PONE-D-22-28125Multi-trophic occupancy modeling connects temporal dynamics of woodpeckers and beetle sign following firePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Morgan Tingley,

Thank you for submitting your study to PLOS ONE.

You have produced a high-quality research paper, and reviewers were constructive (they requested Minor and Major reviews). Please try to follow their suggestions, and present explanations when you disagree.

 Reviewer 1 was quite positive about your submission, and made some comments and suggestions.

 Reviewer 2 is mainly concerned with the independence of the survey stations. It would be good to provide some explanations/details or make changes to avoid negative criticism by readers. This reviewer also made several comments and suggestions on the manuscript text (please see the yellow balloons).

 I also made some corrections regarding formatting and presentation (please see below).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2023 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,

Dárius Pukenis Tubelis, 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. 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.

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. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map image 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/

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.

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

Review by the Editor Dárius Tubelis

Lines 77, 141. It should be “Ray et al [13]” (italics and no dot) (it is the number, not the year). Please check if it happened with other citations (I did not find).

Lines 97. It should be “(Fig 1)”. (no dot). Please check this for all citations and captions of figures.

Line 276. Maybe, “;” should be replaced by “)”. It is strange.

Reference 7. Initials should not be in capitals, except in the first word, and names of regions, species, etc…Refs 16, 39 and 41 also have this problem. Please check all refs carefully again.

References 20 and 21. The underline should not be there.

Reference 32. It appears to have a problem with the second author.

Reference 33. The journal is missing. Add: “Trends Ecol Evol.”

Reference 40. The species name should be in italics. Please check this for all refs.

Reference 43. Use the abbreviated name of the journal. Please check this too.

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

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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Manuscript "Multi-trophic occupancy modeling connects temporal dynamics of woodpeckers and beetle sign following fire" is a unique set of long-term data that sheds light on the relationship between different components of ecosystems. The manuscript is of particular interest in view of the fact that the data obtained in it can be used both in protection and in management. Statistical analysis in these ms been performed appropriately and rigorously. Manuscript written in good English. This ms certainly deserves publication in this journal. Despite this, I have a number of comments and suggestions.

1. Keywords. The article talks a lot about dead and dying trees, perhaps the authors should include this in the keywords, instead of repeating the name of the woodpecker in English and Latin?

L 117 - Were fluctuations taken into account in the long-term number of woodpeckers? As studies show, the food supply is not the only factor affecting the number and occurrence of woodpeckers. The number of beetles can be very high, and there can be no woodpeckers due to low numbers, for example, due to poor breeding or a harsh winter that led to a strong decrease in numbers.

L 187-189. Sorry, but are you sure this is the best way to convert categorical variables to scale variables?

L 205-207. This is very interesting and novel, but I have some doubts that it is "continuous"

Reviewer #2: One of my main concerns is that survey stations are used as the independent unit of analysis.

Additional information is required to justify this decision.

For example, what was the average distance between survey stations (and standard deviation)? Did this distance vary based on the size of the fire perimeter?

As the manuscript is written, this critical issue does not receive sufficient discussion.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-28125_reviewer.pdf

Multi-trophic occupancy modeling connects temporal dynamics of woodpeckers and beetle sign following fire

PONE-D-22-28125R1

Dear Dr. Morgan Tingley,

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,

Dárius Pukenis Tubelis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Morgan W. Tingley and co-authors,

I received the corrected version of your manuscript five days ago. I consider that it can be accepted in definitive for publication in PLOS ONE.

This is because you properly made changes in the text, following the reviewer´s suggestions, besides some other minor changes, besides a new analysis. 

I also appreciated the responses that you provided to both reviewers. They are very convincing.

Thus, I think that you produced an excelent paper, reflecting a well done research in this field of forest management.

Please follow the instructions that you will receive from the PLOS ONE team to complete the publication proccess.

Please make the following changes when you receive the proofs for correction, or before it, if possible:

Line 104. Eliminate the italics of "and".

Line 121. Maybe, it would be better like "05:30h"...

About using the verb "hypothesize" (suggested by an reviewer).

Please note that it still persists in other parts of the text.

Line 235. Maybe you can replace by "variables supposed to". Could be ?

Lines 237 and 240. Maybe, you can use something like "our hypothesis was that....". Please do it if you agree.

Acknowledgments (line 402):

Do not forget to add the number of the publication (I refer to XXX) of your Institute.

In the References Section:

Ref 1. There is a DOI, please add "doi:10.1890/08-0895.1"

Ref 4. Use the abbreviated title of the journal.

Ref 11. Delete "Storch, editor".

Ref 14. Delete the space before "backed".

Ref 15. Delete the space before "scale".

Ref 18. Add the city and ": " before Academic Press.

Ref 19, Use the abbreviated name of the journal.

Ref 25. Add the city and ": " before CRC/.

Ref 29. Use the abbreviated title of the journal.

Ref 32. Replace the capitals by small letters.

Ref 36. Use the abbreviated title of the journal.

Ref 38. The same above.

Ref 42 and 43. Delete the traces "-" between the capitals of author´s names.