Grassland restoration in typical wind-eroded regions effectively increase soil organic carbon

Bin Xia; Wei Xu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346688

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 12, 2025
19 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Marcela Pagano, Editor Dear Dr. Xia, 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 Apr 05 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Marcela Pagano, Ph.D, M.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 and and and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 3. 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. 4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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. 6. We notice that your supplementary [figure 1] 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well written and results are justified. Kindly refer to the manuscript for minor comments. Abstract is well written, 1. Also highlight other findings parameters observed than SOC & SIC 2. The implications of these results? Introduction nicely covered the study background, importance and hypothesis. 1. However the review of literature in the field needs to be elaborated 2. Objectives of the study are missing. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-60997_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346688.r001
Revision 1
3 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer: Comments 1: Introduction: Line 57: a-1 ?? Responses: We appreciate your careful attention to detail. To ensure consistency and avoid confusion, we have now revised the manuscript throughout (line 76): replacing instances of a-1 with yr-1. This modification aligns with the standard notation used in subsequent sections. Comments 2: Introduction: Line 71: Grasslands abandoned for 20 years, but how its being used presently? Responses: We agree that the description of the land use types could be clarified. The grasslands abandoned for 10 and 20 years were previously cultivated croplands that were taken out of agricultural production and subsequently left for natural restoration. Currently, these sites are managed as permanent grasslands without any use such as grazing or mowing. The shrubland was established by planting shrubs on former cropland as part of ecological restoration efforts. We have revised the sentence accordingly to avoid ambiguity (Line 89-93): cropland (continuously cultivated), grasslands abandoned for 10 and 20 years (naturally restored after cultivation cessation), and shrubland (established through afforestation on former cropland). Soil samples were collected at two key surface depths (1 cm and 5 cm) across multiple seasons. Comments 3: Introduction: Line 81-84: introduction nicely covered the study background, importance and hypothesis. 1. However the review of literature in the field needs to be elaborated 2. Objectives of the study are missing. Responses: 1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. In response, we have substantially expanded the literature review to strengthen the theoretical background and improve the integration of our study within the broader field of soil carbon and wind erosion research. Specifically, the following revisions have been made: Strengthening the global context of SOC and SIC (Lines 45–51): The SOC stocks to 2 m of soil depth are estimated at approximately 2400 Pg [5]. In arid and semi-arid regions, inorganic carbon stored as pedogenic carbonates can account for a substantial proportion of total soil carbon. soils store 2305 ± 636 Pg of carbon as SIC within the upper 2 m, a magnitude comparable to or even exceeding global SOC stocks. Importantly, this pool is not static. Projections suggest that global SIC stocks (0–30 cm) will reduce by up to 23 Pg of carbon [6; 7]. These additions strengthen the scientific justification for jointly examining SOC and SIC dynamics. Enhancing the mechanistic background on wind erosion and surface soil vulnerability (Lines 66–68): Furthermore, small variations in the uppermost millimeters to centimeters of soil aggregation, crusting, and moisture can substantially alter erosion thresholds, thereby changing the redistribution process [22]. This addition reinforces the rationale for focusing on the 1 cm depth as a critical interface between wind energy and soil carbon pools. Overall, these revisions provide a more comprehensive and quantitatively supported literature foundation, particularly by clarifying the global significance and underrepresentation of SIC research, and strengthening the theoretical linkage between wind erosion processes and surface carbon dynamics. We believe these improvements address the reviewer’s concern and substantially enhance the scholarly depth of the Introduction. Reference: D. Beillouin, M. Corbeels, J. Demenois, D. Berre, A. Boyer, A. Fallot, F. Feder, and R. Cardinael, A global meta-analysis of soil organic carbon in the Anthropocene. Nature Communications 14 (2023) 3700. Y. Huang, X. Song, Y.-P. Wang, J.G. Canadell, Y. Luo, P. Ciais, A. Chen, S. Hong, Y. Wang, F. Tao, W. Li, Y. Xu, R. Mirzaeitalarposhti, H. Elbasiouny, I. Savin, D. Shchepashchenko, R.A.V. Rossel, D.S. Goll, J. Chang, B.Z. Houlton, H. Wu, F. Yang, X. Feng, Y. Chen, Y. Liu, S. Niu, and G.-L. Zhang, Size, distribution, and vulnerability of the global soil inorganic carbon. Science 384 (2024) 233-239. S. Raza, A. Irshad, A. Margenot, K. Zamanian, N. Li, S. Ullah, K. Mehmood, M. Ajmal Khan, N. Siddique, J. Zhou, S.J. Mooney, I. Kurganova, X. Zhao, and Y. Kuzyakov, Inorganic carbon is overlooked in global soil carbon research: A bibliometric analysis. Geoderma 443 (2024) 116831. Y. Gu, Y. Liu, P. Shi, G. Zhang, Y. Yang, G. Wang, Z. Hu, and L. Liu, Synchronous field measurement of high energy sand saltation on typical desert surfaces, Alxa plateau. Scientific Reports 15 (2025) 23302. 2. Thanks for your positive and constructive feedback. We agree that the objectives of the study should be explicitly stated. Following your suggestion, we have now added research objectives after the hypotheses (Line 102-107): This study was designed to quantify the spatiotemporal variations in SOC and SIC across different land use types, soil depths, and seasons, to compare their distribution patterns between the surface soil layer (0–1 cm) most directly affected by wind erosion and the subsurface layer (1–5 cm), and to disentangle the relative contributions of wind erosion versus land use practices in shaping SOC and SIC heterogeneity while elucidating the underlying mechanisms. These objectives are directly aligned with the hypotheses and outline the specific steps we took to address them. Comments 4: Materials and methods: Line 97: Can you explain gale days ?, because its not common to all. Responses: We have now clarified definition of gale days in the Materials and methods (line 123): days with daily maximum wind speed ≥17.0 m s-1 at the 10 m height [28] and added the reference. This revision improves the clarity of the manuscript for an international audience. Reference: R. Yuan, Q. Li, L. Wu, M. Huo, and Y. Huang, Evaluation and Projection of Gale Events in North China, Atmosphere, 2023, pp. 1646. Comments 5: Materials and methods: Line 168-176: Overall, the M & M section is complete, but management practices under different land management systems over the years (from the beginning) is missing. Since these practices governs the erodability and soil carbon fractions. Responses: Thanks for your comment regarding the missing historical management practices. In response, we have expanded the Methods section to include detailed descriptions of the land-use history and current management practices for each of the four land use types in the Materials and methods (Line 139-149): 1) cropland continuously cultivated under traditional farming, and dominated by Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. 2) grassland10 abandoned from cropland in 2011 (10 years prior to sampling), and dominated by Artemisia scoparia, Leymus secalinus, Heteropappus altaicus. 3) grassland20 abandoned from cropland in 2001 (20 years prior to sampling) and dominated by Agropyron cristatum, Leymus secalinus, Heteropappus altaicus. Both grassland10 and grassland20 have naturally recovered without any human interference (e.g., grazing, mowing, or reseeding) since abandonment. Before abandonment, they were managed identically to the cropland. 4) shrubland converted from cropland in 2011 (10 years prior to sampling) by planting shrubs (dominated by Salix pasmmophara, Hedysarum scoparium), it has been protected from grazing and other disturbances since establishment. Specifically, we now describe the continuous cultivation history of the cropland, the identical pre-abandonment cultivation of the two grasslands and shrubland, and the post-abandonment management (natural restoration without anthropogenic disturbance for grasslands; shrub planting followed by protection from grazing for shrubland). We believe this addition provides the necessary context for interpreting the effects of land use and wind erosion on soil carbon pools. Thank you for helping us improve the clarity and completeness of our manuscript. Comments 6: Result: Line 206-207: Mention about these rankings as a footnote. Also give rankings as a lower case alphabets "a / ab / bc" instead of 'A / Ab". This can be followed in all the tables. Responses: Thanks for your comment regarding the significance rankings in the tables. We appreciate your suggestion to use lowercase letters uniformly. However, we would like to clarify that the uppercase and lowercase letters in our tables serve distinct purposes to efficiently convey two levels of comparison within a single table: Uppercase letters (A, B, C) indicate significant differences among land use types within same seasons. Lowercase letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among seasons within the same land use type. This dual-letter system allows readers to quickly assess both cross-land-use and cross-seasonal variations without needing separate tables or additional columns. We have revised the footnote in line 241-242, line 277-279, line 282-284: Different uppercase letters (A, B, C) within the same column indicate significant differences among land use types within the same seasons, while different lowercase letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences among seasons within the same land use type. Comments 7: Discussion: Line 328: Results demonstrated. Responses: Many thanks for the reviewer's suggestion and we agree that a more objective phrasing is appropriate in the discussion. In addition to accepting your revision in line 362: These results demonstrated clearly that the management of land significantly impacts carbon budgets in arid and semi-arid regions, we have also revised the preceding sentence in line 361: Here, the differences in soil carbon stocks (SOC, SIC) were observed among the different land uses. We greatly appreciate the dedication of the reviewers in improving this work and are honored to implement any additional improvements. This revision process is an inspiring academic journey, and we remain committed to advancing the understanding of soil carbon pools through rigorous scientific exploration. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Bin Xia, Wei Xu Corresponding author: Wei Xu Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346688.r002
23 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Marcela Pagano, Editor Grassland Restoration in Typical Wind-eroded Regions Effectively Increase Soil Organic Carbon PONE-D-25-60997R1 Dear Dr. Xu, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Marcela Pagano, Ph.D, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346688.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Marcela Pagano, Editor PONE-D-25-60997R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Xu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Marcela Pagano Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346688.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .