Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Brazilian Amazon

Ledayane Mayana Costa Barbosa; Vera Margarete Scarpassa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288983

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 6, 2022
1 Mar 2023 Decision Letter - Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, Editor PONE-D-22-27653 Bionomics and population dynamics of Anopheline immatures from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in eastern Amazonian Brazil PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Scarpassa, 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. The reviewers have provided their comments for the improvement of the manuscript. They do raise some further points that I recommend are considered in any subsequent revision. These six key points that would need to be addressed can be summarized as: 1. Review the abstract and introduction, clarifying the problem and scientific gap. 2. Clarify the reason for selecting the study area in the methodology section. 3. Clearly explain the environmental parameters that were analyzed and why the authors did not analyze water salinity. 4. Review terminology when referring to insect life cycle stages. 5. Improve the discussion including potential solutions to the problems encountered. 6. Include study limitations. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 15 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, Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, M.Sc. 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: “NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors 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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments/ Funding Section of your manuscript: “This research was funded by MCTI/INPA (grant number: PRJ 12.311) and by PRÓ-EQUIPAMENTO-CAPES.” 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: “NO - Include this sentence at the end of your statement: 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. 5. 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. 6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images 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/. 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: 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: Title : Bionomics and population dynamics of Anopheline immatures from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in eastern Amazonian Brazil Numbe r : PONE-D-22-27653 General comment: The authors present data that is important for the development of suitable vector control intervention to mitigate malaria transmission in the area, and therefore deserves publication in the journal if several shortcomings issues below are addressed: 1. Environmental parameters The authors classified 3 breeding sites observed, namely: Fish farming tanks, natural ponds and stream (Figs 2A-C). Unfortunately, the vegetation that are feasible in the picture was not reported. Water vegetation is also important for some anopheles to avoid direct sun light in the tropical environment. 2. Limnological parameter: In the Table 3, water salinity was not recorded. Any specific reason why salinity is not measured? Is the study site located far inland? 3. Entomological parameters: The “immature” stage is better replaced with larva(e). 4. Results of this study underlines the importance of implementation of larval source management (LSM). As the majority of the breeding sites are fish farming tnks, the authors should discuss several options that might be suitable for the site and is acceptable by the owners of fish tank. Reviewer #2: This paper is well written Though I have this few comments REVIEWER COMMENTS #1 Comment: row number 1 Rewrite abstracts should show problem and aim, methodology, result and conclusion. Write it clearly for a reader to understand the problem and the gap that you are trying to find the solution #2 comment: row number 1 introduction When you say highest risk, you should show the number of incidences, and show how it lower the number of malaria cases, which interventions were used to lower interventions. Show the decrease in numbers. #3 Comment: row number 1 material and methods You need to explain why you selected the study area. What were the reason to select that area, was it because of higher malaria prevalence, was it because of agricultural activities that influence the presence of immature? #4 Comments: What were the limitations of this study? Need to explain the limitations so as to create the ground for those who will conduct this kind of study to take into consideration. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288983.r001
Revision 1
19 May 2023 Author Response Manaus, April 5, 2023. REBUTTAL LETTER List of specific response of each Reviewer Journal: PLoS ONE Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-27653 Title: Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Amazonian Brazil Authors: Ledayane Mayana Costa Barbosa; Vera Margarete Scarpassa Dr. Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo Academic Editor of PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hlashwayo, We are very grateful to the you and two Reviewers for the comments and observations who significantly improved this manuscript. We hope that this revised version will be acceptable for publication in this important Journal. We inform that the manuscript was extensively revised encompassing all sections, especially abstract. The title was also slightly modified as well as the English was improved throughout the manuscript, as are listed in “Revised manuscript with track copy”. We also inform that Satellite image (Figure 1) was obtained from site https://eros.usgs.gov/# USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public dominion) provided by you in the message “PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-22-27653]”. The references were revised in accordance the PLoS ONE’s Rules, as are listed in “Revised manuscript with track copy”. We provided below a list of specific response for each Reviewer comment. LIST OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REVIEWER NUMBER 1: Reviewer’ comments #1: Environmental parameters. The authors classified 3 breeding sites observed, namely: Fish farming tanks, natural ponds and stream (Figs 2A-C). Unfortunately, the vegetation that are feasible in the picture was not reported. Water vegetation is also important for some anopheles to avoid direct sun light in the tropical environment. Author response: Sorry, we forget of include this information into first version of this manuscript. We provided this information “The aquatic vegetation found in breeding sites was identified as Lemma sp., Pistia sp., Eichhornia sp., Nymphaea sp. and Juncus sp. “This information is on page 12, lines 11 and 12. Reviewer’comments #2: Limnological parameter: In the Table 3, water salinity was not recorded. Any specific reason why salinity is not measured? Author response: We did not calculate the water salinity because the previous Limnological studies have reported that in the Amazon Delta and also for several tens of kilometers, along the coast, in north direction, salinity is close to zero. For this reason, we did not assess salinity in this study. Reviewer’comments #2: Is the study site located far inland? Author response: It is about 817 meters from Inland. Reviewer’comments #3: Entomological parameters: The “immature” stage is better replaced with larva(e). Author response: We have attended this suggestion. However, there are few sentences into manuscript that we kept the word immature, because encompasses both larval and pupal stages. The pupae were also collected in this study and they were kept in plastic bottles with water from the breeding site until the emergence of adults and following were identified. Reviewer’comments #4: 4. Results of this study underlines the importance of implementation of larval source management (LSM). As the majority of the breeding sites are fish farming tanks, the authors should discuss several options that might be suitable for the site and is acceptable by the owners of fish tank. Author response: The ideal situation would be to use the fish farming tanks for the purpose for which they were built. However, the residents do not have the resources or funding from the government to carry out or to maintain this project. Then, the alternative situation and the most indicate and drastic, would be to neutralize or remove these tanks. This measure requires extensive discussion together with the Staffs of the Secretary of Health of the states and communities local. This is a very polemic situation. For this reason, we have limited this discussion into manuscript. LIST OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REVIEWER NUMBER 2: Reviewer’general comment This paper is well written. Though I have this few comments. Author response: Thank you Reviewer’comments #1: Rewrite abstracts should show problem and aim, methodology, result and conclusion. Write it clearly for a reader to understand the problem and the gap that you are trying to find the solution Author response: We have included these topics into abstract. Please, see page 2. Reviewer’comments #2: Introduction When you say highest risk, you should show the number of incidences, and show how it lower the number of malaria cases, which interventions were used to lower interventions. Show the decrease in numbers. Author response: We have attended this suggestion. These informations were included in first paragraph from Introduction section, page 3. Reviewer’comments #3: row number 1 material and methods You need to explain why you selected the study area. What were the reasons to select that area, was it because of higher malaria prevalence, was it because of agricultural activities that influence the presence of immature? Author response: We have attended this suggestion. The sentence was included on page 5, lines 1, 2 and 3 from M&M section, as follow: “The selection of the study area took into account number of malaria cases, high incidence of A. darlingi and others vector [2, 7-9,18] and the high migratory flow of humans related to intense agricultural activities.” Reviewer’comments #4: What were the limitations of this study? Need to explain the limitations so as to create the ground for those who will conduct this kind of study to take into consideration. Author response: The difficulties found are common to other studies, such as limited or scarce funds (grants) and lack of field staff for help us. For this study, we had to pay a team to help us in field with our own salary. It was too hardy. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Specific response for each Reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288983.r002
23 May 2023 Decision Letter - Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, Editor PONE-D-22-27653R1Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Amazonian BrazilPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Scarpassa, 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. We appreciate the effort you have made in addressing the comments provided by the reviewers. We have found the revisions to be satisfactory. Before proceeding with the final decision, we would like to suggest that you consider conducting a proofreading of the manuscript. Proofreading plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the content. It allows you to review the grammar, spelling, and overall language usage, ensuring that the article is presented in the best possible form. A thorough proofreading can further enhance the quality and readability of your work. It will help eliminate any potential minor errors or inconsistencies that may have been overlooked during the initial review process. We appreciate your understanding and cooperation in this matter. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 07 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, Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, M.Sc. 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: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0288983.r003
Revision 2
4 Jul 2023 Author Response Manaus, April 5, 2023. REBUTTAL LETTER List of specific response of each Reviewer Journal: PLoS ONE Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-27653 Title: Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Amazonian Brazil Authors: Ledayane Mayana Costa Barbosa; Vera Margarete Scarpassa Dr. Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo Academic Editor of PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hlashwayo, We are very grateful to the you and two Reviewers for the comments and observations who significantly improved this manuscript. We hope that this revised version will be acceptable for publication in this important Journal. We inform that the manuscript was extensively revised encompassing all sections, especially abstract. The title was also slightly modified as well as the English was improved throughout the manuscript, as are listed in “Revised manuscript with track copy”. We also inform that Satellite image (Figure 1) was obtained from site https://eros.usgs.gov/# USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public dominion) provided by you in the message “PLOS ONE Decision: Revision required [PONE-D-22-27653]”. The references were revised in accordance the PLoS ONE’s Rules, as are listed in “Revised manuscript with track copy”. We provided below a list of specific response for each Reviewer comment. LIST OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REVIEWER NUMBER 1: Reviewer’ comments #1: Environmental parameters. The authors classified 3 breeding sites observed, namely: Fish farming tanks, natural ponds and stream (Figs 2A-C). Unfortunately, the vegetation that are feasible in the picture was not reported. Water vegetation is also important for some anopheles to avoid direct sun light in the tropical environment. Author response: Sorry, we forget of include this information into first version of this manuscript. We provided this information “The aquatic vegetation found in breeding sites was identified as Lemma sp., Pistia sp., Eichhornia sp., Nymphaea sp. and Juncus sp. “This information is on page 12, lines 11 and 12. Reviewer’comments #2: Limnological parameter: In the Table 3, water salinity was not recorded. Any specific reason why salinity is not measured? Author response: We did not calculate the water salinity because the previous Limnological studies have reported that in the Amazon Delta and also for several tens of kilometers, along the coast, in north direction, salinity is close to zero. For this reason, we did not assess salinity in this study. Reviewer’comments #2: Is the study site located far inland? Author response: It is about 817 meters from Inland. Reviewer’comments #3: Entomological parameters: The “immature” stage is better replaced with larva(e). Author response: We have attended this suggestion. However, there are few sentences into manuscript that we kept the word immature, because encompasses both larval and pupal stages. The pupae were also collected in this study and they were kept in plastic bottles with water from the breeding site until the emergence of adults and following were identified. Reviewer’comments #4: 4. Results of this study underlines the importance of implementation of larval source management (LSM). As the majority of the breeding sites are fish farming tanks, the authors should discuss several options that might be suitable for the site and is acceptable by the owners of fish tank. Author response: The ideal situation would be to use the fish farming tanks for the purpose for which they were built. However, the residents do not have the resources or funding from the government to carry out or to maintain this project. Then, the alternative situation and the most indicate and drastic, would be to neutralize or remove these tanks. This measure requires extensive discussion together with the Staffs of the Secretary of Health of the states and communities local. This is a very polemic situation. For this reason, we have limited this discussion into manuscript. LIST OF SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO REVIEWER NUMBER 2: Reviewer’general comment This paper is well written. Though I have this few comments. Author response: Thank you Reviewer’comments #1: Rewrite abstracts should show problem and aim, methodology, result and conclusion. Write it clearly for a reader to understand the problem and the gap that you are trying to find the solution Author response: We have included these topics into abstract. Please, see page 2. Reviewer’comments #2: Introduction When you say highest risk, you should show the number of incidences, and show how it lower the number of malaria cases, which interventions were used to lower interventions. Show the decrease in numbers. Author response: We have attended this suggestion. These informations were included in first paragraph from Introduction section, page 3. Reviewer’comments #3: row number 1 material and methods You need to explain why you selected the study area. What were the reasons to select that area, was it because of higher malaria prevalence, was it because of agricultural activities that influence the presence of immature? Author response: We have attended this suggestion. The sentence was included on page 5, lines 1, 2 and 3 from M&M section, as follow: “The selection of the study area took into account number of malaria cases, high incidence of A. darlingi and others vector [2, 7-9,18] and the high migratory flow of humans related to intense agricultural activities.” Reviewer’comments #4: What were the limitations of this study? Need to explain the limitations so as to create the ground for those who will conduct this kind of study to take into consideration. Author response: The difficulties found are common to other studies, such as limited or scarce funds (grants) and lack of field staff for help us. For this study, we had to pay a team to help us in field with our own salary. It was too hardy. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: List of specific response for each Reviewer.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288983.r004
10 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, Editor Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Brazilian Amazon PONE-D-22-27653R2 Dear Dr. Scarpassa, 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, Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, M.Sc. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The tables present in the main text are identical to those in the supplemental files. Therefore, I recommend considering keeping them in either the main text or the supplemental files to avoid redundancy. Additionally, the figure included in the supplemental files is also present in the main text. I kindly ask you to decide whether it should remain in the supplemental files or be included solely in the main text, based on the most appropriate location for a comprehensive understanding of the study. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288983.r005
Formally Accepted
17 Aug 2023 Acceptance Letter - Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo, Editor PONE-D-22-27653R2 Bionomics and population dynamics of anopheline larvae from an area dominated by fish farming tanks in northern Brazilian Amazon Dear Dr. Scarpassa: 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 Ms. Delfina Fernandes Hlashwayo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288983.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 .