Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 3;17(10):e0275268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275268

The changes of willow biomass characteristics during the composting process and their phytotoxicity effect on Sinapis alba L.

Józef Sowiński 1,*, Anna Jama-Rodzeńska 1, Peliyagodage Chathura Dineth Perera 1,2, Elżbieta Jamroz 3, Jakub Bekier 3
Editor: Nor Adilla Rashidi4
PMCID: PMC9529140  PMID: 36191025

Abstract

This study evaluated in 2019–2021 the use of willow chips for compost production and its effect on Sinapis alba L. germination index and seedling growth. Peatlands and peat are of very important economic but above all environmental significance. The conservation of peatland resources is one of the most crucial future challenges. Composts and other forms of lignin-cellulosic biomass are potentially the best renewable alternative to peat in its economic use. Composted lignin-cellulosic biomass can replace peat and be used as a substrate for vegetable transplant production. The impact of modifying the willow lignin-cellulosic biomass composting process has not been well analysed. A compost experiment with willow biomass was conducted to study its effect on selected compost indexes (particle size structure in %, bulk density (kg m-3), and total nitrogen content). The quality assessment of the willow composts was determined after six months of composting process based on the N content and morphological characteristics of tested plant in vegetative chamber. Sinapis alba L. was germinated on a water extract made from willow compost using the following additives to willow biomasses: W0—without additives, WN—with the addition of nitrogen, WF—with the addition of mycelium, WNF—with the addition of nitrogen and mycelium. During the composting process, samples were taken after each mixing of the biomass pile to assess their maturity through the use of a bioassay. Willow biomass did not have a negative effect on biological evaluation parameters, and in some indicators, such as the length of embryonic roots in the VI period of the measurements, it was stimulating (61–84% longer in W0 and WF than in the control). The addition of nitrogen during the composting process, especially in the initial composting period, had a strong inhibitory effect.

1. Introduction

Currently, one of the problems affecting the environment is the high level of carbon dioxide emissions. The most important task faced by humanity today is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One of the ways to reduce the exploitation of stored carbon resources in the Earth’s crust its sequestration in the top layer of the Earth is increase of lignocellulosic biomass use in circular bioeconomy [1].

Peatland is one of most globally important stored carbon resources and the bound carbon stocks (in terms of quantity on a global scale) exceed those bound by tropical forests (500–700 billion tons of C compared 360 billion tons of C, respectively) [2].

Horticulture, agriculture and forestry, make extensive use of peatlands for various types of production. It is estimated that 10% of the GHG emitted into the atmosphere comes from exploited peatlands [3]. Quantis [4] points out that peat has the greatest impact on "climate change" used as a resources of horticulture substrate material. Joosten and Clarke [5] report that peat extraction for horticultural growing media is carried out on about 2000 km2 of peatland. Peatland drainage leads to degradation and, in conjunction with climate warming, rising temperatures, and drier weather patterns, can lead to excessive mineralization and destabilization of peat C stores. In extreme cases fires may break out [2,6]. Therefore its use is limited because of its long-lasting effect and reduced nutrient delivery to crops.

Today we are encouraged to use alternative substrates in horticulture production aiming to almost complete replacement of peat. The main reason for this is the need to protect environment and the increasingly recognized desire for environmental sustainability, while maintaining a competitive horticultural industry [7]. Therefore, research is being carried out related to the search for other organic and mineral materials that could be used as a replacement or additive to horticultural substrates that limit the use of peat and incorporating new product into circular processes [810]. Lignocellulosic feedstocks can be divided into three categories: i.e. forest residues, agricultural residues and herbaceous and woody crops cultivated as a Short Rotation Coppice (SRC). High biomass yielding crops, particularly perennial grasses (miscanthus, switchgrass, prairie grass, and short rotation forest species such as eucalyptus, poplar, and willow) are considered in this direction [11]. Willow for biomass can be cultivate on a range of environmental condition (including marginal land) up to 20 years with multiple harvests on three- to four-year cycles. Shredded willow wood biomass undergoes the biotransformation process of the lignocellulosic complex into stable, more complex humic substances [12]. Compost constitutes a source of macronutrients, being one of the best methods of utilization of various biomasses, including the difficult to utilize, to reuse it for agricultural, reclamation, or horticultural purposes as a horticulture media [13]. The application of compost allows carbon to be sequestered in the form of stable organic matter, increases, and keep soil organic carbon at stable levels, therefore, it is one of the key objectives in the priorities of the European Union’s [14]. It is also known to improve the physical properties of excessively hydrated biomass by adding wood waste or sawdust to the composting process [15] or shredded wood waste or wood can be fully composted [12,16].

One of the most important factors that affect the quality of the final product is the proper selection of biomass for the composting process. Components of the biomass should have an appropriate carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio [17,18]. When the C:N ratio is too wide–over 40, the organic matter decomposition processes are inhibited. Conversely, in the case of very narrow C:N ratio, below 10, rapid organic matter decomposition and significant losses of nitrogen due to ammonia release are observed. It has a toxic effect on microorganisms, especially at high pH and temperature values as well as can lead to inhibition of the organic matter transformation [19]. The appropriate selection of components and the ensuring of optimal conditions during the composting process create the possibility of the compost use as valuable product.

Considering the consequences of the above-mentioned horticultural media, willow wood biomass can be considered as a good potential for an alternative to peat, and it has far less studied. The using of advantages according to the literature on nitrogen compounds and the biological additive (fungal spores of Peniophora gigantea) during the compost production processes modify the decomposition process while desiring fertile horticultural media. The knowledge of the properties of composted willow chips with an additives and their relations occurring during the composting process allows for their use as a substrate with an appropriate additive in the future. The physical properties of compost materials change including willow chips hence undertaking research to evaluate this technology against willow chips and its further use. The beneficial effect of composted willow biomass as a horticultural substrate for growing tomato transplants and for growing lettuce at early development stages was confirmed in studies by Adamczewska Sowińska et al. [9], Bekier et al. [12].

We hypothesized that willow composting would change all the examined features of this material, as well as morphological traits and germination index [20]. This article presents the effect of different methods of composting willow chips on the change of selected parameters of compost during its production, as well as the quality of composted biomass assessed by the germination index with the use of the indicator plant Sinapis alba L. The impact of the water extracts made from the composting biomass of Salix viminalis L. on different biotransformation processes on the plant growth of the tested plant under controlled conditions was determined. Therefore, in present research N and N plus fungi have been proposed as additives to willow biomass with wide C:N ratio to examine its effect on N content and physical parameters. The studies comprehensively capture the effect of compost additives on the phytotoxicity of Sinapis alba L. in a germination test.

