Dear Dr. Wang,

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

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,

Nabin Rawal, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Natural Science Funds of Hubei Province of China(2024AFB1015).”

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please consider the enclosed reviewer's comments and make the necessary changes to your manuscript based on their advice/ suggestion and send the revised manuscript for further processing so that we can resend to the reviewers.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Specific comments:

1. Please recheck the abbreviations that have been mentioned in the whole manuscript. Please elaborate on them at least once in the first place in the abstract and other sections of the manuscript.

In the abstract, authors are asked to revise some typing mistakes.

2. The figures in the results section are of good quality, but sometimes the fonts are so small that they are hard to read. Also, the patterns in the columns of each figure should be changed to other patterns or colors that are easy to read.

3. The introduction section is well written, and in my opinion, it sheds light on the problem in a concise manner. Overall, the objectives are briefly explained and are good to go with.

4. The materials and methods section is nicely presented and well described. Some references are missing.

5. Please check the whole manuscript; the format should be improved, such as there are some unit presentations. Put the relevant unit with each value across the manuscript.

Please add some recent literature to discuss your results in the discussion section.

6. Please rewrite the conclusion. The conclusion is recommended to be supported by the data shown in tables, put detail of any limitations of this study, describe implications of this study, and provide recommendations for future perspectives.

7. The references in the text as well as in the list should be formatted according to the style of the journal.

Main Comments:

1. Consider clarifying the specific mechanisms by which regulated N and Mo management might influence NUE and yield.

2. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of how these increases compare to previous studies or expected outcomes?

3. It would be helpful to specify which growth stages were most affected and why.

4. Consider discussing any potential trade-offs or limitations of this approach, such as economic feasibility or environmental concerns.

5. Adding data on how Mo influences photosynthetic enzyme activity or chlorophyll content could strengthen this statement.

6. Consider discussing the potential economic and environmental implications of this fertilizer management strategy.

7. It might be helpful to discuss possible physiological explanations for why high N rates decrease these efficiencies.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

The subject of the study is interesting and topical, with scientific and practical importance.

The following aspects are brought to the attention of the authors.

1.

Page 1, Line 13

“the effects” instead of “theeffects”

2.

Line 14

"Se", what does it mean?

“Se application levels”

3.

Line 26

"Mo0", what does it represent?

"Mo1", "Mo2" and "Mo3" (Lines 14 - 15) have been explained, but not "Mo0".

Clear presentation of treatments is necessary.

4.

Lines 80 - 81

It is recommended to clarify certain terms, with reference to wheat

e.g.

"spikelet per panicle" and wet gluten content of wheat

5.

Lines 136 – 138

The NAE formula (lines 136 - 138) is appropriate to be presented as an equation, and not in text format.

Similar recommendations for "NRE" and for "PFPN", lines 138 – 142

6.

Numbering of bibliographical sources in the text

e.g. Line 154

“Hou et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2022”

Similar to Line 167

7

Line 163

“FeCl3” instead of “FeCl3”

8.

It is recommended to revise the term "panicle" in reference to wheat.

In several places in the text, throughout the article, the term is used.

Revision and correction are recommended, with appropriate terms for wheat.

9.

References

Some bibliographic sources have blank spaces in the text line.

Revision and correction are required.

Some journal titles are written in full text, while others are written in abbreviated form.

Proofreading and unitary writing are recommended, in accordance with the Instructions for Authors, PLOS One journal

Italic Font Style for species name

e.g.

Line 388

“Triticum aestivum L.”

10.

Figure 5, Line 439

“m-2” instead of “m-2”

11.

Figure 5, Line 439

“*” and “**” are explained in the figure title, but are not found in the figure, associated with the obtained values

Reviewer #3: In this study, authors analyzed the grain yield, NUE parameters, and N metabolic enzyme activities in wheat under the combined application of N and Mo using two cultivars. Results revealed that high Mo and low N input is beneficial for yield production, as it can prolong the duration of green leaf, improve the activity of N metabolic enzymes in middle and late growth. Several suggestions and questions are as follows:

1. The language needs to be improved by the native English speakers, as many places are not following the scientific English writing standards and difficult to understand. I do not want to point these places one by one.

2. Line 13, there should be a blank space in “theeffects”.

3. Line 14, Se? It is Mo.

4. Line 26-27, the activities of NR, GS, and GOGAT. How N1 and N2 can compare with Mo0?

5. How to conduct the N and Mo treatment? It is not clear. The materials have not been described in the M&M section.

6. Line 109-113, what is this? I doubt whether this manuscript has been written by the authors?

7. Line 136, authors described the NAE as nitrogen agronomic efficiency, but in abstract, NAE is referred as nitrogen absorption efficiency.

8. Line 141-142, “N fertilizer (PFPN, kg kg–1) = [grain yield / amount of N fertilizer applied] “?

9. Line 190, what is “N3”?

10. Authors performed this experiment using two cultivars, but they did not refer these cultivars in the manuscript. They should introduce the background of these two cultivars, describe the results of these two cultivars, and discuss the similarities and the differences of these two cultivars.

11. The interaction between N and Mo needs to be further discussed.

Reviewer #4: The following corrections should be made to the article:

1-In line 13 the effects

2- In line 14 It should be corrected to Se instead of Mo

3- Inl line 77 (20-22) There is no reference number 21.

4-In line 89 It should be corrected to field experiments instead of pot experiments

5- In line 90 plant densities There is no experiments plan with plant density in the article.

6-In line 98 2022 instead 2021

7-In line 163 FeCI3 (The number 3 should be written as a subscript)

8-In line 168 HCl

9- Inline 210 ve 216 Table 2 instead of table 1

**********

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: Muhammad Usman

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-09819 (2).pdf

Effects of increasing molybdenum under low nitrogen input on yield, nitrogen-metabolizing enzymes and nitrogen use efficiency of winter wheat cultivars

PONE-D-25-09819R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. 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,

Nabin Rawal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We truly appreciate your consideration to publish your research findings with the PLOS One. Thank you for addressing the comments and suggestion from subject matter experts (four reviewers), and I would like to inform you that it may be proceeded for further processing.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed, and the manuscript is recommended for acceptance for publication. Best of luck!

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Hongmei Cai

**********