Dear Biol. Cardozo,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Modeling the effect of habitat fragmentation on rural house invasion by sylvatic triatomines: a multiple landscape-scale approach" 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. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

The Second reviewer has expressed major reservations about the thematic aspects your MS. Please review your MS to establish if the MS indeed incorporates cardinal modeling concepts and adjust accordingly.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

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

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the 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.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. 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,

Paul O. Mireji, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Bruce Lee

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The Second reviewer has expressed major reservations about the thematic aspects your MS. Please review your MS to establish if the MS indeed incorporates cardinal modeling concepts and adjust accordingly.

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: The study was built on local observations on increased numbers of sylvatic triatomines in domestic human environments in the relatively dry western Chaco Region of Argentina. The objectives of the study were built on the hypothesis that gross anthropic changes of the ecosystem, particularly the fragmentation of the habitat, major alterations in the availability of food sources and refuges, and increased number of domestic animals, is a major cause of the increase in domicile shift of the vectors of Trypanosoma cruzi. In my view, the overall design of the study adequately addressed the stated objectives, the sample sizes were sufficient, and appropriate statistical analyses of the data generated were used. The house inhabitants who participated in the study gave oral consent, and were trained in the identification and collection of triatomines, and avoidance of infection by T. cruzi.

Reviewer #2: The title of the manuscript is not fully reflecting it contain. The authors indicated that the manuscript report a modeling experiments, however the text did not put emphasize of modelling studies either in the introduction or in the discussion. No comparison with existing models was conducted. I will suggest to authors to replace the word “modeling” in the title by “Enhancing the understanding”.

The methodology is about study sites, and data analysis and not modelling experiments and the whole line 547-552 should be remove from the text. The text further lack justification why the selected methods were used for the analysis.

Why the maximum likelihood method for classification was used instead of more robust technique such as random forest? Please justify the choice of the methodology

Although English is good, the use of tenses should be handling with caution.

Reviewer #3: --Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? yes

Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear test- yes

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

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? yes for the most part

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? yes- adequate

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?- no IRB at the universities so did not have to go through IRB- everything seems fine

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

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: The results presented are interesting and adequately match the analyses plans. Results are also clear and well presented in different Tables, and adequately discussed. Perhaps Fig 2 may need to be improved for better visual clarity.

Reviewer #2: The title of the manuscript is "Modeling the effect of habitat fragmentation on rural house invasion by sylvatics triatomines: a multiple landscape-scale approach"however the text describes the occurrence and frequency of sylvatic triatomines in rural houses, and evaluates the effect of habitat fragmentation and other ecological factors in regards to the phenomena. A number of analysis were used to explain the mechanism resulting to the species invasion; however, each method revealed some level of limitation and the authors suggested an integrated approach which can better capture of the complexity of the system at hands and provide more insight.

The Tables and Figures are of good qualities

I will suggest change on the title and rephrasing certain sections of the text

Reviewer #3: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? yes

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?-- some of the figures (graphs) appear a bit pixellated- but that could be the quality of my computer- would require prof. editorial check at PlosNTDS

I mention some modifications to table 2 suggested (see comments below) in summary and general comments.

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

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: The conclusions are adequately supported by the data presented and scope of analyses are well described. The Discussion captures the background that led to the work and the implication of the results, and specifically their downstream implication as well as the gross significance of anthropic changes in the environment.

Reviewer #2: The conclusions are well align with the majority of the text, however the issue of modelling raised above should be addressed

Reviewer #3: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? yes but really the T. cruzi results tested microscopically add nothing to this study so I suggest that they don't include this (only microscopic analysis was done on some bugs and actually molecular analysis is at this point the 'norm' as there are too many false negatives with microscopic analysis)

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

-Is public health relevance addressed? yes-the household construction could be described in more detail (see below in my general comments to authors)

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

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: Apart from the need to improve Fig 2, I recommend that 'Accept the manuscript as it is'.

Reviewer #2: Major revision especially on the contain focusing on the new title I proposed or something similar

Reviewer #3: See below the editorial modification in summary and general comments)

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

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: A good study well carried out.

Reviewer #2: This is a nice study that need some fine tuning before getting published

Reviewer #3: This is a very interesting paper that evaluates anthropogenic landscape structure and configuration (this evaluation of spatial configuration of habitat as well as houses is quite novel and I applaud the authors for this ) on triatomine home invasions. I particularly like analyses being parsed out for triatomine species that are predominantly avian associated and those that are mammal associated. Scientists that study triatomines will find a lot of value and food for thought and discussion with the analyses done in this paper.

However, there are some issues that should be addressed.

There are some grammar errors in english (e.g. lots of subject-verb agreement errors)- I am sure I only caught a few and not all of these errors so this should be double chcked by English editors.

line 168- only looking for T. cruzi by microscopic evaluation of bug feces can markedly underestimate infection rates , multiple studies confirm this. you may want to not present this microscopic data without molecular confirmation.

For table 2- can you please show the totals across each landscape (adding up the communities for each habitat type?)- it would be helpful to know the mean number of goats, chickens, dogs, etc for each household not just the total across all households.

Do all households have electricity?

In the methods, can you describe a bit more what a 'typical' house might look like (construction, lights, windows, permeability to invasion of bugs?)

Minor comments

line 131- change 'refuges' to 'refuge'

line 128- 'increases' change to 'increase'

line 146- can you descrine the patterns of habitat loss in Cordobal province?

line 164- why were these seasons chosen for field sampling?

line 591- put a comma after 'besides'

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

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: Ahmed Hassanali

Reviewer #2: Yes: HENRI EDOUARD ZEFACK TONNANG

Reviewer #3: 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

Dear Biol. Cardozo,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Effect of habitat fragmentation on rural house invasion by sylvatic triatomines: a multiple landscape-scale approach' 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,

Paul O. Mireji, PhD

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Bruce Lee

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 #2: The methodology include study sites and data analysis techniques what is an improvement as it better corroborate with the new title of the manuscript. It will nice if the text could include justification why the selected methods were used for the analysis. The use of English tenses should be handling with caution.

Reviewer #3: Yes to all above questions.

**********

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 #2: The results section is very well elaborated, the only challenge is the use of English tenses. Rare way of starting a manuscript with the word “after”

Reviewer #3: Yes to all above questions

**********

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 #2: Yes the conclusion is well elaborated and align with the rest of the text. Proper analysis were conducted.

Reviewer #3: Yes to all above questions

**********

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 #2: The key issue in the overall manuscript is the use of English languages tenses.

Reviewer #3: In the Abstract

You could omit the term 'with binomial error distribution and logit link function' but you were evaluating the effect of independent variables in i-iv on the invasion or presence of sylvatic triatomines in houses, correct? please state what you were evaluating the 'effect of' (independent variables) on the dependent variable-state what the dependent variable It seems to be missing in this sentence so after iv, put 'on triatomine invasion into homes'

Please omit 'For the first time we present evidence suggesting' and replace with 'Study data suggest that invasion with ....'

put an apostrophe after triatomines' in the last sentence.

Introduction- some minor comments.

line 86- after 'Argentina' omit the comma

line 88- change 'rate' to 'rates'

line 90 omit the comma after 'triatomines'

line 107- replace 'refuges' with 'refuge'

118- omit the comma after 'insects'

line 132- change -'effect' to 'effects'

**********

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 #2: Overall the paper is reporting a relevant topic to the journal and the authors have conducted adequate analysis which in my view will bring additional insight to the readers.

Reviewer #3: I think most comments have been adequately addressed- there might be some minor grammatical errors that are still there that I didn't catch. I had very few additional comments of editorial detail nature.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #3: No