Dear Dr. Jaman,

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 Oct 31 2025 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Ghulam Yaseen, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University Research System (SAURES) grant no. SAU/SAURES/2022/110(20) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Bangladesh, through a special research allocation grant (Grant No: SRG-221311(BS)/2022-23)”

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.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [All 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 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. 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.

4. 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.

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

“This research was funded by the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University  Research System (SAURES) grant no. SAU/SAURES/2022/110(20) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Bangladesh, through a special research allocation grant (Grant No: SRG-221311(BS)/2022-23).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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:

“This research was funded by the Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University  Research System (SAURES) grant no. SAU/SAURES/2022/110(20) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Bangladesh, through a special research allocation grant (Grant No: SRG-221311(BS)/2022-23)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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.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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors present results of a study using organic and inorganic nutrients for chili plants. This information may help chili producers to increase the yield and quality of their crops. Nevertheless, the document has many issues that the authors must fix to increase clarity on writing and data presentation. I hope my comments will be helpful to the authors.

**Title:

The title is confusing. I recommend rewriting it. The short title works better and should be used.

**Keywords

The occurrence of documents with the keywords in Scopus is:

> Chili: 7,520 documents

> Leucaena leucocephala: 3,525 documents

> Mixed fertilization: 64 documents

> NPP: 24,410 documents

> Quality: 5,822,842 documents

> Yield: 2,396,331 documents

The first two keywords are suitable. NPP is ambiguous; use “net primary productivity.” “Mixed fertilization” is uncommon and may reduce visibility. “Quality” and “yield” are too broad. I suggest keywords like “integrated nutrient management” or “plant nutrition.”

**Abstract:

-If the authors used “recommended doses of fertilizers,” the acronym “RDF” suits better than “RFD,” and they will need to replace RFD with RDF. If they write “recommend fertilizer doses”, they can keep “RDF.” Both formats are appropriate, but the authors must be consistent in the whole document and write only “recommended doses of fertilizers (RDF)” or “recommended fertilizer doses (RFD).”

-The abstract has much data and results. Please summarize the information and minimize the amount of numbers, emphasizing the trends.

1. Introduction

The current flow is:

The economic importance of chili, and the need to improve quantity and quality of the crops and the use of fertilizers but problems related to the sole application of inorganic fertilizers > The complementary approaches of organic and inorganic fertilizers and mixed fertilization as a way to get the best and avoid the worse of each approach and the specific use of lead tree leaf litter with NPK and the hypothesis of this work > Examples of successful cases of organic/inorganic fertilization approaches and objective of this study

The flow needs improvement. The authors mix and split ideas across paragraphs and include too many examples. Please rewrite the Introduction and consider a clear order of topics. I suggest, as an example, the following flow of paragraphs:

The economic importance of chili and the need to improve the quantity and quality of the crops > Importance of fertilization for crops, especially chili, with examples of inorganic and organic fertilizers, especially lead tree leaf litter > Explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of organic and inorganic fertilizers, and the advantages of mixing them both > Hypothesis and objective of this work.

Please remember to not cite more than two approaches with inorganic fertilization, two approaches with organic fertilization, and two mixed fertilization approach. The authors must emphasize their research, not make an extensive literature review. This is a research article, not a literature review article

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental site and plant material: OK

2.2. Pot preparation and experimental design

-Figure 2 is good, but if the authors could also add a real picture of just the pots, as an example, the engagement with readers may increase. If the authors have no picture of the pots used in this experiment, please disregard this comment.

2.2.1. Fertilizer application

-There are flaws in the experimental design. The authors have two factors (organic and inorganic fertilizers) in three levels (none, half, full). The correct experimental design should be three powers two equal nine treatments, not only five treatments. The missing treatments are 0 organic + 0 inorganic; 0 organic + 0.5 inorganic; 0.5 organic + 1 inorganic; and 1 organic + 1 inorganic. It is too late now to repeat the experiment with the missing treatments. Therefore, the authors must acknowledge the incomplete set of treatments as a weak point of this document, which should be addressed in future works, and provide an explanation for the incomplete set. This explanation could range from a silly one, like a lack of enough pots, to a more scientific explanation, as the missing treatments are unrealistic for the chili production. Please look for statistical support for further work to avoid missing treatments again.

-Table 2: Did the authors apply two doses of gypsum to the pots? In the ½ dose, they write in the caption “Urea (0.50 g), … Gypsum (0.30 g), Boric acid (0.13 g), Gypsum (0.13 g),…” Please recheck and fix the caption, if needed.

2.2.2. Application of litterbag technique

-Please do not provide results in the Materials and Methods. Keep all relevant results for the Results or Discussion sections. Therefore, remove the excerpt “Chemical analysis ... nutrient release.”

2.3. Data collection

-Please define the acronym BNPP the first time it is used.

2.4. Data analysis: OK

3. Results

3.1 Mixed fertilization significantly enhanced growth dynamics

-The claim “At 15 DAT, differences among treatments were minimal (Figs 3a and 4a)” is not right. There is no statistical difference for plant height at 15 DAT across the treatments, but there is a difference for the number of leaves. Please rewrite this result.

