Trans-marine dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan

Min-Hao Hsu; Jhan-Wei Lin; Chen-Pan Liao; Jung-Ya Hsu; Wen-San Huang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247009

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 16, 2020
20 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-20-33708 Over-ocean dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Huang, 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 Feb 21 2021 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang 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 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 Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3.We note that Figure(s) 4 and S1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) 4 and S1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 ms on dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan, is an interesting work worth publishing in PLOS ONE after revision of the points mentioned below. Line 1: consider “trans-marine” instead of “over-ocean” Line 50: “many introduced” change to “many species now recorded as introduced” or something similar Line 52: delete “artificial” Line 92: raft or artificial boats > rafts or boats Line 92: Consider changing “In” with “Regarding” or similar Line 106-107: I suggest rephrasing to “Taiwan and the adjacent islands are separated from the Asian continent by a sea strait with a depth of approximately 70 metres”. Additionally, “metres” is UK English style. If the journal requires US English you should change to “meters”. Lines 135-143: Table 1. Please add a symbol (e.g. an asterisk) next to the name of the introduced species to facilitate readers not familiar with the local fauna. Adjust the legend accordingly. Line 158: failed to lay eggs Line 164: any individual observed having (oral?) secretions Line 172: times Line 179: in > on Line 180: that individual directly contact with seawater. Please rephrase Line 185-186: “The water surface slightly exceeded the abdomen of the lizard but did not exceed the mouth”. How did you manage this? Did you have small rafts, or by controlling the water level in the tank to have it shallow enough for the animal’s feet to touch the bottom? Please clarify. Line 192: Are there published data on the selected temperatures Tset (Hertz et al 1993)? It would be interesting as if e.g. species A has a preferred T=36oC it would maybe react differently than species B with a preferred temperature of 31oC Line 196: Either 6 or 7. Line 199: delete “in this study” Lines 199-200: the incubation > their respective incubation Line 208: delete “quite” Lines 233-235: Notably…treatment. The phrase as is, is difficult to understand. Please rephrase Lines 269-271: Not sure this is a correct approach. Most individuals of at least 2 species did survive. Why not include at least them in the comparisons? Moreover, even the weights of the dead specimen could be reported (maybe separately). Both info mentioned above would help understand if it was desiccation that caused deaths (i.e. severe weight loss) or another reason (e.g. possible intake of water orally causing salt water poisoning or other). You could at least add one or two lines commenting an this. Line 336: …incubation rate. Do you mean hatching success? Line 339: …hatchling success. Do you mean hatching success? Line 346: arrive > arrived at Line 348: … then connect this. Consider changing to “and possible connections of their physiological traits to their dispersal abilities” or something similar Line 354: …if it could drift to Green Island and Orchid Island. I think this has no meaning, at least I do not understand it. Better omit or otherwise explain. Lines 365-366: …that they – native. The phrase as is, is difficult to understand. Please rephrase Line 341: Discussion. The entire discussion could be split in two sub paragraphs. The first till line 400 where you discuss the actual experiment’s results and the rest i.e. from line 401 onward where you discuss biogeographic scenarios. Line 379: …than in the other species. Which other? the ones in the study? If yes, please specify Line 418: drifting > oceanic drifts (actually, both “drifting” and “rafting” show energetic activity, whereas both are passive/involuntary. You could as well change “rafting” to “natural rafts”) Line 423: distributes widely > have a wide distribution Line 423: ocean > oceanic Line 428: shortens the drifting > shorten the dispersal (or similar) Line 449: is accordance > is in accordance Line 451: disperses > disperse Lines 451 - 453: Yes, but this does not exclude possible translocation by humans Line 459: consider changing could to should Line 463: delete “been” Line 466: insert “the” before Kuroshio References Hertz P.E., Huey R.B., Stevenson R.D., 1993. Evaluating Temperature Regulation by Field-Active Ectotherms: The Fallacy of the Inappropriate Question. The American Naturalist, 142(5): 796-818) ****** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247009.r001
Revision 1
28 Jan 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers Response: We responded the additional requirements of the editor, the questions and the suggestions of the reviewer under each item. Journal 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 Response: We checked the manuscripts and files to meet PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. Response: We had added descriptions about the permits for collection, husbandry and treatment procedures (Line 175-178) and uploaded PLOS ONE human endpoints checklist in previous resubmission. The full name of the authority that approved the field site access was checked again in this version. 3. We note that Figure(s) 4 and S1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. Response: In both Figure 4 and Supplementary S1 Fig, the coastlines were based on the open data from Natural Earth and Taiwan’s Ministry of the Interior, which were licensed under the Public Domain and the Open Government Data License (version 1.0; https://data.gov.tw/en/license), respectively. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Response: We added the caption of Supporting Information files at the end of the manuscript as the requirement. 5. Review Comments to the Author Response: We responded the questions and the suggestions of the reviewer under each item. We also added the annotation that included the suggestions of the reviewer and our responses. Reviewer #1: The ms on dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan, is an interesting work worth publishing in PLOS ONE after revision of the points mentioned below. Line 1: consider “trans-marine” instead of “over-ocean” Response: Revised as suggested. Line 50: “many introduced” change to “many species now recorded as introduced” or something similar Response: Revised as suggested. Line 52: delete “artificial” Response: Revised as suggested. Line 92: raft or artificial boats > rafts or boats Response: Revised as suggested. Line 92: Consider changing “In” with “Regarding” or similar Response: Revised as suggested. Line 106-107: I suggest rephrasing to “Taiwan and the adjacent islands are separated from the Asian continent by a sea strait with a depth of approximately 70 metres”. Additionally, “metres” is UK English style. If the journal requires US English you should change to “meters”. Response: We rephrased the sentence and changed the words of the UK English to US English as suggested. Lines 135-143: Table 1. Please add a symbol (e.g. an asterisk) next to the name of the introduced species to facilitate readers not familiar with the local fauna. Adjust the legend accordingly. Response: We added the asterisks before the name of the introduced species in Table 1, and added the description at the end of the legend. Line 158: failed to lay eggs Response: Revised as suggested. Line 164: any individual observed having (oral?) secretions Response: Revised as suggested. Line 172: times Response: Revised as suggested. Line 179: in > on Response: Revised as suggested. Line 180: that individual directly contact with seawater. Please rephrase Response: We rephrased the sentence as suggested. Line 185-186: “The water surface slightly exceeded the abdomen of the lizard but did not exceed the mouth”. How did you manage this? Did you have small rafts, or by controlling the water level in the tank to have it shallow enough for the animal’s feet to touch the bottom? Please clarify. Response: We added the description as suggested. Line 192: Are there published data on the selected temperatures Tset (Hertz et al 1993)? It would be interesting as if e.g. species A has a preferred T=36oC it would maybe react differently than species B with a preferred temperature of 31oC Response: We choose this temperature because we found those species active well from 25-29 C in the wild. That’s why we use this specific temperature. We indeed do not have any data which species prefer in which temperature. Line 196: Either 6 or 7. Response: Revised as suggested. Line 199: delete “in this study” Response: Revised as suggested. Lines 199-200: the incubation > their respective incubation Response: Revised as suggested. Line 208: delete “quite” Response: Revised as suggested. Lines 233-235: Notably…treatment. The phrase as is, is difficult to understand. Please rephrase Response: We revised to make it easier to understand. Lines 269-271: Not sure this is a correct approach. Most individuals of at least 2 species did survive. Why not include at least them in the comparisons? Moreover, even the weights of the dead specimen could be reported (maybe separately). Both info mentioned above would help understand if it was desiccation that caused deaths (i.e. severe weight loss) or another reason (e.g. possible intake of water orally causing salt water poisoning or other). You could at least add one or two lines commenting an this. Response: Our experimental design was a factorial design, which lizard species, sex and salinity were three crossing factors. Because our results showed that the survival rates of four lizrad species were less than 30 %, to estimate those RTWLs were difficult, and it is impossible to include all SW results in the model duo to some completely empty cells. This is the reason we completely excluded the data of SW treatment in the model. However, we appended the RTWLs of the two survived species (E. longicaudata and E. multifasciata) in the same paragraph. Line 336: …incubation rate. Do you mean hatching success? Response: Revised as suggested. Line 339: …hatchling success. Do you mean hatching success? Response: Revised as suggested. Line 346: arrive > arrived at Response: Revised as suggested. Line 348: … then connect this. Consider changing to “and possible connections of their physiological traits to their dispersal abilities” or something similar Response: Revised as suggested. Line 354: …if it could drift to Green Island and Orchid Island. I think this has no meaning, at least I do not understand it. Better omit or otherwise explain. Response: We deleted the description to avoid the possibility of misunderstanding. Lines 365-366: …that they – native. The phrase as is, is difficult to understand. Please rephrase Response: Revised as suggested. Line 341: Discussion. The entire discussion could be split in two sub paragraphs. The first till line 400 where you discuss the actual experiment’s results and the rest i.e. from line 401 onward where you discuss biogeographic scenarios. Response: We splitted discussion into two subsection by inserting two subsection header lines. Line 379: …than in the other species. Which other? the ones in the study? If yes, please specify Response: We added the description in the sentence. Line 418: drifting > oceanic drifts (actually, both “drifting” and “rafting” show energetic activity, whereas both are passive/involuntary. You could as well change “rafting” to “natural rafts”) Response: Revised as suggested. Line 423: distributes widely > have a wide distribution Response: Revised as suggested. Line 423: ocean > oceanic Response: Revised as suggested. Line 428: shortens the drifting > shorten the dispersal (or similar) Response: Revised as suggested. Line 449: is accordance > is in accordance Response: Revised as suggested. Line 451: disperses > disperse Response: Revised as suggested. Lines 451 - 453: Yes, but this does not exclude possible translocation by humans Response: We added the description after the sentence as suggested. Line 459: consider changing could to should Response: Revised as suggested. Line 463: delete “been” Response: Revised as suggested. Line 466: insert “the” before Kuroshio Response: Revised as suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (4).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247009.r002
1 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor Trans-marine dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan PONE-D-20-33708R1 Dear Dr. Huang, 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, Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247009.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Feb 2021 Acceptance Letter - Tzen-Yuh Chiang, Editor PONE-D-20-33708R1 Trans-marine dispersal inferred from the saltwater tolerance of lizards from Taiwan Dear Dr. Huang: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Tzen-Yuh Chiang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247009.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 .