PONE-D-22-22469Local seed sourcing for sustainable forestryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alia,

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 Oct 29 2022 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: https://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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This research was supported by the Project AEG 17-048 established in the frame of the measure 15.2“support to the conservation and use of forest genetic resources” and under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) with 75% co-financing. This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 773383 (B4EST project), and the Ministry of Science (RTI2018-094691-B-C32)."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""  If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the Project AEG 17-048 established in the frame of the measure 15.2“support to the conservation and use of forest genetic resources” and under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) with 75% co-financing. This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 773383 (B4EST project), and the Ministry of Science (RTI2018-094691-B-C32)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This research was supported by the Project AEG 17-048 established in the frame of the measure 15.2“support to the conservation and use of forest genetic resources” and under Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) with 75% co-financing. This study was funded by the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 773383 (B4EST project), and the Ministry of Science (RTI2018-094691-B-C32)."

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

4. 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.

5. We note that Figures 1 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 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].”

b. 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 upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

7. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This work analyzed two seed sources strategies (strict-sense vs wide-sense local seed sources) for 40 species and 50 deployment sites in Spain and in relation to the richness of the pools, their climatic trends and their availability of basic material. The authors highlight the importance of these two strategies as they can sustain good levels of species and genetic background, while also discussing some limitations. The work is interesting as it deals with technical and scientific aspects relevant for sustainable forestry. However, there are some aspects that need to be addressed, and are related to make the work clearer for the reader. For instance, very specific terminology "strict-sense, wide-sence, basic materials, selected-material, etc, need to be defined as the audience of PlosONE is of broder scope, also some of the mentioned regulations may not be clear for scientists outside the EU. Another aspect is a better justification/explanation of the statistical methods. Specific comments can be found below:

Ln26.27: I don’t understand what this means

The abstract is not clear, I don´t understand which is the type of data that has been analyzed (ln27-29) and which were the specific variables tested (ln30), and neither which were the results (ln33). The main aim refers to limitations for the application of local seed sourcing, but which limitations? Another ambiguity is what the authors refer to “actual regulations on marketing”? For reader that is not familiar with the market in EU countries, this conclusion has no context. Which are the actual regulations? If I read this paper in 2 - 5 years ahead, or more, this line would have no significance. So please make the abstract easier to understand, present specific results (report some values, statistical test performed, significant differences, etc.) and provide a conclusion of a broader view.

Ln51: Move this sentence in the same first paragraph. Also the sentence is long and is difficult to read. Improve writing.

Ln80: Put in parenthesis, 1 or 2 examples of the existing regulations, so it is easier to understand which would be a limitation; because I don’t understand the “like ecosystem restoration”

Ln82-113: The first part of the introduction is clear as it defines some terminology, which is broader in context. However, the last two paragraphs that explains the particularities of this work and the aims are not that clear to a reader that has no specific context of the terminology or regulations in Spain or EU. If that would be the case, then the work is suitable to a more specific journal, but it can be resolved if more context, and terminology definition is provided. Also check if the terminology is the most used. For e.g. source-identified and selected reproductive materials in the literature are named as identified stands and selected stands.

Ln82: mention the difference between source-identified and selected reproductive materials. As I mentioned earlier, its important to define some terminology to target a wider audience as it’s the aim of PlosONE.

Ln86: What refers to “low selection of the material”?

Ln105: Specify which two genetic levels, the writing is a bit confusing

Ln136-137: can you refer to a map (supplementary material)?

Ln144: forest species 17 species.. correct

Ln148: SSL and WSL abreviattions should be presented since the first time both terms are presented

Ln173: What means FRM?

Ln196-199: Be more specific about the statistical model applied, the explanation is very vague. In which software? Also does the variables were standardized/transformed? How does the model fit was checked (for the regression and t-test)? Which was the alpha level?

Also From where the climatic variables were obtained?

Ln241: Move this sentence with previous one

Ln278: countries

The figures are not clear. For instance fig 2, the coloring (red vs blue) and the IDs?

Fig 3. Not sure what the figures depicts. The category numbers and state again the abbreviation significance (MA_is).

Ln346: Therefore.. incomplete sentence

I feel that the discussion needs to expand more on the specific results found in this study, for instance expand on the differences found between SSL and WSL.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been prepared well. Few suggestions need to be considered, to begin with, you may add other appealing charts rather than tables with the help of many standard software's. Additionally, modify the materials and methods section by mentioning the duration of the experiment and lastly check grammatical /typo error mistakes.

Reviewer #3: The study is an overview of the current status of the available genetic resources of forest reproductible material in regards to their potential use. The authors elaborate and adhoc methodology applied to Spain, and then further extended it to Europe (sensu European Union). To my knowldege , this is the first overall analysis of this issue conducted at the scale of a country and a continent. The issue is timely in the context of the continuous extension of forest plantation and afforestation driven by the need of climate warming mitigation. Appropriate seed sourcing is of utmost importance in this context. I would therefore strongly recommend that the paper be published.

However the current version has some limitations, that incline me to exhort the authors to provide an improved version before final publication. The current manuscript is extremely concise and can only be understood by scientists and professionals familiar to operational forestry. To be accessible to a larger audience, clarifications and additional information is needed at various places in the manuscript. I suggest below items and places where additional clarifications would be relevant.

Concerning the analysis per se, it appears to me that the outcomes of the study tighty depend on the way the procurement zones and the deployment zones are geographically distributed and defined. While the delineation of the procurement zones is actually imposed by the regulation scheme in place (EU or SP), the deployment zone can be envisaged according to different reasonings. The authors decided to use a subdivision of Spain « in continuous regions with similar environmental characteristics ». The authors should first clarify what « similar environmental characteristics » stand for. And second, they should consider how sensitive the method is if « different environmemntal charateristics » are used. What if Spain is subdivided in only 30 units ? or 70 units ? Alternatively they should provide the rationale for using only 50 units.

The same limitations apply to the use of niche modelling. They are just multiple ways of implementing niche modelling. And they may end up in different outcomes of the study. Instead of building a theoretical distribution of the species based on niche modelling, why not just consider the today’s distribution ? This would be less sensitive to the choice of climatic variables used for niche modelling.

Line 82-83 It would be relevant to define source-identified and selected material.

Are source identified stands phenotypcally selected stands ? Were they identified based on dendrological, phytosanitary or other criteria ?

Line 86-87 Where is the remaining material for deployment coming from (besides source-identifed and selected) that represent 79.2% ?

Line 94-95 Do you mean « between 82 to 85% »… and « between 14 to 17% »

Line 107-108 What do you mean by « Climatic trends on the richness of these pools »

Line 108-109 What do you mean by « the relationship among richness of the pools, the use of reproductive material of the species and the method for defining regions of provenance »

Table 1 : Why are there 2 different regulation schemes : SP and EU ? Why do all species not undergo the EU scheme ? Is it because they are absent in the EU scheme ?

Line 145 Explain what a divisive method is ? Clarify how the regions of provenances were » assembled » according to the divisive method. Or provide a reference that would clarify the procedure.

Line 152-156 What climatic variables were used to calculate the matrix of the Mahalanobis distances ? The whole method can also be sensitive to the type of climatic information used.

Line 189-190 Briefly explain what the FOREMATIS data base contains ??

Line 196-205 Were the climatic variables averaged for each deployment zone ? How were the raw climatic data estimated at the level of a deployment zone ?

Line 213-216 Unclear. Could you rephrase or elaborate more on the computation used.

Line 219-220 Redundancy with line 208-209

Line 330-334 Doesn’t the wide sense local seed-sourcing strategy fit into the assisted-migration approach ? And if so, your results suggest that assisted migration is feasible. So I do not understand here why assisted migation or climate-adjusted migration is not suitable.

Line 346. Remove « therefore ». Unless this is the start of a sentence that is missing. If so, add the sentence.

Line 348 What does « 84 % » correspond to ??

Line 350 substitue « based in « to « based on ».

Line 356-357 You may elaborate more on how you results may stimulate to « homogenize regulations concerning the use of Forest Reproductive material »

Figure 1 I was unable to read the numbers on the different maps. Please provide pictures with higher resolution.

Figure2 same comment as for Figure 2

Figure 3 Homogenizethe writings of acronyms between Figure 3 and Table 3

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Somdutt Sharma

Reviewer #3: 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: Edited_Manuscript.docx

Local seed sourcing for sustainable forestry

PONE-D-22-22469R1

Dear Dr. Alia,

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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: I have read this manuscript's revised version and consider it improved significantly. I just have a few minor editorial remarks:

Ln53: Put as Seed Production Area

Ln56: remove both

Ln107: said richness?

Ln111: Such as the Mediterranean forests

Ln127: remove “according”

Ln149: variables

Ln158: Add a comma after similarity

Ln306: correct the sentence “These regions are in the”

Ln311: Separate genepools

Ln340: remove “as”

Reviewer #2: The Author has modified the manuscript as per all the suggestions with new figures. You may change the the view of new figures and by modifying its zoom for clarity.

Reviewer #3: You have addressed all my remarks concerns by doing relevant corrections and providing convincing arguments

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Som Dutt Sharma

Reviewer #3: No

**********