Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-20-08541

Can Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge contribute to the regeneration of degraded areas?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Demolin Leite

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 July 2020. 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,

Tunira Bhadauria, 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. Thank you for stating the following above the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'Funding. The study was financially supported by the following Brazilian agencies “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)”, “Coordenação de  Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES-Finance Code 001)”, “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)”, and “Programa Cooperativo  sobre Proteção Florestal (PROTEF)” of the “Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais (IPEF)”.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

a. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The present paper has interesting research aspects specially for utilizing dehydrated sewage sludge for sustainable use in restoration and rehabilitation of degraded lands. However after going through the reviewers comments I think both have raised very valid comments and suggestions which I endorse fully, each of these comments and suggestions need to be incorporated into the manuscript before it is accepted for the publication

I suggest that the authors answer each of the comments pointwise as bullets, for each of the two reviewers separately. Therefore I recommend a major revesion of the manuscript before the same is accepted for the publication.

[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: Partly

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: The comments related to manuscript"Can Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) fertilized with dehydrated sewage sludge contribute to the regeneration of degraded areas? " are as follows:

1. Title itself is confusing as it appears the plant A.auriculiformis is treated with dehydrated sewage sludge which is not the case its the soil which has been treated with dehydrated sewage sludge.

2.Soil aspects like soil nutrient quality before and after application of dehydrated sewage sludge in the degraded plots is lacking.

3. Too many references are included in the manuscript, that must be reduced.

4. Authors have not followed the format of the Journal.

5.Fertilized and Fertilization words are confusing . consider changing it with application of or treatment with dehydrated sewage sludge

6. soil quality assessment is very necessary while studying with regeneration/ restoration of degraded areas.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I would congratulate you for this interesting research work and the paper written especially for using dehydrated sewage sludge that is of important concern in the times when population and sewage load is increasing globally and how it can be sustainably used in restoration or rehabilitation of degraded lands. Especially in light of UN decade of restoration being declared from 2021-2030 these inputs and ideas will be of concern to enhance sustainable land restoration across the world.

I have few general and some specific comments that you would like to address and incorporate to improve the ms.

General:

1. The flow of ms under different heading was confusing as Material and Methods section was after results and discussion section that ideally should be after introduction and before results and discussion. Please see author guidelines

2. Please share a few images of the experimental design as well as different insect species observed during the study for better clarity of the experiment.

Specific Comments:

Though, the ms is an interesting approach that needs to be published here are my few comments that I think are missing in the present form.

1. Line 66-68 mentions about the inappropriate disposal of sewage sludge and later briefly 191-192 mentions about the sewage sludge chemical and biological characteristics. It is important that soil physico-chemical and biological characteristics along with sewage sludge physico-chemical and biological characteristics are mentioned in a Table in the ms for better clarity and understanding of the readers.

2. Line 194-195 in the material and methods section talks about grass and herbaceous plant being evaluated visually per month but there is no result provided about this how diverse herbs and grass species have grown throughout this experiment and it has not been discussed in the discussion section.

3. Because this was a long term experimental work it would have been interesting to know the soil physico chemical and biological properties of the soil improved with and without sewage sludge treatment. This is specially important for long term consideration to use sewage sludge for restoration of degraded land.

4. Because sewage sludge may be the source of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants counting diverse insects should not be only approach it should be well considered that during this entire process their was no heavy metal uptake by plants. For this it is better to address suggestion as mentioned in point 1 and if there was certain amount of heavy metal present it is important to also monitor the heavy metal uptake in plant. As Acacia is fast going plant it can bioaccumulate heavy metal in biomass.

5. It may be the case that for this particular study sewage sludge is devoid of any heavy metal concentration but those who would like to replicate this approach it is important that this caution is well discussed in the discussion section.

**********

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. Anil Kumar

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.]

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: PONE-D-20-08541_reviewer.pdf

Ecological indices of phytophagous Hemiptera and their natural enemies on Acacia auriculiformis (Fabales: Fabaceae) plants with or without dehydrated sewage sludge application in a degraded area

PONE-D-20-08541R1

Dear Dr.Demolin Leite

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,

Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE