PONE-D-21-27222

A field experiment to assess passage of juvenile salmonids across beaver dams during low flow conditions in a tributary to the Klamath River, California, USA.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pollock,

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.

==============================

Re-review of the manuscript indicates most all of the suggested edits asked for were made to the original submission. There are a few additional comments/edits that should be followed in this submission (please see the review). These are minor edits and should not require a substantial amount of time.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 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,

Madison Powell, 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 include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. We note that [Figures 1 and 2] 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 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 upload a copy of Figure 9-11, to which you refer in your manuscript. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

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:

This revision greatly improves upon the original submission. Additional reviews by a previous reviewer and myself concur that a few edit remain (as pointed out in the attached review). These are minor and should not take too much time for the authors to address. The remarks are largely intended to enhance the readability of the manuscript and should be followed.

[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: Review of PONE-D-21-27222

A field experiment to assess passage of juvenile salmonids across beaver dams during low flow conditions in a tributary to the Klamath River, California, USA

Pollock, Witmore, Yokel

General Comments

Overall, the revised manuscript is better than the original. I appreciate the authors’conscientious responses to most of my and the other reviewers’comments. A few points remain somewhat shaky, in my opinion. For example, our concerns about the reporting of detection efficiency for the monitoring array are not fully resolved as “efficiency” language persists in the revision. As the authors state in their response letter, estimating detection efficiency was simply not a part of the study: this should be stated in the manuscript. It is not a problem, per se, that this evaluation is missing, but it is a shortcoming that should be acknowledged and perhaps recommended for follow up studies in the discussion. I also still think that the manuscript will be more effective if the authors are more forthright about some of their study intentions and conclusions. For example, the author responses to my original comments #51, 52, 55, 59, and 62 at best only partially addressed the suggestions. I wholeheartedly agree that instream structures generally and beaver dams specifically provide important habitat value and effort should be made to retain and restore such structures. However, if the authors want to convince state and federal management agencies to do a better job restoring such features, I think a more effective narrative will simply spell that out for readers, starting at the beginning of the manuscript and concluding with clear, prescriptive advice at the end. Regarding the latter point, I recommend adding some sub headers to the discussion section, perhaps including an “Implications and Recommendations” or “Improving Habitat” header near the end to sweep up the management talking points the authors wish to communicate to their agency partners.

Specific Comments

1. Title. In their response letter, the authors claim (twice!)to have modified the title to reflect the several study experiments, but that is not the case in my PDF; the title remains the same as the original.

2. Line 20. “The movement of fishes” = “fish movement”

3. Line 41. I think the end of the abstract would still benefit from a statement closer to the heart of the authors’ overall objective: beaver dams, BDA’s, and other channel spanning habitat features should be preserved and restored rather than removed as perceived obstructions to fish passage.

4. Line 73. Ambiguous “this”. Perhaps start the sentence with “Many scientific disciplines” and replace ‘this’ with ‘which’, or similar?

5. Line 76. Another ambiguous “this”.

6. Line 127. Please consider replacing “utilize” with the more efficient synonym “use” here and in other locations throughout the manuscript.

7. Line 131. Add a comma after “that”?

8. Line 227. This is almost a verbatim repeat of the paragraph starting on line 209. The only apparent difference is the mesh size of the seines (1/4” vs 1/8”). Please consolidate.

9. Line 239. I think this is the third sentence about allowable tagging size.

10. Line 251. In their response letter the authors claim to have removed the term “wiggling”, yet it is here and again in line 315.

11. Line 252. “antenna” = “antennas”.

12. Line 286. Please add scientific name for Chinook salmon.

13. Line 349. Some confusion remains regarding experiment numbering. This section includes experiments three, four, and five. Note that the authors response letter states these experiments were renamed 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. This nomenclature is not in the manuscript.

14. Line 352. Add a comma after 26.

15. Line 456. “Are not entirely clear” = “were not clear”.

16. Line 463. Percentages would be easier to interpret than fractions.

17. Line 492. Verb tense again slipping into present.

18. Line 500. Again, percentages would be easier to interpret.

19. Line 509. I think percentage should be proportion to match data in the table? Looks like a carryover term from the original table.

20. Line 527. These population estimates differ by nearly a factor of three. Any idea why they were so different? The language is also a little clumsy, with the two sentences starting “As of fall, 2017” and “From our fall, 2017”

21. Line 532. Please see previous comments regarding detection efficiency. I think this number is simply the percent of Coho detected above the BDA, an entirely different metric biologically and statistically.

22. Line 536. “apparent survival” is a new term that has not been defined. Furthermore, why is apparent used for steelhead but not for Coho?

23. Line 542. “have” = “had”.

24. Line 550. Another location where efficiency language creeps in inappropriately.

25. Line 554. Habitat choice/occupancy was not really a study element and was not described in the results section.

26. Line 564. The references should follow “body height of the fish”.

27. Line 567. The references should follow “15-20 cm”.

28. Line 575. Add a comma after culverts. “get into” = “enter”.

29. Line 584. “beaver dams” = “BDAs”?

30. Line 585 “Alternatively” = “ In contrast to jump route”.

31. Line 587. Verb tense.

32. Lines 597 – 601. This sentence would be a good fit for the first paragraph of the discussion.

33. Line 602. Might be a good location for a subheader regarding habitat trade-offs. The statement about “dense concentrations of juvenile” salmon and steelhead does not emerge from the abstract or results sections, but it is clearly an important part of the authors’ primary conclusions from the study. Therefore, it should probably be mentioned earlier.

34. Line 615. Might double check the content of reference # 29. I am fairly certain that Brook trout are not native to Utah.

35. Lines 631,644. The authors should check their use of the term dams versus BDA’s, they are used somewhat synonymously in the discussion section.

36. Line 637. Add a comma after however.

37. Lines 647-651. Some citation support would bolster these statements.

38. Line 664. Might be a good location for a subheader about management implications or habitat complexity/conductivity trade-offs, as noted in general comments.

39. Line 664. While cost-benefit studies would be useful, the authors could also make a plug here for better studies related to jump height, route types, and among species differences.

40. Line 681. The flycatcher and frog are presumably regional species, and this should be clarified.

41. Line 687. Consider starting new sentence at the word “Management”.

42. Line 693. “now” = “no”.

********** 

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.

Field experiments to assess passage of juvenile salmonids across beaver dams during low flow conditions in a tributary to the Klamath River, California, USA.

PONE-D-21-27222R1

Dear Dr. Pollock,

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,

Madison Powell, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: