PONE-D-25-17789Effect of long-term conservation agriculture with nitrogen rates on soil available and labile phosphorus poolsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nusrat Jahan Mumu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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.

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,

Abhay Omprakash Shirale, PhD

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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

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: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: No

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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: The manuscript presents a long-term field study investigating how conservation agriculture (CA) practices, particularly tillage and crop residue management, influence soil phosphorus (P) fractions under varying nitrogen (N) rates. This is a timely and relevant topic, particularly in regions facing nutrient limitations and environmental sustainability challenges. The manuscript is generally well-organized and contributes useful findings to the literature on nutrient dynamics under CA. There are some comments, which are to be incorporated in order to improve the manuscript, as given below:

Introduction

*Hypothesis of the work is not well formulated in the ‘Introduction’ section. The authors did not present a novel justification for carrying out this study. What is the hypothesis of the present study?

*It is insufficient and needs more improvement.

*The novelty of the work must be identified and stated more carefully. The authors have to try to explain why this paper is relevant to the wider readership.

*Authors should show the limitations of previous papers.

Results

*Result should be written in concise way.

*Quality of figures should be improved.

Discussion

*Need more improvement. It is too superficial and not a meaningful discussion. Author should try to strengthen the discussion part.

*Put reason why this type of result is obtained.

Conclusions

*Authors need to rephrase the "Conclusions" section.

*Add some limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future scope of study.

*Overall, the manuscript needs extensive language editing and formatting. There are so many typography mistakes in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Comments to authors:

Effect of long-term conservation agriculture with nitrogen rates on soil available and labile phosphorus pools

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-17789

Detail suggestions are given below:

1. Title: What type of “effect” should be specified? This is journal article not thesis.

2. Key words: Title words should not be kewords.

3. Abstract: Hypothesis is not clear and results should be measurable (% increase or decrease). Higher N rates did not reduce all P fractions.

4. Title words should not be key words.

5. Introduction: There are too many irrelevant topics included here. There are huge references on. But your references are too old, use latest references (Some link attached here ; https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.13153; https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-02009-z; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-024-10348-7; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105474; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10261-5; https://sssb1958.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/U-Kumar.pdf). Lack of novelty and research scope. Introduction should be rearranged by the sequence of - important of the research, what is the known about the topic, unknown about the topic, why this research is important and finally aims of this research.

Line 112: AEZ 9 is Old Brahmaputra Floodplain not Old Himalayan Piedmont Plain.

6. Materials and methods: Line 144: Medium Highland Sonatala soil series is poorly drained soil not moderately drained.

Line 151-152: What are the crops diversifications? Provide the 12 years cropping pattern.

Line 162: RD? Elaborate first.

Line 168-171: Fertilizers doses for each crop are not clear. Provide in a table and give it to supplementary data.

Line 180-182: 0-15 soil depth? Sample collection procedure should be clear specially core sampler.

Line 186: descried by 29.?

7. Need to rewrite the results section. Results are not described appropriately. Several results are confusingly and repeatedly presented. If interaction is significant, present only interaction effect results in the table or figures. No need to describe main factor results. Result should be measurable e.g., how much increase or decrease must be specified. In general, several paragraphs are very repetitive of the information provided in Tables. It is recommended to highlight more important results, rather than repeat results presented in tables. Different P fractions have interlink with other soil properties like bulk density, texture, soil organic carbon, N, and extractable K, S, Zn, B, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu etc. So, need to describe what is the relation among them? Crops yield is also need to describe to understand the optimum production with P fractions. The manuscript results has lack of novelty and unable to give specific message to the scientific communities.

8. Discussion is not another result. The discussion should link all of your findings. Each paragraph should be well structured and interconnected (“telling a story”). For example, in each paragraph of the discussion section, authors should begin with a sentence that introduces what the paragraph is about of their findings, link their findings with those in the literature, and finish with what are the main points ('take-home-message'). Authors also need to discuss about the limitations and lackings of their study and its justifications. Please, a deeper scientific interpretation of your findings in the discussion section is strongly suggested. The novelty and implication of your study should also be highlighted throughout this section. In addition, I suggest using more actualized.

9. The conclusions section should not be a summary of your study or an extension of the discussion or results. This section should illustrate the mechanistic links of findings obtained under applied treatments. The conclusions should answer the hypothesis of your study and should focus on the implication of your findings. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in this section. Remember that the conclusions must be self-explanatory. This section should highlight the novelty and implication of your study also.

10. Avoid unnecessary tables and figures and they must be self-explanatory.

11. English improvement is needed in whole MS

The purpose, novelty and originality of your study seem to be unclear and incomplete throughout the manuscript. The manuscript is unable to give new message to the scientific community. It is not acceptable in the present form. It requires substantial improvement in your manuscript.

Reviewer #3: Reviewer Comments:

While the information presented in the manuscript is valuable and merits publication, the manuscript requires substantial revision to enhance its clarity, coherence, and overall quality.

Abstract:

The abstract should provide a concise yet comprehensive summary of the entire manuscript. It must include brief statements covering the background, objectives, methodology, key findings, and major conclusions. Importantly, the abstract should be focused and well-structured, offering the reader a clear snapshot of the study's purpose and outcomes.

Introduction:

The introductory section needs to be significantly strengthened. It should begin with a focused discussion on phosphorus (P) chemistry and its dynamics in soil systems. Following this, the authors should clearly articulate how agronomic management practices—particularly varying tillage methods, amount of residue retention, and nitrogen (N) fertilization rates—affect soil P dynamics and availability, ultimately influencing crop growth and productivity. Establishing this context is essential to justify the research objectives and the significance of the study.

Results and Discussion:

The most critical findings should be highlighted in this section. Special attention should be given to explaining the individual and interactive effects of tillage practices, crop residue levels, and N fertilization on phosphorus behavior and crop performance. If statistical interactions are observed, these must be explained clearly and meaningfully. The authors should interpret why and how such interactions occurred, grounded in sound agronomic or biochemical reasoning.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should be succinctly focused. It must restate the main findings of the study and their practical implications. Avoid reiterating background information or including new data. Instead, the conclusion should draw attention to the most relevant and impactful results and how they advance current understanding or practices.

Tables and Data Presentation:

All data presented in tables must be systematically organized according to the experimental design, particularly reflecting the split-plot arrangement. Clear labeling, consistent formatting, and appropriate statistical indicators (e.g., LSD, SE, p-values) are essential to improve readability and interpretation.

General Recommendations:

The authors are strongly encouraged to carefully address the specific comments and suggestions embedded within the manuscript text. These comments are intended to enhance the overall structure, language quality, and scientific rigor of the paper. Ensuring logical flow and technical accuracy throughout will significantly improve the manuscript’s suitability for publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Utpol Kumar

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Rafiq Islam

**********

[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: Comments to authors a.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-17789.pdf

Long-term conservation agriculture with optimum nitrogen fertilization improves soil phosphorus availability

PONE-D-25-17789R1

Dear Dr. Mumu,

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 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,

Abhay Omprakash Shirale, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #3:

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

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: The authors revised the paper in response to the suggestions. And the paper will be accepted for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Rafiq Islam

**********