PONE-D-24-05650Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in Response to Climate Variability in Maze National Park and its Environs, Southwestern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Simeon,

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.

Two experts have recommended accepting your manuscript for publication, pending major changes. Please note that both reviewers raised relevant concerns regarding the structure of the manuscript and agreed on the lack of detail in the Methods section. They also recommend putting your contribution into a broader perspective. Since the changes required are too substantive, I am willing to consider a revised version for publication in this journal, assuming you modify the manuscript according to all recommendations. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 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,

Angelina Martínez-Yrízar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. Please upload a copy of S1 Figure, S2 Figure, S3 Figure and S1 Table to which you refer in your text on page 33. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. If the Supplementary file is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The research titled “Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in Response to Climate Variability in Maze National Park and its Environs, Southwestern Ethiopia” aims to investigate the impacts of climate variability on selected ecosystem services in Maze National Park and its surroundings areas. The study utilizes various statistical methods, including the Mann-Kendall (MK) trend tests, Sen’s slope estimator, and innovative trend analysis (ITA), to assess climate trends and their effects on ecosystem services. The research focuses on understanding the relationships between climate variables (e.g., rainfall and temperature) and ecosystem services using correlation analyses.

The manuscript demonstrates a solid foundation and makes a valuable contribution to the fields of ecosystem services and climate variability. The research is well-conceived, and the methods are appropriately chosen to address the study’s objectives. However, the manuscript in its current form may not meet the standards of PLOS ONE due to the areas needing improvement that I describe below.

Overall, the coherence between the introduction, methods, results, and discussion is strong. Each section logically follows the previous one, maintaining a clear narrative throughout the manuscript. I suggest ensuring that the terminology and definitions used are consistent throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion.

Abstract:

The abstract summarizes the study effectively, but lacks specific quantitative findings.

Introduction:

The introduction provides a comprehensive background on the importance of ecosystem services and the impact of climate variability. It effectively highlights the relevance of the study by emphasizing the lack of empirical research on this topic in Ethiopia. The introduction outlines the specific objectives of the study, aiming to fill this research gap, by focusing on the spatiotemporal impacts of climate variability on key ecosystem services in MzNP. However, there are some critical points to be improved:

1. The references are appropriate but could be expanded to include more recent studies on similar topics globally to strengthen the argument for the study’s novelty.

2. The identification of research gap is well articulated, but it could benefit from more detailed discussion on why previous studies were insufficient.

3. The text should consistently distinguish between different types of ecosystem services to enhance clarity.

2. It is necessary to use consistent terms for climate-related phenomena and impacts. For example, “climate change” and “climate variability” are used interchangeably but have distinct meanings.

3. To give some examples of the mechanisms by which climate change affects ecosystem services, will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the linkages and processes involved.

4. The aims are quite broad, and the authors don’t provide specific research questions that guide the research. Defined aims and question would provide a sharper focus for the study.

Methods:

The methods section is detailed and describes the study area, however, discuss specific characteristics of MzNP that make it a relevant case study for examining the impacts of climate variability on ecosystem services, such as its biodiversity, ecosystem types, or known climate vulnerabilities.

The methods for collecting climate data are clear, but the explanation for ecosystem services data is vague. I suggest providing a more detailed explanation of how ecosystem services data were measured or quantified. I suggest specifying the indicators used, the data sources, and the methods of data collection.

The use of the MK trend test, Sen’s slope estimator, and ITA are appropriate for analyzing climate trends. The use of Pearson correlation and partial correlation to evaluate relationships among variables is also well-justified. However, while the description of the study area is thorough, including more specific reasons for choosing MzNP would strengthen the rationale. Finally, there should be a discussion on the assumptions underlying the statistical methods and how they were addressed, this will provide robustness to the methodology and ensure the validity of the results.

Results:

The results are presented clearly, with the findings from the MK test, ITA and correlation analyses well-organized. The results show significant trends in climate variables and their correlations with ecosystem services. However, visual aids (e.g, graphs, charts) could enhance the clarity and impact of the findings. While the results are clear, the interpretation could be more nuanced. I suggest a time series graph showing temperature and rainfall trends over the study period would provide a clearer picture of the data.

