PONE-D-19-19301

Determining hydrological flow paths to enhance restoration in impaired mangrove wetlands

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Zaldivar-Jimenez,

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 Oct 11 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,

Rodolfo Nóbrega

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

3. We note that you have 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.

4. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Please include a copy of Table 1 which you refer to in your text on page 11.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

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: In the manuscript "Determining hydrological flow paths to enhance restoration in impaired mangrove wetlands.", the authors proposed to identify the hydrological flow paths to improve hudrological ad sedimentological restoration in an impaired mangrove forest. Local hydrological variables were used as indicators of restoration success, and monetary expenses were also considered.

Introduction provides appropriate literature that address and contextualize the main topic of the manuscript. Material and methods are well described, although some details could be improved as described below. Data presented appear to be reliably collected and appropriately analyzed. The subject is of interest to the readers of Plos One, since this research work is of interest to a wide audience. However, some issues have yet to be considered.

The text referring to the last paragraph (Lines 456-461) does not yet justify the results described in the manuscript. The changes achieved still depend on the progressive rehabilitation of local hydrology and biochemistry. However, there has been a noticeable improvement in salinity and sulfide concentrations, but still at high levels that only favor the existence of stressed and dwarf mangrove forests. The suggestion is that the discussion highlights that the conditions generated after intervention in the channels have not yet formed the suitable environment for the development of a mangrove forest comparable to that of the “R site” forest or the most developed one in the region.

Line 140: Indentation of the first line of the paragraph.

Line 151: Please, insert the species author´s name... Rhizophora mangle L. Avicennia germinans (L.) L. when species name appear for the first time.

Line 158: A. germinans instead of full name.

Line 160: A. germinans instead of full name.

Line 161: R. mangle instead of full name.

Line 163: The topic (2.2 Hydrological restoration) should be inserted in the subtopic (2.3.1 Excavation of channels).

Line 166: diameter at breast height (DBH).

Line 170: Please, observe the changes to the order of the sections numbering

Line 172: millimeter instead of mm.

Line 200: In the topic (2.4 Environmental monitoring), please, improve the text to better explain (R = reference site).

Line 201: Indentation of the first line of the paragraph.

Line 204-207: ind ha-1 instead ind.ha-1

Line 269: In the sentence: “ the data did not meet assumptions of normality.” Please, insert “and homocedasticity.”

Line 274: homocedasticity instead of homocedacity

Line285: Please, write the method used.

Line 290: 004 masl or 0.04 masl?

Line 318: There is no Fig.4B. I suppose it is Fig.4

Line 341 and 344: Please, indicate in figures 5 and 6 the meaning of A, B, and C.

Line 349: Please note indentation of the first line of the firs paragraph in this topic.

Line 354: Even if salinity values in ppt and PSU are nearly equivalent, please stick with justo ne term. In fact, salinity is a ratio, which value is dimentionless. There is no need to be follow by any unit.

Line 421: 0.004 or 0.04 masl?

Line 435: salt instead spartina.

Line 441: delete “el”.

Line 447: correct “ha-1”.

Fig. 2 – site 5 seems to be site R. If it is correct, please, indicate it in the figure legend.

Fig. 3 – “month-1” instead “month-1”

Fig. 4 – In principle, there is no rende if the regression coeficiente are not significant. So, please, remove the trend line where it is applied.

Fig. 5 – Frequency instead Frecuency.

Fig. 7 – ppt or PSU...?

Fig. 8 – mg L-1 instead mg l-1 ppt or PSU ?

Finally, I do recomend the manuscript for publication in Plos One after a review based on above general comments.

Reviewer #2: The authors describe identify the hydrological flow paths to improve the hydrological and sedimentological restoration of the Laguna de Terminos, Mexico, in an impaired mangrove forest (blockage of hydrological and sediment fluxes) through a microtopographic approach. They used as proxies of restoration success changes in the hydroperiod, flooding patterns, salinity and sulfide concentration.

It is an interesting study that adds to the literature of mangrove restoration by improvements in hydrological connectivity. I have some suggestions to make the article more clear from a scientific perspective:

1. I find that the article could benefit from a comparison with other studies performing similar assessments of the effectiveness of mangrove restoration, salinity, hydrological connectivity and dredging that the authors have ignored.

*Barreto, M.B., 2008. Diagnostics About the State of Mangroves in Venezuela: Case Studies from the National Park Morrocoy and Wildlife Refuge Cuare, in: Lieth, P.H., Sucre, D.M.G., Herzog, B. (Eds.), Mangroves and Halophytes: Restoration and Utilisation, Tasks for Vegetation Sciences. Springer Netherlands, pp. 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6720-4_6

*Jaramillo, F., Brown, I., Castellazzi, P., Espinosa, L., Guittard, A., Hong, S.-H., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., Wdowinski, S., 2018a. Assessment of hydrologic connectivity in an ungauged wetland with InSAR observations. Environmental Research Letters 13, 024003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9d23

*Jaramillo, F., Licero, L., Åhlen, I., Manzoni, S., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J.A., Guittard, A., Hylin, A., Bolaños, J., Jawitz, J., Wdowinski, S., Martínez, O., Espinosa, L.F., 2018b. Effects of Hydroclimatic Change and Rehabilitation Activities on Salinity and Mangroves in the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia. Wetlands 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1024-7

2. Where is the reference point R? It is not shown on the map. Also, why do you assume that the hydroperiod is the same in that control as in the other sites? A justification is needed.

3. Where are the series of water levels? Why did you choose to do your analysis int he Fourier transform of water levels and not on the water levels themselves. It is not clear.

4. You never say what is the "biogeochemical characterization" that you focused on? and why did you analyze those in particular?

5. Why have the authors not considered that the hydrological connectivity and salinity levels have recovered because of favorable climatic conditions? How has precipitation changed from the period before to the period after the event, and during restoration? In some of the studies mentioned in 1, we see that it is difficult to attribute mangrove restoration only on dredging activities since climate conditions can become favorable afterwards during restoration because of La Nina. This would greatly improve the analysis. Ruling out the effect of climatic variability on the improvement in hydrological connectivity is necessary here.

6. Nice use of statistics in the article. However, I don't think you can attribute " an increase in the the correlation coefficient (r)" p. 236 to the restoration. I think you may not be able to compare R2 just like that. Again, more precipitation on the last year and more water in the wetland would have increased the hydrological connectivity. Also, I think you cannot compare R2 between different samples in this way. Can you check if there is a particular test to do this, apart from the Wilcox? Specially, since you have too few data points, although I agree that the relationship between flood duration in R and the sites increases in 2014.

Other issues:

L. 188 what model?

Fig. 2 - It is difficult to see the agreement between the dredged channels and the stream paths based on the DEM. IN fact, some of the channels are going across elevations? Maybe you can put both on the same figure?

**********

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.

Determining hydrological flow paths to enhance restoration in impaired mangrove wetlands

PONE-D-19-19301R1

Dear Dr. Zaldivar-Jimenez,

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,

Rodolfo Nóbrega

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript (PONE-D-19-19301R1) was critically reviewed and authors accepted and incorporated all reviewers suggestions improving data quality and turning into a useful information for mangrove restoration. From my point of view, the manuscript meet appropriate requirements for publication in Plos One.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the answers. The following question is still unanswered: Also, why do you assume that the hydroperiod is the same in that control as in the other sites? A justification is needed.

I would use "silting" instead of "dusting" of the channels.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If 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