Effects of Vermicompost on Soil and Plant Health and Promoting Sustainable Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review fits well into the scientific journal Soil system. However, some content should be presented in the form of a table, and other content should be generalized, generally there are too many subsections. Although the content of the subsection "The residual effect of vermicompost" is very interesting and shows that fertilization with vermicompost can have a positive effect on selected yield characteristics not only in the first year of the experiment, but also in subsequent years.The authors did not comply with the journal's requirements throughout the article regarding the method of citation of literature, instead of e.g. (Aslam et al., 2019) there should be the number [1].

Detailed comments are provided below:

 

1.      Introduction

Lines 36-37

Please provide numerical data regarding the scale of cultivation of the specified cereals

Lines 48-49

Numerous publications confirm these properties of vermicompost, please add publications

Of course, the advantages of vermicompost are indisputable, which is proven in many publications, it has a positive effect on selected yield characteristics and soil properties, but sometimes certain doses of organic fertilizer do not have a positive effect on the yield, but even have a negative effect, what does it depend on? Have the authors also verified such research articles?

 

3. Vermicompost production

 3.1. Vermicompost raw materials

Lines 115-122

It would be better to show in the form of a table - the type of organic waste, the plant affected by it and the relevant literature. Please add more literature, because there are definitely some.

 

Lines 123-124

What does this pre-treatment of organic waste involve? Please describe in more detail, maybe make a summary in a table?

As for a review article, the authors treated this subsection very randomly, which is unacceptable, it requires reliable treatment, it should contain factual information, it should be presented in the form of a table, and generalizations and certain tendencies should be described in the text.

3.3. Formation of vermicompost

 

Table 1 – authors should be added at the end of the table

 

3.5. Vermicomposting and its Effects on Enzymes and Nutrient Content

 

Lines 216-224

 

This is a review article, therefore the authors should add more literature, this is a comment that applies to the entire text

 

4.1. Use of vermicompost alone

Table 2 is not clear and should be slightly changed

 

 

4.8. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) - Enhancing Crop Yield and Soil Fertility through  Organic and Chemical Fertilizers

 

Table 3 is not clear and should be slightly changed

 

 

8. Economic Assessment of Vermicompost in Grain Crop Production

The use of vermicompost certainly provides many ecological benefits, but what is important is the economic benefits, which is an important chapter in this extensive manuscript. It is important to show specific numerical data in table form, if possible.

 

Conclusion

 

 

The authors should call the last chapter Conclusion and Future Directions (combine content and show certain trends)

 

References

This is a review article, my doubts concern the number of items included in this part, I think there are more of them. The authors did not adapt the method of writing literature to the requirements of the journal:

 

Chagas, W.F.T.; Guelfi, D.R.; Caputo, A.L.C.; de Souza, T.L.; Andrade, A.B.; Faquin, V. Ammonia Volatilization from Blends with Stabilized and Controlled-Released Urea in the Coffee System. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 2016, 40, 497–509.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After thoroughly reviewing the manuscript, it appears to be primarily a comprehensive summary of previously published research. Notably, the methods section suggests that the authors may want to write a study centered on meta-analysis or bibliometric analysis. However, it lacks critical bibliometric data and statistical analyses for the included papers, such as a forest plot.

 

Considering these observations, I recommend that the authors consider augmenting their work with a comprehensive bibliometric or meta-analysis, utilizing the methodological protocols delineated in their paper. Furthermore, it would be beneficial for the manuscript to incorporate illustrative conceptual diagrams elucidating the intricate interplay and mechanisms at play within the vermicompost-soil-plant system. This addition would undoubtedly enhance the clarity and depth of the research, contributing to a more comprehensive and informative study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English editing is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' guidelines. The revised manuscript looks good, I recommend it.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have diligently integrated all the feedback provided by the reviewer, resulting in a manuscript that is now ready for publication. Nonetheless, we kindly request that you meticulously review the document for any grammatical errors before proceeding with its publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please carefully read the manuscript for grammatical errors.