Discussion:

The discussion section interprets the results in the context of existing literature, emphasizing the implications for ecosystem services and climate adaptation strategies. It addresses the study’s limitations and suggests areas for future research. However, while the results are clear, the interpretation could be more nuanced. I suggest discussing potential reasons for the observed trends and correlations would add depth. This could provide a broader context for results. I suggest discussing potential ecological or social factors that might explain the observed trends and correlations. For example, consider the role of land-use changes, conservation policies, or socio-economic conditions in the region.

There is limited comparison with findings from other regions. This will help place the results in a broader context and highlight similarities or differences in climate impacts on ecosystem services across different regions.

In general, the discussion is insightful but could benefit from deeper analysis. I suggest exploring the mechanisms driving the observed trends and correlations in greater detail. For example, discuss how specific climatic factors, such as seasonal rainfall patterns or temperature extreme, affect different ecosystem services like water provisioning, biodiversity, or carbon sequestration.

On the other hand, the practical implications are mentioned but not elaborated upon. I suggest providing concrete recommendations for local stakeholders, such as adaptive management practices, conservation strategies, or community engagement approaches to mitigate the impacts of climate variability. I suggest providing specific recommendations for future research methodologies and potential study areas.

I suggest integrating more recent studies and broader geographical contexts to enhance the discussion. This will help situate the study within the larger body of research on climate variability and ecosystem services.

Reviewer #2: GENERAL COMMENTS

In the article titled “Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Ecosystem Services in Response to Climate Variability in Maze National Park and its Environs, Southwestern Ethiopia”, the authors evaluated the impacts of temperature and rainfall variability on selected key provisioning (food production, water supply, raw material) and regulatory ecosystem services (climate regulation) in Maze National Park.

In this regard, I comment that the introduction is too general, it only mentions the trends or response patterns of ecosystem services to the effect of climate change or climate variability, which are not necessarily synonyms. It is necessary to provide greater context of the effect on ecosystem services, explain response mechanisms, processes involved, etc. Furthermore, it is not clearly justified why the four key services were selected. Services are not defined. For food production and raw material services, it would be appropriate to clearly define which crops or raw materials are being considered within the context of Maze Nation Park. It is recommended to show more forcefully how this case study contributes to the global literature, not just the country or the national park, on the response of ecosystem services to climate variability when considering a wide range of data (years, precipitation, temperature). and analysis techniques (CV, RAI, MK, Sen slope, ITA, Pearson and partial Correlation Analysis).

In the methods, there is an imbalance in describing how the data was processed. For the climatic variables there is very fine detail in how they were processed and the tests used to show trends and variability are clearly indicated. On the other hand, for services, it is only indicated that LULC maps are used and transformed into four ecosystem services. It is not explained which land use or cover land is linked to which service.

In the results and discussion, unexpected findings are not discussed, for example (page 12, paragraph 2, lines 3 and 4) “…. Unexpectedly, November rainfall alone showed a statistically significant increase at 99% confidence interval…”. There is no integrated discussion of the spatiotemporal dynamics of the four ecosystem services (food production, water supply, raw material, and climate regulation) in response to the four variables related to climate and productivity (precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration, NDVI) and its variability (mean annual, main and second season, maximum, minimum). Mainly, the trends of the results are compared with other studies, the results from different sections are rarely integrated. The strengths and limitations of the study are not discussed. Some limitations are mentioned in the conclusions.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY SECTION

Keywords

It is suggested that the words in this section be different from the words in the title.

Introduction

Page 1 Paragraph 1 Lines 1,2, 7 and 8. The opening and closing phrases are very similar in the information they provide. It is suggested to improve the information and messages.

P1P1L4. Missing dot (.) after [4]

P1P2L3-7 When it mentions “In Ethiopia, climate change and its manifestations in rainfall variability,….. and human health conditions“ There are different climatic conditions and different services, it is a very general sentence “…. have negatively affected ecosystem services…”, no mechanisms or processes are mentioned that support the pattern described. Also, when they mention “crop production” what crops? Do all crops in Ethiopia respond the same to precipitation or temperature? Furthermore, “human health conditions” is not an ecosystem service.

P1P4L3 Missing period (.) after [16-19]

P2P4 It is not clearly justified why those four key services were selected (food production, water supply, raw material, and climate regulation services). No further context is given.

Materials and methods

P3P1L4 What does kebeles mean? Are they districts?

Figure 1. Scale bars are missing from maps B and C, as well as the compass rose. On map A, the 17 neighboring districts of the national park cannot be distinguished.

P4P2L1-2 Did the discussion with local community, agricultural extension agents, and park workers take place in workshops or interviews?

P4P2L2 What crops are considered in food production? What is raw material provision within the context of the MzNP?

P4P2L5 What LULC was associated with food production? What LULC was associated with raw material? Which LULC was associated with climate regulatory services? It is also important to detail why these LULCs are associated with services within the local context. How ecosystem service values were estimated from the LULC maps? Only one land use or cover type were used for service or several?

P4P2L13 What is the resolution of the satellite images used to do the supervised classification? Is the resolution higher or lower than the climate variability grid data?

P5P5L1-2 Add space between rainfall(mm) and series(mm)

P6P1L1-2 Add space between series(mm)

P9P1L4-5 Define if it is very strong or strong “…and very strong positive/negative correlation (≥±.8).strong positive/negative correlation (≥±.8) …”

P10P1L Since the study site has two distinct rainfall seasons and rainfall affects the NDVI values (season of greatest greenness and growth), what period of the year (months or days) did the Landsat images cover to obtain the average NDVI?

Results and discussion

In general, for this entire section it is suggested to be consistent in the order in which the results of the services are presented (food production, water supply, raw material, and climate regulation services), because it usually varies between tables and between figures. It is suggested to present them according to the order in which they are mentioned from the introduction.

P12P2L1-3 In Table 2, the data do not match the decreasing trend of April and June, as well as mean annual, and the main rainy season rainfall.

P12P3L3 in “Mk” the “K” is capitalized

P13P1L1-3 The information “…..According to [46], if …… 1:1 straight line….” It is presented in the materials and methods (P7P4L8-11). It is suggested to leave the explanation in only one of the two sections.

P15P3L3. The paragraph mentions the correlation between mean evapotranspiration and ecosystem services, but the evapotranspiration map is not shown in Figure 8, there is no description of the spatial variability of this variable, as is done for precipitation and temperature. Furthermore, correlation results are not shown in Table 6. What is the reason?

Figure 9 So that the NDVI maps are visually comparable and easy to distinguish spatial and temporal variations, it is suggested that the color legend consider the most negative value (-0.37) and the most positive value (0.74), or failing that, that the color legend ranges from -1 to 1. For example, the color orange covers values from -0.37 to 0, while blue covers values from 0.50 to 0.74. Finally, the range of NDVI value per year is described in detail in the text (P16P1L3-5).

P18P1L1-9 Considering that the value of ecosystem services was derived from LULC maps and that the NDVI (a measure of greenness) that is highly correlated with NPP, plant cover, and ecosystem productivity (P17P1L1-2), was it obvious the high correlation shown in the results of Table 6?.

P19P1L15-7 It is suggested to discuss the result “…On the other hand, the climate regulation service in the study area exhibited a negative correlation with the minimum and maximum temperature…” as is done with other services.

P19P3L1-2 It is suggested to present the information on raw material services from when it is first presented in the introduction “…includes the production of lumber, fuel, or fodder that are extracted as raw materials ..”

P20P2 The results of the evapotranspiration and services correlations are very far from where they were first mentioned (page 15).

Supporting information

S2 and S3 Figure. It is suggested to add the P value (significance level) to the functional relationships between years and rainfall and temperature, not just the R square value.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Spatiotemporal dynamics of ecosystem services in response to climate variability in Maze National Park and its environs, southwestern Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-05650R1

Dear Dr. Simeon,

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,

Angelina Martínez-Yrízar, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Additonal minor corrections:

To ensure consistency in Table 2, please correct the labels of the last two columns, which currently read LCL/UCL, while the note at the bottom states UCL/LCL.

In Table 4, please change the first letter of the caption to uppercase.

Table 8 is incorrectly placed; it is referenced on page 19 but is located on page 22.

Reviewers' comments: