The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid

Julie Augustin; Guy Boivin; Gaétan Bourgeois; Jacques Brodeur

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254750

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 12, 2021
20 May 2021 Decision Letter - Kleber Del-Claro, Editor PONE-D-21-08181 The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid PLOS ONE Dear Dr.Julie Augustin 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 30 days. 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kleber Del-Claro, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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 review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Considering two expert reviewers, we could accept your manuscript (please condier all the suggestions!) for publication after minor revision. Congratulations. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors of MS "The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid" studied how five different temperatures affect the behavior and performance of a parasitoid wasp. They had built a good text and designed an interesting model of study. The introduction is well structured, M&M is replicable, and results and discussion support their proposal. However, the abstract still needs a conclusion. In addition, in the discussion (4.2) the authors pointed "Anaphes listronoti females likely experienced difficulties handling host eggs...". This sounds like an anthropomorphization and I suggest rephrase. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, I enjoyed reading the MS and I learned a lot about how temperature affects parasitoids. I made several suggestions and I hope I could enhance the quality of the MS. The text is well written, the figures are good and informative. Since you have many objctives and suggesting improving the presentation of them in Methods, Results and Discussion to a better understanding. Comments: Abstract L 18 – remove “high quality”. Readers must wonder why you did not compare high- and low-quality hosts I missed a conclusion in the Abstract. Keywords: “temperature” is already in the title Introduction The last paragraph should come before the two objectives The objectives and hypotheses are described in detail, and this clarifies more the study. Methods I suggest indicating which objectives and hypotheses are related to each method. This helps a lot the understanding. I would also recommend this for the Results and Discussion, but authors should think if adding more subsections is appropriate. I think that since your study has many objectives, this might improve the comprehension of the study in its full magnitude. I confess that I felt a bit lost sometimes. For instance, one of you predictions is “(i) an increase in metabolic rate with temperature, leading to an acceleration of all behaviours”. So you could write “in order to test the prediction (i) females were analyzed under five temperatures ….” Patch exploitation experiment L. 114 – 117 When were eggs collected? Did eggs come from a single individual plant? Did all eggs come from clone plants? L 120 – 121 What was the sample size of females in each temperature? I see that this information is shown in Figure 1, but I would like to see it in the text was well L. 121 – 122 How many observations were performed? L 123 – 124 Were these weevil eggs from a single female? L 125 – 127 Is it possible to provide a figure of this experiment? (maybe as online resource) Video analyzing L 136 – 138 It is not clear to me why you only analyzed females that laid female progeny Offspring production Ok Data analyses I am not familiar with the A Cox’s proportional hazards model, so I will assume authors made it right Results Looking at figure 2a I do not see much difference among classes, but your analyses show significant results. Have you used the correct statistical tests? I suggest double checking the tests used. I found a Mann Whitney that is not described in the Methods. Discussion All the topics shown in the Results are discussed. Nonetheless, the discussion is too long, more than 2000 words. It is difficult to keep the attention and focus with such a long discussion. Authors should speculate less and concentrate on their own results. A shorter and more objective discussion will be more valuable. Figures Very good! Mines are low resolution, but I think that the final version will have figures with high resolution. ****** 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: Yes:** Dr. Bruno de Sousa-Lopes 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-08181_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254750.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: The authors of MS "The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid" studied how five different temperatures affect the behavior and performance of a parasitoid wasp. They had built a good text and designed an interesting model of study. The introduction is well structured, M&M is replicable, and results and discussion support their proposal. However, the abstract still needs a conclusion. In addition, in the discussion (4.2) the authors pointed "Anaphes listronoti females likely experienced difficulties handling host eggs...". This sounds like an anthropomorphization and I suggest rephrase. A short conclusion has been added to the abstract - lines 27-28. The sentence “Anaphes listronoti females likely experienced difficulties handling host eggs..." has been removed because the idea it conveyed was discussed in lines 293-294 and 296-298. Reviewer #2: Dear authors, I enjoyed reading the MS and I learned a lot about how temperature affects parasitoids. I made several suggestions and I hope I could enhance the quality of the MS. The text is well written, the figures are good and informative. Since you have many objctives and suggesting improving the presentation of them in Methods, Results and Discussion to a better understanding. Comments: Abstract L 18 – remove “high quality”. Readers must wonder why you did