Conservation of carbon resources and values on public lands: A case study from the National Wildlife Refuge System

Zhiliang Zhu; Beth Middleton; Emily Pindilli; Darren Johnson; Kurt Johnson; Scott Covington

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262218

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 21, 2021
22 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Arun Jyoti Nath, Editor PONE-D-21-13289 Conservation of carbon resources and values on public lands: A case study from the National Wildlife Refuge System PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhu, 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: Please revise taking in to account the reviewers comments. Please improve the English usage in the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 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: http://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, Arun Jyoti Nath 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. 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: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3.We note that Figure #1 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: 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/ 4. We note that Figure #2 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 #2 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. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: 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: 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: Introduction • Introduction is logically prepared and well written • Highlight the significance of the research in the context of changing climate Materials and Methods • Data on carbon stock and net ecosystem carbon balance were found as secondary source, I doubt about that quality of data and there analysis method are not mentioned in the section. Please include all the information and provide the data source as supplementary materials Reviewer #2: Pl see attachments. The paper addresses important aspects and needs to be modified further. The Introduction (justification and uses of the study); method (testing of ANOVA assumptions); result modification and complete section of conclusion should be added, please. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Rajiv Pandey [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: RR_PONE-D-21-13289.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262218.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2021 Author Response 1. The language needs to be modified. Response: This comment and the next one below recommends that we edit the manuscript for language purposes. We agree. We conducted a complete read-through and provided updates (shown with track changes). In addition, the manuscript is a US government information product and was already subjected to 1) an internal technical review, and 2) a government approval process before our submission to the journal. 2. The editing for MS is desired. I suggest to see the MS for meticulous way. (Comma, mixing or joining or words etc.) Response: please see above. 3. The abstract should explain the method. Response: Agreed. We have updated the abstract, please see track changes throughout the abstract that provided details of the methods. 4. The keywords should not include the words of the Title of MS. Response: We have modified the keywords, which now do not include words already used in the title. 5. Please define public lands focusing to the study. Response: The term is defined in text (first sentence and reference in Introduction). But it was not defined in the abstract. We have added the definition in abstract (first sentence). 6. Please include one para at the end of Introduction about the uses of the study. Response: We have added the following paragraph: Public lands have traditionally been managed to support a variety of uses including conservation and recreation. Increasingly they are also being looked upon to provide benefits through climate change mitigation via carbon sequestration and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this study was to add useful information to the new management objective. 7. The study area along with the detailed NWRS should be included as supplementary material. This may include longitude and latitude, major species, areas, year of establishment, management regime. etc. Response: We have updated the supplementary material table and provided latitudes and longitudes of the centers of the NWR, along with major land cover, areas, and year of establishment. We also added latitudes and longitudes to the statistical analysis, which improved the power of the statistical analysis by reducing unexplained variation of the model. 8. Please provide details of two factors for ANOVA along with main effect and interaction. Response: We ran a nested design with three factors: region, areas inside or outside of the refuge, and dominant habitat, plus any significant covariables (with latitudes and longitudes added) based on a likelihood ratio test. The covariables were tested both in and out of the selected model. The final model is included in Table 2 in the manuscript. 9. Have you tested the assumptions of ANOVA specially linearity and homogeneity. Please elaborate. Response: Linearity was tested with the chi-square Likelihood ratio test between the full and null model. Homogeneity was tested looking at the residuals of the model. The residuals had a random pattern. 10. Please elaborate the changes per unit area. Please provide the details of ANOVA. Response: All of our results are given either as per unit area (such as Fig. 4 and 5, and Table 2), or can be calculated as such (such as Table 1 and 3, and as supplementary material where the total area is given; division will give per unit area results). Details of ANOVA including nonsignificant results are provided in Table 2. 11. Please see with longitude and latitude the changes are significant. Response: Latitudes and longitudes were only significant with carbon stock, but not with the two other factors (area and NECB), see Table 2. 12. The discounting approach is straight however forests are dynamic. Please see if you can estimate the deforestation and degradation aspect of the forest. This can be achieved by analyzing the forest cover in successive years. This will add the dynamic components of the change. Response: This study included all major habitat types (land cover types) such as forests, wetlands, grasslands, agricultural lands. In fact, forest land cover is a small part of the United States National Wildlife Refuge System. The existing data we used already included forest cover change as well as dynamic changes in other habitat types from the original study (see the reference: Zhu and Stackpoole 2011). 13. How the social cost for future has been estimated. Business usual scenario may not exist in future. Please see if population changes or management regime changes. (what about fire as mentioned in the MS) Response: Social cost of carbon is defined as an estimate of the net present value of avoided economic and societal damages associated with increase (or decrease) in CO2 emissions for a given year. The value is associated with discount rates which are used to project for future years. The discount rates are broad enough to include a range of scenarios including business as usual scenario (3% discount rate is the middle of the road scenario). Population change or management regime change (including wildfire management) affect carbon sequestration, which affect the estimate of social cost of carbon. 14. Can you discuss about the management of these lands, as the management may also influence the carbon capturing. Response: Management of the public lands is the primary focus of the study. Management objectives are described throughout the manuscript. For example, in the 2nd paragraph of Introduction, it states: National Wildlife Refuges (NWRS) are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect habitat following laws such as the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. 15. The ecosystem services (additional) may be discussed in terms of added economic gains, if possible. Response: We have discussed ecosystem services throughout the manuscript in terms of benefits provided to users of public lands such as recreation and climate mitigation. However, “economic gains” are not included in the discussion because, by law, public lands in the United States are not managed for economic gains. 16. Please add a section for conclusion. Response: We have added a Conclusion section in addition to Discussion. 17. Please add review of literature on the aspect in Introduction. Response: Can you be more specific about the topic of any missing information? There is a thorough review of literature on the topic of this manuscript (public land management and carbon sequestration) in the Introduction. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262218.r002
20 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Arun Jyoti Nath, Editor Conservation of carbon resources and values on public lands: A case study from the National Wildlife Refuge System PONE-D-21-13289R1 Dear Dr. Zhu, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Arun Jyoti Nath Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262218.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Arun Jyoti Nath, Editor PONE-D-21-13289R1 Conservation of carbon resources and values on public lands: A case study from the National Wildlife Refuge System Dear Dr. Zhu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Arun Jyoti Nath Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262218.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 .