Co-Compost Application of Magnesium Salts and Orthophosphate Adjusted Biochar and Cyanobacteria for Fixing Nitrogen, Improving Maize Quality, and Reducing Field Nutrient Loss
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have conducted very interesting research work
The authors are required to update the Introduction and Discussion sections as there is no paper from 2022. Moreover, the discussion is shallow. The authors are highly suggested to focus on discussing the mechanisms behind. The following papers may be consulted and cited
Farid, I.M., Siam, H.S., Abbas, M.H., Mohamed, I., Mahmoud, S.A., Tolba, M., Abbas, H.H., Yang, X., Antoniadis, V., Rinklebe, J. and Shaheen, S.M., 2022. Co-composted biochar derived from rice straw and sugarcane bagasse improved soil properties, carbon balance, and zucchini growth in a sandy soil: A trial for enhancing the health of low fertile arid soils. Chemosphere, 292, p.133389.
Naveed M., B. Tanvir, W. Xiukang, M. Brtnicky, A. Ditta, J. Kucerik, Z. Subhani, M. Z. Nazir, M. Radziemska, Q. Saeed, A. Mustafa. 2021. Co-composted biochar enhances growth, physiological and phytostabilization efficiency of Brassica napus and reduces associated health risks under Cr stress. Frontiers in Plant Sciences 12:775785.
Scrinzi, D., Bona, D., Denaro, A., Silvestri, S., Andreottola, G. and Fiori, L., 2022. Hydrochar and hydrochar co-compost from OFMSW digestate for soil application: 1. production and chemical characterization. Journal of Environmental Management, 309, p.114688.
Bona, D., Scrinzi, D., Tonon, G., Ventura, M., Nardin, T., Zottele, F., Andreis, D., Andreottola, G., Fiori, L. and Silvestri, S., 2022. Hydrochar and hydrochar co-compost from OFMSW digestate for soil application: 2. agro-environmental properties. Journal of Environmental Management, 312, p.114894.
Fetjah, D., Ainlhout, L.F.Z., Idardare, Z., Ihssane, B. and Bouqbis, L., 2022. Effect of Banana-Waste Biochar and Compost Mixtures on Growth Responses and Physiological Traits of Seashore Paspalum Subjected to Six Different Water Conditions. Sustainability, 14(3), p.1541.
Al-Naqeb, G., Sidarovich, V., Scrinzi, D., Mazzeo, I., Robbiati, S., Pancher, M., Fiori, L. and Adami, V., 2022. Hydrochar and hydrochar co-compost from OFMSW digestate for soil application: 3. Toxicological evaluation. Journal of Environmental Management, 320, p.115910.
There are many Tables, these could be combined like the last 3 could be combined to one. Others may also be treated in such a way
In conclusion section, future direction may also be added in 1-2 sentences
There are various typos and grammatical mistakes e.g. line 17, auxiliary material, etc. The authors are highly suggested to get their manuscript proofread from a native English speaker or through professional English Editing Agency
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The author is very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable opinions and suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript. please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors really worked on a very interesting research topic and collected a lot of data throughout the experiment period. I really appreciate their hard work while conducting the research.
Overall, the paper is very sloppily written with numerous grammatical mistakes. There are errors in sentence structures. Sometimes it was difficult to understand the meaning of the sentence. I strongly suggest that the paper should go through a professional English writing service.
General Comments:
The English must be improved
The methods must be re-written with better explanation
In addition, the rationale of the paper needs to be improved
Specific comments:
Line 23# Please re-write the sentence to make it clear
Line 25# ‘TN and TK losses in runoff were 33.33% and 22.74%’ higher or lower as compared to ……
Line 26# It is not advisable to start a sentence with acronyms
Line 82# Please use correct method of reference in the text. Also, please use the numbering to be consistent
Line 165# please rewrite
Line 167# Please rewrite
Line 171# Please define treatments as: CK:Compost Material (cyanobacteria, spent mushroom and rice hulls), B0: Mg(OH)2+KH2PO4+Compost 171 Materia, B1:………………….
Line# 174: All treatment naturally stacked where? Please clarify the sentence
Line 181# Please remove the extra space at 16 ℃.
Line 182# What are the physicochemical properties of the background soil
Line 191 to 205# Please rewrite
Line 199# Please explain ‘241 kg·hm-2’
Line 294 and 295# what is the difference between Wn and WN’?
Figure 2# Title should be self-explanatory. Please explain (a), (b), (c), and (d). Also, the axis title should be temperature (ºC), Time (days), Germination index (%), etc. (applicable for all figures)
Line 356# I think ‘0 to 5th d’ stands for 0 to 5th days
Figure 4# Please move the vertical axis title
Line 440 and 442# ‘0-10th d’ or ‘10-15 days’ please be consistent with referring the x axis unit
Line 468# Please use ‘51.68 to 81.6%’ instead of 51.68%-81.6% which looks like a subtraction formula. Same for 16.37%-47.07% and others throughout the text
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Title: Co-compost Application of Magnesium Salts and Orthophosphate Adjusted Biochar and Cyanobacteria for Fixing Nitrogen, Improving Maize Quality, and Reducing Field Nutrients Loss
(Manuscript ID: agronomy-1867003)
Herein, we provide responses to the reviewers’ comments and indicate how the manuscript was revised. All responses made to the comments are highlighted in red (Please check modifications the file named "Revised manuscript with changes marked").
Point 1: The authors really worked on a very interesting research topic and collected a lot of data throughout the experiment period. I really appreciate their hard work while conducting the research
Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation of our work. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript.
Point 2: Overall, the paper is very sloppily written with numerous grammatical mistakes. There are errors in sentence structures. Sometimes it was difficult to understand the meaning of the sentence. I strongly suggest that the paper should go through a professional English writing service.
Response 2: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, Language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background.
Point 3: The English must be improved
Response 3: We apologize for the mistakes in the manuscript and also carefully checked the entire manuscript for typographic, grammatical and formatting errors, and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your patience.
Point 4: The methods must be re-written with better explanation
Response 4: We agree with the comment and re-wrote the methods in the revised manuscript. See chapter 2 of the manuscript for details. We rewrote the chapter "2.3 Outdoor field Setting".
Point 5: In addition, the rationale of the paper needs to be improved
Response 5: Thanks, We have improved the content of Section 3.4.2 and modified Table 8. We cite recently published papers in the Introduction and add sentences for future direction in the Conclusion
(See Line 648 to 651, Line 745, Line 130 to 136, Line 796 to 800,)
Point 6: Line 23# Please re-write the sentence to make it clear
Response 6: Thanks for your suggestion and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: “The results showed that OF treatment can reduce field nutrient loss, and the increase in the rate of soil TN fixation was as follows: OF (18.62%)>CF (10.34%)>C0 (-9.66%).”
Point 7: Line 25# ‘TN and TK losses in runoff were 33.33% and 22.74%’ higher or lower as compared to ……
Response 7: Thank you very much for your careful review on this manuscript. According to your comments, the re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: “Moreover, the TN and TK losses in runoff were 33.33% and 22.74% lower than CF in farmland runoff.”
Point 8: Line 26# It is not advisable to start a sentence with acronyms
Response 8: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. The modify sentence as follows: “The OF treatment increased the content of crude fat, crude protein, and crude starch by 4.40%, 8.34%, and 2.66% compared with the CF treatment, respectively.”
Point 9: Line 82# Please use correct method of reference in the text. Also, please use the numbering to be consistent
Response 9: Thank you for your precious comments and advice. The modify sentence as follows: “Eklind Y et al. (2000) found lost nitrogen content of about 50% ~ 60% during urban sludge composting treatment [16].”
Point 10: Line 165# please rewrite
Response 10: Thank you for the suggestion. The rewrite sentence as follows: “The existing results show that adding Mg/P salts during composting is equal to 15% of the initial nitrogen content (in mol), which is conducive to the formation of struvite crystallization.”
Point 11: Line 167# Please rewrite
Response 11: Thanks for your insightful suggestion. The rewrite sentences as follows: “Thus, the amount of Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 in the study was in this proportion. Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 were dissolved in water and mixed to compost material.”
Point 12: Line 171# Please define treatments as: CK:Compost Material (cyanobacteria, spent mushroom and rice hulls), B0: Mg(OH)2+KH2PO4+Compost 171 Materia, B1:………………….
Response 12: Thanks for your insightful suggestion. Following your suggestion, The paragraph has been revised.
(See Page 4, Line177 to 184)
Point 13: Line# 174: All treatment naturally stacked where? Please clarify the sentence
Response 13: Thanks, The modify sentences as follows: “All test treatments were naturally stacked in the plastic film shed, and all stacks size were fixed as long× wide × high =1.5 m × 1.5 m × 0.8 m.”
Point 14: Line 181# Please remove the extra space at 16℃.
Response 14: Thanks, Modified according to your suggestion.
(See Page 5, Line207)
Point 15: Line 182# What are the physicochemical properties of the background soil
Response 15: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The physicochemical properties of the background soil are listed in Table 5. Also, we decided to add some textual descriptions. The modify sentence as follows: “The soil contains medium potassium and low levels of organic matter and nutrient content.”
Point 16: Line 191 to 205# Please rewrite
Response 16: Thanks, Modified according to your suggestion. The modify textse as follows:
“The planting experiment was designed in a field with a size of 5 m × 5 m. It was necessary to vertically insert tiles with a size of 80 cm × 80 cm around the field, and the verti-cal burial depth of the tiles was at least 40 cm. We covered the exposed tiles with plastic cloth from top to bottom and buried the excess plastic cloth on both sides of the tiles in the soil. A hole with a diameter of 5 cm was left on the tile downhill of the field, and the runoff from the hole was collected in a 50 L bucket through PVC pipes. In total, three treatments were set up in the experimental field: â‘ CF: chemical fertilizer, â‘¡ OF: organic fertilizer, â‘¢ C0: no fertilizer. Each treatment was repeated twice. Maize was sown in early May and harvested in early October 2020. Chemical fertilizer and organic fertilizer were applied as base fertilizers and mixed with soil before planting. The following standard dosages were used for each treatment: N was 241 kg/hm2, P2O5 was 150 kg/hm2 and K2O was 150 kg/hm2. Compound chemical fertilizer was directly mixed according to this standard amount, and organic fertilizer was converted according to this standard amount. Insuffi-cient nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were supplemented with urea, single super-phosphate, and potassium chloride, respectively. The row spacing × plant spacing of maize planting was 50 cm × 35 cm.”
Point 17: Line 199# Please explain ‘241 kg·hm-2
Response 17: Thanks, the word “ 241 kg·hm-2 ” has been changed into “ 241 kg/hm2 ”.
Point 18: Line 294 and 295# what is the difference between WN AND WN’?
Response 18: Thanks for your question, Wn is the composting weight (fresh weight) after each sampling, Wn´ is the sample weight of the compost per sampling.
Point 19: Figure 2# Title should be self-explanatory. Please explain (a), (b), (c), and (d). Also, the axis title should be temperature (ºC), Time (days), Germination index (%), etc. (applicable for all figures)
Response 19: Thanks for your insightful suggestion. Text (a), (b), (c), and (d) is the serial number of Figure 2. We set (a), (b), (c), and (d) as the legend to add to Figure 2.
(See Page 9, Line 422)
Point 20: Line 356# I think ‘0 to 5th d’ stands for 0 to 5th days
Response 20: Thanks, The modify sentences as follows: ” From 0 to 5 days at the beginning of composting,”
Point 21: Figure 4# Please move the vertical axis title
Response 21: Thanks, Modified according to your suggestion.
(See Page 12, Line 491)
Point 22: Line 440 and 442# ‘0-10th d’ or ‘10-15 days’ please be consistent with referring the x axis unit
Response 22: Thank you very much for your careful review on this manuscript. Modified according to your suggestion.
(See Page 12, Line 501)
Point 23: Line 468# Please use ‘51.68 to 81.6%’ instead of 51.68%-81.6% which looks like a subtraction formula. Same for 16.37%-47.07% and others throughout the text
Response 23: Thank you very much. Modified according to your suggestion.
(See Page 13, Line 528 to 529, 534, 537,)
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.
Boya Su
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
I read the article. It is an interesting subject.
General comments
Please answer my questions:
What is the objective of this study?
What is the novelty of this study? ( it is not clear to me)
Specific comments
Line 26-27 needs to revision
Line 57 The above problems are very prominent in China's Chaohu Lake basin (CHLB).
Line 103-104 needs to revision
Line 109-111 are not clear
Line 122 of the experimental field
Line 142 needs to revision
Line 147 needs to revision
Line 167 in this study was
Line 327-329 are not clear
Line 379-380 need to revision
Line 509-510 need to revision
Line 595, line 606, and line 609 are not clear
Line 700 to 703 need to revision
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Title: Co-compost Application of Magnesium Salts and Orthophosphate Adjusted Biochar and Cyanobacteria for Fixing Nitrogen, Improving Maize Quality, and Reducing Field Nutrients Loss
(Manuscript ID: agronomy-1867003)
Herein, we provide responses to the reviewers’ comments and indicate how the manuscript was revised. All responses made to the comments are highlighted in red (Please check modifications the file named "Revised manuscript with changes marked").
Point 1: I read the article. It is an interesting subject.
Response 1: Thank you for your affirmation of our work. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript.
Point 2: What is the objective of this study?
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments.
The objective of this study:
1) The co-composting of biochar with cyanobacteria regulated by the addition of magnesium salts and orthophosphates to explore the optimal biochar concentration.
2) Addition of biochar to reduce nitrogen loss in cyanobacteria composting.
3) The co-composting of biochar with cyanobacteria to improve maize quality, and reduce field nutrients loss.
Point 3: What is the novelty of this study?
Response 3: Thank you very much for your comments.
