Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 21, 2020
Decision Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor

PONE-D-20-33120

NICHE CONSTRUCTION MEDIATES CLIMATE EFFECTS ON RECOVERY OF TUNDRA HEATHLANDS AFTER EXTREME EVENT

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gonzalez,

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 make sure that all data is publicly available.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2021 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.

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). 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Craig Eliot Coleman, PhD

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. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"Unfunded studies"

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.
  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”
  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.
  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains 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 Figure 1 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/

6. 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.

[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: 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: The study by Gonzales et al. presents the results of a very interesting long-term experiment on how Empetrum nigrum heaths recover from extreme events, such as pathogens or winter warming events. The authors show that this species recover very slowly, with little biomass returning after ten years, and that the presence of E. nigrum also prevents the establishment of other species. This is an important indication that areas dominated by E. nigrum may be harder hit in the long-term by recurring extreme events than areas dominated by other species. I have very few comments on this paper, which I think is well-executed and fills an important knowledge gap on the long-term impact of extreme events on these ecosystems.

Some minor comments:

Line 103 and line 106: This is confusing. Were the study sites situated in the tree line or just above the tree line?

line 158: 'mean daily temperature': is this soil temperature? Please specify

Line 241: 'were' should be 'where'

Lines 55, 67, 94, 149 and 374: 'further' should be 'furthermore'

Reviewer #2: This study aims to assess the role played by a niche constructor species after an extreme event (i.e., removing aboveground vegetation) along long environmental gradient and over ten years in tundra heatlands in Northern Norway. This is a very interesting and well-conducted study, that certainly will attract the attention of PLOS ONES's readers. Studies exploring vegetation recovery in such a long gradient over a long period of time are scarce even though they are extremely needed. Although in general I'm very sympathetic with the story, I miss some explanations for a couple of issues.

First, I miss a more thorough development for plant traits extraction from LEDA and TRY databases. Please, add more details about how trait values were assigned. Did you look for trait values of your species in the same location that you are sampling? Or did you extracted trait values from different locations?

Regarding aggregated values of leaf traits, did you calculate them for each year?

Finally, B. nana, another dwarf species, and E. nigrum were equally abundant in the two most continental sites (L340). I was wondering if in those sites won´t be expected that B. nana will have an important role in vegetation recovery as they could also act as niche constructors. Is there any work with this species that shows that it also has that role?

Minor comments

L168 I think that you don’t need to repeat that you are recording the frequency of all plants as it is in L165.

L168-172 “Vegetation frequency appeared to stabilize…”

It is not clear when plant biomass was estimated, please clarify. The first part of the sentence looks like a result.

L172 “All vascular plant species present within the plot but not hit were also accounted for giving them an abundance value of 0.1”

I’m not very familiar with the method, thus I was wondering if this is a common procedure when using the point intercept method? I though that you just consider plants that hit the pin.

L219 Correct: one species

L255 “We chose faster growing species than E. Nigrum”

Please add which ones within brackets.

**********

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: Frans-Jan Parmentier

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.]

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.

Revision 1

Response to comments from academic editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Answer: Manuscript has been revised and adjusted to the PLOS ONE guidelines.

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.

Answer: Study sites were located in areas with little to no easy access to the public on state owned land and therefore no permits were needed to establish and follow up the study. This has been incorporated in the methods section

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.

Answer: Data has been uploaded to BIRD database and is available on the following link. https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2722169

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"Unfunded studies"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. Answer: The study was funded by a grant from the Arctic University of Norway provided to Victoria T. Gonzalez.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Answer: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains 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.

Answer: The map figure provided in Figure 1 was obtained from the platform R, the free software environment for statistical computing and graphics. Maps and code used in the program R are not subject to any copyright and can be freely distributed.

6. 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.

Answer: Captions have been included at the end of the manuscript and in-text has been changed. 

Response to reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1: The study by Gonzales et al. presents the results of a very interesting long-term experiment on how Empetrum nigrum heaths recover from extreme events, such as pathogens or winter warming events. The authors show that this species recover very slowly, with little biomass returning after ten years, and that the presence of E. nigrum also prevents the establishment of other species. This is an important indication that areas dominated by E. nigrum may be harder hit in the long-term by recurring extreme events than areas dominated by other species. I have very few comments on this paper, which I think is well-executed and fills an important knowledge gap on the long-term impact of extreme events on these ecosystems.

Answer: Thank you for this positive review of our study.

Some minor comments:

Line 103 and line 106: This is confusing. Were the study sites situated in the tree line or just above the tree line?

Answer: Study sites were situated above the tree line, corrected in text.

line 158: 'mean daily temperature': is this soil temperature? Please specify.

Answer: We refer to the mean daily temperature at ground level where the temperature loggers were placed. This has been specified in the text.

Line 241: 'were' should be 'where'.

Answer: Spelling has been corrected in the text

Lines 55, 67, 94, 149 and 374: 'further' should be 'furthermore'.

Answer: Spelling has been corrected in the text

Reviewer #2: This study aims to assess the role played by a niche constructor species after an extreme event (i.e., removing aboveground vegetation) along long environmental gradient and over ten years in tundra heatlands in Northern Norway. This is a very interesting and well-conducted study, that certainly will attract the attention of PLOS ONES's readers. Studies exploring vegetation recovery in such a long gradient over a long period of time are scarce even though they are extremely needed. Although in general I'm very sympathetic with the story, I miss some explanations for a couple of issues.

Answer: Thank you for this positive review of our study.

First, I miss a more thorough development for plant traits extraction from LEDA and TRY databases. Please, add more details about how trait values were assigned. Did you look for trait values of your species in the same location that you are sampling? Or did you extracted trait values from different locations?

Answer: The plant traits values were extracted from The LEDA and TRY databases based on their location. Those values belonging to locations close to our field studies were chosen. All species have values belonging to individuals in northern Norway or northern Sweden. This has now been included in the methods section.

Regarding aggregated values of leaf traits, did you calculate them for each year?

Answer: Only the last year of data was used in the statistical analyses (data from 2019). This is stated in the “Statistical Analyses” section

Finally, B. nana, another dwarf species, and E. nigrum were equally abundant in the two most continental sites (L340). I was wondering if in those sites won´t be expected that B. nana will have an important role in vegetation recovery as they could also act as niche constructors. Is there any work with this species that shows that it also has that role?

Answer: It has been shown in northern areas that biodiversity increases with shrub canopy height of among other species Betula nana (Bråthen and Lortie, “A portfolio effect of shrub canopy height on species richness in both stressful and competitive environments”, Functional ecology 2016, 30,60-69). The result of an increase of B. nana could bring an increase in biodiversity on the long run, however, the biomass of B.nana and other dwarf shrubs after ten years of study is extremely low and does not really allow us to say anything conclusive about their effect.

Minor comments

L168 I think that you don’t need to repeat that you are recording the frequency of all plants as it is in L165.

Answer: Sentence has been removed

L168-172 “Vegetation frequency appeared to stabilize…”

It is not clear when plant biomass was estimated, please clarify. The first part of the sentence looks like a result.

Answer: Plant biomass was estimated for each year between 2017 and 2019. Sentence has been removed as suggested to avoid confusion.

L172 “All vascular plant species present within the plot but not hit were also accounted for giving them an abundance value of 0.1”

I’m not very familiar with the method, thus I was wondering if this is a common procedure when using the point intercept method? I though that you just consider plants that hit the pin.

Answer: In this method it is a common procedure to give those species not touched by the pins a “symbolic” value in order for the data to have an overview of all species present and so be able to calculate other parameters such as species richness or biodiversity.

L219 Correct: one species Answer: text has been corrected

L255 “We chose faster growing species than E. Nigrum”

Please add which ones within brackets.

Answer: the species are already listed on the same sentence (line 250-253 of revised manuscript), [quote]: “We chose faster growing species than E. nigrum, some that are known to grow together with E. nigrum (A. flexuosa, S. virgaurea, B. vivipara and C. phragmitodes) and some species that are not usually found in E. nigrum heathlands (C. angustifolium, R. minor, M. pratense)”

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor

NICHE CONSTRUCTION MEDIATES CLIMATE EFFECTS ON RECOVERY OF TUNDRA HEATHLANDS AFTER EXTREME EVENT

PONE-D-20-33120R1

Dear Dr. Gonzalez,

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,

Craig Eliot Coleman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Craig Eliot Coleman, Editor

PONE-D-20-33120R1

Niche construction mediates climate effects on recovery of tundra heathlands after extreme event

Dear Dr. Gonzalez:

I'm 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 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Craig Eliot Coleman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .