PONE-D-19-19263

Antibiotic use in mandarin production (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in major mandarin-producing areas in Thailand: a survey assessment

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tangcharoensathien,

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 Oct 20 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,

Richard Mankin, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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. Please include copies of the survey questions or questionnaires used in the study, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if they have been published previously.

3. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1, 2 and 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figures..

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please address the following comments from reviewers and editor:

Comments from reviewer 1

The manuscript by Chanvatik et al., described the current status of citrus HLB and the utilization of antibiotics to control this disease in two Thailand provinces using questionnaire method. The authors used the appropriate analysis methods. This is a very interesting work. Based on the analysis results, we can know that the citrus HLB and use of antibiotics to control this disease are very common in Thailand, which will lead the AMR concern. The authors pointed out the limitation of this study and discussed the potential sustainable solutions and recommendation for the disease control of citrus HLB in Thailand. I have several minor issues as following.

2. The data listed in table 1 is mean or median value? Please clarify.

3. Reference 1 and 6 were repeated.

4. I suggested the authors provide the raw data for each analysis as supplemental data.

Comments from reviewer 2

This manuscript reports on the use of a survey of mandarin farmers in Thailand to assess their practices in controlling citrus greening disease. What was found was that antibiotic use was highly prevalent, although no antibiotics were registered for use in disease control. Apparently, information from neighboring farmers was the main driver in influencing individual farmers to use antibiotics. The survey did uncover sources of antibiotics to the growers, including their ability to obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). One point that was not clear was that the authors listed doses of antibiotics used but I am not sure they are correctly listing these. For example, what is the concentration of ampicillin in API or in pills that are used by the farmers?

While the results are clearly disturbing, I am not sure if the results of a single survey warrant publication as a full manuscript. Also, it is not clear that the authors are that well versed in agricultural techniques etc. I did not see any statistical analysis of the results. Finally, I am not sure if all of the necessary requirements are present for conducting a survey and utilizing survey information in a publication.

Ln 50 – probably a brief description and some references for trunk injection are needed as some readers of the manuscript would likely not be familiar with this practice. Also, is ther anything known about the relationship between injected chemicals and residues in fruit?

Lns 96-97 – need more information on the peer review conducted on the survey questionnaire

Table 2 – some of these concentrations seem outrageously high (333,333 ppm?). Do the authors have information on how reliable these estimates are from individual growers? Also, are the antibiotics even soluble at these concentrations? This information should be included.

Ln 187 – again, references detailing these techniques should be included.

Ln 293 – why is there no recommendation about informing and educating farmers that these practices are illegal and can potentially pollute the environment and influence the occurrence of transferrable antibiotic resistance

Comments from editor.

One Health platform needs to be defined somewhere in the text along with a listing of benefits it can provide to orchard owners.

The audience appears to be policy makers who might read the paper and be led to take action to restrict usage of antimicrobials against HLB or establish greater dialog with stakeholders. Possibly it includes persons involved in extension, development of control methods, or wide-area management, but there is little discussion of past efforts in these areas. Is that because previous efforts have been limited? In that case, you might discuss efforts that have occurred in other countries.

At line 225, Reference 26 may actually be 25.

[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: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

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 by Chanvatik et al., described the current status of citrus HLB and the utilization of antibiotics to control this disease in two Thailand provinces using questionnaire method. The authors used the appropriate analysis methods. This is a very interesting work. Based on the analysis results, we can know that the citrus HLB and use of antibiotics to control this disease are very common in Thailand, which will lead the AMR concern. The authors pointed out the limitation of this study and discussed the potential sustainable solutions and recommendation for the disease control of citrus HLB in Thailand. I have several minor issues as following.

1. Please improve the grammar for the current manuscript.

2. The data listed in table 1 is mean or median value? Please clarify.

3. Reference 1 and 6 were repeated.

4. I suggested the authors provide the raw data for each analysis as supplemental data.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript reports on the use of a survey of mandarin farmers in Thailand to assess their practices in controlling citrus greening disease. What was found was that antibiotic use was highly prevalent, although no antibiotics were registered for use in disease control. Apparently, information from neighboring farmers was the main driver in influencing individual farmers to use antibiotics. The survey did uncover sources of antibiotics to the growers, including their ability to obtain active pharmaceutical ingredients (API). One point that was not clear was that the authors listed doses of antibiotics used but I am not sure they are correctly listing these. For example, what is the concentration of ampicillin in API or in pills that are used by the farmers?

While the results are clearly disturbing, I am not sure if the results of a single survey warrant publication as a full manuscript. Also, it is not clear that the authors are that well versed in agricultural techniques etc. I did not see any statistical analysis of the results. Finally, I am not sure if all of the necessary requirements are present for conducting a survey and utilizing survey information in a publication.

Ln 50 – probably a brief description and some references for trunk injection are needed as some readers of the manuscript would likely not be familiar with this practice. Also, is ther anything known about the relationship between injected chemicals and residues in fruit?

Lns 96-97 – need more information on the peer review conducted on the survey questionnaire

Table 2 – some of these concentrations seem outrageously high (333,333 ppm?). Do the authors have information on how reliable these estimates are from individual growers? Also, are the antibiotics even soluble at these concentrations? This information should be included.

Ln 187 – again, references detailing these techniques should be included.

Ln 293 – why is there no recommendation about informing and educating farmers that these practices are illegal and can potentially pollute the environment and influence the occurrence of transferrable antibiotic resistance?

**********

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.

Antibiotic use in mandarin production (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in major mandarin-producing areas in Thailand: a survey assessment

PONE-D-19-19263R1

Dear Dr. Tangcharoensathien,

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,

Richard Mankin, Ph. D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: