PONE-D-25-28344The impact of changing species composition in Europe - longest carbon turnover time in unmanaged and broadleaved deciduous forestsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ferretto,

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 make revisions based on the suggestions of the referees.Especially clarify the methods used,make discussions accprding to the results

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 12 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,

RunGuo Zang

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 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 financial disclosure:

[This study was possible thanks to funds awarded to AF from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.]. 

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 study was made possible thanks to the funds granted to AF by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. TP and ML were funded under the ForestValue programme, the European Commission, Vinnova, the Swedish Energy Agency and Formas for the project FORECO. This study is a contribution to the Swedish government’s strategic research areas BECC and MERGE and the Nature-based Future Solutions profile area at Lund University. KG acknowledges funding from the VELUX Stiftung through the 3FOR-project (project 1897, www.velux-stiftung.ch, www.3for-project.org). We thank Paul Miller, Stefan Olin, Karl Piltz and Susanne Suvanto for developing the version of LPJ-GUESS on which this study is based.]

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:

[This study was possible thanks to funds awarded to AF from the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung.]

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

5. 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.

6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

7. We note that Figures 2, 3, 4, S1, S2, S3, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S14, and S15 in your submission contain map 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

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 3, 4, S1, S2, S3, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S14, and S15 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].”

2. 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/

8. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

9. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Please make revisions according to the concerns of the referees

[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: Yes

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: Yes

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: PONE-D-25-28344

The manuscript presents a well-structured and methodologically rigorous study on carbon turnover time (τ) in European forests under different management and climate scenarios. The research addresses a critical gap in understanding how forest management strategies influence carbon sequestration potential, with implications for climate mitigation policies. The use of the LPJ-GUESS model and stylized management scenarios is appropriate, and the results are clearly presented. However, some sections could benefit from clarification, and limitations should be more explicitly discussed.

- Clearly states the research objective, methodology, and key findings.

- Highlights the significance of unmanaged and broadleaved deciduous forests for carbon turnover.

- Briefly mention the spatial variability of results (e.g., cold vs. temperate climates) to better contextualize the findings.

In introduction, clarify why LPJ-GUESS was chosen over other DGVMs (e.g., its management module). Expand on the rationale for selecting SSP3-RCP7.0 (e.g., its relevance to current European policy scenarios).

In M&M, provide more detail on the "stylized management options" (e.g., how they reflect real-world practices).

Discuss potential biases from excluding fire in managed forests (mentioned briefly but warrants deeper analysis).

In result section, include a summary table of mean values across all scenarios for quick comparison.

Discuss the ecological mechanisms behind shorter τ in unmanaged forests’ soil (e.g., younger stand age, decomposition rates).

In discussion, address the counterintuitive finding of longer τ in unmanaged forests despite younger stands (link to disturbance regimes or model assumptions).

Expand on the policy implications (e.g., how findings align with EU carbon neutrality goals).

Discuss how the exclusion of species-specific disturbance susceptibility (e.g., conifers vs. broadleaves) might skew results.

Address potential overgeneralization due to the 0.5° resolution (e.g., local management heterogeneity).

In conclusion, recommend specific future research directions (e.g., integrating regional management practices) at the end.

Improve the quality of figures,

label panels in Figures 2–3 more clearly (e.g., "A: Ecosystem τ").

Include a map of Europe in the main text to orient readers to climatic zones.

Define acronyms (e.g., DOC, SOM) at first use.

Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., "broadleaved" vs. "broadleaf").

Reviewer #2: This study provides a valuable contribution to understanding carbon turnover dynamics in European forests under different management scenarios and climate change. The use of LPJ-GUESS to model carbon pools and fluxes is robust. However, several issues must be addressed before the paper can be accepted.

1. The authors chose SSP3-RCP7.0 scenario in the climate change simulation. Why not also include a moderate (SSP2-4.5) scenario and compare the results? Please discuss how a lower-forcing scenario could alter the results.

2. Evidence shows managed forests still burn. Explain why fire is turned off in managed forests.

3. The 80-year rotation cycle is described as arbitrary but reasonable. However, it varies significantly across different vegetation types and geographical regions. A supplementary run with 60- and 100-year rotations would strengthen robustness.

4. The stylised planting rules (immediate species switch after death) may overestimate the rate of species conversion. Discuss how this influences τ differences.

5. Nitrogen limitation is explicitly modelled, but no result is shown.

6. The divergent responses of τeco (decrease) and τstem (increase) under climate change need more mechanistic explanation.

7. It would be beneficial to further elaborate on how these results could influence forest management practices in Europe.

8. Please enhance the resolution of the images to improve their clarity.

**********

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: Yes: Khawaja Shafique Ahmad

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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The impact of changing forest composition in Europe - longest carbon turnover time in unmanaged and broadleaved deciduous forests

PONE-D-25-28344R1

Dear Dr. Ferretto,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

RunGuo Zang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: