Differences in species diversity, biomass, and soil properties of five types of alpine grasslands in the Northern Tibetan Plateau

Beibei Zhang; Hui Zhang; Qi Jing; Yuexuan Wu; Shuqin Ma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228277

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2019
4 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-19-25384 Differences in species diversity, biomass, and soil properties of five types of alpine grasslands in the Northern Tibetan Plateau PLOS ONE Dear Beibei Zhang 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. DR.Tuneera Bhadauria ACADEMIC EDITOR Deptt of Zoology Feroze Gandhi P.G College Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh India : We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by 25 Dec 2015 .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, Tunira Bhadauria, 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 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. 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. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. 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. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: No 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 paper contains an interesting data set, but an uninteresting story. I have concerns about both plant and soil measurements, as the plant biomass seems low even for very arid systems, and the near absence of clay in the soils seems very unusual. The authors could be more convincing in discussing their methods, thereby providing some confidence in the numbers, and also by comparing their results to other, similar findings in the discussion. Relating plant and soil characteristics can be strengthened. The correlation matrix among the soil variables should be included (at least as supplemental…). The authors should know that TP, TN and SOC are auto-correlated to the point where only one of the variables, along with C:N ratio, should be used in any regression relationship. Soil moisture, unless averaged over the seasons, is a “snapshot measurement” and tells us almost nothing about plant dynamics. The value of presenting findings of 11 communities within 5 grasslands is not discussed. If the variances in variables justifies this separation, then OK but this needs to be explicit. The literature cited on biodiversity-productivity relationships as well as on soil-plant feedbacks is dated. Newer summaries and syntheses are available. Species richness of these sites seems very, very low compared to other cold region/dry sites, and is worthy of comment. Historical legacies (i.e., impacts of vertebrate grazing) need to be presented so readers know of its significance (either large or small….). There could be a compelling story here by making comparisons to similar, published data on cold region herbaceous systems, but, alone, the work doesn't merit publication in an international journal. Sensitivity responses based upon measurements presented here are tenuous at best. Specific comments Abstract: Line 38: The highest value (of what?) was always… Introduction, line 83: “influences stability” but does not “determine stability”. Lines 92-96. Actually, carbon sequestration can be independent, at least of AGB. Line 109: you have no data on change in soil texture so this statement doesn’t support your work. Line 171 “silt” Results: general…fine to report veg in tables or in supplemental, but specific discussions of species within text should only relate to measurements of production or correlations with soil variables? In general…it’s hard to keep up with all the acronyms repeatedly discussed here. You might consider giving the grasslands their actual names. Line 290. Do not repeat results in discussion. Line 337 is called a tautology. Size fractions describe soil properties, because size fractions are soil properties. Figure 1: shows nicely that TP, TN, and SOC are very autocorrelated. Can you include your BGB and AGB in this analysis? Table 2 should be supplemental materials Reviewer #2: The paper summarized study that compared plant and soil variables among several alpine grasslands in Tibet. The study surveyed 5 grassland types in August 2016. Alpine grasslands are important ecosystems worldwide and obviously vulnerable to climate change. Baseline information about how these grasslands respond to environmental changes will be important to know. Unfortunately, the study summarized here leaves much to be desired. The paper itself is merely a descriptive comparison of grassland types and represents only one ‘snapshot’ of time – August 2016. While descriptive information about grassland ecosystems is not without value, it was hard for me to see the usefulness this particular information. For example, no information was given about the management history of these grasslands. Were they grazed, hayed, or fertilized? Or are they protected grasslands? If they are grazed, for how long, and at what stocking density? The lack of management information is a major omission as this would likely have a big impact on the site characteristics. In addition to these issues, the data analysis was mostly inappropriate. What was the point of conducting ANOVAs across these grassland types? No treatments were applied to the grasslands so what were the authors trying to determine? In the context of a descriptive study like this, does it really matter that soil C was statistically different between several grassland types? Presenting the variable means and standard deviations for each would have sufficed. A data set like this is more amenable to a multi-variate approach, which the authors attempted with the RDA analysis. Again though, I fail to see how useful this analysis was given the short time frame and lack of management information provided. The paper has other minor issues but given the problems mentioned above, I do not see the point in going through these. This data set might be publishable in a regional journal or other outlet, but I do not feel the paper, in its current form, has a great deal of value to an international audience. As a suggestion, the authors might consider beginning a long-term monitoring program with this data set and collect plant and soil data over many years. Showing how these variables might respond to climate variation or management activities over time would be valuable to the scientific community. ****** 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.0228277.r001
Revision 1
25 Dec 2019 Author Response Dec 26, 2019 Prof. Tuneera Bhadauria PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tuneera Bhadauria: Re: Manuscript # PONE-D-19-25384 R1: I have revised the manuscript based on editorial changes suggested by the reviewers. The revisions are track-changed in the revised manuscript. I hope that the revisions have adequately addressed the editor’s and reviewers’ concerns. For field studies, no specific permissions were required for these locations and the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species. And the data was also uploaded in Supporting Information file. Details of the revision conducted are in the following pages. We appreciate very much your and the referees time and valuable suggestions and comments. We recognize that the comments have helped us to improve the quality of this manuscript. I look forward to your final decision on this manuscript for potential publication in the PLOS ONE. If you have any further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Beibei Zhang Response to reviewers’ comments: Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author This paper contains an interesting data set, but an uninteresting story. I have concerns about both plant and soil measurements, as the plant biomass seems low even for very arid systems, and the near absence of clay in the soils seems very unusual. The authors could be more convincing in discussing their methods, thereby providing some confidence in the numbers, and also by comparing their results to other, similar findings in the discussion. - Accepted and Revised. We found some similar results about the lower clay fraction and used in the discussion. Relating plant and soil characteristics can be strengthened. The correlation matrix among the soil variables should be included (at least as supplemental…). The authors should know that TP, TN and SOC are auto-correlated to the point where only one of the variables, along with C:N ratio, should be used in any regression relationship. Soil moisture, unless averaged over the seasons, is a “snapshot measurement” and tells us almost nothing about plant dynamics. - Accepted and Revised. We added biomass data and to do the correlation with soil characteristics in Figure 3 which showed the correlation between plant growth and soil characteristics and we also deleted the soil water content in Figure 3 and Table 5. The value of presenting findings of 11 communities within 5 grasslands is not discussed. If the variances in variables justifies this separation, then OK but this needs to be explicit. - Accepted and Revised. We discussed this in the first part of Discussion. The literature cited on biodiversity-productivity relationships as well as on soil-plant feedbacks is dated. Newer summaries and syntheses are available. Species richness of these sites seems very, very low compared to other cold region/dry sites, and is worthy of comment. Historical legacies (i.e., impacts of vertebrate grazing) need to be presented so readers know of its significance (either large or small….). - Accepted and Revised. There could be a compelling story here by making comparisons to similar, published data on cold region herbaceous systems, but, alone, the work doesn't merit publication in an international journal. Sensitivity responses based upon measurements presented here are tenuous at best. - Accepted and Revised. Abstract: Line 38: The highest value (of what?) was always… - Accepted and Revised. Introduction, line 83: “influences stability” but does not “determine stability”. - Accepted and Revised. Lines 92-96. Actually, carbon sequestration can be independent, at least of AGB. - Accepted and Revised. Line 109: you have no data on change in soil texture so this statement doesn’t support your work. - Accepted and Revised. Line 171 “silt” - Accepted and Revised. Results: general…fine to report veg in tables or in supplemental, but specific discussions of species within text should only relate to measurements of production or correlations with soil variables? In general…it’s hard to keep up with all the acronyms repeatedly discussed here. You might consider giving the grasslands their actual names. - Accepted and Revised. We changed the Table 2 as a supplemental. Line 290. Do not repeat results in discussion. - Accepted and Revised. Line 337 is called a tautology. Size fractions describe soil properties, because size fractions are soil properties. - Accepted and Revised. Figure 1: shows nicely that TP, TN, and SOC are very autocorrelated. Can you include your BGB and AGB in this analysis? - Figure 1 didn’t have this information. Do you mean Figure 3? For Figure 3, we accepted and revised. Table 2 should be supplemental materials - Accepted and Revised. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The paper summarized study that compared plant and soil variables among several alpine grasslands in Tibet. The study surveyed 5 grassland types in August 2016. Alpine grasslands are important ecosystems worldwide and obviously vulnerable to climate change. Baseline information about how these grasslands respond to environmental changes will be important to know. Unfortunately, the study summarized here leaves much to be desired. - We agree with the reviewer’s comment. Because the funding and the other reason limited, we only got the data in 2016. If we have any other change we will propose the further research, with more seasonal and interannual investigations to evaluate the results. The paper itself is merely a descriptive comparison of grassland types and represents only one ‘snapshot’ of time – August 2016. While descriptive information about grassland ecosystems is not without value, it was hard for me to see the usefulness this particular information. For example, no information was given about the management history of these grasslands. Were they grazed, hayed, or fertilized? Or are they protected grasslands? If they are grazed, for how long, and at what stocking density? The lack of management information is a major omission as this would likely have a big impact on the site characteristics. - We agree with the reviewer’s comment. There is no special management for the grassland and which only grazed. I revised this in the Material and Methods part. In addition to these issues, the data analysis was mostly inappropriate. What was the point of conducting ANOVAs across these grassland types? No treatments were applied to the grasslands so what were the authors trying to determine? In the context of a descriptive study like this, does it really matter that soil C was statistically different between several grassland types? Presenting the variable means and standard deviations for each would have sufficed. A data set like this is more amenable to a multi-variate approach, which the authors attempted with the RDA analysis. Again though, I fail to see how useful this analysis was given the short time frame and lack of management information provided. - We agree with the reviewer’s comment. Because we want to see the differences between five grassland types under natural conditions, the ANOVA analysis was used to see their variance. For RDA analysis, although it sampled only one year it could reflect the relationship between soil properties and plant growth and it could be used as the basic data and reference compared to other research. The paper has other minor issues but given the problems mentioned above, I do not see the point in going through these. This data set might be publishable in a regional journal or other outlet, but I do not feel the paper, in its current form, has a great deal of value to an international audience. As a suggestion, the authors might consider beginning a long-term monitoring program with this data set and collect plant and soil data over many years. Showing how these variables might respond to climate variation or management activities over time would be valuable to the scientific community. - We agree with the reviewer’s comment. Since we only had one year’s data and we also want to show our data to other researcher, we compared our results to other similar findings in the discussion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response letter2019-12-26.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228277.r002
13 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Differences in species diversity, biomass, and soil properties of five types of alpine grasslands in the Northern Tibetan Plateau PONE-D-19-25384R1 Dear Dr.beibei zhang 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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): I have gone through the revised manuscript of the authors and Even though the duration of the research carried out was of shorter time span but considering the geographical position of Tibet I think it will be interesting for international audience to know about the variations existing among grassland types and also between soil properties and species diversity there. The authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly and have incorporated all the comments and suggestions put forward by both the referees in the text and also in the figures and tables. I think the manuscript has sufficient merit to be accepted for publication in the Journal. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228277.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Jan 2020 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-19-25384R1 Differences in species diversity, biomass, and soil properties of five types of alpine grasslands in the Northern Tibetan Plateau Dear Dr. Zhang: 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. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228277.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 .