-Figure 3: Please check the letters for treatments. It does not make sense that the “ab” treatment is greater than “b” and smaller than “c”, without any “a” treatment in the graph.

3.2 Enhanced reproductive traits under mixed fertilization

-Figure 6: Please check the letters for treatments. It does not make sense that the “ab” treatment is greater than “b” and smaller than “c”, without any “a” treatment in the graph.

3.3 Net primary productivity maximized under mixed inputs

-Figure 7: Provide the information on the meaning of “a” (Aboveground net primary productivity – ANPP), “b” (Belowground net primary productivity – BNPP), and “c” (Total net primary productivity – ANPP + BNPP). Additionally, the letters within graphs are weird. Figure 7a has “b” for the smaller values, “c” for the highest values, and “a” for the intermediate values. This is out of the regular order, in which readers expect to have a sequence a > b > c or c > b > a. Please redo the lettering of the bars.

3.4 Mixed fertilization significantly boosted fruit yield

-I suggest moving the discussion to the “Discussion” section. Nevertheless, there is a major problem here. The authors claim that the average (T3/T4) is bigger than (T1/T2), which seems right. However, they claim that T3 (10.51± 1.92) is “slightly” lower than T4 (15.50 ± 0.54). This difference seems to be a significant difference, not a slight difference. Even worse, Figure 8 shows that the values of T2 and T3 are similar. Therefore, please redo the discussion when moving to another section. I strongly recommend presenting the results as they were for Figures 3-6. This will make the discussion easier for the authors to develop.

3.5 Quality attributes significantly elevated with integrated nutrients

-Figure 9: Please adjust the bars to not begin from 0. The current format does not allow to make the differences visually remarkable. Furthermore, please add the letters for the statistical analysis.

3.6 Significant associations between ANPP and vegetative reproductive traits: OK

3.7 Yield strongly influenced by vegetative and reproductive structures: OK

4. Discussion

4.1 Effect of mixed and mono fertilization on yield-contributing traits of chili

-The claim that “…mixed fertilization (T₄) consistently outperforming mono strategies at all observation stages” is right only for the number of leaves, not for all vegetative traits. Please redo the discussion.

4.2 Effect of mixed and mono fertilization on NPP and fruit quality

-The results are difficult to follow because there is no statistical analysis for the individual treatments. The authors merged T1/T2 and T3/T4, making the individual comparison between T4 and other treatments more complex. The authors can keep their current analysis of figures 7 and 8, but they must also present the statistical analysis for individual treatments.

4.3 Relationships among morphological traits, biomass accumulation and fruit yield: OK

5. Conclusions: OK

**Acknowledgments: OK

**Author contribution: OK

**Competing interests: OK

**References:

-Please be consistent with the titles of the articles. Or the authors capitalize only the first word at the beginning of the title (Alleviation of fungicide-induced phytotoxicity in greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] using fungicide-tolerant and plant growth promoting Pseudomonas strain), or they capitalize the first word and the nouns of the title (The Evolution of Chili Peppers (Capsicum Solanaceae): A Cytogenetic Perspective). Please choose one format and write all the references in this format, even if the articles were published otherwise.

Reviewer #2: Five fertilization treatments were designed in this research project to examine their effects on the appearance and internal quality of peppers, which holds certain guiding significance for production. The writing logic is clear, but to reach the level of a high-standard article, there remain many issues. Also, the content of the investigation was plain and simple.

The existing problems are as follows:

1) Each treatment was designed to include four replicates. Although according to the “vegetable research method”, at least three biological replicates are required, as a field application-oriented fertilizer comparison test, only four seedlings were designed for each treatment, which is a relatively small number.

2) It should be clearly stated whether the experiment was conducted in a greenhouse or outdoors. Figure 1 is meteorological data and is not directly related to the research content. Therefore, Figure 1 can be deleted.

3) The plant heights in Figure 3 can be edited into a bar chart. Similarly, the number of leaves in Figure 4, the number of flowers in Figure 5, the number of fruits in Figure 6, and the yield per plant in Figure 7 can all be summarized. Each indicator can be edited into a bar chart and then all combined into one figure.

4) Similarly, the content of Vitamin C can be summarized into a bar chart. The effects of fertilizers on appearance indicators and internal quality can be divided, with appearance indicators combined in one large chart and internal quality in another.

5) This study only has four seedlings, making the calculation of yield per hectare unreliable.

6) The writing in the abstract is disorganized and requires simplification.

7) There is still a lack of depth in the research content.

8) After revision, it is suggested that the author submit the article to an agricultural technology promotion magazine, which is more in line with the content of this manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Mixed fertilization implies inorganic and organic components in equal or nearly equal proportions. In this case organic manure is only one while inorganic components are 6. I think this overshadows the functioning of organic manure. Role of each inorganic fertilizer needs to be given. Role of L. leucocephala leaf litter to enhance inorganically fertilized chili production can be included in the title instead of mixed and mono.

In Results section

3.1 Growth Dynamics

3.2 Reproductive traits

and so on

Discussion portion should be reduced and more focus should be given on the comparison of chemical composition between organic and inorganic fertilizers to explain the improved plant growth and other studied parameters. Physiological and biochemical changes in the plant due to addition of organic manure should also be included in the discussion

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva Morais

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shifan YangShifan YangShifan YangShifan Yang

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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Jaman,

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 Apr 11 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• A 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Randall P. Niedz

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

1) Address the remaining points from Reviewer #1.

2) Further edit the abstract by reducing the number of individual values and p‑values. Emphasize the main effect sizes and trends.

3) Explicitly highlight in the Discussion and Conclusions that the fertilizer‑treatment set is not a complete factorial of organic × inorganic levels and that this limits what can be inferred (mention what effects cannot be estimated). This is mentioned, but only once.

4) Replace all speculative phrases (“we assume… may enhance”) with either (a) a clear indication that these are hypotheses for future work, or (b) citations that support the proposed mechanisms. For example, replace “Although we did not measure the mechanism behind the findings, however, considering other experiment, we assumed that the presence of organic matter such as L. leucocephala leaf litter enhances rhizospheric activity and microbial interactions that release essential growth hormones like cytokinins and auxins, further promoting flower retention and fruit development” with something along the lines of "Although we did not measure the underlying mechanisms in this study, the presence of organic matter such as L. leucocephala leaf litter may enhance [list the effects] - this mechanism should be tested in future experiments."

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The document improved from the previous version, but the authors still must make corrections in the text. For example, the document needs an extensive English revision. Please use at least a computer-based reviewer from word processors or online correctors. There are no results or discussion for the whole section “2.2. Pot preparation and experimental design.” I hope my comments will help the authors to improve the overall quality of the document.

**Title: OK

**Abstract: OK

**Keywords: OK

1. Introduction

The current flow is:

The importance of chili and the importance of mineral nutrition for chili production, with its shortcomings > Advantages of organic fertilizers for crop production and their challenges, and the strategy to combine both types of fertilizers so the advantages of one will overcome the disadvantages of the other, with examples, and the objectives of this study.

The Introduction is better than in the previous version, but the authors cannot have just two paragraphs for so many ideas that they are conveying. The authors just need to split the ideas into smaller paragraphs. I suggest cutting the paragraphs as follows:

The importance of chili > The importance of the mineral nutrition for crop production with its shortcomings > The importance of organic fertilizers for crop production with its shortcomings > The advantages of combining both types of fertilizers so the advantages of one will overcome the disadvantages of the other, with examples > The objectives of this study.

The authors just need to break the sentences into paragraphs; there's no need to add more ideas.

1. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental site and plant material: OK

2.2. Pot preparation and experimental design:

-Please explain the meaning of an abbreviation the first time it is written in the text. Therefore, please explain the meaning of TSP and MOP in line 124, not 149-150.

2.2.1. Fertilizer application: OK

2.2.2. Application of litterbag technique:

-There is no result regarding the decomposition kinetics of the leucaena leaves. Please add this information to the document.

2.3. Data collection: OK

2.4. Data analysis: OK

2. Results

3.1 Mixed fertilization enhances vegetative and reproductive traits of chili across different growth stages: OK

3.2 Net primary productivity maximized under mixed inputs: OK

3.3 Mixed fertilization enhanced fruit yield: OK

3.4 Quality traits increased with integrated nutrients: OK

3.5 Significant associations between ANPP and vegetative reproductive traits: OK

3.6 Yield strongly influenced by vegetative and reproductive structures: OK

3. Discussion

4.1 Effect of mixed and mono fertilization on yield-contributing traits of chili

-Please pay attention to the scientific names, like “L. Leucaena.” Please remember to write the specific eponym always in lowercase.

4.2 Effect of mixed and mono fertilization on NPP and fruit quality

-Please pay attention to the scientific names, like “L. Leucaena.” Please remember to write the specific eponym always in lowercase.

4.3 Relationships among morphological traits, biomass accumulation and fruit yield: OK

4. Conclusions: OK

**Acknowledgments: OK

**Author contribution: OK

**Competing interests: OK

**References: OK

Reviewer #2: 1. The author provided a detailed and sincere response to the reviewers' questions. However, given the article's overall design and results, it is not suitable for publication in this journal.

2. The litter of the silverbush has not undergone microbial fermentation and decomposition process. This makes its usage inconvenient. There are limitations in collecting raw materials, and transportation is also inconvenient. Therefore, this technology is difficult to apply on a large scale.

3. It is recommended that the author consider submitting the article to other widely read science or agriculture promotion journals.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Joao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva MoraisJoao Paulo Saraiva Morais

Reviewer #2: Yes: Shifan YangShifan YangShifan YangShifan Yang

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Beyond mono fertilization: Mixed fertilization enhances productivity and quality of chili (Capsicum frutescens)

PONE-D-25-44796R2

Dear Dr. Jaman,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Randall P. Niedz

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: