PONE-D-21-09696

Deciphering the change in root system architectural traits under limiting and non-limiting phosphorus in Indian bread wheat germplasm

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yadav,

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 revise the manuscript  and resubmit at the earliest. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by June 15, 2021. 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. 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,

Reyazul Rouf Mir, PhD

SKUAST-Kashmir

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.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 "NO"

At this time, please address the following queries:

1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

4. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript was reviewed by two reviewers and both have recommended revision of the manuscript before its acceptance. Therefore, you are requested to address all the comments of the reviewers and resubmit manuscript at the earliest for further processing at our end.

[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: Introduction:

The authors have presented the information for wheat crop with respect to the nutrient use. However, very little information on root traits is presented which needs improvement. Authors should include relevant information which root traits have been identified in wheat or other cereal crops particularly rice for efficient uptake and utilization of P. Few statements are written without appropriate citation.

Material and Methods:

A total of 182 lines were used in this study which is very big set for this study. I wish to now if any commercial variety have been included in this study. If yes, then comparisons should be have been made against that as this will give information how the other genotypes are behaving in comparison to that commercial one. The genotypes having better root traits than that of commercial should have been selected (less affected traits under limited P).

The methodology and statistical analysis is appropriate for the study.

Results:

This is very basic study conducted to evaluate the genotypes for response to P.

The results are appropriately described as per the study.

However, no shoot biomass information is included. I will be happy if the authors should include the shoot biomass in this study also to get information about the root/shoot biomass ratio among different genotypes.

Why the primary root length is affected under limited P environment needs justification. Like the genotypes are diverting energy towards only root traits or also to sustain the biomass. The biomass will be converted into final yield.

The results needs to be presented in comparison to best commercial genotype used in the study.

Discussion:

The discussion part is mostly the repetition of results. The authors need to defend their results in relation to the studies conducted on root traits in wheat or related cereals. The discussion part needs to be thoroughly revised for better understanding and defending the results related to the identification of P efficient genotypes.

How the authors will justify that the genotypes which are having good root traits will suffer less in terms of yield as compared to other having poor under limited P. Only those genotypes will be beneficial to be utilized which perform better/ comparable under both limited and non-limited P conditions with respect to yield.

Reviewer #2: General comment:

The work related to Root System Architecture (RSA) under Phosphorous limited conditions in wheat has not been studied comprehensively due to its difficulty in phenotyping. The manuscript reports identification of RSAtraits and genotypesinfluencingPuse efficiency under hydroponics conditions, which I feel a reliable strategy and could be used effectively for screening.These P efficient genotypes, as they are advanced and fixed lines, could serve as excellent donors in developing P efficient wheat genotypes. However, the manuscript need improvement especially in discussion part. I would suggest moderate revision for this manuscript. Specific comments are as follows.

Introduction

Introduction is well written. The importance of P in improving the productivity is well explained. However, authors should explain more about in RSA traits under P efficient and P limited conditions. If studies are limited in Wheat,other cereal crops may be explored like maize, rice etc. In rice, good number of papers are available on RSA traits influenced by P use efficiency (e.g. The role of root size versus root efficiency in phosphorus acquisition in rice. Mori et al 2013 Journal of Experimental Botany,2016, 67:1179–1189).

Material and Methods

• 182 advanced breeding lines comprising of diverse parentages is a good experimental material for this study.

• Statistical analysis is appropriate.

• Comprehensive phosphorus response index value is well calculated and is important identifying P responsive and non-responsive genotypes.

• Authors have not included released varieties in the experimental material Why?

Result

• The results are well presented.

• Subtitles should not be lengthy. The authors have written important findings in the subtitles which I feel quite good however, it will be confusing for the readers because of their lengthiness. Try to make it concise where it is possible or give name of the analysis as subtitle.

• In PCA, Figure 3B. the angle of eigen vectors between TRV, TRL, PRL, TRT, TRF and TSA is less than 90o, it indicates they are quite related to each other and we can take most important trait for the study leaving other less important traits. Which trait do you think is more important under limited P conditions and you advocate in the abstract for the readers?

• In title of figure 5 for better clarity, rather than writing RSA of contrasting genotypes, write better performing (BW 181 and BW 103) and poor performing (BW 9 and BE 139) genotypes grown under non-limiting (NLP) and limiting (LP) phosphorus conditions

• In P efficient genotypes, viz., BW181, BW103, and BW66 a common parent noticed is HDCSW 18. This is a very high yielding wheat variety developed by IARI, New Delhi for conservation agriculture conditions. It would be great if authors could write more about this variety in relation to its P or N use efficiency in results as well as in discussion.

• Similarly, in the parentage of P non-efficient wheat genotypes like BW 9, BW 139, BW 3, two mega wheat varieties HD 2967 and HD 2733 are involved. If authors would come out with a reason why recombinants of these best genotypes adapted to farmers field showed poor P efficiency? If authors would have involved released varieties (popular varieties like HDCSW 18, HD 2967, HD 3086, HD 2733 etc.) in this study, it would have been good information.

Discussion

• Discussion is quite lengthy and need to be revised.

• Results are repeated in the discussion which is not required.

• Authors can cite references from other cereal crops pertaining to RSA under different nutrient stresses.

• In the discussion, author may give statements on genetics of P use efficiency in studied genotypes based on their parentages e.g.

� Six genotypes shared common parentage (CSW2/ HD2932+Yr15); however, they differ for their P response index. BW143 is highly responsive, BW69 is moderately responsive, BW1, BW162, and BW 171are low responsive and BW 6 is non-responsive.

� Nine genotypes having common parentage (HD2967/HD2887//HD2946/HD2733) showed varied P response index. BW70, BW158 are responsive; BW174, BW155 are moderately responsive; BW124, BW167, BW151 are low responsive and BW139, BW2 are non-responsive.

� Five genotypes with parentage CSW3/HD2932+Yr10 showed varied P response index. BW 116 is responsive; BW 169 is moderately responsive; BW92, BW106 are low responsive; and BW136 is non-responsive.

**********

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: Vikas Gupta

ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research Karnal, Haryana (INDIA)

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sundeep Kumar

[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: Comments_ Deciphering the change in root system architectural traits under limiting and non- limiting phosphorus in Indian bread wheat germplasm (1).docx

Deciphering the change in root system architectural traits under limiting and non-limiting phosphorus in Indian bread wheat germplasm

PONE-D-21-09696R1

Dear Dr. Yadav,

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,

Reyazul Rouf Mir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The Manuscript has been revised in line with the comments made by the reviewers. Therefore may be accepted now for publication.

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: Authors have addressed all the queries raised and included suggestions in the revised manuscript. Good information have been generated in the present study related to the root system architecture under low P availability. The genotypes W 181, BW 103, BW 104, BW 143 and BW 66 identified in the present study will be useful for improving the P use efficiency.

**********

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: Yes: Vikas Gupta, ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research, Karnal (INDIA)