Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 29, 2022
Decision Letter - Ali Tan Kee Zuan, Editor

PONE-D-22-21385Unlocking lettuce yield potential by Aspergillus niger inoculationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mendes,

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:Both reviewers have agreed that the title of the manuscript should be improved to reflect the content.Some minor amendments are needed as indicated by both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 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,

Ali Tan Kee Zuan, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3.Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), grant number APQ-01842-17 to GOM, the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), grant number 407793/2021-6 to GOM, and NOOA Ciência e Tecnologia Agrícola Ltda, grant to GOM and PVS. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: a) Research support by the company NOOA Ciência e Tecnologia Agrícola Ltda to PVS and GOM, although the company had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript; b) Patent application by the Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais, and NOOA Ciência e Tecnologia Agrícola Ltda; inventors GOM et al.; application number BR 10 2020 000628 2, status: under analysis; specific aspect of manuscript covered in patent application: granular formulation of A. niger used in experiments. All other authors do not have any conflict of interest to declare."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please respond by return email with your amended Competing Interests Statement and we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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.

[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: In my opinion, the title of this manuscript should be changed to give more focus and emphasis on high-throughput phenotyping methods based on aerial images to determine the effect of microorganism inoculation on plant growth. The technique has potential for large-scale cropland surveys.

Line 141: Sample of the orthoimage in Figure 1 is missing.

Line 263-265: The authors discuss the switch mechanisms of beneficial traits of inoculum and the host plant’s needs. A complete discussion of the mechanisms should be included in the manuscript (discussion section).

Line 302-307: Conclusion should be rewritten with additional emphasis on the potential of aerial imaging techniques to determine the effect of A. niger on growth of lettuce. In addition, the theory about switch mechanisms related to bacterial potency and the need of lettuce (host plants) needs to be explained in depth.

Reviewer #2: Title ambiguous, need to change, not reflected with objective

line 38-39, sentence to rephrase or some grammatical errors

line 46, ...diminish the gap in the crop yield potential.

line 47, to improve sentence.

line 115, by pipetting 3 mL per tray cell 30 min before planting. Need explain, not clear, how do you do this?

line 123-124, explain in detail, approx. size of one granule. how to direct contact with the seedling root?

Figures low resolution, improve it.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Point-by-point response to comments:

ACADEMIC EDITOR

Both reviewers have agreed that the title of the manuscript should be improved to reflect the content.

Some minor amendments are needed as indicated by both reviewers.

Authors: As suggested by reviewers, we changed the title to better fit the manuscript content. We also corrected all minor issues indicated by reviewers.

Reviewer #1

In my opinion, the title of this manuscript should be changed to give more focus and emphasis on high-throughput phenotyping methods based on aerial images to determine the effect of microorganism inoculation on plant growth. The technique has potential for large-scale cropland surveys.

Authors: We agree with you. We changed the title to give more emphasis on the phenotyping method based on aerial images.

Line 141: Sample of the orthoimage in Figure 1 is missing.

Authors: Sorry for the mistake. We included Fig 1 and hence renumbered the following figures.

Line 263-265: The authors discuss the switch mechanisms of beneficial traits of inoculum and the host plant’s needs. A complete discussion of the mechanisms should be included in the manuscript (discussion section).

Authors: We improved the discussion at this point, including more details about the mechanisms. See lines 269-273.

Line 302-307: Conclusion should be rewritten with additional emphasis on the potential of aerial imaging techniques to determine the effect of A. niger on growth of lettuce. In addition, the theory about switch mechanisms related to bacterial potency and the need of lettuce (host plants) needs to be explained in depth.

Authors: Conclusive paragraph was rewritten as suggested (lines 311-318). The theory about switching mechanisms was better discussed as well (lines 269-273).

Reviewer #2:

Title ambiguous, need to change, not reflected with objective

Authors: We changed the title to better fit the manuscript content.

line 38-39, sentence to rephrase or some grammatical errors

Authors: Rephrased. See lines 39-40.

line 46, ...diminish the gap in the crop yield potential.

Authors: Corrected. See line 47.

line 47, to improve sentence.

Authors: Sentence was rephrased. See lines 48-49.

line 115, by pipetting 3 mL per tray cell 30 min before planting. Need explain, not clear, how do you do this?

Authors: Text rephrased for clarity. See lines 115-117.

line 123-124, explain in detail, approx. size of one granule. how to direct contact with the seedling root?

Authors: We included a description of the shape of granules. Also, we have clarified the way we applied the granules to the seedling. See lines 124-126.

Figures low resolution, improve it.

Authors: We have reprocessed all figures using the PACE tool according to the PLOS guidelines.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ali Tan Kee Zuan, Editor

Field evaluation of the effect of Aspergillus niger on lettuce growth using conventional measurements and a high-throughput phenotyping method based on aerial images

PONE-D-22-21385R1

Dear Dr. Mendes,

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,

Ali Tan Kee Zuan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ali Tan Kee Zuan, Editor

PONE-D-22-21385R1

Field evaluation of the effect of Aspergillus niger on lettuce growth using conventional measurements and a high-throughput phenotyping method based on aerial images

Dear Dr. Mendes:

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. Ali Tan Kee Zuan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .