PONE-D-24-54792Spatiotemporal dynamics and influencing factors of soil heterotrophic respiration in northeast ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. liu,

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 Mar 08 2025 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,

Barathan Balaji Prasath

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research program was generously supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (General Program) (Grant No.: LH2022D023), Innovation Development Project of China Meteorological Administration (Grant No.: CXFZ2023J059), and Key Laboratory Of Agrometeorological Disasters Joint Open Fund of Liaoning Provincial (Grant No.: 2023SYIAEKFZD06, 2023SYIAEKFMS27)”

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research program was generously supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (General Program) (Grant No.: LH2022D023), Innovation Development Project of China Meteorological Administration (Grant No.: CXFZ2023J059), and Key Laboratory of Agrometeorological Disasters Joint Open Fund of Liaoning Provincial (Grant No.: 2023SYIAEKFZD06, 2023SYIAEKFMS27)”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“This research program was generously supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province (General Program) (Grant No.: LH2022D023), Innovation Development Project of China Meteorological Administration (Grant No.: CXFZ2023J059), and Key Laboratory Of Agrometeorological Disasters Joint Open Fund of Liaoning Provincial (Grant No.: 2023SYIAEKFZD06, 2023SYIAEKFMS27)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that Figures 4,5,6 and 7 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 4,5,6 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: General Comments:

1. English Language: The manuscript requires a thorough check for grammar and language improvements.

2. Citation Pattern: Ensure the citation style is consistent throughout the manuscript.

Specific Comments:

1. Line 40: Correct citation format needed.

2. Line 54: Clarify whether this refers to laboratory calibration.

3. Lines 66 & 67: Avoid repetition; rewrite the sentence for clarity.

4. Line 71: Expand the term "Ra" when mentioned for the first time.

5. Line 73: Provide a reference as it is mentioned as "sensitive zone."

6. Materials and Methods Section: Include a map marking all relevant regions.

7. Lines 105 & 106: Rewrite the sentence for clarity and flow.

8. Line 155: Ensure citation adheres to journal instructions.

9. Lines 172 & 173: Clarify or rewrite the statement about soil respiration values.

10. Lines 186-190: Justify the inclusion of this section in "Materials and Methods" and mention any statistical analyses

performed.

11. Line 195: Correct spelling errors.

12. Lines 215 & 216: Justify the claim regarding minimal differences between grassland, farmland, and forest results with

statistical analysis.

13. Line 244: Rewrite the sentence for better clarity.

14. Lines 322, 329, 330, 331: Check for spelling errors.

15. Lines 364 & 365: Rewrite for better clarity.

16. Lines 383 & 384: Check for spelling errors and ensure proper citation as per journal instructions.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled "Spatiotemporal dynamics and influencing factors of soil heterotrophic respiration in Northeast China" explores the spatiotemporal variations of soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh) in Northeast China from 2001 to 2020. It employs the GSMSR model, along with advanced spatial analysis techniques, to identify patterns and determine influencing factors, providing insights into regional carbon flux dynamics.

The manuscript is comprehensive, addressing a critical topic in soil science and carbon cycle research. It effectively integrates modeling, spatial analysis, and ecological insights. However, improvements in language clarity and the addition of more detailed methodological descriptions could enhance its academic quality.

General Comments:

1. Ensure consistency in units and terminology throughout the manuscript (e.g., kgC/ha/year vs kgC·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹).

2. Revise the introduction to better align with the objectives and hypotheses.

3. Clarify the novelty of this research compared to similar studies using the GSMSR model.

4. Include more robust discussions on potential uncertainties in the model results.

5. Proofread the manuscript to address grammatical errors and enhance readability.

Line-to-Line Specific Comments:

1. Line 19: Revise "Soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh) is the main way of carbon output" to "Soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh) represents a primary pathway of carbon release from soil."

2. Line 27: Clarify the units used for carbon release ("4.76×10¹¹ kg/year") to ensure interpretability.

3. Line 30: Expand on the term "standard deviation ellipse" for readers unfamiliar with spatial statistics.

4. Line 62: Replace "calculate" with "calculated" for grammatical accuracy.

5. Line 73: Consider adding more context to explain why Northeast China is a "sensitive zone of global climate change."

6. Line 123: Ensure mathematical symbols in formulas are consistent with conventions (e.g., subscripts).

7. Line 148: Provide the reasoning for selecting 500m resolution for DEM data.

8. Line 163: Include a brief explanation of the GSMSR model's strengths compared to other models.

9. Line 171: Expand on the choice of static chamber/GC method for soil respiration measurement.

10. Line 196: Justify the use of quadratic curve fitting for calculating Rh.

11. Line 207: Explain why farmland has the highest Rh values among land use types.

12. Line 227: Clarify the significance of azimuth change range values in spatial analysis.

13. Line 271: Include ecological reasons for cold and hot spots observed in different regions.

14. Line 307: Justify excluding meteorological factors in the analysis of influencing factors.

15. Line 327: Provide references to support the claim that high vegetation coverage decreases soil aeration.

16. Line 339: Explain how local economic activities directly influence Rh rates with specific examples.

17. Line 350: Discuss potential errors introduced by assuming constant SOC in the model.

18. Line 370: Include a definition for NPP (Net Primary Productivity) for clarity.

19. Line 381: Expand on how land use optimization could mitigate Rh variability.

20. Line 403: Provide examples of human management modes affecting Rh.

21. Line 410: Suggest practical recommendations for improving vegetation coverage in degraded regions.

22. Figure 4 Legend: Improve the legend to ensure accessibility for readers unfamiliar with GIS methods.

23. Table 2: Highlight key findings or trends to guide readers in interpreting the data.

**********

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: Yes:  Fasih Ullah Haider

**********

[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 and influencing factors of soil heterotrophic respiration in northeast China

PONE-D-24-54792R1

Dear Dr.  Dan Liu,

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,

Barathan Balaji Prasath

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The corrections has been made.

The given comments were addressed

The references are corrected

The language is corrected

Reviewer #2: The authors have significantly improve the quality of paper according to comments and suggestions mentioned by reviewer, now the paper is suitable 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********