PONE-D-20-16316

A Comparison of Two ROV Survey Methods Used to Estimate Fish Assemblages and Densities Around a California Oil Platform

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Love,

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.

You have received 2 reviews, which have raised some problems with this paper, but are generally positive.  I am therefore inviting a major revision, in which all then points raised by the reviewers must be addressed in the revised paper, or in a letter of rebuttal.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 13 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,

Maura (Gee) Geraldine Chapman, PhD DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Academic Editor

You have received 2 reviews, which have raised some problems with this paper, but are generally positive. I am therefore inviting a major revision, in which all then points raised by the reviewers must be addressed in the revised paper, or in a letter of rebuttal.

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. Thank you for providing the following Funding Statement: 

'Funded by an ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company contract to the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), contract number EM11487 to M.L. and M.N.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors.

a. 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 in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please make any necessary amendments directly within this section of the online submission form.  Please also update your Funding Statement to include the following 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 the funding organization did have an additional role, please state and explain that role within your Funding Statement.

b. 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 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

4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

5. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[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: No

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: 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: Review of PONE-D-20-16316 A comparison of two ROV survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California Oil Platform

General:

The paper provides a succinct assessment of how dedicated biological surveys of fish communities on a platform jacket compare to data that could be derived from typical industry surveys. The results are valuable as they demonstrate the utility of industry surveys and how slight adjustments to protocol can yield important biological data. It is also rare for such surveys to be conducted, with an effective doubling of sampling effort required by industry to undertake this research. I note the paper is focussed on fish, but examination of epibiota may also yield interesting results.

The paper is generally well written and clear with just a few grammatical errors (see below). I have made some specific suggestions below to improve the manuscript. In particular, further explanation of the differences in methodologies is required and the resulting implications for the study.

Specific:

The addition of a Figure that shows the reader what the jacket structure looks like (surface-seabed with crossbeams) would be a good addition and could be incorporated into Figure 2.

Table 1: Include crossbeam length into the text within the table to make this clear.

Line 88 – Add a sentence explaining why these depths were chosen. Is this the only depths that crossbeams were evident? There is a big gap between 61 and 182 and 182 and the seabed.

Methods in general: I would like to see more information on the differences between the methods. Did the structural survey use lights? How did the speed compare between both surveys? Also, would a structural survey undertake transects in the same manner as that used by the biological survey, i.e. of these same components or did they only survey these same crossbeams for comparison to the biological surveys? This is important because structural surveys may not survey the entire jacket but just sections of interest to industry.

Line 104 - A 2 m distance for a biological survey (focussed on fish) seems very close. McLean et al. (2019) used 5 m to provide an optimal view of the fish assemblage around the jacket. Do you feel that you missed larger species?

Line 138: I would stick with the raw numbers here rather than inflating by x100. Just adjust the scales on Figures so that the pattern is evident and present as per m2. This would mean altering Figures 4, 5 to present the correct values per m2. I really cant see this inflation as being necessary.

Line 145 – missing a word “..we created a two-dimensional..”

Line 147: spelling. Abundance should be abundant.

Table 2: Add “structural” to the industry column for consistency with text. Same for Table 3 and Table 4. I also note that the figures present structural first then biological. You could keep the tables in the same order.

Results – add that three species were uniquely observed by the biological survey and two by the structural survey, albeit each in very low numbers.

Line 180 – should this be 26.9 not 27.1? (to match Table 2).

Line 183: So here you are stating that whichever survey method occurred first was more likely to view these aggregations of young rockfishes. Likely because they were scared away or avoided the ROV subsequently. The following sentence needs further justification then, i.e. for each of the three sides of the jacket or days did you start with a different survey method? (randomised order).

Figure 4 legend: Make it clear in the legend that densities have been inflated (x100)

Line 202 – make sure numbers match the table. They are slightly off.

Line 204 – do you mean that the highest density estimate was obtained on the north side using the biological method? This is unclear here? If referring to Point D, what is the actual species that is driving this? Is it Sebastes melanostomus?

Line 205 – change industrial to “structural”

Table 4 legend is missing a close bracket.

Line 284: missing word. “It showed that..”

Line 293: Great! Bring on HOV surveys into the future.

Line 295: California’s platform jackets – plurals needed.

Line 310: remove invertebrates from the sentence.

Line 312: This sentence does not make sense or is missing a few words.

