Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga

Kamila Marques Pedrosa; Maiara Bezerra Ramos; María de los Ángeles La Torre-Cuadros; Sérgio de Faria Lopes

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286434

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 27, 2023
27 Feb 2023 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-23-02443Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian CaatingaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lopes, 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 Apr 13 2023 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors would like to thank the local populations of the five rural communities for kindly sharing valuable information on the use of plants in the Caatinga. Special thanks to Sonally S. Cunha, Maria Graciele M. Rodrigues, Stefanny M. Souza, Wendell F. S. Gaudêncio and all the members of the Laboratory of Neotropical Ecology at the State University of Paraíba for their support in the fieldwork. To Professor Dr. José Iranildo Miranda de Melo for his assistance in identifying botanical species. To Professor Dr. Danilo M. Neves for reading and suggestions in writing the article. Hyago K. Lucena for providing some of the codes used in phylogenetic analysis. MBR and KMP thank the Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado da Paraíba (FAPESq) for granting research grants. This study was partly funded by the State University of Paraíba grant 03/2022. SFL thanks CNPq for the productivity grant.” 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: “MBR and KMP acknowledge the Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado da Paraíba (FAPESq) for granting research scholarships. SFL thanks CNPq for a productivity grant. https://fapesq.rpp.br/ NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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 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].” 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/ 5. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 recent disturbance of ecosystem services by anthropogenic sources has increases the needs to use local plant for social and cultural purpose. The uses of such species in many cases are difficult to understand and are most used interchangeably. The current manuscript entitled “Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga” is a quality research conducted by the authors highlighting one such issue. I appreciated the hard work and research concerns of the authors. However, despite the importance of the idea, the manuscript language in most section is confused and seems very poor, although I am not native to English. Moreover, I highlighted some changes in different sections of the manuscript, which may further aid in the quality of the manuscript. Abstract The abstract needs some revisions for a clear understanding of the readers. Some specific comments are - Line 20-21. Please remove this sentence as it seems out of context -Line 25-27. Revise the lines please very vogue -Line 27-28. Is it necessary to have hypothesis in abstract? Better to avoid such things in abstract -Line 29. More like conclusion, if it’s added at the end of abstract as conclusion -Conclusion missing Introduction The introduction is to the point but need language improvement in the sentence structure and also looks out for topographic mistakes. Some specific comments are -Line 54-55. Remove unnecessary words i.e. “in the first case” -Line 64.. by chance???is it necessary or important to mention -Line 82-83. Please revise very vogue Material and method Well and comprehensive written but need topographic correction. In addition, it lacks informations on the soil texture, electrical conductivity, and nutrient like organic matter and nitrogen which play critical role in the availability and accumulation of the heavy metals. -Line 95. Revise please, very unnecessary verbs are used -Line 103. Past tense please, its manuscript methodology -Line 130-131. Please revise the sentence -Line 134-135. Very unnecessary sentence -Line 136-143. Please properly introduce your questionnaire and interview section i.e. classify the question section wise.. Like respondents demography, Social status, question about research etc. -Line 166-167. Revise the sentence please Results -The portion is satisfactory, check for minor topographic corrections Discussion The Discussion is to the point, but need language improvement for better understanding of the readers. Some specific comments are Page 16. As in our study, (44) observed that useful woody plants, phylogenetically close, located on the Amalfi Coast in Italy, were preferred for domestic practices due to tool production. (Please revise) Page 17. Our results confirmed our prediction. The traits shared between the species mentioned for firewood and fences did not show a phylogenetic signal. Apparently this suggests that people tend to know less phylogenetically related species for these uses. Everything in the dry forest is useful in a situation of scarcity of species suitable for firewood. The literature shows that these uses demand larger amounts of plant biomass than categories that require less biomass, such as plants used in the production of technological artifacts (8,45). This may explain the reasons why there was no phylogenetic clustering. (Please revise, very poor writing) Page 17. Same issue with the next paragraph Page 18. Unlike studies that addressed utilitarian redundancy (Albuquerque & Oliveira, 2006), Correct the citation please Conclusion The conclusion needs to be refined and provide recommendations for further studies. In addition try to reduce the bulk of result repetition in conclusion. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.r001
Revision 1
13 Apr 2023 Author Response To: Dr. Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor of PLOS ONE Thank you for potentially accepting our manuscript entitled “Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga” for publication in PLOS ONE. We would like to acknowledge the excellent suggestions from both reviewers for improving the revised version of our manuscript. The suggested edits and comments made by the reviewers are shown below. Reviewers' comments: 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 Response: done. 2. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Thank you for the instructions. We certify that the paper is in the style of PLOS ONE. We removed the funding from the acknowledgements session. Below we describe our funding source: Funding Statement: MBR and KMP thank the Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Estado da Paraíba (FAPESq) for granting research grants. This study was partly funded by the State University of Paraíba grant 03/2022. SFL thanks CNPq for the productivity grant. 3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Response: Thank you for the instructions. The data generated and analyzed for the current study has been uploaded to the Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.w3r2280w5 4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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 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].” 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/ Response: Thank you for the instructions. The satellite images were obtained from the database of AESA (Agência Nacional das Águas da Paraíba, Brazil). AESA uses the satellite images from Google Earth. We contacted the agency and explained about the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), but it was explained to us that the satellite images used are not copyrighted and are in the public domain. The figure inserted next to the map is by the authors. 5. 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. Response: Thank you for the instructions. The information was inserted in the text. Reviewer #1 done Abstract The abstract needs some revisions for a clear understanding of the readers. Some specific comments are: 1) Line 20-21. Please remove this sentence as it seems out of context Response: done 2) Line 25-27. Revise the lines please very vogue Response: done 3) Line 27-28. Is it necessary to have hypothesis in abstract? Better to avoid such things in abstract Response: Thanks for the suggestion. The hypothesis mentioned in the text of the abstract is related to the method. To build our phylogenetic tree we use a published tree. In evolution is called phylogenetic hypothesis. 4) Line 29. More like conclusion, if it’s added at the end of abstract as conclusion Response: done 5) Conclusion missing Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The text of the conclusion has been rewritten. Introduction 6) The introduction is to the point but need language improvement in the sentence structure and also looks out for topographic mistakes. Some specific comments are 7) Line 54-55. Remove unnecessary words i.e. “in the first case” Response: Done. 8) Line 64. By chance?? Is it necessary or important to mention. Response: Yes. “by chance” makes reference to evolving Brownian motion. 9) Line 82-83. Please revise very vogue Response: Thanks for the suggestion. The hypothesis mentioned in the text of the abstract is related to the method. To build our phylogenetic tree we use a published tree. In evolution is called phylogenetic hypothesis. Material and method 10) Well and comprehensive written but need topographic correction. In addition, it lacks informations on the soil texture, electrical conductivity, and nutrient like organic matter and nitrogen which play critical role in the availability and accumulation of the heavy metals. Response: Thanks for the suggestion. the information has been added. 11) Line 95. Revise please, very unnecessary verbs are used. Response: Done. 12) Line 103. Past tense please, its manuscript methodology. Response: Done. 13) Line 130-131. Please revise the sentence. Response: Done. 14) Line 134-135. Very unnecessary sentence. Response: Thanks for the suggestion. This information is important to detail the local ecological knowledge data. 15) Line 136-143. Please properly introduce your questionnaire and interview section i.e. classify the question section wise. Like respondents demography, social status, question about research etc. Response: Thanks for the suggestion. A new subtopic has been inserted to present the interviews. 16) Line 166-167. Revise the sentence please Response: Done. Results 17) The portion is satisfactory, check for minor topographic corrections Response: Done. Discussion The discussion is to the point, but need language improvement for better understanding of the readers. Some specific comments are. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The text has been revised to improve the language and a better understanding for the readers. 18) Page 16. As in our study, (44) observed that useful woody plants, phylogenetically close, located on the Amalfi Coast in Italy, were preferred for domestic practices due to tools production. (Please revise) Response: Thanks for the suggestion. The quote would be to compare the results. Since it did not allow for contextualization we decided to remove it. 19) Page 17. Our results confirmed our prediction. The traits shared between the species mentioned for firewood and fences did not show a phylogenetic signal. Apparently this suggests that people tend to know less phylogenetically related species for these uses. Everything in the dry forest is useful in a situation of scarcity of species suitable for firewood. The literature shows that these uses demand larger amounts of plant biomass than categories that require less biomass, such as plants used in the production of technological artifacts (8,45). This may explain the reasons why there was no phylogenetic clustering. (Please revise, very poor writing). Response: Thanks for the suggestion. Done. 20) Page 17. Same issue with the next paragraph. Response: Done. 21) Page 18. Unlike studies that addressed utilitarian redundancy (Albuquerque & Oliveira 2006). Correct the citation please. Response: Done. Conclusion The conclusion needs to be refined and provide recommendations for further studies. In addition try to reduce the bulk of result repetition in conclusion. Response: Thanks for the suggestion. Done. Note: In addition to the reviewers' suggestions, we have inserted some excerpts, which are highlighted, in the text. In addition, we have changed the position of the topic. Page 3 (Line 54-56) Page 4 (Line 84) Page 6 (Line 129-140) Page 9 (Line 207) Page 12 (Table 1) Page 22 (discussion) Page 23 (conclusions) Page 25- 32 (references) -------------------------------------------------------- Kamila Marques Pedrosa State University of Paraíba, Department of Biology, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response letters.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.r002
18 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-23-02443R1Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian CaatingaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lopes, 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 02 2023 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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. [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: (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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Abstract Comments 1. Line 25-27 previously and now 23-25: We estimated the redundancy values for the mentioned species, and we compiled data from the literature on the wood density values of the cited species through a literature search. Revise like… We estimated the redundancy values of the species and compiled data from the literature on the wood density values of the cited species. Line 30-32: Not concluded properly In addition, the language need thoroughly editing for improvement of the text ****** 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: Yes: Rafi Ullah ******** [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: Review 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.r003
Revision 2
10 May 2023 Author Response The suggested edits and comments made by the reviewers are shown below. Reviewer #2 done Abstract Comments 1. Line 25-27 previously and now 23-25: We estimated the redundancy values for the mentioned species, and we compiled data from the literature on the wood density values of the cited species through a literature search. Revise like… We estimated the redundancy values of the species and compiled data from the literature on the wood density values of the cited species. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Done. Line 30-32: Not concluded properly In addition, the language need thoroughly editing for improvement of the text Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Done. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Letters.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.r004
16 May 2023 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga PONE-D-23-02443R2 Dear Dr. de Faria Lopes, 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors has substantially revises the manuscript (Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga") according to the suggestion and can be accept for publication. Thank you Dr. Rafi Ullah ****** 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: Yes: Rafi Ullah ******** Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Editor.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Jun 2023 Acceptance Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-23-02443R2 Plant parentage influences the type of timber use by traditional peoples of the Brazilian Caatinga Dear Dr. Lopes: 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. Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286434.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 .