Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Dec 12;20(12):e0334700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334700

Nitrogen uptake preference of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

James O Latimer 1,2,*, Mark Farrell 3,*, Ben C T Macdonald 2
Editor: Roshan Babu Ojha4
PMCID: PMC12700366  PMID: 41385508

Abstract

Low molecular weight (LMW) soil organic nitrogen (N) can be a significant source of N in commercial cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) systems, potentially comprising a meaningful portion of N uptake in Australian irrigated cotton. Cotton obtains the majority of its N from the soil N pool rather than directly from fertiliser—N. Organic N is the major component of the soil N pool. The purpose of this study was to test the ability of G. hirstutum to take up different organic and inorganic N forms using isotopically labelled compounds. This was done in a sand matrix to reduce potential for microbial competition and enable a clearer view of the physiological capacity of the plant to access different N forms. The experiment showed that cotton took up inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+) and organic N (alanine and urea) concurrently, with a slight preference towards inorganic N overall. The uptake mechanism for organic carbon (C) associated with the organic N was also examined, showing that alanine—C was taken up linearly, with a consistent internal 13C:15N ratio suggesting that some alanine was absorbed intact without extracellular deamination. Overall, the experiment demonstrated that G. hirsutum can rapidly and concurrently access different soil N pools, with a slight preference for inorganic N. The uptake mechanisms for organic N and C are complex, differing between compound types, and warrant further investigation. This study expands the list of plants known to utilise organic N to include commercial cotton, with implications for the management of N fertiliser in cotton growing systems.

Introduction

The cotton fibre produced from Gossypium hirsutum L. farming systems is globally the most widely utilised natural fibre [1]. It was estimated by Heffer and Prud’homme [2] in 2014 that the global fibre crop, which is mostly cotton, uses 4.3% of the global production of nitrogen (N) fertiliser (110.4 Tg N) to produce 25.9 Tg of lint [3]. The global N use efficiency index for cotton is 6 kg lint kg-1 applied N, well below the recommend optimum range of 13–18 kg lint kg-1 applied N [4,5]. This indicates that the global crop is potentially receiving more fertiliser N than required, and may be subsequently impacting environmental processes across the globe [6]. This apparent over fertilisation results in N run-off losses [7], deep drainage [8] and ground water pollution [9], and greenhouse gas production [10]. Brackin et al. [11] showed that despite the significant amounts of applied N fertiliser, cotton crop fertiliser recovery is only between 27–38%. This indicates that a substantial proportion of crop N is derived from the antecedent soil N pool. It was assumed by Brackin et al. [11] that cotton N uptake is from the inorganic pool after mineralisation despite the presence of organic N pool within most soils.

Soil organic N is derived from soil organic matter (SOM), which typically constitutes the largest soil N pool, and contains more C than the atmosphere and global vegetation combined [12,13]. Globally, soils have lost approximately half of their C stocks since the adoption of soil cultivation techniques [14] and therefore also potentially 50% of their N associated with the C in SOM. Soil organic matter is frequently undervalued when considering crop nutrition, with the focus often directed at inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+) sources from fertiliser. To simplify N management, N-bearing molecules are commonly aggregated into different pools based on context-specific functionality, which typically are: inorganic N, dissolved organic N (DON), synthetic N, and insoluble organic N pools. The size of these pools can vary considerably throughout the year [15] because N continually fluxes between these different compounds, with no molecule providing permanent immobilisation [12].

Since the mid-19th century and the dismissal of the humus theory of plant nutrition, the dominant agricultural paradigm has held that plants only take up N from the soil in the inorganic forms of NH4+ and NO3-. This limited view of plant nutrition pervaded to the end of the 20th century, likely due to the ease with which inorganic N can be measured and the fact that it is definitely plant-available. An increased understanding of the role microbes play in soil N mineralisation combined with an over-extrapolation of plants’ reliance on this process likely also contributed to this outdated concept [16]. In addition, the rise of Haber-Bosch-derived fertilisers at the beginning of the 20th century shifted the focus away from organic soil amendments and fixation as the primary means of increasing plant-available N. With productivity gains so easily achieved by synthetic fertilisers, the research community and industry shifted its focus towards NH4+ and NO3- and maximising yield.

Research demonstrating the importance of organic N in plant nutrition is not new [1719]. However, it was not until the discoveries that organic soil N can be the principal N pool for some plants [20], and that low molecular weight (LMW) DON molecules can be taken up intact by plants [21,22] that the mainstream view of terrestrial N dynamics shifted to include direct plant uptake of DON from the soil. The uptake of DON has been documented in many plant species, often in concert with inorganic N [23], but has not yet been observed in commercial cotton (G. hirsutum). No previous experiments have demonstrated G. hirsutum’s ability to take up organic N, nor its preference for one N species over another. To address this knowledge gap, this paper reports on four experimental hypotheses. The first was that G. hirsutum would not exhibit a N uptake preference between the different N species (NO3-, NH4+, urea and alanine). The second hypothesis was that alanine—N and alanine—C uptake would correlate, indicating that alanine is taken up whole by G. hirsutum. The third hypothesis was that urea—N and urea—C uptake would correlate, indicating that urea is taken up whole by G. hirsutum. The fourth experimental hypothesis was that the three G. hirsutum varieties (transgenic, non-GM, original landrace) would not exhibit different N uptake behaviours. This experiment was not designed to emulate natural conditions, but rather to assess the plant’s physiological capabilities and preferences. Alanine was chosen as a model non-synthetic organic N compound of intermediate turnover time [24], whereas urea is a major form of synthetic N used as fertiliser in cotton growing systems.

Materials and methods

Experimental design

Three varieties of G. hirsutum were grown to a two- to four-leaf stage in a randomised block design with 10 replicates. The three varieties used were: Sicot 746B3F, a GM current commercial cultivar accounting for more than half (54%) of the 2017−18 Australian summer plantings; Sicala V2, an obsolete non-GM commercial cultivar released in 1994; and Tx III, a Guatemalan landrace accession that represents the native origins of the commercial G. hirsutum varieties. Plants were grown in 300 mm deep low-density polyethylene (LDPE) pots, consistent with the rhizotube design used by Hill and Jones [25]. Tubes were open-bottomed, allowing drainage and preventing waterlogging. Pasteurised and washed sand of <1 mm particle size was used as the growing medium to enable control over plant-available N pools and to limit the potential of microbial competition for the applied N compounds. Plants were watered using a nutrient solution mixture that constituted 100% of the plants’ soil-derived nutrient supply (Table 1). The plants were grown in glasshouses at the CSIRO Black Mountain site in Canberra, ACT, Australia (35 o16’S 149 o7’E) in January (summer) 2018. The high solar radiation experienced by Canberra in summer required the use of 70% shade cloth, as sand temperatures exceeded 60oC when exposed to direct sunlight. In total, 450 seedlings were analysed, comprising 10 replicates each of 45 unique treatments following the original randomised block design: five isotopically-labelled N and control treatments, three G. hirsutum varieties, and four sampling times (0, 5, 60 and 180 minutes). The short-term timeframe of this experiment was chosen to ensure that intact uptake of the originally labelled compound was the dominant factor in observing its 15N signal in plant tissue.

Table 1. Nutrient solution prepared based on the Hoaglands solution and recommendations from Oliver Knox, University of New England. Mass and mol per cent are calculated excluding oxygen and hydrogen. Solution was pH balanced to 7 ± 0.05 and EC kept below 1000 µS cm-1 to reduce the chance of acidification or salinisation.

Element Mass Per Cent Mol Per Cent Compounds
N 25.17% 44.29% KNO3, Ca(NO3)2, FeNaEDTA
P 3.61% 2.88% KH2PO4
K 27.38% 17.25% KNO3
Ca 23.38% 14.38% Ca(NO3)2
C 2.80% 5.75% FeNaEDTA
S 7.48% 5.75% MgSO4
Mg 5.67% 5.75% MgSO4
Na 1.08% 1.16% FeNaEDTA, Na2MoO4 ∙ 2H2O
Cl 0.85% 0.59% MnCl2 ∙ 4H2O, ZnCl2, CuCl2 ∙ 2H2O
B 0.584% 1.330% H3BO3
Fe 1.303% 0.575% FeNaEDTA
Mn 0.586% 0.263% MnCl2 ∙ 4H2O
Zn 0.062% 0.023% ZnCl2
Cu 0.022% 0.008% CuCl2 ∙ 2H2O
Mo 0.012% 0.003% Na2MoO4 ∙ 2H2O

Plant labelling and processing

All plants were dosed with a N solution containing a mixture of NO3-, NH4+, urea and alanine. One of the four N compounds was isotopically-labelled in each treatment, with a fifth control treatment containing no labelling (Table 2). The four N compounds were supplied in the same concentration to every seedling, proportionally to the three bioavailable N pools found in intensive agricultural environments: ~ 33% inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+), ~ 33% DON (alanine), and ~33% urea N (urea).

Table 2. Nitrogen treatments for each of the three G. hirsutum varieties included in this study. The total N concentration of all solutions was 2.95 mmol N L-1, with approximately 1 mmol N L-1 apportioned to each of the three plant-available N pools outlined in this study: mineral N, synthetic N and DON.

N Treatment Nitrate Ammonium Urea Alanine
Plant-Available N Pool: Mineral N Mineral N Synthetic N LMW DON
Nitrogen Isotope Purity: 99.8% 15N 99.5% 15N 99% 15N 99% 15N
Carbon Isotope Purity: 98% 13C 99% 13C
Concentration (mmol N L -1 ): 0.61 0.35 1.00 1.00
Concentration (mmol C L -1 ): 0.50 3.00
0 Unlabelled Unlabelled Unlabelled Unlabelled
1 15N-Labelled Unlabelled Unlabelled Unlabelled
2 Unlabelled 15N-Labelled Unlabelled Unlabelled
3 Unlabelled Unlabelled 15N-13C-Labelled Unlabelled
4 Unlabelled Unlabelled Unlabelled 15N-13C-Labelled

Once plants reached a two- to four-leaf stage, the rhizotube pots were injected with 2 mL of solution at three points around the root base, with special care taken to avoid injecting into any roots (S1 Fig). Plants were then placed in direct sunlight for their allocated uptake period (5, 60 and 180 minutes). After the treatment times had elapsed, plants were carefully extracted from their pots, thoroughly washed of substrate, bagged, and placed on dry ice (CO2(s)) to halt metabolism. Plants were transferred to ovens to air dry (at 40oC) completely at the end of each day. Dried samples were weighed and ground to a fine powder using a ball-mill. Ground samples were analysed for δ13C and δ15N using isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) at the Research School of Biology at the ANU, Canberra, ACT. Total C and N were measured on an Elementar VarioMAX CNS elemental analyser.

Calculation of 13C and 15N uptake

The process of transposing relative δ15N and δ13C values to absolute percentage uptake values followed Equations 14. All equations listed below were used for both N and C calculations, with the 15N and 14N equation pronumerals substituted with 13C and 12C respectively in the C calculations.

The calculation of mass fraction (X) from relative isotopic enrichment (δ) where R(13C)standard = 0.011178 and R(15N)standard = 0.00367647 followed equation 1.

X(15N)sample=R(15N)standard·(δ15N1000+1)1+(R(15N)standard·(δ15N1000+1)) (1)

The calculation of percentage N derived from transfer (%NDFT) from mass fractions (X) of sample, isotope label, and cultivar variety control where X(15N)label = %15N Puritylabel and X(15N)variety control = (∑X(15N)control) ÷ n, where n = number of replicates (always 10 in this experiment) followed equation 2.

%NDFT=% 15N Atom Excesssample% 15N Atom Excessdonor×100%=X(15N)sampleX(15N)variety controlX(15N)labelX(15N)variety control×100% (2)

The calculation of the mass of fertiliser 15N taken up by the plant using %NDFT, plant dry mass (grams), and plant percentage N followed equation 3.

m(Fert. 15N)taken up=%NDFT×m(Plant)dry×Plant %N (3)

The calculation of percentage fertiliser 15N uptake by the plant using molar mass (Mr) of 15N (15 mg mmol-1), percentage purity (%Purity) of isotope labels (98.0–99.8%), N concentration (mmol L-1), and volume (L) followed equation 4.

% Fert.15N Uptake=m(Fert.15N)taken upm(Fert.15N)added=m(Fert. 15N)taken up[LabelN]×%Purity×Vfert.sol.×Mr(15N) (4)

The calculation of the fraction of the plant uptake 15N to the initial solution 15N was determine using the 15N content in the plant and the initial solution followed equation 5.

Fraction of initial=Fertiliser 15N   uptake15N  Intital solution (5)

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in R v3.6 [26] using the lme4 linear mixed effects modelling package [27] was used to determine the preference of N in the different varieties.

Results

Growing phase

The washed and pasteurised sand used as the growing medium total N (0.003% ± 0.0001) and total C (0.029% ± 0.001) concentrations were negligible prior to planting. The three G. hirsutum varieties did not exhibit uniform germination characteristics (S2 Fig). However, by the date of labelling, the Sicot, Sicala and Tx varieties achieved germination rates of 88%, 97% and 86% respectively.

Nitrogen compound uptake

All three G. hirsutum varieties rapidly utilised the added NO3-, NH4+, urea (CH4N2O) and alanine (C3H7NO2; Fig 1). G. hirsutum varieties showed a small preference for inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+) over organic N (alanine and urea), with respective mean uptakes of added N 20.9 ± 0.04% and 18.3 ± 0.04% for the two N pools (Table 2).

Fig 1. N uptake after 180 minutes (nominal) for each G. hirsutum variety: Sicot 746B3F, Sicala V2 and Tx III.

Fig 1

The four N compounds NO3-, NH4+, urea (CH4N2O) and alanine (C3H7NO2) were added concurrently.

Timing of nitrogen uptake

Uptake of all N species presented as linear over the 180-minute experiment window, suggesting zero order kinetics over this timeframe. Supplied N was taken up at rates of 4.6–8.1% of added fertiliser N per hour, equating to 0.28–2.11 mg N hour-1 (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. G. hirsutum estimated marginal mean uptake of N species after 180 minutes of exposure. Values are mean ± standard error, n = 10.

Nitrogen Species % uptake of the added N
Alanine 14.3 ± 1.9%
Ammonium 16.6 ± 1.9%
Nitrate 25.1 ± 1.9%
Urea 22.2 ± 1.9%
Inorganic N (NO3- + NH4+) 20.9 ± 3.8%
Organic N (alanine + urea) 18.3 ± 0.38%

Table 4. Linear N uptake rate of each fertiliser species for average of all three G. hirsutum varieties (n = 90).

Uptake Rate (% uptake per hour) Uptake Rate (Hours for 100% Uptake) Fit (r2)
Alanine 4.6% 21.7 0.997
Ammonium 5.4% 18.6 0.997
Nitrate 8.1% 12.3 0.994
Urea 7.1% 14.1 0.973

Cotton variety

Neither total (Fig 1B) nor N compound uptake (Fig 2) were statistically different between the three G. hirsutum varieties (p = 0.20 and p = 0.47 respectively). However, differences in total N uptake across the different N compounds (Fig 2B) were significant (p < 0.001). After 180 minutes, the uptake of NH4+–N and alanine—N were not statistically different (p = 0.77). Neither were NH4+–N and urea—N (p = 0.11).

Fig 2. Nitrogen uptake after 180 minutes (nominal).

Fig 2

(A) Average N compound uptake for all varieties. (B) Total N uptake for each G. hirsutum variety.

The uptake of alanine—N and urea—N represented the only N compound uptake difference within each varieties and were statistically different in the landrace accession Tx III (p < 0.05) but not the two commercial cultivars (p = 0.58). Uptake of NO3-–N and alanine—N, and NO3-–N and NH4+–N were both statistically different across all varieties (p < 0.01), while NO3-–N and urea—N were not (p = 0.63).

Nitrogen and carbon uptake

Alanine—C was taken up linearly over the 180-minute window by all G. hirsutum varieties, similarly to alanine—N (Fig 3). There were no statistically significant differences in alanine—C or alanine—N uptake between the three G. hirsutum varieties (p = 0.73). C and N were taken up in a consistent ratio of approximately 0.32:1 (Fig 4).

Fig 3. Average alanine uptake of all G. hirsutum varieties within the three sampling intervals.

Fig 3

(A) Alanine—N uptake. (B) Alanine—C uptake.

Fig 4. Alanine—C uptake against alanine—N uptake plotted as fraction of initial concentration.

Fig 4

Equation describes the linear regression that is plotted in black with 95% confidence interval in grey. Data point shapes denote isotope exposure times in minutes. The uptake of alanine—C and alanine—N are highly correlated (r2 = 0.92, p < 0.001).

The uptake of urea—C is not linear over the 180-minute experiment window (Fig 5). Over the full 180 minutes, no correlation was found between urea—C uptake and variety or urea—N uptake (p = 0.96; Fig 6). Internal plant urea—C concentration rose over the first 60 minutes, and then fell back to almost zero by the end of the 180 minutes.

Fig 5. Average urea uptake of all G. hirsutum varieties over the three sampling intervals.

Fig 5

(A) Urea—N uptake. (B) Urea—C uptake, which does not increase consistently over time.

Fig 6. Urea—C uptake against urea—N uptake plotted as fraction of initial concentration.

Fig 6

Equation describes the linear regression that is plotted in black with 95% confidence interval in grey. Data point shapes denote isotope exposure times in minutes. Urea—N and urea—C uptake do not correlate over the whole 180-minute experimental window (r2 < 0.001, p = 0.96).

Discussion

Direct plant access of soil organic nitrogen

Our results demonstrate that LMW DON can be a direct source of nutrition for commercial cotton (G. hirsutum). In some situations, this may comprise a meaningful portion of the cotton plant’s uptake of N in field situations. Recent studies have shown that cotton obtains the majority of its N from the soil N pool [28] and that organic N is a major component of soil N in most agricultural soils [15,29]. However, as this experiment was not designed to emulate real-world conditions, further soil-based glasshouse and in situ experiments will be required determine if this is the case in more complex non-sterile systems.

G. hirsutum does not appear to exhibit any uptake preferences between the four N species added. All four N species were taken up concurrently, suggesting that cotton is not particularly selective about the form in which it receives N. All three G. hirsutum varieties exhibited a small preference for inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+) over organic N (alanine and urea), with mean total uptake of the two N pools 20.9 ± 0.04% and 18.3 ± 0.04% of added N respectively. These research findings are consistent with those observed in Australian sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), which is also produced in high-input systems that are comparable to Australian irrigated cotton. Sugarcane has been shown to readily take up amino acids from the soil solution, which can constitute a significant source of N for commercial crops [30,31].

The G. hirsutum plants used in this experiment were grown from seed in washed and pasteurised sand. While this may not have completely eliminated mycorrhizal fungi or other soil microorganisms from the growing environment, it will most likely have significantly diminished their presence and role in plant N uptake. This experiment did not test for mycorrhizal activity, but it is a credible assumption that the G. hirsutum seedlings took up the majority of the alanine—N and urea—N without the aid of symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi [20,32,33].

In recent years, studies have shown that a wide variety of plants can take up organic N, including: trees [3441], grasses and sedges [30,31,4244], mosses and lichens [43,45,46], fruits [47,48], and broadacre crops including wheat, maize, chicory, and lupin [4951]. This list of plants known to take up organic N can now be expanded to include commercial cotton (G. hirsutum), a high-value, high-input pillar crop. Given the large proportion of N taken up by cotton crops that does not come directly from fertiliser [11], and the larger proportion of N present as DON than previously recognised [52], this implies that direct uptake of organic N may be an important pathway of N nutrition in cotton.

Organic carbon uptake mechanism

Similarly to alanine—N, alanine—C was taken up linearly over the 180-minute window by all G. hirsutum varieties. The consistent internal seedling 13C:15N ratio of 0.32:1 suggests that approximately 32% of the alanine—N taken up was in the form of whole alanine molecules. Many other studies have already demonstrated the intact uptake of the LMW molecules alanine [25], arginine [39], glycine [53], acetate [49] and trialanine [54], as well as plant consumption of whole proteins and microbes [33,55,56], but never before in G. hirsutum. While it is possible that the alanine—C taken up was not in the form of intact alanine, functionally this is indistinct from intact alanine uptake (Fig 7). The majority of alanine—N taken up was not associated with alanine—C, suggesting that extracellular deamination is the dominant alanine—N uptake pathway. It is also possible that all absorbed alanine—N was as whole alanine molecules, and that approximately 68% of the alanine—C was subsequently expelled post-intracellular deamination. Regardless, these results suggest that at least some alanine was taken up whole.

Fig 7. Four potential alanine—N and –C uptake scenarios.

Fig 7

Experimental results suggest the majority of alanine—N is taken up as an amine functional group, potentially NH4+, which would likely mean extracellular deamination. Alanine—C uptake suggests that up to 32% of alanine—N was taken up as whole alanine molecules. Actual uptake behaviour may be a combination, or none, of these options. AlaDC is an abbreviation of the enzyme alanine decarboxylase.

In the early stages of growth, much N taken up from the soil is typically transported to the leaves to create proteins like Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco; [57,58]). Taking up intact amino acids and transporting them whole may provide a biochemical energy advantage over taking up inorganic N and assembling amino acids from it. This should be explored further, with previous studies already confirming that high organic N uptake can alter internal N distribution within plants [31].

In contrast to the behaviour of alanine—C, urea—C uptake did not follow the same linear trend observed in the other N and C species. Internal plant urea—C concentration increasing over the first 60 minutes then subsequently fell to almost zero by 180 minutes. This was true for all three G. hirsutum varieties, with no significant differences between them (p = 0.34). One possible mechanistic explanation for this behaviour is the intact uptake of some urea, followed by rapid intracellular ammonification and subsequent expulsion of the urea—C as CO2. While the dominant urea—N uptake pathway appears to involve extracellular ammonification, the apparent initial uptake of some intact urea by G. hirsutum requires further investigation. If it is demonstrated more widely, this could provide options to target higher fertiliser—N capture by the crop through improved breeding which may reduce N loss to the environment.

Conclusion

This study has demonstrated for the first time that G. hirsutum can rapidly and concurrently access the DON, inorganic N and synthetic N pools in soil. As global fibre production—mostly comprising of cotton—is responsible for 4.3% of the global fertiliser N budget, opportunities to reduce fertiliser requirements whilst maintaining productivity and not mining soil organic matter are of significance. While all N species were taken up, total N uptake from each N compound was different. G. hirsutum exhibited a small preference for inorganic N (NO3- and NH4+) over organic N (alanine and urea). The consistent uptake ratio of alanine—C to —N of 0.32:1 indicates that some alanine is likely taken up intact by the plant, whereas no correlation was found between urea—C uptake and urea—N uptake indicating that urea undergoes rapid extracellular ammonification prior to uptake of its liberated inorganic N. Interestingly, neither total nor speciated N uptake were statistically different between the three G. hirsutum varieties. As our study included three different G. hirsutum varieties ranging from the landrace Tx III representing the native origins of the commercial G. hirsutum through to a modern-day elite GM cultivar, it appears that the physiological N uptake preference observed in this study is conserved across varieties. The implications of this observation are that breeding does not appear to have altered the physiological N preferences of G. hirsutum. Although it is unlikely that N uptake preference has been a target trait for breeders, this does suggest limited plasticity in physiological N preference. Further research is needed to assess if the physiological preferences shown here also occur in G. hirsutum grown in soil and thus in competition with the microbial community and other biogeochemical processes.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Processing of G. hirsutum seedlings in 15N13C uptake glasshouse experiment.

(A) Injection of rhizotube with N solution. Careful attention was paid to not inject solution directly into the plant. (B) Extracted and cleaned G. hirsutum seedling. Once cleaned, seedlings were bagged and placed on dry ice (CO2(s)) to halt metabolism.

(DOCX)

pone.0334700.s001.docx (425.7KB, docx)
S2 Fig. Germination percentage for each of the three G. hirsutum varieties: Sicot 746B3F, a GM current commercial cultivar; Sicala V2, an obsolete non-GM commercial cultivar; and Tx III, a Guatemalan landrace accession.

n = 720 seeds.

(DOCX)

pone.0334700.s002.docx (39.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge technical assistance from the ANU Research School of Biology IRMS facility for sample analysis.

Data Availability

All relevant data will be made publicly within the CSIRO Data Access Portal (https://data.csiro.au). A unique DOI will be generated upon acceptance to be included with the article at the typesetting stage. There will be no restrctions to the data.

Funding Statement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Cotton Research and Development Corporation (https://crdc.com.au/; Grant number CSP1904 awarded to BM and MF) for funding. The funders played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jans Y, von Bloh W, Schaphoff S, Müller C. Global cotton production under climate change – Implications for yield and water consumption. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2021;25(4):2027–44. doi: 10.5194/hess-25-2027-2021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Heffer P, Prud’homme M. Global nitrogen fertiliser demand and supply: trend, current level and outlook. Proceedings of the 2016 International Nitrogen Initiative Conference, “Solutions to improve nitrogen use efficiency for the world”, 4 – 8 December 2016, Melbourne, Australia. Available from: www.ini2016.com/2016 [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Khan MA, Wahid A, Ahmad M, Tahir MT, Ahmed M, Ahmad S, et al. World Cotton Production and Consumption: An Overview. In: Ahmad S, Hasanuzzaman M, editors. Cotton Production and Uses: Agronomy, Crop Protection, and Postharvest Technologies. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2020. p. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Macdonald BCT, Latimer JO, Schwenke GD, Nachimuthu G, Baird JC. The current status of nitrogen fertiliser use efficiency and future research directions for the Australian cotton industry. J Cotton Res. 2018;1(1). doi: 10.1186/s42397-018-0015-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Antille DL, Moody PW. Nitrogen use efficiency indicators for the Australian cotton, grains, sugar, dairy and horticulture industries. Environ Sustainab Indicat. 2021;10:100099. doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2020.100099 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhang Z, Huang J, Yao Y, Peters G, Macdonald B, La Rosa AD, et al. Environmental impacts of cotton and opportunities for improvement. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2023;4(10):703–15. doi: 10.1038/s43017-023-00476-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Macdonald BCT, Nachimuthu G, Chang YF, Nadelko AJ, Tuomi S, Watkins M. Nitrogen composition in furrow irrigated run-off water. Agricult Water Manag. 2020;242:106399. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106399 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Macdonald BCT, Ringrose-Voase AJ, Nadelko AJ, Farrell M, Tuomi S, Nachimuthu G. Dissolved organic nitrogen contributes significantly to leaching from furrow-irrigated cotton–wheat–maize rotations. Soil Res. 2016;55(1):70–7. doi: 10.1071/sr16047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Harris SJ, Cendón DI, Hankin SI, Peterson MA, Xiao S, Kelly BFJ. Isotopic evidence for nitrate sources and controls on denitrification in groundwater beneath an irrigated agricultural district. Sci Total Environ. 2022;817:152606. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Grace P, Shcherbak I, Macdonald B, Scheer C, Rowlings D. Emission factors for estimating fertiliser-induced nitrous oxide emissions from clay soils in Australia’s irrigated cotton industry. Soil Res. 2016;54(5):598–603. doi: 10.1071/sr16091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Brackin R, Buckley S, Pirie R, Visser F. Predicting nitrogen mineralisation in Australian irrigated cotton cropping systems. Soil Res. 2019;57(3):247–56. doi: 10.1071/sr18207 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lehmann J, Kleber M. The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature. 2015;528(7580):60–8. doi: 10.1038/nature16069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bond-Lamberty B, Christianson DS, Malhotra A, Pennington SC, Sihi D, AghaKouchak A, et al. COSORE: A community database for continuous soil respiration and other soil-atmosphere greenhouse gas flux data. Glob Chang Biol. 2020;26(12):7268–83. doi: 10.1111/gcb.15353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Paustian K, Six J, Elliott ET, Hunt HW. Management options for reducing CO2 emissions from agricultural soils. Biogeochemistry. 2000;48(1):147–63. doi: 10.1023/a:1006271331703 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Farrell M, Hill PW, Farrar J, Bardgett RD, Jones DL. Seasonal variation in soluble soil carbon and nitrogen across a grassland productivity gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2011;43(4):835–44. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.12.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schimel JP, Bennett J. Nitrogen mineralization: challenges of a changing paradigm. Ecology. 2004;85(3):591–602. doi: 10.1890/03-8002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Virtanen AI, Linkola H. Organic nitrogen compounds as nitrogen nutrition for higher plants. Nature. 1946;158:515. doi: 10.1038/158515a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vantsis JT, Bond G. Nitrogen Nutrition of Clover. Nature. 1951;168(4269):339–40. doi: 10.1038/168339a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Waksman SA. Principles of soil microbiology, second edition, thoroughly revised. 2nd edition. Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins; 1932. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kielland K. Amino Acid Absorption by Arctic Plants: Implications for Plant Nutrition and Nitrogen Cycling. Ecology. 1994;75(8):2373–83. doi: 10.2307/1940891 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Näsholm T, Huss-Danell K, Högberg P. Uptake of organic nitrogen in the field by four agriculturally important plant species. Ecology. 2000;81(4):1155–61. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[1155:uoonit]2.0.co;2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Näsholm T, Ekblad A, Nordin A, Giesler R, Högberg M, Högberg P. Boreal forest plants take up organic nitrogen. Nature. 1998;392(6679):914–6. doi: 10.1038/31921 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gao L, Smith AR, Geng B, Liu B, Li X, Jia S, et al. Nitrogen uptake strategies of coexisting plant species in forest ecosystems of northeast China: Implications for afforestation. Forest Ecol Manag. 2025;578:122481. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2024.122481 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Farrell M, Macdonald LM, Hill PW, Wanniarachchi SD, Farrar J, Bardgett RD, et al. Amino acid dynamics across a grassland altitudinal gradient. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;76:179–82. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.05.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hill PW, Jones DL. Plant-microbe competition: does injection of isotopes of C and N into the rhizosphere effectively characterise plant use of soil N? New Phytol. 2019;221(2):796–806. doi: 10.1111/nph.15433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for statistical computing; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4. J Stat Soft. 2015;67(1). doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Macdonald BCT, Chang YF, Nadelko A, Tuomi S, Glover M. Tracking fertiliser and soil nitrogen in irrigated cotton: uptake, losses and the soil N stock. Soil Res. 2016;55(3):264–72. doi: 10.1071/sr16167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Prendergast-Miller MT, de Menezes AB, Farrell M, Macdonald LM, Richardson AE, Bissett A, et al. Soil nitrogen pools and turnover in native woodland and managed pasture soils. Soil Biol Biochem. 2015;85:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.02.036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Robinson N, Brackin R, Vinall K, Soper F, Holst J, Gamage H, et al. Nitrate paradigm does not hold up for sugarcane. PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e19045. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Vinall K, Schmidt S, Brackin R, Lakshmanan P, Robinson N. Amino acids are a nitrogen source for sugarcane. Funct Plant Biol. 2012;39(6):503–11. doi: 10.1071/FP12042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chapin FS III, Moilanen L, Kielland K. Preferential use of organic nitrogen for growth by a non-mycorrhizal arctic sedge. Nature. 1993;361(6408):150–3. doi: 10.1038/361150a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Adamczyk B, Godlewski M, Zimny J, Zimny A. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings secrete proteases from the roots and, after protein addition, grow well on medium without inorganic nitrogen. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2008;10(6):718–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00079.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liu M, Li C, Xu X, Wanek W, Jiang N, Wang H, et al. Organic and inorganic nitrogen uptake by 21 dominant tree species in temperate and tropical forests. Tree Physiol. 2017;37(11):1515–26. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpx046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Liu M, Xu F, Xu X, Wanek W, Yang X. Age alters uptake pattern of organic and inorganic nitrogen by rubber trees. Tree Physiol. 2018;38(11):1685–93. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpy031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Li C, Li Q, Qiao N, Xu X, Li Q, Wang H. Inorganic and organic nitrogen uptake by nine dominant subtropical tree species. iForest. 2016;9(2):253–8. doi: 10.3832/ifor1502-008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Leberecht M, Tu J, Polle A. Acid and calcareous soils affect nitrogen nutrition and organic nitrogen uptake by beech seedlings (Fagus sylvatica L.) under drought, and their ectomycorrhizal community structure. Plant Soil. 2016;409(1–2):143–57. doi: 10.1007/s11104-016-2956-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wei L, Chen C, Yu S. Uptake of organic nitrogen and preference for inorganic nitrogen by two Australian native Araucariaceae species. Plant Ecol Divers. 2014;8(2):259–64. doi: 10.1080/17550874.2013.871656 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gruffman L, Jämtgård S, Näsholm T. Plant nitrogen status and co-occurrence of organic and inorganic nitrogen sources influence root uptake by Scots pine seedlings. Tree Physiol. 2014;34(2):205–13. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wei L, Chen C, Xu Z, Näsholm T. Direct uptake and rapid decrease of organic nitrogen by Wollemia nobilis. Biol Fertil Soils. 2013;49(8):1247–52. doi: 10.1007/s00374-013-0818-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gruffman L, Palmroth S, Näsholm T. Organic nitrogen uptake of Scots pine seedlings is independent of current carbohydrate supply. Tree Physiol. 2013;33(6):590–600. doi: 10.1093/treephys/tpt041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jiang L, Wang S, Pang Z, Wang C, Kardol P, Zhou X, et al. Grazing modifies inorganic and organic nitrogen uptake by coexisting plant species in alpine grassland. Biol Fertil Soils. 2015;52(2):211–21. doi: 10.1007/s00374-015-1069-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Moore TR, Alfonso A, Clarkson BR. Plant uptake of organic nitrogen in two peatlands. Plant Soil. 2018;433(1–2):391–400. doi: 10.1007/s11104-018-3851-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xu X, Ouyang H, Cao G, Pei Z, Zhou C. Uptake of organic nitrogen by eight dominant plant species in Kobresia meadows. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2004;69(1):5–10. doi: 10.1023/b:fres.0000025288.48444.60 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Dahlman L, Persson J, Palmqvist K, Näsholm T. Organic and inorganic nitrogen uptake in lichens. Planta. 2004;219(3):459–67. doi: 10.1007/s00425-004-1247-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Song L, Lu H-Z, Xu X-L, Li S, Shi X-M, Chen X, et al. Organic nitrogen uptake is a significant contributor to nitrogen economy of subtropical epiphytic bryophytes. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30408. doi: 10.1038/srep30408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dion P-P, Jämtgård S, Bertrand A, Pepin S, Dorais M. Organic Nitrogen Uptake and Assimilation in Cucumis sativus Using Position-Specific Labeling and Compound-Specific Isotope Analysis. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1596. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Zhou B, Zhang L, Yang W, Mao Y, Chen C, Xing S. Differential uptake of soluble organic and inorganic nitrogen by two fruit species: Dimocarpus longan Lour. and Eriobotrya japonica Lindl. J Soils Sediments. 2016;17(6):1579–87. doi: 10.1007/s11368-016-1635-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Moran-Zuloaga D, Dippold M, Glaser B, Kuzyakov Y. Organic nitrogen uptake by plants: reevaluation by position-specific labeling of amino acids. Biogeochemistry. 2015;125(3):359–74. doi: 10.1007/s10533-015-0130-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Saia S, Benítez E, García-Garrido JM, Settanni L, Amato G, Giambalvo D. The effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on total plant nitrogen uptake and nitrogen recovery from soil organic material. J Agric Sci. 2013;152(3):370–8. doi: 10.1017/s002185961300004x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Näsholm T, Huss‐Danell K, Högberg P. Uptake of glycine by field grown wheat. New Phytol. 2000;150(1):59–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00072.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bailey T, Robinson N, Farrell M, Macdonald B, Weaver T, Antille DL, et al. Storage of soil samples leads to over-representation of the contribution of nitrate to plant-available nitrogen. Soil Res. 2021;60(1):22–32. doi: 10.1071/sr21013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gallet-Budynek A, Brzostek E, Rodgers VL, Talbot JM, Hyzy S, Finzi AC. Intact amino acid uptake by northern hardwood and conifer trees. Oecologia. 2009;160(1):129–38. doi: 10.1007/s00442-009-1284-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Farrell M, Prendergast-Miller M, Jones DL, Hill PW, Condron LM. Soil microbial organic nitrogen uptake is regulated by carbon availability. Soil Biol Biochem. 2014;77:261–7. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hill PW, Marsden KA, Jones DL. How significant to plant N nutrition is the direct consumption of soil microbes by roots?. New Phytol. 2013;199(4):948–55. doi: 10.1111/nph.12320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Paungfoo-Lonhienne C, Rentsch D, Robatzek S, Webb RI, Sagulenko E, Näsholm T, et al. Turning the Table: Plants Consume Microbes as a Source of Nutrients. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(7):e11915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Perchlik M, Tegeder M. Leaf Amino Acid Supply Affects Photosynthetic and Plant Nitrogen Use Efficiency under Nitrogen Stress. Plant Physiol. 2018;178(1):174–88. doi: 10.1104/pp.18.00597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Feller U, Anders I, Mae T. Rubiscolytics: fate of Rubisco after its enzymatic function in a cell is terminated. J Exp Bot. 2008;59(7):1615–24. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Narendra Khatri

