PONE-D-24-29091Rice growth and yield responses to saline water irrigation are caused by increased ion concentration in straw and rootsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Paul,

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 Sep 27 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,

Yousef Alhaj Hamoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

We would like to give thanks to Soil Science and Agronomy Division laboratory and Irrigation and Water Management Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Bangladesh for their facility to analyse soil and plant samples. We are grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Bangladesh for funding support. 

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

The author(s) 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that Data will be available on request.

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

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

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

Thank you for selecting me as a potential reviewer for this manuscript. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work, which presents a significant and novel investigation into the effects of saline water irrigation on rice growth and yield. The study's focus on ion accumulation in the straw and roots and its relation to changes in soil salinity and soil solute potential is both timely and relevant, particularly in the context of increasing salinity stress in rice cultivation areas. This manuscript explores the impact of saline water irrigation on rice growth, yield, and ion concentration in straw and roots. The study uniquely examines how different levels of salinity affect two rice cultivars, BRRI dhan67 and BRRI dhan99, and finds that the latter is more tolerant to salinity stress. The research demonstrates that increased salinity leads to a significant accumulation of sodium in the straw and chloride in the roots, while also reducing soil solute potential. The study’s analysis reveals that the Na+/K+ ratio in the straw is a critical determinant of grain weight, highlighting the importance of ion balance in mitigating the adverse effects of salinity.

While the manuscript presents valuable findings, I would like to offer a few suggestions that could further enhance the quality of this work:

The study effectively measures ion concentrations in both straw and roots across different salinity levels. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed explanation of how the ion concentrations were measured, particularly the techniques and instruments used. This would provide greater clarity and ensure the reproducibility of the results.

The research investigates the effects of saline water irrigation on two rice cultivars, yet the manuscript does not discuss the genetic or physiological basis for the observed differences between BRRI dhan67 and BRRI dhan99. A discussion on potential genetic markers or physiological traits that contribute to the salt tolerance in BRRI dhan99 would significantly enrich the findings and provide insights for future breeding programs.

The manuscript discusses the reduction in grain weight, straw weight, and root weight under saline water irrigation. However, the study lacks information on the statistical power of the experiments, including the sample size and the replication of treatments. It is essential to provide details on these aspects to ensure that the results are statistically robust and can be generalized beyond the specific conditions of the study.

The study mentions the impact of saline water on soil solute potential but does not adequately address the spatial variability of soil properties within the pots. Salinity can vary significantly within the root zone, affecting plant responses. A more rigorous approach, such as using soil moisture sensors or conducting soil sampling at different depths, would strengthen the conclusions related to soil solute potential and its impact on rice growth.

The Introduction section contains several old and traditional references. To enhance the quality and relevance of the paper, I recommend updating these references with more recent and relevant citations. This will not only strengthen the background information but also align the study with the latest research developments in the field. Below are some suggested references that could be considered for inclusion:

Mitigation of salinity stress in barley genotypes with variable salt tolerance by application of zinc oxide nanoparticles

An overview of hazardous impacts of soil salinity in crops, tolerance mechanisms, and amelioration through selenium supplementation

Foliar application of ascorbic acid enhances salinity stress tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) through modulation of morpho-physio-biochemical …

Melatonin-Induced Salinity Tolerance by Ameliorating Osmotic and Oxidative Stress in the Seedlings of Two Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars

Ameliorative Effects of Exogenous Potassium Nitrate on Antioxidant Defense System and Mineral Nutrient Uptake in Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) under Salinity …

Anatomical adaptations and ionic homeostasis in aquatic halophyte Cyperus laevigatus L. under high salinities

Structural and Functional Determinants of Physiological Pliability in Kyllinga brevifolia Rottb. for Survival in Hyper-Saline Saltmarshes

… mycoides PM35 reinforces photosynthetic efficiency, antioxidant defense, expression of stress-responsive genes, and ameliorates the effects of salinity stress in maize

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is well-structured, the methods are sound, the results are comprehensive, and the discussion provides a thoughtful interpretation of the findings. The study contributes to the understanding of the physiological and ionic responses of rice to long-term saline water irrigation, which is relevant for addressing the challenges of salinity in rice production. However, I suggest minor revisions that would help to improve the clarity, flow, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

Title:

The current title "Rice growth and yield responses to saline water irrigation are caused by increased ion concentration in straw and roots" is a bit lengthy and technical. Consider a more concise and clear title, such as:

Introduction:

- Consider adding a sentence or two to provide more context on the use of saline water for rice cultivation in specific regions, such as the Ganges Delta, where this study was conducted.

- You could also briefly mention the importance of understanding the physiological and ionic mechanisms behind the response of different rice cultivars to long-term saline water irrigation.

Materials and Methods:

- in the sentence “……….were analyzed using 2-way ANOVAs” ANOVAs should be ANOVA, as it is one analysis or one design not two ANOVA designs.

- “………were separated by least significant difference (LSD) at P = 0.05 ” ) … P = 0.05 should be

at P < 0.05.

Results:

-For the figures depicting mean comparisons, such as Figures 1, 3, and 4, I would recommend adding the following statement in the figure captions:

"Different lowercase letters above the bars indicate statistically significant differences between treatments at P < 0.05."

- When presenting the data on ion concentrations in the plant tissues, you could include a brief comparison of the patterns observed between the two rice cultivars.

Discussion:

- In the first paragraph, you could start by briefly summarizing the key findings of the study before delving into the discussion.

- Consider adding a paragraph or two to discuss the potential practical implications of your findings for the management of saline water irrigation in rice cultivation.

References:

- The reference list appears comprehensive and up-to-date, covering the relevant literature on the topic. However, you may want to double-check the formatting of the references to ensure they adhere to the PLOS ONE style guide.

- Additionally, consider adding a few more recent references (published within the last 2-3 years) to further strengthen the context and relevance of your study within the current state of knowledge in this field.

Reviewer #3: This MS has very limited novelty and its very basic experiment. A lot of published work is available online. I have some questions about this:

1. How do different levels of saline water irrigation (EC 4, 6, 8, and 10 dS m-1) affect the growth parameters such as grain weight, dry straw weight, and root weight in two rice cultivars (BRRI dhan67 and BRRI dhan99)?

2. What makes BRRI dhan99 less affected by increasing water salinity compared to BRRI dhan67? Are there specific physiological or genetic traits that contribute to its tolerance?

3. How does prolonged saline water irrigation influence ion concentrations (Na+, Cl-, K+) in the straw and root of rice plants, and what are the implications for soil salinity and soil solute potential?

4. What is the relationship between the Na+/K+ ratio in the straw and the grain weight of rice? How does this ratio serve as a potential indicator of rice yield under saline conditions?

5. Why does Na+ accumulate more in the straw than in the root, while Cl- accumulates more in the root than in the straw? What mechanisms are responsible for this differential ion distribution?

6. How does the accumulation of salts in the soil from saline water irrigation affect the soil's physical and chemical properties, particularly soil salinity and solute potential?

7. How accurately can the Na+/K+ ratio, Na+ concentration, and Cl- concentration be used to predict grain yield in rice under saline conditions? What are the implications for breeding programs focused on salinity tolerance?

8. What are the critical salinity thresholds (dS m-1) beyond which rice growth and yield are significantly compromised, and how do these thresholds vary between the two rice cultivars studied?

9. What are the long-term effects of saline water irrigation on rice yield and soil health if such practices are continued across multiple growing seasons?

10. How can the findings of this study be applied to improve rice cultivation practices in regions with high salinity, and what management strategies can be recommended to mitigate the negative effects of salinity on rice production.

**********

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: Muhammad Hamzah Saleem

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ahmed M. Abdelghany

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review.docx

Rice growth and yield responses to saline water irrigation are related to Na+/K+ ratio in plants

PONE-D-24-29091R1

Dear Dr. Priya Lal Chandra Paul,

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,

Yousef Alhaj Hamoud, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: All comments were addressed. I think the paper can be accepted in the current version.

They authors have done good work towards the addressing for the questions and comments raised.

Reviewer #3: All coments have been addressed. Congrates in advance for your publication in PLOS ONE and appreciate your effort in improve the MS.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Ahmed Abdelghany

Reviewer #3: Yes: Muhammad Usman

**********