Peatlands with a high carbon accumulation is crucial land for global climate change and biodiversity protection. Presented research was carried out of searching other alternative organic materials that could be used as a horticultural media, limits peat utilisation and exploitation. Use of willow wood biomass for growing media is novel methods. Willow renewable biomass undergoes the lignocellulosic complex biotransformation on seminatural composting process into humic substances. During the compost production processes cyclically biomass samples were taken for determine the bioassay stimulation of germination capacity or toxicity potential of the willow biomass.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Sampling sites and experiment design

The willow biomass (S. viminalis L.) was harvested from SRC in Pawłowice, Wrocław (51°11’N, 17°08’E). The plantation was established in 2003 and regularly harvested every three years for energy purposes. The last harvest was in winter 2015. For composting process harvesting took place in 2019 using a special chopper. The chops size ranged from 4 to 12 mm. The willow chips were immediately transported to Research and Didactic station Psary where the composting process started under semi natural conditions by tipping the chips onto the ground with limiting treatments during the composting process to the necessary minimum. The biomass of the willow plant was cut into chips uniform organic material with the dominant fraction in terms of <1.9 cm (46.3%), following fraction >1.9 cm (42.0%) and below 0.8 cm (11.7%) in average. The size of the willow’s chips has impacts of the composting process. The willow chip size can be regulate by the speed of the feedrolls or the number of knives on the harvester drum. The willow chips were composted for a period of six months in four biomass piles with different additives according to semi-dynamic open pile system [21]. The willow chip compost prisms were formed on a horticultural mat. The prisms were 1.5 m wide, 1.3 m high and 5 m long. The volume of the prisms was approximately 5 m3. The prisms were successively irrigated and manually mixed at 4–5 week intervals. The different additives were added once one month after the start of composting. During composting processes, the temperature and biomass was monitored and complete composting was established on temperature to surrounding outdoor temperature. In this experiment, the following properties of willow compost was performed: total nitrogen (%), bulk density (kg m-3) and percentage of fraction particles in the compost (%).

The nitrogen addition (chemical) was used to change the wide C:N ratio and the biological addition (fungal spores) was used to accelerate the decomposition of lignin-cellulosic compounds of the biomass. During the period from March to the end of July, compost production occurred according to the processes listed below and was cyclically subjected to mixing as indicated by the dates below (Table 1). Additionally, samples were taken two months after the end of the composting process (September):

Table 1. List of sampling dates along with the duration of the composting process.

Time from composting start Date of sampling Additive to willow compost Abbreviation
2 days 23.03.19 - W0
33 days 10.04.19 - W0
33 days 10.04.19 Fungi WF
33 days 10.04.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 WN
33 days 10.04.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 plus fungi WNF
64 days 10.05.19 - W0
64 days 10.05.19 Fungi WF
64 days 10.05. 19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 WN
64 days 10.05.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 plus fungi WNF
95 days 5.06.19 - W0
95 days 5.06.19 Fungi WF
95 days 5.06.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 WN
95 days 5.06.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 plus fungi WNF
143 days 17.07.19 - W0
143 days 17.07.19 Fungi WF
143 days 17.07.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 WN
143 days 17.07.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 plus fungi WNF
189 days 15.09.19 - W0
189 days 15.09.19 Fungi WF
189 days 15.09.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 WN
189 days 15.09.19 Nitrogen in a form of NH4NO3 plus fungi WNF
  • ➢ Shredded willow chips (W0),

  • ➢ Shredded willow chips plus nitrogen in the form of ammonium nitrate (34% N), added to change the C:N ratio (WN).

  • ➢ Shredded willow chips with the addition of the wood decay fungus, Peniophora gigantea (WF).

  • ➢ Shredded willow chips with the addition of wood decay fungi and nitrogen (WNF).

For technical reasons, the biomass structure and bulk density of the compost were not determined on date VI. Every month, the piles were mixed and immediately after this process (April, May, June, July) the samples were taken to determine percentages of individual biomass fractions, specific compost weight, bulk density, and total N content. Additionally, a sample for only the N content and the biological test was collected in September (after finishing the composting process). Reagents used for the determination of total nitrogen were as follows: sulphuric acid 96% (pure for analysis)—CAS catalogue number: 7664-93-9, granulated sodium hydroxide (at a concentration of 30%, pure for analysis)—CAS catalogue number: 1310-73-2, hydrogen peroxide 30% (pure for analysis)—CAS catalogue number: 7722-84-1. The reagents originally came from the company: P.P.H. "STANLAB" Sp. z.o.o Lublin.

The following samples were taken into account from different dates to determine the germination capacity of the willow biomass, toxicity potential, and bioassay (Table 1).

Samples of composted willow biomass collected at the above dates were subjected to the following parameters.

The particle size distribution was assessed using special Pennsylvania sieves (with four different fractions: <0.8 cm, 08–1.9 cm >1.9 cm and buttock). The particle size distribution was then calculated as a percentage of each particle size class in relation to the whole mixed sample.

The bulk density of the willow chips was determined using fresh material from piles. The bulk density of the willow was determined using the mass per unit volume technique with a glass beaker, previously weighed [14]. Three measures were performed depending on the heterogeneity of the material sampled and the repeatability of the results obtained. The bulk density (BD) was determined for each sample of the compost variant and expressed in kg m-3 according to Formula 1:

BD=FreshcompostmassBeakerVolume (1)

2.2 Preparation of willow extracts

Composted willow wooden chips from piles were taken separately, dried and ground in a mill with a diameter of 0.1 mm sieve. From each term prepared in four replicates 5 g of biomass material (dry weight) and soaked in 100 ml of distilled water. The composting biomass of the willow was kept for 24 hours in darkness, then the extract was filtered using Whatman filter paper no. 1 to remove fiber, lees, and other contamination. The sterilized distilled water was used as the control solution.

2.3 Germination experiments

Germination experiments were performed twice in 2020 and 2021 in 10 cm diameter Petri dishes. Each Petri dish before starting the experiment was sterilized at 105˚C for 4 hours and seeded with 50 seeds of the tested species Sinapis alba L.–white mustard. In the testing phase in both series, there were 96 dishes with the same concentration of willow water extract (5%) and 4 dishes with sterilized distilled water (control treatment). Petri dishes with seeds were placed into a vegetation chamber with 90% humidity. Germination experiments were carried out for seven days, maintaining a temperature regime of 22˚C for the constant temperature of the day (12 h) and 19˚C at night (12 h). After three days and the seventh day the germination index was performed. Three days after the beginning of the experiment in the vegetation chamber, 3 ml of the extract (and sterilized water in the control variant) were added to the Petri dishes. The experiment was conducted in 4 replicates.

The percentage of germination was calculated for each Petri dish separately (Eq 1). The length of the root (cm), the length of the cotyledons (cm), and the mass of the seedling (g) was measured for selected 10 seedlings per Petri dish. The fresh mass of the seedlings was determined for 10 seedlings to evaluate the allelopathic/toxicity potential of the extract. The experimental results comprised the following parameters:

The number of seeds germinated in each treatment; the percentage of germination in each variant (%). The germination seeds (GS%) were determined by Eq (2) [22].

GS(%)=NumberofseedgerminatedTotalnumberofseedplated×100 (2)

Effect of inhibition according to the formula (Eq 3) for the II date of compost samples collection only:

IE=CTC100 (3)

C—measurement at the control variant for Sinapis alba L.

T–measurement at each treatment

In the conducted research, cultivated crops (willow and white mustard) were used. According to the national regulations, the use of these species for experimental purposes does not require any special permit. Our study complies with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.

2.4 Statistical analysis

Changes in nitrogen content, bulk density, and particle size distribution of the samples over and after composting were analysed using Fisher test with LSD to assess the effect of composting on different dates for willow chips variants. Differences between variants were determined by analysis of variance ANOVA MANOVA at the significance level of 0.05 or 0.01. In the variance analysis, in (four) replications, repeated in each variant of composting. The calculations (average) were performed with Statistica 13.1. The correlation coefficient (R) was determined with Microsoft Excel 2010. The correlation between total nitrogen and morphological traits of Sinapis alba L. has been performed by Pearson correlation.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Temperature changes and moisture control

During the composting process changes of temperature were observed mainly in the composting piles with additives (WN, WF, WNF). The thermophilic phase was achieved in the mentioned variants 14 days after applying the additives (WN and WNF) and lasted no longer than 7 days.

In the control pile with only willow chips the thermophilic phase was not reached. The main reason for that was improper C:N ratio (over 50). According to Storey et al. [19], the increase in temperature during composting reduces the population of mesophilic bacteria, and the share of microflora in the further stage of composting depends on the availability of oxygen. Stentiford [23] found that increase temperature to 35-40°C favors increase of microbial diversity while higher increase to 45-55°C enhances the biodegradation rate. In our experiment only variants WN and WNF reached the microbial diversity phase (Fig 1). Negative correlation between temperature and oxygen concentration have been described by [24,25] who found that if the temperature of the composted mass was in the range of 65–70°C, the transformation processes were similar to the anaerobic conditions, regardless of the number and size of the air pores in the pile. In our study, the woodchips were 4–12 mm in size and the pile was highly aerated, which could also have affected the composting process.

Fig 1. Changes of temperature during composting of willow biomass.

Fig 1

In the experiment the initial material was characterized by low moisture content (26–35%) that resulted in low degradation rate of the composting material in the first ten days (Fig 2). After 20 days of the process the piles were watered to the optimum level and the water content of the composted material was regularly replenished to maintain 40–60% H2O until the end of the experiment. The moisture content of the composted material is one of the most important technical parameters of the process. The optimum value should be contained within the range 40–60% [26]. This parameter influences/stimulates the biodegradation rate, thermal, structural properties of the composted materials and affects microbial activity.

Fig 2. Moisture content during composting of willow biomass.

Fig 2

It must therefore be concluded that the composting of willow biomass using the semi-dynamic open pile method requires the control of moisture content and its immediate supplementation in the presence of a H2O deficiency.

3.2. Characteristics of willow composting biomass

During the 6-month composting process, the biomass sampled was characterized by varying nitrogen content (Fig 3). Throughout the sampling period, the N content was highest in the WN and WNF variant and ranged from 3.43 (at date VI) to 10.21% (one month after piles formation). The N content was similar when the willow was mixed with nitrogen and mycelium WNF (range from 3.43 to 8.48%). Willow biomass without nitrogen additives or mixed with mycelium had a similar nitrogen content throughout the composting period and ranged from 1.08 to 1.35% (W0) and from 1.18 to 1.53% (WF).

Fig 3. The effect of composting processes on total N content (%) for different terms of sampling and variants of composting.

Fig 3

*before composting, LSD Least Significant Difference.

Especially the carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) is important in composting because microorganisms need a good balance of carbon and nitrogen (between 25 and 35) to be active. Both, too low and too high C:N ratio are inappropriate [27]. Ensuring an optimal C:N ratio allows one to gain balance between basic components used by the microorganisms during the composting process; however, not always possible to be fulfilled especially when materials that are added to the composted biomass, leads to the formation of substances having a negative impact on enzymatic activity of microorganisms [28]. Natural composting processes can change the carbon: nitrogen (C:N) ratio during process [29] leading to changes in the amount of particles less than 3.15 mm [30]. Sullivan et al. [31] recommend the use of nitrogen when woody biomass is composted and the ratio is greater than 20:1. Composting willow with the addition of nitrogen and mycelium contributed to a faster reduction in nitrogen content as a result of biomass decomposition and mineralization. In the WN and WNF variants, the addition of nitrogen accelerated the decomposition process of the willow biomass and the temperature in the compost heaps where nitrogen was used was higher between the 30th and 50th day of composting. During the initial phase of composting, nitrogen is generally not used by microorganisms at the same rate as carbon due to significant organic decomposition. As a result, the total nitrogen determined by Kjeldahla increases as a concentration effect, but in the study of Chan et al. [32] the increase was not significant similarly to our results where a higher N content in the compost was observed in the variants with nitrogen addition.

Modification of the composting process affected changes in the structure of the compost (Fig 4). The percentage of particle fractions in compost without additives in the second and third time periods was at a similar level. In the later period, the percentage of fractions >1.9 cm decreased, while the highest increase was observed in the percentage of fractions 0.8–1.9 cm. Similarly, a change in the structure of the biomass occurred after nitrogen application, and at the second date a decrease in the percentage of the largest fraction was observed, while the increase in the percentage of fractions 0.8–1.9 and <0.8 cm was at a similar level. The most dynamic changes in structure occurred after the application of fungi (WF) and the percentage of fractions >1.9 cm successively decreased, while the percentage of the other two fractions increased. At the end of the measurement period, the percentage of fractions <0.8 cm was at the level of the initial values. In the WNF variant, the change in biomass structure was similar to that of the WF, but a smaller increase in the percentage of fraction <0.8 cm was observed.

Fig 4. The structure of the compost biomass changes over the composting process with various additives to the compost.

Fig 4

Percentage changes in the beginning of the biomass structure process (in different composting dates and variants).

Chipped willow biomass has a particle structure that does not conform to the optimal parameters for a horticultural substrate. Peat, as a standard substrate used in horticulture, has a dominant fraction below 1 cm [33]. It was found that in the composting process, irrespective of treatment, influenced the reduction in the percentage of fraction >1.9 cm and in the chipped willow, nearly 60% was the fraction below 0.8 cm. The study by Whittaker et al. [29] also found noticeable changes in particle size during the composting period for woodchips. In woodchips, there was a 10% increase in the smaller fraction, 3.15–16 mm, after composting. In contrast, the number of small particles less than 3.15 mm, did not change significantly. In their research, that was related to a significant decrease in the bulk density. In our study, the addition of mycelium and nitrogen with mycelium affected the dynamics of these changes, which had already occurred in the initial stage of composting.

The bulk density of the compost depended on the changes that occurred during the composting. In the biomass of willow without additives (W0), there was a successive increase in bulk density from 179 (I date) to 297 (V date) kg m-3 (Fig 5). Willow biomass with mycelium additions after an initially large increase in bulk density to 274 kg/m3, the bulk density stabilized at 240 kg m-3 on the V sampling date. After application of nitrogen and nitrogen with mycelium, the effect on bulk density was similar on all sampling dates and on the date V the weight of 1 m3 of compost was at the level of 285 and 292 kg (WNF and WN, respectively). During the biomass biotransformation process, there was an increase in bulk weight from 34 (WF) to 66% (W0). The bulk density is the important element that influences the optimal conditions for the plant development, microbial activity, the degradation of organic matter, as well as the change in various mechanical properties, such as strength and porosity [34]. The bulk density ranged from 420 to 655 kg m-3 for different types of composts [25]. According to Jain et al. [35] the bulk density was increased from 312 to 380 kg m− 3 and the volume reduction decreased significantly. Other studies conducted on the composting of various organic wastes have also shown a similar pattern for bulk density [36]. It is proved that bulk density of compost characterizes with decreasing tendency while the total organic matter of the compost increases. In our study, this parameter is changeable depending on the date of sampling and addition of nitrogen or mycelium.

Fig 5. Changes in bulk density depending on the treatment of willow composting and the sampling date (kg m-3) (average for different terms and variants of composting).

Fig 5

Substrate bulk density is a very important indicator that determines water capacity, water holding capacity as well as labor input in the production process. Khoshand and Fall [33], report that the addition of sand ensures optimal water conditions, provided that its proportion does not exceed 36%. The bulk density of the substrate after addition of sand was within the range of 402–1004 kg m-3 (peat 375.4 kg m-3). Zoltai et al. [37] determined the bulk density for peat within the range of 150–200 kg m-3. The composting process increased the bulk density compared to the initial material (179 kg m-3). The highest increase (by 55%) was found in willow compost in which the process was not modified and at date VI it was 297 kg m-3 and was in the estimated range for peat.

3.3 Bioassay of willow biomass during the composting process

On the basis of analyses conducted to evaluate the impact of willow compost with different additives, a differential response was found on the growth and development of the test seed of Sinapis alba L. (Photo 1). The aqueous extract of willow, prepared from biomass sampled before the start of the experiment, did not show a significant negative effect on the germination and morphological parameters of the white mustard seedlings (Photo 1, Table 2).

Photo 1. Germination of Sinapis alba L. seeds after 7 days of experiment established for the control and II date for W0 and WN treatment.

Photo 1

Table 2. Germination capacity and seedlings parameters depend on composting treatment and sampling date (average and standard deviation (±) for different terms of sampling and variants of composting).

Compost treatment Date Germination index (%) Root length (cm) Hypocotyl length (cm) Seedling mass
(g)
Control (water) 96.8±0.07 4.4±0.60 2.8±1.29 0.035±0.009
I term before composting 93.0±0.09 2.4±0.42 2.8±0.22 0.031±0.008
W0 II 95.1±0.18 4.8±1.26 3.5±0.10 0.038±0.011
III 94.4±0.09 6.6±1.41 3.4±0.18 0.047±0.007
IV 97.1±0.14 5.1±0.57 3.3±0.13 0.045±0.006
V 95.7±0.06 6.3±0.53 3.2±0.20 0.046±0.008
VI 97.6±0.06 8.1±1.84 3.4±0.10 0.048±0.004
WN II 0.0±0 0.0±0 0.0±0 0.0±0
III 91.1±0.09 2.0±0.60 2.1±0.19 0.034±0.005
IV 92.5±0.06 0.8±0.51 0.9±0.12 0.019±0.007
V 89.8±0.08 2.3±1.42 2.5±0.56 0.034±0.008
VI 94.1±0.04 3.0±1.97 2.5±0.27 0.036±0.007
WF II 97.6±0.07 5.5±0.71 3.5±0.32 0.043±0.005
III 95.6±0.05 6.6±0.63 3.3±0.68 0.043±0.007
IV 97.3±0.18 5.9±0.64 3.3±0.19 0.043±0.010
V 95.0±0.06 5.9±085 3.5±0.34 0.047±0.004
VI 98.2±0.14 7.1±1.68 3.2±0.37 0.048±0.009
WNF II 49.0±0.08 0.1±0.17 0.2±0.43 0.002±0.004
III 93.4±0.16 1.5±0.73 1.6±0.39 0.027±0.009
IV 73.0±0.10 0.2±0.19 0.7±0.46 0.010±0.008
V 90.1±0.07 2.2±1.21 1.6±0.43 0.031±0.007
VI 97.3±0.11 3.3±0.19 3.0±0.43 0.044±0.012
LSD (α = 0.05) 8.3 n.s. 1.2 0.007

However, no emergence or a marked inhibition of emergence was observed in the willow biomass extract given to the composting process in the first period of the process. In date II, no germination of mustard seeds was observed in the WN variant extract and in the WNF variant the germination capacity was significantly lower. Similarly, significantly lower germination capacity was found for WNF in period IV. At the last sampling date (VI), regardless of the composting method, the germination capacity was statistically at the same level as that obtained under control conditions. The length of the embryonic roots, despite the large differences, was statistically different. This was probably due to the large variation in rootlet length within the sample. The dependence of stimulation of embryonic root growth was found on the second sampling date in extracts from W0 and WF composted biomass. In the last sampling period (VI), they were respectively 84 and 61% longer than in the control. This relationship was not found on all sampling dates in the WN and WNF variants.

Inhibition of hypocotyl growth was found when extracts were prepared from biomass from WN and WNF. When nitrogen was added to the composted biomass, the toxic effect disappeared in period V, while the addition of nitrogen and mycelium to the composted willow inhibited the growth of hypocotyl until period VI. Composting willow without additives (W0) and with the addition of mycelium had no negative effect on hypocotyl growth and was 14–25% longer than seeds germinated in water.

Composting of willow with nitrogen addition (WN) as well as with nitrogen and mycelium addition (WNF) in the initial period had a negative effect on seedling weight. From date V onward, the seedling weight in the WN and WNF variants was statistically at the same level as in the control. An inhibitory effect of extracts on seedling weight was found in the earlier sampling periods. Willow compost and willow compost with added fungi had a positive effect on seedling weight and a weight increase of 9–40% was observed compared to the control variant. Willow bark extracts, contain many phytohormones, such as salicylic acid, which show a stimulating effect on root system growth, mitigation of environmental stresses, and flowering [38,39]. In our study, we found a stimulating effect of willow compost extracts and compared to seedlings obtained under control conditions in W0 and WF extracts, mustard seedlings at all sampling dates had longer embryonic roots and hypocotyl. Such a tendency was not observed when extracts were prepared from WN and WNF compost.

Pearson correlation analysis showed a strong correlation between the germination capacity and parameters of the mustard seedlings and the nitrogen content of the composted biomass (Fig 6). Too high nitrogen content was toxic and inhibited germination and growth of embryonic roots, hypocotyl and negatively affected seedling weight. To the greatest extent, nitrogen content influenced hypocotyl length and mustard seedling weight (Fig 6C and 6D).

Fig 6. Effect on total N content on the germination capacity and seedling parameters of the tested plant Sinapis alba L.

Fig 6

The difference in germination capacity of seeds in different media may be caused by different nutrient contents, as confirmed by Atiyeh et al. [40]. The degree of inhibition increased with the concentration of the extract. In our research inhibitory effect was observed while fungi addition to compost. Adamczewska-Sowińska et al. [9], Chen et al. [41] and Sun et al. [42], and report that excessive nitrogen availability can inhibit germination and initial plant growth. In a study by Zhang et al. [43], nitrogen content had a positive effect on the germination of eight plant species. In our study, the high nitrogen content was toxic to white mustard, and the seeds did not germinate, and the lower nitrogen content in the compost had a positive effect on the initial development of the test plant.

For the results obtained in period II, the inhibitory effect was calculated (Fig 7). Composting of willow biomass with nitrogen in the initial period had a toxic effect on the mustard germination process. A similar relationship was found when the composting process was supported by nitrogen and mycelium. The extract of composted willow without additives and with the addition of mycelium had a stimulating effect on the growth of mustard seedlings and compared to the control, the length of the embryonic roots, hypocotyl, and seedling mass were approximately 20% higher than in the control. Such a relationship was found in the WF compost extract. The beneficial effect on mustard seedlings of the W0 compost extract was smaller, in particular for embryonic root length as well as seedling weight (about 10% each).

Fig 7. Inhibition (+) and stimulation (-) effect of extract from willow composting biomass in percentage of seedling and germination parameters collected at the II term compared to the control (mustard seeds germinated in distilled water).

Fig 7

Compost produced from willow, whose biotransformation process was aided by mycelium, had beneficial stimulating effects on seedling growth. Hayat and Ahmad [38], demonstrated the beneficial effect of salicylic acid on many plant growth processes. The stimulating effect of secondary metabolites found in willow can be inhibited by the high nitrogen content in the medium, especially immediately after application.

4. Conclusions

The production of willow compost must comply both with the process requirements arising from the appropriate C:N ratio and with the quality of the substrate produced. The addition of nitrogen, used due to its positive influence on the biomass biotransformation process, however can be toxic to plants. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the maximum dose that will ensure the correct course of the mineralization process and will not lead to nitrogen depletion of the composted biomass and inhibition of the process or excessive nitrogen accumulation. Composting woody biomass rich in cellulose and lignin’s does not have such a dynamic progression, while the addition of nitrogen enhances its course and in the initial period the nitrogen content is too high for the correct development of the seedlings. With subsequent stages of composting, the nitrogen content decreased and the mature compost (date VI) showed no toxic effect on the test plant. The research showed that the addition of mycelium did not have a toxic effect on the test plant, and the production effect and the beneficial effect on the change in the structure, as well as the biological evaluation confirmed the assumptions adopted. The study showed that in terms of quality, the willow compost fulfilled the quality requirements and the plant test showed in some variants a stimulating effect on the initial growth of white mustard.

Acknowledgments

Patents

Some of the results presented in this article were used in a patent filed on 28.06.2020 at the Polish Patent Office No. P.435103. A legal procedure is currently underway.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The research is co-financed under the Leading Research Groups support project from the subsidy increased for the period 2020–2025 in the amount of 2% of the subsidy referred to Art. 387 (3) of the Law of 20 July 2018 on Higher Education and Science, obtained in 2019. The APC/BPC is co-financed by Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences.

References

  • 1.Paustian K., Larson E., Kent J., Marx E., Swan A. Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Front. Clim. (2019) Available at https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00008/full (Accessed at 20th of August 2021). 10.3389/fclim.2019.00008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Page S.E., Baird A.J. Peatlands and Global Change: Response and Resilience Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., (2016) 41, 1, 35–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Smith P., Bustamante M., Ahammad H., Clark H., Dong H. et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In Climate Change (2014) Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernm. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.QUANTIS. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Horticultural Growing Media Based on Peat and Other Growing Media Constituents 2012. Available online: http://epagma.eu/evidence-based (accessed on 26 March 2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Joosten H., Clarke D. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands. Jyvaskyl¨a, Finl.: Int. Mire Conserv. Group Int. Peat Soc, (2002) Available at http://www.imcg.net/media/download_gallery/books/wump_wise_use_of_mires_and_peatlands_book.pdf (Accessed at 20 th of August 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Morris P.J., Baird A.J., Young D.M., Swindles G.T. Untangling climate signals from autogenic changes in long-term peatland development. Geophys. Res. Letts. (2015) 42, 107 88–97. 10.1002/2015GL066824. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Alexander PD, Bragg NC, Meade R, Padelopoulos G, Watts O. Peat in horticulture and conservation: the UK response to a changing world Mires and Peat, 3 (2008), Article 08, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X © 2008 International Mire Conservation Group and International Peat Society. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mariotti B., Martini S., Raddi S., Tani A., Jacobs D.F., Oliet J.A., et al. Coconut coir as a sustainable nursery growing media for seedling production of the ecologically diverse quercus species. Forests, (2020) 11, 522. 10.3390/f11050522. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Adamczewska-Sowińska K., Sowiński J., Jamroz E., Bekier J. Combining Willow Compost and Peat as Media for Juvenile Tomato Transplant Production. Agronomy, (2021) 11, 2089. 10.3390/agronomy11102089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Atzori G., Pane C., Zaccardelli M., Cacini S., Massa D. The Role of Peat-Free Organic Substrates in the Sustainable Management of Soilless Cultivations. Agronomy, (2021) 11(6), 1236. 10.3390/agronomy11061236. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ullah K., Sharma V. K., Dhingra S., Braccio G., Ahmad M., Sofia S. Assessing the lignocellulosic biomass resources potential in developing countries: a critical review. Renew. Sust. Energy Rev. (2015) 51, 682–698. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.044 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bekier J.; Jamroz E.; Sowiński J.; Adamczewska-Sowińska K.; Kałuża-Haładyn A. Effect of Differently Matured Composts from Willow on Growth and Development of Lettuce. Agronomy 2022, 12, 175. 10.3390/agronomy12010175. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wong J.W.C., Selvam A., Zhao Z.Y., Yu S.M., Law A.C.W., Chung P.C.P. Influence of different mixing ratios on in-vessel co-composting of sewage sludge with horse stable straw bedding waste: maturity and process evaluation. Waste Manage. Res. (2011) 11, 1164–1170. doi: 10.1177/0734242X11420600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kulikowska D., Bernat K. Waste willow-bark from salicylate extraction successfully reused as an amendment for sewage sludge composting. Sustain. (2021) 13(12), 677. 1 10.3390/su13126771. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zhao Y., Lu W., Damgaard A., Zhang Y., Wang H. Assessment of co-composting of sludge and woodchips in the perspective of environmental impacts (EASETECH). Waste Manag. (2015) 42, 55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.04.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Larney F.J., Olson A.F., Miller J.J., DeMaere P.R., Zvomuya F., McAllister T.A. Physical and chemical changes during composting of wood chip-bedded and straw-bedded beef cattle feedlot manure. J. Environ. Qual. (2008) 37, 725–735. doi: 10.2134/jeq2007.0351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jamroz E., Bekier J., Medyńska-Juraszek A., Kaluza-Haladyn A., Cwielag-Piasecka I., Bednik M. The contribution of water extractable forms of plant nutrients to evaluate MSW compost maturity: a case study. Sci Rep (2020), 10 (1), art. no. 12842; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69860-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Meena A.L., Karwal M., Dutta D., Mishra R.P. Composting: Phases and Factors Responsible for Efficient and Improved Composting, Agric.&Food, (2021) Available at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amrit-Meena/publication/348098151_Composting_Phases_and_Factors_Responsible_for_Efficient_and_Improved_Composting/links/5feef81045851553a00d4573/Composting-Phases-and-Factors-Responsible-for-Efficient-and-Improved-Composting.pdf (accessed at 22th of September 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Storey S., Ní D., Doyle O., Clipson N. & Doyle E. Comparison of bacterial succession in green waste composts amended with inorganic fertiliser and wastewater treatment plant sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 179, 71–77 (2015). doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.11.107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Huang G.F., Wong J.W.C., WU Q T, Nagar B.B. Effect of C/N on composting of pig manure with sawdust, Waste Manag. (2004) 24, 8, 805–813. 10.1016/j.wasman.2004.03.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Cesaro A.; Belgiorno V.; Guida M. Compost from organic solid waste: Quality assessment and European regulations for its sustainable use. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 94, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.ISTA–International rules for seed testing Seed Science and Technology,) 1985) 13, p. 361–513. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Stentiford E.I., 1996. Composting Control: Principles and Practice. (W:) The Science of Composting, (Red.) Bertoldi M., Sequi P., Lemmes B., Papi T. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, Glasgow, Weinheim, New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, Madras: 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tiquia S. M. 2002 Evolution of extracellular enzyme activities during manure composting. Journal of Applied Microbiology 2002, Vol. 92, 764–775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ryckeboer J., Mergaert J., Coosemans J., Deprins K., Swings J., 2003. Microbiological aspects of biowaste during composting in a monitored compost bin. Journal of Applied Microbiology, Vol. 94, 127–137. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.01800.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nakayama A., Nakasaki K., Kuwahara F. & Sano Y., 2007, A lumped parameterheat transfer analysis for composting processes with aeration, Transactions of the ASME, vol. 129, pp. 902–906. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Marinov-Serafimov P., Golubinova I., Kalinova S. Allelopathic effect between seeds of sorghum vulgare var. Technicum (körn.) and Sinapis alba L. Bulg J. Agric. Sci. (2018) 24, 5, 830–835. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mierzwa-Hersztek M., Gondek K., Kopeć M. Nitrogen content in humic fractions in composts produced after addition of polyethylene and corn starch-containing waste materials, (2014) 93(3), 321–325. doi: 10.12916/przemchem.2014.321 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Whittaker C., Yates N.E., Powers S.J., Misselbrook T., Shield I. Dry matter losses and quality changes during short rotation coppice willow storage in chip or rod form. Biomass and Bioenergy. (2018) 112, 29–36. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baxter X.C., Darvell L.I., Jones J.M., Barraclough T., Yates N.E., Shield I. Miscanthus combustion properties and variations with Miscanthus agronomy. Fuel, (2014), 117 (Part A), 851–869. 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.09.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sullivan D.M., Bary A.I., Miller R.O., Brewer L.J. Interpreting Compost Analyses. EM 9217 Oregon State University October (2018) 10.1078/S0031-4056(04)70073-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chan M.T., Selvam A., Wong J.W.C. Reducing nitrogen loss and salinity during ’struvite’ food waste composting by zeolite amendment Bioresour Technol. (2016) 200, 838–844. 10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Khoshand A., Fall M. Geotechnical characterization of peat-based landfill cover materials. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. (2016) Eng. 10.1016/j.jrmge.2016.05.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Karnchanawong S., Mongkontep T., Praphunsri K. Effect of green waste pretreatment by sodium hydroxide and biomass fly ash on composting process. J Clean Prod., (2017) 146, 14–19.https://10.10166j/jclepro.2016.07.126. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Jain M.S., Jambhulkar R., Kalamdhad A.S. Biochar amendment for batch composting of nitrogen rich organic waste: Effect on degradation kinetics, composting physics and nutritional properties, Bioresource Technol. (2018) 253. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.biortech.2018.01.038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mohee R., Mudhoo A. Analysis of the physical properties of an in-vessel composting matrix. Powder Technol. (2005) 155 (1), 92–99. 10.1016/j.powtec.2005.05.051. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zoltai S.C., Siltanen R.M., Johnson R.D.A. Wetland Database for the Western Boreal, Subarctic, and Arctic Regions of Canada, NORX-368. Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB, Canada, (2000) Available at https://eweb.uqac.ca/bibliotheque/archives/24744824.pdf (Accessed at 20th of August 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hayat S., Ahmad A. Salicylic Acid: A Plant Hormone. Springer, (2007) Dordrecht., pp. 402. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wise K., Gill H., Selby-Pham J. Willow bark extract and the biostimulant complex Root Nectar® increase pro-pagation efficiency in chrysanthemum and lavender cuttings, Sci. Horticulture, (2020) 263,15, 109108. 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109108. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Atiyeh R.M., Subler S., Edwards C.A., Bachman G., Metzger D.J., Shuster W. Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia, (2000) 44, 579–590. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chen K., Li G.J., Bressan R.A., Song C.P., Zhu J.K., Zhao Y. Abscisic acid dynamics, signaling, and functions in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. (2020) 62(1), 25–54. doi: 10.1111/jipb.12899 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sun L.R., Wang Y., He., B.,S., Hao F.S. Mechanisms for Abscisic Acid Inhibition of Primary Root Growth. Plant Signal. Behav. (2018) 13(9), e1500069. doi: 10.1080/15592324.2018.1500069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Zhang T., Liu M., Huang X., Hu W., Qiao N., Song H., et al., Direct effects of nitrogen addition on seed germination of eight semi-arid grassland species. Ecol. Evol. (2020) 10 (16),8793–8800. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nor Adilla Rashidi

16 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-15059The changes of willow biomass characteristics during the composting process and their phytotoxicity effect on Sinapis alba L.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sowiński,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Based on the reviewers' recommendation, the manuscript requires MAJOR REVISIONS before it can be considered for publication.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 29 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nor Adilla Rashidi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [DETAILS AS NEEDED] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The research is co-financed under the Leading Reasarch Groups support project from the subsidy increased for the period 2020–2025 in the amount of 2% of the subsidy referred to Art. 387 (3) of the Law of 20 July 2018 on Higher Education and Science, obtained in 2019.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please respond by return e-mail so that we can amend your financial disclosure and competing interests on your behalf.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presented a study on the properties of compost produced from willow chips. The particle size structure, bulk density and total nitrogen content were evaluated. The effectiveness of the compost was tested on Sinapis alba L. The morphology characteristic of the sample during germination was observed. Although considerable effort was invested into the planning and experimental stage of the study, the result of the study does not appear to be very promising. Moreover, critical evaluation on the performance of compost is needed to convince readers of the significance of the study. Readers should be able to find out the performance of the compost as a fertilizer/ growth stimulant from the abstract. However, this main point was lacking in the manuscript, especially in the abstract. The manuscript also needs to be proofread. Therefore, careful revision on the manuscript is needed to warrant a publication in PLOS ONE. Hope below comments will able to help to further improve the paper.

Specific comment:

Abstract:

- The background of the study is provided but the knowledge gap in the study seems to be missing.

- Also, significance of the study and how the findings can be used to advance the field should be included.

- An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

- Kindly highlight the main findings that draw attention to the effectiveness of the compost.

- Please try to merge all information into a paragraph with some attractive and new findings. The main result from the review is not seem in the abstract.

- Kindly refer some latest papers as it is highly relevant to this report. Example, biological remediation of acid mine drainage: Review of past trends and current outlook; microalgae biorefinery: High value products perspectives; recent advances in downstream processing of microalgae lipid recovery for biofuel production

- How does this review fill in any knowledge gap?

Introduction:

- Line 41: correct problem to problems.

- Line 42: correct facing to faced by

- Line 45: correct way to ways.

- Line 46: What does the author mean by “in opposite increase”?

- Line 48: Please revise the sentence.

- Line 53: correct makes to make

- Line 58: Kindly break down the long sentence.

- Line 64: correct completely to complete

- Too many grammatical errors in this section. Please proofread.

- The introduction section is too lengthy and contain too much detail that can be omitted.

- Please revise section based on the structure below:

1st paragraph: Problem statement

2nd paragraph: Current ongoing solution

3rd paragraph: Proposed solution in this work.

4th paragraph: Summarized the current research novelty and objective of this work.

- There are some tips that improve structure from this paper that authors are recommended to refer: “Incorporating biowaste into circular bioeconomy/ A critical review of current trend and scaling up feasibility”.

- Problem statement of your introduction is not strong, need to discuss more about it.

- The earlier paragraphs should lead logically to specific objectives of the study.

- Note that this part of the Introduction gives specific details: for instance, the earlier part of the Introduction may mention the importance of this study whereas the concluding part will specify what methods of control were used and how they were evaluated.

Materials and methods:

- Line 153: The sentence “previously harvested in winter 2015” might be rephrased into: “The last harvest was in winter 2015”

- Line160: Please rephrase “this can regulate”.

- Since composting is one of the main focuses of the study, briefly explain the composting procedure.

- Provide the purity and origin of all the chemicals used.

- Include characterization study of the willow chips.

- State the number of replicates of the sample.

- Provide statistical analysis.

Results and discussion:

- Kindly update the references. For example, in line 274, the reference dated 1983 could be supported with latest study relevant to the field.

- Line 277: correct “to maximise” to “increase of”

- Kindly reformat all the figures according to guide for author. Normally, the background lines should be deleted.

- Line 283: Correct “what” to “that”

- Report the standard deviation of the values obtained.

- Line 315: Delete “being”

- Line 319: “an indicator…”. This sentence is confusing.

- How does the author benchmark the findings of current study to the literature?

- Explain disparity of C:N ratio in regulating composting process.

- The underlying mechanisms should be highlighted.

References

- Most of the references need to be updated.

Reviewer #2: 1. introduction: what the correlation between the GHGs emission and the utilization of lingnocellulosic biomass? Suggest the author supply this detail in this section.

2. introduction: the description in this section was lack of logic, so as to get the main point hardly. Suggest the author rewrite this section.

3. materials and methods: what the C/N ration of all samples did the author adjust in composting process?

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is about the use of willow biomass for composting process and its effect on Sinapis Alba L. Compost indexes, total nitrogen content, moisture content and other parameter studies have been conducted during composting of willow biomass. This study is interesting and important in ensuring the correct course of the mineralization process and C:N ratio. However, there are some limitations of this manuscript that need to be revised and confirmed by the authors as listed below:

1. Line 146: Are you using other indicator plants other than Sinapis Alba L since you also stated the use of Salix Viminalis L.

2. Line 163-166 and Line 177 182: It seems like a repetition of the definition of W0, WN, WF, and WNF.

3. Line 199: “…per unit volume technique (33)..”, what is “(33)”? Is it a citation number?

4. Line 257-267: Seem like the novelty aspect should be moved to the introduction section. I think this section more focusing on the methodology and procedure.

5. Line 293-294: “..low moisture content (26-35%) what resulted in low degradation rate of the composting material in the first ten days”, What do you mean by “that resulted in low degradation rate of the composting materials?

6. Line 294-297: Is this statement from your results or other studies since you cited a reference for this sentence?

7. Lien 303-304: From figure 3, the N content in WN variant is not always highest throughout the sampling period. For Iv and V date, the WNF variant is higher than WN.

8. I think you should highlight and discuss by focusing on your data/ results rather than the statement from other literature. It seems like I read it as a review paper. Most of the discussion from other papers, then 1-2 sentence/s explaining your result, then another discussion from other papers. It is hard to follow since most of the part focuses on the discussion from other papers rather than your results.

9. Line 481: “Adamczewska-Sowińska et al. (2021) Chen et al. (2020) Sun et al. (2018), and report that…” I think between Chen et al and Sun et al should have “and”.

I recommend minor corrections and the author needs to address carefully my concerns.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 3;17(10):e0275268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275268.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Sep 2022

Thank you Reviewers for the comments and changing proposal of the manuscript entitled: "The changes of willow biomass characteristics during the composting process and their phytotoxicity effect on Sinapis alba L.".

All Reviewers proposal have been uploaded or comments point-by-point.

Reviewer #1:

Question – Comments

This paper presented a study on the properties of compost produced from willow chips. The particle size structure, bulk density and total nitrogen content were evaluated. The effectiveness of the compost was tested on Sinapis alba L. The morphology characteristic of the sample during germination was observed. Although considerable effort was invested into the planning and experimental stage of the study, the result of the study does not appear to be very promising. Moreover, critical evaluation on the performance of compost is needed to convince readers of the significance of the study. Readers should be able to find out the performance of the compost as a fertilizer/ growth stimulant from the abstract. However, this main point was lacking in the manuscript, especially in the abstract. The manuscript also needs to be proofread. Therefore, careful revision on the manuscript is needed to warrant a publication in PLOS ONE. Hope below comments will able to help to further improve the paper.

Response

In the previous version, the authors specified what is the effect of willow compost on plants (line 132-141).

In the revised version, the following sentence was added : "The beneficial effect of composted willow biomass as a horticultural substrate for growing tomato transplants and for growing lettuce at early development stages was confirmed in studies by Adamczewska Sowińska et al. 2021, Bekier et al. 2022."

The abstract was supplemented by adding :

Composted lignin-cellulosic biomass can replace peat and be used as a substrate for vegetable transplant production.

Specific comment:

Abstract:

Question – Comments

- The background of the study is provided but the knowledge gap in the study seems to be missing.

Response

Added

The impact of modifying the willow lignin-cellulosic biomass composting process has not been well analysed.

Question – Comments

- Also, significance of the study and how the findings can be used to advance the field should be included.

- An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

- Kindly highlight the main findings that draw attention to the effectiveness of the compost.

- Please try to merge all information into a paragraph with some attractive and new findings. The main result from the review is not seem in the abstract.

- Kindly refer some latest papers as it is highly relevant to this report. Example, biological remediation of acid mine drainage: Review of past trends and current outlook; microalgae biorefinery: High value products perspectives; recent advances in downstream processing of microalgae lipid recovery for biofuel production

- How does this review fill in any knowledge gap?

Response

The literature data cannot be referred to in the abstract. As suggested by the Reviewer, the abstract has been supplemented with the information on what benefits result from obtaining good quality compost. As suggested by the Reviewer, the following sentences were included : "Peatlands and peat are of very important economic but above all environmental significance. The conservation of peatland resources is one of the most crucial future challenges. Composts and other forms of lignin-cellulosic biomass are potentially the best renewable alternative to peat in its economic use."

The introduction of the manuscript elaborates on this issue in more detail.

Introduction:

Question – Comments

- Line 41: correct problem to problems.

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- Line 42: correct facing to faced by

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- Line 45: correct way to ways.

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- Line 46: What does the author mean by “in opposite increase”?

Response

This phrase has been removed.

Question – Comments

- Line 48: Please revise the sentence.

Response

The sentence has been revised:

Peatland is one of most globally important stored carbon resources and the bound carbon stocks (in terms of quantity on a global scale) exceed those bound by tropical forests (500-700 billion tons of C compared 360 billion tons of C, respectively) [2].

Question – Comments

- Line 53: correct makes to make

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- Line 58: Kindly break down the long sentence.

Response

The sentence has been revised

Peatland drainage leads to degradation and, in conjunction with climate warming, rising temperatures, and drier weather patterns, which can lead to excessive mineralization and destabilization of peat C stores. In extreme cases fires may break out [2, 6]. Therefore its use is limited (also because of its long-lasting effect and reduced nutrient delivery to crops).

Question – Comments

- Line 64: correct completely to complete

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- Too many grammatical errors in this section. Please proofread.

Response

Corrected

Question – Comments

- The introduction section is too lengthy and contain too much detail that can be omitted.

- Please revise section based on the structure below:

1st paragraph: Problem statement

2nd paragraph: Current ongoing solution

3rd paragraph: Proposed solution in this work.

4th paragraph: Summarized the current research novelty and objective of this work.

Response

Introduction has been shortened by ¼ and less important elements have been removed. The chapter layout is in accordance with the Reviewer's comments. Section 2.5 has been removed and the content contained in the Novelty aspect has been placed at the end of the chapter Introduction.

Question – Comments

- There are some tips that improve structure from this paper that authors are recommended to refer: “Incorporating biowaste into circular bioeconomy/ A critical review of current trend and scaling up feasibility”.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. The specification have been included in the text.

Question – Comments

- Problem statement of your introduction is not strong, need to discuss more about it.

Response

The basis for the study was the environmental and economic importance of peat and peatlands. The authors pointed out the need to protect them, due to their global strategic role in water retention as well as CO2 emissions resulting from their exploitation. Attention was drawn to the adverse processes resulting from peatland desiccation leading to their degradation e.g. by fires.

Question – Comments

- The earlier paragraphs should lead logically to specific objectives of the study.

Response

With the suggested amendments included, the Introduction now has a logical layout.

Question – Comments

- Note that this part of the Introduction gives specific details: for instance, the earlier part of the Introduction may mention the importance of this study whereas the concluding part will specify what methods of control were used and how they were evaluated.

Response

The Reviewer's comments addressed provide an appropriate (in the authors' view) character to the Introduction chapter.

Materials and methods:

Question – Comments

- Line 153: The sentence “previously harvested in winter 2015” might be rephrased into: “The last harvest was in winter 2015”

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Line160: Please rephrase “this can regulate”.

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Since composting is one of the main focuses of the study, briefly explain the composting procedure.

Response

Added:

The willow chip compost prisms were formed on a horticultural mat. The prisms were 1.5 m wide, 1.3 m high and 5 m long. The volume of the prisms was approximately 5 m3. The prisms were successively irrigated and manually mixed at 4-5 week intervals.

Question – Comments

- Provide the purity and origin of all the chemicals used.

Response

Reagents used for the determination of total nitrogen were as follows: sulphuric acid 96% (pure for analysis) - CAS catalogue number: 7664-93-9, granulated sodium hydroxide (at a concentration of 30%, pure for analysis) - CAS catalogue number: 1310-73-2, hydrogen peroxide 30% (pure for analysis) - CAS catalogue number: 7722-84-1.The reagents originally came from the company: P.P.H. "STANLAB" Sp. z.o.o Lublin.

Question – Comments

- Include characterization study of the willow chips.

Response

Added

The chops size ranged from 4 to 12 mm.

Question – Comments

- State the number of replicates of the sample.

Response

Added

The experiment was conducted in 4 replicates.

Question – Comments

- Provide statistical analysis.

Response

Added

Analyses were performed using the ANOVA MANOVA method.

Results and discussion:

Question – Comments

- Kindly update the references. For example, in line 274, the reference dated 1983 could be supported with latest study relevant to the field.

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Line 277: correct “to maximise” to “increase of”

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Kindly reformat all the figures according to guide for author. Normally, the background lines should be deleted.

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Line 293: Correct “what” to “that”

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Report the standard deviation of the values obtained.

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Line 315: Delete “being”

Response

Changed

Question – Comments

- Line 319: “an indicator…”. This sentence is confusing.

Response

Changed

Both, too low and too high C:N ratio are inappropriate.

Question – Comments

- How does the author benchmark the findings of current study to the literature?

- Explain disparity of C:N ratio in regulating composting process.

- The underlying mechanisms should be highlighted.

Response

In Chapter 3 Results and Discussion, the results of our own research were presented and compared to available literature data. The scope of the discussion was the variation in the composting process, the quality of the compost depending on the solutions used. An important part of the discussion was the optimum C:N ratio and the possibility of changing it through additives. The biological evaluation of the compost was particularly important and special attention was paid to it. The discussion highlighted differences in compost quality, the effect of the composting process on levels of nitrogen and on mustard seed germination.

References

- Most of the references need to be updated.

Reviewer #2:

Question – Comments

1. introduction: what the correlation between the GHGs emission and the utilization of lingnocellulosic biomass? Suggest the author supply this detail in this section.

Response

In the reviewed version of the manuscript the issue of biomass bioconversion and emissions depending on the C:N ratio has been described in the section from line 106 to 126. Narrow C:N ratio accelerates organic matter decomposition process and increases GHG emissions. Based on the literature data, the most optimal C:N ratio is 30- 40.

Question – Comments

2. introduction: the description in this section was lack of logic, so as to get the main point hardly. Suggest the author rewrite this section.

Response

This section has been revised according Reviewer's suggestion. Section 2.5 has been removed and the content of the Novelty aspect section has been moved to the Introduction. We have revised this section according the following paragraphs:

1st paragraph: Problem statement

2nd paragraph: Current ongoing solution

3rd paragraph: Proposed solution in this work.

4th paragraph: Summarized the current research novelty and objective of this work.

Question – Comments

3. materials and methods: what the C/N ration of all samples did the author adjust in composting process?

Response

Raw willow chips are characterized by very wide C:N ratio - about 100 [6]. In the experiment nitrogen was added to reduce the C:N ratio to about 30, otherwise the composting process could not start.

Reviewer #3:

This manuscript is about the use of willow biomass for composting process and its effect on Sinapis Alba L. Compost indexes, total nitrogen content, moisture content and other parameter studies have been conducted during composting of willow biomass. This study is interesting and important in ensuring the correct course of the mineralization process and C:N ratio. However, there are some limitations of this manuscript that need to be revised and confirmed by the authors as listed below:

Question – Comments

1. Line 146: Are you using other indicator plants other than Sinapis Alba L since you also stated the use of Salix Viminalis L.

Response

No. Salix viminalis biomass composted and water extract from composted biomass were used for the assessment of Sinapis alba seeds germination.

Question – Comments

2. Line 163-166 and Line 177 182: It seems like a repetition of the definition of W0, WN, WF, and WNF.

Response

Thank you. The information contained in lines 163-166 has been removed.

Question – Comments

3. Line 199: “…per unit volume technique (33)..”, what is “(33)”? Is it a citation number?

Response

Yes it was an item number in the literature list.

Question – Comments

4. Line 257-267: Seem like the novelty aspect should be moved to the introduction section. I think this section more focusing on the methodology and procedure.

Response

The proposal has been included. Reviewer 1 was of a similar opinion.

Question – Comments

5. Line 293-294: “..low moisture content (26-35%) what resulted in low degradation rate of the composting material in the first ten days”, What do you mean by “that resulted in low degradation rate of the composting materials?

Response

The willow biomass was chipped before composting. The size of the chippings was between 4-12 mm and the prism was very easily ventilated and therefore tended to dry quickly. After the initial period, the frequency of moisture control was increased and also the prisms were covered with transparent perforated film.

Question – Comments

6. Line 294-297: Is this statement from your results or other studies since you cited a reference for this sentence?

Response

Yes these are the results from our own research. The quoted item indicates that the moisture level was brought to an optimum level. The sentence was changed and the quoted literature item was removed.

Question – Comments

7. Lien 303-304: From figure 3, the N content in WN variant is not always highest throughout the sampling period. For Iv and V date, the WNF variant is higher than WN.

Response

Thank you. Corrected

Question – Comments

8. I think you should highlight and discuss by focusing on your data/ results rather than the statement from other literature. It seems like I read it as a review paper. Most of the discussion from other papers, then 1-2 sentence/s explaining your result, then another discussion from other papers. It is hard to follow since most of the part focuses on the discussion from other papers rather than your results.

Question – Comments

Response

To ensure the correct manuscript proportions, information from the study was added and information from other studies was removed.

In our study, the woodchips were 4-12 mm in size and the pile was highly aerated, which could also have affected the composting process.

In the WN and WNF variants, the addition of nitrogen accelerated the decomposition process of the willow biomass and the temperature in the compost heaps where nitrogen was used was higher between the 30th and 50th day of composting.

To the greatest extent, nitrogen content influenced hypocotyl length and mustard seedling weight (Figure 6c-6d).

The beneficial effect on mustard seedlings of the W0 compost extract was smaller, in particular for embryonic root length as well as seedling weight (about 10% each).

9. Line 481: “Adamczewska-Sowińska et al. (2021) Chen et al. (2020) Sun et al. (2018), and report that…” I think between Chen et al and Sun et al should have “and”.

Response

Corrected

I recommend minor corrections and the author needs to address carefully my concerns.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers - response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Nor Adilla Rashidi

13 Sep 2022

The changes of willow biomass characteristics during the composting process and their phytotoxicity effect on Sinapis alba L.

PONE-D-22-15059R1

Dear Dr. Sowiński,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nor Adilla Rashidi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have revised their manuscript according to the comments, in this case, it should be accepted for publication by PLOS ONE.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing all my previous concerns carefully. Thus, I recommend for publication in PLOS ONE in the present form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Zengqiang Zhang

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Nor Adilla Rashidi

19 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-15059R1

The changes of willow biomass characteristics during the composting process and their phytotoxicity effect on Sinapis alba L.

Dear Dr. Sowiński:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nor Adilla Rashidi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers - response.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES