Improving the prediction of potato yield gaps: Solanum-model parameterization and evaluation in southwestern China

Ying Wang; Muhammad Abdul Rehman Rashid; Shumin Liang; Zulfiqar Ali Sahito; Ju Yang; Zhou Li; Zuo Hu; Zhechao Pan; Qijun Sui

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328675

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 20, 2024
25 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-24-36013Improving the prediction of Potato yield gaps: Solanum-model parameterization and evaluation in southwestern ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 Nov 09 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences Scientific Research Pre-research Project (2023KYZX-05) and Yunnan Joint Agricultural Program (202301BD070001-217) Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. 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. 6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 7. 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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: Introduction should be written again. It is very short and most of the information is related to geography and yield. It is better if author include more review about the different models being used in the world and how they are beneficial for farmers. Hypothesis is missing. Rephrase the objective of the studies. Materials and methods: No weather and soils information are given about the studied locations. Ten years old research During the growth periods of 2013-2015. Line 94-96: The total growth period 94 from planting to harvesting for the early spring, spring and autumn seasons, spanned from early January to the end of 95 May, mid-March to end-of-September, and mid-August to mid-December for early-spring, spring, and autumn seasons, 96 respectively. This sentence should be written again. No tables are provided in the PDF file. The paper is not written according the PLOS one standard. Authors is not clear about the results. Discussion is very weak. Not recommended. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328675.r001
Revision 1
21 May 2025 Author Response Comment: 1. Introduction should be written again. It is very short and most of the information is related to geography and yield. It is better if author include more review about the different models being used in the world and how they are beneficial for farmers. Hypothesis is missing. Rephrase the objective of the studies. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback on the Introduction section. As suggested, we have thoroughly revised the Introduction to improve its depth and clarity. Specifically, we have: added a comprehensive review of globally used crop simulation models (e.g., APSIM, DSSAT, STICS, EPIC, and POMME), highlighting their relevance and benefits to farmers in terms of yield optimization, resource management, and climate resilience. Clearly stated the hypothesis of the study, focusing on the role of biotic and abiotic factors in contributing to potato yield gaps in Yunnan. Rephrased and clarified the objective of the study to better reflect the goals of quantifying potential yield, identifying limiting factors, and evaluating the Solanum model's applicability for enhancing yield outcomes. Now, we believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the scientific context and relevance of the study. Comment: 2. Materials and methods: No weather and soils information are given about the studied locations. Response: Thank you for pointing out that weather information is misssing. In response to your valuable suggestion, we have now included detailed meteorological data—covering temperature, rainfall, solar radiation, and sunshine hours—for each cropping season and experimental location in Table 2 of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have provided the soil characteristics of the three experimental sites (Yema, Songming, and Chaotie) in Supplementary Table S1. These additions enhance the environmental context of the study and support the interpretation of the model outputs and yield results. Comment: 3: Ten years old research During the growth periods of 2013-2015. Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the period of the field experiments (2013–2015). While the data were collected nearly a decade ago, they remain highly relevant for several reasons: 1.Baseline Model Calibration: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the Solanum model's parameterization under well-documented field conditions. The historical dataset provides strong and detailed agronomic, phenological, and environmental information essential for validating and improving the model's accuracy. 2.Climatic Stability of the Region: Yunnan Province exhibits relatively stable climatic patterns over the years, particularly in terms of temperature and altitude-dependent cropping systems. Thus, the findings remain applicable to current cultivation practices. 3.Limited Shifts in Cultivar Use: The cultivars studied are still widely grown or serve as the genetic basis for more recent breeding lines, making the analysis and conclusions still pertinent to ongoing production systems. 4.Model Utility Over Time: Since crop simulation models like Solanum are meant to provide generalizable insights across years and conditions, their calibration using historical datasets enhances future projections and current applicability.We agree that future studies should aim to include more recent datasets and are planning to validate the model under updated climate scenarios and recent field data in ongoing research. Comment: 4: Line 94-96: The total growth period 94 from planting to harvesting for the early spring, spring and autumn seasons, spanned from early January to the end of 95 May, mid-March to end-of-September, and mid-August to mid-December for early-spring, spring, and autumn seasons, 96 respectively. This sentence should be written again. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the sentence and marked in blue color. “The complete growth cycles for the three cultivation seasons were characterized as follows: early spring potatoes (January-May, ~150 days), spring potatoes (March-September, ~180 days), and autumn potatoes (August-December, ~120 days). This distinct seasonal partitioning reflects Yunnan's unique capacity for year-round potato production enabled by its vertical climatic zonation.”. Comment: 5: No tables are provided in the PDF file. Response: We have included tables in the PDF Comment: 6: The paper is not written according the PLOS one standard. Response: Thank you for suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript and written according to the PLOS one standard. Comment: 6: Authors is not clear about the results. Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and thoroughly revised it, and ensured that the presentation of our results is clear and precise. We believe that the revised version addresses the concerns raised, and we have made efforts to clarify our findings and avoid any uncertainty. We hope that the revised manuscript reveals our clarity on the results and provides a more clear narrative. If further clarification is needed, we are happy to make additional revisions." Thank you for the comments. Comment: 6: Discussion is very weak. Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the discussion section. We appreciate your insights, we have thoroughly revised the discussion to better interpret the results and relate them to the existing literature. We have also provided additional context and analysis to strengthen our conclusions and clarify the implications of our findings. We believe that these revisions enhance the overall quality of the discussion, and we hope the updated section now meets the expectations. Should you have further suggestions or points for improvement, we are happy to address them." Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328675.r002
7 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor Improving the prediction of Potato yield gaps: Solanum-model parameterization and evaluation in southwestern China PONE-D-24-36013R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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 #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 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 revised manuscript is in good shape and author addressed all the required concerned in the revised version. ****** 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: Yes: Sajjad Hussain ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328675.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-24-36013R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at >https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328675.r004

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 .