Vegetation communities on commercial developments are heterogenous and determined by development and landscaping decisions, not socioeconomics

Karen Dyson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222069

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 21, 2019
18 Jul 2019 Decision Letter - Zhihua Wang, Editor PONE-D-19-17662 Heterogeneity within and between land uses: commercial office vegetation is determined by development and landscaping decisions PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dyson, 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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 01 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Zhihua Wang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. 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 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: No ****** 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. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 ****** 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: This manuscript attempts to fill the identified gap in determinants of vegetation communities within commercial and industrial land uses with a focus on office developments. The paper is generally well written and easy to follow. Also the provided data is sufficient to meet the requirement of PlosONE. I only have the following suggestions to improve the presentation of two figures: 1. Figure 2: it would be good to colour each vegetation type for better presentation of the heterogeneity; meanwhile the sites sampled can be indicated with symbols different from circles. 2. Figure 5: I doubt a line plot would hinder the interpretation of the underlying distribution: a scatter plot with vegetation types coloured might be more informative. Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Heterogeneity within and between land uses: commercial office vegetation is determined by development and landscaping decisions” by Karen Dyson aims to investigate the determinant factors of vegetation distribution on commercial office developments through statistical analysis based on the site surveys conducted in Redmond and Bellevue, Washington, USA. The author has collected and analyzed a lot of data on commercial office developments, while others have been mainly focused on residential areas. This is the highlighted novelty of the work, which made it worthwhile to publish after extra revisions and clarifications. First of all, the title of this manuscript is too long without clear representation of the context. I see that the author tried to link the current findings on commercial office developments to the previous findings on residential areas. Specifically, the key factor of residential area is the socio-economic factor, while the key factors of commercial area are the development & landscaping decisions. However, the manuscript is mainly describing and discussing the data collected in commercial office development areas. Therefore, the title “Heterogeneity within and between land uses” is not appropriate. I would argue that this is only heterogeneity within the commercial land use. The methodology is not clearly described. For example, the main statistical model PERMANOVA and the non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) method are not well explained before using. A lot of abbreviations like ANOVA and AICc function are not described. In the section of independent variables, an overview of independent variables should be presented at first. For example, you could mention at the beginning that three categories of independent variables are collected, including 1. aggregated and parcel level socio-economic variables, 2. development and landscaping outcome variables, 3. ground cover material and maintenance regime variables. Can you define aggregated level and parcel level? Line 49. What is a Puget Sound Region? Line 214, what is "agnes" function? Line 419, you mentioned that "the choice of sampling design and statistical method can result in inaccurate conclusions". Then can you explain how you chose the sampling design and statistical method in this manuscript? Fig 1 & 4 are not referred anywhere in the context. Fig 2. Population legend, please add the abbreviations HH for High, MC for Medium Canopy, etc. here since the abbreviations are displayed in the figure. Some grammar errors exist. ****** 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 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: 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 be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222069.r001
Revision 1
20 Aug 2019 Author Response Reviewer 1: 1. Figure 2: it would be good to colour each vegetation type for better presentation of the heterogeneity; meanwhile the sites sampled can be indicated with symbols different from circles. 2. Figure 5: I doubt a line plot would hinder the interpretation of the underlying distribution: a scatter plot with vegetation types coloured might be more informative. • I have revised Figure 2 so that each vegetation type is a different color, using a color-blind and printer-friendly color scheme. I have also used different shapes, as suggested. • I have also revised Figure 5 so that each vegetation type is distinct, using the same color scheme as Figure 2. I used a stacked histogram to show the distribution and each vegetation types’ contribution. Reviewer 2: First of all, the title of this manuscript is too long without clear representation of the context. I see that the author tried to link the current findings on commercial office developments to the previous findings on residential areas. Specifically, the key factor of residential area is the socio-economic factor, while the key factors of commercial area are the development & landscaping decisions. However, the manuscript is mainly describing and discussing the data collected in commercial office development areas. Therefore, the title “Heterogeneity within and between land uses” is not appropriate. I would argue that this is only heterogeneity within the commercial land use. The methodology is not clearly described. For example, the main statistical model PERMANOVA and the non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) method are not well explained before using. A lot of abbreviations like ANOVA and AICc function are not described. In the section of independent variables, an overview of independent variables should be presented at first. For example, you could mention at the beginning that three categories of independent variables are collected, including 1. aggregated and parcel level socio-economic variables, 2. development and landscaping outcome variables, 3. ground cover material and maintenance regime variables. Can you define aggregated level and parcel level? Line 49. What is a Puget Sound Region? Line 214, what is "agnes" function? Line 419, you mentioned that "the choice of sampling design and statistical method can result in inaccurate conclusions". Then can you explain how you chose the sampling design and statistical method in this manuscript? Fig 1 & 4 are not referred anywhere in the context. Fig 2. Population legend, please add the abbreviations HH for High, MC for Medium Canopy, etc. here since the abbreviations are displayed in the figure. Some grammar errors exist. • I have changed the title to reflect my two key conclusions, specifically heterogeneity within land use and importance of development and landscaping decision over socio-economic factors, as noted by reviewer. I have eliminated reference to heterogeneity between land uses, as suggested. • I have revised the methods section for added clarity, including general language revisions, adding un-abbreviated names for ANOVA and AICc, adding an explanation of PERMANOVA, and adding an explanation of NMDS. • I added additional text to the beginning of the ‘Independent variables’ section for clarity. I also introduce Table 2, which presents an overview of independent variables. • For additional clarity, I added the definition of aggregated scale socio-economic variables to the start of independent variable section (in addition to existing discussion in the Introduction) and revised language throughout the manuscript. I also added a definition of parcel level to the independent variable section. • Line 49: I added additional description of the Puget Sound region. • Line 214: I added clarifying text about the agnes function • Line 419: I added multiple sentences clarifying the need to sample across key gradients to obtain accurate results, as I did here. • I added a reference to Fig 1. Fig 4 was referenced in line 367. • I added the abbreviations for vegetation types to the caption of Fig 2 to aid with interpretation, as helpfully suggested. • I found and corrected multiple grammar errors. Journal requirements: • Reviewed style templates and altered section headings, placement of Fig and Table captions, and file names in response. • Added references to Fig 1 and Table 2. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222069.r002
22 Aug 2019 Decision Letter - Zhihua Wang, Editor Vegetation communities on commercial developments are heterogenous and determined by development and landscaping decisions, not socioeconomics PONE-D-19-17662R1 Dear Dr. Dyson, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Zhihua Wang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have adequately addressed both reviewers' comments. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222069.r003
Formally Accepted
27 Aug 2019 Acceptance Letter - Zhihua Wang, Editor PONE-D-19-17662R1 Vegetation communities on commercial developments are heterogenous and determined by development and landscaping decisions, not socioeconomics Dear Dr. Dyson: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Zhihua Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222069.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .