Dear Dr. Karnena,

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 Dec 11 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,

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and supporting information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

 We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

 Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

 In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

 2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. 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. 

8. 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.

[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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Comments

This manuscript addresses an important topic concerning phosphorus (P) dynamics and uptake in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP), a region of high agronomic significance. The study provides valuable insights into the relationship between soil physico-chemical properties, P availability, and nutrient interactions, particularly the antagonism between P and Zn in wheat. The topic aligns well with the scope of PLOS ONE, emphasizing soil fertility, nutrient efficiency, and sustainable crop production.

However, while the study is scientifically sound and the data is extensive, the MS need some minor revisions:

Title and Abstract

• The title is appropriate; however, please correct the spelling of “Phopshorus” to “Phosphorus” in the short title.

• In the abstract, the sentence “excessive P application altered Zn concentration” may be rephrased as “P fertilization altered Zn concentration” to avoid implying over-application.

Introduction

• The introduction is well written and contextually relevant. Ensure consistent use of “phosphorus (P)” after its first occurrence.

Results

• In the Tables, please ensure consistent significant figure formatting for numeric data (e.g., 2 decimal places or as appropriate).

Discussion

• The discussion effectively relates soil variability and P dynamics and well written while focusing on the most relevant findings.

Conclusion

• The conclusion is comprehensive. You may consider a concise final sentence emphasizing the applicability of findings to site-specific nutrient management and nutritional quality improvement.

Formatting and References

• Check consistency in reference formatting (especially spacing and punctuation between author initials).

• Ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., OC, DTPA) are defined at first use.

• Correct minor typographical errors (e.g., inconsistent capitalization, spacing before parentheses).

Some specific suggestions:

• Line 92: Check grammar of this sentence.

• Line 95: Spelling mistake. Need Correction.

• Line 101: Need Capitalization.

• Line 109: this symbol (p) is not in above equation.

• Line 113, 114, 120: Write properly by using subscripts.

• Line 125: Combine it as diammonium.

• Line 127: Treatment combinations are not defined clearly, neither in a table or in-text.

• Table 1: Maintain the uniformity of digits after decimal through the table. Write expanded form of ‘Avail.’ in the footnote of the table.

• Table 2: Write expanded form of ‘CF’ and other variables in footnote of the table.

• Table 3 &4: Add expanded form and details regarding no. of observations, level of significance, etc. about CV, LSD, and SE(m) terms in table footnote.

Overall Assessment

The manuscript is well-structured, data-rich, and scientifically sound. Only minor editorial and formatting improvements are needed. The findings have clear implications for nutrient management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains and merit publication after these small revisions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript 'Understanding phosphorus dynamics and uptake in diverse soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains of India' presents novel insights into phosphorus dynamics and nutrient interactions in wheat under diverse soil conditions. The work is generally sound and within the scope of PLOS ONE. The manuscript is well written and structured logically. The objectives are clear and align with the presented results. However, a few editorial and methodological clarifications are required. Figures and tables could benefit from consistent formatting, and certain results need quantitative support. Key issues include unclear fertilizer protocols, limited explanation of sampling design and interpretation is largely descriptive.

Line-by-Line Comments

Lines3: Correct "Phopshorus" to "Phosphorus" in the short title.

Lines 36-37: Add "wheat" and "zinc deficiency" for better discoverability.

Lines 20–35: Abstract: Condense slightly and include key quantitative findings (e.g., range of P uptake and soil pH). The abstract mentions significant variations (p<0.05) but does not specified the statistical test used in methodology section.

Lines 38–89: Introduction repeats known concepts. Condense and focus on research gap and hypothesis development.

Lines 47–56: Revise paragraph on phosphorus chemistry to include one or two recent references (2023–2024).

Lines 72–79: Briefly link the P–Zn interaction discussion with the study objectives.

Lines 147–152: Specify version and reference for statistical software (GRAPES).

Lines 90–152: Provide detailed description of soil sampling criteria, replication, and fertilizer treatments. Clarify 150% vs 100% P confusion.

Lines 175–196: Define pfH₂PO₄ and provide units in Table 2.

Lines 226–238: Provide a one-line mechanistic explanation of P–Zn antagonism for clarity.

Lines 226–238: Include two-way ANOVA results for P×Zn interaction.

Lines 242–250: Provide correlation coefficients (r, p) for Figure 3 instead of descriptive statements.

Lines 322–341: Conclusion: Add statement on implications for future field research and sustainability.

General comments

Provide correlation coefficient (r) values in Figure 3.

Ensure consistency in statistical notations across all tables

Add references to standard protocols viz. texture by hydrometer method etc..

Reviewer #3: The authors aimed to explain the dynamics of phosphorus and its uptake in various soil types across the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. The availability of phosphorus fertilizers remains a major challenge for farmers in India. This study contributes to a better understanding of phosphorus fixation and its availability to plants.

**********

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:  gaurav mishra

Reviewer #3: Yes:  DR. SUSHIL KUMAR KHARIA, SKRAU, BIKANER (RAJASTHAN) INDIA

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments PLOSONE.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-53866_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS_ONE_Reviewer_Report.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS_One_Reviewer_Report.docx

Understanding phosphorus dynamics and uptake in diverse soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

PONE-D-25-53866R1

Dear Dr. Koteshwar Rao,

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):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for sharing the revised version of the manuscript titled “Understanding Phosphorus Dynamics and Uptake in Diverse Soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains of India.” I have carefully reviewed the corrected version and am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors. The concerns raised in the previous review have been appropriately addressed, and the manuscript has improved in clarity, scientific rigor, and presentation.

I recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors tried to explain phosphorus dynamics and uptake in diverse soils of Indo-Gangetic

Plains of India. Overall the paper quality is good.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Pooja Jangra

Reviewer #2: Yes:  GAURAV MISHRA

Reviewer #3: Yes:  SUSHIL KUMAR KHARIA

**********