Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system

Zelalem Addis; Tadele Amare; Bitewlgn Kerebih; Anteneh Abewa; Tesfaye Feyisa; Abrham Awoke; Abere Tenagne

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306625

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 5, 2023
9 May 2023 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312Main and residual effect of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer application on soil properties and crop production under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Musse, 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 Jun 23 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, Ravinder Kumar, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: "NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. [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: Partly Reviewer #4: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: No Reviewer #4: No ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: Review report Manuscript number: PONE-D-23-10312 Title: Main and residual effect of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer application on soil properties and crop production under Potato-wheat cropping system General comment Integrated application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is an important soil amendment strategy that improves the sustainability of crop production including potato and wheat. Potato and wheat are produced by smallholder farmers in Ethiopia where enhancing their productivity contributes a lot for the livelihood improvement and ensuring food security in the country. In this regard, this research work may have significant contribution. However, the manuscript is not well structured and lacks justification and objectives. The methodology is not well described and the results are not well presented and discussed. The authors are advised to make use of Microsoft grammar and spelling check. Comments to the individual section of the manuscript are presented below. Title: It is suggested to rephrase as “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system Abstract • It is recommended to include problem statement and objective of the study at the beginning of the abstract. • The conclusion should be changed after correcting the MRR analysis in the results and discussion. Introduction • The authors should justify why intergraded application of organic and inorganic fertilizer is better than the solo application of the fertilizers. • Previous research experiences in the integrated application of fertilizers should be reviewed. • Most of the information/references are very old and the authors should change them with recent references • There are sentences that are difficult to understand and unfinished, which should be revised • A lot of grammatical and typographical errors that should be revised • For more information please refer the commented document Methodology This part of the manuscript should be given due attention and requires rigorous revision. Description of the study area, the production system and data collection methods implemented (growth and yield) should be clearly described so that it is understandable and could be repeated by other person (for more information, please refer the attached document). Results and discussion The way results are presented is not attractive for the reader. It is suggested to present first the results and then forward why it could be and then compare the results with others. Results should be presented in the past tense form. Although no description of site 1 and site 2 in the methodology, results of site 1 and site 2 (soil sample results) are presented, which are confusing. The economic analysis should be done once again as the MRR of 50%DBS+50%N (8461.1%) is not correct. Accordingly, the conclusion and recommendation part should be revised based on the corrected MRR value. For more information, refer commented document Conclusion and recommendation It should be revised after the revision of the MRR values. References The way reference listed should be uniform and meet the guideline of the journal. Reviewer #2: I must appreciate authors for nice work in which they have tried to understand supplementation of N with DBS on the performance of Potato-wheat cropping system and soil quality. The study has been conducted by following established procedures and methods and is scientifically sound. The data recorded and presented in the MS are also in order. I have thoroughly gone through the MS and realized that there is still scope to further improve its quality, presentation and content. According some suggestions/comments have been tendered on the MS itself. These comments are easy to understand and self explanatory. In addition to these comments, some specific comments are as under. Authors are advised to revise the MS by duly incorporating all the suggestions/comments. 1. English language polishing is highly needed to bring the information of the MS in presentable form. 2. Authors are advised to include more yield attributes of both the crops for better and clear understanding of treatment effects on test crops. In addition to the above, it is recommended to include system equivalent yield as study has been attempted in system mode. 3. Include recent and updated works to support findings. Authors are also advised to cross check the work cited in text and presented in the reference section and vice versa. Reviewer #3: The research holds importance in the area where its being conducted. Although the program is well planned but it needs to be re written. The introduction is very weak, does not fully justify the topic. It needs to be revised keeping in view all the important parameters in the title. The results too are poorly written and discussed with most of the incomplete sentences. the abstract also needs to be rewritten. Reviewer #4: Starting from the topic need major and careful modifications. The abstract does not contain the mail elements and it is poor. The result section is not properly interpreted. conclusion and recommendation section are poor. Majority of the references are very old. ****** 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: Yes: Sushil Kumar Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: Commented manuscript PONE-D-23-10312.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r001
Revision 1
23 Jun 2023 Author Response Reviewer 1 .title: It is suggested to rephrase as “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system � We have are adjust the title based on reviewer “Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system Abstract • It is recommended to include problem statement and objective of the study at the beginning of the abstract. • The conclusion should be changed after correcting the MRR analysis in the results and discussion. � Here we also incorporate statement of the problem at the begging of abstract � we have tried to check MRR by back tracing of the data its correct but our recommendation and conclusion adjusted from 50%RN+ 50DBS to 25%DBS +75%RN Introduction • The authors should justify why intergraded application of organic and inorganic fertilizer is better than the solo application of the fertilizers. � Accepted and incorporated in main document (manuscript) • Previous research experiences in the integrated application of fertilizers should be reviewed. � Accepted and incorporated in main document (manuscript) • Most of the information/references are very old and the authors should change them with recent references � in case of reference we have tried to explorer recent works and adjust it based on the comment • There are sentences that are difficult to understand and unfinished, which should be revised � Accepted and revised in main document (manuscript) • A lot of grammatical and typographical errors that should be revised we also tried adjust the language errors For more information please refer the commented document Methodology This part of the manuscript should be given due attention and requires rigorous revision. Description of the study area, the production