Biochar Increases Rice Yield in Soda Saline-Alkali Paddy Fields by Improving Saline-Alkali Stress and Phosphorus Use Efficiency

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have gone through the manuscript “Biochar combined with phosphorus fertilizer improves phosphorus use efficiency and rice yield in soda saline-alkali paddy fields by improving ionic balance and physiological status” and found that a good study and well within the scope of the journal. The study is important to propose it as a novel approach for utilizing biochar and chemical fertilizer together to enhance the salinity tolerance of rice. Role of biochar is well known for improving the soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Authors have studied various parameters to justify the results and validated the findings. While going through the MS, I could find that the MS is well-structured and very well written throughout. Hence, I suggest for publication the manuscript in the journal minor revisions. I have mentioned my comments on the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Scope for further improvement in english as several places authours has used future tense. 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestion. we have revised in the revised manuscript. Please see our attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

Nicely written but the methods employed, and other physiological parameters tested needed to be explain here briefly. The Statistical methods and tools used, and key results based on statistical tests should be reflected here.

Section 1

Introduction:

This section is very detailed and the information presented here required revision and suggested to squeeze (Line 55 to Line 111). 

Section 2

2.1 Data presented in Table 1 (Line 134) doesn't reflect the year (2022 or 2023) if every year pre-sowing soil samples were taken. In case, if only 1st year before sowing, the soil sample was taken should be stated clearly.

Section 2.2

Research design in this section is not well explained. Both years should be clearly explained for the understanding of readers. As per information given in this section the data were only taken during the 1st year (2022) instead of two years (i.e. 2022 & 2023).

This section shows that such data will be taken for both years (line 139) but no clear information in this regard, it's very strange that the authors unable to explain for the next year plan but result sections in contrary to this statement.

 

Line 144: Scientific name (use Italics Font) 

Section 2.4.2 Line 179: it needs clarification of the year or proper citation as per journal guidelines.

Section 2.4.2 to 2.4.4 : It is suggested to explain the methods briefly.

Line 250-266: Proper formula styles should be followed, (suggested to use appropriate software for the same).

Line 169: Oven temperature was used in different range for plant analysis in section 2.4.1. Please explain if different in case of line 269 where 109 degree C & 60 degree C was used, earlier it was 70 degree C for oven dry.   

  Section 2.5 Data Analysis

This section is also lacking proper information and not well explained. Such ambiguity creates confusion for readers and sometime may lead to misguidance. As per given experimental design and statistical methods explained later in the result section, it doesn't match the findings explained (e.g Line 277 One way-ANOVA was used and later at Line 457-458, a 2 factor was used, similarly, Section 3.9 displayed a figure (No. 6) showing correlation effect among treatments, but no such method used during the statistical methods)

Line 483 to 495 and the Fig 7, explaining about the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to analyze the crop yield and other biochemical traits, but no detail mentioned in previous sections (section 3) and their outcomes neither presented in Abstract nor in conclusion.

Section 3

Results 

As mentioned in the above section, the result section largely depends upon this for data authentication and interpretation to conclude and suggest future recommendations accordingly. 

Section 3.1 to 3.5:

Results with respect to various parameters explained in these sections (Fig. 1 to Fig 5) were based on statistical analysis with LSD effects by comparing mean, however, the texts mostly explain in terms of percentage (%) with no LSD values by comparing means after the ANOVA. If explained in one or two lines explains two-way ANOVA (previous sections in methodology only explains one way ANOVA).

The Method section (2.2) explains about only 2022 and in result section data explains for both the year 2022 and 2023. 

Table 3-6: The results of these table should also be explained according to the statistical outcomes including the significance/LSD values as well and need to re-write this section based on research design and statistical tests.

Thanks

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestion. we have revised in the revised manuscript. Please see our attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See list of specific comments in the attched file.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestion. we have revised in the revised manuscript. Please see our attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the reply to comments mentioned are mostly addressed and some of the response sare very generic and need further clarification with respect to comments mentioned below:

Most of the interpretations were in percentage (%) and their interpretation were related with statistically significant. In the manuscript some of the key interpretation must also reflecting LSD values and or P values after testing for significance at P<0.05. 

These findings should be reflected in the Abstract, Results and discussion part.

Please ensure all other corrections/suggestion including the LSD values after ANOVA tests in the manuscript.

it is hereby accepted after minor corrections mentioned.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestion. We have revised in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the revised version

 I found it strange that miraculously the sample size was changed from 6 to 15. Still this aspect of the reporting is awkward. For biochemical analysis still only three “representative” leaves were sampled.

The sampling is reported either per treatment or per plot or per hill or per plant. This is confusing for the reader. The same units should be used throughout the ms.

Sections 2.4.5 includes many unexplained abbreviations.

I still think that the ANOVA was not performed properly, and the use of all the data from both years as independent random samples is INCORRECT! See, the captions of the figures that say: “The data in the figure are averaged over the two study years.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The fact that the errors that I have apointed out in my review were corrected is an improvement but the ms still contains may errors in English. It requires editing by a professional linguist.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestions. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main issue of the erroneous statitical analysis was not corrected. As the authors wrote in their response "we treated the six sets of data obtained from each experimental treatment over the two years (with three sets of data collected each year for each treatment) as a single group for conducting a one-way ANOVA analysis between treatments."

The fact that the same error was madein other articles already pub;ished does not change my opinion  that this is not the correct way to analyze the data.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

My opinion about this ms have not changed.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable suggestion. We have revised in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the attachment for detailed modifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The statistical analysis was greatly improved. In several parameters the authors have found a significant difference berween the results of the two years. This calrifies why the measurements of the two years should not have been treated like independent replicates.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language has improved but see my suggestions on pages 2 and 3 of the attched document.

I did not continue revising the whole ms.

Author Response

Thank you again for your careful review and valuable suggestions. We have revised in the revised manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf