Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae)

Paul Tresson; Philippe Tixier; William Puech; Bernard Abufera; Antoine Wyvekens; Dominique Carval

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274223

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 10, 2022
24 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-22-13662Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tresson, 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 Aug 08 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, Bi-Song Yue, 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. 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. 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. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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: I have finished reading this interesting paper where authors registered several vertebrate predator species preying on C. sordidus using field imagery. In my opinion, they present some relevant and novel data. Furthermore, the use of the images provides indisputable data on the role of predators that the authors have recorded. Despite these merits, my main concerns about this study are: The introduction should be better presented regarding the terms and the knowledge gap addressed by the paper. There is no inferential statistical analysis to support the data presented. The discussion does not present the limitations of the method and its advantages for studies of this nature. I hope my comments and suggestions can help authors improve their interesting manuscript. ABSTRACT - L26-27: As I will argue below, I believe that saying that "the role of vertebrates on biological control may be underestimated" suits better here. - L 43: In my opinion, your study could be extrapolated to other pest and vertebrate groups. Therefore, I suggest adding that "… of the banana weevil, possibly also favoring other vertebrate and invertebrate natural enemies." Please, see further comments on this topic below. - Keywords: I suggest adding the keyword "ecosystem services" due to the relevance of this study to the subject. INTRODUCTION - L50: This reference is interesting, but it is outdated. I believe that the study from Perovic et al. 2017. Biological Reviews 93: 306-321, and the references therein could be helpful to the authors. - L50-61: Here, I believe that there are some flaws in some relevant concepts and terms used by the authors. First, I believe that the authors should state at the beginning of the paragraph that biological control is an ecosystem service provided by biodiversity, where natural enemies regulate their prey population densities. Second, conservation biological control is one of the biological control strategies available. As stated in some references used by the authors (e.g., Shields et al. 2019), conservation biological control strategies rely on habitat management to favor the occurrence and functionality of naturally occurring natural enemies in a given site. That could be done by several means, including plot and landscape-scale management. Therefore, it is not the control itself that matters apart from the management strategy. Third, the assumption on L54-55 is not entirely true since biological control could be provided by keystone or by multiple species simultaneously (complementary effects of biodiversity). That is because CBC strategies rely more often on generalist rather than specialist species where multiple species (such as vertebrate and invertebrate species) play a role (see reference 12 you cited). Therefore, I suggest the author focuses on the relevance of knowing the species available to provide biological control to manipulate further or favor community-level interactions. - Another flaw I believe that authors should better situate the discussion about the limitations of sampling methods. All sampling methods have limitations, including the approach used by the authors in this paper. For example, a recently published paper (Aguiar et al. 2021. Plos One 16(10): e0258066) on the consumption of agriculture pests by bats in urban areas used the DNA metabarcoding approach to identify pests predated by bat species. Your approach would not be helpful to this study. However, your approach is very useful for other cases and other organisms. Therefore, I suggest authors focus on how different methods can complement each other depending on the study system. Specifically, I believe that this suggestion could help rearrange L62 to L80. - L94-96: I did not get the point here. If a study was designed to evaluate the role of arthropods in pest control, then vertebrates would be almost automatically neglected. Don't you think that the main gap here would be further investigating the role of vertebrates in biological control using specific methods for this, as you have done? Please, clarify this topic here. I also suggest reading Aguiar et al. 2021. Plus One 16(10): e0258066. - L109: Is the biological control provided by insects really ineffective? I read the paper you cited, and there the authors say that ants provide biological of this pest species. I agree that C. sordidus adults have fewer invertebrate predators than other pest insects, but the central gap here, in my opinion, is that vertebrates could complement the role of invertebrate species by attacking different stages of development of the pest. That is very interesting for CBC strategies and increases the importance of biodiversity in providing ecosystem services, such as biological control. - L115: Something is missing here. M&M - L131-132: I suggest adding some biological information about C. sordidus (e.g., they are usually aggregated in the field and are usually hidden inside the banana stems) to justify the independency of some plots. - L 142-148: It is not clear to me how many samples you did for each sample site. I would ask the authors to be more specific on how many samples through time were made. Could you please specify these points? How were the sentinel preys obtained? Did you rear them or collect them in the field? - L162-175 and 181-204: When I saw the sample pictures, I was in doubt whether the cameras would be able to identify small arthropod predation. The equipment height seems too high to detect small arthropod predation in front of the camera using the approach you described in L 187-188 and the thresholds for selecting images in Figure 2. Could you please clarify how you discarded that a passing recorded arthropod in front of the camera was predating or not the sentinel prey? - I missed some inferential statistics to compare predation data through time and predation rate among species for all the data presented by the authors. I suggest adding some simple statistics corrected to small samples to increase the robustness of this study and to confirm the patterns observed by the authors. In my opinion, this is a critical point to be considered. DISCUSSION - The discussion is interesting, but some points should be rearranged. My primary concern is that the authors did not recognize the limitations of their methods. First, a white paper under the sentinel prey might have deterred some arthropods from assessing their prey. Many arthropods with poor vision use other environmental cues such as plant volatiles to find their prey. Such stimulus was not presented to potential predators when you use sentinel prey. The sentinel prey was also more exposed to predation than in natural conditions because this species is usually sheltered inside the banana plant stems. Also, the observation time (24 hours) may not have been sufficient to capture other predator species, especially invertebrates. These factors do not demerit the study in any way. However, they reinforce that it is necessary to use a combination of methods to understand the complex ecological interactions in agroecosystems and to understand the role of different species in biological control. I suggest that the authors add a section on these limitations as a basis for other more complex studies on the complementarity of biodiversity in pest control in the future. I also suggest focusing on how the approach used by the authors can be complementary to other methods and reveal unexpected interactions that other methods failed to capture. - I am not sure if vertebrates are key actors (L295) in regulating C. sordidus populations because it may depend on the methods used in field trials and the species pool available for predating the insect. In other regions, such as the tropics, arthropods and other vertebrate species may be more relevant. For example, a farm without a pound nearby may not have amphibians as part of the predatory species pool. Therefore, I suggest authors restrict these extrapolations to their study region and suggest that more studies with vertebrates and invertebrates should be done in other regions to confirm their results. However, I suggest expanding the discussion on complementary effects (L334-337) and the relevance of species with distinct traits in providing biological control. That will provide more robust evidence to farmers and decision-makers that biodiversity matters for pest control and for designing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Nevertheless, as the authors mentioned (L396), their study was not designed to account for evaluating the role of habitat management in biological control. I suggest therefore reducing this discussion to open more space to discuss the methodological limitations of their study, as I mentioned before. In my opinion, this discussion would fit better in a conclusion section. - I suggest authors add a conclusion section to their paper that answers the main questions stated in the introduction and indicates the new steps needed to understand the role of vertebrate predators in conservation biological control more broadly. Reviewer #2: The manuscript appears technically sound and the overall design of the project is very well thought out and properly executed. The methodology is explained clearly and succinctly with enough detail to allow for the experiments to be independently replicated. Sufficient justification is given in the text to justify both the novelty of the project as well as the specific methodologies chosen. No specific hypotheses are given however three main research questions are clearly and succinctly outlined in the introduction. Overall, I do not see the lack of specific hypotheses as problematic as the authors clearly intend the project as more of an exploratory study as opposed to a series of specific manipulative experiments. There is limited scope for statistical analyses in this publication given the relatively simplistic nature of the data and research questions and the lack of a specific hypothesis as outlined in the introduction. Nonetheless, in the few instances where statistics are calculated (for example means) they are appropriately reported with standard errors. Generally, the language used in the manuscript is intelligible and of acceptable quality, however I have suggested a number of minor corrections to grammar or phrasing which can be found in the attached document. The ecological and methodological findings of the study both appear novel and useful for further research in this area. The collection of specific evidence of vertebrate predation of C. sordidus confirms previously reported anecdotal evidence and is crucial for development of future biological control programmes for this pest. Similarly, the use of sentinel traps paired with image background subtraction provides proof of concept for an efficient system of monitoring predation of pest insects while retaining important information allowing for the accurate identification of predator species and eliminating possible biases or confounding factors that may be present when using other methods. Finally, while the conclusions around the utility of this research methodology in future studies and the conclusions that future studies need to focus more on vertebrate predators of C. sordidus are well supported by the results, the other implications for management included in section 4.3 are more problematic. The authors are correct to be cautious about implying any causal relationship between weevil infestation level and cultural practices, as this is not tested thoroughly through this study. However I would note that similarly, their recommendations regarding provision of habitats for S. murinus, M. musculus and S. gutturalis are also only very weakly supported by the data in the study and would require further, hypothesis-driven manipulative experiments to be properly justified. These recommendations should also take into consideration whether these species are themselves considered pests of banana or plantain production via possible consumption of banana plants, as well as the potential for these predators to cause other potential issues for farmers, (for example, acting as potential hosts of infectious human pathogens such as Leptospira). In general, I think the authors need to be careful about making these recommendations based purely on this study alone and instead stick to the main recommendations that can be supported by the data: that future studies on C. sordidus biological control need to focus on vertebrate predators, in particular the role of small rodents. In conclusion, I think this is a sound paper with exciting and novel results which should be easily accepted after only minor revisions outlined in the attached document and some rethinking of the recommendations in the final section. ****** 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: Yes: Callum John Edwin Thomas ******** [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Minor Corrections.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r001
Revision 1
7 Jul 2022 Author Response Editor 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 The manuscript as been formatted according to this template. 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. Not applicable to our dataset because we made all acquisitions ourselfs. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. The grant numbers should match now. 4. 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. Our dataset is on dataverse.cirad.fr, accessible at this url : https://dataverse.cirad.fr/privateurl.xhtml?token=a0c04140-35ed-48ec-9e8b-5f113a7c7d94 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. The caption has been included as needed. Reviewer 1: ABSTRACT - L26-27: As I will argue below, I believe that saying that "the role of vertebrates on biological control may be underestimated" suits better here. This sentence has been changed accordingly L27-28. - L 43: In my opinion, your study could be extrapolated to other pest and vertebrate groups. Therefore, I suggest adding that "… of the banana weevil, possibly also favoring other vertebrate and invertebrate natural enemies." Please, see further comments on this topic below. This sentence has been added as suggested L45. - Keywords: I suggest adding the keyword "ecosystem services" due to the relevance of this study to the subject. This keyword has been added as suggested. INTRODUCTION - L50: This reference is interesting, but it is outdated. I believe that the study from Perovic et al. 2017. Biological Reviews 93: 306-321, and the references therein could be helpful to the authors. This reference has been updated as suggested L52. - L50-61: Here, I believe that there are some flaws in some relevant concepts and terms used by the authors. First, I believe that the authors should state at the beginning of the paragraph that biological control is an ecosystem service provided by biodiversity, where natural enemies regulate their prey population densities. Second, conservation biological control is one of the biological control strategies available. As stated in some references used by the authors (e.g., Shields et al. 2019), conservation biological control strategies rely on habitat management to favor the occurrence and functionality of naturally occurring natural enemies in a given site. That could be done by several means, including plot and landscape-scale management. Therefore, it is not the control itself that matters apart from the management strategy. Third, the assumption on L54-55 is not entirely true since biological control could be provided by keystone or by multiple species simultaneously (complementary effects of biodiversity). That is because CBC strategies rely more often on generalist rather than specialist species where multiple species (such as vertebrate and invertebrate species) play a role (see reference 12 you cited). Therefore, I suggest the author focuses on the relevance of knowing the species available to provide biological control to manipulate further or favor community-level interactions. This paragraph has been reshaped as suggested, see L55-61. We now mention the notion of service and of species assemblages. - Another flaw I believe that authors should better situate the discussion about the limitations of sampling methods. All sampling methods have limitations, including the approach used by the authors in this paper. For example, a recently published paper (Aguiar et al. 2021. Plos One 16(10): e0258066) on the consumption of agriculture pests by bats in urban areas used the DNA metabarcoding approach to identify pests predated by bat species. Your approach would not be helpful to this study. However, your approach is very useful for other cases and other organisms. Therefore, I suggest authors focus on how different methods can complement each other depending on the study system. Specifically, I believe that this suggestion could help rearrange L62 to L80. A section has been added in the discussion on the limitations of our method and its complementarity with other methods, see section 4.3. - L94-96: I did not get the point here. If a study was designed to evaluate the role of arthropods in pest control, then vertebrates would be almost automatically neglected. Don't you think that the main gap here would be further investigating the role of vertebrates in biological control using specific methods for this, as you have done? Please, clarify this topic here. I also suggest reading Aguiar et al. 2021. Plus One 16(10): e0258066. This sentence was reformulated to be clearer, L103-106. - L109: Is the biological control provided by insects really ineffective? I read the paper you cited, and there the authors say that ants provide biological of this pest species. I agree that C. sordidus adults have fewer invertebrate predators than other pest insects, but the central gap here, in my opinion, is that vertebrates could complement the role of invertebrate species by attacking different stages of development of the pest. That is very interesting for CBC strategies and increases the importance of biodiversity in providing ecosystem services, such as biological control. This section was reformulated L118-121. - L115: Something is missing here. Sentence was completed L128. M&M - L131-132: I suggest adding some biological information about C. sordidus (e.g., they are usually aggregated in the field and are usually hidden inside the banana stems) to justify the independency of some plots. Additional information has been added as suggested, L144-146. - L 142-148: It is not clear to me how many samples you did for each sample site. I would ask the authors to be more specific on how many samples through time were made. Could you please specify these points? How were the sentinel preys obtained? Did you rear them or collect them in the field? This has been clarified L164 Precisions on sentinel preys have been added L169-171. - L162-175 and 181-204: When I saw the sample pictures, I was in doubt whether the cameras would be able to identify small arthropod predation. The equipment height seems too high to detect small arthropod predation in front of the camera using the approach you described in L 187-188 and the thresholds for selecting images in Figure 2. Could you please clarify how you discarded that a passing recorded arthropod in front of the camera was predating or not the sentinel prey? The identification of arthropods was possible because we used full resolution images, as explained L192. The image presented in figure 2 has been resized for computational efficiency (but suitable for vertebrate determination) as stated in method L214. - I missed some inferential statistics to compare predation data through time and predation rate among species for all the data presented by the authors. I suggest adding some simple statistics corrected to small samples to increase the robustness of this study and to confirm the patterns observed by the authors. In my opinion, this is a critical point to be considered. We conducted the suggested analysis, see L253-254 in Methods and L291-283 in Results. DISCUSSION - The discussion is interesting, but some points should be rearranged. My primary concern is that the authors did not recognize the limitations of their methods. First, a white paper under the sentinel prey might have deterred some arthropods from assessing their prey. Many arthropods with poor vision use other environmental cues such as plant volatiles to find their prey. Such stimulus was not presented to potential predators when you use sentinel prey. The sentinel prey was also more exposed to predation than in natural conditions because this species is usually sheltered inside the banana plant stems. Also, the observation time (24 hours) may not have been sufficient to capture other predator species, especially invertebrates. These factors do not demerit the study in any way. However, they reinforce that it is necessary to use a combination of methods to understand the complex ecological interactions in agroecosystems and to understand the role of different species in biological control. I suggest that the authors add a section on these limitations as a basis for other more complex studies on the complementarity of biodiversity in pest control in the future. I also suggest focusing on how the approach used by the authors can be complementary to other methods and reveal unexpected interactions that other methods failed to capture. A section as been added as suggested, see section 4.3. - I am not sure if vertebrates are key actors (L295) in regulating C. sordidus populations because it may depend on the methods used in field trials and the species pool available for predating the insect. In other regions, such as the tropics, arthropods and other vertebrate species may be more relevant. For example, a farm without a pound nearby may not have amphibians as part of the predatory species pool. Therefore, I suggest authors restrict these extrapolations to their study region and suggest that more studies with vertebrates and invertebrates should be done in other regions to confirm their results. However, I suggest expanding the discussion on complementary effects (L334-337) and the relevance of species with distinct traits in providing biological control. That will provide more robust evidence to farmers and decision-makers that biodiversity matters for pest control and for designing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Nevertheless, as the authors mentioned (L396), their study was not designed to account for evaluating the role of habitat management in biological control. I suggest therefore reducing this discussion to open more space to discuss the methodological limitations of their study, as I mentioned before. In my opinion, this discussion would fit better in a conclusion section. Sentences have been added covering this point L461-468. Complementary effects and management perspectives are mentioned in conclusion as well. - I suggest authors add a conclusion section to their paper that answers the main questions stated in the introduction and indicates the new steps needed to understand the role of vertebrate predators in conservation biological control more broadly. A conclusion section was added as suggested. Reviewer #2: The authors are correct to be cautious about implying any causal relationship between weevil infestation level and cultural practices, as this is not tested thoroughly through this study. However I would note that similarly, their recommendations regarding provision of habitats for S. murinus, M. musculus and S. gutturalis are also only very weakly supported by the data in the study and would require further, hypothesis-driven manipulative experiments to be properly justified. These recommendations should also take into consideration whether these species are themselves considered pests of banana or plantain production via possible consumption of banana plants, as well as the potential for these predators to cause other potential issues for farmers, (for example, acting as potential hosts of infectious human pathogens such as Leptospira). This paragraph has been rephrased and completed as suggested L445-448. In general, I think the authors need to be careful about making these recommendations based purely on this study alone and instead stick to the main recommendations that can be supported by the data: that future studies on C. sordidus biological control need to focus on vertebrate predators, in particular the role of small rodents. A sentence has been added to highlight this point L461-468. All minor corrections of Reviewer 2 have been taken into account in the revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r002
18 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-22-13662R1Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Tresson, 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. I found you pasted your references several times. Please check your manuscript carefully and resubmit again. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 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, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r003
Revision 2
19 Aug 2022 Author Response Comment by academic editor: I found you pasted your references several times. Please check your manuscript carefully and resubmit again. Response: There was indeed issues with our references sections. The references have been checked carefully. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r004
24 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae) PONE-D-22-13662R2 Dear Dr. Tresson, 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, Bi-Song Yue, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Bi-Song Yue, Editor PONE-D-22-13662R2 Caught on camera: Field imagery reveals the unexpected importance of vertebrates for biological control of the banana weevil (Cosmopolites sordidus Col. Curculionidae) Dear Dr. Tresson: 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. Bi-Song Yue Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274223.r006

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 .