Pushing the envelope: Micro-transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

A. Michelle Wargo Rub; Benjamin P. Sandford; JoAnne M. Butzerin; April S. Cameron

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0230100

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 19, 2019
2 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Madison Powell, Editor PONE-D-19-17402 Pushing the envelope: micro transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wargo Rub, 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. Two reviewers have provided minor edits/changes which would enhance the manuscript. Overall this study is well executed and well written and it should not take much effort to make the changes outlined in the reviews. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 16 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, Madison Powell, PhD 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study areas, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: 'NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC, Fish Ecology Division (AMWR, BPS, and JMB) received funding for this study from The Environmental Resources Branch, Planning and Engineering Division Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Robert Duncan Plaza 333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 under contract # W66QKZ60441152 The funding agency had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.' We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Ocean Associates, Inc. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests Additional Editor Comments (if provided): This manuscript is well written and focuses on a complex aspect of transmitter effects on fish. In this case Chinook salmon are studied and the results provide data of interest to fisheries and conservation biologists studying this species. The data are also applicable to other salmonids to a degree. Two reviewers have provided only minor corrections which would enhance the clarity and readability of the manuscript. [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: 1. On Figure 3 (survival curve for lab experiment) place an arrow on the date when the fish were transferred to seawater. Doesn’t have to be exactly that but I think it should be evident on the graph when the seawater transfer was made. 2. The major finding of the work is that acoustic tagging exacts a greater mortality penalty for free-swimming fish than occurs for fish held in laboratory conditions. It would be great to have a figure that clearly illustrates this. Table 2 shows survival for free-living fish based on location (distance from release site), Figure 3 shows the mortality curve (in days) for laboratory fish. Could the data from the two be combined to directly show mortality curves for both groups of fish? For free-swimming fish, could use travel time (days) to a given location for the x-axis. This would be an additional figure. 3. The author’s don’t demonstrate a clear cause for mortality in the free-swimming fish, nor do they find much evidence of serious deficiency in the laboratory fish. That’s fine, their work is a solid accomplishment. Their discussion of mechanism is found in a number of very brief paragraphs lines 529 – 572. This is appropriate, as the author’s found little evidence for direct tagging affects that would cause mortality but it is also a bit unsatisfying. I would suggest a larger, more cohesive paragraph that summarizes their results and concludes that they’ve found little evidence for a direct mechanism causing mortality. Reviewer #2: The authors provided a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of internal tagging on wild fish welfare as they migrate. This was followed up with laboratory comparisons. As with any study performed in the field it is difficult to sometimes get sufficient and exact numbers but the authors have accurately presented their findings and are quick to note where this findings were significant or not and to make note of general trends of the information which is important in this kind of study. ****** 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.0230100.r001
Revision 1
29 Oct 2019 Author Response October 25, 2019 Dear Dr. Powell, Thank you for considering our manuscript “Pushing the envelope: micro transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)” for publication in PLOS ONE. We have revised our original manuscript in response to the points raised by yourself and two outside reviewers. Our response to each reviewer’s comments/requests is included below. We hope you will find that our revised manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s standards for publication. Sincerely, A. Michelle Wargo Rub Editors Comments/Requests: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: We have made every attempt to ensure that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the study areas, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available. Response: We have expanded our description of the study area and have included geographic coordinates for the locations where fish collection/tagging and recapture occurred. Revised text (p. 4; lines 72-76): Field studies were conducted at multiple locations spanning several hundred km within the Columbia River Basin in the U.S., Pacific Northwest (Fig 1). Fish were collected, tagged, and released at Lower Granite Dam on the Snake River (rkm 695; 46.6604°N, 117.4280°W) and monitored as they migrated downstream to Bonneville Dam (rkm 235; 45.6443°N, 121.9406°W). We also included gps coordinates in the caption for Figure 1 for the dams where fish were recaptured along their migration. Revised text (p. 5; lines 84-89): Fig 1. Columbia River hydropower system, Pacific Northwest United States. Fish were collected, tagged, and released at Lower Granite Dam (46.6604°N, 117.4280°W). Diamonds indicate downstream detection sites for acoustic transmitters and circles for PIT tags. Separation by Code systems were used to recapture Chinook salmon smolts at McNary Dam (45.9362°N, 119.2972°W), John Day (45.7148°N, 120.6937°W), and Bonneville Dam (45.6443°N, 121.9406°W). 3. Revised Financial Disclosure statement. NOAA Fisheries, NWFSC, Fish Ecology Division (AMWR, BPS, and JMB) received funding for this study from Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under contract W66QKZ60441152. This agency provided support in the form of salaries for AMR & BPS but did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding in the form of salary for ASC was provided by NOAA Fisheries through contract with Ocean Associates, Inc. Ocean Associates, Inc. had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific role of each author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. Neither the affiliation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nor with Ocean Associates, Inc. altered the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and material. Reviewer’s Comments/Requests: Reviewer #1: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. We appreciate your time and input and have attempted to address all three of your requests. We believe the manuscript is improved as a result. 1. On Figure 3 (survival curve for lab experiment) place an arrow on the date when the fish were transferred to seawater. Doesn’t have to be exactly that but I think it should be evident on the graph when the seawater transfer was made. Response: Great suggestion- we have added a dashed line on each plot in Figure 3 to indicate seawater transfer. 2. The major finding of the work is that acoustic tagging exacts a greater mortality penalty for free-swimming fish than occurs for fish held in laboratory conditions. It would be great to have a figure that clearly illustrates this. Table 2 shows survival for free-living fish based on location (distance from release site), Figure 3 shows the mortality curve (in days) for laboratory fish. Could the data from the two be combined to directly show mortality curves for both groups of fish? For free-swimming fish, could use travel time (days) to a given location for the x-axis. This would be an additional figure. Response: We think this is also a great suggestion and have added Figure 4 in response. Figure 4 combines laboratory survival curves through day 20 for AT and PIT fish (yearlings 2007 and 2008 and subyearlings 2007) and point estimates of survival for AT and PIT fish migrating in the river by median travel time to each downstream detection location. 3. The author’s don’t demonstrate a clear cause for mortality in the free-swimming fish, nor do they find much evidence of serious deficiency in the laboratory fish. That’s fine, their work is a solid accomplishment. Their discussion of mechanism is found in a number of very brief paragraphs lines 529 – 572. This is appropriate, as the author’s found little evidence for direct tagging affects that would cause mortality but it is also a bit unsatisfying. I would suggest a larger, more cohesive paragraph that summarizes their results and concludes that they’ve found little evidence for a direct mechanism causing mortality. Response: We now state in the discussion that we were not able to identify a single direct cause for the tag effects observed (p. 27; lines 533-535). We also reorganized the discussion to better highlight the key pathologies we identified in the acoustic-tagged fish that serve to provide insight into how tagging protocols might be crafted in the future to minimize/alleviate tag effects. We believe these changes have improved the discussion and hope these efforts have addressed the reviewer’s concerns. Revised text (p. 27; lines 532-534): While we were not able to identify a single direct cause for the effects observed, we did identify key underlying factors that differentiated tag treatment groups through gross necropsy and histological examination. Reviewer #2: The authors provided a detailed and comprehensive evaluation of the effect of internal tagging on wild fish welfare as they migrate. This was followed up with laboratory comparisons. As with any study performed in the field it is difficult to sometimes get sufficient and exact numbers but the authors have accurately presented their findings and are quick to note where this findings were significant or not and to make note of general trends of the information which is important in this kind of study. Thank you sincerely for your time and support. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230100.r002
24 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Madison Powell, Editor Pushing the envelope: micro transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) PONE-D-19-17402R1 Dear Dr. Wargo Rub, 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, Madison Powell, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript provides worthwhile information and all previous comments from reviewers have been addressed. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 4. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 5. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 6. 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 #2: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230100.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Mar 2020 Acceptance Letter - Madison Powell, Editor PONE-D-19-17402R1 Pushing the envelope: micro‑transmitter effects on small juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Dear Dr. Wargo Rub: 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. Madison Powell Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230100.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 .