PWAT-D-24-00035

INSIGHTS INTO THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF TYPHA ORIENTALIS (RAUPŌ) IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Newnham,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water'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.

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

I have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and decided that minor revisions are necessary before your manuscript can be accepted for publication. I greatly appreciate your dedication in addressing the reviewers' feedback and look forward to receiving the revised manuscript. Please ensure that the data used in your study is made available and clearly stated in the manuscript

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2024 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 water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alicia Correa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

Journal Requirements:

1. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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.

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location. 

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS Water's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/water/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research."

Promila B (Newgen) 27 Mar 2024: ***Straive, at PRTC please request the following from the authors and do not ping for follow up:

3. Please note that PLOS Water has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/water/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.

4. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

5. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures  

https://journals.plos.org/water/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

6. We notice that your supplementary table 2 is 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Newnham,

I have carefully reviewed the reviewers' comments and decided that minor revisions are necessary before your manuscript can be accepted for publication.

I greatly appreciate your dedication in addressing the reviewers' feedback and look forward to receiving the revised manuscript. Please ensure that the data used in your study is made available and clearly stated in the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alicia Correa

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

**********

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

PLOS Water 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: Overall i found this a really interesting read, well-argued, with extensive, new data and well-based in science. I have identified a number of inconsistencies in the writing and figures/tables work and some areas where the writing meant I had to spend inordinate time trying to interpret your meaning. Most of this is minor except for my comments on the maps and Table 2, and I have detailed this in an attached document as PLOS does not provide copy-editing.

NZ ethnopolitics can be tricky and you navigated these well with "in essence raupō can be viewed as a human associate species and key anthropological indicator in Aotearoa New Zealand, at least during the Māori settlement phase" (Line 706-708). It is quite clear that the paper demonstrates a substantial transformation of the pre-human NZ by Maori. It is also clear that raupo is not as positively associated with the European era. It would be interesting if that remains the case. If the future realised benefits of raupo for Europeans can be distinguished from the affirmation of matauranga Maori currently underway might assist in attempts to assess cultural categorisation of the raupo/human relationship. Will Europeans over time, find value in raupo? and does that learning to live with a new biotic environment mimic what might have happened for Maori is one of the intriguing questions (among others) your research poses relevant to the international research community and environmental managers.

I was also struck by the parallels with the NZ experience with mangroves , something you might wish to consider in a comparative article in future.

While the article just fits the scope for PLOS Water, there are journals where it would fit better and probably receive wider interest (this is highlighted by the lack of any reference to PLOS articles, suggesting your primary resarch audience might lie elsewhere. I note the opening statement "Target journal:" followed by a different journal name (one that would also have seemed not the most relevant). However, there will certainly be some interest in PLOS Water readers and you might spark future similar publications here.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Insights into the natural and cultural history of Typha orientalis (Raupō) in Aotearoa New Zealand” is presented. The manuscript highlights the ecological role of Raupō for example its bioremediation potential and suggests its close association with the Māori First Peoples of New Zealand in 92 ancient pollen records. The manuscript finds 87% of the sites show maximum Raupō abundance occurs post human (Māori) arrival, a trend that is spatially related to hypothesised Māori settlement phases (EMS), despite a lack of archaeological and radiometric support presented alongside, suggesting that Raupō may have deliberately been promoted by Māori peoples as a food and material resource. Moreover, it is found that Raupō declines with European colonial arrival likely a result of wetland drainage for agricultural expansion. The manuscript concludes to propose further research be undertaken exploring the extent of the deliberate management of Raupō by past Māori peoples and consider the bio remedial effects of Raupō in wetland restoration, emphasising the key need for traditional knowledge integration into science-informed policy and management plans. I find the manuscripts conclusions well grounded and its analyses robust, despite a lack of radiometric dating, thus I recommend this manuscript for publication with the following comments addressed.

Minor Comments (by line where applicable)

L95 Perhaps a density heatmap of Typha presence in modern vegetation as an additional part of this map panel using a community record e.g., NVS (New Zealand National Vegetation Survey Databank) would be a good idea to better understand the current extent of Typha beyond the 92 palaeo records. Merely a suggestion, the map itself is fine without any such addition.

L132 Much like how the detail of the next section (2.2.1. Typha as a traditional source of food and materials) is summarised in Table 1. This section (2.1. Typha biology, ecology, and morphology) might benefit with the addition of a flow chart style diagram showing the establishment of Typha into a suitable environment OR a simple diagram of a Typha specimen with the adaptations that make it “invasive” labelled e.g., “small anemophilous dispersing seeds allowing long distance colonisation”, “seeds viable for X time before germination”, “rhizome roots that anchor into substrate”, “expands well under stable water conditions/levels”.

L142 Provide a reference, (and a numerical timescale if possible), of seed viability in environment before germination.

L196 Table 1 Not sure why 2020 is red in the Leaves, stems > Hats, gloves > source. The table itself looks a little cramped, try changing the style, column widths, and if all borders in necessary.

L309-310 I presume you meant Figure 2 and 4, not 3 and 4.

L389 I would have liked to see a higher minimum pollen sum than 150, but considering the scope in which these records were applied in this investigation 150, this is okay. 150 is a very small sum when including ferns (bracken), that could swamp the signal of other less-productive plants. A ratio of bracken to pollen would have been useful to assess whether the quality of pollen/spore counts is appropriate.

L409 I understand the SQRT and standardisation applied to the pollen %s before PCAs to reduce the skew of data towards highly abundant taxa, masking low end variation in taxa less represented within records. However, I would have liked to see the PCA results without these two steps applied perhaps as supplemental information. In general, the PCA is not very informative due to the low variance explained and could be placed in supporting information if necessary.

L453 Figure 4 This figure is great, but it would be nice to see the charcoal on all the possible records for Figure 4 if they were counted. I feel the charcoal is important in determining the chronology of the records, so showing these maps relating EMS fire practices would be useful. Another point about these figures is that the little blue arrow for the EMS is not clearly visible, it would be good if the authors can add a dashed line next to arrow to go across the boxes.

L465 Table 2 Make the style of the table (font) consistent with Table 1 (vice versa). Highlight or bolden the “raupō max% after EMS (87%) raupō max% before EMS (5%)” as these are key results.

Figure 6 The 5 records shown in Figure 6 could have some dating information to clarify the links between the arbitrary age of 1250 cal BP and the EMS.

Figure 7 does not have a legend for the gold, it looks like topography but that should be mentioned in the caption. Maybe use a less distracting colour, like grey, and more transparent filling. Some dots, especially on maps b and d are difficult to see.

Please check the consistency of dating units throughout (sometimes BP, sometimes bp).

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review comments on PWAT.docx

INSIGHTS INTO THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF TYPHA ORIENTALIS (RAUPŌ) IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND

PWAT-D-24-00035R1

Dear Dr. Newnham,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'INSIGHTS INTO THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF TYPHA ORIENTALIS (RAUPŌ) IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Water.

As per your inquiry, I have forwarded your question to the Peer Review Operations Specialist team. They have confirmed that you can update the Acknowledgements section during the final author requirement process.

"If you choose to accept the manuscript for publication, the authors will have the opportunity to update the Acknowledgements section during the final author requirement process."

Please note that there are some formatting issues with Table 1, including several empty cells that need to be addressed.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 water@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Water.

Best regards and congratulations!

Alicia Correa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

***********************************************************