Monitoring Intertidal Habitats for Effects from Biosolids Applications onto an Adjacent Forestry Plantation
, Anna Berthelsen 1, Fiona MacLean 1,‡, Lisa Floerl 1, Don Morrisey 1, Paul Gillespie 1 and Nathan Clarke 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Sustainability
sustainability-2411114
Long-term monitoring indicates no adverse effects to intertidal habitats from biosolids applications onto an adjacent coastal forestry plantation
The authors have investigated the Long-term effects of applying biosolids in an adjacent coastal forestry plantation. The work could be of general interest. The following revisions are needed.
1-Abstract should be improved by including the main numerical findings of the study.
2-The novelty/originality of the paper should be more effectively established. It would be advisable to add a Table to the “Introduction” section, tabulating the latest research works in the field to highlight the novelty of the present work accordingly.
3-Please include a Table of Abbreviations/Nomenclatures.
4-It is advisable to combine Results and Discussion sections and present them together as “Results and Discussion”.
5-Using too short paragraphs should be avoided.
6-Please avoid the usage of first-person pronouns (e.g., we and our).
7-In Figures 2 and 3, the labels on the X axis are missing.
8-Interesting results have been obtained. Future studies should further investigate the sustainability aspects of using biosolids using advanced sustainability assessment tools, including life cycle assessment, exergy, etc. as elaborated in recent works such as “The role of sustainability assessment tools in realizing bioenergy and bioproduct systems”, etc. Authors can briefly discuss this future research need using works such as the example provided, but not necessarily limited to that, and highlight the importance of such additional assessments to direct future studies.
9-Please change "5. Conclusions" to "5. Conclusions and prospects". Accordingly, please elaborate on the future research needs in this domain.
10-Please include and discuss the limitations of the present study as well.
11-The practical implications of the present study should be included as well.
12-It is advisable to add DOIs for the references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The topic is interested specially for specific location and ecosystem. The paper is well written and organized, however, there are some comments should be considered before publishing as follows:
Lines 36-44 needs reference
Line 97: superscript 2 in km2
Line 216: please write the reference for N combustion, equipment used, model, and manufacturing country
As well for ICPMS
Line 221: the method of identification of microalgae needs ref. and more details
The methods are very poor and need more details even in the S1 Table there is no reference for each method
Please write the indication of yellow color under Table 1 and Table 2
The resolution of fig. 4 is low
Please add more recent references in the introduction and discussion sections, you use 48 reference; less than 25% of them are from 2018 – 2021.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study reported scientific evidence that biosolids applications did have adverse effects on the nearby intertidal environment. This is based on three occasions of monitoring several transects near the application and reference sites and collecting appropriate parameters that served as enrichment indicators of the environment. The manuscript is well written and structured, and it has been conducted with an appropriate experimental design to test the hypothesis. Moreover, the authors have explained the results of the experiment substantially. I believe that the findings in this study warrant publication in the Sustainability Journal. Therefore, I would like to suggest the acceptance of the manuscript for publication with minor revisions, according to the comments and suggestions below:
1. In Table 1 and Figs. 1–3, it is not clear whether the statistical analysis was conducted to provide a scientific basis on whether the changes in the value of specific parameters in applications and references sites are significant. For example, in Fig. 2, it is difficult to understand whether there were significant differences in the sediment composition among reference and application sites and monitoring periods. Is it possible to provide data on the average among application sites and compare them with the reference sites? I wonder whether a ternary graph would be a better way to visualise the data than a bar graph.
2. I suggest adding "data not presented" after the statement Line 277, which mentioned salinity tests done at Site VII indicating significant groundwater seepage.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The title of the manuscript is not acceptable, it looks like a piece of a sentence rather than a publication title. Please rewrite, retaining the same idea.
The abstract needs to be rewritten, clarifying the methodological approach and emphasizing the contribution of this study.
In the Introduction section, line 30, which are those "additional nutrients"?
The introduction requires to be precise in the terms and ideas incorporated. For example: "The impact of biosolids applications on the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils in forestry areas has been studied", line 45: what is extracted from these studies? What is the impact? Please revise and rewrite the whole section.
The methodology is incomplete and important points are missing in this version. For example, what is the reference for the ICPMS equipment?
Same for line 240: "using indices and multivariate techniques." What techniques? There are cents to them. It must be detailed properly.
In the results section: "Macroalgal cover was low (0–9%) ...", what were the criteria used to define this range as low?
I consider the that Discussion section requires more review and analysis from literature sources.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Some of the comments are answered and others are not such as
Line 221: the method of identification of microalgae still needs ref. and more details
S1 Table still has no reference for each method
The indication of yellow color under Table 2 is still lacked
The resolution of fig. 4 is low
No comment on the language
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Please see below our responses to your comments:
Line 221: the method of identification of microalgae still needs ref. and more details
We have added references with details on microalgae identification.
S1 Table still has no reference for each method
We have added references for each method.
The indication of yellow color under Table 2 is still lacked
This information is provided in the table caption: “E. coli results that exceeded the standard for shellfish growing areas in the ‘Approved’ status (230/100 g) are shaded in orange”.
The resolution of fig. 4 is low
The resolution and size of the figure have been improved.
Kind regards
Carlos Campos
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors addressed all my doubts and comments regarding the manuscript. Together with the corrections proposed by the other reviewers, I consider this version suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your reply. Your review is much appreciated.
Kind regards
Carlos Campos
