Reuse of Pruning Waste from Subtropical Fruit Trees and Urban Gardens as a Source of Nutrients: Changes in the Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of the Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading the paper "Reuse of pruning waste from subtropical fruit trees and urban gardens as a source of nutrients: changes in the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil," I consider that is a good quality paper that will have a broad interest in academics related with waste dispose and urban gardening, and can be published.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.

 

Yours faithfully,

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed  is interesting in the context of the release of nutrients  addition  to soils from the pruning waste from subtropical orchard trees (avocado, cherimoya, and mango) and garden waste. Also raise the important issue of recycling pruning and garden waste, which is most often disposed of by incineration.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the comments.

 

Yours faithfully,

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting area of research, exploring as it doe the process of organic matter breakdown and release of nutrients. It is important to derive, if possible, some broad outcomes of the study that can be applied more widely than just at the local level. This may not be possible considering the specificity of the trial. There needs to be a clearer acknowledgement and description of the edaphic differences between the sampled sites.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reuse of pruning waste from subtropical fruit trees and urban gardens as a source of nutrients: changes in the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil

This MS discussed the pruning as very important agricultural practices in the horticultural orchards, which produce a lot of agro-wastes could be used or recycled!!

What is the difference between this MS and the following published article?

Reyes-Martín, M. P.; Martínez-Cartas, M. L.; Ortiz-Bernad, I.; San-Emeterio, L. M.; Fernández-Ondoño, E. Mineralization of bagged pruning waste in agrosystem on the subtropical coast of Andalusia (Spain). The Journal of Agricultural Science, 2020, 158(8-9), 634-645. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859621000113

The current MS is talking about the “Reuse of pruning waste from subtropical fruit trees and urban gardens as a source of nutrients” and the published one about “Mineralization of bagged pruning waste…..” and I think the same idea, which depends on the release of nutrients from pruning wastes in both MSs???? And the same periods and crops in both MSs????

The current has several problems like:

1- Where the map, which represent the selected three locations?

2- Where the main analyses of pruning wastes or chemical composition, which authors used in these experiments? Are these wastes rich in N or other for example???

3- Why the authors did NOT add some real photos to describe their experiments instead of a drawn a figure of the tress??

4- Why the authors describe used soils according to FAO or USDA or standard source?

5- Why the authors add the amount 15 bags, and based on which criteria?

6- The soils in the three sites are different even in the value of soil pH? And this a reason for different biological activity in each soil???

I think this MS needs to be rejected due to previous reasons

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

L37-40 Please, review the redaction because it is a little redundant in the present form
L41-42 Please add soil in the following sentence “Therefore, the use of waste products appears to be an optimal option for enhancing nutrient SOIL restoration.”
L56 Change fertilization to soil improvement
L176-L183 I suggest change the statistical analysis of one-way ANOVA to factorial ANOVA only to the end of the experiment, where tree species and litter identity were the factors. With this analysis, the discussion and conclusions will be powered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed article has a high scientific value and is interesting in the context of the release of nutrients  addition  to soils from the pruning waste from subtropical orchard trees (avocado, cherimoya, and mango) and garden waste. Also raise the important issue of recycling pruning and garden waste, which is most often disposed of by incineration.

The article is interesting and can be published with minor corrections:

1. The paper should explain how the differentiation of pH can affect the decomposition of the addition organic matter and the release of nutrients.
2. Was there no variation in moisture content in the soils into which organic matter was additted, which may determine the rate of decomposition of organic matter and the release of nutrients into the soil?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My comment was:

The soils in the three sites are different even in the value of soil pH? And this a reason for different biological activity in each soil???         

The pH were in locations 7.0, 8.2 and 8.5??

For sure this is NOT small difference as authors mentioned? This is simply one neutral soil and one alkaline soil (8.5)???? as mentioned in Table 3

 

This is the response of authors

The soil was the same in all three positions considered due to the proximity among them and the terraces were built with the same soil and at the same time.

In Lines 291-294 and 305-310: As shown in Tables 3 and 4, small differences in pH were observed due to the different organic matter content of crops, as well as different slope orientations, which may change water availability, the type of crop and the management. To quantify these differences, the garden wastes were placed in the three localities studied.

 

So, my final opinion still rejection due to the has fetal mistake in its hypothesis that all locations are similar in soil??

Thanks!

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The expression "small differences in pH" was not indeed the most appropriate for answering your commment and we apologize for this. The differences observed between soils in our experience are shown in Table 3 and only affect the pH and the organic carbon content. As you may see, the avocado soil always revealed differences for both soil properties.

We believe that these differences are very related with each other, that is, a lower pH is consistent with a higher organic carbon content. In fact, the organic carbon content increased in all soils at the end of the experience and meanwhile their pH values decreased, thus appearing to confirm this idea (Table 4).

Regarding your question about whether the differences in pH could be responsible for different microbial activities, we believe this is possible although it cannot be verified only with the data of this experience.