system and data collection methods implemented (growth and yield) should be clearly described so that it is understandable and could be repeated by other person (for more information, please refer the attached document). � Accepted and incorporated as per the comment in main document (manuscript) Results and discussion The way results are presented is not attractive for the reader. It is suggested to present first the results and then forward why it could be and then compare the results with others. Results should be presented in the past tense form. Although no description of site 1 and site 2 in the methodology, results of site 1 and site 2 (soil sample results) are presented, which are confusing. The economic analysis should be done once again as the MRR of 50%DBS+50%N (8461.1%) is not correct. Accordingly, the conclusion and recommendation part should be revised based on the corrected MRR value. For more information, refer commented document Conclusion and recommendation It should be revised after the revision of the MRR values. � All the comments are pertinent, and incorporated in main document (manuscript) References The way reference listed should be uniform and meet the guideline of the journal. � Based on journal guide line we adjust it Reviewer #2: I must appreciate authors for nice work in which they have tried to understand supplementation of N with DBS on the performance of Potato-wheat cropping system and soil quality. The study has been conducted by following established procedures and methods and is scientifically sound. The data recorded and presented in the MS are also in order. I havethoroughly gone through the MS and realized that there is still scope to further improve its quality, presentation and content. According some suggestions/comments have been tendered on the MS itself. These comments are easy to understand and self explanatory. In addition to these comments, some specific comments are as under. Authors are advised to revise the MS by duly incorporating all the suggestions/comments. 1. English language polishing is highly needed to bring the information of the MS in presentable form. � Accepted and corrected in the main document 2. Authors are advised to include more yield attributes of both the crops for better and clear understanding of treatment effects on test crops. In addition to the above, it is recommended to include system equivalent yield as study has been attempted in system mode. � Not applicable for rotation system 3. Include recent and updated works to support findings. Authors are also advised to cross check the work cited in text and presented in the reference section and vice versa. � Accepted and incorporated Reviewer #3: The research holds importance in the area where its being conducted. Although the program is well planned but it needs to be re written. The introduction is very weak, does not fully justify the topic. It needs to be revised keeping in view all the important parameters in the title. The results too are poorly written and discussed with most of the incomplete sentences. the abstract also needs to be rewritten.. � All are accepted and incorporated in the main document Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r002
10 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312R1Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Musse, 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 Aug 24 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, Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (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: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ****** 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: Although most of the comments are addressed, there are still issues to be corrected or revised. The MRR analysis should be done once again which will probably have influences on the conclusion and recommendations of the study. Moreover there are a lot of grammatical and editorial errors that should be corrected. For more detail please refer the commented document. Reviewer #2: Although authors have took reasonable time and efforts to improve the content and quality of the manuscript by duly incorporating the reviewers comments/suggestions but still so many comments are either not attended properly or superficially considered. The logical flow and presentation of the data in the results and discussion section are still not in order. The clarity in materials and methods are still missing. Many of the suggestions just for example language polishing are not properly addressed. It is recommended and advised not to accept the manuscript in present form. Authors may advised and asked to do more sincere efforts in improving fluency, content, quality and interpretation of the results in logical and scientific manner. Reviewer #3: Although all the comments raised by the reviewers have been addressed by the authors but still the manuscript has lots of typographical and grammatical mistakes. The authors need to critically go through the manuscript before its final submission. Reviewer #4: It is better to modify the topic as follow: Effects of dry-bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizers on potato and wheat yields under Potato-wheat cropping system, Northwest Ethiopia � Language and coherence of sentences are poor and fragmented. So, the language should be written clearly and precisely by language experts. � I found a lot of errors about spacing, grammar, punctuation and others under the whole section of the paper. So, it needs a revision. � There are tables without any caption, for instance, the caption for table 5 is missing. � The discussion is also poor. � The conclusion and recommendation part are shallow and poor. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: PONE-D-23-10312_R1.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-10312_R1_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r003
Revision 2
13 Jan 2024 Author Response I have tried to Adress all comments and suggestion that given by you Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r004
7 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312R2Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping systemPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Musse, 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 23 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, Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comment: The authors are again requested to kindly address the concern of all previous reviewers. In revised version also two reviewers have raised the issues, and I am also of the same opinion to give another chance to authors to revise the manuscript so that revised manuscript can be considered for publication. [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 #4: (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: Partly Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 Reviewer #4: No ****** 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: Review report Manuscript number: PONE-D-23-10312R2 Title: Effects of dry-bio-slurry supplemented with chemical nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield of potato and wheat under Potato-wheat cropping system General comment Although some of them are addressed, the majority of the comments raised in the previous version are not well addressed in the revised document. As some of senior researchers are involved in the study, they have to have a look on the document for its improvement. Some of major issues that require due attentions of the authors: • The title shall be revised by considering the replacement/substitution of chemical N with DBS • Statement of the problem in the abstract requires more articulation, • Please review previous research findings/practices that showed the improvement of growth and yield of crops and soil properties through application of organic and inorganic fertilizers (only general principles are reviewed). • Correct the net plot area and MRR, which create deviations in the collected data and conclusion and recommendation • The recommendation in the abstract and in conclusion is different. Please revise and make a similar recommendation in both sections of the manuscript. • Revise grammatical and editorial errors throughout the document • For more information, please refer the commented document Reviewer #4: Comments The title should be clear and short. Suggested title: Effects of dry bioslurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system The abstract lacks short background of the problem. The result section in the abstract is not well written. Better to summarize the key results only. There are too long sentences in the paper (see the first four lines of the abstract, description of study area), difficult to realize the concept. The language is generally poor. It should be further improved by subject experts. There are editorial errors like spacing (2.2.2Gudenie potato variety, 2.2.3TAY variety of Wheat), spelling (List significant difference (LSD). SAS software version 9.4 is not available during 2002. You have cited the correct releasing year. In table 2, describe the clay, sand and silt contents and remove repeated rows containing names of soil properties. ****** 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 #4: 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: Revised PONE-D-23-10312R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r005
Revision 3
27 Mar 2024 Author Response Response for reviewer 1 I. We have been adjusting the title based on reviewer 4 suggestion “Effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system by considering the comment of reviewer 1 II. Here we are done the re -articulation of for statement of the problem in the abstract part based on the reviewer comment III. Based on the comment we in corporate the previous findings that deals the integration effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth and soil properties IV. Here we correct both MRR and net plot area-based reviewer comment V. We have been making it similar in both parts of the manuscript for recommendation VI. Here we want to appreciate all of the reviewers including reviewer1 for their effort as manuscript be well edited by language writing. by fully considering and give attention for there frequent comment we have correct and check it by fluent speaker and language skilled persons in addition to our correction effort .so the manuscript well edited and corrected in terms of language Response for reviewer 4 I. We have been adjusting the title based on reviewer suggestion “Effects of dry bio slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yields of potato and wheat under short term crop rotation system II. we incorporate the background of the problem in abstract part based on this comment (reviewer 4). III. we are correct it in both parts by summarize. IV. we make clear and short in most lines and sentences in the manuscript. V. Here we want to appreciate all of the reviewers including reviewer4 for their effort as manuscript be well edited by language writing. by fully considering and give attention for their frequent comment we have correct and check it by fluent speaker and language skilled persons in addition to our correction effort .so the manuscript well edited and corrected in terms of language. VI. We correct it by 2014. VIII. we also correct it based on the comment Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers plose best.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r006
30 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312R3Effects of dry-bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yield of potato and wheat under short term crop rotationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Musse, 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 Jun 14 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, Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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 #4: (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: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #4: 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 Reviewer #4: No ****** 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 #4: The authors have made efforts to address the comments given. But there are still comments that require the authors to amend in order to further improve the manuscript. Comments: Suggested title: Effects of dry bioslurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system The abstract is not clear and precise. Please rewrite this? The language is also still poor such as grammar, punctuations (line 79: (13) Due), spacing (line 27: 3.85tha-1). Line 14 and 106: The experiment was contain ten levels of treatments Control ---? Line 21-22: the results were indicated that; an application of dry bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer was ---? Line 14-21: Write full description of all abbreviations mentioned first in the text: DBS, RN, RCBD, ANOVA, SAS Most sentences are too long and difficult to understand for readers (Line 9-12, 93-96). So, make the sentences short and clear. Words found in the title cannot be a keyword like dry bio-slurry, potato, wheat. Line 96: Location of the study area (110 21' 22'' N and 370 25' 43'' E), is not correct. It is a point, not a polygon? Amend citations based on the journal guidelines. Line 93-94: three sites (Y1S1, Y2S1and Y2S2), this not clearly described whether 2 or 3? Conclusion part is poor. So, rewrite this properly. ****** 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 #4: 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: PONE-D-23-10312_R3.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r007
Revision 4
29 May 2024 Author Response Dear respected reviewers we really happy and thanks for your hard work and effort to correct this manuscript with your constructive comments. Please respected reviewers as you know this manuscript take long time, so please help us publish on time as much as possible Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers m.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r008
11 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312R4Effects of dry-bio-slurry with nitrogen fertilizer on yield of potato and wheat under short term crop rotationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Musse, 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 Jul 26 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, Ravinder Kumar, 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: (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 ****** 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: The authors did not still address the MRR calculation correctly. Although the grammar, sentence construction and typographical errors are improved, there are still issues to be addressed in this regard. I still request the authors as well as the editors to take care of grammar and typographical errors. ****** 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 ******** [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: PONE-D-23-10312_R4_reviewer.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Review report PONE-D-23-10312R4.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r009
Revision 5
17 Jun 2024 Author Response dear respected editorials we have adjust all necessary comments please procced it for publication Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviwers J.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r010
21 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor Effects of dry bio-slurry and nitrogen fertilizer on potato and wheat yields under rotation cropping system PONE-D-23-10312R5 Dear Dr. Musse, 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, Ravinder Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r011
Formally Accepted
26 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ravinder Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-10312R5 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Addis, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Ravinder Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306625.r012

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 .