PONE-D-23-44055Seasonality of Mansonia Blanchard (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini)in Porto Velho, State of Rondônia, Brazil.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saraiva,

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.

Both the reviewers have made a substantial amount of comments and suggestions, please address them individually. Also, please note that there might be some potential conflict of interest to clarify.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 17 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,

Luca Nelli, PhD

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"Research and Development project from Santo Antônio Energia (ANEEL project CT.PD.124.2018)."

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.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

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. 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/

[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: 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: 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: Article revisions PLOS ONE

Title: Seasonality of Mansonia Blanchard (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto Velho, State of Rondônia, Brazil, is relevant and is in line with the scope of the Journal. However, the following modifications need to be addressed to make it publishable:

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-44055

Abstract

Pg. 2. First sentence is too long and could be better written to improve comprehension. Suggestion: “Entomological research is vital for shaping strategies to control mosquito vectors. Its significance also reaches into environmental management, aiming to prevent inconveniences caused by non-vector mosquitoes like the Mansonia Blanchard mosquito.”

Pg. 2. Where it says: “In this study, we carried out a five-year comprehensive monitoring..” I would recommend writing the years of study in parenthesis. E.g.: “…we carried out a five-year (2019-2023)…”.

Pg. 2. Second sentence. There is too much repetition of the word location. Suggestion: “In this study, we conducted a comprehensive five-year (2019-2023) monitoring of these mosquitoes at ten sites in Porto Velho, Rondônia, using SkeeterVac SV3100 automatic traps positioned within the Madeira River hydroelectric complex..”

Pg. 2. Fourth sentence. “Notably, a significant decreasing trend in local abundance was

observed throughout the study.” It would be interesting to inform which months or year was this significant decrease in the density of Mansonia spp.

Introduction

Pg. 3. First sentence: “Entomological monitoring of mosquitoes represents an important part of public health data collection, as many of these insects are vectors of several human diseases.” Mosquitoes are vector of pathogens not diseases. Suggestion: “Entomological monitoring of mosquitoes represents an important part of public health data collection, as many of these insects are vectors of several human pathogens.”

Pg. 3. Delete the “ – “ symbol at the middle of the third sentence of the paragraph.

Material and methods

Area of the study

Indicate in the Methods section the license number of the collection.

What was the criterion used to decide on the distances between the collection areas?

The authors emphasize the importance of selecting a study area for comprehensive point sampling.

Add sources for demography.

In which entomological collection were the collected specimens deposited? Please provide this information along with their deposit numbers.

However, there are concerns about the methodology. Mosquitoes were extracted weekly from traps with a high specimen abundance, causing damage and compromised identifications. It's unclear why specimens weren't removed sooner. Identifying species richness is challenging, especially as many specimens were only identified to the genus level (Mansonia sp.) due to drying out in traps.

Figure 1. The legend of the map shows the color of Brazil as white, however the country appears as green, please correct it.

Pg. 5. First line of the third paragraph. Where it says: “The automatic traps were installed at ten points, each positioned in the surroundings of the selected residences.” How many residencies? Earlier on it mentions that the locations chosen for the study are characterized as rural, semi-rural, or peri-urban environments, how many traps were placed in each one of these classifications of level of urbanization?

Pg. 5. It is not mandatory, however, since the SkeeterVac SV3100 Automatic Traps are a new technology not used extensively, it would be more informative to add a picture of this trap and describe better its different parts, giving more details about its design and structure.

Pg. 5. It appears the traps were installed in different time periods in each location. Ideally for a correct statistical analysis all locations, to be compared to one another, should have the same period. How is it possible to compare July 2019 from locations: Jaci Paraná, Teotônio, and São Domingos if you don´t have data from the same month and year from the other locations (e.g. Cujubim Grande, Morrinhos, Rio Contra, Samauma, and Santa Rita)?

Pg. 6 Second paragraph under “Processing and taxonomic identification of Mosquitoes” says: “Taxonomic determination took place down to the genus level due to the low quality of the specimens when they were removed from the trap compartment.” Than latter on in the text under “Data Analysis” it says: “Initially, the database was statistically explored to obtain quantity, mean, and frequency metrics per species of mosquitoes…”. It could not have been “per species” because they were only identified to genus level right? Please correct it.

Pg. 8. Second paragraph. Please revise the presence of em dash "—" in this paragraph, is it necessary or was it a typing error. Also, where it says: “…revealed the presence of two Mansonia species each, and Morrinho, Santa Rita Joana D'arc line 15, Samauma..” is “line 15” part of the name of the location? If not, please delete it.

Table 2 lacks clarity and doesn't quantify identified species, hindering understanding. Clarifications in the table are needed for a more straightforward presentation of the study's findings.

Pg. 9 The paragraph starting with “Considering the geographic location…” Seems to belong in the discussion part of the manuscript, since it justifies the results obtained. Consider if this is a change worth making.

Pg 9. Where it says: “…obtained in the Joana D’Arc settlement is justified by the geographic proximity between these two collection points (14 km). The same can be said between Morrinhos and Teotônio (20 km).” Were these distances at random? I don´t recall seeing the trap distances in the Material and Methods section of the manuscript.

Pg. 9 Under “Time series and forecast” where it says: “The decomposition of the historical series….” A better word choice could be made in this sentence. Suggestion: “The breakdown and analysis of the historical data series gathered through the SkeeterVac SV3100 over a five-year period is presented in Figure 5.”

Pg 9. Second sentence of the last paragraph on page nine. Could be improved. Suggestion: “The peaks of Mansonia mosquitoes' abundance were more pronounced in the initial years of the study (2019-2020).”

Pg 11. Correct “CO2” to “CO2”.

Discussion

The discussion is extensive, however, lacks important results obtained in the study. It does not discuss the results regarding wind speed being the most relevant meteorological factor influencing the abundance of Mansonia.

Pg 11. Last sentence of the last paragraph on page ten that goes on to page eleven. Where it says: “Furthermore, Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and Aedes albopictus (Skuse, 1895) are invasive species in the Amazon region..” Were these species collected in this study?

Pg. 11. First paragraph mentions Anopheles darlingi, Haemagogus janthinomys, Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, were all these species collected in this study? If not, it would be important to focus on Mansonia and not other species. At the end of the parahraph it mentions deforestation, how do the results from the different levels of urbanization mentioned at the beginning (rural, semi-rural, or peri-urban environments) play a role in mosquito abundance? It would be interesting to mention this here.

The authors could insert the paragraph that starts with: “Our entomological monitoring revealed that the areas most prone to abundance of Mansonia spp. are located close to cattle farms, areas of forest deforestation, small lakes…” Right after this one, it seems that this is the information that was lacking.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript needs to be reviewed by either an editing company or by an English native speaker.

In addition, authors must either deposit their data set in Dryad or other platform that gives a doi number for the data set.

Authors declared no conflict of interest. However, their study was financially supported by Research and Development project from Santo Antônio Energia (ANEEL project CT.PD.124.2018). Also, the field collections were carried out in locations in the vicinities of the reservoir lake of the same company that gave them the financial support Santo Antônio (SAE). They should clarify this important conflict.

Statistical analyses are adequate and defined based on the major objectives of the study and data they have at hand. The number of mosquitoes they collected in five years using 10 traps and a few locations is impressive (153,125 mosquitoes were sampled in 10 SkeeterVac

SV3100 traps. The genus Mansonia was the most abundant, with 82,819 (54.09%) specimens, followed by Culex with 63,521 (41.48%) and Coquillettidia with 3,305 (2.16%).

It is not clear why authors did not separate the species in the study and in Table 2. If they identified a certain number of species in each genus; I assume they know which species they have at hand. I suggest they redo the analysis using the species level for Mansonia (the focus of the study) as far as possible, keeping the genus analyses they already did. The stud will be sounder and bring to light new information on species associated with lake reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-44055R1Trends of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto Velho: seasonal patterns and meteorological influencesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saraiva,

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 make sure to address the remaining comments from a reviewer:

<<The authors did not respond to the following question. What was the criterion used to decide on the distances between the collection areas? The authors emphasize the importance of selecting a study area for comprehensive point sampling.

>>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,

Luca Nelli, PhD

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.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. 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 #3: Yes

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

4. 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 #3: Yes

********** 

5. 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 #3: Yes

********** 

6. 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: Seasonality of Mansonia Blanchard (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto

Velho, State of Rondônia, Brazil, is relevant and is in line with the scope of the Journal. However, the following modifications need to be addressed to make it publishable: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-44055

The authors did not respond to the following question.

What was the criterion used to decide on the distances between the collection areas?

The authors emphasize the importance of selecting a study area for comprehensive point sampling.

Reviewer #3: I found the revised paper entitled 'Trends of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto Velho: seasonal patterns

and meteorological influences' to be of high quality and significance to entomology research. The clarity of presentation, the soundness of methods, and the novelty of findings should all be mentioned.

********** 

7. 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 #3: 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.

Trends of Mansonia (Diptera, Culicidae, Mansoniini) in Porto Velho: seasonal patterns and meteorological influences

PONE-D-23-44055R2

Dear Dr. Saraiva,

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,

Luca Nelli, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: