Effects of nutrient supply on leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plants

Dong-Wei Yu; Su-Juan Duan; Xiao- Chao Zhang; Da-Qiu Yin; Shi-Jun Wang; Jin-Song Chen; Ning-Fei Lei

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278656

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 16, 2022
11 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Xiao Guo, Editor PONE-D-22-22959Effects of nutrient supply on leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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 Nov 25 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, Xiao Guo, 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. 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: The authors compared the leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plants in response to nutrient supply. The topic has potential and would be of interest to ecologists and Invasion biologists. I agree with both reviewers and recommend minor revision. [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 the paper, the authors addressed the effects of nutrient supply on their leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate. As I know, the researches on the correlationship bewteen leaf stoichiometry of alien clonal plants are scarce. In this sense, this manuscript is a very good paper. Additionally, the experiment is also well designed and results are also very interesting. However, there are a couple of points that will need to be added or improved. Line 2, “change” should be “changes”. Line 7-8， “leaf” should be “leaves” Line 10，“level” should be “levels”。 Line 10 and Line 12，“correlationship” should be “correlation”。 Line 14， “may be play an important role….” should be “may play an important role….”or “maybe play an important role….”。 Line 20， “plant” should be “plants”。 Line 29， “similar pattern” should be “the similar pattern”. Line 37， “such as microbe” should be “such as microbes”。 Line 49， “bewteen” should be “between”。 Line 81， “was applied in the experiment” should be “were applied in the experiment”。 Line 84， “pH of nutrient” should be “The pH of nutrient”。 Line 104-106， “The classification of H values is” should be “classifications of H values are” Line 106-107, “it often is” should be “it is often”. Line 106-107, “fit” should be “fitting”. Line 146， Fig 1 “supply ” should be “supplies”。 Line 207-209，“decreased in plant subjected high” should be “decreased in plants subjected to high”. Line 212, “Comparing with” should be “Compared with”. Line 214, “N:P ratio in leaf of was” should be “N:P ratio in leaf was”. Line 215-216, “more studies are need” should be “more studies are needed”. Line 215-216, “between N:P ration” should be “between N:P ratio”. Line 220-221, “presented positive influence” should be “presented a positive influence”. Line 224, “growth rate of plant and its leaf N:P ratio” should be “growth rate of plants and the N:P ratio”. Line 230, “nutrientsupply” should be “nutrients supply”. Line 234, “Jinagxi Province” should be “Jiangxi”. Line 240， “ may be play” should be “ may play” or “maybe play”. Reviewer #2: The manuscript described leaf stoichiometry of three alien plant species subjected to different N/P availability. The results provided evidence on relationship between leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate. However，correlations between relative growth rate and N: P ratio of the leaf could be affected by species as well as nutrient supply. Overall, the article is well organized. The study may be helpful to understand effects of leaf stoichiometry on invasion of the three alien plants. In addition, some modifications are still needed to improve quality of the manuscript.If possible, the authors might polish the language in the manuscript with the help of a native English speaker. Abstract: Line6: ”N1:1 mmol L-1” . The expression is not clear on what is added. Line 7-9: Throughout the manuscript, author refer to nutrient ‘contents’. I think it would be more accurate to refer to nutrient ‘concentrations’ in the plant tissue. Line 14: Local abundance of species was not studied and the grammar of this sentence has error. Introduction: Line 19-20: There are many other mechanisms by which plants adapt to nitrogen and phosphorus deficient soils. It would be useful to briefly discuss these before focusing on leaf stoichiometry. Line 24-25：In introduction, leaf stoichiometry would be changed by different nitrogen and phosphorus supply. The pattern is inconsistent among different plants. It is suggested that author may reorganize the sentence to express clearly. Line 48-49: The sentence is difficult to understand. It is suggested that author rewrite the sentence to express clearly. Materials and methods: Further detail on the three species is not enough. It is suggested that more details on the three species are needed, for example, their invasive potential in China. Tables and Figures: The units for relative growth rate (i.e. g g–1 d–1) should be g day–1 (growth per day)? Language editing: Line 2, change “change” into “changes”. Line 7-8, change “leaf” into “leaves” Line 10, change “level” into “levels” Line 40, change “……, positive correlation between……” into “……, a positive correlation between……” Line 43, change “……between N:P ratio of leaf and…..” into “…..between N:P ratios of leaves and…..” Line 45, change “Invasion of alien plants is a severe threat to biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” into “The invasion of alien plants severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” Line 49，change “bewteen” into “between” Line 65, change “stolen” into “stolon”. Line 67, change “Each node along stolon of…..” into “Each node along the stolon of…..”. Line 81，change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” Line 158, change “diffdifferences” into “differences”. Line 158, change “Table 2 and 4” into “Tables 2 and 4” Line 234, change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi”. ****** 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: comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r001
Revision 1
30 Oct 2022 Author Response Dear Editors: Thank for comments from two anonymous reviewers. Those comments are very valuable for revising and improving our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to comments. All changes have been marked in red. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are as following: Reviewer#1: 1. Line 2, “change” should be “changes”. We change “change” into “changes” 2. Line 7-8， “leaf” should be “leaves”. We change “leaf” into “leaves” 3. Line 10，“level” should be “levels”. We change “level” into “levels” 4. Line 10 and Line 12，“correlationship” should be “correlation”. We change “correlationship” into “correlation” 5. Line 14， “may be play an important role….” should be “may play an important role….”or “maybe play an important role….”.We change “may be play an important role….” Into “maybe play an important role….” 6. Line 20， “plant” should be “plants”. We change “plant” into “plants” 7. Line 29， “similar pattern” should be “the similar pattern”. We change “similar pattern” into “the similar pattern” 8. Line 37， “such as microbe” should be “such as microbes”. We change “such as microbe” into “such as microbes” 9. Line 49， “bewteen” should be “between”. We change “bewteen” into “between” 10. Line 81， “was applied in the experiment” should be “were applied in the experiment”. We change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” 11. Line 84， “pH of nutrient” should be “The pH of nutrient”. We change “pH of nutrient” into “The pH of nutrient” 12. Line 104-106， “The classification of H values is” should be “classifications of H values are”. We change “The classification of H values is” into “classifications of H values are” 13. Line 106-107, “it often is” should be “it is often”. We change “it often is” into “it is often” 14. Line 106-107, “fit” should be “fitting”. We change “fit” into “fitting” 15. Line 146， Fig 1 “supply ” should be “supplies”. We change “supply” into “supplies” 16. Line 207-209，“decreased in plant subjected high” should be “decreased in plants subjected to high”. We change “decreased in plant subjected high” into “decreased in plants subjected to high” 17. Line 212, “Comparing with” should be “Compared with”. We change “Comparing with” into “Compared with” 18. Line 214, “N:P ratio in leaf of was” should be “N:P ratio in leaf was”. We change “N:P ratio in leaf of was” into “N:P ratio in leaf was”. 19. Line 215-216, “more studies are need” should be “more studies are needed”. We change “more studies are need” into “more studies are needed” 20. Line 215-216, “between N:P ration” should be “between N:P ratio”. We change “between N:P ration” into “between N:P ratio” 21. Line 220-221, “presented positive influence” should be “presented a positive influence”. We change “presented positive influence” into “presented a positive influence” 22. Line 224, “growth rate of plant and its leaf N:P ratio” should be “growth rate of plants and the N:P ratio”. We change “growth rate of plant and its leaf N:P ratio” into “growth rate of plants and the N:P ratio” 23. Line 230, “nutrient supply” should be “nutrients supply”. We change “nutrient supply” into “nutrients supply” 24. Line 234, “Jinagxi Province” should be “Jiangxi”. We change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi” 25. Line 240， “ may be play” should be “ may play” or “maybe play”. We change “may be play” into “maybe play” Reviewer#2: 1. Line6: “N1:1 mmol L-1”. The expression is not clear on what is added. Details on the nitrogen or phosphorus supply were mentioned in the sentence (line83-85). 2. Line 7-9: Throughout the manuscript, author refer to nutrient ‘contents’. I think it would be more accurate to refer to nutrient ‘concentrations’ in the plant tissue. We change ‘contents’ into ‘concentrations’ 3. Line 14: Local abundance of species was not studied and the grammar of this sentence has error. Significant correlation between invasion ability and relative growth rate was not observed in the three alien plants. So, it is suggested that local abundance of species, human activities, invasive history et al may play an important role in invasion of alien plants as well as relative growth rate. 4. Line 19-20: There are many other mechanisms by which plants adapt to nitrogen and phosphorus deficient soils. It would be useful to briefly discuss these before focusing on leaf stoichiometry. N:P ratio is a critical indicator of nutrient limitation (N vs P) in the terrestrial ecosystem. Leaf stoichiometry can reflect nutrient allocation strategy, growth strategy and expanding ability of invasive plants. 5. Line 24-25：In introduction, leaf stoichiometry would be changed by different nitrogen and phosphorus supply. The pattern is inconsistent among different plants. It is suggested that author may reorganize the sentence to express clearly. We rewritten the sentence into “Different nitrogen and phosphorus supply bring about changes of leaf stoichiometry, and these changes are various among different plants”. 6. Line 48-49: The sentence is difficult to understand. It is suggested that author rewrite the sentence to express clearly. We rewritten the sentence into “However, the clear relationship between nutrient absorption capacity of alien plants and their expanding ability was not established in other studies”. 7. In the section of materials and methods, further detail on the three species is not enough. It is suggested that more details on the three species. More information on the three alien plants was supplemented in line54-56 and line237-242. 8. In the section of tables and figures, the units for relative growth rate (i.e. g g–1 d–1) should be g day–1 (growth per day)? We have made correction according to the comments. 9. Line 2, change “change” into “changes”. We change “change” into “changes” 10. Line 7-8, change “leaf” into “leaves”. We change “leaf” into “leaves” 11. Line 10, change “level” into “levels”. We change “level” into “levels”. 12. Line 40, change “……, positive correlation between……” into “……, a positive correlation between……”. We change “……, positive correlation between……” into “……, a positive correlation between……”. 13. Line 43, change “……between N:P ratio of leaf and…..” into “…..between N:P ratios of leaves and…..”. We change “……between N:P ratio of leaf and…..” into “…..between N:P ratios of leaves and…..”. 14. Line 45, change “Invasion of alien plants is a severe threat to biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” into “The invasion of alien plants severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” We change “Invasion of alien plants is a severe threat to biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” into “The invasion of alien plants severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” 15. Line 49，change “bewteen” into “between”. We change “bewteen” into “between”. 16. Line 65, change “stolen” into “stolon”. We change “stolen” into “stolon”. 17. Line 67, change “Each node along stolon of…..” into “Each node along the stolon of…..”. We change “Each node along stolon of…..” into “Each node along the stolon of…..”. 18. Line 81，change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” We change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” 19. Line 158, change “diffdifferences” into “differences”. We change “diffdifferences” into “differences” 20. Line 158, change “Table 2 and 4” into “Tables 2 and 4”. We change “Table 2 and 4” into “Tables 2 and 4”. 21. Line 234, change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi”. We change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi”. We greatly appreciate help from you and two anonymous referees again. We hope that the revised manuscript may be acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Dongwei Yu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r002
15 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Xiao Guo, Editor PONE-D-22-22959R1Effects of nutrient supply on leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plantsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chen, 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 Dec 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, Xiao Guo, 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. [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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: Manuscript PONE-D-22-22959R1 has been substantially improved after revision. The authors have satisfactorily responded to most of the comments in my previous report. Reviewer #2: All the comments have been addressed.The manuscript is relatively well-organized. I evaluated the manuscript and suggest for its 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r003
Revision 2
18 Nov 2022 Author Response Dear Editors: Thank for comments from two anonymous reviewers. Those comments are very valuable for revising and improving our manuscript. We have revised the manuscript according to comments. All changes have been marked in red. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are as following: Reviewer#1: 1. Line 2, “change” should be “changes”. We change “change” into “changes” 2. Line 7-8， “leaf” should be “leaves”. We change “leaf” into “leaves” 3. Line 10，“level” should be “levels”. We change “level” into “levels” 4. Line 10 and Line 12，“correlationship” should be “correlation”. We change “correlationship” into “correlation” 5. Line 14， “may be play an important role….” should be “may play an important role….”or “maybe play an important role….”.We change “may be play an important role….” Into “maybe play an important role….” 6. Line 20， “plant” should be “plants”. We change “plant” into “plants” 7. Line 29， “similar pattern” should be “the similar pattern”. We change “similar pattern” into “the similar pattern” 8. Line 37， “such as microbe” should be “such as microbes”. We change “such as microbe” into “such as microbes” 9. Line 49， “bewteen” should be “between”. We change “bewteen” into “between” 10. Line 81， “was applied in the experiment” should be “were applied in the experiment”. We change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” 11. Line 84， “pH of nutrient” should be “The pH of nutrient”. We change “pH of nutrient” into “The pH of nutrient” 12. Line 104-106， “The classification of H values is” should be “classifications of H values are”. We change “The classification of H values is” into “classifications of H values are” 13. Line 106-107, “it often is” should be “it is often”. We change “it often is” into “it is often” 14. Line 106-107, “fit” should be “fitting”. We change “fit” into “fitting” 15. Line 146， Fig 1 “supply ” should be “supplies”. We change “supply” into “supplies” 16. Line 207-209，“decreased in plant subjected high” should be “decreased in plants subjected to high”. We change “decreased in plant subjected high” into “decreased in plants subjected to high” 17. Line 212, “Comparing with” should be “Compared with”. We change “Comparing with” into “Compared with” 18. Line 214, “N:P ratio in leaf of was” should be “N:P ratio in leaf was”. We change “N:P ratio in leaf of was” into “N:P ratio in leaf was”. 19. Line 215-216, “more studies are need” should be “more studies are needed”. We change “more studies are need” into “more studies are needed” 20. Line 215-216, “between N:P ration” should be “between N:P ratio”. We change “between N:P ration” into “between N:P ratio” 21. Line 220-221, “presented positive influence” should be “presented a positive influence”. We change “presented positive influence” into “presented a positive influence” 22. Line 224, “growth rate of plant and its leaf N:P ratio” should be “growth rate of plants and the N:P ratio”. We change “growth rate of plant and its leaf N:P ratio” into “growth rate of plants and the N:P ratio” 23. Line 230, “nutrient supply” should be “nutrients supply”. We change “nutrient supply” into “nutrients supply” 24. Line 234, “Jinagxi Province” should be “Jiangxi”. We change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi” 25. Line 240， “ may be play” should be “ may play” or “maybe play”. We change “may be play” into “maybe play” Reviewer#2: 1. Line6: “N1:1 mmol L-1”. The expression is not clear on what is added. Details on the nitrogen or phosphorus supply were mentioned in the sentence (line83-85). 2. Line 7-9: Throughout the manuscript, author refer to nutrient ‘contents’. I think it would be more accurate to refer to nutrient ‘concentrations’ in the plant tissue. We change ‘contents’ into ‘concentrations’ 3. Line 14: Local abundance of species was not studied and the grammar of this sentence has error. Significant correlation between invasion ability and relative growth rate was not observed in the three alien plants. So, it is suggested that local abundance of species, human activities, invasive history et al may play an important role in invasion of alien plants as well as relative growth rate. 4. Line 19-20: There are many other mechanisms by which plants adapt to nitrogen and phosphorus deficient soils. It would be useful to briefly discuss these before focusing on leaf stoichiometry. N:P ratio is a critical indicator of nutrient limitation (N vs P) in the terrestrial ecosystem. Leaf stoichiometry can reflect nutrient allocation strategy, growth strategy and expanding ability of invasive plants. 5. Line 24-25：In introduction, leaf stoichiometry would be changed by different nitrogen and phosphorus supply. The pattern is inconsistent among different plants. It is suggested that author may reorganize the sentence to express clearly. We rewritten the sentence into “Different nitrogen and phosphorus supply bring about changes of leaf stoichiometry, and these changes are various among different plants”. 6. Line 48-49: The sentence is difficult to understand. It is suggested that author rewrite the sentence to express clearly. We rewritten the sentence into “However, the clear relationship between nutrient absorption capacity of alien plants and their expanding ability was not established in other studies”. 7. In the section of materials and methods, further detail on the three species is not enough. It is suggested that more details on the three species. More information on the three alien plants was supplemented in line54-56 and line237-242. 8. In the section of tables and figures, the units for relative growth rate (i.e. g g–1 d–1) should be g day–1 (growth per day)? We have made correction according to the comments. 9. Line 2, change “change” into “changes”. We change “change” into “changes” 10. Line 7-8, change “leaf” into “leaves”. We change “leaf” into “leaves” 11. Line 10, change “level” into “levels”. We change “level” into “levels”. 12. Line 40, change “……, positive correlation between……” into “……, a positive correlation between……”. We change “……, positive correlation between……” into “……, a positive correlation between……”. 13. Line 43, change “……between N:P ratio of leaf and…..” into “…..between N:P ratios of leaves and…..”. We change “……between N:P ratio of leaf and…..” into “…..between N:P ratios of leaves and…..”. 14. Line 45, change “Invasion of alien plants is a severe threat to biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” into “The invasion of alien plants severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” We change “Invasion of alien plants is a severe threat to biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” into “The invasion of alien plants severely threatens biodiversity and ecosystem worldwide.” 15. Line 49，change “bewteen” into “between”. We change “bewteen” into “between”. 16. Line 65, change “stolen” into “stolon”. We change “stolen” into “stolon”. 17. Line 67, change “Each node along stolon of…..” into “Each node along the stolon of…..”. We change “Each node along stolon of…..” into “Each node along the stolon of…..”. 18. Line 81，change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” We change “was applied in the experiment” into “were applied in the experiment” 19. Line 158, change “diffdifferences” into “differences”. We change “diffdifferences” into “differences” 20. Line 158, change “Table 2 and 4” into “Tables 2 and 4”. We change “Table 2 and 4” into “Tables 2 and 4”. 21. Line 234, change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi”. We change “Jinagxi Province” into “Jiangxi”. We greatly appreciate help from you and two anonymous referees again. We hope that the revised manuscript may be acceptable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Dongwei Yu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r004
22 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Xiao Guo, Editor Effects of nutrient supply on leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plants PONE-D-22-22959R2 Dear Dr. Chen, 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, Xiao Guo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r005
Formally Accepted
25 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Xiao Guo, Editor PONE-D-22-22959R2 Effects of nutrient supply on leaf stoichiometry and relative growth rate of three stoloniferous alien plants Dear Dr. Chen: 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. Xiao Guo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278656.r006

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 .