not compare high- and low-quality hosts I missed a conclusion in the Abstract Keywords: “temperature” is already in the title “high quality” has been removed in line 18 A short conclusion has been added - lines 27-28 “temperature” has been removed from Keywords Introduction The last paragraph should come before the two objectives The objectives and hypotheses are described in detail, and this clarifies more the study. The last paragraph has been moved before the two objectives. Methods I suggest indicating which objectives and hypotheses are related to each method. This helps a lot the understanding. I would also recommend this for the Results and Discussion, but authors should think if adding more subsections is appropriate. I think that since your study has many objectives, this might improve the comprehension of the study in its full magnitude. I confess that I felt a bit lost sometimes. For instance, one of you predictions is “(i) an increase in metabolic rate with temperature, leading to an acceleration of all behaviours”. So you could write “in order to test the prediction (i) females were analyzed under five temperatures ….” As suggested by reviewer#2, the text has been modified in places to clarify which experiments or results are linked to each objectives: - Presentation of objectives and hypotheses have been modified lines 79-81, - Explanatory sentences have been added in lines 118, 157-158, - Titles of sections have been modified in Material and methods in line 117. Subsections have been added or modified in the Results in lines 191-192, 203, 222, 237, 251 and in the Discussion in lines 276-277, 287, 308, 347, 380, 397. Patch exploitation experiment L. 114 – 117 When were eggs collected? Did eggs come from a single individual plant? Did all eggs come from clone plants? Eggs were collected from the carrot weevil colony, and were less than 24h old when given to the parasitoids. They did come from several plants that were not clones. This information has been added in lines 113-115. Carrots of the “Jumbo” variety were bought from local producers at the end of the summer and stored at 4oC until use. L 120 – 121 What was the sample size of females in each temperature? I see that this information is shown in Figure 1, but I would like to see it in the text was well Sample size added lines 133-134 L. 121 – 122 How many observations were performed? 5 observations were performed both at 10oC and at 40oC. Information added lines 120 and 121. L 123 – 124 Were these weevil eggs from a single female? No, it was from a mixture of different females from the rearing. Information added lines 122-123. L 125 – 127 Is it possible to provide a figure of this experiment? (maybe as online resource) A figure named ‘Experimental_setup’ has been added to Supplementaty_material. The reference to the figure has been added line 127. Video analyzing L 136 – 138 It is not clear to me why you only analyzed females that laid female progeny Female that only laid sons were considered unmated. Because the behaviour of virgin females can differ from that of mated females, virgin females have been removed from the analyses. See lines 138-139. Offspring production Ok Data analyses I am not familiar with the A Cox’s proportional hazards model, so I will assume authors made it right Results Looking at figure 2a I do not see much difference among classes, but your analyses show significant results. Have you used the correct statistical tests? I double checked the statistical analyses and came out with the same results. I agree that differences in the proportion of each behaviour in relation to temperature are not obvious on the figure at first glance. Error-bars have been added to Figure 2a to make differences between means more visible. I suggest double checking the tests used. I found a Mann Whitney that is not described in the Methods. A reference to Mann-Whitney test has been added in the Method in lines 171-172. Further details have been added to the statistical methods in lines 169-170 and 172-174. Discussion All the topics shown in the Results are discussed. Nonetheless, the discussion is too long, more than 2000 words. It is difficult to keep the attention and focus with such a long discussion. Authors should speculate less and concentrate on their own results. A shorter and more objective discussion will be more valuable. Following the request made by reviewer#2, we have reduced the length of the Discussion by removing several sentences: lines 287-289, 290-291, 289-290, 304-305, 333-335, 354. One paragraph has also been removed - lines 314-326. Figures Very good! Mines are low resolution, but I think that the final version will have figures with high resolution. High resolution figures will be uploaded with the revised version of the manuscript Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254750.r002
5 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Kleber Del-Claro, Editor The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid PONE-D-21-08181R1 Dear Dr. Julie Augustin, 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, Kleber Del-Claro, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations for the excellent study! 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: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No comments. All suggestions were followed. I could not see the data being avaliable; I found neither a link not a sheet of it. But this concerns more the journal, as they require that data be available. ****** 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: Yes:** Bruno de Sousa-Lopes Reviewer #2: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254750.r003
Formally Accepted
9 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Kleber Del-Claro, Editor PONE-D-21-08181R1 The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid Dear Dr. Augustin: 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. Kleber Del-Claro Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254750.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 .