Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 23, 2022
Decision Letter - Andrea Belgrano, Editor

PONE-D-22-02234

The portfolio effect in a small-scale fishery reduces catch and fishing income variability in a highly dynamic ecosystem

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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.

The manuscript deals with a very interesting and timing issue, and I tend to agree with the comments/suggestions made by reviewer #1. The methodology used in the analysis is robust and sound and the metric used in relation to the paper by Gross K., et al. 2014 is a good choice. I suggest that in your revision you pay also attention to the use of English and improve the text in order to communicate more clearly your message.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 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,

Andrea Belgrano, Ph.D.

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: "Andrés Vargas and David Diaz received funding from Universidad del Norte, www.uninorte.edu.co. Grant number 2017-30. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

We note that one or more of the authors is affiliated with the funding organization, indicating the funder may have had some role in the design, data collection, analysis or preparation of your manuscript for publication; in other words, the funder played an indirect role through the participation of the co-authors. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please do the following:

a. Review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. These amendments should be made in the online form.

b. Confirm in your cover letter that you agree with the following statement, and we will change the online submission form on your behalf: 

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

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 upload a new copy of Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

6. We note that Figure 1 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 1 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/

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

8. 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

********** 

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

********** 

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: No

********** 

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 authors,

This is a really interesting and relevant manuscript that address and important question: how do secure access to resources and stable incomes in a dynamic environment and an open access regime. I found the manuscript really interesting, but would also encourage you to work further on communicating your message. The introduction is somewhat confusing and can be clarified, complicated words could be more clearly explained, the links between biodiversity, ecosystem function and resilience can be better referenced, and the text could benefit from a professional language editor (and English is not my first language). Some references to the figures were missing, the reference list is incomplete, and I was not able to follow all aspects of the modeling. If you are able to address these issues, this will be a really important and nice paper. Please find my detailed comments below:

1. Introduction:

a) "specially if their capacity to smooth consumption through access to credit..." this is not very clear and can probably be reworded.

b) When you speak about artisanal fisheries, you repeat what you have said in the previous section. Perhaps delete the first sentence of the second paragraph, and instead refer to "Strategies to recuse income risks among artisanal fisheries include....."

c) do you really need the word "asynchronously" here and in the rest of the ms? Isn't it enough with just "fluctuate"?

d) please explain more clearly the links between ecosystem diversity and function. This is a long-standing debate with lots of opinions. You can elaborate and provide further references. This is a favorite from my perspective, but it is very old and probably lots of better and newer things out there (Elmqvist et al. 2003): https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2 and hopefully relevant to your study.

e) on line 44-45 you refer to survival. Is that correct?

f) the fishers in the study: do you have any data that illustrates your points of how diversity stabilize income, and that they do not have access to credit, etc (last section of introduction)?

Materials and methods

a) please check that all figures are referred to properly. All references to figures are "Fig ??" in the pdf I have access to (maybe this is just a formatting issue).

b) line 114 "this effect" - please clarify what this refers to - it is unclear.

c) Line 17, refers to "methods" but this is consuming since it is already part or the methods section. Consider revising to "Analytical method" or similar.

d) Line 124 "the the" - delete one "the"

I had a hard time understanding the SUR model (and they results from it), but maybe that is just because it is outside of my area of expertise.

Discussion

a) maybe explain the mean-variance trade off for the uninformed reader?

b) please consider if you want to include this discussion about functional diversity etc., and if so, include more references.

References:

Some references have full first names (e.g., 1, 30, 31, 32) but most don't. Please check the formatting. Reference 28 is missing a year, and 29 is missing a capital letter for the first name "Andersson S." Check all formatting and consistency with PLOS one requirements.

********** 

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.

Revision 1

Reviewer #1

1. Introduction:

a) "specially if their capacity to smooth consumption through access to credit..." this is not very clear and can probably be reworded.

R/ It now reads

“…specially if their limited access to key markets, like credit and insurance, constrain their ability to maintain their consumption of goods and services through time”

b) When you speak about artisanal fisheries, you repeat what you have said in the previous section. Perhaps delete the first sentence of the second paragraph, and instead refer to "Strategies to recuse income risks among artisanal fisheries include....."

R/ Changed as suggested

c) do you really need the word "asynchronously" here and in the rest of the ms? Isn't it enough with just "fluctuate"?

R/ Yes, since the degree of species synchrony is key to the stability of the species community

d) please explain more clearly the links between ecosystem diversity and function. This is a long-standing debate with lots of opinions. You can elaborate and provide further references. This is a favorite from my perspective, but it is very old and probably lots of better and newer things out there (Elmqvist et al. 2003): https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0488:RDECAR]2.0.CO;2 and hopefully relevant to your study.

R/ Thanks for the suggestion. A brief explanation on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function and services is added, including two references: Elmqvist et al. (2003) and Balvanera et al. (2015).

“The relationship between income variability and catch diversity stems from the role that biodiversity plays in the productivity and stability of natural systems [9, 10]. Three main mechanisms have been proposed to study the link between biodiversity and ecosystem function and services [11]: 1) complementary differences between species, 2) dominance by high-performing species, and 3) differential response of species to environmental conditions. The later of these, referred to as the insurance hypothesis, means that aggregate ecosystem properties vary less in more diverse communities [12]. For the well-being of society, the insurance hypothesis lends support to the claim that high diversity of response to environmental change among species is critical to the maintenance of valuable ecosystem services [13]”.

e) on line 44-45 you refer to survival. Is that correct?

R/ Changed to success

f) the fishers in the study: do you have any data that illustrates your points of how diversity stabilize income, and that they do not have access to credit, etc (last section of introduction)?

R/ The assertion is based on our observations during fieldwork in the area. To better illustrate it, we added statistical data concerning poverty in the area, as well as evidence from a nearby fishing community showing their limited access to credit.

2. Materials and methods

a) please check that all figures are referred to properly. All references to figures are "Fig ??" in the pdf I have access to (maybe this is just a formatting issue).

R/ Checked

b) line 114 "this effect" - please clarify what this refers to - it is unclear.

R/ The paragraph was placed in the wrong place. It was deleted

c) Line 17, refers to "methods" but this is consuming since it is already part or the methods section. Consider revising to "Analytical method" or similar.

R/ Changed as suggested

d) Line 124 "the the" - delete one "the"

R/ Changed as suggested

I had a hard time understanding the SUR model (and they results from it), but maybe that is just because it is outside of my area of expertise.

R/ We reworded the paragraph below equation (8) to better explain the model.

Discussion

a) maybe explain the mean-variance trade off for the uninformed reader?

R/ An explanation was added as suggested

“Generally, the modern portfolio theory builds a framework for the selection of investment portfolios that maximize the return for a given level of risk, or one that attain a desired level of return at a minimum risk. To implement the method, investors need to calculate the returns, variances, and covariances of assets. Based on this information, they decide how much of their wealth is allocated to each asset.”

b) please consider if you want to include this discussion about functional diversity etc., and if so, include more references.

R/ We decided not to include the discussion

References:

Some references have full first names (e.g., 1, 30, 31, 32) but most don't. Please check the formatting. Reference 28 is missing a year, and 29 is missing a capital letter for the first name "Andersson S." Check all formatting and consistency with PLOS one requirements.

R/ List of references checked and formatted in accordance with PLOS requirements

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Andrea Belgrano, Editor

The portfolio effect in a small-scale fishery reduces catch and fishing income variability in a highly dynamic ecosystem

PONE-D-22-02234R1

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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,

Andrea Belgrano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing all the comments/suggestions made during the review process, the revised manuscript reads very well and with clarity.

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Andrea Belgrano, Editor

PONE-D-22-02234R1

The portfolio effect in a small-scale fishery reduces catch and fishing income variability in a highly dynamic ecosystem

Dear Dr. Vargas:

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. Andrea Belgrano

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .