Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2019
Decision Letter - P. Pardha-Saradhi, Editor

PONE-D-19-27128

Investigating the diverse potential of a multi-purpose legume, Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, for smallholder production in East Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nord,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within 90 days. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

P. Pardha-Saradhi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figure [6] in your submission contains a map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

  1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [6] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

  1. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: The elaborate research conducted with diverse cultivars of under exploited crop- Lablab purpureus at two locations with two system approach generated vast data sets. The experiments laid out and observations recorded are sufficient to conclude the results. The appropriate analysis of data enabled to identify the cultivar for both selected sites and also as an inter crop. However the following points may be considered for review the results

- The duration of legumes impact their tolerance to abiotic stresses as selected cultivars are with early to very late duration. Hence for assessing their suitability one has to compare similar duration cultivars.

- Both edaphic and weather conditions varied in selected two sites of experimentation. The information on one site soil conditions was provided. A comparison need to be done on impact of soil conditions while assessing the performance of cultivars.

- Too many parameters were included for identifying suitable cultivar/s for biomass and seed yield. Nitrogen component needs to be addressed separately and some more detailed experimentation is required, hence this parameter may be omitted.

- Many statements are repetitive and lengthy such as explanation of results for two sites for two years may be made as single statement

**********

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: Yes: Dr MADDI VANAJA

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-27128_reviewed.pdf
Revision 1

Dear PLOS ONE Editor,

Below are our responses to the comments provided by the reviewer and academic editor.

We have revised the submission to address all comments, editor and reviewer. In response to the journal requirements highlighted by the academic editor, we have edited the manuscript to comply with PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Concerning Figure 6 which was highlighted by the editor as possibly being copyright material, we have clarified in the caption that we produced this map, so it is not copyrighted. We added information for clarification in the figure heading stating that the map was produced by us using QGIS software and public domain data, which does not impose any restrictions on maps produced and therefore is not copyrighted. Additionally, captions for supporting information files have been added at the end of the manuscript as requested (on page 35).

We trust these revisions address the edits suggested by the editor and reviewer.

Sincerely,

Alison Nord

Response to Reviewer #1:

The duration of legumes impact their tolerance to abiotic stresses as selected cultivars are with early to very late duration. Hence for assessing their suitability one has to compare similar duration cultivars.

Response: We appreciate this point by the reviewer but would like to clarify that within this study we are looking at variation both across and within growth types, and therefore used the comprehensive statistical model shown on page 10 to assess cultivar performance.

Both edaphic and weather conditions varied in selected two sites of experimentation. The information on one site soil conditions was provided. A comparison need to be done on impact of soil conditions while assessing the performance of cultivars.

Response: We have provided the soil conditions as supplementary information as soil conditions of our study sites were not an explicit factor in the analysis (as only two sites were represented).

Too many parameters were included for identifying suitable cultivar/s for biomass and seed yield. Nitrogen component needs to be addressed separately and some more detailed experimentation is required, hence this parameter may be omitted.

Response: We have added clarification in the methods section on page 9 to highlight that the PCA performed for one site year was part of data collected as a sub study on nitrogen and productivity. This specific analysis looked at variability across accessions for parameters related to nitrogen fixation and productivity, not the overall suitability of cultivars for biomass and grain yield which was addressed in the larger study. As such, we feel it is important to include this sub study as an initial step towards understanding N dynamics across lablab cultivars for which research is currently lacking in the literature.

Many statements are repetitive and lengthy such as explanation of results for two sites for two years may be made as single statement

Response: We have addressed this concern and have made efforts throughout the manuscript to condense statements, as seen through the manuscript track changes. See especially page 14 of the results.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_PlosOne.docx
Decision Letter - P. Pardha-Saradhi, Editor

Investigating the diverse potential of a multi-purpose legume, Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, for smallholder production in East Africa

PONE-D-19-27128R1

Dear Dr. Nord,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

P. Pardha-Saradhi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - P. Pardha-Saradhi, Editor

PONE-D-19-27128R1

Investigating the diverse potential of a multi-purpose legume, Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, for smallholder production in East Africa

Dear Dr. Nord:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. P. Pardha-Saradhi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .