Diversity in the internal functional feeding elements of sympatric morphs of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus)

Guðbjörg Ósk Jónsdóttir; Laura-Marie von Elm; Finnur Ingimarsson; Samuel Tersigni; Sigurður Sveinn Snorrason; Arnar Pálsson; Sarah Elizabeth Steele

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300359

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 22, 2023
5 Jan 2024 Decision Letter - Michael Schubert, Editor PONE-D-23-30771Diversity in the internal functional feeding elements of sympatric morphs of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus).PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jónsdóttir, 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 19 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, Michael Schubert 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank the Institute of Biology at the University of Iceland for financial support." We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: "AP: The Institute of Biology at the University of Iceland supported the field expeditions. No grant number. (www.luvs.hi.is). The funder 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. 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. 6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 7. 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: This is a nice and interesting study that I enjoyed reading. In my opinion it is basically ready for publication and I do not have any major comments. I do have one rather minor comment, though: You mention that the patterns of allometry differ among morphs (and bones). You touch this topic only marginally in the discussion (or did I miss it?), although I think this is very intersting. I would suggest to put also more emphasis on discussing the differences in allometry - i.e. by discussing potential (obvious?) niche shifts and corresponding morphological changes during ontogeny. Reviewer #2: The authors approach their questions, and the data, appropriately and are quite thorough in their methodology. Statistical analyses were appropriate, and the authors used well established methods for their data type and hypothesis testing. The authors provide all required information on how to find their data, images, and methods. The manuscript is extremely well written. ****** 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: Yes: Michelle C Gilbert ******** [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-23-30771_review_MCG.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300359.r001
Revision 1
19 Feb 2024 Author Response Here when referencing pages or lines of the manuscript, we are refereeing to track changes version of the manuscript (BoneManuscript_track_changes.docx). We went over the entire manuscript to check for typos and other glitches and change a few sentences we felt could be worded better. All such changes are indicated in the track changes version of the manuscript. Our responses: 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 R: We have reviewed the manuscript and file names. All seem to meet the PLOS ONE’s style requirements. 2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). R: We have uploaded the image files and associated datasets to Figshare+ (doi: 10.25452/figshare.plus.25118825) and flat files with landmark data and other data, and the R code to Github (https://github.com/GudbjorgOskJ/CharrBonesTVV). 3. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. R: We amended the methods section (page: 5, line: 105, track changes version of the manuscript) It now reads: “Sexually mature arctic charr from Lake Þingvallavatn were collected (Fall 2020/21) using composite nets laid overnight (fish died in net) and seine nets (fish were killed by single blow to the head).” 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We thank the Institute of Biology at the University of Iceland for financial support." We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that 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: "AP: The Institute of Biology at the University of Iceland supported the field expeditions. No grant number. (www.luvs.hi.is). The funder 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. R: We removed the “We thank the Institute of Biology at the University of Iceland for financial support." from the Acknowledgements. There is no need to update the Funding statement. Note, we now thank editor and reviewers in Acknowledgements. Updated Acknowledgements (page: 24, line: 547, track changes version of the manuscript): “…. constructive criticism and great social environment. Finally, we thank the editor, an anonymous reviewer and Michelle C. Gilbert for helpful comments on the manuscript.” 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. R: The ethics statement was slightly rewritten, expanded and text clarified, and is now also included in the Methods section (page: 5, line: 102, track changes version of the manuscript): “This study involves sampling and killing of wild fishes, and for such studies a scientific fish fieldwork from the Directorate of Fisheries in Iceland (www.fiskistofa.is) is needed. Arnar Pálsson, an author on this study was in charge and present for all sampling efforts and, for the period of study, had such scientific fish fieldwork permits (#0460/2021-2.0 and #0042/2014-2.13).” 6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. R: We have made the data accessible on Figshare+ (doi:10.25452/figshare.plus.25118825) and on Github (https://github.com/GudbjorgOskJ/CharrBonesTVV). See page: 6, line: 124 in the track changes version of the manuscript. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. R: We have reviewed the reference list and made a few minor changes. One reference (Pigliucci, 2008) was removed as we felt the citation was not necessary for that sentence, used to be cited at page: 2, line: 35. One new citation was added (reference number 108, Delling et al., 2023), cited on page: 20, line: 452. We edited references number 89 (Huckins, 1997) and 113 (Collar et al., 2009). In the previous version all characters in the title of the papers were uppercase, this has now been fixed. Reviewer #1: This is a nice and interesting study that I enjoyed reading. In my opinion it is basically ready for publication and I do not have any major comments. I do have one rather minor comment, though: You mention that the patterns of allometry differ among morphs (and bones). You touch this topic only marginally in the discussion (or did I miss it?), although I think this is very intersting. I would suggest to put also more emphasis on discussing the differences in allometry - i.e. by discussing potential (obvious?) niche shifts and corresponding morphological changes during ontogeny. R: We thank the reviewer for this good summary. We like the suggestion of elaborating on the allometry, and have adjusted the manuscript to expand slightly on this angle. See page: 17, line: 376 in the track changes version of the manuscript: “It would be interesting to see if this holds in more salmonid populations, and also if this is accompanied by notable allometric changes in the dentary as we found here.” And (page: 23, line: 537, in the track changes version of the manuscript): “Does rapid evolution of these traits in other salmonids also lead to changes in allometric relationships, like we observed for the dentary?” Reviewer #2: The authors approach their questions, and the data, appropriately and are quite thorough in their methodology. Statistical analyses were appropriate, and the authors used well established methods for their data type and hypothesis testing. The authors provide all required information on how to find their data, images, and methods. The manuscript is extremely well written. R: We thank the reviewer for this generous and warm summary. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300359.r002
27 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Michael Schubert, Editor Diversity in the internal functional feeding elements of sympatric morphs of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). PONE-D-23-30771R1 Dear Dr. Jónsdóttir, 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, Michael Schubert Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300359.r003
Formally Accepted
9 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Michael Schubert, Editor PONE-D-23-30771R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jónsdóttir, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Michael Schubert Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300359.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 .