Transmissible Effects of a Biochar Amendment to an Upper Soil Zone Upon an Associated Lower Zone, Including Attenuation of Soybean Cyst Nematode (Heterodera glycines)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Round1

It is pleasure to be a reviewer for the manuscript entitled: “Transmissible effects of a biochar amendment to an upper soil  zone upon an associated lower zone, including attenuation of  soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines)" by Nguyen Van Sinh, Doan Thi Truc Linh, Nguyen Thi Kim Phuong, Karl Ritz1, and Koki Toyota

The aim of the research presented in this manuscript was to aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of biochar amendment on soybean cyst nematode population. The research results are interesting and contribute to the improvement of food production. In terms of methodology, the research is carried out correctly and the results are presented very clearly. The chapter Discussion has been written in an interesting way. The summary is factual. Before that, however, this manuscript needed some corrections:

1.       In the introduction section, the author should provide a novelty statement at the end. What new things have authors done or correlated in this research compared to old ones?

2.       The systematic abstract is missing. Introduce the need for study in 1-2 lines. Then please give a clear-cut point problem source as a problem statement that is tackled in the current study. Also, give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy or treatments. Then provide a definitive conclusion withdrawn through research in a single line.

3.       Give a logical reason for selecting the current strategy, i.e., Transmissible effects of a biochar amendment on soybean cyst nematode.

4.       The authors should follow the title in the introduction section, Transmissible effects of a biochar amendment to an upper soil zone upon an associated lower zone, including attenuation of soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera glycines)". Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

5.       Keywords should be in alphabetical order and should not duplicate words appearing in the title

6.       Why the authors did not presented any data related to host plant ( Mung beans) such as fresh and dry weight, SPAD (chlorophyll content), nutrient content and root length.

7.        In materials and methods section, authors should mentioned in the amount of NPK fertilizers has been added.

8.       The author should change the capital significant letter to small letters in the figures and tables. Because we used the capital significant letter when did the statistical analysis at 1% not 5%.

9.       The conclusion is so much descriptive. Please provide a conclusive conclusion, Add the targeted beneficiary audience who will get benefit from this research. Also, give clear-cut recommendations Give future prospective regarding this research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Results: 3.1. Effects of biochar amendment to upper layer on the chemical properties in upper and lower 209 layer soils: In this section please specify the reduced/lower comparison should be shown in number, the statement is not cleared. Please follow it throughout the section from line 211 onward.

The result needs improvement in sense of showing numbers. How much  is a thing reduced/Increased ?

3.3.3. Microbial activity and enzyme activity: Table 2: It would be very much nice to add alphabets to show the remarkable differences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is addressing very important issues of alternatives to synthetic nematicides, however, the is no coherence in the presentation of the work. This is evident as the part of material and methods lack very critical issues which are a requirement in scientific articles. What are the treatments? There is no study design, place of study and was the study validated in time or space? This critical points makes it very difficult for someone elsewhere to repeat this scientific study without contacting the authors.

The sampling was done on a farm, however there is no written written proof indicating the validation of species found and how much of each. Somewhere authors speaks of bacteriovores which were increased, however, there was no proof at the beginning of what did they start with. Materials and methods under nematode extraction indicates the absence of a qualified nematologist in the study. The study's focal point is on reducing high population densities of the soya bean nematode. However, that part is not adequately addressed under materials and methods. Authors can also consider changing their title since it is misleading as it stands. The title provide an impression that this is study addressing SCN, however, the content is more into soil properties.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made all the correction well. therefore i recommended  publishing  the paper 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your constructive comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

I still maintain that the study must be repeated either in time or space to address the issue of being bias.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. Reproducibility in time and different places is very important. Thus, we are now thinking to set up a field experiment next summer. But currently, we are not able to add data of experiment conducted in a different place and repeated in time.