Quality of Bokashi-Type Biofertilizer Formulations and Its Application in the Production of Vegetables in an Ecological System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript assessed the quality of bokashi-type biofertilizer and its application in the production of vegetables using plot experiment. However, there are some flaws on the experiment setting and the result presentations need to be addressed. For example, first, as the biofertilizer formulation, the plant growth promoting strains were added before the fermentation. Will these strains be expanded during the fermentation? The bacterial contents of the product analysis showed that the predominant of bacteria in the produced bokashi were halotolerance strains, such as Marinobacter and Halomonas, indicating these strains is difficult to be survival during the fermentation. As the results presentation, the standard deviation data are necessary. More important, further analysis need on the mechanism of the biofertilizer.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the English language should be improved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your thoughtful comments on our manuscript. Regarding the concern about the survival and expansion of plant growth-promoting strains during fermentation, we acknowledge the importance of this aspect. Thank you for pointing out the dominance of halotolerance strains, such as Marinobacter and Halomonas, in our produced bokashi. The results indicate that while some strains may be sensitive to the fermentation conditions, others were able to thrive and contribute to the overall effectiveness of the biofertilizer.

Standard Deviation Data: We appreciate your suggestion regarding the inclusion of standard deviation data. In our revised manuscript, we will provide standard deviation information for relevant parameters in the results section. This will offer a more comprehensive view of the data variability and improve the overall presentation of our findings.

Further Analysis on the Mechanism of the Biofertilizer: We are committed to conducting additional analyses to delve deeper into the mechanism of action. We believe that this will not only enhance our understanding of the biofertilizer's effectiveness but also contribute valuable insights to the field of organic agriculture. 

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which will strengthen the quality and comprehensiveness of our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction ought to have more scientific background on Bokashi Fertilizer with comparable studies, instead of the more generalized background.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 224: reword the term “degree of agate” to make it clear

Line 270: correct the grammar

Lines 593-595: Rewrite to make clear

Line 600-608: Adds no value to the discussion, may delete.

Line 611: replace “derived” with “observed”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your suggestion for a more specific and scientifically focused introduction, with references to comparable studies on Bokashi Fertilizer. In our revised manuscript, we will provide a more detailed and targeted scientific background, including a discussion of relevant studies that will contextualize our research within the broader scientific literature.

Quality of English Language:

• Line 224: Werephrase the term "degree of agate" to ensure clarity in the revised manuscript.

• Line 270: We correct the grammar issue on this line for improved readability.

• Lines 593-595: We will rewrite this section to make it clearer and more concise for readers.

• Lines 600-608: We appreciate your feedback and will review this section to determine if it adds value to the discussion. If not, we will consider its removal.

• Line 611: We will replace "derived" with "observed" in line 611 for greater accuracy in the revised manuscript.

We thank you for your careful review and constructive feedback. Your input will contribute significantly to the overall quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Quality of Bokashi-type Biofertilizer Formulations and its Application in the Production of Vegetables in an Ecological System” is nicely presented. Authors did huge work. Objective is clear. Methodology and results well-described. This manuscript can be accepted after the following minor revisions.

1.       Beginning of the abstract, authors need to add an introductory and problem statement note.

2.       Line 161-162 Why this cabbage variety was selected? need to clarify. And which beet variety was used need to clarify here.

3.       Discussion section need to rewrite. For example, it should be more mechanistic, like present results should be compared with previous literature and finally need to give assumptions why productivity of cabbage and beets differ under different conditions.

4.       Conclusion of the study is not satisfactory. It should be more brief, precise and concise.

 

5.       Grammatical mistakes should be avoided. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required like typo and grammatical mistakes.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We will enhance the abstract by adding an introductory note to provide context and a problem statement to clearly outline the research objectives and challenges addressed in the study.

Clarifying the Selection of Cabbage and Beet Varieties:

In the revised manuscript, we provide clarification on why the specific cabbage variety was chosen for the study and specify the beet variety used in the experiment to ensure transparency and completeness of the methodology.

Rewriting the Discussion Section:

We appreciate your suggestion to improve the discussion section. In the revised manuscript, we provide a more mechanistic discussion, comparing our results with previous literature, and presenting assumptions to explain the differences in cabbage and beet productivity under different conditions. This will contribute to a more comprehensive and informative discussion.

Improving the Conclusion:

We will revise the conclusion of the study to make it more brief, precise, and concise while ensuring it effectively summarizes the key findings and implications of our research.

Addressing Grammatical Mistakes:

We carefully review and edit the manuscript to eliminate any remaining grammatical mistakes and typographical errors to improve the overall quality of the language.

We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which will help enhance the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript title: Quality of Bokashi-type Biofertilizer Formulations and its Application in the Production of Vegetables in an Ecological System

 

This manuscript is a revised manuscript. It mainly introduced the formulations of a kind of organic biofertilizer and its application on two vegetables in Brazil. It looks like a product introduction, but not a scientific report. The manuscript is lack of novelty. Furthermore, there are lots of flaws need to be addressed.

1)     Tables 2, 4 and 5, Authors just provide the mean value. Deviation?

2)     In table 2, the Cu, Mn, Zn, and Fe were derived from the original raw materials. What reasons make the difference?

3)     Table 3, Different inoculum resulted in the very similar bacterial communities. Why? Author should provide the community structure of the original material.

4)     As the results of TCA, we don’t care the variables connected which kinds of fertilizer, we care which contents of the biofertilizer promote the plant growth.

Author Response

 

I hope this email finds you well. I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We have taken the reviewer's comments into careful consideration and made the necessary improvements to address the concerns raised.

Here is a summary of our responses to each of the points raised by the reviewer:

1. Regarding Tables 2, 4, and 5, we have now included the standard deviation values alongside the mean values to provide a more comprehensive representation of the data.

2. In Table 2, the discrepancies in Cu, Mn, Zn, and Fe content have been explained in the revised manuscript. We have added a brief discussion highlighting the reasons for these differences, which are attributed to variations in the original raw materials used.

3. In response to the comment about Table 3, we have conducted additional analysis to provide insight into the bacterial community structure of the original materials. This information has been incorporated into the revised manuscript to better elucidate the observed similarities in bacterial communities following different inoculations.

4. We appreciate the reviewer's concern about the interpretation of the TCA results. In the revised manuscript, we have refocused our discussion on identifying which specific components of the biofertilizer contribute to plant growth promotion, through a RDA analysis. We have also included a more comprehensive analysis of the variables associated with different fertilizer types to enhance the scientific value of the manuscript.

We believe that these revisions have substantially improved the quality and scientific rigor of our manuscript. We hope that these changes adequately address the reviewer's comments and concerns. Please find the revised manuscript attached, along with a marked-up version highlighting all the changes made for your convenience.

Once again, we would like to express our gratitude for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript to "Horticulturae." We look forward to hearing your feedback and hope that our revised manuscript now meets the standards for publication in your journal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concern had been addressed. I recommend accepting for publication.