Using Respirometry to Investigate Biological Stability of Growing Media in Aerobic Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the manuscript is of interest and falls within the scope of the Horticulturae journal. The manuscript is well written, well structured and the result are well presented and discussed. Specific comment and suggestions to the authors are included in order to improve the final version of the manuscript.
General comments:
- Perhaps the figures would be clearer if you used continuous lines of different colors, rather than lines of different styles. But this is just a suggestion.
Specific remarks:
- Table 1: please describe FW and DM (first time they appears).
- Table 1 and others paragraphs (Lines 169, 175,…): mL.
- Lines 96 -98: Why? It is a less accurate and less reliable method, which relies on the experience of the person performing it.
- Table 2: Since you talk about organic matter content in the material and methods section, why don't you use organic matter content instead of loss ignition?
- Table 2: Include in table footer the definition of n/a (not applicable, not available).
- Lines 161-162: It is an inaccurate, non-homogeneous method. Would it not be more appropriate to use a certain percentage of moisture in the sample with respect to its maximum retention capacity, as is usually done in soil incubations?
- Line 165: On what basis are these amounts provided? Would they correspond to the dose applied in a plant nursery or is it a standard amount?
- Lines 179-181: missing parentheses.
- Figure 1 caption: end point missing.
- Line 199: O2not: space missing.
- Line 206: The PAS100 threshold…Define it.
- Line 207: VS… Define it.
- Lines 231-234: What does this classification refer to? There is no asterisk in the table 3.
- Lines 243-245: The need for another method of standardizing the moisture content of the samples is once again evident.
- Line 262: samplewhen: space missing
- Line 316 and 394: CO2
- References: Use the style recommended by the journal in a homogeneous way.
Author Response
Please see the attachments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
your study treats in detail the biological stability of different types of growing media. Please justify in the abstract and introduction why biological stability is crucial.
The meaning of the aim in the abstract is different than the aim stated at the end of the introduction. So, it's confusing: what did you want to achieve with your work?
Table 2. Is the standard deviation 60 times greater than the mean value?
Fig2. plots a and b must have the same Y-axis scale. So c and d.
Scales in fig 3. must be adequate to other figs.
Also Fig 4 fails in this regard.
The conclusion doesn't answer the question stated in the aim. Are these methods suitable for measuring media stability? Are they or not? I have to answer this question and prove the answer.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
the point is to ensure that the scales of the charts do not differ.
Provide the same scale for CO2 prodn. rate in all concerned figures,
and the same scale for CO2 cumulative in all concerned figures.
Otherwise, the presentation of results is confusing.
Your aim is: "The aim of this research was to not only identify whether the dynamic respirometry tests described above (i.e. DR4 and ORG0020) are suitable methods for measuring growing media stability, but also assess the effect of blending two raw materials in a mix."
Could you please say if are they suitable or not?
Author Response
Please see attached file, an updated version of our earlier comments with new responses starting on Page 4.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall comments were properly taken into account. Now the manuscript is clear.
Good luck