Reviewer #2: Love and colleagues compared fish assemblage and density data derived from two types of ROV surveys along an ExxonMobil Platform off the coast of southern California. The goal was to determine if video observations from routine approaches used in the industry could be utilized by scientists to monitor fish populations, as is being done by others elsewhere (e.g., Gulf SERPENT project). The first approach was one used by the industry to examine structural integrity (structure) and involved variable camera angles along cross-beams. The second, used more by scientists (biological), involved a 90 degree scan and incorporated the seabed on the bottom cross-beam. Overall, the authors identified community similarities between the two techniques, suggesting a potential benefit of the industry-based methods, although there were significant differences when considering communities at the base of the platform.

The main weakness of the manuscript is that it is based on so few comparative surveys (n=12) between the two approaches, which are preformed at a single platform, spread across different depths of the water column and different "faces" of the platform jacket. It is understood that these surveys are quite costly to implement, but the lack of statistical rigor should be further emphasized. Further, there is a tremendous amount of detail lacking that could affect the interpret-ability of the results. As the authors themselves admit, fish can become deterred by ROV presence. So, a major question becomes: how were these surveys performed (in terms of timing) and could one have impacted the results of the other (e.g., was biological always before industry)? Was randomization possible? All we are provided with are the dates over which the surveys were completed, and that they were done by the same ROV type. It was also clear that the authors were not well-versed in their community analyses as there are terms used incorrectly, and again were lacking details on how they set up their statistical analysis. I have identified these shortcomings in the attached PDF.

Stylistically, the manuscript is well-written and the figures strongly convey the results in a readable manner. However, there were several typos throughout, which have also been highlighted in my review.

In all, I believe Love et al. have some intriguing preliminary evidence that industry-type ROV surveys could provide meaningful data to be used by scientists for monitoring fish densities and assemblages at oil platforms. I am not sure that the findings are particularly "earth-shattering" given the limited number of surveys in a constrained time-period, and feel this manuscript would probably be better suited as a rapid communication.

Specific Comments (by line numbers):

ABSTRACT

Line 13: Abstract - this is way too long. It shouldn't exceed 300 words

INTRODUCTION

Line 67: Consider adding reference:

Ajemian, M. J., Wetz, J. J., Shipley-Lozano, B., & Stunz, G. W. (2015). Rapid assessment of fish communities on submerged oil and gas platform reefs using remotely operated vehicles. Fisheries Research, 167, 143-155.

Line 79: Strange return

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Line 87: Which survey was first?

Line 112: List camera type and specs

Line 131: Need more details on the chronology of the surveys

Line 131: More details on whether all footage was analyzed or if there was a sub-sampling regime

Line 141: Wouldn't this be just a mixed-model ANOVA?

Line 144-147: Need to state data type used in analysis (density, presence/absence)

Line 147: Replace 'abundance' with "abundant"

Line 150: Change 'Dissimilarity' to "similarity:

Line 151: What type of matrix was used?

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Lines 166-168: The NMDS is simply an ordination; it does not give you a significance level. Is this from the ANOSIM?

Line 169: Change 'MNDS' to "NMDS"

Lines 183-186: This is exactly why the chronology of the surveys needs explanation in the methods.

Line 197: For 'primarily,' did you mean "presumably" - it does not make sense otherwise

Line 210 (table 3): I think it's important to discuss the species that showed up in the structure survey that didn't in the biological survey

Lines 218-220: Not sure this format of questioning is customary

Line 240: Recommend making this table a figure

Line 264: Move reference to the end of the sentence

Line 277: Remove commas after 'they' and 'too'

Line 278: Change 'biased' to "bias"

Line 284: 'It that' - there is a missing or wrong word here

Line 310: This is the first time invertebrates are mentioned - I don't think it is appropriate to say this.

**********

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.]

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.

PONE-D-20-16316R1

A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Love,

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.

Academic Editor

This paper will be acceptable for publication when you have addressed the two minor points raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 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,

Maura (Gee) Geraldine Chapman, PhD DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Academic Editor

This paper will be acceptable for publication when you have addressed the two minor points raised by the reviewer.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: Thank you for making the various revisions to the manuscript. It seems that the majority of the recommended changes have been incorporated and the manuscript is vastly improved.

A few final (minor) comments:

ABSTRACT: Thanks for reducing this, although there is a return in there (not sure if that was accidental) so it seems like two paragraphs still.

Line 178: Remove comma after 'particularly'

**********

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

[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.

A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform

PONE-D-20-16316R2

Dear Dr. Love,

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,

Maura (Gee) Geraldine Chapman, PhD DSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: