Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium formula fertilization on the yield and berry quality of blueberry

Xinyu Zhang; Shuangshuang Li; Xiaoli An; Zejun Song; Yunzheng Zhu; Yi Tan; Xiaolan Guo; Delu Wang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0283137

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 1, 2022
28 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Sushanta Kumar Naik, Editor PONE-D-22-30089Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium formula fertilization on the yield and quality of blueberry fruitPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 12 January 2023. 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, Sushanta Kumar Naik, PhD 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 update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “Author thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 31260192) for their financial support.” 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. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “Author thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 31260192) for their financial 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: “Author thanks the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 31260192) for their financial support.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Additional Editor Comments: Give justification that how a one-year trial conducting at a single experimental site is suitable to improve the production of blueberry outside that site. Several experiments need to be conducted across different agroecosystems due to varying yield-impacting factors to conclude for its recommendation. How is your present investigation justify the fertilizer recommendation across the region? Re-write the entire manuscript based on proper English usage or consult to a professional. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 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: This is a good attempt to show the importance of major nutrients in production and quality. However, some important aspects are missing in this manuscript which is mentioned below; • What is the basis of selection of three levels of N, P and K (based upon the recommendation like optimum, sub-optimum or soil test values etc.), as no information was provided on the soil properties. • Beside the primary nutrients, micro nutrient affects the quality very significantly, but nothing was informed in this aspect. • The experiment was carried out in 2014, the result presented is based on one year data or else. • The work was related with the application of N,P, K on yield and quality, but use/ recommendation of these fertilizer only, may create the imbalance of micro nutrient and other soil properties. Which is an important aspect that is missing • Based upon comprehensive score, it was recommended that F2 is superior but F4 and F9 is second and third, F2 and F4 were very similar. So it is better to compare the benefit cost ratio also before recommendation. Reviewer #2: In general, the manuscript needs extensive revision for English language and grammar by a professional. Page 1, title: … and potassium fertilization formula on the yield and berry quality of blueberry Page 2, line 21: …of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (P) in the field… From this line and throughout the rest text you must use the above abbreviations for the three nutrients. Page 2, line 23: blueberry fruits, aiming to optimize the amount of supplied fertilizers. Page 2, line 28: Even the treatment with the worst results (N2P3K1), … Page 2, line 30: times higher than the control, respectively. Page 2, line 33: blueberries was that including N 100 g/plant, P2O5 25 g/plant, K2O 25 g/plant, applied in the form of ammonium sulfate (472 g/plant), superphosphate (41 g/plant) and potassium sulfate (40 g/plant), respectively. Page 3, line 41: potassium are well-known mineral … development [1], and the application of fertilizers containing these elements can significantly improve the yield… Page 3, line 43-51: These lines must be written better. Page 3, line 58: but the yield per unit area and quality are not Page 4, line 65: “…they often have the problem …potassium fertilizer.” What do you mean? Page 4, line 68: fertilization affect negatively the yield Page 4, line 69: and the vegetative growth of blueberries is inhibited, or even damaged [17]. Page 4, line 71: cannot Page 4, line 72: but also it can improve their fruit… Page 4, line 76: have pointed out that applying conventional fertilizers without guidance, can lead to salt accumulation in soil and reduce… Page 4, line 77-78: Delete ‘by applying … habits [8].’ Page 4, line 80: single-nutrient fertilizer Page 5, line 83: rabbiteye blueberry cv. Brilliant plants, explores Page 5, line 85: test, aiming to optimize the Page 5, line 90: 2.1 Experimental site Page 5, line 91: Please add the geographic coordinates of this site Page 5, line 92: which is characterized by subtropical Page 5, line 95: Delete the second ‘soil’ Page 5, line 96-97: Express these values as per cent (%) Page 5, line 98: 2.2 Plant material Refer whether these plants were self-rooted or grafted. Were the trees trained with a single trunk or what? Page 5, line 99: Five -year-old rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ??? cv. Brightwell) plants Page 5, line 101: 2.3 Experimental design Refer the plantation distances among trees. Page 5, line 102: …under field conditions. Fertilizers containing N, P and K doses at three doses for each nutrient, three … Page 6, line 104: Non fertilized plants were used … Page 6, line 105: The fertilizers used were… Page 6, line 106-107: Delete the words ‘content’ Page 6, line 107: …63.2%), all of high chemical purity. Page 6, line 109: Do you mean ‘fruit production’ or ‘fruit set’? Page 6, line 110: What do you mean with ‘reducing fertilizer’? Page 6, line 110-111: The fertilizers were applied into a trench Page 6, line 112-113: canopy projection, mixed and covered with soil. Page 6, line 113: What you mean with ‘carried out’? Page 6, line 114: the experimental design is shown Page 7, Table 2: There are not all possible N-P-K combinations (eg N3P3K3). How did you select these ones? Page 7, Table 2: You have not explained what is orthogonal test design. Provide a relative reference. Page 7, Table 2: I propose the following legend: Table 2. Treatments of N, P and K with their dosages on blueberry plants. Page 7, Table 2: It would be better to present the doses of nutrients (N, P2O5, K2O) not the form of fertilizers (ammonium sulfate etc) Page 7, line 126: The Folin-Ciocalteu…method was used to establish …. (mg/g FW)[23]. Page 7, line 128: Replace ‘modified’ with ‘determined’ Page 8, line 133: Refer the type and model of the refractometer device. Page 8, line 136: …SPSS 18 software programs were used… Page 8, line 137: ANOVA and least significant difference (LSD) were applied to compare Page 8, line 138: Delete ‘calculate’ Page 8, line 139: levels was calculated and the principal …evaluation was used. Page 8, line 141: Results and Discussion Page 8, line 145: effects were observed in F2 and F6 treatments, which gave 8.67% higher values than ... Page 8, line 149: best fertilizer combinations affecting the fruit weight and yield… Page 9, line 152: P>K>N, respectively… Page 9, line 154: Delete ‘This is the’ Page 9, line 156: The Table 3 repeats data that has been already Page 9-10, line 156: In the Table 3, column ‘Code’, there is a Chinese character. Page 10, line 160, 166, 168: sugar: acid Page 10, line 172: titratable acidity of other Page 10, line 173: but there is no Page 11, line 174: effect was that of treatment F9 (17.07% lower than CK)(Fig 2. G) Page 11, line 176-177: F2 was significantly higher (36.36%) than CK… Page 11, line 180: is significantly higher (20.59%) than CK… Page 11, line 187: on the above-mentioned parameters of blueberry fruit is… Page 11, line 189: ,respectively. According… Page 12, line 194: Effect of different fertilization formulas on blueberry fruit quality. Page 12, line 196: Table 4. Orthogonal test on … Page 13, line 199: yield and berry quality of blueberry. Page 13, line 200: The yield and berry quality of blueberry were evaluated… Page 14, line 203-204: Limit to two decimal digits Page 14, line 212: treatments F2… Page 14, line 213: were ranked second. Page 14, line 215, 216, 218: and berry quality Page 14, line 217: Delete ‘which was also F2’ Page 15, table 5: Titratable acidity Page 16, line 223: yield and fruit quality of trees. Studies have shown that these nutrients and their… Page 16, line 226: improve fruit quality Page 16, line 233-234: it is not clear what you mean. Was the level of soil K in the region low? Page 16, line 235-236: In accordance, we found that … Page 16, line 237: titratable acidity in blueberry fruit. There was also significant improvement of the flavonoid… Page 16, line 238 and 240: sugar: acid Page 16, line 239: Delete ‘on’ Page 16, line 240: fertilizer on the soluble sugar content, Vc and sugar: acid ratio. Page 16, line 241: Since K can participate in… Page 17, line 242: sugar, it increases the sugar…promotes … Page 17, line 246: Replace ‘extremely’ with ‘highly’ Page 17, line 246: It was shown that the Page 17, line 248: It was shown that the Page 17, line 252: and applying more (but not excessive) P fertilizer … Page 17, line 252-253: Delete ‘but it does not mean adding excessive phosphorus fertilizer.’ Page 17, line 256: low demands for Page 17, line 259: and berry quality of blueberry, it is necessary to determine and apply the appropriate… Page 18, line 263: fertilization formula Page 18, line 264: but all treatments could improve them by … Page 18, line 265-266: Moreover, heavy fertilization does not mean … Page 18, line 267: Replace ‘obtain’ with ‘result in’ Page 18, line 271-275: Replace ‘that is, the best … potassium sulfate’ with ‘that is, 100, 25 and 25 g/plant of N, P2O5 and K2O, respectively.’ Page 18, line 277-281: It is not clear what you mean here. Rewrite it better. Page 19, references: All latin names of plants must be written in italics. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283137.r001
Revision 1
28 Jan 2023 Author Response We have consider all the suggestions and revised the manuscript as per reviewer comments. Response sheet is uploaded in separate file. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283137.r002
13 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Sushanta Kumar Naik, Editor PONE-D-22-30089R1Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium formula fertilization on the yield and berry quality of blueberryPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Delu Wang, 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 Mar 30 2023 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, Sushanta Kumar Naik, PhD 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) 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: 1. Soil pH is in acidic range, so significant amount of the applied phosphorus may be fixed in soil, so, whether, it is good to apply P fertilizer directly without any soil amendments. 2. It is still not mentioned in the manuscript that, what is the basis of selection of three levels of N, P and K, How you get the level 1. 3. Selection of recommendation should be based on the B: C ratio or some other important aspects. Which is not mentioned clearly? 4. Presentation of results in figures and tables are complicated, so, if possible convert it in simple form. Reviewer #2: There are yet some missing data as follows: Materials and methods If available, provide the mean nutrient status of tested plants before fertilizer treatments took place. If available, provide data about the fertilizers applied the year before experimentation. What were the plantation distances and plantation density (number of trees/ha) of the tested orchard? What about canopy training system and mean height of the tested trees? Page 2, line 11: Replace ‘plants’ with ‘species’ Page 2, bottom line: Replace ‘was’ with ‘were’ Discussion, line 11: Delete the word ‘fertilizer’ Conclusion, first line: …formula on blueberry fruit … Conclusion, bottom line: …of increasing N and K, and stabilizing P. ****** 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.0283137.r003
