PCLM-D-25-00270

Watershed forest cover and habitat restoration can offset some negative impacts of climate change on freshwater fish and mussel biodiversity

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Rogers,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 18 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:

• 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,

Oleg Askeyev, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

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. 

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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The study presented in the manuscript " Watershed forest cover and habitat restoration can offset some negative impacts of climate change on freshwater fish and mussel biodiversity" is an interesting and good analysis. In my humble opinion, the results obtained by the authors may contribute to further research on river systems (with an emphasis on ichthyofauna and other aquatic organisms) in the context of global climate change.

Overall, the authors have done a good job on the manuscript. According to my submission, I believe that the "manuscript" can be accepted for publication after minor revision. I encourage the authors to review their manuscript again, since their database is important and the scientific contribution of this work can be significant. Based on the recommendations received, I believe that your manuscript may be considered for publication if you are willing to make the changes noted by the reviewers. When preparing your manuscript, you should carefully study the attached reviewers' comments and provide a list of responses to them. In my opinion, Please, the main attention should be paid to citing and adding data from other regions of the planet to the manuscript. Many "similar" works have been published, for example, in Europe.

Thank You !

[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 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: MS «Watershed Forest cover and habitat restoration can offset some negative impacts of climate change on freshwater fish and mussel biodiversity» is a good work with a wide range of river in north-east of USA. Research is devoted to a topic that is relevant today, is well structured, is written in good English, and uses adequate statistical methods. Overall, the work deserves to be published in this journal with minor corrections, which will be discussed below.

Title.

In my opinion, the term "biodiversity" is superfluous in this context.

Abstract.

The abstract is somewhat overloaded and could be shortened.

Introduction.

A good chapter showing the importance of ecological parameters on fish, however, there are not enough references in this part. For example, such fundamental works on the topic are omitted as:

Buisson L., Grenouillet G., Villéger S., Canal J. and Laffaille P., 2013 – Toward a loss of functional diversity in stream fish assemblages under climate change, Global change biology, 19, 2, 387-400.

Comte L. and Grenouillet G., 2013 – Do stream fish track climate change? Assessing distribution shifts in recent decades, Ecography, 36, 11, 1236-1246.

In particular, these works can be used in the discussion section.

Another significant lack of this chapter (in connection with the main paradigm of the work) is the complete disregard for the impact of climate on forest ecosystems.

Methods.

L. 176-180. I would also like to clarify whether there are problems with dams built by beavers in the region (В нашем регион бобр играет сильную роль в строительстве дамб и сильно ухудшает условия жизни для форели и хариуса). What impact does fishing have? In recent studies (Askeyev et al. 2024. LONG-TERM MONITORING OF FISH ABUNDANCE DYNAMICS IN THE MIDDLE STRETCH OF THE MESHA RIVER (TATARSTAN). Transylvanian Review of Systematical & Ecological Research, 26(2)) shows that, in general, modern warming can have a positive effect on the long-term dynamics of fish abundance, but strong fishing can reduce this trend to a negative value. But there may also be a reverse effect: the elimination of large-sized eurytopic fish species may contribute to an increase in small-sized rheophilic species.

L. 193-194. eDNA was not used in this study? In my humble opinion, some rare fish species deserve such research to understand their current distribution.

L. 248. It is not clear why these parameters were excluded.

L. 329. It would be nice to use a much more granular system. Or at least to disclose the temperature range for each group for the reader's understanding.

L.348 I agree that assemblages at different elevations can vary substantially, but I don't see the point in such an artificial division into "high" and "low" based on the median value. In my opinion, this is an extremely artificial division that does not show the difference in the distribution of living organisms. There is a huge MS in Europe and Asia describing the most important influence of the elevation gradient on different fish species and communities.

Discussion.

L.540. Could you please replace the terms "winners" and "losers", in my humble opinion in the context of possible complete extinction of some species they seem unethical.

The discussion is very productive, but in some places, it lacks species specificity, because even within fish groups there may be significant exceptions for some characteristic, and not for all species an increase in forest cover may be a positive effect. For example, the factor of coastal forest cover had a significant effect on 8 of the 26 main fish species in the territory of Eastern Europe (Askeyev et al., 2015). Positively on two rare rheophilic and cold-loving species such as the European grayling and the common bullhead, but on the other hand, on two other rheophilic species, the common dace and chub, on the contrary, negatively. In addition to this, in my opinion, it is also worth pointing out the disadvantages of the method of increasing forest cover. Such as an increase in forest cover, especially due to coniferous species, may serve to change the chemistry of the water. Increased forest cover may help to attract some fish-eating birds during the nesting period, which may serve as additional pressure on rare fish species or attract some predatory fish, such as burbot which prefers cold waters and shade or abundance species that love shaded watercourses. Excessive shading can also lead to decreased productivity and a reduction in the food supply for fish. Increased forest cover can contribute to the cluttering of watercourse (fallen branches and tree trunks), as well as additional attraction of beavers, which can build dams and reduce the flow of water and increase water temperatures.

References.

Despite the large and adequate list of references, it is striking that there is insufficient use of works from Eurasia, at the same time, in this region there are many works devoted to the influence of climate and other environmental parameters on fish and other living organisms, please, if possible, add more literature sources

Reviewer #2: This research article examines how climate change affects freshwater fish and mussel biodiversity in the northeastern U.S. and evaluates management strategies to mitigate these impacts. The study uses statistical models to project species distributions under baseline conditions, climate change scenarios, and various restoration interventions (e.g., increased forest cover, dam removal). Key features of the presented study:

Leverages extensive datasets from state agencies (>30,000 fish surveys, >6,000 mussel surveys);

Uses validated statistical models to assess species-specific responses under different scenarios;

Well-structured figures (e.g., species richness maps, biodiversity group trends) enhance understanding.

Discusses limitations (e.g., lack of microhabitat data, dispersal constraints) transparently.

**********

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.

Watershed forest cover and habitat restoration can offset some negative impacts of climate change on freshwater fishes and mussels

PCLM-D-25-00270R1

Dear Dr. Rogers,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Watershed forest cover and habitat restoration can offset some negative impacts of climate change on freshwater fishes and mussels' 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,

Oleg Askeyev, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors!

Based on the reviewers' recommendations and in my opinion, you have done a great job of improving your manuscript.

The manuscript now presents a wealth of information and is suitable for international publication.

I fully recommend your article for publication.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Many thanks to the authors for their detailed responses and for addressing all the issues. In my opinion, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is worthy of publication.

**********

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

**********