-->PONE-D-26-06219-->-->Optimizing Black Soldier Fly frass fertilizer rates for maize and soybean production in Madagascar-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ramiadantsoa,

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 16 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols..

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dave Mangindaan

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 andand

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. We note that you have referenced (All analyses above used FAO crop prices, which are approximately half of prevailing local market prices (unpublished data) and (However, in other experiments conducted by us, increasing frass application rate did not affect germination (unpublished data), indicating that any transient effects are likely context dependent.) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

-->Please kindly revise according to the assessment and suggestions of the reviewers. Please also download the comments in the attachment of the review via logging into EditorialManager.com system. -->--> -->-->In particular, I also agree to the suggestion to add recent studies related to the effect of various feed in the growing BSF larvae, especially when some of the references are older than 2020s, such as:-->-->

•    Green Technologies and Sustainability 2 (2024) 100112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.grets.2024.100112

•    Scientific African 27 (2025) e02626 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02626

Thank you.

Assoc. Prof. Dave Mangindaan, PhD, MRSC, AMIChemE, ASEAN Eng.

-->

[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?

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

-->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.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->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: Comments for Author,

Thank you for the submission. Even the paper is interesting, I have some comments before accepted this paper .

Specific comments

Extend introduction with more refs..

Give more information regarding data analyses.

Discussion is superficial. Please give more data.

Best Regards

Reviewer #2: This is a timely and relevant study that addresses a critical gap in the practical application of insect-based fertilizers. The large-scale field trial and the focus on both agronomic and economic optima are significant strengths. However, several points require clarification, correction, or further development to enhance the manuscript's rigor and impact before publication.

1. You have introduced two significant uncontrolled variables: flooding and dolomite application. By not including "dolomite" as a fixed factor in your statistical models and by not stratifying or blocking for the "flooding" effect, you cannot separate the true effect of the frass rate from the effects of liming and waterlogging stress. The statement that this provides "conservative estimates" (Line 170) is not accurate. It creates noise and potentially bias, making it harder to detect true treatment effects and potentially skewing the dose-response curve. This is not a matter of simply mentioning it in the supplementary material. The primary analysis must account for these factors. I would strongly suggest to:

a. For dolomite: Include it as a fixed effect in all your mixed-effects models

b. For flooding: You should either (a) exclude flooded plots from the primary analysis if they are few and the flooding was clearly an outlier event, or (b) include a binary "flooded" variable as a fixed effect in the models. Presenting only the pooled analysis leaves the results open to criticism that the observed patterns are driven by site heterogeneity, not the treatment itself.

2. NAE is a descriptive metric for a specific rate. Multiplying it by the predicted yield to find a maximum is mathematically unusual and biologically ambiguous. The "NAE-adjusted yield" is not a standard agronomic or physiological parameter. What does this product represent? It appears to heavily penalize higher yields, inevitably driving the "optimum" to a lower rate. The authors state this balances "yield gains against efficient nutrient use" (Line 395). However, the most economically relevant optimization already exists in your Marginal Value-Cost Ratio (MVCR) analysis, which directly uses crop and fertilizer prices. NAE is an efficiency metric, not a direct proxy for environmental impact (like nitrogen leaching potential) or economic return. Using it to create a new "optimum" is redundant and conceptually less clear than the MVCR. I strongly advise removing the "NAE-adjusted yield" and the "NAE-optimal dose" (Lines 229-230, 344-345, 395-408, and Figure 3D). The agronomic optimum is best described by the plateau of the yield response curve (the asymptote). The economic optimum is best described by the MVCR analysis. The NAE analysis is useful for describing how efficiency declines (Figure 3C), which is a valuable finding in itself. Focus the narrative on these two clear, complementary concepts: biophysical potential and economic feasibility.

3. The economic analysis needs to be reframed. Acknowledge these limitations explicitly (you do in Lines 449-452, but it's too late). The current analysis shows the maximum allowable frass price at the farm gate. It does not demonstrate that using these optimal rates is profitable in reality. The conclusion that frass prices "between USD 15 and 97 t⁻¹ were acceptable to profitable" (Line 414) is therefore a theoretical upper bound, not a practical recommendation. The discussion must be tempered to reflect that for the farmer, the relevant cost is "frass price + transport + labor."

4. Expand on the physiological trade-off observed in soybean (growth vs. yield) and the importance of the soil's initial P status for interpreting the results.

5. Soil Context (Table 1): The soil has "relatively high available phosphorus" (P = 24.45 ppm). This is an important point. The positive yield response you see is largely a response to nitrogen (and perhaps potassium/micronutrients) from the frass, not phosphorus. This should be highlighted, as it means the results are most applicable to soils with adequate P. On P-deficient soils, the response to frass might be even greater or qualitatively different.

6. Lines 194-199 (Growth-Yield Relationship): The interpretation of the slopes in Figure 2C and 2D is interesting. For maize (2C), the flat line suggests that the positive link between early vigor and final yield is maintained at all frass rates. For soybean (2D), the declining slope is a key finding. It suggests that at high frass rates, high early vegetative cover does not necessarily translate into high grain yield, possibly due to luxury vegetative growth at the expense of pod filling. This point is mentioned but could be elaborated on in the discussion as a potential physiological trade-off.

This study has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable agriculture. Addressing these points, particularly the experimental design confounding and the economic analysis, will significantly strengthen its conclusions and practical relevance.

Reviewer #3: Major Comment

This manuscript presents a well-designed field study evaluating the agronomic and economic performance of BSF frass as an organic fertilizer for maize and soybean in Madagascar. The study addresses a critical constraint to agricultural intensification in low-income systems, namely fertilizer affordability, and integrates asymptotic yield modeling with NAE and MVCR analyses. The results demonstrate consistent yield increases without evidence of yield penalties at high application rates and provide an agronomic–economic framework that could inform fertilizr recommendations under resource-constrained conditions. Beyond its immediate findings, the study has practical relevance for circular bioeconomy strategies, offering evidnce that locally produced organic fertilizers such as BSF frass may help reduce dependency on imported mineral fertilizers, enhance nutrient recycling, and contribute to narrowing yield gaps in smallholder systems.

However, the experimental design indicates that dolomite was systematically applied to half of the plots within each frass rate, effectively creating a factorial structure, yet dolomite was not included as a fixed factor in the main statistical model, nor were frass × dolomite interactions formally explained. Given the well-established effects of liming on soil pH, nutrient availability, and nitrogen dynamics, excluding this factor may influence interpretation of the dose–response relationships. In addition, flooding events were reported but not clearly incorporated or analytically justified in the primry model. For consistency between experimental design and statistical inference, these factors should either be explicitly modeled (including dolomite and its interaction with frass rate in a mixed-effects framework) or clearly reported as tested and found non-significant, with appropriate model specifications and statistical evidence. That said, I remain neutral at this stage, as relevant data are presented in the Supplementary Material. I would therefore be interested to see whether the second reviewer shares similar concerns before recommending a more definitive course of action.

In addition, I consider it important to highlight that several sections, particularly within the Methods, contain limited citation of supporting literature. Methodological decisions should ideally be grounded in established experimental design principles or prior validated approaches, yet the manuscript provides relatively few references to justify key analytical and experimental choices. This limited citation base may compromise methodological traceability and future reproducibility. I therefore strongly encourage the authors to substantially strengthen the reference support, especially in the Methods section, to enhance transparency, scientific rigor, and reproducibility.

Based on the considerations outlined above, I regret that at this stage I must recommend major revision. This decision reflects concerns regarding analytical consistency and methodological transparency rather than the overall scientific merit of the work. I strongly encourage the authors to address the issues raised, as the findings are important and have significant potential impact; with appropriate revisions, this study could make a valuable contribution to the literature and to broader discussions on sustainable fertilizr strategies in agricultural systems.

I have prepared a table to provide a more detailed overview of the specific points that require improvement based on my feedback, which is presented below as Table 1.

Tabel 1. Minor Comment

No. Line(s) Comments

1 26-36 Please add information on frass productivity derived from similar waste streams or from the local region, to illustrate product abundance and its potential as a fertilizer alternative.

2 107-109 Could you clarify whether the selection of these frass application rates is based on established references or prior studies? Please provide the supporting sources.

3 117-127 Please provide references to support the technical procedures used for maize and soybean planting.

4 154, 157, 167, 194, 207 Please provide references to support the technical procedures used for this study.

5 224-225, 235-236 Add definitions/explanations for the equation parameters, especially 'ton', 'ton h-1', etc. These should be clearly described.

6 224 Add a citation to “(Equation 1)” in the text after “Nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) was calculated as”.

7 223 The formulation of nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) requires clarification. Please provide the literature reference supporting the equation used, present the formula explicitly in its complete mathematical form (including the denominator), and clearly state all units for each term to avoid ambiguity. In addition, the definition of “NAE-adjusted yield” should be written as an explicit equation, with its corresponding units, and supported by an appropriate methodological or theoretical justification. Clear and transparent presentation of these formulas is essential for reproducibility and reader comprehension.

8 234 Add a citation to “(Equation 1)” in the text after “Economic performance was evaluated using the marginal value-cost ratio (MVCR), calculated as”.

9 234-239 Please provide an appropriate reference to support this formula.

10 295, 300 The reported application rate of 0.04 t ha⁻¹ associated with the highest NAE appears inconsistent with the described treatment range (0.4 t ha⁻¹ to 30 t ha⁻¹) and seems unusually low, therefore please clarify whether this value is correct, model-derived, or a typographical error.

11 325-326 Please provide a verifiable source for the local crop prices described as “approximately double the FAO values,” as these data are currently cited as unpublished; given that profitability thresholds scale directly with crop price, transparent documentation of these local price assumptions is essential for evaluating the robustness of the economic conclusions, and these data should be included either directly in the manuscript or as supplementary material.

12 397-399 Please provide the supporting literature for this statement, as no reference is currently cited to substantiate the statement.

13 427-428 The statement “substantially lower than those for cattle manure, mineral NPK fertilizer in Madagascar, and mineral fertilizers reported elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa” lacks an explicit citation for cattle manure prices specifically in Madagascar. Reference [6] appears to cover mineral fertilizer cost comparisons but does not substantiate the claim regarding cattle manure. Please provide an appropriate literature or data source supporting the cattle manure price comparison, and include this reference directly in the manuscript or, if necessary, in the supplementary material.

14 Fig. 4 In Figure 4, the contour labels (1, 2, 3, 10, 50) overlap with key areas of the plot and partially obscure the underlying data, making interpretation difficult; please adjust the placement of these labels to improve clarity and readability.

15 Fig. 4C Figure 4C is not mentioned in the manuscript text. Please ensure it is appropriately referred to and its role in the study is clearly described

16 References Please add more references from the recent five years to show the novelty/new progress brought by this study. There are still some from 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2019.

Sincerely,

Mulki Salendra Kusumah

**********

-->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mulki Salendra KusumahMulki Salendra Kusumah

**********

[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: Major & Minor Comments.docx

-->PONE-D-26-06219R1-->-->Optimizing Black Soldier Fly frass fertilizer rates for maize and soybean production in Madagascar-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ramiadantsoa,

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 make sure to obtain Reviewer #3's comments/annotations in the attachment, via EditorialManager platform. -->-->The detailed comments provided by Reviewer #3 are very important to the improvement of this submission. -->--> -->-->In addition, Reviewer #3 also highlighted that fresher references are needed. -->-->As a researcher of BSF myself, some of them (from 2022 and 2024) might be: -->-->https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020205-->-->https://doi.org/10.3390/su142113993 -->-->The articles are of open access publication, and therefore the authors can freely read and decide to cite them or not. -->--> -->-->Regards,-->-->Assoc. Prof. Dave Mangindaan, PhD, MRSC, AMIChemE, ASEAN Eng. -->-->

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols..

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dave Mangindaan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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 #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?

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

-->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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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 #2: 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: Paper could be accepted for the publication. So, I can suggest for the publication.

Best Regards.

Reviewer #2: The authors have performed a thorough revision. The most critical changes: removing the confounded dolomite and flood-affected plots and eliminating the conceptually weak "NAE-adjusted yield" analysis, demonstrate a strong commitment to scientific rigor and clarity. The manuscript is now more focused, with a cleaner narrative centered on biophysical response and economic profitability.

The authors have not only made the requested changes but have gone further to simplify and strengthen the manuscript. The revised version is significantly improved in terms of methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and interpretive caution.

I would, however, suggest for the authors to conduct a thorough peer review to check the terminologies and check if there are any typographical errors to improve the manuscript flow and readability. After that, I believe the manuscript is fit for publication. Congratulations.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the revisions and for carefully addressing the previous comments. I appreciate the improvements made, even though some aspects required removal, and I acknowledge that the manuscript has improved overall. However, several points still require further clarification and refinement to strengthen the manuscript. Please consider the following detailed comments (highlighted in yellow for clarity) to further improve the quality, transparency, and robustness of the study.

1. Add information on frass productivity derived from similar waste streams or from the local region.

Response: We added a new paragraph in the Introduction describing the expected quantity of frass generated by BSF systems processing organic waste streams, with specific reference to agro-industrial substrates such as brewery spent grain. This addition is intended to better illustrate the potential abundance of frass as a locally available fertilizer alternative.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification and the additional paragraph. However, the references provided primarily justify frass yield potential based on BSF bioconversion efficiency. To strengthen the argument regarding real-world availability, I encourage the authors to include supporting data from official and region-specific sources (e.g., national statistics agencies or government reports) that quantify the production of relevant organic waste streams (such as agro-industrial residues) in the study area. This would provide a more robust and context-specific basis for assessing the practical abundance and scalability of frass as a fertilizer alternative.

2. Clarify whether the selected frass application rates were based on established references or prior studies.

Response: We clarified the rationale for the selected application rates in the Methods. Briefly, the twelve doses were chosen to sample a broad range of the parameter space while concentrating more observations in the intermediate range, where we expected the most informative part of the dose–response curve. The design was also constrained by available field area and replication requirements.

Comment: Thank you for clarifying the rationale behind the selection of application rates. I understand the constraints and the logic of your experimental design. However, I would kindly request that you also provide references to previous studies or established fertilization practices for this crop. This will help ensure that the tested rates are relatable to common field applications and farmer practices, thereby strengthening the practical relevance of your findings.

3–4. Provide references to support the technical procedures used for planting and for other procedures in the study.

Response: We added references where appropriate and clarified the procedures in the Methods. Some measurements, such as germination, vegetative growth, and reproductive status, are standard agronomic observations and were included primarily to complement the main yield-focused analyses.

Comment: Thank you for adding references and clarifying the procedures. However, I noticed that the citation was only provided at the beginning of the Methods section (“The experiment followed agroecological management practices [5, 26–29]”). For greater clarity and traceability, it would be more effective to include specific references within each relevant subsection, for example, under Germination, Vegetative growth and reproductive development, Harvest and yield determination, and Germination and growth. This will allow readers to easily follow and verify the procedures against prior studies, thereby strengthening the methodological rigor of your manuscript.

5. Clarify equation parameters and units, including t ha⁻¹.

Response: We clarified the notation and units associated with all equation terms in the revised manuscript, including the definition of t ha⁻¹.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification.

6. Add a citation to the NAE equation.

Response: We added a citation for the NAE equation (Baligar et al., 2001).

Comment: Thank you for adding the citation for the NAE equation. The reference is appropriate; however, the phrase “(Equation 1)” should still be explicitly included in the text. The intended format is: “Nitrogen agronomic efficiency (NAE) was calculated as (Equation 1):” followed by the citation (e.g., Baligar et al., 2001). Please see, for example, the formatting used in [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332046]. Including both the equation label and the reference will improve clarity and consistency for readers.

7. Clarify the NAE formulation and define all variables and units.

Response: We clarified the NAE equation, added the supporting citation, and explicitly defined all variables and units in the text. We also removed the NAE-adjusted yield analysis in response to Reviewer #2, which resolved the reviewer’s additional concern regarding that derived metric.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification. This revision is reasonable and can be accepted.

8–9. Add a citation to the MVCR equation and support the formula.

Response: We added a citation for the MVCR equation (Ragasa et al., 2025) and retained supporting references for commonly used profitability thresholds (Chamberlin et al., 2021; Sheahan et al., 2013; Theriault et al., 2018).

Comment: Thank you for adding the citation for the MVCR equation and supporting references. However, as indicated in my earlier point (see Comment 6), the phrase “(Equation XX)” should still be explicitly included in the text after “Economic performance was evaluated using the marginal value-cost ratio (MVCR), calculated as”. This formatting, together with the citation, will ensure clarity and consistency for readers.

10. Clarify the reported application rate associated with the highest NAE.

Response: We agree that this value could be confusing. It was model-derived rather than one of the experimental treatment levels. To avoid ambiguity, we replaced it with 0.4 t ha⁻¹, which corresponds to the lowest applied treatment rate. This change does not alter the interpretation.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification. This revision is reasonable and can be accepted.

11. Provide a verifiable source for local crop prices described as approximately double the FAO values.

Response: We agree that the local market price statement was insufficiently documented. We therefore removed that unsupported comparison from the revised manuscript and retained the FAO-based analysis, which is fully referenced. We also added discussion clarifying how the MVCR framework can be rescaled if local crop prices differ from FAO values.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification. This revision is reasonable and can be accepted.

12. Add supporting literature for the statement on the negative effects of excessive fertilizer use.

Response: We added supporting citations for the environmental consequences of excessive fertilizer use, including Carpenter et al. (1998), Guo et al. (2010), and Vitousek et al. (1997).

Comment: Thank you for adding the supporting citations. The references provided are relevant, however, it would further strengthen the manuscript if more recent studies could also be included alongside the classic works.

13. Provide a citation for the cattle manure price comparison in Madagascar.

Response: We removed the comparison with cattle manure in Madagascar because we could not provide a sufficiently verifiable citation. We retained the comparison with mineral NPK fertilizer and now cite a government-backed source for the current price.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification. This revision is reasonable and can be accepted.

14. Adjust Figure 4 contour labels to improve readability.

Response: Done. The contour labels in Figure 4 were repositioned to improve clarity and reduce overlap.

Comment: Thank you for revising Figure 4. The repositioning of the contour labels has clearly improved readability, and the graph is now much easier to interpret.

15. Figure 4C is not mentioned in the manuscript text.

Response: We removed the cattle manure results, and Figure 4 now presents only the FAO-based analyses discussed in the main text.

Comment: Thank you for the clarification.

16. Add more references from the last five years.

Response: We added 27 new references, including 11 published within the last five years. We aimed to balance recent literature with older seminal papers that remain important for framing the study.

Comment: Thank you for adding the additional references, including several recent ones. However, the manuscript still appears to rely heavily on citations older than five years. I leave it to the editor’s discretion to determine whether the current balance between recent and older references is acceptable or if further adjustment is required.

**********

-->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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: Reviewer #3 Comments - 2nd.docx

Optimizing Black Soldier Fly frass fertilizer rates for maize and soybean production in Madagascar

PONE-D-26-06219R2

Dear Dr. Ramiadantsoa,

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

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

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

Dave Mangindaan

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

As Reviewers 1, 2, and 3 are satisfied with the revisions made by the authors, the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Thank you for your effort and scientific contributions.

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 #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?

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: The current state of the manuscript has met my expectations. It is now fit for publication in PLOS One, congratulations.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the thorough revisions and for carefully addressing the previous comments. I appreciate the improvements made, the manuscript is now significantly clearer and more coherent in its overall flow. In my view, the manuscript has reached a standard suitable for acceptance and can proceed to the next stage of the publication process. I would like to express my appreciation for the authors’ efforts and congratulations on this work. I hope it will provide valuable contributions to the broader community.

**********

-->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mulki Salendra KusumahMulki Salendra Kusumah

**********