Nitrogen uptake preference of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

James O. Latimer; Mark Farrell; Ben C. T. Macdonald

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334700

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 22, 2024
14 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Narendra Khatri, Editor Dear Dr. Farrell, 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 28 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. 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, Narendra Khatri, 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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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. 3. 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. 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. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Additional Editor Comments: The authors are advised to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and resubmit it for further review. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “Nitrogen uptake preference of Gossypium hirsutum L. from a mixture of urea, alanine, nitrate, and ammonium" has been reviewed. The authors provided the information on the ability of G. hirstutum to take up different organic and inorganic N forms in a sand matrix. It is well known that plants always take nitrogen in inorganic form. The manuscript, at least as written, lacks novelty. Despite the fact that, I provided some points to the authors which are address below. I have also highlighted and commented some points in Manuscript. • The English in the paper is very rough and requires the assistance of a more practiced English expert to make the paper more easily read and understandable. • The abstract still requires substantial editing. • The Purpose of the study in the abstract section is not clear. It should be concise within two to three lines. • Conclusion part in abstract section needs to be rewrite, it should be clear for better understanding of the readers • The quality of writing should be improved. • Introduction section is deficient. The authors did not present a novel justification for carrying out this study. • There is a dire need to address grammatical errors, as the sentence structure is unclear and confusing. This will make it difficult for readers to grasp the intended meaning. • The results and discussion section should be improved, well-structured and interconnected and the discussion should be link to all your findings. • The authors should finish the discussion with what are the main points (take home massage). • The paragraphs in result discussion section seems to be correspond to the results only and not to a real discussion of your results. The paragraphs are not appropriately discussed. • The deeper scientific interpretations of your findings are strongly suggested. • The conclusion must be self-explanatory and highlight novelty and implication of your study. • Make sure that all figures and tables are cited within the text and that they are cited in consecutive order. • References should be in Format • Please use Some recent references Reviewer #2: The study aims to decipher N uptake preference from N sources viz. urea, alanine, nitrate, and ammonium through isotopic studies and probable mechanism thereof. The methodology is robust and all the results pertaining to the objective are elaborated. The paper may be accepted after minor revisions as mentioned. ****** 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: Immanuel Chongboi Haokip ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review report.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331_edited.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r001
Revision 1
28 Apr 2025 Author Response Response to reviewers – PONE-D-24-59331 We thank the reviewers and editorial time in handling and reviewing our submission to PLoS1. We are pleased to address these comments, and our responses are given below in blue. As requested, we have also submitted a version of the MS with changes tracked to better facilitate the review process. All line numbers in our responses refer to the line numbers in the revised, clean version. Editorial comments: 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 Thank you for highlighting these issues. We apologies for not having thoroughly attended to these issues prior to the first submission, and hope that they are now deemed addressed satisfactorily. We will be happy to make any further modifications as required to meet the Journal’s specifications. 2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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. This is now done 3. 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. All authors have agreed to this statement. Publication of data relating to publications on the CSIRO Data Access Portal (data.csiro.au) is routine for publications arising from CSIRO authors. 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. Apologies. This has now been completed by all authors. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Apologies, this is now referenced at L169 Additional Editor Comments: The authors are advised to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments and resubmit it for further review. Reviewer 1: The manuscript entitled “Nitrogen uptake preference of Gossypium hirsutum L. from a mixture of urea, alanine, nitrate, and ammonium" has been reviewed. The authors provided the information on the ability of G. hirstutum to take up different organic and inorganic N forms in a sand matrix. It is well known that plants always take nitrogen in inorganic form. The manuscript, at least as written, lacks novelty. Despite the fact that, I provided some points to the authors which are address below. I have also highlighted and commented some points in Manuscript. We thank the reviewer for their comments. We contest their statement that “it is well known that plants always take nitrogen in inorganic form” as this is an inaccurate viewpoint that has been superseded over the past three decades of research into organic nitrogen nutrition of many species of higher plants (e.g., grasses, forbs, shrubs, trees, cereals), demonstrating their capacity to access organic nitrogen in the form of amino acids, short peptides, quaternary ammonium compounds, and even potentially whole proteins and microorganisms. Our data clearly demonstrate for the first time that the economically important G. hirsutum can now be added to that list. • The English in the paper is very rough and requires the assistance of a more practiced English expert to make the paper more easily read and understandable. All three authors are native English speakers. In redrafting this revision, we have made adjustments where extra clarity was required, and have also addressed the specific points raised by this reviewer. • The abstract still requires substantial editing. We have revised the abstract in line with the specific comments below from this reviewer • The Purpose of the study in the abstract section is not clear. It should be concise within two to three lines. We have clearly stated the purpose in response to this request • Conclusion part in abstract section needs to be rewrite, it should be clear for better understanding of the readers We have now re-arranged and expanded the concluding remarks of the abstract • The quality of writing should be improved. Please see earlier response • Introduction section is deficient. The authors did not present a novel justification for carrying out this study. We emphasise that the ability of the commercially important G. hirsutum to access organic N has not been previously examined at L75. • There is a dire need to address grammatical errors, as the sentence structure is unclear and confusing. This will make it difficult for readers to grasp the intended meaning. We have addressed the specific points on clarity raised by this reviewer below. • The results and discussion section should be improved, well-structured and interconnected and the discussion should be link to all your findings. Separating the results and discussion sections is preferred as this allows clear distinctions to be drawn between the findings of the study (results section) and their interpretation in light of published studies (discussion section). Specific comments raised by this reviewer have been addressed below. • The authors should finish the discussion with what are the main points (take home massage). The discussion is structured into sub-sections, as is common in scientific writing. We have taken care to ensure that each subsection now clearly emphasises its take-home message. • The paragraphs in result discussion section seems to be correspond to the results only and not to a real discussion of your results. The paragraphs are not appropriately discussed. As per our earlier response, the purpose of separating the results and discussion sections enables a delineation between the findings of the study (results section) and its implications in the context of the wider literature (discussion section). • The deeper scientific interpretations of your findings are strongly suggested. This study targeted examination of the physiological capacity of G. hirsutum to take up organic N forms, rather than questioning whether it does so in competition with soil microorganisms in field conditions. We highlight this limitation at L197. Thus, whilst we have modified text throughout the discussion, we do not feel it appropriate to over-interpret these data. • The conclusion must be self-explanatory and highlight novelty and implication of your study. We agree that the conclusion was not satisfactory and have completely revised this section. • Make sure that all figures and tables are cited within the text and that they are cited in consecutive order. This has now been checked • References should be in Format We have used the PLoS format in EndNote, and this appears to match that of the PLoS One guidelines • Please use Some recent references Two recent references (Gao et al 2025 #23, Bailey et al 2022 #51) have been added L1 Improve the title We have now simplified the title L19 Rewrite the sentence. Not clear Now done L37 Sentenceis not clear. Not understanding the meaning of sentence. Now revised for clarity L59 Very big sentence, not clear to understand, some words are missing, role of microbes. please try to read and rewrite again. Now revised for clarity L126 Write in seperate line for more clear picture and understandin Now revised for clarity L135 two times solution please write the sentence clearly Now revised for clarity L136 Superscript Thank you - fixed L241 Check and rewrite Sentence has been removed as part of the broader re-write and improvements of the conclusions section Reviewer 2: The study aims to decipher N uptake preference from N sources viz. urea, alanine, nitrate, and ammonium through isotopic studies and probable mechanism thereof. The methodology is robust and all the results pertaining to the objective are elaborated. The paper may be accepted after minor revisions as mentioned below: We thank the reviewer for their supportive and constructive comments Check the subheadings. Some subheadings are in running sentences while in some, each words are capitalized . This has now been resolved Abbreviations used in the paper must be described at the first mention and used uniformly thereafter. This has now been checked and resolved. The only exception to this is in discussion of the results where we do use NH4+--N and NO3--N to be accurate in the comparison with the N from the organic N cpds (e.g. alanine-N) as of course we only track the 15N and not the entire molecule. Thus we are being specific in talking about the N (or C) from each source molecule. Line number 45: check spelling of minerialisation Fixed, thank you Line number 98-100: Mention the statistical design Now done, thank you Line number 111: (s) should be normal font size? Fixed, thank you Line number 123, 127….: Equation may be presented a (1) Now done, thank you Line number 139: R version may be mentioned Now done, thank you In some, species are mentioned as NH4+–N and alanine—N while in some cases NH4+, alanine, etc are used. Uniform names may be followed. We explicitly highlight the –N in these cases when discussing the results as the isotopic analysis only allows us to be absolutely certain about the N (or C) and not the rest of the molecule in question. So, to treat N from nitrate or N from alanine equally, we must emphasise that it is only the N that is being discussed and not the rest of the molecule (that can only be presumed to have followed). References may be double-checked to follow the journal referencing guidelines and follow uniform referencing style throughout. Double-check to make sure that all references have a corresponding citation within the text and vice versa. This has now been done. We used the Endnote style for PLOS and made minor modifications to this to match current formatting instructions on the PLOS1 website. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r002
23 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Roshan Babu Ojha, Editor Dear Dr. Farrell, 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 Aug 07 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. 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 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, Roshan Babu Ojha Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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: I thank authors for carrying out this exciting work, however, there still some correction is necessary. There is no rationale why only alanine and urea as an organic N form is selected as treatment because there are many other organic N forms are available? It is somehow reflected in hypothesis, but a clear statement would help. You have used labelled N and C to exactly quantify the N uptake by cotton, I suggest making a graphical abstract showing how much proportion of N uptake through several N forms. L123, How the 13C information used in N uptake (equation 1-4)? L188, present r coeff value. Is this a no correlation or non-significant correlation? L264, L266, Fix syntax error (eg space and spelling) This is 180 minutes research suggesting a N uptake preference of cotton. Please justify why only 180 minutes, people working on isotope might understand but it is good to provide some rationale to clarify wider audience. Overall, this an intensive work and appreciate authors efforts. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: Line no. 2: Is BCT the abbreviation for Bennet C.T.? If yes, is it suitable to remove BCT? Line no. 21: Two full stops, remove one of them Line no. 28: What do you mean by taking up intact? Do you mean to say that they are taken up in compound form without any dissociation? Line no. 72: DON?? Abbreviate it first Line no. 74: inconcert or in concert? Line no. 41: compare the dash used in line 41, 46,142, 169 similar dashes may be used Line no. 117: give space between 40 and °C Line no. 193: check spelling of demomnstrate Line no. 196: soil N pool or soil organic n pool? Line no. 264: add space between G. hirsutum and through Line no. 271: correct the spelling of biogeochmaical In references, the number is repeated. Remove one of them. The format needs to be revised, for example, some of the journal name are in abbreviation while some are in full, some doi is presented as doi: while some are in https://doi.org/ , see the journal format again. ****** 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: Immanuel Chongboi Haokip ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r003
Revision 2
30 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer #2: • Line no. 2: Is BCT the abbreviation for Bennet C.T.? If yes, is it suitable to remove BCT? [BCT removed] • Line no. 21: Two full stops, remove one of them [removed] • Line no. 28: What do you mean by taking up intact? Do you mean to say that they are taken up in compound form without any dissociation? [have added “…was absorbed intact without extracellular deamination.”] • Line no. 72: DON?? Abbreviate it first [It was defined on line 58] • Line no. 74: inconcert or in concert? [space inserted] • Line no. 41: compare the dash used in line 41, 46,142, 169 similar dashes may be used [These dashes all converted to standard “-“ dash. All em dashes, en dashes and hyphens have been reviewed in the document Em dash (—) e.g. alanine—N En dash (–) e.g. NH4+–N Hyphen (-) e.g. 40-50 ] • Line no. 117: give space between 40 and °C [space inserted] • Line no. 193: check spelling of demomnstrate [corrected] • Line no. 196: soil N pool or soil organic n pool? [reworded for clarity] • Line no. 264: add space between G. hirsutum and through [corrected] • Line no. 271: correct the spelling of biogeochmaical [corrected] Additional Editor Comments: • There is no rationale why only alanine and urea as an organic N form is selected as treatment because there are many other organic N forms are available? It is somehow reflected in hypothesis, but a clear statement would help. [Alanine is a simple model organic N compound that is a major component of proteins – the main non-synthetic source of organic N in soils. Alanine has been used previously as a model organic N in studies investigating both plant (Hill et al. 2011, PLoS1) and microbial (Farrell et al. 2011, GBC) organic N uptake, and has been shown to be intermediate in turnover time relative to a number of other amino acids (Farrell et al. 2014, SBB). Urea was used as the alternate organic N compound as it is a commonly used N fertiliser, especially in irrigated cotton system, where its high N density is beneficial for transport logistics. We have added an explanatory sentence detailing this after the hypotheses.] • You have used labelled N and C to exactly quantify the N uptake by cotton, I suggest making a graphical abstract showing how much proportion of N uptake through several N forms. [completed] • L123, How the 13C information used in N uptake (equation 1-4)? [Line 129 explains that the equations’ pronumerals should be substituted when calculating carbon. Alternatively, we could list each equation twice next to each other with each of the appropriate pronumerals if that is preferred] • L188, present r coeff value. Is this a no correlation or non-significant correlation? [There is no correlation is demonstrated in the figure and thus we do not report a value in text] • L264, L266, Fix syntax error (eg space and spelling) [We believe this is now fixed] • This is 180 minutes research suggesting a N uptake preference of cotton. Please justify why only 180 minutes, people working on isotope might understand but it is good to provide some rationale to clarify wider audience. [Due to the well documented rapid turnover of amino acids and other low molecular weight dissolved organic N compounds in soil, longer term pulse-chase experiments risk only observing uptake dominated by N (and C) from the target compounds after extracellular mineralisation of the target labelled compound. The very short-term nature of this experiment and the sand matrix growth medium were chosen to best probe N uptake dominated by intact compounds rather than the secondary products of extracellular mineralisation. A short sentence explaining this has been added to the end of the Experimental Design sub-section.] Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 2025-08 latimeretal_R1 Revisions.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r004
1 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Roshan Babu Ojha, Editor Nitrogen uptake preference of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) PONE-D-24-59331R2 Dear Dr. Farrell, 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, Roshan Babu Ojha Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you very much for addressing reviewer and editor comments and suggestions. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Roshan Babu Ojha, Editor PONE-D-24-59331R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Farrell, 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. Roshan Babu Ojha Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r006

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 .