Naupliar exposure to acute warming does not affect ontogenetic patterns in respiration, body size, or development time in the cosmopolitan copepod Acartia tonsa

Mathew Holmes-Hackerd; Matthew Sasaki; Hans G. Dam

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282380

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2023
20 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Ram Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-04134Naupliar exposure to acute warming does not affect ontogenetic patterns in respiration, body size, or development time in the cosmopolitan copepod Acartia tonsaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sasaki, 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 May 04 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, Ram Kumar, 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank Catherine Matassa and George McManus for their useful feedback. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (OCE 1947965) awarded to H. G. Dam." 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: "This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant (OCE 1947965) awarded to HGD. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript gives new insight into the impact of rising temperature under climate change on the naupliar development. I would specially like to mention that, this research has adopted an experimental approach to address the effects of temperature rise on the energetics, metabolism and different larval stages. Though the experimental findings are difficult to acclimatize into real world environment, a setup of multiple test combinations have answered many questions and based on this observation the authors were able to demonstrate that, the ecologically important coastal copepod Acartia tonsa exhibits resilience to acute warming. Temperature effects on developmental rates has been elucidated in several papers on P. annandalei , Acartia bilobata etc. The Ms provides additonal information on impacts of acute level temprature change on crustacean larval development The manuscript will be benefitted from following reference on Nauplius size growth rate: Journal of Plankton Research, Volume 20, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 271–287, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/20.2.271 and DOI: 10.1127/0003-9136/2003/0157-0351 Authors should carefully check formatting patterns and reference style [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: Dear Authors, I found this manuscript very interesting. However, there are some comments and suggestions to clarify some part to improve the manuscript. 1. Line no: 107-109 should go to conclusion section of manuscript. 2. All the figure and Graphs needs to be improved. It is not clear why author used scale such as 0e+00, 3e04….. in figure 3 and 5. Also, in Figure 1, in x-axis labels, the unit of temperature is written as (C) and (degree C). It should be (°C). 3. As this study has also analysed the sex-dependent metabolic responses of copepod but, it is not clear how many female or male individuals were present in the experiment or replicates taken. 4. In Copepodite respiration rate, in material and methods section, line no:183 is not clear. (a) The author should specify if they measured the respiration of copepodite stage in 8-hour interval or was it measured for a time period of 8 hours. (b) If it measured for a time period of 8 hours, a description should be added about why only 8 hours of respiration analyses were done for copepodite. 5. Line no: 420 In equation in place of ‘’ should use ‘x’ (character code: 00D7). 6. Line 381-383 and line 413-415 seems like repetition. 7. Formatting of references need to be uniform and according to journal reference style. Reviewer #2: Manuscripts Number: PONE-D-22-29055 Reviewer’s comment The manuscript is well written and provides new insight on the impact of rising temperature under climate change on the larval behavior of copepod. This experimental work gives us new understanding about the potential of copepods larvae resilience. Knowing the importance of the organism in the trophic structure and energy transfer and the information on how climate induced changes may lead to a cascading effect (top-down or bottom-up) is the need of hour. I would specially like to mention that, this research has adopted an experimental approach to address the effects of temperature rise on the energetics, metabolism and different larval stages. Though the experimental findings are difficult to acclimatize into real world environment, a setup of multiple test combinations have answered many questions and based on this observation the authors were able to demonstrate that, the ecologically important coastal copepod Acartia tonsa exhibits resilience to acute warming. I believe under ever-changing climate and ever-increasing human pressure on the world global ecosystem, this manuscript will fall in the line of global efforts of ecosystem conservation and future prediction model. This work also provided a promising finding which is quite opposite to the prevailing notion on the adverse impact due to the climate change which must be supported and substantiated later. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript has a potential for publication in PLOSE ONE. However, few of minor corrections from my side have been highlighted, corrected or deleted in the PDF file and request the authors to kindly incorporate the same as long as those are empirical. Since I am not a native of English speaking but still, I gave a try to correct few. However, I want a clarification from the author’s side “Since the authors have used sub-lethal dose of temperature and such mild level of treatment may not be effective and proven fatal at all stages? My question is what was the rationale for setting the particular level of temperature? ******* 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: Yes: Devesh Kumar Yadav Reviewer #2: Yes: Jawed Equbal ******** [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-23-04134_reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282380.r001
Revision 1
26 Mar 2023 Author Response We have included responses to the reviewer comments in a separate file. If needed, we have copied the contents of that file below. Response to editor and reviewer comments Editor Comments: The manuscript gives new insight into the impact of rising temperature under climate change on the naupliar development. I would specially like to mention that, this research has adopted an experimental approach to address the effects of temperature rise on the energetics, metabolism and different larval stages. Though the experimental findings are difficult to acclimatize into real world environment, a setup of multiple test combinations have answered many questions and based on this observation the authors were able to demonstrate that, the ecologically important coastal copepod Acartia tonsa exhibits resilience to acute warming. Temperature effects on developmental rates has been elucidated in several papers on P. annandalei , Acartia bilobata etc. The Ms provides additonal information on impacts of acute level temprature change on crustacean larval development. The manuscript will be benefitted from following reference on Nauplius size growth rate: Journal of Plankton Research, Volume 20, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 271–287, https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/20.2.271 and DOI: 10.1127/0003-9136/2003/0157-0351 Authors should carefully check formatting patterns and reference style. We thank the editor for their support of our manuscript. We have addressed the two formatting issues in our previous submission by including a title page, correcting the section heading formats, and including captions for the Supporting Information at the end of the manuscript text. We have also corrected the reference formatting. Additionally, we included the references to the specified studies in the discussion section of our manuscript (line 442). We thank the editor for bringing these studies to our attention as they illustrate an important additional consideration about developmental trajectories in copepods. Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, I found this manuscript very interesting. However, there are some comments and suggestions to clarify some part to improve the manuscript. We thank the reviewer for their helpful feedback on our manuscript. We have incorporated the suggestions into the revised version as detailed below. 1. Line no: 107-109 should go to conclusion section of manuscript. We have moved this sentence to the discussion section of the manuscript (now found at line 331-332). 2. All the figure and Graphs needs to be improved. It is not clear why author used scale such as 0e+00, 3e04….. in figure 3 and 5. Also, in Figure 1, in x-axis labels, the unit of temperature is written as (C) and (degree C). It should be (°C). We have modified the y-axis scale to use decimal values instead of scientific notation. We have also corrected the x-axis labels in Figure 1. 3. As this study has also analysed the sex-dependent metabolic responses of copepod but, it is not clear how many female or male individuals were present in the experiment or replicates taken. We have now included the number of male and female individuals in the results section (lines 243-245). 4. In Copepodite respiration rate, in material and methods section, line no:183 is not clear. (a) The author should specify if they measured the respiration of copepodite stage in 8-hour interval or was it measured for a time period of 8 hours. (b) If it measured for a time period of 8 hours, a description should be added about why only 8 hours of respiration analyses were done for copepodite. We have clarified the language in this section to specify that respiration rates were measured over an 8 hour period of time, not at 8 hour intervals (line 185-188). We used this duration because it minimized the amount of experimental handling each individual was subjected to, while still resulting in detectable oxygen drawdown. 5. Line no: 420 In equation in place of ‘’ should use ‘x’ (character code: 00D7). We have replaced the character as suggested (line 426). 6. Line 381-383 and line 413-415 seems like repetition. We have re-written the second section (now found at line 420) to avoid repetition. 7. Formatting of references need to be uniform and according to journal reference style. We have corrected the reference formatted in this new version. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well written and provides new insight on the impact of rising temperature under climate change on the larval behavior of copepod. This experimental work gives us new understanding about the potential of copepods larvae resilience. Knowing the importance of the organism in the trophic structure and energy transfer and the information on how climate induced changes may lead to a cascading effect (top-down or bottom-up) is the need of hour. I would specially like to mention that, this research has adopted an experimental approach to address the effects of temperature rise on the energetics, metabolism and different larval stages. Though the experimental findings are difficult to acclimatize into real world environment, a setup of multiple test combinations have answered many questions and based on this observation the authors were able to demonstrate that, the ecologically important coastal copepod Acartia tonsa exhibits resilience to acute warming. I believe under ever-changing climate and ever-increasing human pressure on the world global ecosystem, this manuscript will fall in the line of global efforts of ecosystem conservation and future prediction model. This work also provided a promising finding which is quite opposite to the prevailing notion on the adverse impact due to the climate change which must be supported and substantiated later. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript has a potential for publication in PLOSE ONE. However, few of minor corrections from my side have been highlighted, corrected or deleted in the PDF file and request the authors to kindly incorporate the same as long as those are empirical. Since I am not a native of English speaking but still, I gave a try to correct few. However, I want a clarification from the author’s side: “Since the authors have used sub-lethal dose of temperature and such mild level of treatment may not be effective and proven fatal at all stages? My question is what was the rationale for setting the particular level of temperature? We thank the reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript – we have incorporated many of the recommended changes into the resubmitted version (see lines 18-20, 20-22, 28-29, 35-37 for examples). We have also expanded the sections detailing our decision to focus on sub-lethal stress in the methods section (lines 130-132). Namely, selection of a non-lethal temperature was necessary in order to avoid confounding effects of selection for heat tolerant individuals on measurements later in development. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response_to_reviewer_comments.docx* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282380.r002
10 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Ram Kumar, Editor Naupliar exposure to acute warming does not affect ontogenetic patterns in respiration, body size, or development time in the cosmopolitan copepod Acartia tonsa PONE-D-23-04134R1 Dear Dr. Sasaki, 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. We thank you for considering Plose-One as an important vehicle for dissemination of your research findings. 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, Ram Kumar, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282380.r003
Formally Accepted
12 Apr 2023 Acceptance Letter - Ram Kumar, Editor PONE-D-23-04134R1 Naupliar exposure to acute warming does not affect ontogenetic patterns in respiration, body size, or development time in the cosmopolitan copepod Acartia tonsa Dear Dr. Sasaki: 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 Professor Ram Kumar Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282380.r004

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 .