Winter habitats of bats in Texas

Melissa B. Meierhofer; Joseph S. Johnson; Samantha J. Leivers; Brian L. Pierce; Jonah E. Evans; Michael L. Morrison

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220839

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 10, 2019
11 Jul 2019 Decision Letter - Camille Lebarbenchon, Editor PONE-D-19-16454 Winter habitats of bats in Texas PLOS ONE Dear Ms. Meierhofer, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 25 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable 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. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Camille Lebarbenchon Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. 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? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Winter habitats of bats in Texas” describes hibernaculum microclimate of locations selected by bat species in the southern United States. More specifically, the authors were interested in determining the suitability of winter bat habitats in regards to white-nose syndrome. The authors determined that most of the hibernacula remained in the optimal range of fungal growth, and that skin temperatures and microclimates selected varied among species and differed from other populations within different regions. This work is especially important as the fungus that causes white-nose syndrome continues to spread into areas where we are lacking information about hibernation physiology of novel species and the microclimate conditions they chose. Data such as these will be useful in predicting the impacts of the disease as it impacts novel species. There are a few issues that I think will improve the quality of the manuscript outlined here: • Just a personal preference, but there are a lot of abbreviations with “T” (Tr, Ts etc). Either note the abbreviation with more detail (Tskin) or spell the temperature out. • There were inconsistences in using abbreviations versus text throughout the manuscript. Either stick with abbreviations or text. • It may make sense to change absolute water vapor pressure to water vapor deficit (saturation pressure – absolute pressure), which would allow the authors to compare conditions across temperature. • Lines 77- 78: The sentence is incomplete • Lines 114-125: These are really predictions, not hypotheses • Line 158: change “enumerated” to “counted” • Lines 160-165: Where within the hibernacula were the loggers placed? The distance within the hibernacula would change the temperature. Additionally, how close were the measurements from PRISM to the hibernacula? And were bats located near where the dataloggers were placed? • Line 385: EWL has not been defined yet • Figure 2: explain what r180 represents in the Figure caption. • Figure 3: perhaps order by group to make visual comparisons easier • Figure 3C: switch to water vapor deficit to make comparisons easier Reviewer #2: This study describes the temperature of bats and their roosts during hibernation in Texas. They analyze variation between bat species, ecoregions, and roost type. The results are discussed in relation to the potential infection with the fungus P. destructans, which has not affected bats in Texas yet. Based on their temperature data, the authors make conclusions about which bat species will develop or not WNS. I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The introduction is well written and the statistical tests particularly well described. Therefore, I only have few comments, detailed below: 1) Introduction, lines 114-118: why these 3 bat species would select higher temperatures? Please explain your hypothesis. 2) Figure 1: It might be good to have a more detailed map showing the temperatures across Texas (annual mean, or for winter only). I also suggest adding information on bat species sampled in each site to give a better idea of their range. I understand that some regions were not sampled (e.g. High Plains, Southern Texas Plains): maybe not necessary to show this information in the map. 3) In the methods, the authors explain that they counted bats during their visits. Did they test if the number of bats in the hibernacula affects (increases) the roost temperature? 4) What was the target surface measured with the digital thermometer? Did the authors observe variation of temperature across the body of torpid bats? Did they point the all bat body, or only a part (back, head, ears)? I suggest to add these details for Tskin measurements. Minor edits: 5) Line 77 : « leading to dehydration and » ? Please rephrase. 6) Line 190 : “for each species avoid pseudoreplication”. Please rephrase. 7) Line 191 : Please correct : “used Pearson’s product-moment correlations”. 8) Line 312 : Please rephrase “…temperatures, however, and the four hibernacula…”. 9) Line 315: Please correct “Temperatures within each (?) varied…”. 10) Line 345 : Please correct “the average temperature”. 11) Line 349 : Please correct “suggests”. ****** 6. 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 [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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220839.r001
Revision 1
23 Jul 2019 Author Response Reviewer #1: The manuscript “Winter habitats of bats in Texas” describes hibernaculum microclimate of locations selected by bat species in the southern United States. More specifically, the authors were interested in determining the suitability of winter bat habitats in regards to white-nose syndrome. The authors determined that most of the hibernacula remained in the optimal range of fungal growth, and that skin temperatures and microclimates selected varied among species and differed from other populations within different regions. This work is especially important as the fungus that causes white-nose syndrome continues to spread into areas where we are lacking information about hibernation physiology of novel species and the microclimate conditions they chose. Data such as these will be useful in predicting the impacts of the disease as it impacts novel species. There are a few issues that I think will improve the quality of the manuscript outlined here: • Just a personal preference, but there are a lot of abbreviations with “T” (Tr, Ts etc). Either note the abbreviation with more detail (Tskin) or spell the temperature out. • There were inconsistences in using abbreviations versus text throughout the manuscript. Either stick with abbreviations or text. In response to both of the above comments, we have removed abbreviations in order to improve the clarity of the manuscript. • It may make sense to change absolute water vapor pressure to water vapor deficit (saturation pressure – absolute pressure), which would allow the authors to compare conditions across temperature. On your suggestion, we have calculated and reanalyzed our data using vapor pressure deficit. We have made the appropriate changes in text and in Figure 3C. • Lines 77- 78: The sentence is incomplete We have completed this sentence to “P. destructans infects dermal tissue of hibernating bats, leading to dehydration and death” • Lines 114-125: These are really predictions, not hypotheses We have clarified in the text where predictions or hypotheses were stated. • Line 158: change “enumerated” to “counted” This has been changed as suggested. • Lines 160-165: Where within the hibernacula were the loggers placed? The distance within the hibernacula would change the temperature. Additionally, how close were the measurements from PRISM to the hibernacula? And were bats located near where the dataloggers were placed? Dataloggers were placed within the first third of the hibernacula as- in regions where mean ambient surface temperature (MAST) is greater than 10° C, such as in Texas, bats may roost closer to the entrance where colder external air mixes with warmer air during winter (Perry, 2013). Indeed, there is some literature for the species reported in this manuscript detailing that bats tend to roost closer to the entrance of a hibernacula (big brown bat: Tuttle, 2000; tri-colored bat: Roth, 2014, Perry, 2013; southeastern myotis: Roth, 2014; Townsend’s big-eared bat: Tennessee Bat Working Group). Bats were regularly found roosting near dataloggers. While we recognize that internal temperature will vary somewhat based upon the location of the datalogger within a hibernacula, we believe that the presentation of this data provides enough evidence to suggest that our single-visit surveys captured conditions representative of the winter season for these caves and culverts. In regards to PRISM, measurements were taken at 4km grid cell resolution, and this has now been clarified in the text. Perry, R. W. (2013). A review of factors affecting cave climates for hibernating bats in temperate North America. Environmental Reviews, 21, 28-39. Roth, Z. U. (2014). A Phenological Study of Bat Communities in Southern Mississippi Caves. Master’s Thesis, 62. https://aquila.usm.edu/masters_theses/62 Tennessee Bat Working Group. http://www.tnbwg.org/TNBWG_COTO.html. Accessed 11 July 2019. Tuttle, M. D. (200). Where the Bats Are- Part III Cave, Cliffs and Rock Crevices. BAT magazine, 18(1), http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/bats-magazine/bat_article/942 • Line 385: EWL has not been defined yet We have changed this abbreviation to read “evaporative water loss” • Figure 2: explain what r180 represents in the Figure caption. We have clarified that ‘r represents the correlation coefficient between internal and external temperature with corresponding degrees of freedom’. • Figure 3: perhaps order by group to make visual comparisons easier We not quite clear on what you are suggesting but we feel that our current figure succinctly visualizes our data and allows for comparison across variables and species. • Figure 3C: switch to water vapor deficit to make comparisons easier We have changed this as suggested. Reviewer #2: This study describes the temperature of bats and their roosts during hibernation in Texas. They analyze variation between bat species, ecoregions, and roost type. The results are discussed in relation to the potential infection with the fungus P. destructans, which has not affected bats in Texas yet. Based on their temperature data, the authors make conclusions about which bat species will develop or not WNS. I enjoyed reading this manuscript. The introduction is well written and the statistical tests particularly well described. Therefore, I only have few comments, detailed below: 1) Introduction, lines 114-118: why these 3 bat species would select higher temperatures? Please explain your hypothesis. We have clarified that these predictions were based off the known range of the species and previous research on winter activity of the species, and have provided relevant references. 2) Figure 1: It might be good to have a more detailed map showing the temperatures across Texas (annual mean, or for winter only). I also suggest adding information on bat species sampled in each site to give a better idea of their range. I understand that some regions were not sampled (e.g. High Plains, Southern Texas Plains): maybe not necessary to show this information in the map. We have added a gradient to the figure to show the annual mean temperatures across Texas (30 year average) taken from PRISM. Although we did not sample in some ecoregions, we have chosen to show the information on the map to provide the reader with the complete information regarding the ecoregions of Texas, and allow clear comparison to the original paper from which the ecoregions were taken (Griffith et al., 2004, 2007). In regards to the bat species sampled in each site, we believe that Table 1 provides the reader with enough information regarding the range of each species without cluttering the figure. Griffith GE, Bryce JM, Omerick JA, Comstock AC, Rogers AC, Harrison B, et al. Ecoregions of Texas. (2 sided color poster with map, descriptive text, and photographs). 2004. [cited 29 Nov 2018]. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey. Scale 1:2,500,000. Griffith GE, Bryce S, Omernik J, Rodgers A. Ecoregions of Texas. 27 December 2007. [cited 29 Nov 2018]. Austin: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Available from: ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/pubs/TXeco_Jan08_v8_Cmprsd.pdf. 3) In the methods, the authors explain that they counted bats during their visits. Did they test if the number of bats in the hibernacula affects (increases) the roost temperature? We did not investigate if the number of bats within the hibernacula affected roost temperature. As the bats were in torpor, it is extremely unlikely that they are acting as a heat source within the hibernacula. This is validated by our strong correlation between skin temperature and substrate temperature (Line 265 of original draft). Furthermore, hibernacula were large so it is unlikely that any changes in number of bats would significantly influence roost temperature. 4) What was the target surface measured with the digital thermometer? Did the authors observe variation of temperature across the body of torpid bats? Did they point the all bat body, or only a part (back, head, ears)? I suggest to add these details for Tskin measurements. We have now clarified in the text that we measured temperature from the bats’ backs. Minor edits: 5) Line 77 : « leading to dehydration and » ? Please rephrase. We have completed this sentence to “P. destructans infects dermal tissue of hibernating bats, leading to dehydration and death” 6) Line 190 : “for each species avoid pseudoreplication”. Please rephrase. We have corrected this sentence to “…for each species to avoid pseudoreplication”. 7) Line 191 : Please correct : “used Pearson’s product-moment correlations”. Corrected as suggested. 8) Line 312 : Please rephrase “…temperatures, however, and the four hibernacula…”. We have rephrased the sentence to improve clarity 9) Line 315: Please correct “Temperatures within each (?) varied…”. We have corrected this sentence to “…temperatures within each hibernacula…”. 10) Line 345 : Please correct “the average temperature”. Corrected as suggested. 11) Line 349 : Please correct “suggests”. Corrected to ‘suggesting’. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220839.r002
25 Jul 2019 Decision Letter - Camille Lebarbenchon, Editor Winter habitats of bats in Texas PONE-D-19-16454R1 Dear Dr. Meierhofer, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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 onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Camille Lebarbenchon Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220839.r003
Formally Accepted
1 Aug 2019 Acceptance Letter - Camille Lebarbenchon, Editor PONE-D-19-16454R1 Winter habitats of bats in Texas Dear Dr. Meierhofer: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Camille Lebarbenchon Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220839.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .