Effects of different fertilization modes on rice yield and quality under a rice-crab culture system

Wanning Zhao; Hanling Liang; Yu Fu; Yubo Liu; Chen Yang; Tian Zhang; Tianyu Wang; Liyan Rong; Shuang Zhang; Zhaoxia Wu; Wentao Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230600

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 13, 2020
10 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor PONE-D-20-01018 Effects of different fertilization modes on rice yield and quality under a rice-crab culture system PLOS ONE Dear Mrs. Wu, 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 by Mar 26 2020 11:59PM. 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, Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 1. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ [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: plz consider the minor corrections have been inserted in ur manuscript in the attach file. plz try to rewrite the abstract more clear than the current one, since it is has to all treatment. plz see the attach file ****** 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 [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-20-01018_reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230600.r001
Revision 1
29 Feb 2020 Author Response 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 Responses to Questions: The manuscript describes a scientifically sound study. This experiment investigated the effects of three different fertilization modes on rice yield and quality in a rice-crab culture system in Panjin, China. All indicators were tested in accordance with national standards or recognized scientific methods. The study was conducted in the field using a randomized complete block design with three replicates, including three non-fertilized control groups, for a total of 12 rice samples. Special personnel were responsible for the rice planting, fertilization, and harvesting processes, and the operation was rigorous and standard. The conclusions were based on statistical analysis of the data, and are consistent with the results of the one-year preliminary experiment. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Responses to Questions: The data measured in this test were collated by Excel 2010, and the average and standard deviation of three repeated tests for each index were calculated. SPSS 25 software was used to perform a one-way ANOVA test using the LSD method and Duncan method, with a significance level of 0.05, and a Pearson correlation coefficient was used for bivariate correlation analysis. 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 Responses to Questions: In our analysis, we have made full use of all the data in the manuscript to reach the most accurate and reliable conclusions. All the data on which the figures in the manuscript are based, including the mean, standard deviation, and significant differences, are stored in a public repository recommended by PLOS– figshare. The data involved are data for all indicators of rice cooking and eating, and nutritional quality. The data listed in the tables are real data. 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 Responses to Questions: The manuscript has been written in standard English. The author has corrected the grammatical errors pointed out by the reviewers and has carefully checked them. 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: plz consider the minor corrections have been inserted in ur manuscript in the attach file. plz try to rewrite the abstract more clear than the current one, since it is has to all treatment. plz see the attach file Responses to Questions: Thank you very much for the excellent suggestions listed in our manuscript. We confirm that this work has not been published elsewhere and that all listed authors have approved the manuscript. All rice samples used in the test were taken from the rice experimental demonstration base of the national R&D project. Therefore, this manuscript will not encounter issues such as dual publishing and contravention of research ethics. We are very grateful to the reviewers for their valuable comments. The author has adopted and revised the text according to the feedback and made appropriate supplementary amendments to the manuscript. In response to your questions about the proportion of organic and inorganic fertilizers in the FP2 fertilization mode, we added an explanation in the Materials and Methods section as follows. “The ratio of inorganic nitrogen to organic nitrogen was 7:3, inorganic nitrogen provided 70% of the nitrogen in the mixed fertilizer and organic nitrogen provided 30% of the nitrogen. Chicken manure was used as organic fertilizer, and the nitrogen content was determined in advance.” Regarding your questions about high available nitrogen and low available potassium, we offer the following explanation. The Panjin area has coastal saline-alkali soil. We have tested the available nitrogen content in the soil at 85–120 mg/kg for many years. The effective nitrogen content determined by this test was 105.2 mg/kg, which is normal. Regarding potassium, our test results were indeed low, which may be related to the soil conditions of the test field. Finally, we modified the abstract and deleted the redundant description of the three different fertilization modes because their specific descriptions are included in the materials section, which makes the abstract clearer and more concise. 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 Responses to Questions: Please do not reveal my identity for this peer review. I would prefer to remain anonymous. Thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230600.r002
4 Mar 2020 Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor Effects of different fertilization modes on rice yield and quality under a rice-crab culture system PONE-D-20-01018R1 Dear Dr. Wu, 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, Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230600.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2020 Acceptance Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor PONE-D-20-01018R1 Effects of different fertilization modes on rice yield and quality under a rice-crab culture system Dear Dr. Wu: 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 Dr. Vassilis G. Aschonitis Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230600.r004

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 .