Spatial variability of soil chemical properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia

Gizachew Ayalew Tiruneh; Tiringo Yilak Alemayehu; Derege Tsegaye Meshesha; Eduardo Saldanha Vogelmann; José Miguel Reichert; Nigussie Haregeweyn

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0253156

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2021
26 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Remigio Paradelo Núñez, Editor PONE-D-21-03433 Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tiruneh, 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 submit your revised manuscript by May 10 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Remigio Paradelo Núñez 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. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 5 and 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 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: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: No 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 manuscript “Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia" is well written. In my opinion, the manuscript is relevant and appropriate for the PlosONE journal. Nonetheless, I have the following suggestions that should be addressed by the authors before to publish: Title: please add ‘chemical’ in title [Not a comment, but you have not defined paragraph sign meaning in author name list- double check] L#21-23: these are not only procedure to evaluate soil variability, so please make a general sentence but focus as background information or rationale of the study L#24: Include depth of topsoil Abstract is poorly written. No clear explanation of measured variables. What was the tool(s) used to explore spatial variability of study area? Only descriptive statistics? L#38: what do you mean by inappropriate? L#43: please double check your citation style for [14] based on journal guidelines L#58-61: Besides scholars, your study should be valuable to farmers as well. Please think about other site-specific recommendation practices and mention it in Introduction section because there is not only geostatistics for optimizing nutrient use and improve crop production. Countries like, Nigeria, India, Nepal have used soil testing mobile van as well. I am not sure about similar approach in Ethiopia, but it is suggested to visit this link (https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2017.1387837) for more information. L#111: Is this correct amount? 20-50 mg of dried soil; please cross-check with this information: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soils/testmethods/oc.pdf L#136-139: why there is not any information about tools of spatial interpolation in Introduction section? You need to re-structure your Introduction and Methodology (statistical analysis) sections. No justification- why did you select IDW only, why not others? Results: there is repetition of information (results) in table and text many times. Also there is no any value of Table 8, just include mean and SE, and then lsd comparison. If you have this already, then delete Table 8. L#251-252: How GHG information relates to your current study? Do not bring larger picture in your Discussion section. Please focus on that what you have done and its implications. L#255: what is best land planning? Good luck! Reviewer #2: The authors presented a work on "Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia" but however dwelt so much on land use instead of the spatial variability. The authors use only 60 samples to produce the map of the distribution of soil chemical properties in the study location of more than 6,000 ha. This to me is not acceptable because the samples are too few to highlight the spatial variability in the soil properties. Even the map produced was not mentioned in the abstract let alone discussing them in the results and Discussion section. A number of information that is supposed to be in the abstract are missing. There were a lot of long sentences that need to be summarized or broken into two or more sentences. ****** 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.] 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-03433_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r001
Revision 1
27 Apr 2021 Author Response Date: April 24 09, 2021 Rebuttal letter PONE-D-21-03433 We are glad about the academic editor and the reviewers’ comments, which strengthen the current version of the manuscript “Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia”. In addition, our utmost sincere gratitude goes to you and the reviewers who devote their valuable time to bring our manuscript to a qualified paper. We have provided a one by one reply to all concerns and comments given below. We thank you for your consideration of this resubmission and look forward to your response. Best regards, Gizachew Ayalew Tiruneh (on behalf of all co-authors) Lecturer in Debre Tabor University Ph.D. Fellow in soil science, Bahir Dar University Email: tiruneh1972@gmail.com Editor’s comments Comments 1: 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'. Response: We addressed the concerns provided by the editor and reviewers and uploaded a file labeled “Response to Reviewers”. Comments 2: 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'. Response: We tried to do it. Comments 3: An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. Response: We have addressed accordingly. Comments 4: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Response: We have not made any changes to financial disclosure. Comments 5: Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. Response: We made corrections as per the guidelines Comments 6: 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. Response: The majority of our protocols involve standard methods such as soil pH, available phosphorus (av. P), organic carbon (OC), total nitrogen (TN), electrical conductivity (EC), exchangeable Ca, and K, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) measurement. We have specified our Lab protocol in the revised manuscript [reference #45]. Comments 7: 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 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 Response: We addressed PLOS ONE's style requirements in this revision. Comments 8: Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. Response: We addressed PLOS ONE's style requirements in this revision using PACE. Comments 9: Please ensure that you refer to Figures 5 and 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response: We cited the figures in manuscript’s text. Comments 10: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Response: We followed PLOS ONE's Supporting Information guidelines to include the captions. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Comments 1: 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: No Reviewer #2: Partly Response: Dear Reviewers, thank you so much for taking your valuable time to elevate the quality of our manuscript. We do hope that the Reviewer’s concerns will be addressed. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. We have gone thoroughly the revised manuscript, and hopefully that the first Reviewer will be satisfied. ________________________________________ 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 Thank you. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript with the help of Grammarly (premium) and Turnitin software, and we do hope that the first Reviewer’s concerns will be addressed. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia" is well written. In my opinion, the manuscript is relevant and appropriate for the PlosONE journal. Nonetheless, I have the following suggestions that should be addressed by the authors before to publish: Title: please add ‘chemical’ in title [Not a comment, but you have not defined paragraph sign meaning in author name list- double check] Response: Thank you. We have tried to add ‘chemical’ the title in the way this reviewer has suggested. L#21-23: these are not only procedure to evaluate soil variability, so please make a general sentence but focus as background information or rationale of the study Response: Thank you. We have revised the background information or rationale of the study. L#24: Include depth of topsoil Abstract is poorly written. No clear explanation of measured variables. What was the tool(s) used to explore spatial variability of study area? Only descriptive statistics? Response: Thank you. We have included depth of topsoil (0-20 cm) and have revised the Abstract section. We also incorporated more ideas on geo-statistical (IDW) tool and others (ANOVA, box plots, and PCA). We hope that this revised version will be satisfying. L#38: what do you mean by inappropriate? Response: Thank you. We replaced “inappropriate” by “irrelevant” as shown in [L43] of the revised manuscript. L#43: please double check your citation style for [14] based on journal guidelines Response: Thank you. The reference style is now made consistent, reference # 14 (in the revised manuscript) with others. L#58-61: Besides scholars, your study should be valuable to farmers as well. Please think about other site-specific recommendation practices and mention it in Introduction section because there is not only geostatistics for optimizing nutrient use and improve crop production. Countries like, Nigeria, India, Nepal have used soil testing mobile van as well. I am not sure about similar approach in Ethiopia, but it is suggested to visit this link (https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2017.1387837) for more information. Response: Thank you. We appreciate your valuable recommendation and thank for showing this important link. We mentioned some site-specific recommendation practices and included in Introduction section. However, Ethiopia has not yet used mobile van so far for soil testing like the above-mentioned countries. L#111: Is this correct amount? 20-50 mg of dried soil; please cross-check with this information: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soils/testmethods/oc.pdf Response: Thank you for indicating this useful source. We have added a relevant source [reference # 45] to get more elaboration on the idea of “the amount of dried soil required in examining OC [L145 in the revised manuscript]. L#136-139: Why there is not any information about tools of spatial interpolation in Introduction section? You need to re-structure your Introduction and Methodology (statistical analysis) sections. No justification- why did you select IDW only, why not others? Results: there is repetition of information (results) in table and text many times. Also there is no any value of Table 8, just include mean and SE, and then lsd comparison. If you have this already, then delete Table 8. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We share with your concerns. We tried to incorporate information about tools of spatial interpolation in Introduction section. We also re-structured the Introduction and Methodology (statistical analysis) sections. The justification of IDW selection was included in Introduction section and Methodology section. The repetition of information (results) in table and text were minimized and Table 8 was removed. L#251-252: How GHG information relates to your current study? Do not bring larger picture in your Discussion section. Please focus on that what you have done and its implications. Response: Thank you for the concern. We added some relevant ideas of GHGs and its implications in Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections. L#255: what is best land planning? Response: Thank you for the comment. We replaced “relevant” instead of “best” in the phrase “best land planning” (L296). A relevant land-use planning gives time and resources to decision-making processes in order to reach conclusions on suitable or best possible use of land based on long-term objectives and benefits that are more equitable. Reviewer #2: The authors presented a work on "Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia" but however dwelt so much on land use instead of the spatial variability. The authors use only 60 samples to produce the map of the distribution of soil chemical properties in the study location of more than 6,000 ha. This to me is not acceptable because the samples are too few to highlight the spatial variability in the soil properties. Even the map produced was not mentioned in the abstract let alone discussing them in the results and Discussion section. A number of information that is supposed to be in the abstract are missing. There were a lot of long sentences that need to be summarized or broken into two or more sentences. Response: Thank you for the concern. In considering the soil variability, composite and purposive soil sampling was employed to reduce sampling intensity. Moreover, most coverage of the study area is gentle slope, bordering Lake Tana. Supportive references were also cited [43-44]. � a soil sampler per 100 ha was used in India [#reference 43] in revised manuscript � a soil sample per 625 ha was taken in Turkey [#reference 44] in revised manuscript We included the soil variability and soil maps in the Abstract, Methodology, Results, discussion, and conclusion sections and long sentences were also shortened. ________________________________________ 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.] 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. Response: Thank you. We have used PACE with this submission, so this should be right. ________________________________________ Please note that once again, thank you very much. Your comments are greatly appreciated. Best regards, Gizachew Ayalew Tiruneh (on behalf of all co-authors) Lecturer in Debre Tabor University Ph.D. Fellow in soil science, Bahir Dar University Email: tiruneh1972@gmail.com https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r002
11 May 2021 Decision Letter - Remigio Paradelo Núñez, Editor PONE-D-21-03433R1 Spatial variability of soil chemical properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tiruneh, 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 submit your revised manuscript by Jun 25 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Remigio Paradelo Núñez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): One of the reviewers has made several suggestions to improve the manuscript (please see attached file), in particular the conclusion section needs to be rewritten. In addition, English grammar should be carefully revised and improved. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) ******** 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: Partly ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: Dear author(s), Thank you very much for addressing my concerns. It was a pleasure to work on your manuscript and provide some constructive suggestions/ comments. Reviewer #2: It is true that the authors have tried to address some of the concerns raised in the previous version of the manuscript. However, the authors have failed to present their results in a clear and concise manner. Some of the sentences are not clear and many are laden with lots of grammatical errors. The authors are also advised to write their conclusion in such a manner that it represents the result of their study ****** 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 [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-03433_R2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r003
Revision 2
27 May 2021 Author Response Date: May 23, 2021 Rebuttal letter PONE-D-21-03433 We are glad about the academic editor and the reviewers’ comments, which strengthen the current version of the manuscript “Spatial variability of soil properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia”. In addition, our utmost sincere gratitude goes to you and the reviewers who devote their valuable time to bring our manuscript to a qualified paper. We have provided a one by one reply to all concerns and comments given below. We thank you for your consideration of this resubmission and look forward to your response. Best regards, Gizachew Ayalew Tiruneh (on behalf of all co-authors) Lecturer in Debre Tabor University Ph.D. Fellow in soil science, Bahir Dar University Email: tiruneh1972@gmail.com Editor’s comments Comments 1: 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'. Response: We addressed the concerns provided by the editor and reviewers and uploaded a file labeled “Response to Reviewers”. Comments 2: 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'. Response: We tried to do it. Comments 3: An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. Response: We have addressed accordingly. Comments 4: If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Response: We have not made any changes to financial disclosure. Comments 5: Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. Response: We made corrections as per the guidelines Comments 6: 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. Response: We do not have our own publishable laboratory protocols Comments 8: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: We have reviewed and checked that the references are complete and correct. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Comments 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: (No Response) Response: Dear Reviewers, thank you so much for taking your valuable time to elevate the quality of our manuscript. ________________________________________ 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: Partly Response: Thank you. We have gone thoroughly the revised manuscript, and hopefully that the second Reviewer will be satisfied. ________________________________________ 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. ________________________________________ 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: No Reviewer #2: No Response: Thank you. We have described the data in the manuscript and attached as supporting information (S1 table and S2 table), and we do hope that the Reviewers’ concerns will be addressed. ________________________________________ 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 Response: Thank you. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript with the help of Grammarly (premium) and Turnitin software, and we do hope that the second Reviewer’s concerns will be addressed. ________________________________________ 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: Dear author(s), Thank you very much for addressing my concerns. It was a pleasure to work on your manuscript and provide some constructive suggestions/ comments. Reviewer #2: It is true that the authors have tried to address some of the concerns raised in the previous version of the manuscript. However, the authors have failed to present their results in a clear and concise manner. Some of the sentences are not clear and many are laden with lots of grammatical errors. The authors are also advised to write their conclusion in such a manner that it represents the result of their study Response: Thank you. We have revised the results and conclusions and we do hope that the second Reviewer’s concerns will be addressed. . 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 Response: Yes [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. Response: Thank you. We have used PACE with this submission, so this should be right. ________________________________________ Please note that once again, thank you very much. Your comments are greatly appreciated. Best regards, Gizachew Ayalew Tiruneh (on behalf of all co-authors) Lecturer in Debre Tabor University Ph.D. Fellow in soil science, Bahir Dar University Email: tiruneh1972@gmail.com Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r004
31 May 2021 Decision Letter - Remigio Paradelo Núñez, Editor Spatial variability of soil chemical properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia PONE-D-21-03433R2 Dear Dr. Tiruneh, 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, Remigio Paradelo Núñez Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Jun 2021 Acceptance Letter - Remigio Paradelo Núñez, Editor PONE-D-21-03433R2 Spatial variability of soil chemical properties under different land-uses in Northwest Ethiopia Dear Dr. Tiruneh: 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. Remigio Paradelo Núñez Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253156.r006

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 .