The novelty of this study:
1) To explore the optimal addition form of magnesium salts and orthophosphates during aerobic composting to promote the formation of struvite crystals and control the loss of nitrogen.
2) The addition of biochar promotes the improvement of nitrogen loss and nutrient content in struvite crystalline aerobic composting.
3) open-air farmland experiments and comprehensive evaluations of soil, runoff, and maize.
Point 4: Line 26-27 needs to revision
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. The modify sentence as follows: “The OF treatment increased the content of crude fat, crude protein, and crude starch by 4.40%, 8.34%, and 2.66% compared with the CF treatment, respectively.”
Point 5: Line 57 The above problems are very prominent in China's Chaohu Lake basin (CHLB).
Response 5: Thank you, Modified according to your suggestion.
(See Page 2, Line 62)
Point 6: Line 103-104 needs to revision
Response 6: Thanks for your insightful suggestion. The modify sentence as follows: ” Not only does biochar performs well in soil-improvement applications, but it also holds promising prospects in composting.”
Point 7: Line 109-111 are not clear
Response 7: Thanks, The modify sentence as follows: ”The increases in temperature, pH, aeration and organic mineralization during compost-ing may lead to increased NH3 emissions. But biochar relies on its pores or surface ad-sorption of NH3 and NH4+ to reduce the NH3 release and increase the fixation rate of nitrogen.”
Point 8: Line 122 of the experimental field
Response 8: Thank you very much for your careful review on this manuscript. According to your comments, the re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: “Due to the complexity and uncertainty of the experimental field, it is necessary to study the comprehensive evaluation of new cyanobacteria organic fertilizer products.”
Point 9: Line 142 needs to revision
Response 9: Thanks, The modify sentence as follows: “the spent mushrooms were provided by Heifei Lixin Seed Factory; the rice hulls were from Zipeng Town Rice Factory;”
Point 10: Line 147 needs to revision
Response 10: We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: “The maize (Zea mays L.) varieties in the planting experiment were provided by Fengle Seed Industry Co., Ltd.”
Point 11: Line 167 in this study was
Response 11: Thanks for your insightful suggestion. According to your comments, the re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: “Thus, the amount of Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 in the study was in this proportion. Mg(OH)2 and KH2PO4 were dissolved in water and mixed to compost material.”
Point 12: Line 327-329 are not clear
Response 12: Thanks, The modify sentence as follows: “Additionally, a large amount of NH4+-N was produced in this mineralization reaction, which promoted the increase in the pH value of the reactor.”
Point 13: Line 379-380 need to revision
Response 13: Thank you, The modify sentence as follows: “As shown in Figure 3a, the NH3 emission trends for each treatment were almost the same, with an upward trend and peaking.”
Point 14: Line 509-510 need to revision
Response 14: Thank you for your suggestion. The re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: The TNC of B10 treatment reached the highest at 12.23%. Overall, the combined amend-ment of 10% biochar and Mg(OH)2/KH2PO4 can achieve better comprehensive benefits in cyanobacteria composting.”
Point 15: Line 595, line 606, and line 609 are not clear
Response 15: Thanks for your suggestion and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following:
“The weight per plant of OF treatment was 2.33% less than that of CF treatment.”
(See Page 15, Line 615 to 616)
“Compared with the C0 treatment, the CF and OF treatments increased the number of maize kernels per ear by 11.09% and 13.04%, respectively.”
(See Page 15, Line 626 to 627)
“Compared with the C0 treatment, the CF and OF treatments increased the weight of 100-grains by 6.56% and 8.49%, respectively.”
(See Page 15, Line 629 to 630)
Point 16: Line 700 to 703 need to revision
Response 16: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. The modify sentences as follows: “In addition, the results of field experiments showed that applying this organic fertilizer could improve soil nutrients and maize quality. The increase in the rate of soil TN fixation was as follows: OF (18.62%)>CF (10.34%)>C0 (-9.66%). Compared with CF treatment, soil organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), and total potassium (TK) contents in OF treatment increased by 7.24%, 7.5%, 1.33%, and 14.72%, respectively.”
Dear reviewer,
Language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background. Thank you once again for your attention to our paper and your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript during this unprecedented and challenging time. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.
Boya Su
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
line 20, Biochar concentration is not a scientific term, it should be replaced with the rate of biochar application throughout the manuscript
In the introduction section, a clear hypothesis may be added
line 142, Maize (Zea mays L.), please check
Under each Table, the description of values added as plus-minus should be given with the value of the number of replicates i.e. n
In Table 9, yield should be presented in SI units
In each Table, the units must be presented in parenthesis i.e. ()
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The author thanks again for your valuable opinions and suggestions on improving the quality of the manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
