PONE-D-22-18618Comparison of sampling methods for small oxbow wetland fish communitiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Osterhaus,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.The manuscript has improved greatly, but we feel that additional revision is needed. Please see comments below.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 Sep 30 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,

Stefano Larsen

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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"We thank our field technicians, S. Grinstead and C. Wood, for the many hours spent in the field collecting the data presented within this manuscript. We also thank the various collaborating entities and individuals who have made this project possible, either through funding or support of the research efforts. Collaborators for this project include C. McKinney, K. Wilke, A. Kenney, J. Olson, D. Weissenfluh, Iowa Soybean Association, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, The Nature Conservancy, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Finally, we thank the many landowners whose support was vital for the success of this project".

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.

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 note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

5. 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. 

6. 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:

Dear Dr Osterhaus,

I have now received comments from the two reviewers that assessed a previous version of the manuscript.

Both reviewers agreed that the revised version is greatly improved, and I agree with this view.

Before I am able to accept the manuscript for publication, you need to address a key issue raised by rev.1. This is regarding the definition of CPUE. For coherence, the reviewer proposes an update of the definition used in your study, to account of the different gears used.

Please consider the suggestions and modify the text accordingly, to the extent that you consider agreeable.

I therefore recommend minor revision at the moment.

Looking forward to receive the latest version.

[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: * GENERAL COMMENTS

The study reported in the manuscript PONE-D-22-18618 ("Comparison of

sampling methods for small oxbow wetland fish communities") compared

four sampling methodologies, two active and two passive gears, with

regard of effectiveness in sampling fish communities of small wetland

oxbows.

I have reviewed a former draft of the MS. The Authors have reworked

the paper, and they have considered and applied the suggestions of the

former reviewers. As a result, the MS has improved a lot. It is a well

written paper, contains relevant results and suggestions for

monitoring fish communities in small oxbows. I would like to highlight

the merit of the Discussion, which has valuable parts regarding the

practical use of the each gear in the field.

However, one issue have remained in the text that I do not agree

with. See my SPECIFIC COMMENTS below for the details, where I have

made a suggestion (an easy conceptual correction) to solve that issue.

Please consider my suggestion or another change in order to make your

paper more clear and exact.

In my opinion, the MS is publishable provided that the authors correct

the issue in question. I have some small notes as well that need to be

revised; please refer to the SPECIFIC COMMENTS.

* SPECIFIC COMMENTS

L140-141 Please correct the notes for the unit of measure of

conductivity. The correct form has a capital "S", which stands for

"Siemens".

L151-152 The sentence starting "Future studies..." maybe would be in a

better place in the Discussion. But, I see reason why you have written

that here. So, it can also remain here, but it makes a small

"stylistic" dissonance because this sentence evaluates.

L166-172 This is the issue that I do not agree with. As far as I am

concerned, Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) is an applicable way to

standardize data sampled only with the *same* sampling

methodology. The sampling effort is basically gear-specific (e.g.,

electrofishing time, exposure time, the number of fyke nets used, and

so on), so it can not be comparable between gears. Consequently, your

CPUE ("the number of fish collected per 100m2 of oxbow surface area")

as it is now, is not a real CPUE. On the other hand, your data need to

be standardized to control for the size differences of the

oxbows. Hence, I understand the reason why you scaled your raw catch

data to unit surface area; it is correct. But to be precise in the use

of concepts, I do recommend changing the response variable CPUE to

"catch per unit surface area" (CPUS) or "catch per unit area" (CPUA),

and leaving the CPUE. In summary, if I were you, I would highlight the

need for scaling the raw data to control for the size differences of

the oxbows, instead of reasoning with "the ability to sample the

entire fish community within an oxbow". In fact, dividing by the area

does not provide information on the entire fish community, so I am

afraid I cannot accept your argument. Please reconsider this part of

your paper. I think that the small correction I suggested would make

the text more accurate and precise.

L189 Maybe the word "levels" is not necessary because readers that are

less familiar with linear models or the jargon of statistics may not

understand what "levels" mean. You sampled each oxbow only once, so

your factor 'oxbow' in the models have 11 levels each with one

repetition. Therefore, averaging over the levels eventually means

averaging over the oxbows, if I am not mistaken. An other option can

be giving a little bit more explanation on what "levels" means.

L 320-321 Please consider changing the word "sites" to "oxbows".

Reviewer #2: I reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript and made the following over-arching recommendations, as well as some more minor recommendations. Given the revisions, I recommend acceptance.

“The manuscript needs to remove and greatly revise discussion of stress to fish, habitat disturbance, and ease of use. These objectives were neither qualitatively or quantitatively measured (e.g., time for deployment in terms of person/hours, percentage of disturbance to substrate and vegetation per unit area) nor were available literature used to support the assertions (i.e., fish stress following electrofishing versus net-based methods is well documented). Much of the discussion on stress, habitat disturbance, and ease of use is subjective and speculative. Either address by providing data, use the literature, or restrict the manuscript to quantitative comparisons of the fish assemblage and metrics. These comparisons are valuable and are publishable. Below, I have recommendations for revision. Some of these are substantial.”

The authors discussion of ease of implementation, interactions with habitat, and apparent mortality/stress are greatly improved. Number of visits and hours spent per visit are very important considerations, as is disturbance during sensitive life history stages.

The authors also did address minor recommendations. For example, the nonlinearity, non normality of the fish data were addressed, test statistics were added, and figure 1 was improved.

**********

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.

Comparison of sampling methods for small oxbow wetland fish communities

PONE-D-22-18618R1

Dear Dr. Stewart,

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,

Stefano Larsen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

The revised version of the manuscript has clearly integrated all comments and corrections proposed by the reviewers. In particular, the issue regarding the definition of CPUE/CPUA has been addressed. The figures were updated, and minor edits also included.

I therefore can recommend the manuscript for publication.

Best wishes

Reviewers' comments: