PONE-D-22-05660Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate-change in the Pacific Islands RegionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kobayashi,

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.

Overall, this manuscript is well written and acceptable for publication after minor revisions.  The methods follow previous peer-reviewed protocols, the complex results are synthesized in detail, and logical high-level conclusions are presented.  In addition to the comments and editorial suggestions from the reviewers, please address these four improvements to the methods.

1. Highlight differences between the study region and other previously assessed regions in the U.S.: Although this ms mostly follows the protocol defined by efforts from previously completed regions, the authors highlight some challenges specific to this region, which is quite different from other U.S. marine ecosystems.  These methodological differences could be highlighted in the text.
2. Explain the methods more clearly: The methods section can be hard to understand at times, so I urge the authors to address the reviewer comments to address these limitations. In addition to describing some of the methods in more detail, I wonder if you could walk the readers through some specific examples for some taxa that either scored especially high / low, or that proved particularly challenging to assess.
3. Define exposure scores: It is difficult to determine how the final exposure score for a given attribute, was determined. Based on the text and in the supplement, it seems that it is based on a percentage of grid cells that have different exposure levels.  However, it is important to explicitly describe what the different levels mean.  For instance, how are the “low” and “medium” levels mean and how are they defined quantitively:  how do they relate to the baseline.  Please consider adding a table where each of these levels is clearly defined.
4. Define the expert scoring system: For the “sensitivity” section, the framework of the expert scoring is unclear? Can you please explain what are the range of possible values that can be assigned for a given factor?  Can you also provide an explicit description of what the various individual values mean or represent?​

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 09 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,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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.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.

3. We note that in Figure 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and Supporting Information 1 Exposure Code in your submission contain map 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 Figure 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and Supporting Information 1 Exposure Code 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

(We thank Roger Griffis, Michael Seki, Evan Howell, Frank Parrish, Rusty Brainard, Jeff Hare, Melanie Abecassis, Brittany Huntington, and Tye Kindinger for supporting this work, and thank Howard Choat and Ivor Williams for their valuable contributions to the assessment. We thank Matthew Iacchei, Frank Parrish, and Ryan Rykaczewski for their reviews of the manuscript. Funding for this work was provided by the NOAA Office of Science and Technology, NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and the Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa. Travel for Howard Choat to the Expert Panel Workshop was provided by the Joint Institute of Marine and Atmospheric Research at the University of Hawai‘i, Mānoa Visiting Science Award. This is the Ocean Research Explorations Hawaiian Islands Biodiversity Project publication 07.)

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

(The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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: 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 present a climate vulnerability assessment for 83 marine fish and invertebrate species in the Pacific Islands. They use a previously published approach and provide a good balance of describing the approach in enough detail for understanding without repeating all the details from prior papers. They also do a good job explaining changes to the approach necessary for their application. The authors find high exposure to climate change across all species assessed and find a range of sensitivities across species. They describe their results from a functional group perspective. The results are important because they identify species with relatively higher vulnerability to climate change, they identify factors of climate change important in the Pacific Islands, and they identify important data gaps.

Overall, the manuscript is well done and acceptable after minor revision. The manuscript is well written and the information well presented. The methods follow previous peer-reviewed procedures. The complex results are synthesized and high-level conclusions presented. My comments are minor.

Line 281 - is a -1.37% decrease is pH meaningful given that the pH scale is logarithmic?

Line 450 - I recommend moving this summary paragraph before the functional groups (at line

356)

Line 462 - The authors describe the high uncertainty for 8 species. A sentence or two on the magnitude of low uncertainty would be useful or a sentence summarizing the number of species with high, moderate, and low uncertainty.

Line 598 - Worth mentioning that the analysis is relative.

Given the importance of habitat, it could be useful for the authors to briefly discuss Farr et al (2021) and the potential value of assessing climate change impacts on habitats. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260654

Figure 1 could be included in a table.

Figure 3 could be in supplemental materials

Reviewer #2: In the manuscript by Giddens et al., 80+ species from the U.S. jurisdiction islands in the Pacific Ocean are assessed qualitatively for their sensitivity to climate change, and their potential exposure to climate variables was projected to the mid 21st century. This analysis is part of the effort by NOAA to rapidly assess marine species in all regions of its governance for vulnerability to climate change. As such, it is mostly following the protocol defined by efforts in the previously completed regions. Although the authors highlight some challenges associated with this format, that are specific to this region, which is quite different from other U.S. managed marine ecosystems. This manuscript was well written and I think it is quite close to being ready for publication. I commend the authors for putting together a polished submission. Please see comments below.

GENERAL COMMENT: The methods section can be a little frustrating to understand at times. Some added text to better describe some of the methods would make a big difference. Specific areas in the methods are highlighted below with line comments.

L85-87: This sentence reads somewhat awkwardly. Recommend reformatting, perhaps starting with something like “The Pacific region offered unique challenges including…….”

L142-143: Here and elsewhere in the manuscript, websites should be more formally described (or at least give the title of the project/database) and also cited. Often in the methods, the sources are only given as a website in parentheses.

L146-148: A little more detail (1-2 sentences) should be added for the climate projection data. Provide some context to “model runs” and give a brief description of what the RCP 8.5 scenario represents.

L151-152: Is the historical reference period also from the same climate models? In other words, not from an independent data set. If so, probably worth noting that.

L187-192: It is still a bit difficult to determine how the final exposure score, for a given attribute, is determined. Based on text here and in the supplement, it seems that it is based on a percentage of grid cells that are low, medium, etc. exposure. I also assume that “low” means within one standard deviation of the baseline, while “medium” is two standard deviations, etc. However, this doesn’t appear to be described anywhere.

L203: For the “Sensitivity” section, not sure if I missed it (sorry if so), but is it stated anywhere what the framework of the expert scoring is? What are the range of possible values that can be assigned for a given factor?

Table-1 heading is missing “Northern”

L212: Change “their” to “them”

L587-588: Was life history complexity treated differently in the other regions where this was done?

**********

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.

Assessing the vulnerability of marine life to climate change in the Pacific Islands region

PONE-D-22-05660R1

Dear Dr. Kobayashi,

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.

Upon reviewing the ms, I would like to point out two minor typographical errors in the Literature Cited section:

1)  Line 840 is left blank and #49  in line 841 is highlighted in yellow

2) In Line 870:  Reference #59 is crossed out and highlighted in red

I would also like to thank you the detailed description of the data and software you used to generate your maps.  

Pending the green light from the editorial office, I would suggest you add this detailed explanation (and the supporting references) in the supplementary materials.   

Otherwise, I thank you for addressing all the reviewer comments so thoroughly.

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,

David Hyrenbach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: