The Effect of Biochar-Based Organic Amendments on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.)
, Tomasz Piechota 2, Alicja Niewiadomska 1, Adam Kamiński 3, Dariusz Kayzer 4, Aleksandra Grzyb 1 and Agnieszka A. Pilarska 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ,,The Effect of Biochar-Based Organic Amendments on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.),, present interesting solutions and results. However, it should still be improved.
Please be sure that your manuscript thoroughly establishes how this work is fundamentally novel. Specific comparisons should be made to previously published materials that have a similar purpose. Please present a strong case for how this work is a major advance. This needs to be done in the manuscript itself, not just in the response to review comments. This is a very important point in terms of which I will further consider the manuscript.
Please be sure that your abstract and your Conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of your work but also explain the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature.
The significance of this study should be more emphasize in the introduction. Take a look at these papers that may help you. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/4/1060/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/5/993/htm
Line 44: Specify what minerals.
Line 55: What SSA values can a biochar reach?
Line 56-60, biochar and microorganisms: This issue has been addressed in great detail by this very important paper and therefore the authors are encouraged to add it here as a reference. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021001525
Line 126: You should also indicate the nitrogen, calcium and potassium content. These are important biogenic elements in soil.
Line 164: Indicate the country of origin of all devices on which the experiments were performed.
Line 184: A list of the most important abbreviations should be given at the end or beginning of the manuscript to make the manuscript clearer.
Line 193: It is necessary to improve the notation of equations with explanations throughout the manuscript.
Line 270: I think it would be more appropriate to turn the graphs upwards.
Also line 365 the same.
Line 414: Improve the presentation of figure 4.
Line 439: This is how the other graphs should look like. This figure 5 is very high quality and suitable.
Line 509: Did you observe any deviations in the repeated tests?
Line 555: Indicate the possible risks of such research. Add your recommendations for future research.
Line 586: Make sure the references are added correctly according to the journal's instructions.
Author Response
Response to review
Reviewer No 1.
Manuscript ,,The Effect of Biochar-Based Organic Amendments on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.),, present interesting solutions and results. However, it should still be improved.
Please be sure that your manuscript thoroughly establishes how this work is fundamentally novel. Specific comparisons should be made to previously published materials that have a similar purpose. Please present a strong case for how this work is a major advance. This needs to be done in the manuscript itself, not just in the response to review comments. This is a very important point in terms of which I will further consider the manuscript.
It has been completed in the ,Introduction’ chapter.
Please be sure that your abstract and your conclusions section not only summarize the key findings of your work but also explain the specific ways in which this work fundamentally advances the field relative to prior literature.
It has been completed and corrected.
The significance of this study should be more emphasize in the introduction. Take a look at these papers that may help you. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/5/4/1060/htm
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/5/993/htm
It has been completed
Line 44: Specify what minerals.
It has been completed
Line 55: What SSA values can a biochar reach?
It has been completed
Line 56-60, biochar and microorganisms: This issue has been addressed in great detail by this very important paper and therefore the authors are encouraged to add it here as a reference. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021001525
It has been completed
Line 126: You should also indicate the nitrogen, calcium and potassium content. These are important biogenic elements in soil.
It has been completed
Line 164: Indicate the country of origin of all devices on which the experiments were performed.
It has been completed
Line 184: A list of the most important abbreviations should be given at the end or beginning of the manuscript to make the manuscript clearer.
It has been completed
Line 193: It is necessary to improve the notation of equations with explanations throughoutthe manuscript.
It has been corrected
Line 270: I think it would be more appropriate to turn the graphs upwards.
Also line 365 the same.
It has been corrected
Line 414: Improve the presentation of figure 4.
It has been corrected
Line 439: This is how the other graphs should look like. This figure 5 is very high quality and suitable.
It has been corrected
Line 509: Did you observe any deviations in the repeated tests?
Table 4 was supplemented with standard error, to show the variability of the results
Line 555: Indicate the possible risks of such research. Add your recommendations for future research.
It has been completed
Line 586: Make sure the references are added correctly according to the journal's instructions.
It has been checked
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled" The Effect of Biochar-Based Organic Amendments on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.) is a well-written research article, with interesting findings of the microbial community structure of maize under different organic amendments--
However, there are some minor comments, in the methodology section as there is no clarity about microbial applications and spores or CFU applied, there is also no mention of conditions like watering and other climatic conditions-- I suggest please make changes and include all--
- Introduction-No comments, satisfactorily written
- Methodology- Authors didn’t mention about the watering, irrigation system, is the experiment rain-fed, or irrigated, secondly climatic conditions of the area—I suggest please include all the details ---
- There was no mention or citation of the microbial dosage applied in as treatments. If there is any dosage prescribed by the manufacturer please include the same. Or justify why authors applied a particular dosage of microbial populations as treatment.
- Please also provide the details of the application of Glomus spp., how many spores and what quantity, if already prescribed by manufacturer or supplier then at what rate it was applied in the treatment ---
- It was also not clear how was the treatments applied to the plants—please rework and include the same in the methodology --
- Results – Please include standard error to table 4 and also statistical letters for a better understanding of the significant differences among the treatments--
Author Response
Response to review
Reviewer No. 2
The manuscript entitled" The Effect of Biochar-Based Organic Amendments on the Structure of Soil Bacterial Community and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.) is a well-written research article, with interesting findings of the microbial community structure of maize under different organic amendments
However, there are some minor comments, in the methodology section as there is no clarity about microbial applications and spores or CFU applied, there is also no mention of conditions like watering and other climatic conditions-- I suggest please make changes and include all
It has been completed in ,,Material and methods’’ chapter.
- Introduction-No comments, satisfactorily written
- Methodology- Authors didn’t mention about the watering, irrigation system, is the experiment rain-fed, or irrigated, secondly climatic conditions of the area—I suggest please include all the details
It has been completed
3. There was no mention or citation of the microbial dosage applied in as treatments. If there is any dosage prescribed by the manufacturer please include the same. Or justify why authors applied a particular dosage of microbial populations as treatment.
E11 preparation – a consortium of Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus azitofixans, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus subtilis bacteria (108 CFU per 1g of preparation).
In the case of the algae preparation, the manufacturer does not state the algae cells content in 1 ml of the preparation. The dose of E11 preparation and algae extract recommended by the producers is from 15 to 20 ml per 1000 g of substrate, hence 5 g/5 ml of the above-mentioned compositions were added to 300 g of pellets.
It has been completed in ,,Material and methods’’ chapter.
- Please also provide the details of the application of Glomus, how many spores and what quantity, if already prescribed by manufacturer or supplier then at what rate it was applied in the treatment
The following commercially available microbiological preparations were used in the experiment: an extract of marine algae of the Ascophyllum nodosum genus, a preparation of mycorrhizal fungi of the Glomus genus (Glomus intraradices, Glomus mosseae, Glomus claroideum, Glomus etunicatum and Gigaspora margarita –round about 5∙103 CFU per 1g of preparation), The dose of the introduced mycorrhizal fungi preparation was also calculated on the basis of the manufacturer's data, which recommends the introduction of 166 g of the preparation per 10,000 g of the medium.
It has been completed in ,,Material and methods’’ chapter.
5. It was also not clear how was the treatments applied to the plants—please rework and include the same in the methodology
Seeds were sown to a depth of 5 cm with a Taarup seed drill equipped with a fertilizer applicator with a tined working element. The biofertilisers tested in the experiment were applied at planting, with that fertilizer applicator to a depth of 10 cm, 5 cm away from the plant row.
It has been completed in the ,,Material and methods’’ chapter.
6. Results – Please include standard error to table 4 and also statistical letters for a better understanding of the significant differences among the treatments
It has been completed
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
