PONE-D-21-35850Ecdysteroid Responses to Urban Heat Island Conditions during Development of the Western Black Widow Spider (Latrodectus hesperus)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hackney Price,

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 Mar 24 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,

Jun Yang

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by an ASU New College Undergraduate Interdisciplinary Research Experience (NCUIRE; https://newcollege.asu.edu/ncuire) award to CM, a Salt River Project Life Sciences Scholarship (https://scholarships.asu.edu/scholarship/94) to CM, a Central Arizona-Phoenix Long Term Ecological Research (CAP-LTER; https://sustainability-innovation.asu.edu/caplter/) award to CJ, and an ASU New College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Activities award to JHP and CJ.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

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

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

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

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

The authors explored the responses to temperature during development of the Western Black Widow Spider. The research methodologies are reasonable, and the findings are interesting. However, there are still a few aspects that should be improved to make the paper publishable. The paper is not well-organized. I focus here only on some points, which are hopefully easy for the authors to take into account in the revision.

1. Introduction- The author introduced the negative impacts of UHI. However, relevant research on UHI is lacking. Some important relevant references should be cited as follows.

Spatial Variability and Temporal Heterogeneity of Surface Urban Heat Island Patterns and the Suitability of Local Climate Zones for Land Surface Temperature Characterization. DOI: 10.3390/rs13214338.

Influence of urban morphological characteristics on thermal environment, Sustainable Cities and Society (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103045.

Contribution of urban ventilation to the thermal environment and urban energy demand: Different climate background perspectives, Science of the Total Environment (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148791.

Suitability of human settlements in mountainous areas from the perspective of ventilation: a case study of the main urban area of Chongqing, Journal of Cleaner Production (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127467.

The impact of urban renewal on land surface temperature changes: A case study in the main city of Guangzhou, China. Remote Sensing (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050794.

Impacts of Neighboring Buildings on the Cold Island Effect of Central Parks: A Case Study of Beijing, China. Sustainability (2020), doi: 10.3390/su12229499.

2. The author emphasizes UHI, while temperature was chosen in this manuscript. 27 ˚C, 33˚C and 37 ˚C can represent UHI? It is more appropriate to explore the effects of temperature.

3. Figure 2 is not clear enough, please modify it.

4. There is no Conclusion in this manuscript, please confirm it.

Reviewer 2

After a very careful reading of the work entitled "Ecdysteroid Responses to Urban Heat Island Conditions during Development of the Western Black Widow Spider", I have found a very well-done work, well presented, and organized, clear in concepts and methodology. The topic and context attract attention for many readers from various disciplines. The study is worth to be published after conducting the revisions.

I just suggest the author(s) add uncertainty analysis to enhance the scientific rigor of the research.

[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: 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 explored the responses to temperature during development of the Western Black Widow Spider. The research methodologies are reasonable, and the findings are interesting. However, there are still a few aspects that should be improved to make the paper publishable. The paper is not well-organized. I focus here only on some points, which are hopefully easy for the authors to take into account in the revision.

1. Introduction- The author introduced the negative impacts of UHI. However, relevant research on UHI is lacking. Some important relevant references should be cited as follows.

1) Spatial Variability and Temporal Heterogeneity of Surface Urban Heat Island Patterns and the Suitability of Local Climate Zones for Land Surface Temperature Characterization. DOI: 10.3390/rs13214338.

2) Influence of urban morphological characteristics on thermal environment, Sustainable Cities and Society (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103045.

3) Spatial Evolution of Population Change in Northeast China During 1992–2018, Science of the Total Environment (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146023.

4) Contribution of urban ventilation to the thermal environment and urban energy demand: Different climate background perspectives, Science of the Total Environment (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148791.

5) Suitability of human settlements in mountainous areas from the perspective of ventilation: a case study of the main urban area of Chongqing, Journal of Cleaner Production (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127467.

6) Optimizing local climate zones to mitigate urban heat island effect in human settlements, Journal of Cleaner Production (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123767.

7) The impact of urban renewal on land surface temperature changes: A case study in the main city of Guangzhou, China. Remote Sensing (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050794.

8) Impacts of Neighboring Buildings on the Cold Island Effect of Central Parks: A Case Study of Beijing, China. Sustainability (2020), doi: 10.3390/su12229499.

2. The author emphasizes UHI, while temperature was chosen in this manuscript. 27 ˚C, 33˚C and 37 ˚C can represent UHI? It is more appropriate to explore the effects of temperature.

3. Figure 2 is not clear enough, please modify it.

4. There is no Conclusion in this manuscript, please confirm it.

Reviewer #2: After a very careful reading of the work entitled "Ecdysteroid Responses to Urban Heat Island Conditions during Development of the Western Black Widow Spider", I have found a very well-done work, well presented, and organized, clear in concepts and methodology. The topic and context attract attention for many readers from various disciplines. The study is worth to be published after conducting the revisions.

I just suggest the author(s) add uncertainty analysis to enhance the scientific rigor of the research.

**********

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.

Ecdysteroid responses to urban heat island conditions during development of the western black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus)

PONE-D-21-35850R1

Dear Dr. Hackney Price,

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,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accept

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: 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: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: This paper had been revised according to the comments of the reviewers. I have no further comments. The current version of the paper is worth publishing.

**********

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