PONE-D-24-03891Landscape-scale spatial variations of pre-Columbian anthropogenic disturbances at three ring ditch sites in French GuianaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. TESTÉ,

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 16 2024 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,

John P. Hart, 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"DOPAMICS is funded by the European Union under grant no. 101039272. Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them."

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.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

6. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

==============================I have been able to obtain only one review. However, the review is very comprehensive so I feel comfortable making a decision based on this one review. Please address all of the reviewer's comments and suggestions while making your revisions.

============================== 

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: Comments on the paper :

PONE-D-24-03891

Landscape-scale spatial variations of pre-Columbian anthropogenic disturbances at three ring ditch sites in French Guiana

This study investigates past anthropogenic disturbances in French Guiana by analysing several indicators from the soil. The authors studied three pre-Columbian sites presenting circular ditches located on top of hills, and took into account the slopes of the hills, the bottomlands and adjacent hills, following transects, to extend the investigation of past disturbances not only on the ditch sites, but also on their surrounding areas. They analysed the charcoal concentration, the soil texture and colour and the presence of archaeological artefacts to estimate the level of anthropogenization of the soil in these different areas. They also performed radiocarbon dating to assess the period of occupation on the sites of interest.

I find this study very interesting as it is one of the very few to address pre-Columbian impacts on the landscape in the Guiana Shield. It contributes to the knowledge of Anthropogenic Dark Earths, showing that the dichotomy that is often done for Amazonia (terra mulata vs terra preta) is a bit too simplistic and that it exists a broad range of Anthropogenic Soils. I like the disturbance index that the authors introduce in this study: it is very practical given the number of proxies that can be taken into account when we talk about anthropogenic markers in soils. Taking into account the surrounding landscape and not only the ditch sites is also interesting, as we can see that there is a sort of gradient in the anthropogenic markers in the soil. The discussion is interesting and answers the questions presented at the end of the introduction. But maybe it could go a bit further, by considering a bit more archaeological literature when it comes about the uses of the sites.

Below are my remarks, questions and comments.

In the introduction, I noted typos abouts Llanos de Mojos, written differently sometimes.

Line 160: what does NT0125 stand for?

Figure 1: Could you add the sites on the altitude diagram? I think you should write ‘Parc Amazonien de Guyane’ instead of PAG here, because we see this Fig. before you give the meaning of the acronym line 191.

Line 165: here Mont-Galbao but later Mont Galbao without hyphen.

Line 168: maybe you could specify what MC stands for, those who do not know will wonder.

Line 179: lowercase here for the coordinates x and y, but uppercase line 168 (X, Y).

Line 191: maybe just put PAG between brackets?

Line 203: ‘with little or no evidence of pre-Columbian disturbance’. In terms of what? Regarding the floristic composition/structure? No potsherds? No charcoal?

Line 206: I am not sure I got it right: you got samples every 5 cm, does that mean every sample is 5 cm-thick, from the surface to 5 cm, then from 5 to 10 cm and so on? I think you should make it clearer as you did lines 224-227.

Line 214: I was already wondering when reading the previous paragraph, what is the volume of each soil sample?

Line 261: when charcoal is anatomically identifiable, it is better to do so before doing radiocarbon dating. You might have dated several times the same tree/shrub, hence getting the same age. It could be the case in your data, as some dates are fairly similar. It is especially likely when charcoal pieces come from samples a few cm apart. Maybe it is not a big deal for the aim of your study, but it still may be a bias regarding the information on pre-Columbian occupation.

Figure 2: I think you should specify what the red and green rectangles mean in the legend.

Lines 310-311: when you say ‘global proportion’, do you mean the ‘mean proportion’? (same question for the other paragraphs).

I am a bit confused that you emphasize the peaks on the main hill, where the enclosure is, but not the peak on the adjacent hill. What I mean is that it already puts some direction, some point of view, in your results, but I would expect that later in the discussion (if relevant). In the same way, you specify that C7 contained neither soot nor charcoal, but it is also true for C12. At this point, the reader does not know if the adjacent hill had a meaning, a function (despite the absence of a ditch), so one may wonder why you treat it differently.

Lines 329-331: I think it reinforces my comment above.

Lines 375-381: I am not convinced that it makes sense to include the adjacent hills when you compare the sites. They are different entities from the ring ditch sites, maybe they had a completely different function. They probably create outliers. What if you remove them? Would the sites be still different regarding the microcharcoal concentration? I think you should only consider the hilltop and the slopes of a same hill as a site (for this analysis) (maybe I am wrong but then I think you should explain your choice). About this paragraph, I think it should come after the description of microcharcoal content in MC87, NOUR and GALB.

I think you should be consistent with the order of the paragraphs in the results and in the M&M. If you first introduce microcharcoal in the M&M, before physico-chemistry, I think you should do the same in the results.

About these grey bands in Supp. Fig. 2: what are they for? They hide information.

Line 387-388: what do you mean ‘consistent with the landscape-scale position of pits’? I find it unclear.

Fig. 5: I find it a bit confusing that the sites do not appear here, as you said in the M&M section that you performed the PCAs to visualize variations in soil properties across study sites too. I think it would be very interesting if you could do it, especially when you show that there are significant differences in chemical elements between sites.

Supp. Fig. 3: What do the brown stripes in the vertical rectangles on the left mean? Do they represent the depth? Why are some stripes thicker than others? Why is there no information on grain size for the upperpart (I guess) of the bottomland sample at GALB?

Suppl. Method: I see rectangles where I guess some special characters or formulas should appear (line 852), I guess something happened during the uploading of the manuscript.

Suppl. Fig. 4 to 6: I find these figures very interesting and I think they should go in the main text, maybe even in place of Fig. 3 and 4 because they sum up their information. Just a comment for visualization purposes: I think it would be better to represent the two panes of a same figure in the same way. I mean, on the left pane the adjacent hills are at the bottom, but they are on the top on the right pane.

Line 449: I would not say ‘comprehensive’, because it is not. It sure uses a multiproxy approach, but many other proxies could have been used. Please get me right: I just think it is not the best term to employ here, I do not criticize the number of proxies you have used.

Discussion

Line 465: the name is missing before the citation number 15.

Line 475: there is no anthracological studies in the references you cite, they are not dealing with charcoal anatomical identification ; ‘charcoal studies’ would be better.

Line 489: I think you should add a couple references here, at the end of the first sentence of the paragraph.

Line 501: ‘only between the surface and 5 to 15 cm’ on the adjacent hill?

Lines 488-507: there are no references in this paragraph but this trend (anthropogenic disturbance indicators in the first 30 cm or so) has been observed in other studies (I am sorry I do not have them in mind so maybe my comment is useless but I am pretty sure of that).

Line 556-557: I agree that most ceramics are certainly found in enclosures but they also can be found elsewhere, sometimes quite abundantly, in uprooting mounds for example.

Line 565: about charcoal particle size; I think you can strengthen your discussion here by adding a bit more references about charcoal particle motion, transport and size. I am thinking about the work by Clark (Clark, J. S. (1988). Particle motion and the theory of charcoal analysis: source area, transport, deposition, and sampling. Quaternary research, 30(1), 67-80.), to cite only one.

Line 576: I do not think archaeobotanical and isotopic analyses alone can make clear the exact uses of managed landscapes, because it can be extremely tricky to interpret these data without the insights from other fields (archaeology, soil science for example). So I think you should not use the terms ‘unveil the exact uses’.

Line 584: Careful with the term agriculture or derivates, better use food production (see for example Piperno, D. R. (2011). The origins of plant cultivation and domestication in the New World tropics: patterns, process, and new developments. Current anthropology, 52(S4), S453-S470.)

Line 586: in the line of my comment above, I would not say ‘exact’ (but maybe I am too pessimistic!)

Line 596: why phytoliths especially? Phytoliths would help for sure, but so would pollen or isotopes or many other proxies or fields of research!

Line 608: There is a typo: Régis Issenmann.

**********

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.

Landscape-scale spatial variations of pre-Columbian anthropogenic disturbances at three ring ditch sites in French Guiana

PONE-D-24-03891R1

Dear Dr. TESTÉ,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Christian Reepmeyer, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Dear authors,

I apologize for the delay, due to sickness.

I am very satisfied with your corrections and answers and think that your article is ready for publication.

**********

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

**********