PONE-D-24-59609Impacts of Land Use on Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Cycling in the Eastern Qilian MountainsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The study has value but the manuscript has some problems as suggested by the reviewers. I read the manuscript and the comments of the three reviewers. In my opinion, the manuscript might be improved by a major revision. The authors should respond to the comments of the reviewers one by one and revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised manuscript would be sent to the reviewers for further reviewing.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 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,

Jian Liu

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: 

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42361005, No. 41867030, No.32060373) for their financial support. 

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. 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 amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

6. We note that Figure 1 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 Figure 1 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/

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: 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

This study investigates the impact of land use on the cycling of soil carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P) in the Binggou River Basin of the Eastern Qilian Mountains, focusing on three land types: forest, grassland, and cultivated land. The study demonstrates that land use changes influence the ecological stoichiometry of these elements, showing that conversion from forest or grassland to cultivated land reduces soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen content, causing the land to shift from a "carbon sink" to a "carbon source." The study further highlights that soil nutrient availability varies across different land types, with phosphorus becoming a limiting nutrient in forest soils, particularly in autumn. The study suggests strategies such as forest and grassland restoration, enhanced carbon sequestration, and reduced use of agricultural fertilizers to promote soil health and nutrient balance, providing theoretical support for ecological restoration. This paper is highly worthy of publication. However, before formal acceptance, it is recommended that some revisions be made.

Main Comments

� Although the study includes a large sample size, the sampling period is limited to 2018-2019, and the data are primarily concentrated in a small geographical area. Therefore, the spatial diversity and seasonal variation of the region may not be fully captured. It is recommended to add a discussion on uncertainty.

� While the discussion section addresses the impact of climate factors on soil nutrients, it does not sufficiently explore the long-term effects of different climate change scenarios on soil nutrient dynamics, such as asymmetric seasonal or spatial warming, etc (doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1090204; doi: 10.3389/fevo.2021.757943). It is recommended to add relevant discussions.

Minor Comments

1. Line 456: "conficts of interest" should be corrected to "conflicts of interest."

2. Line 456: "exits" should be corrected to "exists."

3. "microbial biomass phosphorus" should be revised to "microbial biomasses phosphorus."

4. Figure 2 could benefit from using monthly data to match the other figures.

5. Figure 4 lacks an x-axis label and should be corrected.

6. "This study analyzes" should be changed to "This study analyzed."

7. Line 287: "The results show" should be changed to "The results showed."

8. The sentence "From 2018 to 2019, the average soil organic carbon (SOC) content in forest land (48.82 g/kg) was higher than in grassland and cultivated land" should be revised to: "From 2018 to 2019, the average soil organic carbon (SOC) content in forest land (48.82 g/kg) was found to be higher than that in grassland and cultivated land" to improve clarity.

9. The color scheme in Figure 6 appears somewhat jarring and may need adjustment.

10. The references section has some formatting issues, such as incorrect indentation (e.g., line 474).

Reviewer #2: Impacts of land use on soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling in the eastern Qilian mountains

This manuscript explores the spatial and temporal patterns in forest, grassland, and cultivated land and presents some interesting results. However, further modifications and improvements are necessary to enhance its clarity and rigor.

Regarding theme of the manuscript, which focuses on different land use, the relationship between forest, grassland and cultivated land remains unclear. Line 95-96 mentions a series of ecological restoration projects have been implemented in Qilian Mountains since 2000. What about the three samples? According to Line 123-124 and Line 215-216, the grassland and woodland have been converted into cultivated land. There are some contradiction and confusion for me. Therefore, the authors should provide to clarify the relationship between these samples.

Furthermore, soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling typically involve various processes, but this manuscript only considers soil organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Therefore, the title of the manuscript may need further consideration.

L14. The terms “forest” and “woodland” are used interchangeably in the manuscript. For consistency, the authors should choose one term and use it throughout the document.

L27. The statement that lower C:N and C:P ratios weaken soil microorganisms, hindering plant nutrient absorption and inhibiting root growth, is not supported by data. Therefore, the authors should revise the statement or cite references to be more accurate.

L31. The conclusion that phosphorus becomes the limiting nutrient for forest growth in autumn cannot be directly inferred from the data presented. The authors should provide additional evidence or revise this statement to be more accurate.

L152, L179, L194. These statements mention the soil particle size of soil for the measurement of TN and TP, but there is a contradiction between 0.25 mm and 100-mesh sieve.

L192, L207. Equipment used in the manuscript should be marked with the model, manufacturer and country.

L209-L210. Significance test for different land use, seasonal and so on are missing.

L274-275, L284-286, L339-342. These sentences, which serve as argument, should be included in the discussion section of the manuscript for better organization and clarity.

L308-309, L330-331, L336-338. The sentence should be convincing evidence, based on the references or the data, to support these statements.

L380. Climate change refers to changes in the climate over a long period of time. The data of manuscript just only involves from 2018 to 2019, then how to get the conclusion “climate change has the most significant impact on soil organic matter content in woodlands, followed by grasslands and cultivated lands”?

L382-383. In the manuscript, cultivated land through tillage, disrupts soil aggregates and increases ventilation lead to a weakened carbon sequestration capacity and an imbalanced stoichiometric ratio. How to get the result? Isn’t the lack of litter in cultivated land as a more important reason for the pattern of soil organic carbon?

L419. Please provide the description of table1. How to get the parameter of ecostoichiometric ratio?

The conclusion section is a summary of the research results, as well as an in-depth analysis of the research achievements and a prospect for future studies. It consolidates and refines these facts based on the research outcomes, while maintaining rigor by avoiding over-extrapolation (L434, L443, L446). The conclusion requires revisiting and reorganization.

Reviewer #3: Taking the Binggou River Basin (north slope of the eastern Qilian Mountains), as study area, a sensitive area to global change and play a crucial role in maintaining regional ecological security as a national nature reserve. I had comprehensively and deeply reviewed the manuscript, which was entitled: The Impacts of Land Use on Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Cycling in the Eastern Qilian Mountains. This is a topic of some interest to researchers in related fields, but the paper needs a lot of improvement before it can be accepted. My detailed comments are as follows:

1. “Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Cycling”, How is it defined? How is this measured in your experimental design? The title of the manuscript does not correspond well with the research content.

2. In terms of experimental design, only one plot is set for each land use type, and there is no duplication in land use. Can it support your research conclusions.

3. Do the three sampling plots of different types of land use have the same/similar conditions in terms of terrain, light, soil, etc.?

4. In terms of data analysis, ANOVA and significance test are lacking.

5. The innovation of the research is not clearly expressed.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-24-59609R1Impacts of Land Use on Soil Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus in the Eastern Qilian MountainsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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 Jun 13 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,

Jian Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

The revised version has been improved a lot.  But the manuscript still has some problems as suggested by the two reviewers. The authors should respond to the comments of the reviewers one by one and revise the manuscript accordingly.  

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: The revised manuscript shows substantial improvement and now ready for minor revisions before formal acceptance. Please address the following points:

1. L182, L196: The capitalization of the initial letters in the title should be consistent throughout. Please standardize this.

2. L 250, L251, L266, L285, Fig.4 and Table 1: It is recommended to include variability indicators (±SD or ±SE) for the key indicators in the paper.

3. “p” in the manuscript: The letter “p” should be represented in lowercase and italicized.

4. L447. “soil SOC” is the abbreviation of “soil soil organic carbon”, please revise it.

5. L494. TN has already been defined in the previous text, so there is no need to define it again.

6. Please modify the references according to the format requirements.

Reviewer #3: This version of the manuscript responds to the comments of the three reviewers one by one, and the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved, but more specific and comprehensive information needs to be provided in some details through minor revision. My main suggestions are as follows:

Firstly, in the section “2.1 Description of the Study Area”, It is suggested to supplement the land use and cover changes of the whole study area over the past 10 years, especially the plant composition and community structure characteristics of each sampling site and the tillage of agricultural land.

Secondly, It is proposed to supplement the hydrological connectivity status of the Binggou River Basin, including the interaction of surface runoff in its adjacent catchments.

Thirdly, Please state what damage has been done to the ecological environment in the study area and to what extent.

Others, (1) There is room for improvement in some series of results analysis, for example, in Fig 7, Columns filled with patterns and colors only indicate the meaning of grassland, farmland and forestland are not marked. (2) In terms of the content arrangement of this manuscript, the results and the discussion are separate. It is suggested that the discussion expressions quoting references in the results should be included in the discussion chapter. (3) The evidence (references) cited in the discussion section should have similar research premises to this study, please check. (4) When it comes to the significance level of the impact/difference, it is recommended to indicate a probability value, such as p < xxx.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Minor revision comments.pdf

Impacts of land use on soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the Eastern Qilian Mountains

PONE-D-24-59609R2

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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,

Jian Liu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: