PONE-D-20-38508

Conservation Aquaculture as a Tool for Imperiled Marine Species: Evaluation of Opportunities and Risks for Olympia Oysters

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ridlon,

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.

I enjoyed reading this MS on restoration/conservation aquaculture. It provides an avenue for degraded fisheries and ecosystem to implement the methodology. Please, address the comments of the two reviewers. I am looking forward to reading your response and the revised MS.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 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,

Ismael Aaron Kimirei, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We note that Figure 4 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Hog Island Oyster Co.

4.1. 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.

4.2. 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.

5. We note that Figures 1, S1 and S2 in your submission contain map/satellite 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:

5.1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, S1 and S2 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].”

5.2.    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/

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study titled “Conservation Aquaculture as a Tool for Imperiled Marine Species: Evaluation of Opportunities and Risks for Olympia Oyster” characterized the benefits and risks of Olympia oyster aquaculture conservation by using four criteria: social, cultural, economic and conservation. Generally, the initial idea is relatively good for conservation. However, the write up of the manuscript is too long and lacks focus. The authors presented too much information without filtering for key issues to provide a clear message to readers. The whole manuscript is boring to read and difficult to follow. The methods have no scientific background to support the issues mentioned. Specific issues on the manuscript are given below and on the attached annotated PDF.

Abstract

1. Too much information is presented on background. Reducing the text on this part will make the abstract more focused.

2. The method section is not adequately given.

3. The results of the study are inadequately presented. More results should be presented.

4. The conclusion is not clear enough to readers.

Introduction

1. The introduction is generally long, repetitive and unfocused.

2. The scientific problem the study intends to solve is not shown clearly. The authors should reduce the long introduction in order to provide a clear scientific problem.

3. The objective is also not clear enough to readers.

Methods

The methods need to be improved.

1. It long and unfocused.

2. It includes unnecessary information for a publication.

3. It uses uncommon fonts and styles.

4. It is very difficult to follow and understand what the authors did.

Results

The results should be shorted by highlighting only the important results. Can the results and discussion be presented together?

Discussion

The discussion is too long. It should be shortened. Discuss briefly the important results and not everything.

Reviewer #2: GENERAL COMMENTS

The manuscripts presents findings from a study that aimed at assessing potential risks and rewards associated with a conservation aquaculture as an important tool to support recovery of declining species particularly Olympia oysters (Ostrea lurida). The study also came up with key recommendations for establishing conservation aquaculture. Generally the manuscript is fairly well written. However, there are few areas that needs specific attention before is recommended for publication in the journal as follows:

1) Authors are advised to strongly minimize personalization of the work such as we, our study etc! Although it gives a good story but this is more of impressing than communicating. In science we write to communicate facts.

2) Authors are trying to put too many or multiple things within a single sentence which is in most cases may confuse readers. “A sentence should express a single thought or proposition”. Authors should avoid long and rambling sentences.

3) It is advisable to have section where key recommendations from this study can be found.

TITLE

It is okay. However, inclusion of a scientific name of Olympia oyster at this stage could add a lot of value.

ABSTRACT

It is okay. Authors may consider inclusion of a sentence that provides some principal findings of this study.

INTRODUCTION

Lines 39 to 42: Start with giving worldwide figure and then those from United States of America. Also, provide the estimated figure for loss of coral reefs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1) Lines I61 to 164: In the S1 Table, to my opinion, multiple categories could have their own specific category just like the way it is for say those who fall specifically to Grower (G), Manager or Resource Agency representative (M), NGO member (N), Conservation Scientist (S), or Tribal Representative (T). Those who fall under multiple categories should be treated separately and their opinion provided. This information should also be indicated somewhere in lines 161 to 164.

2) Line 193: Please refine the sentence to make it clearer.

3) Line 194 (for Tables 2 & 3) compared with line 224 (Table 1). Tables and figures should be cited serially by starting with 1 (Start with Table 1 or Figure 1). Thus the arrangement could be Table 2 changed to Table 1; Table 3 changed to Table 1 and finally Table 1 changed to Table 3 and cited accordingly for consistency purposes.

4) Line 202 and part of line 203: This is information plus the references can be moved to somewhere in the introductory part. In this section just tell the reader the area focused by the study.

5) Lines 215 to 216: Can Authors show the criteria used to delineate the sub-basins?

6) Lines 334 to 338 (many others): It is fortunate that authors are good in English language. Otherwise, most of the sentences are very long! Imagine a sentence of 63 words!! Not recommended for scientific writings!

RESULTS

Please see some track changes in this section in the main manuscript.

DISCUSSION

1) Line 436: Unpublished data cannot be accessible by readers. As such it is not recommended in scientific publications.

2) Lines 443 to 447: Very long sentence. Readers may not enjoy reading long sentences! Again a reference to those protocols or even a website link where those institutions can found could be very useful to readers.

3) Line 460 and several other places: The use of phrases such as “…..our stakeholders” is monotonous in this manuscript. Authors can frame this work in such a way that such phrases only remain in the Materials and Methods section. Then, make sure that whatever is presented in the results and discussed in the discussion section reflects the findings from stakeholder’s views. I believe this I believe this is doable.

4) Lines 510 to 516: How can 77 words be in a single sentence!! Readers cannot follow! There is a time where readers may lose the flow contents!

5) Lines 557 to 559: Something is missing in this sentence. Please make it clear.

CONCLUSION

The conclusion is somewhat okay. An opening sentence summarising the overall objectives of the study followed by key take home messages would add a lot of value. Authors should strictly provide the main conclusion as a result of carrying this study. Please try to reduce the “hows” here i.e the way the study was undertaken.

**********

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: Yes: Amon Paul Shoko

[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-20-38508_reviewer_annotated PDF.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-38508_reviewer_27_12_2020.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments to Authors.docx

Conservation Aquaculture as a Tool for Imperiled Marine Species: Evaluation of Opportunities and Risks for Olympia Oysters, Ostrea lurida

PONE-D-20-38508R1

Dear Dr. Ridlon,

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,

Ismael Aaron Kimirei, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

 

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please respond to the minor comments made by reviewer #2 

 

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: The said subtitles on the discussion section in the response were present in the original file. Very little improvement has been made on reducing the length of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Actually this is the area that needs some clarification. Is there any statistical analysis undertaken in this work or was it not necessary? How can the results be justifiable scientifically? Is there any good explanation to this observation!

The authors have tried to address most of the comments. However, clarification is needed on statistical analysis as indicated in question 3 above. Do the authors mean that the nature of data did not allow for any kind of statistical analysis!?

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No