PONE-D-23-38654Improving semi-arid agroecosystem services with cover crop mixesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moore, After careful consideration of your manuscript titled, we appreciate the effort you've invested in the research and the quality of your submission. However, before we can proceed with publication, there are significant revisions required to enhance the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of your work.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 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,

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Subject: Review Report And Suggestions

Manuscript ID “PONE-D-23-38654 ”

“Improving semi-arid agroecosystem services with cover crop mixes”

General Comments.

It is my pleasure to review the manuscript with the ID "Pone-D-23-38654" titled " Improving semi-arid agroecosystem services with cover crop mixes" submitted to the Journal of “PLOS ONE ”There is considerable value in this manuscript in providing insights into the interaction between soil health, cover crops, and soil amendments under low water conditions. This study is clearly explained in terms of experimental design and methodology. A structured presentation is provided for the results and findings. For the manuscript to be deemed well-written, a few technical matters need to be resolved.

I would like to provide my comments and suggestions for major revisions, as well as specific line references.

Technical Comments:

Clarification on Cover Crop Treatments (Lines 55-59):

In the Materials and Methods section, please describe more precisely the composition and purpose of each cover crop treatment (PH, SB, NF, etc.). By comparing the specific characteristics of each cover crop treatment, the reader will be able to better understand the differences between them.

Cover Crop Treatment Effects (Lines 65-68):

Provide an overview of the specific soil health and nutrient competition effects of each cover crop treatment. Analyzing and interpreting the results in more detail will lead to more accurate interpretations.

Temporal Changes in Soil Parameters (Lines 71-78):

The duration of the nine-week study should be discussed in relation to any changes in soil parameters observed over this period. Various factors may be responsible for this, including variations in soil moisture or nutrient levels.

Soil Properties Table (Lines 92-93):

Prepare a short summary of the key soil properties discussed in the manuscript (pH, EC, isotopic signature, etc.). It will be helpful for readers to have a quick reference to this table and will enhance clarity

Clarity on Inorganic Fertilizer Treatment (Lines 121-128):

Explain why inorganic fertilizers were chosen and the impact they were expected to have on soil fertility. Inorganic Fertilizer Treatment Modifications should be understood by the reader from this information.

Data Presentation (Lines 175-184):

When presenting key findings, consider using visual aids like graphs or charts in conjunction with textual descriptions. Providing visual representations of complex data can make it easier for people to understand and access.

Clarify the isotope analysis methodology (Lines 228-236):

This is especially apparent in the calculation of the Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) in

equations (lines 228-229, 231-232). In order to facilitate better understanding, please

provide a brief explanation or reference.

Statistical Analyses (Lines 247-251):

Describe more in detail how the statistical analyses were performed in R. Make sure you

Include a description of the specific tests conducted. Please provide the details on the data

that was used for each analysis, as well as any transformations that have been applied.

Moreover, As a result, statistical approaches will be more transparent due to the availability

of information.

Weed Biomass Regression Analysis (Lines 319-330):

Explain how weed biomass was determined by SB biomass (soil building mix) and NF biomass (nitrogen fixation mix). Provide an explanation of the significance of this analysis in relation to weed suppression. Signatures of 15N isotopes (lines 319-330):

Carbon Sequestration (Lines 428-432):

Discuss the inorganic fertilizer benefit of the cover crop treatments in regard to carbon sequestration. In regard to soil health and carbon capture, discuss the implications of this finding.

Conclusion Section (Lines 440-449):

It would be beneficial to provide more information regarding the superior performance of Soil Building Mix (SB) in comparison to other cover crop mixes. The potential implications of SB's performance for soil improvement and the reasons why SB outperformed others are discussed.

Figures:

Fig 2 (Lines 308-310):

Adding more descriptive labels to the x-axis and y-axis may improve the clarity of the chart. A clear explanation of each treatment abbreviation (CON, PH, SB, NF, MM) should appear in the legend.

Table 7 (Lines 337-339):

To improve the readability of the table, the formatting should be improved. Increase the clarity of the information conveyed in each column by adding more informative column headers.

As a result of addressing these minor suggestions, the manuscript's clarity and overall impact will be further enhanced. A thorough research effort by the authors is commendable, and I look forward to seeing the revised version in the near future.

Regarding my feedback, thank you for taking it into consideration.

Best Regards.

Reviewer #2: The study investigates the effect of different cover crop treatments (species mix for different faring goals) and fertility amendments (control, compost, and mineral fertilizer) on cover crop biomass production and composition, weed suppression, BNF, and soil C sequestration. The nine-week long experiment was conducted under a controlled environment in a greenhouse. I found the statistical data presentation is problematic. There are indications (for e.g., Fig 3) that the two main factors (cover crop and fertility treatments) may have significant interactions. However, the data analysis did not include investigating the interacting effects. The statistical analysis section mentions two-way ANOVA, but data presentation does not reflect that. For example, Fig 2 seems to be averaged across fertility treatments which can only be done if the main effect of fertility and interaction are not significant. Similarly, it is important to show the interaction between cover crop and fertility treatments in Fig 3. The discussion section is weak, sometimes very generic, and mostly focused on BNF. Additionally, I am not sure of using the term “soil C sequestration” for slight increase in soil C for some of the treatments during this 9-week experimental period. This could be a transient increase in active soil C fractions from cover crop rhizodeposits.

Other comments are:

L19-20: Presenting fertilizer rate as N-P-K is more typical than mass of formulation. Also applied to L123-124.

L28: Define “IF”.

L65-68: Complex and unclear. Consider rewriting.

L81: Express it as SI unit

L106: Experimental set up: It seems like compost and inorganic fertilizer were added before cover crop planting. Suh large amount of N and P application during cover crop phase is a concern from nutrient management aspect. Is this the typical practice in NHP wheat rotations with fallow or cover crop? Or fertilizer is generally applied to wheat?

L148: soil water adjustment to 7% was by mass or volume?

L224: you mean legumes absent?

L302-307: Please check the figure reference. It should be Fig 3.

L378-382: This is fundamental knowledge and can be deleted.

Table 7 is not completely visible.

**********

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: Aitezaz Ali Asad Shahani

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.

Improving semi-arid agroecosystem services with cover crop mixes

PONE-D-23-38654R1

Dear authors,

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,

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We are pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication. After thorough review, the reviewers have provided positive feedback, highlighting the significant contributions your work makes to the field. Congratulations!

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 #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 #3: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #3: (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 #3: No

**********