Dear Dr Gregory,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Oil palm expansion increases the vectorial capacity of dengue vectors in Malaysian Borneo" 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,

Emily Gurley

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: See attached marked-up PDF and narrative.

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: See attached marked-up PDF and narrative.

I would like to see a greater, more direct statement that the effect is due to density.

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes.

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

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: n/a

Reviewer #2: See attached marked-up PDF and narrative.

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

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: This is an outstanding and important paper that combines field data, laboratory experiments, and mathematical models to mechanistically dissect the impact of palm oil plantations, relative to logged forests, on vectorial capacity of Aedes albopictus for arboviruses like dengue. I have relatively few minor comments on this overall excellent paper.

One important innovation of this study is that the authors estimated mortality rates and mosquito abundance directly in the field. These have previously been major unknowns because they were derived from laboratory estimates, and how well they applied to the field was uncertain.

The equation for m (eq. 2) uses the parameter EFD = eggs per female per day. However, in the original work characterizing the thermal performance curves (Mordecai et al. 2017), the trait estimated was TFD = eggs laid per female per gonotrophic cycle, so the substitution EFD = TFD*a (where a is 1/oviposition cycle length; see supplementary Table A) was made to calculate m for Aedes albopictus. Please note this, and correct the m calculation if needed.

Regarding the calculation of the mortality rate, mu, note that in the previous work that derived the thermal performance curves (Mordecai et al. 2017), mu was defined as a mortality rate (units of 1/day) rather than a probability, as stated in line 305. Based on the calculation of mu as 1/lifespan, I believe that the calculation was correct, just the description of the parameter as a probability is not. I didn’t understand how the calculation of 33.3 +/- 57 days was estimated, since if the mortality rate is 0.03 +/- 0.006, that gives the range in mortality rates of 0.036 (lifespan = 27.8 days) to 0.024 (lifespan = 41.7 days).

In line 197 it says that temperature variation was higher in logged forest than in oil palm plantations, but in lines 316-317 it says the opposite. Which is correct? Even though temperature variation turned out to not play an important role in the mosquito traits, it is still important to clarify this point.

Minor comments:

The Abstract and the Author Summary only mention Aedes albopictus and vectorial capacity, but not which diseases are actually at risk of being transmitted in this system. Especially if this study is motivated by an observation of increased disease incidence in people that contact plantations, it is worth mentioning what disease(s) are important here.

Line 29: “predications” should be “predictions”

Line 48: typo in “anthropogenic”

There are several locations throughout the manuscript where the citations aren’t in the PLOS NTD numbered format.

Lines 141 and 495: “Aedes” should be italicized

Signed,

Erin Mordecai

Reviewer #2: See attached marked-up PDF and narrative.

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

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: Erin Mordecai

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, we recommend that you deposit your 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

References

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-21-00750_reviewer1.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review of albopicxtus palm oil.pdf

Dear Dr Gregory,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Oil palm expansion increases the vectorial capacity of dengue vectors in Malaysian Borneo' 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. In addition, one reviewer has suggested some very minor revisions which are detailed at the end of this email.

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,

Emily Gurley

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: Methods meet the standard for acceptance

**********

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: Results meet the standard for acceptance

**********

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: Conclusions meet the standards for acceptance

**********

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)

**********

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: This is an excellent paper, and the revisions have improved it and resolved my questions about the methods. Just a few minor comments.

Line 23: should be “Mosquito-borne diseases”

Line 54: missing word, such as “the transition from”

Equation 3: there should not be a negative sign in the denominator

Line 239: extra comma before the period

Line 254: daily probability of survival should be daily adult mortality rate

Line 469: should be “sensitivity analyses suggest”

**********

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: Erin Mordecai