PONE-D-24-48416-->-->Do climatic or hydrological factors influence peat accumulation rates across Europe?-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Swindles,

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:Thanks very much for your submission! Two referees have submitted reviews. Although one reviewer suggests major revision (Reviewer 2) - and I agree that their questions regarding the relationship between aPAR and climate are important (i.e., major) - the revisions could be minor if answers are readily available. It is noteworthy that both referees recommended highlighting this paper on the general website.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 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.

• 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 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,

John Toland Van Stan II, Ph.D.

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

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

4. 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/

5. 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.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting manuscript that provides significant insights into peat accumulation rates across 28 well-dates European mires that are at least 2000 years old. The findings are particularly important for peat restoration efforts, particularly in the face of current and future climate change, suggesting that peat accumulation rates are controlled by complex interactions between climate, vegetation type and water depth, as well as finding a degree of geographic variation (potentially linked to these factors) across the study sites. A key finding is that 10 cm water table depths is crucial for peat restoration efforts and that further research is needed to underpin restoration efforts, particularly in terms of complexity of peat accumulation rates and how this can be applied to restoration efforts. Based on this I strongly support publication of this manuscript, as these findings will be of broad interest, not only to European researchers, but also other researchers across the globe as this provides an approach that will be directly relevant to other peatland systems, particularly in terms of underpinning restoration efforts of these vitally important ecosystems. There are a few minor issues (mainly related to referencing) that need to be addressed (listed below), and once these have been rectified the manuscript is ready for publication.

Line 159 to 160 - Dommain et al., 2010 listed with a publication year of 2016 in references (lines 456 to 461) - please verify the correct publication year.

Line 230 - Turetsky et al., 2010 listed with a publication year of 2015 in references (lines 584 to 585) - please verify the correct publication year.

Line 237 - Dorrepaal et al., 2003 listed with a publication year of 2004 in references (lines 462 to 464) - please verify the correct publication year.

Reviewer #2: Review of Swindles et al. PONE-D-24-48416 “Do climatic or hydrological factors influence peat accumulation rates across Europe?” Plos One.

Manuscript status

This manuscript is the first submission.

Comments

The manuscript aimed “to determine the climatic and hydrological controls on the apparent rates of peat accumulation (aPAR)” using “palaeoenvironmental data from 28 well-dated, intact European peat bogs”. The aPAR was analysed over the last 2000 years. The main finding is that the aPAR ranged between 0.005 and 0.448 cm yr-1. Although weak, there was a significant relationship between aPAR and water table depth (WTD) with an optimal aPAR at a WTD of -10 cm, which confirms the common result observed on shorter time series than in this study.

The study is impressive in gathering data from 28 sites in Europe, this is solid. However, there is a fundamental issue in the methods to estimate the relationship between aPAR and climatic variables relative to the relationship between aPAR and WTD:

L341-359

When reading the M&M on the WTD and climate reconstruction, it is understood that climate analysis was reconstructed for the period 1836-2015 while WTD reconstruction was done for the full peatland life durations with the subfossil testate amoebae. The reconstruction periods are different for both climate and WTD. It also means that climate does not have the same reconstruction range than WTD when examining the relationships with aPAR. Moreover, the M&M section shows that the climate reconstruction period 1836-2015 is almost not included in the aPAR period as the aPAR did not consider the peat accumulation since 1850AD (L339).

Is there something not explained in the M&M for the fitting between aPAR and climate? At first reading, it seems that the fitting is impossible as aPAR since 1850 is removed while climate data were available for 1836-2015. So, strictly reading the description indicates that the reconstruction could not be done between aPAR and climate as the time periods do not coincide. It seems impossible because as a large part of the work is on this relationship. Something is really unclear. Was there a climate reconstruction before 1836 to be fitted with the aPAR? Otherwise, what time period was concretely and clearly used in the relationship between aPAR and climate? This comment is major as a large part of the manuscript concerns the relationship between aPAR and climate.

There is another minor comment:

In L121-124, the information on the WTD threshold vs peat accumulation rates is well synthesised in the abstract but it does not appear as concise in the results in L194-207 where only results for the WTD of 5-11 cm is shown. The < 0 cm and > 25 cm thresholds are also not discussed or presented in the discussion.

Therefore, either change the text here in the abstract to reflect the results or add details in the results and discussion to indicate the relationship or threshold for the < 0 cm and > 25 cm effects. The minor issue here is why we read on thresholds of < 0 cm and > 25 cm in the abstract while it does not appear at all in the manuscript.

Apart from these two comments, the manuscript was well written and structured.

Note to the editor for question 3: it is not possible to answer as we do not see where data would be available in the web portal. I find that enough data are available through the supplementary information, no need for more.

**********

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: Yes:  Patrick Moss

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Climate and water-table levels regulate peat accumulation rates across Europe

PONE-D-24-48416R1

Dear Dr. Swindles,

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,

John Toland Van Stan II, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations - your revised article is accepted. I have also reached out to PLOS One recommending that your work be featured. Thanks for submitting your excellent work.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All of my comments have been addressed, and the revised manuscript is very well structured, written and presented - providing important insight into the utilization of palaeoecological data that is highly relevant for peatland restoration - particularly in terms of the variable response of different systems to climate, which needs to be considered for restoration activities - which will be of broad interest.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all my comments, especially by adding the new climate analysis. I recommend the publication of this comprehensive work.

**********

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: Yes:  Patrick Moss

Reviewer #2: No

**********