Spatiotemporal dynamics of grassland aboveground biomass in northern China and the alpine region: Impacts of climate change and human activities

Xinyun Wang; Ji Zhu; Peipei Pan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315329

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 2, 2024
18 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Dafeng Hui, Editor PONE-D-24-27143Assessing dynamics of aboveground biomass in northern China's grassland in response to climate change, 1981-2015PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, 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 Dec 02 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, Dafeng Hui, 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. 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Ningxia Province (Project No. 2022AAC03097). Appreciation is extended to the China Meteorological Administration (CMA) for providing meteorological data and to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Space Center for the GIMMS NDVI3g data. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose insights and suggestions significantly enriched this manuscript. 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: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within 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. 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. 6. 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: Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments. [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: Based on the NDVI data and meteorological data, this study estimated the AGB in northern China’s temperate and alpine grassland and its relationship with climatic variables. The results of this study may contribute to further understanding the relationships between AGB and climate change. However, there are some concerns that the authors should address before it can be accepted for publication. 1. In the introduction, I suggest the authors add some contents about how environmental drivers influence the dynamics of grassland AGB. 2. In terms of the part two-materials and methods, it is better to simplify and integrate the part of data source and data analysis, as the classification may be inaccurate and the contents are a little prolix. 3. Since data from 99 meteorological stations are used, it is better to add the distribution of meteorological stations. 4. I suggest the authors add some contents on handling missing values and outliers in NDVI data and meteorological data. 5. In order to provide a comprehensive assessment of grassland AGB in Northern China, I suggest the authors add some time-scale analysis of grassland AGB. 6. When drawing pictures, pay attention to color brightness and saturation to give people a sense of comfort, the authors should modify the figure 5 and 6. 7. More mechanism explanations should be added to further explain the influence of driving factors on the dynamics of grassland vegetation. 8. In order to further highlight the innovation of this article, it is better to compare the results of this study with some related studies. 9. In the uncertainty, I suggest the authors further discuss the uncertainty of remote sensing data including NDVI data (e.g., Shen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021) which may affect the research results. References: Aboveground biomass and its spatial distribution pattern of herbaceous marsh vegetation in China. Science China Earth Sciences, 2021, 64: 1115-1125. Spatiotemporal change of aboveground biomass and its response to climate change in marshes of the Tibetan Plateau. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2021, 102: 102385. ****** 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.0315329.r001
Revision 1
19 Nov 2024 Author Response Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these addition requirements. Response: We have modified the manuscript format, including the title, author information, affiliations, and overall manuscript structure, in accordance with PLOS ONE submission guidelines. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. Response: We have updated the funding statement to reflect the support we received, as per the grant information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. Response: AS requested, we have removed all funding-related text from the acknowledgments section, in line with PLOS ONE's guidelines. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. Response: We confirm that we will make our data available upon acceptance of the manuscript. The data will be shared in accordance with the journal's data share policy. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Response: We have added the captions for all Supporting Information files at the end of the revised manuscript. We have also updated the in-text citations to ensure they correctly correspond to these files (e.g., S1 Fig.tif and S2 Fig.tif). 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Response: We have reviewed and updated the reference list, ensuring it is complete and formatted correctly. We have added new references (highlighted in yellow), and removed some older references as per the reviewer's. Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Response: We have ensured that all remote sensing, meteorological and ground-measured data sources from public data and processing methods have commonly been utilized. The conclusions are drawn based on the data presented. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Response: We have checked the statistical analysis to ensure it can be executed correctly according to the methods introduced in the revised manuscript. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Response: Yes. All data underlying the findings can be found from 10.5281/zenodo.14038582. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Response: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript written in standard English and ensure that it is grammatically correct. We have corrected any minor printing errors. 5. Review Comments to the Author According to PLOS ONE data policy, the data underlying the findings have been made available through 10.5281/zenodo.14038582. The data analysis methods were performed using standard methods to ensure data right. This manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and there are no concerns regarding duplicate publication. Reviewer #1: Based on the NDVI data and meteorological data, this study estimated the AGB in northern China’s temperate and alpine grassland and its relationship with climatic variables. The results of this study may contribute to further understanding the relationships between AGB and climate change. However, there are some concerns that the authors should address before it can be accepted for publication. 