PONE-D-22-01407Unbalanced Fertilizer Use in the Eastern Gangetic Plain: the Influence of Government Recommendations, Fertilizer Type, Farm Size and Cropping PatternsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam,

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 Apr 10 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,

Dibyendu Chatterjee, 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 Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[The authors gratefully acknowledge the “Nutrient Management for Diversified Cropping in Bangladesh (NUMAN)” project and Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) for financial and technical support.]

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. 

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: 

 [Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and Krishi Gobeshona Foundation (KGF), Bangladesh. ACIAR grant number: LWR/2016/136 & KGF grant number: (CN/FRPP):-ICP-II.]

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

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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:

This research paper describes the reason behind the yield gap in Bangladesh. Please address the following issues: (i) to improve the synchronization between the paragraphs in Introduction, (ii) ambiguity of cropping system is to be addressed, (iii) Results need to be more specific and irrelevant information may be omitted in Results and Discussion, (iv) The authors should highlight the reason behind the higher P application (overdose) by small and marginal farmers. Also, the reason behind 16-90% over dose of NPK. (v) Lack of more detailed information about the approaches by the Government.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 manuscript "Unbalanced Fertilizer Use in the Eastern Gangetic Plain: the Influence of Government Recommendations, Fertilizer Type, Farm Size and Cropping Patterns" is written well. It is interesting and useful for researchers, farmers and policy makers of Bangladesh.

I recommend to improve the figures quality.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author

The paper is important from the view point of policy guidelines. Farmers generally apply fertilizer based on crop requirement, market price, subsidy, climate etc. The fact that FRG 18 has higher values for NPK than 12 indicate that there were requirement for higher NPK doses for crops. Further two FRG guidelines created confusion, you must focus on only one. If we considerer farmers wise, they will apply fertilizer until they will get some good response, else not. However, they may apply more of one and less of another based on availability, crop response and amount to be invested. If there is subsidy on fertilizer, why farmers applied less of micronutrients and K. I am surprised to see that even small and marginal farmers applied over dose of P fertilizer. Explain what could be the reason? Also you told that there were in general 16-90% over dose of NPK used by different categories of farmers? What's their proportionate yield and income enhancement? Whether subsidy on fertilizer is blanket ? Or its based on certain principles say for a farmers cultivating X ha land will he get Y amount subsidy? or its subsidy on all amount they want to apply? You mentioned in line no 474 that there is lack of trust on Govt recommendation? What could be the reason? How its addressed by the concerned Dept? Whats the novelty of the study and also scientific basis? I find its more of a technology Gap or lack of awareness among farmers due to inappropriate extension activities. There should be pilot scale demonstrations on recommended doses and the farmers should be made aware by their visit and hands on in such study areas. A detail and critical analysis on impact of over or less use is required on productivity, income, envt pollution and Govt schemes on subsidy for its future rationalization. Whether Govt recommendation is based on STCR (soil test crop response), or any other scientific approaches?

THANK YOU

Reviewer #3: In this article, Islam et al. has highlighted the unbalanced fertilizer use scenario in Bangladesh with respect to govt. policies, farm size, and cropping pattern. The article is well designed, executed, discussed and concluded. It fairly widens the knowledge on causes behind yield gaps in major cropping patterns in Bangladesh. However, it requires a few minor rectifications before it can be considered for publication. Some of my main criticisms are as follows:

1. Abstract is satisfactory

2. Introduction

The introduction provides sufficient background information. However, it lacks synchrony between the paragraphs. Please improve readability and linkages between the paragraphs in this section.

There is no clear indication of objectives; instead the authors merely highlight what they were intended to.

Please check the sequence of citations……..it starts with [8]!.

3. M&M

I find ambiguity in the represented sequence of crops in the cropping patterns. A cropping pattern should represent the crops cultivated from beginning of a calendar year not from the end of it. For example, monsoon rice is always cultivated ahead of irrigated rice in a calendar year; so the cropping pattern should represent as: monsoon rice-irrigated rice-fallow. The other cropping pattern should be: maize (summer)-monsoon rice (rainy)-potato (winter). I suggest to comply with it in whole MS.

L94-102: Please provide grid information for the experimental sites.

L100: Add citation to the sampling procedure.

4. Results

Descriptive statistics: Sentences are very clumsy with poor readability. Please recast sentences to improve clarity.

In a few instances, results are discussed (e.g., L340-342), which should be avoided. Otherwise, the results are too descriptive in nature and efforts are needed to shorten its length as far as possible.

5. Discussion

L371-393: Unnecessary paragraphs and should be omitted. A part may go to M&M section.

Why have the authors placed Table 5 in discussion section? It should go to M&M section.

L433-436: The authors must not confuse between HYVs and hybrids! Be precise.

L576-591: This part of discussion seems unnecessary. These are fallout of the imbalanced fertilizer uses and a part of it is already highlighted in introduction. I would suggest to erase this part, along with environmental loss scenario in heading.

6. Conclusion is satisfactory

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-22-01407R1Unbalanced fertilizer use in the Eastern Gangetic Plain: The influence of Government recommendations, fertilizer type, farm size and cropping patternsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam,

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 Jul 30 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,

Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

You have addressed all the comments and suggestions of reviewer 1 and 2. Please address some minor comments by reviewer 2.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Dear Author

Thank you very much for addressing most of the issues. However, you must mention some assessment about how much is yield or income enhancement due to overuse of fertilizer over the recommended one by the govt.? Also give your own assessment the impact of blanket subsidy to all group of farmers and also on possible enhancement in productivity, food security and economical impact.

Thank you

Reviewer #3: The authors have successfully addressed my queries to a large extent. Now, the MS can be accepted for publication.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Sovan Debnath

**********

[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.

Unbalanced fertilizer use in the Eastern Gangetic Plain: The influence of Government recommendations, fertilizer type, farm size and cropping patterns

PONE-D-22-01407R2

Dear Dr. Alam,

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,

Dibyendu Chatterjee, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: