PONE-D-24-06097Transpiration efficiency variations in the pearl millet reference collection PMiGAPPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vadez,

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. The reviewers recommend reconsideration of your manuscript following minor revision. I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the comments below.  Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 22 2024 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,

Somashekhar Mallikarjun Punnuri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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: 

 [Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, grant ANR-17-MPGA-0011)].  

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 Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[LG and VV was supported by the Make Our Planet Great Again (MOPGA) ICARUS project (Improve Crops in Arid Regions and future climates) funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, grant ANR-17-MPGA-0011), by the Occitanie Region through a financial contribution to grant ANR-17-MPGA-0011, and by Montpellier University of Excellence (I-Site MUSE). JK was supported by the Internal grant agency of the Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, grant no. 2023B0005 (Oborově zaměřené datové modely pro podporu iniciativy Open Science a principu FAIR).]

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: 

 [Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, grant ANR-17-MPGA-0011)]. 

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

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data underlying the results presented in the study are available upon request from the corresponding author]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

6. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript "Transpiration efficiency variations in the pearl millet reference collection PMiGAP" by Gregoire and colleagues explains about variations in Transpiration Efficiency in pearl millet genotypes under well watered and water stress conditions. This study highlights different source of variation in transpiration and contribution of the trait to grain yield. Overall the manuscript is well written. Data is reliable and sufficient to explain the importance of trait under well water and water stress conditions. The data is important for further studies such as association mapping to reveal genetic basis of trait. I enjoyed reading the manuscript. I recommend it for publication, provided some minor corrections may be incorporated in the current version. Figure are good quality. Typos at some places may be corrected in the revised version.

1. Line 30-32: Sentence is incomplete

2. Line 43-45: Sentence looks in contrast to Line 39.

3. Transpiration is well known avoidance strategy in plants. I think avoidance should be kept separate from tissue level tolerance where plant actually make change at the whole plant level to combat with stress condition. Hence, I suggest avoidance is better choice instead of tolerance

4. Line 166-168: For the better understanding of readers, it can be explained little more why genetic variation in root biomass would not impact transpiration efficiency. Also, its more relevant between WW and WS treatments.

5. Line 344-352: This is very interesting observation. Is there any data in this direction for example transpiration rate (other studies) which can be cited here?

6. Line 358-360: I think drought avoidance is a complex process and highly plastic. Also, plants may change their strategy depending upon the environment or timing and severity of stress. As a part of drought tolerance, drought avoidance through TE could be a valid strategy. However, root system architecture, soil texture would be major players to decide that (which is not part of this study).

Reviewer #2: The study is indeed one of its kind for TE work in Pearl millet. I recommend publication with minor revisions.

Please see below some minor comments for the authors:

Line 47 – Change “in” to “to”

Line 71 – …our study was then to.. – remove “then”

Line 109 – unit for grain yield should be g.plant-1

Line 114- …lysimetric system consisted in.. – replace “in” with “of”

Line 121 – specify what “DAP” stands for

Line 137 – specify what DAS stands for. All acronym should be explained as it full form when they appear for the first time

Line 185 – space between Exp 3

Line 319 – …a significant variation of… - replace “of” with “in”

Line 326 – add “ed” to stress – stressed

Line 361 – replace “could” with “should”

Line 377 – consider using the same acronyms. For example, Genotype x Irrigation interaction

Line 383 – should read “ was clearly more significant”

Line 384 – should read CO2.

Line 384 – provide evidence of differences in atmospheric CO2 to show differences between the years

Line 404 - …other crops such as sorghum panel…” connect the two sentences using “which showed that sorghum…”

Line 406 – Consider using.. “In this study…” the genetic background of….

Line 407 - ….”would be a way of improving out knowledge” about what?

Line 412 – “…currently the object…” Replace “object” with “objective”

Line 422 – Replace “was” with “were”

Line 485, 488 – Reference missing DOI – Be consistent in your referencing style

Reviewer #3: Grégoire et al. investigate transpiration efficiency (TE) in pearl millet, which is crucial for crop performance under water-limited conditions. Analyzing a diverse panel, including inbred lines and hybrids, they uncover significant variability in TE across different environments. TE emerges as a key determinant of grain yield, highlighting its importance in breeding programs. The study identifies promising avenues for future research, enhancing our understanding of pearl millet's resilience to water stress. Overall, this study provides valuable insights into pearl millet TE and its implications for breeding in water-stressed environments. However, there are areas that could be strengthened by providing additional justification and clarity before considering the manuscript for publication.

Lines 39-43: The introduction effectively establishes the importance of pearl millet as a drought-tolerant cereal however, it would enhance clarity to provide a brief definition or explanation of terminal drought stress for readers who may not be familiar with the term.

Lines 43-44: While stating that 'This abiotic stress has the most radical impact on pearl millet grain and forage yield, as well as yield stability,' it would strengthen the argument to quantify the extent of yield loss associated with this stress. Providing specific figures or percentages would enhance the reader's understanding of the magnitude of the impact.

Lines 46-49: The rationale for investigating TE as a key trait for improving drought tolerance in pearl millet is well-articulated. However, consider providing a bit more context on why the grain-filling stage is critical for drought tolerance in pearl millet to further emphasize the significance of TE in this context.

Line 114-121: Please provide the full form of the abbreviation used in the materials and method section for example PVC, DAP, DAS…….etc.

Line 116: “Alfisol” it would be beneficial to mention about what type of soil is alfisol, if it has any specific soil particle composition that is important for TE study????

Line 121: “DAP and MOP” , clearly mention the composition of NPK on them like you mentioned for Urea.

Line 138-142: Describe clearly about the water conditions in Exp 1 and Exp 3 like you did for Exp 2. If all genotyped planted in same water regimes, mention that as well. Was there any type of control in any of the experiments??If yes please mention them as well.

Line 162-163: “Forced air oven at 70 degree C” please mention the type , make and manufacturer of the oven used.

Line 170: Please be consistent with the unit used for TE (TE, g.kg-1) or (g. kg–1 water) or (g. biomass. kg water -1)

Line 195-198: Be consistent “among genotypes” or “among entires”

Line 112: “Acronym ‘ns’ means non-significant” mention similarly for NA

Line 247: “which also reflected the large GxYear interaction for TE (F-value = 1.5045, p= 0.0124, Table 2)”, I did not see GXYear in the table 2. If it is same as GXT, mention it clearly in the footnote.

Line 265-267: This result is not clear to me “Slightly more than twice as much water was needed to produce biomass under WW conditions than under WS conditions, resulting in a mean TE that was only slightly higher (7.5%) under WS than under WW (3.54 and 3.22 g.kg-1 respectively)”. Despite a significant difference in water use between well-watered (WW) and water-stressed (WS) conditions, the mean TE was only slightly higher under WS compared to WW. This unexpected result contradicts the typical understanding that water-stressed conditions should lead to higher TE due to plants' physiological responses to conserve water. Additionally, the lack of correlation between TE and irrigation regimes further complicates the interpretation of the data. These inconsistencies raise questions about the accuracy of the measurements or the validity of the experimental setup, requiring further investigation and clarification.

Line 291-384: The issue here lies in the interpretation of the correlation between transpiration efficiency (TE) and the residual yield unexplained by harvest index (HI). While the correlation values suggest a relationship between TE and yield, attributing causality solely to TE might be misleading. The statement implies that TE directly affects yield beyond the influence of HI, but it overlooks potential confounding factors or alternative explanations for the observed correlations.

Fig 2: Supplementary table 2 shows the number of lines in hybrid group (14A1,14A and 12B) different than in supplementary table 1 (14A1,13A and 13B. Which data was used for this figure write correct numbers of line used.

********** 

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: Yes: Rajeev Nayan Bahuguna

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Transpiration efficiency variations in the pearl millet reference collection PMiGAP

PONE-D-24-06097R1

Dear Dr. Vadez,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Vanessa Carels

Staff 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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all the comments thoroughly. The revisions made have significantly improved the clarity and depth of the manuscript. Each point raised in the initial review has been carefully considered and responded to in detail. I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********