Tillage, Manure, and Biochar Short-Term Effects on Soil Characteristics in Forage Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments: This study investigated the short-term effects of tillage, manure, and biochar on soil characteristics in forage systems. After carefully reading, the topic of this manuscript is interesting and contains some novel results. The following comments and suggestions may be helpful to improve the manuscript.

Specific comments:

(1) Section abstract: The section should be rewritten to make it more informative, e.g., using more quantitative data.

(2) Keywords sections: Too many keywords! Please delete some of them (≤6 words).

(3) Section 2. Materials and Methods: There are five factors in this experiment, i.e., soil type (3 levels: CL, LS, SL), manure application rate (2 levels: 0, 10 Mg dry matter), BC application rate (3 levels: 0, 5, 10 Mg dry matter), tillage practices (2 levels: till, no-till) and forage crop type (5 levels: perennial, multi-harvest Jigg’s bermudagrass, annual two-harvest sorghum Sudangrass, Sorghum drummondii and Super Sugar hybrid, annual single-harvest silage maize). The authors stated that “Each replicate had 36 microplots; therefore, there were 108 microplots in each field site.”. Both the number of microplots for each replicate and microplots number in each field site are confusing here since the levels of above 5 factors are 3, 2, 3, 2, and 5, please explain it. The specific design scheme of this experiment should be clearly stated using tables. Additionally, the basis for selecting the number of levels of various factors in the experiment needs to be clarified; e.g., for the factor of soil type, why did the authors select sandy clay loam/clay loam soil (CL), loamy sand (LS), and sandy loam soil (SL) instead of other soil types (e.g., clay soil).

(4) Line 88: “Figure 1” is not relevant here, it may be “Figure S1”. Please check and revise it.

(5) Lines 165 and 174, two “2.3”! Please revise them.

(6) Line 743, Conclusions sections: This section should be numbered 4 instead of 5, please check and revise it. Moreover, the conclusions are too wordy, please simplify them by listing several points concluded from results and discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript examines the effects of biochar, manure application, crop type, and tillage practices on soil nutrient dynamics in different textured soils over a 7-month field study. The topic is relevant, given the need to understand how amendments and agronomic practices influence soil properties and crop nutrition. However, the manuscript requires revision to improve focus, clarity, and technical soundness.

 

Major Revisions

- The introduction needs to more clearly establish the novelty of this specific study and develop concise objectives and hypotheses. Much of the literature review covers general background that does not directly connect to the rationale. Please consider this paper, Residue retention and minimum tillage improve physical environment of the soil in croplands: A global meta-analysis.

 

- The methods need more details on plot layout, treatment application, soil sampling methodology, and lab analyses. Statistical analyses also require more description.

 

- Presentation and interpretation of the extensive results data could be improved. Many repetitive trends are shown across multiple tables. Important overall findings should be highlighted in the text and simplified.

 

- The discussion does not sufficiently contextualize the results in relation to cited literature or explain the ecological significance of the findings. Limitations of the research design should also be addressed.

 

- Overall writing style is very dense and needs to be streamlined for clarity. Abbreviations, acronyms, and jargon should be reduced where possible.

 

Specific Comments

Introduction

- Focus the literature review on studies most relevant to this specific work. Be more targeted in building the rationale.

- Clearly state the knowledge gaps/questions and formulate testable hypotheses.

 

Methods 

- Provide more details on plot layout, replication, treatment application protocols etc. A diagram could help.

- Describe soil sampling methods in more depth. What depths?

- Explain statistical analysis approaches more clearly. What transformations were done and why?

 

Results

- Summarize key overall trends in text instead of repetitive tables.

- Reduce acronyms, abbreviations, and technical jargon for readability.

- Perform correlational analysis between variables like pH, EC, nutrients etc.

 

Discussion

- Interpret results more deeply in context of cited literature.

- Discuss limitations of the research design and inferences drawn.

- Describe ecological/agricultural significance and practical implications of findings.

- Reduce dense paragraphs and complicated sentences for clarity.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.       The introduction does not provide enough literature review. Even if there is no study that comprehensively tested biochar with manure application and tillage in forage system, the literature review should provide review on what is known about biochar interaction with manure, tillage, and forage systems independently. Has there been a study that looked at biochar application in North Texas? In forage systems? This study is a short-term study, has there been a long-term one like this? After this literature review, the introduction should provide the authors’ hypotheses, which is missing from current manuscript.

2.       This is a very short-term study with the data spanning a single growing season, which raises the question on its significance and relevance. The authors do not provide enough justification for this short-term study in the introduction.

3.       What were the soil taxonomy of the three sites?

4.       What type of tillage was it?

5.       How were the locations of soil sampling within each microplot selected?

6.       What statistical model was used to determine the effects of the independent variables? Were the effects of the variables fixed or random?

7.       It would be beneficial for the readers to have a table that summarizes the statistical significance of the main and interaction effects of the variables with p-values and degrees of freedom. Without this information, the results seem very scattered and difficult to have a comprehensive understanding

8.       For all the tables, it should read “each column and each row”, not “each line”.

9.       Instead of umho/cm, please use µmho/cm, with the proper Greek letter, or convert it to larger unit.

10.    The overall presentation of the results is poor and scattered. The authors should either change them to consolidated figures or present few consolidated tables, at least by each variable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Currently some descriptions in Figure 1 are difficult to distinguish, please improve the clarity of this figure.

The authors have addressed all the comments and the manuscript has been improved significantly.  Currently, the manuscript can be considered for publication after a minor revision. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx