Long-term mammal herbivory on arthropod assemblages at Kruger National Park, South Africa

Ludzula Mukwevho; Tatenda Dalu; Frank Chidawanyika

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286396

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 4, 2023
17 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-23-06410Long-term mammal herbivory on arthropod assemblages at Kruger National Park, South Africa.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Mukwevho, 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 Jun 01 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, Tunira Bhadauria, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "LM received funding from the University of Mpumalanga (Research Theme Funds) and FC funded the project through University of the Free State and National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa. " Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank Dr Salmina Mokgehle (University of Mpumalanga) for the constructive comments which improved the earlier draft of the manuscript. Dr Mduduzi Ndlovu (University of Mpumalanga) is thanked for his valuable inputs during conceptualization of the study. Special thanks to Sinenhlanhla Promise Mntambo (University of Mpumalanga) for the identification of the ants collected at KNP. Gratitude also goes to Ntombikayise Ndwandwe and the Entomology class of 2019 from the University of Mpumalanga for the field assistance and arthropod sorting. We acknowledge funding from the University of Mpumalanga (Research Theme Funds) to LM and University of the Free State to FC who also received funding from the National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa. " 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: "LM received funding from the University of Mpumalanga (Research Theme Funds) and FC funded the project through University of the Free State and National Research Foundation (NRF), South Africa. " Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 6. 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. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Comments for Authors: 1. Was a short-term observation period enough for finding out impacts of herbivory on arthropod populations? Were the migration patterns of herbivores taken into consideration? 2. How do the authors conclude that the arthropod richness variations are solely affected by grazing intensities and not by other biotic or abiotic factors? Physico-chemical properties of habitats, competition for resources, prey-predator relationships can also account for such variations in their abundances. 3. The discussion and conclusion sections are very weak. The site-specific differences in arthropod abundances need to be addressed adequately. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, after carefully reading the manuscript, it seems that it has lots of merit and suitable for publication in some less impact factor journal than Plos One. The major concerns that i have are 1. Data are not of much dimensions. 2. The study does not has much relevant and importance data with ecosystems, it does not mean that arthropods are not important part of the ecosystem. 3. If the study may include some more angles related with arthropods that involves some laboratory work also, then the MS could have been considered in this journal. 4. There are several sentences readability and grammar problems. 5. As per impact factor of the journal, the study is not enough to be accepted at this form of the MS. ****** 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. <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286396.r001
Revision 1
25 Apr 2023 Author Response Journal requirements: Editor# 1. Ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Authors formatted the manuscript according to PLOS ONE’s style and the attached files were also named according to the journal’s requirements. 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. Response: The grant information was corrected and the research theme category was outlined as a reference (i.e., the funder does not assign a unique number). Furthermore, the University of Free State and NRF grant number was given. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Authors have declared that funders had no role in the research in the cover letter. 3. 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. Please remove any funding -related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: The funding information was deleted in the Acknowledgments section and does not appear anywhere on the revised version of the manuscript. The funding statement was also revised and shared on the cover letter. 4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. "Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study's minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOis, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. Response: The data file collated for this study is available online in the figshare repository: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22663963. This information was presented on the cover letter for editor’s attention. 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. Response: The ethics statement was presented in the methods section. Names of committees, reference numbers of permits and the issue dates were outlined in this section. Ethical information presented here corresponds (i.e., although paraphrased) with that presented in the “Ethics statement”. Response to reviewer’s comments Reviewer #1 1. Was a short-term observation period enough for finding out impacts of herbivory on arthropod populations? Were the migration patterns of herbivores taken into consideration? Response: We strongly believe that the period of the study was sufficient and the data collected clearly elaborated variations in abundance, richness and composition of arthropods between grazing exclosures. As for migration patterns, our study design was based on the management regimes in the form exclosures implemented by the Park authorities. This therefore gives a controlled design were grazing intensity, which in this case could be deemed as a proxy for migration, was accounted for. In an open grazing plan, indeed accounting for direct migration, which would be dependent on availability of resources, would be very important. Thus, these long term grazing exclosures, enabled us to focus more on our major subject of interest in the form of arthropod responses. 2. How do the authors conclude that the arthropod richness variations are solely affected by grazing intensities and not by other biotic or abiotic factors? Physico-chemical properties of habitats, competition for resources, prey-predator relationships can also account for such variations in their abundances. Response: The role of different biotic and abiotic factors cannot be disputed in any field trial. However, all the plots were assessed under similarly prevailing conditions such that we could attribute the differences in arthropod responses to the management regimes. We have however expressed caveats in our conclusion and indicated that other factors may be investigated in future studies. 3. The discussion and conclusion sections are very weak. The site-specific differences in arthropod abundances need to be addressed adequately. Response: The scope of the study did not include the site-specific factors outlined by the reviewer based on the assumptions given above and the inclusion of the suggested component in the discussion may therefore not add value to the current research. Reviewer #2: 1. Dear Authors, after carefully reading the manuscript, it seems that it has lots of merit and suitable for publication in some less impact factor journal than Plos One. The major concerns that i have are 1. Data are not of much dimensions. Response: Authors acknowledges complements on the merits of the manuscripts and still think PLOSONE is a suitable home for the manuscript. More importantly, we strongly feel that acceptance of a paper for publication should be solely based on the scientific merits of the study. Focusing on the journal metrices including IF is certainly subjective and prone to reviewer non-scientific elitist criteria for rejection e.g. geographic location or mere names of the authors as a basis for rejection. We would rather therefore be more drawn to discuss the science and not journal IF. As for dimensions, it is not clear whether the reviewer was referring to the mere measurable aspects of the study or its impact. Hence, for the comment to be constructive, it would have been highly appreciated if the reviewer had been elaborate citing the particular flaws or limitations of the study, which we could duly acknowledge if explicitly stated. 2. The study does not has much relevant and importance data with ecosystems, it does not mean that arthropods are not important part of the ecosystem. Response: In our region, National Parks are a major asset as indicated in the manuscript and organismal interactions therein with management practices to track potential pitfalls for biodiversity conservation is of high importance. This motivation is clearly indicated in our motivation for the study in the manuscript. We therefore find this reviewer comment highly uniformed since biodiversity conservation is highly topical and a matter of societal concern. Moreover, the targeted study organisms provide key ecosystem services (and potentially disservices) that warrant attention. As discussed above, it would be highly helpful to get the actual flaws of the study than blanket discounting statements to enrich the scientific discourse and advancement of the science. 3. If the study may include some more angles related with arthropods that involves some laboratory work also, then the MS could have been considered in this journal. Response: Again, we find this comment highly speculative giving little to scientific discourse as lab work is not just done for the sake of it. What particular “angles related with arthropods that involves some laboratory work” would have sufficed? Was the laboratory work we conducted on species IDs enough? Without suggestions of particular study aspects that required laboratory investigations, we find the comment inconsequential. 4. There are several sentences readability and grammar problems. Response: The manuscript was read several times including senior authors here who have no history of language problems. We strongly believe that the level of language use here is of acceptable level. 5. As per impact factor of the journal, the study is not enough to be accepted at this form of the MS. Response: The authors respect the view of the reviewer on the suitability of the manuscript and also appreciate the constructive inputs given. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286396.r002
15 May 2023 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Long-term mammal herbivory on arthropod assemblages at Kruger National Park, South Africa. PONE-D-23-06410R1 Dear Dr. Mukwevho 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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: <quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286396.r003
Formally Accepted
22 May 2023 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-23-06410R1 Long-term mammal herbivory on arthropod assemblages at Kruger National Park, South Africa Dear Dr. Mukwevho: 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. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286396.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 .