1. In the introduction, I suggest the authors add some contents about how environmental drivers influence the dynamics of grassland AGB. Response: We appreciate your suggestion to expand on how environmental drivers influence the dynamics of aboveground biomass (AGB). We have added some new contents in the induction section that explains the role of climatic factors, environmental conditions, and human activities in shaping AGB dynamics. Additionally, we detailed on the impacts of soil properties, nutrient availability, and soil moisture on vegetation growth and biomass accumulation, as well as human activities like grazing intensity can alter the structure and composition of plant communities, ultimately impacting AGB. We also explain the significance of studying northern grassland AGB and the impacts of driving factors on grassland AGB dynamics. 2. In terms of the part two-materials and methods, it is better to simplify and integrate the part of data source and data analysis, as the classification may be inaccurate and the contents are a little prolix. Response: We have revised the “Materials and Methods” section to simplify and integrate the data source and data analysis parts, aiming for clearer organization and conciseness. This should enhance the readability and logical flow of the manuscript. 3. Since data from 99 meteorological stations are used, it is better to add the distribution of meteorological stations. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have taken the reviewer’s suggestion into consideration and have added the distribution of climate stations in Fig 1 as requested. 4. I suggest the authors add some contents on handling missing values and outliers in NDVI data and meteorological data. Response: We have added a detailed explanation of how we handled missing values and outliers in both the GIMMS NDVI and meteorological data in the manuscript. Missing values in NDVI data were addressed using linear interpolation. Savitzky-Golay filters was used to smooth gaps. Outlier in NDVI data were detected and removed using the interquartile range (IQR) method. For the meteorological data, we employed linear interpolation to handle missing values. Outlier were detected and addressed using the IQR method to ensure data integrity. We believe that these detailed explanations enhance the clarity of our data preprocessing procedure. 5. In order to provide a comprehensive assessment of grassland AGB in Northern China, I suggest the authors add some time-scale analysis of grassland AGB. Response: We have added a new section analyzing the seasonal changes in grassland AGB. We have revised the structure: 3.2 Spatial distributions of annual and seasonal changes of grassland AGB; 3.2.1 Annual distribution of grassland AGB; 3.2.2 Seasonal distribution of grassland AGB. In new section, we analyzed the changes of grassland AGB across four seasons: spring, summer, autumn, and winter. We analyzed the various seasonal fluctuations, which may be influenced by variations in precipitation and temperature across season. 6. When drawing pictures, pay attention to color brightness and saturation to give people a sense of comfort, the authors should modify the figure 5 and 6. Response: In the revised manuscript, figures 5 and 6 have been updated and are now labeled as Figs 6 and 7. These figures were created using ArcMap software. We have adjusted the color brightness and saturation to improve visual comfort. 7. More mechanism explanations should be added to further explain the influence of driving factors on the dynamics of grassland vegetation. Response: We have made some revisions to address the suggestion for more mechanism explanations. We have added a new figure (Figs 7f and 7g) showing the relationship between AGB and soil moisture and grazing intensity. We relocated origin Fig 6f to Fig 8 for improved clarity. In the revised manuscript, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the mechanism through which climate factors, such as temperature (T), precipitation (PPT), VPD, relative humidity (RH), and solar radiation (SR), as well as human activities like grazing intensity impact on grassland AGB. In Fig 8, we discuss the important roles that these climate factors and human activities play in promoting plant growth and biomass accumulation, thereby providing a deeper understanding of the dynamics of grassland. In Fig 9, we added figure 9f to analyze the relationship between AGB and grazing intensity (GI). This addition allowed us to explore the mechanisms by which climate factors and grazing intensity impact grassland AGB, providing deeper insights into their interactions and effects on biomass dynamics. These additions and adjustments enhance the mechanism explanation of how different factors affect grassland biomass. 8. In order to further highlight the innovation of this article, it is better to compare the results of this study with some related studies. Response: We have revised the discussion section to include comparisons with related studies and to elaborate on the mechanism revealed by our research. We highlighted the responses of different grassland types to climate factors and human activities. This revision provides a clearer understanding of grassland dynamics and the complexities involved in managing these grassland resources effectively. 9. In the uncertainty, I suggest the authors further discuss the uncertainty of remote sensing data including NDVI data (e.g., Shen et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021) which may affect the research results. References: Aboveground biomass and its spatial distribution pattern of herbaceous marsh vegetation in China. Science China Earth Sciences, 2021, 64: 1115-1125. Spatiotemporal change of aboveground biomass and its response to climate change in marshes of the Tibetan Plateau. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 2021, 102: 102385. Response: In the revised manuscript, we have included a new discussion section titled “4.4 Assessing uncertainty in grassland AGB estimation.” In this section, we analyzed the uncertainties associated with NDVI and meteorological data, as well as the potential impacts of data preprocessing on our findings. This addition provides a clearer understanding of how these uncertainties affect the accuracy of grassland AGB estimations. In the new submission, we have utilized Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool to our figure and table files and ensure that figures and tables meet PLOS ONE requirements. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315329.r002
25 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Dafeng Hui, Editor Spatiotemporal dynamics of grassland aboveground biomass in northern China and the alpine region: Impacts of climate change and human activities PONE-D-24-27143R1 Dear Dr. Wang, 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, Dafeng Hui, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors have adequately addressed the reviewer's concerns. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315329.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Dafeng Hui, Editor PONE-D-24-27143R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Dafeng Hui Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315329.r004

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 .