14 Mar 2025

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report.docx

pone.0334700.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)
Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331_edited.pdf

pone.0334700.s004.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments.docx

pone.0334700.s005.docx (14KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Dec 12;20(12):e0334700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Apr 2025

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0334700.s008.docx (24.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Roshan Babu Ojha

23 Jun 2025

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

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331.docx

pone.0334700.s007.docx (13.8KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Dec 12;20(12):e0334700. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334700.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Sep 2025

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.]

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2025-08 latimeretal_R1 Revisions.docx

pone.0334700.s009.docx (19.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Roshan Babu Ojha

1 Oct 2025

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:

Acceptance letter

Roshan Babu Ojha

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

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Processing of G. hirsutum seedlings in 15N13C uptake glasshouse experiment.

    (A) Injection of rhizotube with N solution. Careful attention was paid to not inject solution directly into the plant. (B) Extracted and cleaned G. hirsutum seedling. Once cleaned, seedlings were bagged and placed on dry ice (CO2(s)) to halt metabolism.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334700.s001.docx (425.7KB, docx)
    S2 Fig. Germination percentage for each of the three G. hirsutum varieties: Sicot 746B3F, a GM current commercial cultivar; Sicala V2, an obsolete non-GM commercial cultivar; and Tx III, a Guatemalan landrace accession.

    n = 720 seeds.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0334700.s002.docx (39.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review report.docx

    pone.0334700.s003.docx (14.2KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331_edited.pdf

    pone.0334700.s004.pdf (1.5MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments.docx

    pone.0334700.s005.docx (14KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0334700.s008.docx (24.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-59331.docx

    pone.0334700.s007.docx (13.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2025-08 latimeretal_R1 Revisions.docx

    pone.0334700.s009.docx (19.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data will be made publicly within the CSIRO Data Access Portal (https://data.csiro.au). A unique DOI will be generated upon acceptance to be included with the article at the typesetting stage. There will be no restrctions to the data.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES