A Study of the Effect of Biochar Additive on the Manure–Compost–Soil Process and Its Bacterial Succession
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease check the attached document for minor details in your manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
No comments.
Author Response
Comments: Details comment in the PDF.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has already told the readers a complete story.
The word 'innovatively' should be used cautiously in abstract.
The author should provide specific data when describing microbial changes.
The conclusion section written by the author is poor and needs to be rewritten.
All the author's images are too blurry and need to be re-uploaded.
The labels on Figure S3 need to be revised.
Author Response
Comments 1: The author has already told the readers a complete story.
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.
Comments 2: The word 'innovatively' should be used cautiously in abstract.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have deleted 'innovatively' in abstract.
Comments 3: The author should provide specific data when describing microbial changes.
Response 3: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. We have added specific data when describing microbial changes.
For example, “Atopostipes (from around 0.002% to zero) and Lactobacillus (from around 0.016% to zero…” (Page 12, Lines 337-338)
Comments 4: The conclusion section written by the author is poor and needs to be rewritten.
Response 4: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our manuscript, we have rewritten the conclusion section.
Comments 5: All the author's images are too blurry and need to be re-uploaded.
Response 5: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. We have increased the resolution of the images to enhance readability. We have also uploaded all the original clear images to a zip archive on the platform.
Comments 6: The labels on Figure S3 need to be revised.
Response 6: Thanks for your careful checks. We have revised the labels on Figure S3.
“Infrared Spectrums of soil raw materials (a), and potting soil samples in different groups: (b) BLANK, (c) BIOCHAR, (d) AA, (e) BB, (f) CC and (g) DD.”
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSubmission ID: sustainability-3169775
Title of the manuscript: " A Study of the Effect of Biochar Additive on the Manure–Compost–Soil Process and Its Bacterial Succession ".
This study evaluated the role of biochar in enhancing the manure-compost-soil process. The addition of biochar has been shown to effectively influence the composting process and improve soil health by increasing organic matter (OM) and nitrogen content. The study also points out biochar’s contribution to soil enrichment, specifically its role in increasing the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio and total carbon (TC) content in compost. I highly recommended publishing this manuscript in sustainability after major revision.
Specific comments
L11: Add “as an " before “additive " .
L12-19: The key data of the measured indicators should be presented.
L22: Please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.
L26-27: Not sufficient. Please give some examples about the impact of manure on environmental pollution.
L41: Add more details about the role microorganisms in soil nitrogen mineralization.
L41: What do the authors mean exactly by soil health??
L41-42: Write more information to show how Soil health is influenced by the bacterial structure within the soil.
L44-45: Add more details on the effect of microorganisms’ diversity in manure–compost–soil process.
L117: Give some details about the pots (Height, diameter, etc……).
L223: P should be italicized in the whole manuscript.
Please try to enhance the quality of figures 1 & 2.
L426-455: The conclusion is very long and repetitive. Instead of repeating the results, the authors should concentrate only on the novelty, how this study will be important for sustainable agriculture, and the prospects.
I suggest that the authors add a list of abbreviations as the manuscript is full of abbreviations.
Kind Regards,
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments 1: This study evaluated the role of biochar in enhancing the manure-compost-soil process. The addition of biochar has been shown to effectively influence the composting process and improve soil health by increasing organic matter (OM) and nitrogen content. The study also points out biochar’s contribution to soil enrichment, specifically its role in increasing the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio and total carbon (TC) content in compost. I highly recommended publishing this manuscript in sustainability after major revision.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.
Comments 2: Specific comments
L11: Add “as an " before “additive ".
Response 2: Thanks for your careful checks. We have added it.
L12-19: The key data of the measured indicators should be presented.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have revised the abstract and provided important data.
“The basic physicochemical properties (organic matter, total nitrogen, etc.) and microbial structure…” in revised abstract.
L22: Please arrange the keywords in alphabetical order.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading, we have arranged it.
L26-27: Not sufficient. Please give some examples about the impact of manure on environmental pollution.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added it.
“… for example, hygiene hazards and odor pollution” (Page 1, Lines 29-30)
L41: Add more details about the role microorganisms in soil nitrogen mineralization.
Response: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our manuscript. Soil nitrogen mineralization is the process by which soil microbes convert organic nitrogen into inorganic forms, such as ammonia or nitrate, that are available for plants to use. It's a vital part of soil fertility and nutrient cycling, and it's important for plant productivity. We have wholly revised this part in the revised manuscript.
“…for example, soil microbes convert organic nitrogen into ammonia or nitrate that were available for plants to use” (Page 1, Lines 50-51)
L41: What do the authors mean exactly by soil health??
Response: Thank you for your comments. "Soil health" to refer to the overall quality and functioning of the soil as an ecosystem. We have revised it.
“Soil health refers to the overall quality and functioning of the soil as an ecosystem, which is also related to the bacterial structure within the soil” (Page 1, Lines 42-44)
L41-42: Write more information to show how Soil health is influenced by the bacterial structure within the soil.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We have added it.
“Fierer et al. [11] proposed that microbial information could be used to yield relevant and actionable assessments of soil health. Zhou et al. [5] indicated that organic fertilizer enhanced bacterial network complexity, metabolic function, and convergence of the community structure of Native soils nearby roots. Maron et al. [12] prolonged that when nutrient inputs in soil, its carbon cycling may be more vulnerable to microbial diversity changes. Compost which has a certain amount of carbon and nitro-gen-containing organic matter might affect the microbes in soil.” (Page 1, Lines 44-50)
L44-45: Add more details on the effect of microorganisms’ diversity in manure–compost–soil process.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We have added it. The revision part has provided as the above response.
L117: Give some details about the pots (Height, diameter, etc……).
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added the pots’ height and diameter data.
“Square pots were 9.6 cm height and 10 cm inner diameter using for the potting experiment.” (Page 4, Line 124-125)
L223: P should be italicized in the whole manuscript.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We have revised it.
Please try to enhance the quality of Figures 1 & 2.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. In the Word manuscript we submitted, the image quality was fine. I don't know why it became blurry when generated into PDF. We have optimized the captions by setting up an abbreviation table.
L426-455: The conclusion is very long and repetitive. Instead of repeating the results, the authors should concentrate only on the novelty, how this study will be important for sustainable agriculture, and the prospects.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. We have rewritten the conclusion. (Pages 15-16 )
I suggest that the authors add a list of abbreviations as the manuscript is full of abbreviations.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. We have added the list of provided the most frequently occurring abbreviations before references.
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
By exploring the profound effects of biochar additives on the manure - compost - soil process, this paper shows that biochar not only changes the physical and chemical properties of compost and soil, but also fundamentally alters the microbial landscape, revealing new mechanisms for promoting soil health and bacterial succession. In addition, experiments have shown that compost containing biochar increases soil pH, organic matter, total carbon and total nitrogen content. Although the authors conducted aerobic compost and cucumber pot experiments and the determination of microbial diversity, and carried out a lot of analytical work, the experiment was well designed and the analysis and results were interesting. However, the manuscript has some ambiguities and flaws. These issues should be corrected and clarified in the revision. Changes are required before they can be accepted for publication. Specific suggestions are as follows:
1.The control group mentioned in the abstract, but it is not clear what the control group is in this part?
2.In lines 57-59, "We hypothesize that biochar based compost prepared by aerobic compost combines the functions of compost and biochar, promotes the formation of carboxyl and phenol groups, and improves reactivity." However, it is not stated below whether this assumption is true.
3.In the process of the experiment, why did the author use the samples near the roots of cucumber as the experimental group and why did he use pig manure for aerobic composting experiment? Please complete it in the first part of the introduction.
4.The author has innovatively discussed the various effects of adding biochar as an additive in the process of faecal-compost and soil for many times, but has not made clear what the effects are in these aspects and lacks pertinently.
5.In lines 174-176, ANOVA is used. It should be noted that the data obtained in this analysis will fluctuate due to the influence of various factors. The causes of fluctuation can be divided into two categories, one is the uncontrollable random factors, and the other is the controllable factors exerted in the research to form an impact on the results. Analysis of variance starts with the variance of observed variables and studies which variables have significant influence on observed variables among many control variables. Authors should recognize that this analysis of variance contains uncontrollable random factors, and if authors adopt this calculation method, they should clearly mention the uncertainties and limitations resulting from this analysis in the manuscript.
6.In the measurement and analysis of microbial diversity, only the description of the analysis process is carried out, and the author should present the data and explain the analysis results in detail.
7.Graphic data and text annotations need to be further optimized in order to bring readers a better reading experience.
8.In lines 314-315, the mentioned "Lysoides, Glutamine and Streptomyces are dominant genera that contribute positively to soil microbial diversity." The author should show convincingly what contributions these advantages bring.
9.In lines 453-455, why should acidic or saline-alkali soils be considered when conducting research on the physicochemical properties or microbial succession of compost, biochar or biochar based compost?
Author Response
Comment 1: By exploring the profound effects of biochar additives on the manure - compost - soil process, this paper shows that biochar not only changes the physical and chemical properties of compost and soil, but also fundamentally alters the microbial landscape, revealing new mechanisms for promoting soil health and bacterial succession. In addition, experiments have shown that compost containing biochar increases soil pH, organic matter, total carbon and total nitrogen content. Although the authors conducted aerobic compost and cucumber pot experiments and the determination of microbial diversity, and carried out a lot of analytical work, the experiment was well designed and the analysis and results were interesting. However, the manuscript has some ambiguities and flaws. These issues should be corrected and clarified in the revision. Changes are required before they can be accepted for publication.
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the following details. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the red text.
Comments 2: Specific suggestions are as follows:
- The control group mentioned in the abstract, but it is not clear what the control group is in this part?
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. The control group is indeed unclear, and you have a point. We have revised the statement in this section.
“The basic physicochemical properties and microbial structure of the composting and soil samples were analyzed. Biochar additive increased the C/N ratio and the total carbon content of the compost.” (Page 1, Lines 12-15)
- In lines 57-59, "We hypothesize that biochar based compost prepared by aerobic compost combines the functions of compost and biochar, promotes the formation of carboxyl and phenol groups, and improves reactivity." However, it is not stated below whether this assumption is true.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. We have revised this sentence in the manuscript.
“We hypothesized that biochar-based compost made by aerobic composting combines the functions of compost and biochar, promoting organic matter storage and microbial activity in the soil.” (Page 2, Lines 64-66)
- In the process of the experiment, why did the author use the samples near the roots of cucumber as the experimental group and why did he use pig manure for aerobic composting experiment? Please complete it in the first part of the introduction.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have provided some information in the Introduction.
“According to statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the total amount of livestock and poultry manure produced in China is about 3.8 billion tons per year, of which the annual output of pig manure is about 1.8 billion tons, accounting for 47% of the total.” (Page 1, Lines 26-28)
“…structure of Native soils nearby roots” (Page 2, Line 47)
- The author has innovatively discussed the various effects of adding biochar as an additive in the process of faecal-compost and soil for many times, but has not made clear what the effects are in these aspects and lacks pertinently.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Our main innovation is that in the process of fermenting feces into compost and then applying it to the soil, we obtain periodic samples to explore the microbial diversity and composition changes in the process and the impact of biochar. At the same time, we have also modified the corresponding content according to your suggestions.
For example, “…which indicated that biochar helped reduce soil nitrogen leaching and increased bacterial diversity in the soil…” (Page 11, Line 318-319)
- In lines 174-176, ANOVA is used. It should be noted that the data obtained in this analysis will fluctuate due to the influence of various factors. The causes of fluctuation can be divided into two categories, one is the uncontrollable random factors, and the other is the controllable factors exerted in the research to form an impact on the results. Analysis of variance starts with the variance of observed variables and studies which variables have significant influence on observed variables among many control variables. Authors should recognize that this analysis of variance contains uncontrollable random factors, and if authors adopt this calculation method, they should clearly mention the uncertainties and limitations resulting from this analysis in the manuscript.
Response: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. What you said makes a lot of sense and we agree with it. We also selected this method based on the literature, and we have added references.
- In the measurement and analysis of microbial diversity, only the description of the analysis process is carried out, and the author should present the data and explain the analysis results in detail.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have added the data and explain the analysis results in detail.
- Graphic data and text annotations need to be further optimized in order to bring readers a better reading experience.
Response: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our manuscript. According to review 3 suggestion, we provide a list of frequently occurring abbreviations before the reference to bring readers a better reading experience.
- In lines 314-315, the mentioned "Lysoides, Glutamine and Streptomyces are dominant genera that contribute positively to soil microbial diversity." The author should show convincingly what contributions these advantages bring.
Response: Thanks for your careful checks. The advantages here all refer to the high relative abundance ratio obtained by measurement. At the same time, we modified the expression of this part.
“Chloroflexi, Bacterioidota, and Acidobacteriota accounted for more than 90% of RA in the soil samples.” (Page 11, Line 312)
- In lines 453-455, why should acidic or saline-alkali soils be considered when conducting research on the physicochemical properties or microbial succession of compost, biochar or biochar based compost?
Response: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our manuscript. Related studies have shown that soil types have different requirements for microbial communities and fertilizer properties. The soil types that are more characteristic are acidic or alkaline soils. We modified the conclusion section based on the relevance of the content.
“Future studies could further analyze the microbial structure during the manure–compost–soil process by taking plant samples in conjunction with assessing plant growth. The use of different type soils could also be considered to conduct in-depth and systematic research related to improving the physicochemical properties or microbial succession induced by compost, biochar, or biochar-based compost.” (Page 22, 418-422)
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is the second time I have evaluated this manuscript. The authors addressed all my comments, and the manuscript has been noticeably improved. Many thanks for their contribution.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English language is understandable and correct. Only minor editorial and stylistic corrections are required.
Author Response
Comment：This is the second time I have evaluated this manuscript. The authors addressed all my comments, and the manuscript has been noticeably improved. Many thanks for their contribution.
Response: We are extremely grateful for your valuable time and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted to hear that you have noticed significant improvements since your previous evaluation. Addressing your comments has been instrumental in refining our work, and we appreciate your thoroughness and attention to detail. Your continued support and guidance are invaluable to us.
Comments on the Quality of English Language: The English language is understandable and correct. Only minor editorial and stylistic corrections are required.
Response: We are pleased to hear that our English language usage is understandable and correct. We appreciate your attention to detail and the time you have taken to evaluate our manuscript. We have carefully considered and revised the minor editorial and stylistic corrections, enhancing the clarity and readability of our work highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigated the effect of biochar additive to the manure-compost-soil process and its bacterial succession and documented that the addition of biochar increased the organic matter and total nitrogen content of the compost. Biochar, compost and biochar-based compost improved the total carbon (TC) and OM of the soil. This paper has a low novelty.
1. The majority of figures in this work have a too-low resolution and are difficult to read. Please improve their resolution.
2. Line 263: Both groups were denoted with BLANK in this sentence, please revise them.
3. What are the abbreviations NT and CT denoted in Figure 6(a)? Please define them the first time they are used.
4. The figures were too indistinct; therefore, much important information was hard to read from them.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language requires further improvement by a native English speaker.
Author Response
Comments 1: This paper investigated the effect of biochar additive to the manure-compost-soil process and its bacterial succession and documented that the addition of biochar increased the organic matter and total nitrogen content of the compost. Biochar, compost and biochar-based compost improved the total carbon (TC) and OM of the soil. This paper has a low novelty.
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve the quality of our manuscript. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the blue text.
Comments 2: The majority of figures in this work have a too-low resolution and are difficult to read. Please improve their resolution.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have increased the resolution of the images to enhance readability. We also have uploaded all the original clear images in a zip archive on the platform.
Comments 3: Line 263: Both groups were denoted with BLANK in this sentence, please revise them.
Response 3: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. As suggested by the reviewer, we have corrected the first “BLANK” into “BIOCHAR” (Page 8, Line 265).
“The peak distributions of the added biochar (BIOCHAR) were similar to those of the control (BLANK) groups.”
Comments 4: What are the abbreviations NT and CT denoted in Figure 6(a)? Please define them the first time they are used.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. “NT” and “CT” refer to total nitrogen and total carbon content and are consistently denoted as “TN” and “TC” throughout the text. We have modified the figure and added a note to the revision to explain the abbreviation (page 15, line 409).
Comments 5: The figures were too indistinct; therefore, much important information was hard to read from them.
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We have increased the resolution of the images in the article to make them more readable, and we appreciate the valuable suggestion.
Comments 6: The language requires further improvement by a native English speaker.
Response 6: Thanks for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve language quality. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study of succession of microbial community is important to the management of soil quality with compost application. The finding of this study is valuable to the readers, if it can be well illustated. However, the quality of this manuscript is poor, and several comments are listed below for the authors:
1 The quality of many figures are very poor in the PDF. They shall be replaced with high-resolution figures.
2 There are only two repeats for the composting experiment, and unfortunately, in my opinion, the difference of several results (i.e. TN, NO3-) of B and D groups, BB and DD groups are obvious. How to ensure the accuracy of the findings?
3 The statistic analysis shall be added into the manuscript, especially the significance of the results among groups.
4 The dosages of BC application in the composting and compost addition during pot experiment are both as high as 10%. It is not realistic.
5 The sampling amount at each time was as high as 8% of the total content of soil during the pot expeirment. And there were five sampling times. So I assumed there may be about 40% of soils were taken out of the pot, will it influence the running of whole system?
6 The illustration of FTIR changes in 3313 cm-1 was vague. Please try to specify the attribution of the band, and clearly discuss it.
7 The changes of OM contents in composting are consistent with previous reports. But because BC had large amount of hardly degradable organic carbon (and the addition rate of BC is very large), may the author discuss the changes with consideration of this point?
8 The promotion of plant growth is lack of data, although there are photos of pot experiment. May the author provide several direct data ?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is better to divide the long sentence into several parts, i.e. 57-62, 194-196.
Author Response
Comments 1: The study of succession of microbial community is important to the management of soil quality with compost application. The finding of this study is valuable to the readers, if it can be well illustated. However, the quality of this manuscript is poor, and several comments are listed below for the authors.
Response 1: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our manuscript, and your comments have improved the quality of this manuscript. According to your comments, we have revised our previous manuscript, our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the blue text.
Comments 2: The quality of many figures are very poor in the PDF. They shall be replaced with high-resolution figures.
Response 2: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We increased the resolution of the images and replaced the original figures with high-resolution ones. And we uploaded all the original clear images in a zip archive on the platform.
Comments 3: There are only two repeats for the composting experiment, and unfortunately, in my opinion, the difference of several results (i.e. TN, NO3-) of B and D groups, BB and DD groups are obvious. How to ensure the accuracy of the findings?
Response 3: Thanks for your careful checks. We performed ANOVA using SPSS statistical software and calculated significant differences (p<0.05). We added statistical analyses to Chapter 3.1. “Physicochemical Changes in the Manure–Compost–Soil Process” and reformulated the relevant sections. (Page 6 Line 232, Page 7 Line 247, and Page 7 Line 251)
Comments 4: The statistic analysis shall be added into the manuscript, especially the significance of the results among groups.
Response 4: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve our manuscript. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software and significant differences were calculated. We included statistical analyses in the manuscript, especially the significance of the results between groups.
Comments 5: The dosages of BC application in the composting and compost addition during pot experiment are both as high as 10%. It is not realistic.
Response 5: We sincerely thank you for your careful reading. Our calculation of biochar additions based on fertiliser application for the potting experiment was finally calculated to be based on the addition of biochar at 10% of the weight of the control group. The amount of addition can be adjusted in case of subsequent large-scale composting.
Comments 6: The sampling amount at each time was as high as 8% of the total content of soil during the pot experiment. And there were five sampling times. So I assumed there may be about 40% of soils were taken out of the pot, will it influence the running of whole system?
Response 6: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading. We sampled 20 grams from around the roots inside each group, and each group contained six parallel potted plants. Therefore, it is a total of 20g sample extracted from six potted plants. So this will not affect the operation of the whole system. We elaborate on this in the notes to Table 1 (Page 3 Line 114).
Comments 7: The illustration of FTIR changes in 3313 cm-1 was vague. Please try to specify the attribution of the band, and clearly discuss it.
Response 7: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. We have rewritten this section in the manuscript with a clear description of it (Page 8 Line 264).
“The peak distributions of the added biochar (BIOCHAR) were similar to those of the control (BLANK) groups. The compost samples from A, B, C, and D showed C-H vibra-tional peaks at 2928 cm-1 and N-H vibrational peaks at 3313 cm-1, which represent the alkyl group and amide, respectively. This indicated a higher content of carbon-based material and protein content flow into soil samples of the AA, BB, CC, and DD groups. This is because compost is rich in nitrogen and carbon-containing nutrients.”
Comments 8: The changes of OM contents in composting are consistent with previous reports. But because BC had large amount of hardly degradable organic carbon (and the addition rate of BC is very large), may the author discuss the changes with consideration of this point?
Response 8: Thank you very much for your insightful question. The carbon part of biochar exists in stable chemicals and is considered as refractory carbon. However, “Biochar had a better absorption ability to conserve carbon” is mentioned in the published paper [1]. It is difficult for us to determine whether this refractory carbon will not degrade in composting. The composting process is also a replicated biochemical reaction process. This is a scientific issue that still needs to be explored. We have made an objective statement on this part in the article based on the data we measured.
Comments 9: The promotion of plant growth is lack of data, although there are photos of pot experiment. May the author provide several direct data?
Response 9: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading and valuable comments. The potting experiments were mainly concerned with the changes in the physicochemical properties of the soil and its microbial succession process. As you suggested, we will pay attention to the data on plant growth promotion in our subsequent potting experiment studies.
Comments 10: It is better to divide the long sentence into several parts, i.e. 57-62, 194-196.
Response 10: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading. We have divided long sentences into several parts (Page 2 Line 56, and Page 5 Line 193), and we have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve the quality of the English language.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion this is a very interesting paper in a fast developing research field.
But for a better understanding, especially for scientist who are not familiar with all aspects of the paper, there is still work to do. Chapter 2.1 is quite challenging. I wrote some comments into the text. After reading the whole paper it is possible to understand how the samples are meant. But in Chapter 2.1 it is not possible what is menat by A, B, C, and D. May be a figure with the whole experint plan could help or a table...
Chapter 3: Unfortunately most Figures are of very low quality so that it is even with high magnification it is not possible to identify the curves. This relates especially for Figures 1, 2, 3 (b), 4, 6 (b), and S3. In Figure 4 (b) you used to many similar or equal colours.
In Figure S3 the names of the samples are irritating: What is HEFTU and ZHESHI. Also an explanation whar´t is shown in each diagram would be helpful.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The quality of English is not bad, but it can be improved a bit. I marked some sentence which are not correct or expressions. But maybe you should read it again as well and find all errors.
Author Response
Comments 1: In my opinion this is a very interesting paper in a fast developing research field.
But for a better understanding, especially for scientist who are not familiar with all aspects of the paper, there is still work to do. Chapter 2.1 is quite challenging. I wrote some comments into the text. After reading the whole paper it is possible to understand how the samples are meant. But in Chapter 2.1 it is not possible what is menat by A, B, C, and D. May be a figure with the whole experint plan could help or a table...
Response 1: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve our manuscript. According to your nice suggestions, we have added Table 1. “Ingredients and group name of aerobic composting and potting experiments” to enhance readability in Chapter 2.1. (Page 3 Line 112)
Comments 2: Chapter 3: Unfortunately most Figures are of very low quality so that it is even with high magnification it is not possible to identify the curves. This relates especially for Figures 1, 2, 3 (b), 4, 6 (b), and S3. In Figure 4 (b) you used to many similar or equal colours.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have increased the resolution of the images to identify the curves. We have also redrawn Figure 4(b) to enhance its readability (Page 12 Line 338). And we have uploaded all the original clear images in a zip archive on the platform.
Comments 3: In Figure S3 the names of the samples are irritating: What is HEFTU and ZHESHI. Also an explanation whar´t is shown in each diagram would be helpful.
Response 3: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading. We have redrawn Figure S3 and replaced the sample names “HEITU and ZHESHI” with “Black soil and Vermiculite”. We have also added notes to explain the meaning of each sample name (Page 21 Line 592).
Comments 4: peer-review-37885829.v1.pdf
Response 4: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, and we have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve the quality of the English language. Detailed corrections and related explanations are provided below. Our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the blue text.
Page 2, Line 77: Revise the incorrect sentence to “We assume that manure carries some nutrients and microbes. When manure becomes fertilizer or compost via aerobic composting by high-temperature fermentation and microbial activity, the microbial structure changes. When the compost is applied, microbes in the compost flow into the soil. The soil itself also has a certain microbe structure, so a key question is whether the application of compost and biochar can change the microbial succession.”
Page 3, Line 97: Revise the section to “Swine manure and wheat straw were mixed at an initial moisture content of 60% and a C/N of 15 for the control group. The weight ratio of swine manure and wheat straw is shown in Table 1 [4]. Wheat straw biochar was added in the experimental group; its ad-ditive ratio is shown in Table 1.”
Page 3, Line 106: Revise “0.2 L∙min-1∙kg-1 VS” to “0.2 L∙min-1∙VS-1∙kg-1”. And VS indicates dry matter content.
Page 4, Line 134: Revise “mixed samples” to “samples”.
Page 5, Line 176: Revise the incorrect sentence to “Sequence reads were trimmed so that the average quality of each read was higher than 20 and then assembled using Flash software.”
Page 6, Line 203: Revise “From Figure. 1(a),” to “Figure 1(a) shows...”.
Page 6, Line 221: Revise the incorrect sentence to “The GI of group D was significantly higher than that of the other three groups (p < 0.05), indicating that the addition of biochar may reduce harmful substances in compost to an extent.”
Page 7, Line 256: Revise the incorrect sentence to “This is because biochar can directly improve the nitrogen cycle in the soil by dissolving organic nitrogen and fixing nitrogen”
Page 8, Line 269: Revise the incorrect sentence to “This is because compost is rich in nitrogen and carbon-containing nutrients.”
Page 16, Line 424: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the conclusions in the manuscript.
Comments 5: The quality of English is not bad, but it can be improved a bit. I marked some sentence which are not correct or expressions. But maybe you should read it again as well and find all errors.
Response 5: Thanks for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve language quality.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe writing in English must be revised. There are many errors, and the text is difficult to understand.
Abstract should be improved to briefly explain the objective and methods.
The objective is not clearly defined; The wording of the last paragraph of the introduction seems more like a summary of the methodology.
The methodology is not clear. What were the groups in the experiment? And what were the treatments in each group? Please separate what corresponds to the description of how the base materials used were obtained, from the evaluated treatments. This might be explained in a table.
In figure 1 the description of components a, b, c and d is missing.
The resolution of the figures is very low and prevents understanding what is explained in the text.
Explanation about the samples as in figure 5 (Compost containing composting samples: A0, B0, C0, D0, A28, B28, C28, D28; Soil containing soil samples: AA0, BB0, CC0, DD0, AA60, BB60, CC60, DD60) should be in figures 3, 4 and table 2.
The titles of figures and tables require substantial improvements for their understanding.
Considering the amount of data obtained and analyzes performed, the conclusion seems very general. Could be improved to highlight the various results obtained.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English should be improved.
Author Response
Comments 1: The writing in English must be revised. There are many errors, and the text is difficult to understand.
Response 1: Thanks for your careful checks. Based on your comments, we have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve language quality. The revised manuscript will improve readability to facilitate your understanding.
Comments 2: Abstract should be improved to briefly explain the objective and methods.
Response 2: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve our manuscript. We have improved the abstract in our manuscript (Page 1, Line 8).
Comments 3: The objective is not clearly defined; The wording of the last paragraph of the introduction seems more like a summary of the methodology.
Response 3: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. According to your comments, we have revised this paragraph, our changes/additions to the manuscript are given in the blue text (Page 2, Line 77).
Comments 4: The methodology is not clear. What were the groups in the experiment? And what were the treatments in each group? Please separate what corresponds to the description of how the base materials used were obtained, from the evaluated treatments. This might be explained in a table.
Response 4: We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback that we have used to improve our manuscript. According to your nice suggestions, we have added tables explaining the meaning of each sample in Chapter 2.1. ( Page 3, Line 112).
Comments 5: In figure 1 the description of components a, b, c and d is missing.
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. We have added descriptions of a, b, c, and d in Figure 1 to enhance readability (Page 7 Line 240).
Comments 6: The resolution of the figures is very low and prevents understanding what is explained in the text.
Response 6: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We increased the resolution of the images and replaced the original figures with high-resolution ones. And we uploaded all the original clear images in a zip archive on the platform.
Comments 7: Explanation about the samples as in figure 5 (Compost containing composting samples: A0, B0, C0, D0, A28, B28, C28, D28; Soil containing soil samples: AA0, BB0, CC0, DD0, AA60, BB60, CC60, DD60) should be in figures 3, 4 and table 2.
Response 7: We sincerely appreciate your careful reading. We have added notes to the sample names on Figure 3 (Page 10 Line 300), Table 3 (Page 11 Line 307), Figure 4 (Page 12 Line 341), and Figure 5 (Page 13 Line 383).
Comments 8: The titles of figures and tables require substantial improvements for their understanding.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the titles of the graphs and tables and added notes to make them easier to understand.
Comments 9: Considering the amount of data obtained and analyzes performed, the conclusion seems very general. Could be improved to highlight the various results obtained.
Response 9: Thank you for your comments. We have refined our conclusions to highlight the various results obtained (Page 16 Line 424).
Comments 10: The English should be improved.
Response 10: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have invited an academic English editor to review the paper to improve the language quality. The revised manuscript will improve readability for your understanding.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciated the revision made by the authors, but there still one key issue as I mentioned last time; this being" There are only two repeats for the composting experiment, and unfortunately, in my opinion, the difference of several results (i.e. TN, NO3-) of B and D groups, BB and DD groups are obvious. How to ensure the accuracy of the findings? ". The ANOVA results added by the authors generally show the difference between treatments and CK, but it did not answer this question - how about the significance of difference between repeated treatments like B and D, BB and DD?
Moreover, although the dosage can be optimized in large scale production, 10% is too high. How to ensure the findings can be reoccured once the dosage was cut ?
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest to indicate the percentage of bacteria that were dominant and the % that were not eliminated during the manure production in the conclusions.
