PONE-D-24-05944Intraspecific variability in plant and soil chemical properties in a common garden plantation of the energy crop PopulusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kalluri,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria after miner revisions. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.please go through figures and make sure the the colors can be distingushed. The choice of dark purple is difficult to tell from the dark blue in the second figure. I also suggest that sample sizes are indicated in the legends throughout

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 12 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,

Benedicte Riber Albrectsen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Very interesting research in dependence (connection) and mutual influence between soil and plant through quantitative analysis of micro and macro elements. The authors set up the experiments well, emphasizing individual and genotypic differences in one species of poplar (Populus trichocarpa). Numerous collected results mainly prove individual variability (therefore also genotypic) significant dependence for most of the observed properties between soil and plant, but also a weak correlation for properties of the above-ground and underground parts of the tree.

I recommend that the paper be published with a few questions for the authors to think about or possibly supplement the text in the paper:

1) Is the observed interdependence of properties a result of the plant's influence on the soil or vice versa?

2) Are there any available data regarding soil properties before the planting of these genotypes, or were they exclusively taken from the control plot?

3) Should all of this be verified through controlled (closed) experiments, such as in a greenhouse using potted substrate?

Reviewer #2: Intraspecific variability in plant and soil chemical properties in a common garden plantation of the energy crop Populus

The study on the effects of Populus genotypes on physiochemical properties of soil, C accumulation and elemental content in shoots and roots is interesting. The concept of the study to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide content through candidate plant genotype that promotes soil C accretion and plant phenotype is important in climate change context. The manuscript is well drafted, results are well explained. However, there are some corrections that the authors have to go through it.

1. Line 38 Specify plant tissues as roots and stem.

2. Line 41-42 Modify the line “the potential for co-optimizing above-belowground plant systems”.

3. Line 46 The above and below ground properties have not measured in the study. The authors have only measured nutrient composition so instead of “property” the nutrients/chemical components/elements” words are more appropriate.

4. Line 107 The study is not focused on the microbial traits/diversity, so I think donot mention it here because the paragraph is mainly directing the hypothesis and objectives of the study.

5. Line 117 -122 The hypothesis of the study should be mentioned first followed by the objectives. Moreover, the hypothesis should be in sentence form rather than in points.

6. Line 120-122 is the part of objective not hypothesis so rearrange it.

7. Line 107-122 Needs to be rewritten based on the above comments.

8. Line 128-132 Did the authors collect the soil samples from the plain land which was earlier used for populus plantation. If this is the case the land surface should be uniform throughout then what the authors are meant by under the planted and non-planted areas. And if the two areas differ in terms of plantation, then I am wondering how the soil properties should be same.

9. With the under-plant samples did the author means rhizosphere samples.

10. Line 138 How these soil samples differ from the samples mentioned in the above paragraph (line 128-132)

11. Line 140 Two replicates are very few, atleast five replicates should be taken for the good results.

12. Line 145 For tree breast height. Mention the exact height from the surface also.

13. Line 146. Mention the depth from the surface at which the root samples were collected.

14. Line 203 The text did not match Fig. 2A. According to the figure the Ca content is higher at 5-10 cm in all the genotypes not on the soil surface. Check it.

15. Line 220 -221 It is better if the increasing results of Ca, Mg and K in BESC 24 is shown in the % increase compared to other genotypes.

16. Line 229 Replace properties with chemical traits see the above comment 3.

17. Above-ground not only includes stem but leaves too then why the authors have not measured the chemical constituents in leaves.

18. Line 242 see the above comment on property.

19. Insert figure/table number in the discussion section while discussing your results so that it is easy for the readers to understand.

20. Line 295 see the above comment on property

**********

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: Milan Mataruga

Reviewer #2: Yes: Lovely Mahawar

**********

[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: Review report PLONE.docx

Intraspecific variability in plant and soil chemical properties in a common garden plantation of the energy crop Populus

PONE-D-24-05944R1

Dear Dr. Kalluri,

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,

Benedicte Riber Albrectsen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: