Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-23-39772Moss bugs shed light on the evolution of complex bioacoustic systemsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Davranoglou,

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 Feb 16 2024 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,

Feng ZHANG, 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 financial disclosure: 

"Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship grant (ECF-2021-199); Elsa Neuman doctorate grant (application number H49023); German Academic Exchange travel grant (processing number D/09/04219)"

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:"This publication arises from research funded by the Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship grant (ECF-2021-199) and the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund to L.-R.Davranoglou. V. Hartung was funded by the Elsa Neuman doctorate grant (application numbe H49023) and the German Academic Exchange travel grant (processing number D/09/04219)."

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: "Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship grant (ECF-2021-199); Elsa Neuman doctorate grant (application number H49023); German Academic Exchange travel grant (processing number D/09/04219)"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

5. 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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: No

**********

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: The author is obviously a highly skilled morphologist and a very competent expert in the field of insect bioacoustics. The study addresses vibrational organs of a phylogenetically crucial taxon in the megadiverse Hemiptera.

l. 23. I would avoid “derived Hemiptera”, strictly speaking there are only derived characters/character states. I assume you mean Euhemiptera?

l. 138: I recommend using Roman numerals for abdominal segments, tergites and sternites (like e.g. in Beutel et al. 2014) (e.g. tergite I).

l. 149. I do not really like “in most Heteroptera” (or “most Auchenorrhyncha”) but would rather use “most species/groups of….” Or “most heteropterans”, but this is disputable.

l. 180. Studies in prep. cannot be really cited, maybe use pers. comm. instead?

There are some comparative statements in the morphological description (referring to Auchenorrhyncha) but in this specific case I have no objections.

Phylogenetic analysis

I mostly worked with maximum parsimony myself, but apparently Bayesian inference can produce better results, also concerning ancestral state reconstruction. But the use of MI is optional in this case.

Literature: relevant studies are fully covered as far as I can see.

Language: very good

Illustrations: excellent

To summarize, this is an outstanding study, in terms of morphological documentation, vibration recording, phylogenetic evaluation, and evolutionary interpretation.

I recommend publication after (very) minor revision.

It was a pleasure to read this.

Rolf G. Beutel

Reviewer #2: The paper addresses the bioacoustic system in Hemiptera by analysing and comparing functional morphology, video films, and laser vibrometry from extant species of Peloridiidae (and ther fossil relatives) with other hemipteran bugs and thereby provide new insight in the origin of this important feature.

The used techniques are relatively easy to follow even for a reader with no personal experience in these methods, and the morphological characters are scored and used in phylogenetic analyses suggesting new evidence for the relationship between peloridiids and other hemipteran bugs, even though the support for such relationships is still inconclusive.

The paper is very well written, and I only have a few minor details that I would like to see changed.

1. It wonder why the newly generated morphological characters used for the phylogenetic analyses are not available and open for inspection and discussion.

2. While the paper reviews studies of the relationship between Peloridiids and other hemipteran bugs, the relationships within the family are not addressed, even though they could be used to discuss the difference between species from New Zealand (Oiophysa, Xenophyes, Xenophysella) on one side and species from Australia (Hackeriella, Hemiodoecus) and South America (Peloridium) on the other as outlined on lin 114-118. According to the recent study by Ye et al. (2019), Peloridium is sister group to all other peloridiids, and the fauna from New Zealand (and New Caledonia) is sister group to a clade of other South American taxa and another clade consisting of the species from Australia and Lord Howe Is.

3. On Fig. 1, it is quite confusing that two males of Hackeriella weitchi are shown on top of one another. It would make more sense to show a single male or a male and a female.

4. I wonder if the references for inferring the relationships between Peloridiidae and other hemipterans for Fig. 2 on line 83-86 are correct.

Other formalia:

• Do check if the right type of brackets are used (see. e.g. ref. 63 on l. 303-304.

• Reference 64 is first mentioned in line 350, which is after succeeding references, e.g. ref. 67 in line 346.

**********

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: Rolf G. Beutel

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-23-39772.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Referee.docx

Moss bugs shed light on the evolution of complex bioacoustic systems

PONE-D-23-39772R1

Dear Dr. Davranoglou,

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,

Feng ZHANG, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: