PONE-D-20-26442

Hydrobiology of a Freshwater Tectonic Lake of the Indo-Burmese Province

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Panthi,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

SSS Sarma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors

Three reviewers have recommended your contribution with some corrections. I therefore encourage you to submit a revised version for re-reviewing.

Sincerely

SSS Sarma

Handling Editor

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

3. 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.

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 5 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: Line 74 Reference required for origin of the lake

Study area: details needed about depth (mean & max); inflows, outflows; climate of the area

Sample Collection (lines 79-87): provide information on the location and number of sampling sites in the lake;

samples taken from surface or at some depth; method of sampling (manual/sampler)

APHA describes several methods for each parameter: describe which of the methods were used

Data are provided in the mss for every month but this is not mentioned here that sampling was done at monthly intervals.

The WQI was calculated and interpreted in context of drinking water standards. How is that relevant to plankton and fishery development? How were the diversity indices calculated. some references are required.

Any water body could be converted for fisheries but the relationship between this study and the recommendation is not clear.

Will the fisheries protect the current fish diversity or promote a few species at the cost of most of them?

What prompted the authors to suggest this, and did they consider the production potential without additional inputs?

Fig 1 has no coordinates, no mark of sampling locations and directions; hence of no value.

Figure 2a, 2b have no Y axis with value and unit, and hence are wholly hypothetical and unacceptable.

Fig 3a to 3d, and 4a to 4d: Y axis is not identified, what are the values? What are the letter symbols?

In my view that tables 3-6 presenting association analysis are not required, or may be included in the supplementary material.

Table 7 on fish diversity can reduced to a simple list of species.

The language and style of presentation need much improvement.

I do not consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Introduction

Goals are somewhat confusing; they need modification. Though field works generally lack hypothesis, I wonder if authors can make one.

Material and Methods

Much of this section is fragmented and redundancy.

Details such as frequency procedures, sampling period, and number of replicates of each parameter are missing. Missing Literature for fish community identification.

Results / Discussion

Overall, results should be described in terms of trends. Incomplete and redundant descriptions. Without highlighting the essence. It is necessary to highlight the effect of the interactions precisely, or statistically. In the graphs, the mean and the standard error of how many replicates ? Graphics need description of their symbols, or footnote. Taxonomic groups must be in italics. Several misspellings in phytoplankton scientific genera names. Redundant descriptions for similar statements Pages 120-121, 175-177

Which is the monsoon period –months ?? What are the meteorologial conditions during this period.

With only slighly variation, how retreating Monsoon has positive influence on the parameters like Iron, Nitrate Phosphate and Conductivity ?? In biological terms what does that mean. Pages 166-168, 237-238

The growth of zooplankton species (Ostracoda, Copepoda and Cladocerona) is found to be positively characterized by the high concentration level of Transparency, BOD DO, pH, water (OC) Magnesium and COD. Are these are all indirect rather than direct interactions Clarify so.

Transparency of water is a measure of water quality as it indicates the depth to which light can penetrate water. Accumulation of dissolved solids can reduce the transparency of water.’’ Pages 296-298. Also ‘’ This may be attributed to heavy rains as well.. pages 301-303

Among the phytoplankton, Bacillariophyceae had the highest number of individuals in all seasons throughout the year with dominance in pre-monsoon, gradually declining towards retreating monsoon. It seems that these groups may represent the typical dynamics induced by silicates together with pH, nutrients (P, N) sources. Does this tectonic aquatic system exhibit a particular mineral physico-chemical environment ??

In order to see a more clear interaction between the plankton groups and the ichthyofaunal diversity, authors must define fish feeding grouping-structure in the lake.

Paraphrasing of the results here is needed. Unfounded arguments and speculation, in general.

Where, can be seen this statement ‘’ Margalef richness index displays moderate species richness as well’’ ?? Pages 390-391

How is that the diversity indices and the environmental conditions are associated with fisheries potential. Explain or delete it.

Unnecessary over citation and outdated literature. As far as possible cite only indexed articles. Popular articles, news paper statements must be avoided and they are rigorously evaluated by peer review processes

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is well written and I congratulate the authors for their future work also. I request the authors go through line no 134, and correct the value of filtered through plankton net.

1. Line 134 – how much liter of water filtered through net?

I recommend the paper for publication after the minor correction.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-26442_reviewer-2.pdf

Ecological Status of a Freshwater Tectonic Lake of the Indo-Burmese Province: implications for livelihood development

PONE-D-20-26442R1

Dear Dr. Panthi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

SSS Sarma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: