Comparing Biochar-Swine Manure Mixture to Conventional Manure Impact on Soil Nutrient Availability and Plant Uptake—A Greenhouse Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes made by the authors were admirable and provided increased clarity to the research. I also appreciated the authors responses to my earlier comments. Most useful. Unfortunately, adding the new text led to another set of issues/concerns and comments to be addressed. See attached comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The paper is interesting, however, the authors should present some points more clearly. Here are my suggestions:
Introduction
should clearly present the problem, focusing on it
Must clearly define the objective and scope of the work in the introduction.
Section materials and methods:
Describe substrate extraction zone, class and physical and chemical properties, weather conditions and others
Include current regulations
Section 2.2. It was necessary to include more bibliographic support
Tables and figures
Figures: should improve text resolution
Should keep table formatting, table 1 is different from the other tables
What "a", "b", "c" and "d" symbolize?? a> b >c>d .
is there any correlation between them?
How did you arrive at the concentration values in table 2?
Are the Mg, Fe, and Zn concentrations for "M" similar? how much?
To modify line 357: 3& 4 by 3 and 4
Improve conclusions clearly considering the problem and objectives
Supplementary material: Where is it? is this necessary?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor,
Thanks for inviting me to review this article.
The authors have reported an interesting greenhouse study comparing the impact of biochar-swine manure mixture and conventional manure on soil nutrient availability and plant uptake.
The manuscript has been improved based on comments from previous reviewers. I found it easy to follow with sufficient literature review, appropriate research design and well described methods. The results were well presented and discussed with fitting conclusion.
I hereby recommend that it be accepted for publication in its present form.
Many thanks.
Author Response
We appreciate the feedback and the opportunity to revise the manuscript based on feedback from all reviewers.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors:
Thanks for listening to the suggestions. The article has improved a lot since its initial version. Best regards, Reviewer
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
