PONE-D-24-23109Peatland organic matter quality varies with latitude as confirmed from FTIR and Ramped Pyrolysis OxidationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sparrow,

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 Aug 09 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,

Mingming Zhang

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.In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"KJS was supported by a Diversity Postdoctoral Scholar Award from the Provost’s Office at Florida State University. KJS and JPC were awarded a Radiocarbon Research Initiative by the National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Facility. "          

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

I think that this paper should be major revision before publication.

General comments

The authors introduce research towards use of FTIR and the Ramped PyrOx method for assessing the quality of organic matter content of peatlands situated in four different latitudes and climates. The paper is very well-written and is clearly understandable throughout. The Methodology is detailed and mostly adequately justified. Reporting of results is sequential and clear. However, I recommend some major considerations.

Firstly, the aim of this work is not well justified and feels inconsistent throughout the paper. Initially, the paper reads as work towards replicating a finding (latitude vs OM quality trends) using another method. Whilst this in and of itself is legitimate work, the justification of why this work is necessary is not clear from the outset. As the paper progresses, more emphasis is placed on how these methods can be used in combination to help build a more complete picture of peat formation and OM quality at a site, as well as an exploration of which methods are appropriate/inappropriate for particular sites or contexts. This is well explored in the Discussion and, as a scientist with an interest in peat carbon, this felt like the most interesting part of the work to me. As such, I would suggest that the authors rework their Abstract, Aim and Introduction to better reflect the content of the Discussion. I am happy for authors to disagree with my suggestion to change the scope of their aim, but whatever the authors decide going forward, I think that a reworking of the paper is necessary so that a clear and well-justified aim is a constant thread throughout the text. This would help to make the purpose and value of the work more clear.

Secondly, I would be interested to know why more cores from each site were not sampled for Ramped PyrOx analysis. The lack of replicates for each depth section at each of the sites could have granted you more statistical power to investigate how methods compare within sites at different latitudes. Much research points towards the heterogeneity of peat carbon stocks within individual peatland systems, and the inclusion of more samples could also help you to better characterise the range of values found at different latitudes. If more samples cannot be included in a revised version, the lack of replicates at each site needs to be more thoroughly addressed as a limitation in the Discussion, and how this limits any interpretations you make.

Thirdly, no figures were available to review for the paper - only supplementary figures within the PDF were supplied to reviewers. The next version of the paper should include copies of these figures so that these can be peer reviewed too - the Results and Discussion were difficult to digest without visual aids. I am unsure whether this was an issue with the PLOS ONE editorial system and their distribution of materials to reviewers, or an issue with submission at the authors’ end. Regardless, I hope this can be resolved.

I recommend that this paper is revised with major corrections based on the above feedback and my specific comments below. I hope the authors find the comments constructive to help improve the impact of their work.

Specific comments

Introduction

L44: replace “gases” with “gas”.

It is not clear what the value of Ramped PyrOx as a method is from the Introduction. Some elaboration on the benefits of the Ramped PyrOx method (both as standalone and compared to FTIR/other methods) would be useful.

Study site and methods

A description of statistical methods used for comparison between methods is needed in this section.

Discussion

The key results which pertain to the aim of this paper are being reported in the Discussion – these should be moved to the Results section, and any interpretation of these results should remain in the Discussion.

L442: replace “intense” with “intensive”.

[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: General comments

The authors introduce research towards use of FTIR and the Ramped PyrOx method for assessing the quality of organic matter content of peatlands situated in four different latitudes and climates. The paper is very well-written and is clearly understandable throughout. The Methodology is detailed and mostly adequately justified. Reporting of results is sequential and clear. However, I recommend some major considerations.

Firstly, the aim of this work is not well justified and feels inconsistent throughout the paper. Initially, the paper reads as work towards replicating a finding (latitude vs OM quality trends) using another method. Whilst this in and of itself is legitimate work, the justification of why this work is necessary is not clear from the outset. As the paper progresses, more emphasis is placed on how these methods can be used in combination to help build a more complete picture of peat formation and OM quality at a site, as well as an exploration of which methods are appropriate/inappropriate for particular sites or contexts. This is well explored in the Discussion and, as a scientist with an interest in peat carbon, this felt like the most interesting part of the work to me. As such, I would suggest that the authors rework their Abstract, Aim and Introduction to better reflect the content of the Discussion. I am happy for authors to disagree with my suggestion to change the scope of their aim, but whatever the authors decide going forward, I think that a reworking of the paper is necessary so that a clear and well-justified aim is a constant thread throughout the text. This would help to make the purpose and value of the work more clear.

Secondly, I would be interested to know why more cores from each site were not sampled for Ramped PyrOx analysis. The lack of replicates for each depth section at each of the sites could have granted you more statistical power to investigate how methods compare within sites at different latitudes. Much research points towards the heterogeneity of peat carbon stocks within individual peatland systems, and the inclusion of more samples could also help you to better characterise the range of values found at different latitudes. If more samples cannot be included in a revised version, the lack of replicates at each site needs to be more thoroughly addressed as a limitation in the Discussion, and how this limits any interpretations you make.

Thirdly, no figures were available to review for the paper - only supplementary figures within the PDF were supplied to reviewers. The next version of the paper should include copies of these figures so that these can be peer reviewed too - the Results and Discussion were difficult to digest without visual aids. I am unsure whether this was an issue with the PLOS ONE editorial system and their distribution of materials to reviewers, or an issue with submission at the authors’ end. Regardless, I hope this can be resolved.

I recommend that this paper is revised with major corrections based on the above feedback and my specific comments below. I hope the authors find the comments constructive to help improve the impact of their work.

Specific comments

Introduction

L44: replace “gases” with “gas”.

It is not clear what the value of Ramped PyrOx as a method is from the Introduction. Some elaboration on the benefits of the Ramped PyrOx method (both as standalone and compared to FTIR/other methods) would be useful.

Study site and methods

A description of statistical methods used for comparison between methods is needed in this section.

Discussion

The key results which pertain to the aim of this paper are being reported in the Discussion – these should be moved to the Results section, and any interpretation of these results should remain in the Discussion.

L442: replace “intense” with “intensive”.

**********

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.

Peatland organic matter quality varies with latitude as suggested by combination of FTIR and Ramped Pyrolysis Oxidation

PONE-D-24-23109R1

Dear Dr. Sparrow,

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,

Mingming Zhang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: