https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1588-3470
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionDecember 18, 2024 |
|---|
|
PCLM-D-24-00303 Temporal dynamics of biotic homogenization and differentiation across marine fish communities PLOS Climate Dear Dr. Kitchel, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’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. ============================== Two experts have reviewed your manuscript and found it very well constructed and relevant to the field. Please carefully consider their comments and return a detailed response. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 27 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 climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Kevin Tougeron Academic Editor PLOS Climate Journal Requirements: 1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/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.-->--> -->-->2. Figure 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. -->--> -->-->Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.-->--> -->-->If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.-->--> -->-->Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. -->--> -->-->If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: -->-->* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) -->-->* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) -->-->* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)?> 3. 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: Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria?> 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 (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: This is a timely and very well done paper. It's strength lies in the massive data set and the thorough analysis of it. I can't say that the results are particularly surprising because homogenization is not a monotonic, uniform process. We would expect areas of homogenization (similarity) and differentiation from the chaotic nature of globalization, as depending on rates of dispersal and local extinction. However, this paper does a nice job of documenting the current state of biotic similarity/dissimilarity in the marine biosphere. Also the paper is well written with a good knowledge of the previous work. Reviewer #2: General comment A comprehensive analysis of a huge dataset to investigate an interesting set of hypotheses relating to marine biodiversity, how it has changed, and how it relates to anthropogenic factors. Much of the language will be familiar to ecologists, but that is a small school relative to the readership of this journal. Suggest that some of the terms are introduced and/or defined to assist more generic readers. Otherwise well written and well presented. Specific comments Title: The title may be relevant for ecologists, but the broader readership of this journal will not appreciate some of the rather specific terms used. If possible, I would suggest less specialised language and also choose wording which reflects the finding rather than an indication of what was studied. Something like: “Maintenance of marine fish community biodiversity despite anthropogenic pressure”? Abstract. As above the term “spatial beta diversity” will only be familiar to ecologists, this journal has a broader church. Suggest that the abstract uses more generic terms. Line 127. I think more needs to made of this difference between systems. The difficulties in access, particularly offshore and into deeper water, means that marine systems have not been anything like as impacted by human activity relative to terrestrial and freshwater systems: over time and space. We are, after all, terrestrial beings, and our reach into the oceans has only been significant in the last couple of hundred years, if that. Line 344-348. Does not the reconstructed catch from the Sea Around Us (SAU) INCLUDE discards (so by definition – it is catch), but then in line 347 it is stated that only LANDINGS were used, followed by line 348 which states use of reconstructed CATCH again. Which was it, catch or landings? Furthermore, a very large proportion of the catch, at least in European waters, is of pelagic species. Although catches of these may affect the demersal community through biotic interactions, I suspect it only affects a portion of that community: most of that community fish rely on the benthos, not the pelagic realm. The pelagic catches can also vary significantly, and in the time period considered, fluctuated differently to those of demersal fish (by and large the pelagic community suffered first with collapses for example). Anyway, the SAU, does distinguish pelagic from demersal, so I wonder if they could not be differentiated, at least to determine the sensitivity to the assumption. Should refrain from using term fishing effort (e.g. Figure S1) when used catch. Catch is not a good proxy for effort. Line 351 et al. Given the samples are tows, and thus large in number (c.f. line 509), why use AICc (used when sample sizes are small)? Is AIC always the best metric to compare models in any case? Although this is easy, as it is a standard model diagnostic, it is not always very instructive when comparing linear with non-linear models. Measures of cross validation, such as relative bias and root mean square error, are better to determine model performance. Perhaps use AIC for large number of models expected to be quite similar, but to distinguish important non-linear drivers such as temperature and fishing, use cross-validation? Line 454. Some more explicit description of the results interpreting for example Figure 3 required here. Minimum temperature was only very significant for the Aleutian Islands, S. Georgia and W Coast S Island NZ; fisheries in different ways for a few more regions. Although this is articulated later (Discussion line 524) it would be helpful to understand the authors interpretation of the main take home messages of this and every figure. Line 462 and 512-514. Temperature did not have much of an effect (Fig. 3)? Line 547. Are these surveys good at catching the larger mobile predators? They were not designed to do that. Furthermore, the regions considered have not, at least in recent decades, targeted the top predators and bycatch is poorly recorded. Line 554. Thousands of years at scale is an exaggeration. Industrial fishing only came of age in some of these areas with the advent of steam power in the last 100-150 years. Line 557. There should be some acknowledgement of the massive change in fishing pressure that has occurred in the time period considered. Whereas fishing mortality was high in the 70s into the 90s, it has significantly decreased since the early 2000s in line with global initiatives to comply with MSY principles. The conclusion starts with a sentence which, while general, contradicts the findings. This may well be a possibility, but that sentiment is best reserved for the discussion. What is important here is the conclusion from this work, even if it is inconclusive. Expand on the third sentence as a starting point and state clearly what your main take home message is in the first sentence. Much like the final sentence of the abstract. Figure 1 panels b c and d badly explained. ********** 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
Marine communities do not follow the paradigm of increasing similarity through time PCLM-D-24-00303R1 Dear Dr. Kitchel, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Marine communities do not follow the paradigm of increasing similarity through time' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate. 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 climate@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate. Best regards, Kevin Tougeron Academic Editor PLOS Climate *********************************************************** Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The revisions made to the manuscript totally answer the reviewers' comments. Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): |
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 .