All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The revised version is acceptable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
We recommend editing the title for clarity and to reduce unnecessary repetition, from:
"Soil property and cotton root morphological/physiological responses to cotton stalk biochar addition in two continuous cropping cotton field soils from Xinjiang, China"
to
"Soil properties, root morphology and physiological responses to cotton stalk biochar addition in two continuous cropping cotton field soils from Xinjiang, China"
Please provide a little more detail on the ANOVA. What data exactly were being tested by ANOVA? What was the post-hoc test used?
Also, in the results, when reporting increases/decreases of X%, the authors also need to provide the mean and SD/SE to accompany these percent changes.ly revised.
The paper is now technically sound but the language quality is poor.
The paper needs professional language editing.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The papers should be also revised by a professional translator or a native speaker
Reasonable
No comment
Good work
Dear Authors,
Please carefully revise the manuscript to make it suitable for further processing.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The study entitled: "Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China" was reviewed. The overall experimental design is reasonable, and the manuscript reads well. However, the authors need to further emphasize the scientific novelty of this work in the introduction with a comprehensive literature review on the topic. The authors need to add a more in-depth discussion for interpreting their findings. The authors need to address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly. It is suggested to be accepted after revision.
The overall experimental design is reasonable
no comment
1. Line 45-51: Personally suggest authors should highlight the high yield and low utilization rate of cotton straw in Xinjiang, China. The current description is inadequate.
2. It is suggested that the authors further describe the role and mechanism of biochar in improving farmland soil quality. Because different feedstock, addition rates and pyrolysis temperature may lead to different results.
3. Line 52-59: Authors need provide detailed background information in the introduction. The present presentation appears inadequate.
4. Line 60-71: The authors need to state the main purposes and hypothesis of this work in the introduction.
5. Line 107-109: Can the author supplement the pH value of biochar?
6. Soil moisture is an important factor affecting plant growth and nutrient availability. Biochar amendment may significantly influence the soil moisture due to its porous nature, therefore, it is necessary to discussed soil moisture after biochar addition.
I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.
1. I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2. Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3. Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4. Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5. What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6. Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7. What are the objectives of current research?
8. Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9. I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10. The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11. How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12. Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13. Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14. Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15. Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16. Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17. Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18. P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19. Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20. Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21. Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.
1. I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2. Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3. Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4. Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5. What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6. Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7. What are the objectives of current research?
8. Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9. I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10. The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11. How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12. Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13. Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14. Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15. Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16. Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17. Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18. P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19. Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20. Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21. Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.
1. I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2. Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3. Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4. Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5. What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6. Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7. What are the objectives of current research?
8. Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9. I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10. The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11. How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12. Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13. Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14. Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15. Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16. Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17. Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18. P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19. Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20. Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21. Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.
1. I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2. Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3. Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4. Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5. What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6. Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7. What are the objectives of current research?
8. Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9. I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10. The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11. How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12. Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13. Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14. Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15. Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16. Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17. Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18. P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19. Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20. Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21. Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.