PONE-D-22-04964Landscape diversity and local temperature, but not climate, affect arthropod predation among habitat typesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fricke,

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.

Your manuscript is very interesting and easy to read. We suggest you to make minor revision and please carefully consider reviewers suggestions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 12 2022 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: https://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,

Eve Veromann, 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. 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 you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please 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.

[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: 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: No

**********

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: Dear Editor Prof. Eve Veromann,

Dear Authors,

please find my comments on the paper “Landscape diversity and local temperature, but not climate, affect arthropod predation among habitat types”

The authors showed a very well done and intriguing piece of research about arthropod predation in temperate areas. They correctly pointed out the innovation their research fulfilled: a rare piece of research which study, citing the paper, “the combined effects of local habitat type, plant species richness, weather, landscape diversity and multi-annual mean temperature on arthropod predation”. These data, even if limited in the continental European region, are very interesting to understand the amount of predation rates we nowadays can expect in a vast portion of Europe, and their results, as they pointed out, can help to understand what the potential is to increase these rates through landscape management.

In the introduction, the authors reported concisely, but logically and exhaustive, the context of the research on arthropod predation, as well as open research question and we can clearly read the logic behind the experiment layout we’re going to read in the M&M section.

They measured arthropod predation in an impressive series of plot (147 out of 179 plots, which they reduce, correctly, to 113 after a critic revision of their dataset) in the Bavaria region, Germany. The methodologies they uses are correct, as well as site selection criteria are almost clear and reasonable.

Data analysis have been done correctly, deeply, and using modern techniques, programs, and rationale. I would like to compliment with the authors, because this is one of the best examples of the use of statistics to achieve comprehensive results I recently found.

The authors analysed the results in a logic way. They read their results formulating clear hypotheses fond on recent and appropriate research, but at the same time they were very honest about the limits of their findings. In addition, they correctly criticized the validity of their finding because of plasticine predation limits (like any other experiment of this kind in field, I would say).

Thus, my suggestion to Prof. Veromann is to accept the paper with (very) minor revision. Here I report line by line comments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Line 90. I’m missing here the amount (and rational) of climate zones. I suspect they’re 5 climatic zones X 3 landscape-scale land use types = 15 combinations. Are the climatic zones from the reference n° 30? I tried to check it, but it is not so user-friendly. Please explain how, of the source of climatic zones.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Fricke and colleagues used an innovative multi-scale sampling design to disentangle the effects of multiple drivers on arthropod predation rate. Specifically, they tested how arthropod predation rate varied in contrasting habitats across climate and land-use gradients. I am very enthusiastic about the novel sampling design adopted by the authors, although some additional information describing in more detail the selection and the characteristics of the selected ‘regions’ and ‘plots’ would be beneficial (see specific comments below). The manuscript is well written and a pleasure to read. This allowed the manuscript to be quickly and easily understood. Although the results are in any case interesting, I would have expected, especially considering the sampling design, a major role of climate and a possible interactive effect between climate and landscape on this important function. I am wondering if this could be related to the sampling approach (just a unique sampling date) adopted by the authors. Anyway, this work is certainly of interest, but there are still several minor questions that the authors should address. Hope the authors find my comments helpful.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

L59 It is not clear what you mean by ‘correlation of the latter’.

L81 I would spend a few more words why you used this method to measure arthropod predation rate. It’s clear reading the Method section, but I think it is also important to introduce it earlier.

L89-91 The sampling design seems very interesting, but I would like to know something more how the selection was done and what are the characteristics of each combination (e.g. climate, landscape, etc.). Also a figure representing the sampling design might be useful.

L93 How did you define typical for the respective region? Did you use a specific threshold?

L94 Also in forests?

L115 Just one sampling per plots? Right?

L119-121 I understand the reasoning of that, but there is a risk that the possible habitat effect can be masked in this specific case (predation rate measured using green artificial caterpillars and mostly determined by ground-dwelling predators). The herbaceous vegetation, regardless of the habitat where is embedded, has the same effect.

L 148 Would it be possible to make the code used open?

L 258-261 In my opinion, what you are observing here is not a habitat effect per se, as you sampled an open herbaceous vegetation in all habitats. The micro habitat conditions (herbaceous vegetation) are more important than the habitat in se. This is might particular true for ground-dwelling predators.

L 283 This is true Just in part according to your results and what you wrote below.

L305 What do you mean with ‘long-term temperature’? Not clear to me!

L344 Why only for agricultural ecosystems?

**********

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.

Landscape diversity and local temperature, but not climate, affect arthropod predation among habitat types

PONE-D-22-04964R1

Dear Dr. Fricke,

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,

Eve Veromann, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments: