Combined Use of Charcoal, Sago Bark Ash, and Urea Mitigate Soil Acidity and Aluminium Toxicity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript deals with the impacts of charcoal, bark ash and urea on soil parameters in a tropical region. The topic is of interest and fits the journal's scope. The major drawback is that the initial objectives of this study are confusing. In the Introduction, the authors focus on the conflict between the population and food demand. However, they collect soil samples from an uncultivated secondary forestry rather than a cropland. The authors may reconsider and clarify the scientific question why they conduct this incubation.
Other things:
Title, Mitigating "pH" might be unsuitable.
L18, NH3 volatilization is not measured in this study.
L35-38, these are unsuitable in Abstract.
Section 2.2 The surface area, CEC and C content of charcoal and bark ash is not presented. These parameters are intensively used in Discussion.
Section 2.3, what are the plants of the secondary forestry? Why there are recommended input rates of urea, charcoal and bark ash? As urea is usually overused, what happens at above 100%?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript "Mitigating Nitrogen Availability, pH, Exchangeable Acidity, Aluminium, and Hydrogen Ions through Combined Use of Charcoal, Sago Bark, Ash and Urea in Acidic Soil" submitted to Agronomy presents the results of a 90 day incubation experiment with well-designed controls, but this is only a short-term incubation experiment. I wonder if it can be treated as a research article. In my opinion, the authors overwhelm the reader with the tiniest details, which makes the text lose its clarity. Further, the authors themselves admit that it was necessary to continue working with the plant material. So, their manuscript is rather incomplete. But I don't even want to imagine how many pages it would take for them to describe this 'complete experiment'!
Therefore, my recommendations regarding this manuscript are as follows:
- Significantly shorten the text
- Consider what exactly you would like to convey to the reader
- Considering that the issue is important, which is beyond doubt, please try to convince readers from other countries that it is really a question of the possibility of food production (specify which crops are at risk, and remove a number of vague statements and non-specific words from sentences)
I wish you success during your correction
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors address all issues mentioned by reviewers. I recommend Accept.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
