Vermicomposting as a Sustainable Option for Managing Biomass of the Invasive Tree Acacia dealbata Link
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I reviewed the paper entitled " Vermicomposting as a sustainable option for managing biomass of the invasive tree Acacia dealbata Link” by Quintela-Sabarís and team. Overall, the manuscript has very interesting information and could attract many researchers in the relevant fields of vermicomposting, agriculture, and agroforestry.
The paper investigated and highlighted the importance of Acacia dealbata that have huge N-fixing capacity and to the allelopathic compounds present in its biomass. Based on the pilot-scale study to they have reported that the biomass of A. dealbata use as compost/manure through vermicomposting with the earthworm (Eisenia Andrei).
Before further processing this article following suggestion and comments should be address-:
Abstract: very generalize, quantify data is missing, pl add results and link it to sustainability.
Keywords: should be different from title of MS.
Introduction: very short, objective is missing, need updated literature mainly in relation to N-fixation and link it SDGs.
M & M section is well written: add flow diagram of complete process, add high-resolution photographs of study.
Results: well written, pl add % changes in different treatments.
Figure and tables are OK
Discussion: need major modification with adding latest information, add scientific statements for drawing any conclusion, authors included general statements from other study they should include and correlated with their results so that a proper justification should be draw.
Conclusion: is missing add it with quantify data.
Overall, the manuscript has very information text, abstract, introduction and conclusion section need major changes for further process.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments.
In the following lines we provide our responses (R, in black) to your comments (C, in red).
I reviewed the paper entitled " Vermicomposting as a sustainable option for managing biomass of the invasive tree Acacia dealbata Link” by Quintela-Sabarís and team. Overall, the manuscript has very interesting information and could attract many researchers in the relevant fields of vermicomposting, agriculture, and agroforestry.
The paper investigated and highlighted the importance of Acacia dealbata that have huge N-fixing capacity and to the allelopathic compounds present in its biomass. Based on the pilot-scale study to they have reported that the biomass of A. dealbata use as compost/manure through vermicomposting with the earthworm (Eisenia Andrei).
Before further processing this article following suggestion and comments should be address-:
C- Abstract: very generalize, quantify data is missing, pl add results and link it to sustainability.
R- We have included some result data in the abstract.
C- Keywords: should be different from title of MS.
R- Keywords modified
C- Introduction: very short, objective is missing, need updated literature mainly in relation to N-fixation and link it SDGs.
R- Introduction has been improved and enlarged. Objective was more clearly stated and references to N-fixation by this species were included. We considered that including a link to SDGs would be too forced and may distract the readers from the main objectives of the study.
C- M & M section is well written: add flow diagram of complete process, add high-resolution photographs of study.
R- We have introduced the flow diagram and some photographs as a graphical abstract.
C- Results: well written, pl add % changes in different treatments.
R- We don’t understand this comment. Our vermicomposting experiment did not include different treatments, and in the case of phytotoxicity assay, the % of germination is properly included.
Figure and tables are OK
C- Discussion: need major modification with adding latest information, add scientific statements for drawing any conclusion, authors included general statements from other study they should include and correlated with their results so that a proper justification should be draw.
R- We have improved the discussion section with a more detailed interpretation of the changes in the processed biomass during vermicomposting.
C- Conclusion: is missing add it with quantify data.
R- According to the manuscript template for “Sustainability”, the “Conclusions” section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex. Although our discussion is not specially long, we have now included a short conclusion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “ermicomposting as a sustainable option for managing biomass of the invasive tree Acacia dealbata Link.” contributes with an important topic for the exploitation of one of the most invasive acacias in several places in the world. The analysis is robust, although there are some doubts about the economics of applying this methodology.
I think the document type should be changed from “Article” to a “Case study”.
The Introduction presents the main ideas and justifies the importance of carrying out this study, but I think it can be improved with the addition of more recently published information.
In point 2.1. Plant mateiral the authors add some more information that the reader values, such as the approximate age of the trees, the height of the trees and the number of trees cut for this experiment.
Line 60 – the scientific name of the species must be accompanied by the name of the classifier at least the first time it appears in the text.
Line 100 - the scientific name of the species must be accompanied by the name of the classifier at least the first time it appears in the text.
Regarding the methodology to assess the toxicity of A. dealbata, I do not know if the tests used are sufficient. Can the authors present the chemical compounds produced by A. dealbata that cause allelopathy?
The results are well presented and do not raise relevant doubts.
In the Discussion, the authors present the main results obtained, but I miss a deeper discussion. Authors should explain the results obtained and compare them with other studies to validate or highlight the new results.
The cited bibliography is limited and presents few recent studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments.
In the following lines you will find our responses (R, in black) to your comments (C, in red).
C- The article “vermicomposting as a sustainable option for managing biomass of the invasive tree Acacia dealbata Link.” contributes with an important topic for the exploitation of one of the most invasive acacias in several places in the world. The analysis is robust, although there are some doubts about the economics of applying this methodology.
R- Thanks for the comment. Regarding your question about the economic aspects, we want to indicate that vermicomposting is a cheap approach for managing organic matter, it is based on biological processes, it requires minimal technology investment and the final product is a valuable resource which could be commercialised.
C- I think the document type should be changed from “Article” to a “Case study”.
R- Sustainability journal only accepts Articles and Reviews, so this is not possible. Moreover, the research we present in this manuscript fits the requirements for a proper article.
C- The Introduction presents the main ideas and justifies the importance of carrying out this study, but I think it can be improved with the addition of more recently published information.
R- Introduction has been improved, including more recent references.
C- In point 2.1. Plant material the authors add some more information that the reader values, such as the approximate age of the trees, the height of the trees and the number of trees cut for this experiment.
R- We collected several flowering A. dealbata trees (height around 5 m, age around 5-6 years). We did not quantify the number of processed trees, but we indicated that the starting amount of processed biomass was 120 kg (Fresh Weight).
C- Line 60 – the scientific name of the species must be accompanied by the name of the classifier at least the first time it appears in the text.
C- Line 100 - the scientific name of the species must be accompanied by the name of the classifier at least the first time it appears in the text.
R- We have included the authors’ names for Eisenia andrei and Lepidium sativum in the revised version of the manuscript.
C- Regarding the methodology to assess the toxicity of A. dealbata, I do not know if the tests used are sufficient. Can the authors present the chemical compounds produced by A. dealbata that cause allelopathy?
R- The germination and radicle elongation test with Lepidium sativum is a standard toxicological test used rutinely to estimate the phytotoxicity of different kinds of substrates. As we indicated in the first version of the manuscript, we have not quantified the amounts of allelopathic compounds in A. dealbata fresh biomass and in the vermicompost. We have included in the introduction and also in the discussion the name of some of the compounds with phytotoxic activity in A. dealbata that are available in the literature.
The results are well presented and do not raise relevant doubts.
C- In the Discussion, the authors present the main results obtained, but I miss a deeper discussion. Authors should explain the results obtained and compare them with other studies to validate or highlight the new results.
R- We have enlarged the discussion section with a more detailed interpretation of the changes in the processed biomass during vermicomposting.
C- The cited bibliography is limited and presents few recent studies.
R- Ten out of the 16 references in the original manuscript were published after 2010. However, in this new version of the manuscript we have enlarged the bibliography section and added more recent references. Current version of the manuscript has 43 references, 24 of which were published after 2010 and 11 after 2017.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has a low cognitive value and the results obtained are local of interest. The manuscript layout is traditional although there are no conclusion chapter. A very short and not well informative abstract. The Introduction is very general without any literature review or clearly defined research goals and hypotheses. The chapter Material and methods is well developed, but the experiment performed in 1 repetition (1 vermireactor) raises serious reservations as to the reliability of the obtained results. This, in my opinion, undermines their quality. The obtained data are discussed briefly without a thorough analysis and interpretation of quantitative changes in the parameters studied. The discussion is not adequate because it is based on speculations not confirmed by research results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thanks for your comments.
In the following lines you will find our responses (R, in black) to your comments (C, in red).
C- The paper has a low cognitive value and the results obtained are local of interest.
R- With all due respect, the first part of this sentence is quite subjective and we will not spend time responding to it. We also disagree with the consideration of the results as “local interest”. Biological invasions are one of the main causes of species’ extinctions, and the species under study (Acacia dealbata) is an aggressive invader which is affecting several countries in Europe (Spain, Portugal, Italy, France), Africa (South Africa) and America (Chile, USA), so we consider that our study is dealing with a global relevant issue.
C- The manuscript layout is traditional although there are no conclusion chapter.
R- We have included a short conclusion section.
C- A very short and not well informative abstract.
R- Abstract has been enlarged.
C- The Introduction is very general without any literature review or clearly defined research goals and hypotheses.
R- Introduction section has been improved. The goals have been presented more clearly.
C- The chapter Material and methods is well developed, but the experiment performed in 1 repetition (1 vermireactor) raises serious reservations as to the reliability of the obtained results. This, in my opinion, undermines their quality.
R- Yes, we conducted the experiment in one vermireactor, but its size (dimensions were 1.5 m width, 4 m long and 1 m depth), as we explained in material and methods, allowed us to divide it into five sections and obtain independent samples so we are confident in the relevance of our results.
C- The obtained data are discussed briefly without a thorough analysis and interpretation of quantitative changes in the parameters studied. The discussion is not adequate because it is based on speculations not confirmed by research results.
R- The discussion section has been enlarged. We have included a more comprehensive interpretation of the changes in the processed material during vermicomposting.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors corrected MS as per suggestion, now revised version is recommended for further process.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
here they are our responses (R) to your questions (C).
C: Authors corrected MS as per suggestion, now revised version is recommended for further process.
R: Thank you for your previous comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors read and improved the article accordingly.
I only got a vague answer when I asked about the economic part. Although it is not the main objective of the article to present the costs of vermicomposting, could the authors provide in an annex the associated costs to develop this technique?
Regarding the remaining questions, the authors carefully corrected and answered all questions.
As I have no further questions to ask, I consider the article "Vermicomposting as a sustainable option for managing biomass of the invasive tree Acacia dealbata Link." can continue with the process for publication in the journal Sustainability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
here we provide our responses (R) to your comments (C).
C: I only got a vague answer when I asked about the economic part. Although it is not the main objective of the article to present the costs of vermicomposting, could the authors provide in an annex the associated costs to develop this technique?
R: We don’t have calculated the costs associated to vermicomposting of A. dealbata. We have done a bibliographic search for papers reporting economic assessment of vermicomposting and the references were too local (e.g. referred to economic balance in the specific socio-economical conditions of just one country), referred to other approaches (combination of composting followed by vermicomposting) or used a very different organic waste (e.g. management of poultry litter). Overall, we consider that this issue (economic balance) is a bit out of the topic of our paper and that including any reference to economic balance could be considered too speculative by readers or other reviewers.
Reviewer 3 Report
The work has been improved to some extent, but unfortunately, in my opinion, I have doubts about the data obtained for 1 research object, which is not a reliable source of data on the basis of which conclusions can be drawn. The discussion is still conducted on the basis of speculation, unconfirmed by research. This should be removed. Expand the discussion of the obtained data, explaining the observed phenomena, and not only finding or not finding their confirmation in the literature. Conclusions from the work should be expanded
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
here we provide our responses (R) to your comments (C).
C: The work has been improved to some extent, but unfortunately, in my opinion, I have doubts about the data obtained for 1 research object, which is not a reliable source of data on the basis of which conclusions can be drawn.
R: It is true that we performed our assay in only one vermirreactor. However, given the high amount of material processed (120 kg) and the relatively high dimensions of the used vermireactor (4 m lenght, 1.5 m width, 1 m depth), we think that the five samples we collected from different sections at each sampling time are spaced enough to be considered as independent. In our team we have published several studies with similar experimental designs and it is a common approach in pilot-scale studies of composting, anaerobic digestion of bioprocessing of organic wastes.
C: The discussion is still conducted on the basis of speculation, unconfirmed by research. This should be removed. Expand the discussion of the obtained data, explaining the observed phenomena, and not only finding or not finding their confirmation in the literature.
R: We have modified the discussion to make it less speculative.
C: Conclusions from the work should be expanded
R: Concluding paragraph was expanded.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments were taken into account, which in my opinion increases the readability of the work.
