Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana

Sahil; Gulshan Mahajan; Deepak Loura; Katherine Raymont; Bhagirath Singh Chauhan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0234648

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 3, 2020
18 May 2020 Decision Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor PONE-D-20-06038 Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mahajan, 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. I have received 2 reports for your submission. Both referees have positive views on the manuscript and think that the work is worth publishing. However, both have suggested several minor changes. Both reviewers are concerned with the repeated use of Latin names of both species, although common names vary from region to region, differentiate these both species by their common names in Australia. More information is needed on seed collection. Whether the seeds were collected from single population? How many mother plants were there? Weed species exhibit inter and intra population differences. The current version is not formatted according to Plos One. Please give due attention to all comments while revising your manuscript. I look forward to receive your revised submission. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jul 02 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, Shahid Farooq, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional 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. 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 3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Overall, the manuscript entitled “Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana” presents novel and relevant results regarding the ability of these species in withstanding dryer soil conditions, a condition which is expected to become increasingly more common in the future due to ongoing global climate change. Comment #1: It seems no information is presented regarding the actual cycle length across soil moisture levels. Is such information available? Comment #2: figures seem to be lacking quality, appearing blurred. Line 52: scientific names of two species which are referred to as “wild oats” throughout the manuscript had already been properly introduced (line 41-42); why inform their scientific names again? This can be confusing to readers. Line 121: this statement regarding the actual ability of crops such as wheat and barley seems vague and is not supported by any literature citation. It is clear that the authors are simply indicating this possibility, but it would be better to refer to articles (if any) which assessed these crops´ growth under water deficit. If none is found, then it seems necessary to add a sentence that “such statement remains to be evaluated” or similar. Reviewer #2: I have evaluated the manuscript "Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana" written by Sahil et al. Overall, it is an excellent piece of study and deserves publication. I have a few minor suggestions (commented on the attached manuscript file). The opening sentence of abstract defines climate change and study is on water stress. Only water stress can not be considered as climate change. Please rewrite the sentence. The Methods are given after results, while plos one requires methods before results. Results and discussion are combined. Could these be separated? More info is needed on seed collection and storage. I suggest to add coordinates or a map showing the locations. Authors have cited a survey work in Australia, could the current distribution map be provided in the manuscript? I suggest to use common names of both species, how these are separated in Australia? The use of Latin names have been redundant throughout the manuscript. Obviously, common names will be redundantly used but better to use. ****** 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 [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: Wild oat stress-Final.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r001
Revision 1
26 May 2020 Author Response Editor comments • I have received 2 reports for your submission. Both referees have positive views on the manuscript and think that the work is worth publishing. However, both have suggested several minor changes. Thanks, the suggested changes have been incorporated. • Both reviewers are concerned with the repeated use of Latin names of both species, although common names vary from region to region, differentiate these both species by their common names in Australia. In Australia, both are known as black or wild oats. Therefore, we have incorpared common names used in the USA (WSSA). Also, it will be difficult to understand by readers if we use common names throughout the manuscript. Therefore, we have used Latin names throughout the text. • More information is needed on seed collection. Whether the seeds were collected from single population? How many mother plants were there? Weed species exhibit inter and intra population differences. The initial seeds were collected from a farmer’s field. These seeds were grown at the Gatton research farm in the next season and fresh seeds collected from those 50-60 matured plants were used for the study. • The current version is not formatted according to Plos One. We have now placed material and methods before results and discussion in the revised version. • Please give due attention to all comments while revising your manuscript. I look forward to receive your revised submission. All comments have been carefully incorporated in the revised version. Reviewer #1: Overall, the manuscript entitled “Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana” presents novel and relevant results regarding the ability of these species in withstanding dryer soil conditions, a condition which is expected to become increasingly more common in the future due to ongoing global climate change. Comment #1: It seems no information is presented regarding the actual cycle length across soil moisture levels. Is such information available? We did not record the actual cycle length across soil moisture levels. Comment #2: figures seem to be lacking quality, appearing blurred. The figures have been revised again. Line 52: scientific names of two species which are referred to as “wild oats” throughout the manuscript had already been properly introduced (line 41-42); why inform their scientific names again? This can be confusing to readers. Because both species are different and as per journal format, we preferred scientific names rather than common names throughout the manuscript. Line 321: this statement regarding the actual ability of crops such as wheat and barley seems vague and is not supported by any literature citation. It is clear that the authors are simply indicating this possibility, but it would be better to refer to articles (if any) which assessed these crops´ growth under water deficit. If none is found, then it seems necessary to add a sentence that “such statement remains to be evaluated” or similar. The line has been modified as per the suggestion. Reviewer #2: I have evaluated the manuscript "Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana" written by Sahil et al. Overall, it is an excellent piece of study and deserves publication. I have a few minor suggestions (commented on the attached manuscript file). All suggestions on the attached manuscript have been carefully incorporated. The opening sentence of abstract defines climate change and study is on water stress. Only water stress can not be considered as climate change. Please rewrite the sentence. The word “climate change” has been removed. The Methods are given after results, while plos one requires methods before results. The methods have been incorporated before the results now. More info is needed on seed collection and storage. I suggest to add coordinates or a map showing the locations. The required information about seed selection and storage has been added in the manuscript and coordinates have also been provided. Authors have cited a survey work in Australia, could the current distribution map be provided in the manuscript? This is a research paper and we think that a distribution map is not related to this study. That will be more suitable for a review paper or a book chapter. I suggest to use common names of both species, how these are separated in Australia? The use of Latin names have been redundant throughout the manuscript. Obviously, common names will be redundantly used but better to use. The common names of both species have been provided. In Australia, both species are known as wild/black oats; therefore, cannot differentiate. We have used common names used in the USA. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revised Response letter Plos one.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r002
28 May 2020 Decision Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor PONE-D-20-06038R1 Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mahajan, 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. I have evaluated the revised manuscript. All the comments have been addressed. I have annotated the attached files for some minor changes. Please approve/address these changes before formal acceptance. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Shahid Farooq, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revised clean copy.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Wild oat stress-graph.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r003
Revision 2
28 May 2020 Author Response Shahid Farooq, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Subject: Ref.: PONE-D-20-06038 R1 Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana PLOS ONE Dear Dr Shahid, We thank you again for the critical look on the manuscript . The manuscript has been revised in the light of useful comments. All the comments have been incorporated in the revised version carefully. For clarity, the comments and suggestions will appear in the black colored text; while our response will appear in the blue text. In the manuscript also, specific changes can be seen in the track changed file. We hope that the revised manuscript is now acceptable in “PLOS ONE”. We look forward to hearing from you in due course. Sincerely yours Gulshan Mahajan Editor comments I have evaluated the revised manuscript. All the comments have been addressed. I have annotated the attached files for some minor changes. Please approve/address these changes before formal acceptance. All your comments have been incorporated carefully and approved. In tables significant differences were differentiated with the help of letters. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r004
1 Jun 2020 Decision Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana PONE-D-20-06038R2 Dear Dr. Mahajan, 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, Shahid Farooq, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have addressed all the comments in the revised version of the manuscript. Therefore, current version can be accepted for publication. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r005
Formally Accepted
25 Jun 2020 Acceptance Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor PONE-D-20-06038R2 Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana Dear Dr. Mahajan: 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. Shahid Farooq Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234648.r006

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 .