Effect of Different Doses of Ash from Biomass Combustion on the Development of Diatom Assemblages on Podzolic Soil under Oilseed Rape Cultivation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been improved.
Author Response
Thank you to revise again our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The writing has minor errors in English so I would like to recommend to authors to read the manuscript carefully once again to improve the English language usage.
Author Response
Thank you to revise again our manuscript.
English language mistakes in manuscript has been improved.
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
The research topic elaborated in the manuscript entitled “Effect of different doses of ash from biomass combustion on the development of diatom communities on podzolic soil under oilseed rape cultivation " is interesting. However, there are many mistakes throughout the manuscript. It would benefit greatly from the editorial assistance of someone expert in written scientific English.
In General
- The writing has numerous errors in English so I would like to recommend to authors to read the manuscript carefully once again to improve the English language usage.
- Abbreviation used for first time in manuscript need to be explained and then use abbreviation only.
- Abstract should justify from the results because most of it are methodsز
- The most important results should be highlighted in the Abstract.
- Materials and Methods not clear.
- Scientific name should be italic.
- Results and DISCUSSION- In general results are clear but Part of the final discussions should be justified from experimental data
- - Not all the references at the same style.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments that helped us improve the manuscript.
Authors replay:
- The writing has numerous errors in English so I would like to recommend to authors to read the manuscript carefully once again to improve the English language usage
The English language was checked and improved by the Native spiker
- Abbreviation used for first time in manuscript need to be explained and then use abbreviation only.
The abbreviation in whole manuscript was explained and corrected.
- Abstract should justify from the results because most of it are methods
- The most important results should be highlighted in the Abstract.
Abstract was corrected and improved
- Materials and Methods not clear.
Section Materials and Methods have been improved
- Scientific name should be italic.
Thank you for your comments. The scientific names were written in italics in whole manuscript text.
- Results and DISCUSSION- In general results are clear but Part of the final discussions should be justified from experimental data
The Results and Discussion section was provide. Final discussions was justified from experimental data.
- Not all the references at the same style.
The references have been revised to the same style, thank you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper explores soil diatoms as bioindicators for ash effects, which is interesting, since they usually do not receive a lot of attention. However, I consider that there are several points that need to be addressed to improve the manuscript.
Comments and corrections
How was the sampling of diatoms done?
It is not clear what the effect of ash was on diatoms; the results on abundance of each species on each condition should be better explored in the results. There is no discussion section and results should be discussed in more depth.
Lines 19-21
Please revise
Line 26-28
How did populations vary between conditions? This should be present in the abstract
Line 29
Additional keywords should be added
Line 72-86
Delete
Line 96
It is important to detail ash production. For instance, what kind of wood was used?
Line 101
How was replication achieved? There is only one sub-block for each condition; a block might not be enough due to soil heterogeneity in the field.
Line 119-125
Please do not use topics
Line 201
weather conditions.in particular -> weather conditions, in particular
Line 297
terrestrial environments
Author Response
All authors thank the Reviver 2 for valuable comments and suggestions
Authors replay
- How was the sampling of diatoms done?
The methodology of the preparation of diatomaceous samples was supplemented.
- It is not clear what the effect of ash was on diatoms; the results on abundance of each species on each condition should be better explored in the results. There is no discussion section and results should be discussed in more depth.
The impact of ash on diatom communities was explained and it was included in the text. However, the ash in various doses did not have a significant effect on the diatom communities developing on the soil.
- Lines 19-21
It was revised
- Line 26-28 How did populations vary between conditions? This should be present in the abstract
It was provided
- Line 29 Additional keywords should be added
additional keywords have been added - algae; field experiment
- Line 72-86 Delete
Lines was deleted
- Line 96 It is important to detail ash production. For instance, what kind of wood was used?
In the manuscript information about ash production was added.
- Line 101 How was replication achieved? There is only one sub-block for each condition; a block might not be enough due to soil heterogeneity in the field.
Each sub-blocs of experiments was applied in three replicates. It was also explained in manuscript.
- Line 119-125 Please do not use topics
It was changed in manuscript text.
- Line 201 weather conditions.in particular -> weather conditions, in particular
Commas were replaced with dots by mistake. This error has been corrected
- Line 297 terrestrial environments
Please note that according to diatomologists who deal with diatoms growing on soils, the phrase terrestrial environments is utilized.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
