PONE-D-20-02699

The breadth of the Mexican Transition Zone as defined by its flowering plant generic flora

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jose Luis,

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.

Dear authors, reviewers were really positive on this ms evaluation. I send you their comments and suggest you to consider their comments specially from the anonymous reviewer.  

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Apr 24 2020 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,

Juliana Hipólito, Phd

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

"Work supported in part by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México - Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT IN209519) to JLV.".

* Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

* Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3.  We note that [Figures 1, 2, and 3] in your submission contain map 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, 2, and 3] 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].”

 

2.     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/

[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: No

**********

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: The ms represents an interesting contribution. I think that instead of Morrone (2005) the authors should cite the following:

Morrone, J. J. 2019. Regionalización biogeográfica y evolución biótica de México: Encrucijada de la biodiversidad del Nuevo Mundo. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 90(e903980): 1-68.

This is relevant because in the latter the placement of the Balsas Basin province is more similar to the results obtained herein.

Reviewer #2: This is a detailed contribution on the biogeography of Mexico using information from plants. The authors emphasize that in comparison to proposals based on information from animals, those from plants are few. The analyses are appropriate for the study, and provide pertinent results. The text is essentially free of typos, although there are a few awkward phrases. The authors sufficiently support their conclusions about the characterization of the Mexican Transition Zone and affinities with the Nearctic and Neotropical regions of Mexico. However, I do have some concerns and recommend publication after the authors consider the following:

The authors should right at the start of the article define clearly and objectively their concepts of Nearctic and Neotropical. Most biologists have a generally understanding of these terms, but it needs to be stated how exactly they are being used in article because it has important implications for the rest of the paper.

The authors state: The number of genera of Nearctic and Neotropical affinity was determined for each of 175 grid squares. The authors need to elaborate on how this was determined and indicate the affinities of the genera that were included. This information is the basis of their paper and should also be provided as supplemental data.

Because I don’t completely understand the authors’ concept of Nearctic, I don’t understand their placement of many groups as being Nearctic. For example, Acanthaceae is an almost entirely tropical family. However, in the supplemental data many of its genera, such as Louteridium which is restricted to frost-free tropical areas, are classified as being Nearctic. I find this confusing. The same applies to Chiangodendron. This is a tree restricted to lowland tropical forests in the almost entirely tropical family Achariaceae. However, the authors classify it as Nearctic. This is counter intuitive. Furthermore, in the supplemental data the affinities (NEA, NEO, MTZ) of many genera are not given, e.g., Pectocarya, Sibara, Apteria. Was this information unintendedly left out or is it not possible to easily determine? The authors should double check that all information is accurate.

On page 9 the authors state “The territory of Mexico, for example, includes exclusively North American (Nearctic element) and South American (Neotropical element) as well as endemic families.” I think that they mean to say primarily instead of exclusively. If a family is exclusively South American, it by definition couldn’t occur in Mexico.

XPachebergia is a nothogenus based on a single individual that was determined to be a hybrid between Backebergia and Pachycereus. I don’t think that it should not be included in the analysis. It certainly is not comparable to other genera.

Instead of the category “cosmopolitan,” I suggest using the word widespread. Cosmopolitan has a connotation of occurring nearly throughout the entire world, which is the case for very few of the genera included in the category.

First sentence of abstract: “….have an identity provided by taxa….” Change to “…. are defined by taxa…..”

Fifth line of the abstract: “…agreement about the extent of this region.” Change to “...agreement about the limits and extent of this region.

Third paragraph of the introduction: “placing Mexico as one of such areas of endemism.” Change to “identifying Mexico as one such area of endemism.”

Page 12, Figure 2 caption. The authors state “Red: Neotropical Kingdom, Green: Mexican Transition Zone.” However, this is reversed and should be corrected. In the figure, red represents the Mexican Transition Zone and green the Neotropical Kingdom.

In various parts of the text: When starting a sentence, Figure should be written in full and not abbreviated.

Fourth line of the introduction: “These geological lineages….” Change to “These distinct geological histories….

Page 16, line 4: “...other 19 have their northern…” Change to “…the other 19 have their northern…”

Page 20, line 5: “that restrict their distribution to two” Change to “…restricted to two…”

Page 26, 1st sentence: “...constitutes the boreal end of the coastal...” Change to “…constitutes the northern end of the coastal…”

**********

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: Yes: Juan J. Morrone

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.

The breadth of the Mexican Transition Zone as defined by its flowering plant generic flora

PONE-D-20-02699R1

Dear Dr. Jose Luis,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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,

Juliana Hipólito, Phd

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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns and made the necessary changes. They accepted most all of my suggestions, and when not, they justified their position (e.g., the continued listing of a nothogenus). The authors state that their definition of Neactic includes any element that is endemic to Mexico. This ignores taxonomic and biogeographical affinities, but if that is their definition, so be it, and it is clearly mentioned.

**********

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