Dear Dr Fletcher,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Differing taxonomic responses of mosquito vectors to anthropogenic land-use change in Latin America and the Caribbean" 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.

All three reviewers felt that the general topic was interesting and the analytical approach generally appropriate. However reviewer two felt the central question posed by the introduction (do mosquitos differ in there response to land use?) relatively trivial. I would not say that I found the central premise too well studied to be inherently interesting. that said, I also I agree with reviewer two that the unintuitive results with respect to pace of deforestation and changes in abundance is intriguing and worth highlighting more. I did not pick up on this at all on a quick readthrough, and I imagine many readers will also miss it. I leave it to your discretion how to better emphasize this result. However, I do not think the paper needs to be completely reframed around this topic, nor would I recommend adding any additional analyses, since the other two reviewers found the paper overall quite strong. In addition to this issue, all three reviewers suggest a host of smaller revisions all of which should be addressed in your response letter.

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,

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dileepa Ediriweera

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

All three reviewers felt that the general topic was interesting and the analytical approach generally appropriate. However reviewer two felt the central question posed by the introduction (do mosquitos differ in there response to land use?) relatively trivial. I would not say that I found the central premise too well studied to be inherently interesting. that said, I also I agree with reviewer two that the unintuitive results with respect to pace of deforestation and changes in abundance is intriguing and worth highlighting more. I did not pick up on this at all on a quick readthrough, and I imagine many readers will also miss it. I leave it to your discretion how to better emphasize this result. However, I do not think the paper needs to be completely reframed around this topic, nor would I recommend adding any additional analyses, since the other two reviewers found the paper overall quite strong. In addition to this issue, all three reviewers suggest a host of smaller revisions all of which should be addressed in your response letter.

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 well defined from the start. Although the authors do not specifically focus on diseases, they are building a nice rationale about the role of mosquito vectors in transmitting zoonotic pathogens. Sample size is more than sufficient, and the hypothesis and predictions were well stated.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes to all questions. Suggestions are noted in the file attached.

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

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: As far as I can tell, the statistical analyses have been done prperly. The authors used Bayesian Multi-level models to infer the role of land-use on mosquito species richness and abundance. Baseline was clearly define and same appropriate for their study. All the analyses seem to have been interpreted correctly, and the results and their directionality are well presented.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes to all questions. Suggestions are noted in the file attached.

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

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 of this study are appropriate, and limitations have been well defined. The authors put their study into perspective with other related work, and finish their discussion by discussing the impact of their study in the global disease landscape.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes to all questions. Suggestions are noted in the file attached.

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

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: Minor comments:

Line 57: Global warming?

Line 71: I am not sure this statement is true; I can think of a few studies that were published in the past few years specifically focused on large-scale mosquito patterns (see Steiger et al. 2016, Rakotoarinia et al. 2022), and even more so on the amazon basin (MacDonald and Mordecal 2019).

Line 78: I would argue that it negatively impacts native biodiversity, not biodiversity as a whole.

Line 150: The authors mention that mosquito abundance was corrected for sampling effort when it was reported. What happened with the data for the studies that did not gave sampling effort, were they excluded? If not, how were they integrated? Perhaps using a negative binomial distribution with a zero-inflated correction would be better.

Figure 3: I do not believe an abundance in the negative is possible, please change scale

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes to all questions. Suggestions are noted in the file attached. Minor revisions.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Suggestions are noted in the file attached.

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

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: Antoine Filion

Reviewer #2: No

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

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: Review_AF.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_AP.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PNTD-D-22-01333_DIO comments.pdf

Dear Dr Fletcher,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Differing taxonomic responses of mosquito vectors to anthropogenic land-use change in Latin America and the Caribbean" 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.

The reviewers all found the manuscript to be greatly improved. However, reviewers two and three founds some additional minor issues that should be addressed before the manuscript is is finalized. Reviewer two felt that a minor detail of the methods could use additional clarification, and reviewer three found some additional typos which are detailed in a commented draft of your manuscript. Once you address these small remaining issues, this should be ready to go. I do not anticipate needing to send this out for a third round of review.

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,

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dileepa Ediriweera

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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

The reviewers all found the manuscript to be greatly improved. However, reviewers two and three founds some additional minor issues that should be addressed before the manuscript is is finalized. Reviewer two felt that a minor detail of the methods could use additional clarification, and reviewer three found some additional typos which are detailed in a commented draft of your manuscript. Once you address these small remaining issues, this should be ready to go. I do not anticipate needing to send this out for a third round of review.

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 authors have adequately answered all my comments

Reviewer #2: L178-180 ‘The best-fitting random effects structure was selected by formulating iterative models of each response (i.e. abundance and richness) with the addition of each random effect (Table S7-8)’ & L183-184 ‘Random effects were retained in the final model structure if the model was improved.’

Why are random effects tested? As they are there to take into account the non-independence of the data, they should not be removed from the model. Are the results the same when all random effects are included (even those that do not improve the fit of the models)?

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

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

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? YES

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

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

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 authors have adequately answered all my comments

Reviewer #2: Yes to all questions

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? YES

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

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 authors have adequately answered all my comments

Reviewer #2: Yes to all questions

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

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? YES

-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

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

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: The authors have adequately answered all my comments

Reviewer #2: No suggestion

Reviewer #3: THERE ARE FEW GRAMMATICAL ERRORS THAT NEED ATTENTION.

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

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 have adequately answered all my comments

Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job revising the manuscript and responding to all comments. I have no additional comments to make other than my comment in the 'Methods' section.

Reviewer #3: WELL DONE ARTICLE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED WITH MINOR REVISIONS.

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

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

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

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-22-01333_reviewer DIO.pdf

Dear Dr Fletcher,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Differing taxonomic responses of mosquito vectors to anthropogenic land-use change in Latin America and the Caribbean' 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,

Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D.

Guest Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Dileepa Ediriweera

Section Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

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