Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of vermicompost and biochar

Khadim Dawar; Ahtesham Khan; Ishaq Ahmad Mian; Bushra Khan; Shamsher Ali; Sagheer Ahmad; Piotr Szulc; Shah Fahad; Rahul Datta; Ashraf Atef Hatamleh; Munirah Abdullah Al-Dosary; Subhan Danish

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267483

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 1, 2022
10 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor PONE-D-22-03141Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the sole and combined application of vermicompost and biocharPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Danish, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: I have now received the comments from three reviewers all of which suggested that the manuscript can't be accepted in the current form and suggested numerous changes to bring the manuscript in publishable form (see below). Therefore, I invite you to revise your manuscript in the light of these comments and submit revised manuscript. In addition to reviewers, I have concerns on the language of the manuscript. There are several sentences with poor grammar. Please get your manuscript edited for language and grammar use. Please format the manuscript according to the guidelines of Plos One Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2022 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: https://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, 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. [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: Manuscript: - Title: I would recommend rewriting it: Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of different vermicompost and biochar treatments, or something similar. - Abstract: Line 25: remove such Line 26: remove the soil… Line 27: remove That’s why… Line 28: Four treatments were tested in the experiment: Line 28: Four or eight treatments in total? Line 29: NPK? Lines 31-32: Why do they give two figures, what does each one mean? Line 32: control without NPK? Lines 34-35: It is recommended, it does not sound like the conclusion of a job, to rewrite the conclusion. Lines 35-37: The best? compared to what? To rewrite. - Introduction: Lines 41: is a principal Kharif? Line 45: an extra-space. Lines 46-47: rewrite. Line 48: One hundred g… After a point, write numbers with letters, here and throughout the text. Line 58: remove and ash in different quantities. Line 58: an extra-space. Line 59: carbon evolution? What does it mean? Line 73-75: rewrite. - Materials and Methods: Lines 82-83: rewrite sentence: Field trial was done in the Peshawar research farm, University of Agriculture, during summer 2020... Lines 85-86: How many plants per treatment? Line 86: cm. Maize… Line 86: rewrite: Maize hybrid pioneer 3025w variety were used in the experiment… Line 94: Eight treatments in total… Line 111: 50 ml, 10 g, here and throughout the text. Line 111: Then, the… Line 112: shaking. After, the … - Results: Add subheadings to the results section to make them easier to read and understand. Line 138: BC1? not only VC1+BC1. Lines 142-143: it is not clear what the author means. Line 148-149: it would be better to give the averages together with the standard deviation obtained, it would be more useful data, and throughout the text. - Discussion: Line 252: pyrolysis. The - Conclusions: - Lines 287-288: Eliminate “Growers are recommended to apply VC1+BC1+NPK for the 287 achievement of better maize yield in low fertility status soils”, since you later mention that more studies are necessary to be able to ensure this. - Figures: Figures 1-4: edit them, they are very close together and it does not allow to analyze each graph separately. Also place letter of the figure outside of it. Figure 5: Small edit significant differences. Figure 6: This analysis was not done for the NKP? Reviewer #2: 1. Why authors have selected these levels of vermicompost and biochar for study. 2. Give GPS location of the experiment. 3. No data is provided regarding the characterization of biochar and vermicompost. Please provide that. 4. How biochar was manufactured. Please elaborate. 5. From where vermicompost was collected. Either it was self-developed or commercial product. If it was commercial product then give batch number and manufacturer details. 6. Please provide details of N, P and K sources which were applied. 7. What was maize irrigation plan? 8. Give reference for the applied fertilizer dozes. 9. Please provide pre-experimental soil NPK data. Without that fertilizer application rates cannot be assessed. ****** 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.] 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-22-03141.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267483.r001
Revision 1
7 Apr 2022 Author Response REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES - Title: I would recommend rewriting it: Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of different vermicompost and biochar treatments, or something similar. Ans: Thank you for the suggestion. It is now modified accordingly. - Abstract: Line 25: remove such Ans: It is now removed Line 26: remove the soil… Ans: It is now removed Line 27: remove That’s why… Ans: It is now removed Line 28: Four treatments were tested in the experiment: Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestions. Line 28: Four or eight treatments in total? Ans: There were 2 factors NPK and organic amendments. Four combinations of organic amendments were tested with and without NPK. It is now cleared in the manuscript. Line 29: NPK? Ans: It is now elaborated in full form and then abbreviations are used in the manuscript. Lines 31-32: Why do they give two figures, what does each one mean? Ans: It is because there were 2 comparisons one with NPK and the other without NPK i.e., BC0+VC0+NPK and control (BC0+VC0) respectively. Line 32: control without NPK? Ans: Yes, BC0+VC0 is a control that is without NPK. Lines 34-35: It is recommended, it does not sound like the conclusion of a job, to rewrite the conclusion. Ans: It is now modified as per the suggestion of the reviewer. Lines 35-37: The best? compared to what? To rewrite. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestions. - Introduction: Lines 41: is a principal Kharif? Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 45: an extra-space. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Lines 46-47: rewrite. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 48: One hundred g… After a point, write numbers with letters, here and throughout the text. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 58: remove and ash in different quantities. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 58: an extra-space. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 59: carbon evolution? What does it mean? Ans: It is now corrected for more and clear understanding. Line 73-75: rewrite. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. - Materials and Methods: Lines 82-83: rewrite sentence: Field trial was done in the Peshawar research farm, University of Agriculture, during summer 2020... Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Lines 85-86: How many plants per treatment? Ans: The dimensions are already provided which specified the plant population. However, from each plot minimum of 3 plants were maintained for the collection of data. Line 86: rewrite: Maize hybrid pioneer 3025w variety were used in the experiment… Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 94: Eight treatments in total… Ans: It is now corrected as “Total four combinations of VC and BC were applied with and without NPK in three replicates”. Line 111: 50 ml, 10 g, here and throughout the text. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 111: Then, the… Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 112: shaking. After, the … Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. - Results: Add subheadings to the results section to make them easier to read and understand. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 138: BC1? not only VC1+BC1. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Line 148-149: it would be better to give the averages together with the standard deviation obtained, it would be more useful data, and throughout the text. Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. However, all the graphs are already showing that data. - Discussion: Line 252: pyrolysis. The Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. - Conclusions: - Lines 287-288: Eliminate “Growers are recommended to apply VC1+BC1+NPK for the 287 achievement of better maize yield in low fertility status soils”, since you later mention that more studies are necessary to be able to ensure this. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. - Figures: Figures 1-4: edit them, they are very close together and it does not allow to analyze each graph separately. Also place letter of the figure outside of it. Ans: All the figures are software generated and are programmed at a specific pattern. We can not edit that becaused lettering is already selected outside the bars. Figure 5: Small edit significant differences. Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. Figure 6: This analysis was not done for the NKP? Ans: It is now corrected as per suggestion. REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1. Why authors have selected these levels of vermicompost and biochar for study. Ans: Organic amendments are gaining attention with each passing day. Poor soil organic matter is creating many problems for the achievement of better crops yield and productivity. On the other hand, increasing cost and health related issues of inorganic fertilizers are also creating the situation critical. That’s why to improve the soil health on sustainable basis and keeping in mind the environmental benefits current study was planned with the use of organic amendments biochar and vermicompost. 2. Give GPS location of the experiment. Ans: Thank you so much for pointing out this mistake. The details are now incorporated as “The ﬁeld experiment was established at research farm the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan (34.1°’21” N, 71°28’5’E)”. 3. No data is provided regarding the characterization of biochar and vermicompost. Please provide that. Ans: Thank you so much for pointing out this mistake. It is now provided as “Biochar produced had total C, N and P content of 67.3%, 1.03% and 0.21% respectively (C:N 65.34), pH 8.2”. 4. How biochar was manufactured. Please elaborate. Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript now as “Biochar was produced by pyrolysis of locally available mixed wood chips (hardwood) in a muffle furnace (450 ˚C for 4 h) and was grinded before applying to the field. The following reference is now also provided in the manuscript” Irfan, M., Mudassir, M., Khan, M.J. et al. Heavy metals immobilization and improvement in maize (Zea mays L.) growth amended with biochar and compost. Sci Rep 11, 18416 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97525-8. 5. From where vermicompost was collected. Either it was self-developed or commercial product. If it was commercial product then give batch number and manufacturer details. Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript now as “Crop residue and garden waste was used to prepare vermicompost. On partial composting, Eisenia fetida were introduced and the vermicompost (with pH 6.2, Total C 23.2%, Total N 1.30%, C:N 12.21, Total P 0.89%, mg kg-1 , bulk density 1.12 Mg m-3 and water holding capacity of 55.18%) was ready after 90 days.” 6. Please provide details of N, P and K sources which were applied. Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript now as “Basal dose of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) was soiled @ 120-90-60 kg ha-1 from urea, single superphosphate and sulphate of potash. A full dose of P, K and ½ N were soiled just before sowing and incorporated/mixed and another ½ N was soiled after 35 days of the emergence of the crop with irrigation water. All the cultural and agronomic observes retained during the growing season”. 7. What was maize irrigation plan? Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript now as “During the maize growing season, six irrigation events were applied, with each event being equivalent to 75 mm, except the first (pre-planting) which was equivalent to 100 mm.” 8. Give reference for the applied fertilizer dozes. Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript now as “Khan, S.; Shah, Z.; Mian, I.A.; Dawar, K.; Tariq, M.; Khan, B.; Mussarat, M.; Amin, H.; Ismail, M.; Ali, S.; Shah, T.; Alamri, S.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Adnan, M.; Romman, M.; Fahad, S.; Nouman, A.; Kamal, A. Soil Fertility, N2 Fixation and Yield of Chickpea as Influenced by Long-Term Biochar Application under Mung–Chickpea Cropping System. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9008. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219008.” 9. Please provide pre-experimental soil NPK data. Without that fertilizer application rates cannot be assessed. Ans: Ans: Thank you for your suggestion. The details are provided in the manuscript in table 1. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-03141 Reviewer Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267483.r002
11 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of vermicompost and biochar PONE-D-22-03141R1 Dear Dr. Danish, 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, Shahid Farooq, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing the comments. I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in Plos One. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267483.r003
Formally Accepted
3 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Shahid Farooq, Editor PONE-D-22-03141R1 Maize productivity and soil nutrients variations by the application of vermicompost and biochar Dear Dr. Danish: 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.0267483.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 .