Revision 2
16 Feb 2023 Author Response Dear Editor: Sushanta Kumar Naik and Dear reviewers: Thank you very much for your useful comments and professional advice on our manuscript. We wish to give a sincere gratitude to referees for reviewing our paper carefully. These opinions help to improve academic rigor of our article, and we apologize for any inconveniences caused by these errors. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the response to the referees’ comments are listed point by point below: Reviewer #1: Comment 1: Soil pH is in acidic range, so significant amount of the applied phosphorus may be fixed in soil, so, whether, it is good to apply P fertilizer directly without any soil amendments. Reply 1: Thanks for your comment. Although a large amount of phosphorus is fixed in the soil under acidic conditions, it is not the best to apply phosphorus fertilizer directly. Because applying only one kind of fertilizer will aggravate the imbalance of soil nutrients. Moreover, a large number of studies have shown that compared with the single application of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, the combined application can significantly improve the fertilizer utilization rate. Comment 2: It is still not mentioned in the manuscript that, what is the basis of selection of three levels of N, P and K, How you get the level 1. Reply 2: Thanks for your comment. Select the three factors of N fertilizer, P fertilizer and K fertilizer, and set three levels for each factor according to Guo et al. [22], which has been added to line 3 on page 3 of the manuscript. Comment 3: Selection of recommendation should be based on the B: C ratio or some other important aspects. Which is not mentioned clearly? Reply 3: Thanks for your suggestion. It is calculated that the benefit-cost ratio of treating F2 and F4 is 16.13 and 15.87, respectively, so F2 processing is more recommended, and the relevant content has been added to lines 16-17 on page 6 of the manuscript. Comment 4: Presentation of results in figures and tables are complicated, so, if possible convert it in simple form. Reply 4: Thanks for your suggestion. But I can't find a better way to show the results. If possible, I hope you can give me some advice. Reviewer #2: There are yet some missing data as follows: Materials and methods Comment 1: If available, provide the mean nutrient status of tested plants before fertilizer treatments took place.If available, provide data about the fertilizers applied the year before experimentation.What were the plantation distances and plantation density (number of trees/ha) of the tested orchard?What about canopy training system and mean height of the tested trees? Reply 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We regret that we did not provide enough complete material information in the materials and methods section. First of all, the plantation distances and plantation density (number of trees/ha) of the tested orchard are 1.5m and 4444 trees/ha respectively, which have been added to lines 4-5 on page 3 of the manuscript. Secondly, as a response to the reviewers, we regret the lack of detailed data on the mean nutrient status of tested plants before fertilizer treatments took place, the data of the fertilizers applied the year before experimentation, the canopy training system and mean height of the tested trees. This is a mistake in our research. We will be more cautious in future research. Comment 2: Page 2, line 11: Replace ‘plants’ with ‘species’. Reply 2: Thanks for your suggestion. The relevant content has been revised in line 10 on page 2 of the manuscript. Comment 3: Page 2, bottom line: Replace ‘was’ with ‘were’. Reply 3: Thanks for your suggestion. The last line on page 2 of the manuscript has been revised. Comment 4: Discussion, line 11: Delete the word ‘fertilizer’. Reply 4: Thanks for your suggestion. Relevant contents are modified in line 11 of the discussion part of the manuscript. Comment 5: Conclusion, first line: …formula on blueberry fruit … Reply 5: Thanks for your suggestion. Relevant contents are revised in the first line of the conclusion of the manuscript. Comment 6: Conclusion, bottom line: …of increasing N and K, and stabilizing P. Reply 6: Thanks for your suggestion. The last line of the conclusion of the manuscript has been revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283137.r004
3 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Sushanta Kumar Naik, Editor Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium formula fertilization on the yield and berry quality of blueberry PONE-D-22-30089R2 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Sushanta Kumar Naik, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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: (No Response) ******** 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: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283137.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Mar 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sushanta Kumar Naik, Editor PONE-D-22-30089R2 Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium formula fertilization on the yield and berry quality of blueberry Dear Dr. Wang: 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. Sushanta Kumar Naik Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283137.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 .