is an interesting study on biochar effectiveness in rice fields. Introduction is enough and well figured out the background of research. Methods well described. Discussion well covered the main goal of the manuscript.

In table 1: please convert scientific units from Mg/ha to mg ha-1 (-1 superscript) Check it throughout the text.

Lines 286-290: Please add this ref too: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10333-022-00912-8

Good Luck!

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been well revised.

Author Response

Thank you for helping me make this paper complete.

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the manuscript improved, however, there are two comments that were not completely attended by the authors:

Comment 1. The authors should include in the Introduction the information given in the response to better justify the study.

Comment 10. Reference # 10 and #15: Write de year in bold.

 

Author Response

Thank you for helping me make this paper complete.

Our responses to your comments follow, and the paper has been revised accordingly. The second revision has been highlighted in green in the manuscript.

 

Comment 1. The authors should include in the Introduction the information given in the response to better justify the study.

-> Response: Thanks for the comments. It has been revised. (Line. 46-49)

 

Comment 10. Reference # 10 and #15: Write the year in bold.

-> Response: Thanks for the comments. It has been revised. (Line. 362, 374)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has potential to be published! 

Good luck!

 

Author Response

Thank you for helping me make this paper complete.