Dear Dr Mueller,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Surveillance of invasive Aedes mosquitoes along Swiss traffic axes reveals different dispersal modes for Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus" for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic. Based on the reviews, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, providing that you modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 30 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.  

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to all review comments, and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Mariangela Bonizzoni

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Morrison

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Methods are appropriate and statistical analyses are sound.

--------------------

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Results are in line with the objectives of the study and completely presented. Figures and tables are enough

--------------------

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Conclusions are supported by the results.

--------------------

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

--------------------

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: The authors monitored alien Aedes mosquitoes along Swiss traffic axes with ovitraps (egg collection) and BG Sentinel traps (adults) – from June-September 2013-2018. Aedes albopictus, Ae. japonicus and Ae. koreicus were documented. Based on their results Ae. albopictus and Ae. koreicus are passively spread while Ae. japonicus is spreading actively.

This manuscript is of excellent quality and provides important information about the alien Aedes mosquito situation in Switzerland. It is also of high relevance for public health.

Some minor modifications are recommended (and I apologize that I mention our studies but it would be of interest to compare and discuss)

Line 20: You could also include Zika here

Line 38: These Aedes mosquitoes are mainly of relevance for human medicine

entire manuscript: Please unify – Ae. japonicus or Ae. japonicus japonicus

entire manuscript: use of invasive – We all know that Ae. albopictus is an invasive species - however, the status of invasiveness in the Central and Eastern Alpine regions remain unclear (outcompetition of indigenous mosquitoes beside establishment). Therefore, it is recommended to use potential invasive or alien

Fuehrer et al. (2020 – PLoS NTDs) published a study about these mosquitoes at high ways in the Eastern Alps region of Austria (Tyrol) a few days ago. It is recommended to compare results.

Line 118: Please provide information which BG-Sentinel generation was used

Line 228: New paragraph after koreicus

Change Culex pipiens s.s. to Culex pipiens complex

General question: Did you observe any altitude differences? We observed Ae. japonicus in mountainous areas above 850 m (Schoener et al. 2019)

Line 383: Change , to .

Line 407: Cx. torrentium abundance – change to “… north of the Swiss Alps” or modify – The statement is not true for the entire northern to the Alps regions (e.g. Zittra et al. 2016; “…. Under-representation of Cx. torrentium in carbon dioxide baited traps is commonly observed”).

Reviewer #2: The manuscript of Muller et al. reports a 6-years survey aimed at recording the potential presence of invasive mosquitoes (Aedes albopictus, Aedes koreicus and Aedes j. japonicus) in Switzerland at selected sites. The study is straightforward and properly conducted. It is evident the huge work done to obtain this set of data, which demonstrated its usefulness in detecting all the three invasive species, allowing also to hypothesize their spreading strategies through the country. I have only a few minor comments:

Lines 93-96: the introduction seems to me unbalanced in describing dispersal and invasiveness of Aedes albopictus while no information is given for the other two Aedes on which the manuscript is focused. I suggest a few more words about distribution and potential invasiveness of Ae. koreicus and Ae. japonicus in order to give a more complete picture of the potential risk of invasion in Switzerland.

Table 1: please explain in caption the meaning of the asterisk next to the number in BG sentinel column (I guess to highlight the traps with the presence of CO2 supply).

Lines 245-257: it could be interesting to know if the BG sentinel traps baited with BG lure+CO2 collected differently to the others with just the BG lure and if this affected data analysis in terms of detection of invasive species.

--------------------

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: Yes: Hans-Peter Fuehrer

Reviewer #2: No

Figure 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. 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 us at figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Dear Dr Mueller,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Surveillance of invasive Aedes mosquitoes along Swiss traffic axes reveals different dispersal modes for Aedes albopictus and Ae. japonicus' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

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

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.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

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

Best regards,

Mariangela Bonizzoni

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Amy Morrison

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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