PONE-D-24-06149Innovative monitoring scheme at remote, scattered nesting aggregation reveals a major loggerhead turtle rookery in New Caledonia, South PacificPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bourgogne,

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.

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

 In this study, a new survey protocol and statistical model-based approach for predicting sea turtle nest numbers in remote, difficult-to-reach areas of New Caledonia are presented. The manuscript is well written. The manuscript has been reviewed by two reviewers and based on these revisions, the authors need to edit or correct their manuscript accordingly.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 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,

Murtada D. Naser

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. 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: 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: Short title: The proposed short title is not short. Suggestion: Innovative monitoring scheme at remote loggerhead rookeries

The MS is written nicely and clearly, the proposed protocols and analyses are well-founded, and the references are adequate. Statistical analyses are rigorous and well-explained.

Data is made available in the supporting information provided. The data might be used to test the models presented and help to support the findings. Suggestion: For non-mathematician readers, R scripts providing examples of the code used in the analyses may facilitate the use for other researchers. Scripts may be provided as supplementary data or in a GitHub repository.

In section 2.3. I suggest rearranging the text so that in this section's parts, the last paragraph describes the software used for the analyses. For example, in the section “2.3.2 Model for nesting seasonality “, I suggest specifically mentioning it at the end (last paragraph) for example: “Nesting seasonality was modelled the Girondot phenological model (29,30) using R package “phenology” (and cite reference 40 here)”.

In this way, all sections follow the same structure: explaining the model and software used if needed.

In section 2.3.3. Did the authors use a specific R package? Mention it (see above comment)

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript titled "Innovative monitoring scheme at remote, scattered nesting aggregation reveals a

major loggerhead turtle rookery in New Caledonia, South Pacific" with interest. This paper presents a new method for estimating sea turtle nest counts in isolated, hard-to-reach locations in New Caledonia based on a new survey protocol and the use of statistical models.

While I find your approach fascinating, I do, however, have some questions and suggestions.

Lines 33-34. You mentioned that this rookery hosts a large nesting colony, with a mean annual estimate of 437 nests. How many females does this represent? Is the number similar to that of major rookeries in Australia?

Line 135. What is the average size of these islets? How much time does a person require to survey each islet thoroughly? This information should be part of the protocol as it is part of the survey effort.

Lines 194 - 198. You did an excellent job explaining the parameters of the model, but I think a graphic explanation might be very helpful.

Lines 229 - 231. This statement was not clear to me. When you say "islets not surveyed", do you refer to those within the 28 considered in this study or additional ones? Additionally, if the islets are of different sizes, and the available nesting habitat is different on each, wouldn't this affect your estimates? I assume the larger islets would have more nests than the small ones. How do you estimate the number of nests if you did not factor in the size of the islets?

Line 253. This sentence was a bit confusing. Could you please rephrase it to make it clearer?

Throughout the text, I found some typos and grammatical errors that need to be corrected. As someone whose native language is not English, I strongly suggest a full review by someone who can help correct the grammar better than I can.

Best wishes.

**********

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: Eduardo J. Belda

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-24-06149.pdf

Innovative monitoring scheme adapted to remote, scattered nesting aggregation reveals a major loggerhead turtle rookery in New Caledonia, South Pacific

PONE-D-24-06149R1

Dear Dr. Bourgogne,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Murtada D. Naser

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: