PONE-D-24-09375Mapping climate adaptation corridors for biodiversity - A regional-scale case study in Central AmericaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. McCullough,

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 Jun 21 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,

Lyi Mingyang, 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported by the International Conservation Fund of Canada, the Bobolink Foundation, the BAND Foundation, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“This research was supported by the International Conservation Fund of Canada, the Bobolink Foundation, the BAND Foundation, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

BAND Foundation: https://bandfdn.org/

Bobolink Foundation: https://www.bobolinkfoundation.org/

International Conservation Fund of Canada: grant #2021-63; https://icfcanada.org/

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation: grant #9075; https://www.moore.org/ 

All of these were gifts to Friends of the Osa (Osa Conservation) rather than to individual authors of this study. The BAND Foundation and Bobolink Foundation are small, family-run organizations that do not issue grant numbers per se. Sponsors or funders played no role in the 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.

4. We note that Figures 1, 4, S1 and S3 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 4, S1 and S3 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].”

2. 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/

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

thank you for the submission of your interesting manuscript to PlosOne.

The reviewer finds the content rather compelling while indicating critical points to address. The reviewer provided very useful suggestions to improve the overall clarity of your study as well as the quality of your analysis. The suggestions of the reviewer look feasible to me, and I believe you will be able to address them. Thus, please take care to do a full revision of your manuscript according to all reviewer's comments. Improvements based on reviewers’ comments will be crucial for acceptance.

Best regards,

LM

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: In the paper “Mapping climate adaptation corridors for biodiversity - A regional scale case study in Central America” the authors identified 2375 potential corridors throughout Central America that link lowland protected areas (≤ 500 m) with intact, high-elevation forests (≥ 1500 m) that represent potential climate change refugia. We also developed a corridor priority index based on the ecological characteristics and protected status of potential corridors and their associated start and end points. This manuscript is well organized, and the drawn conclusions are coherent with the obtained results. I hope to provide very useful suggestions to improve the overall clarity of your study as well as the quality of your analysis. I think that my suggestions look feasible to you, and I believe you will be able to address them. Thus, please take care to do a full revision of your manuscript according to all my comments. Improvements based on my comments will be crucial for acceptance. I have some concerns and suggestions for each aspect of the manuscript. Please see below.

Lines 21 – 36: Please give more emphasis to your results.

Lines 37 - 123: The introduction is technically sound and the claims are convincing. However I think that some references should be updated. Please, note that the hypothesis and the predictions are unclear, you need to well explain them.

Lines 45 - 46: I think that you should add these important references to support your sentence: “The basis of this strategy has arisen from a body of science related to paleogeography, paleoecology, and past, present, and future climate and species distribution modeling”. I would like to suggest:

Bosso, L., et al. (2024). Integrating citizen science and spatial ecology to inform management and conservation of the Italian seahorses. Ecological Informatics, 79, 102402.

Gracanin, A., & Mikac, K. M. (2023). Evaluating modelled wildlife corridors for the movement of multiple arboreal species in a fragmented landscape. Landscape Ecology, 38(5), 1321-1337

Lines 113 – 123: Please, explain in detail your hypothesis and predictions. You need to expand this section if you would want to express exactly what you want to do.

Lines 125 – 259: Materials and methods: In general, the methods are appropriate and the study seems well conducted, although some details deserve a bit more attention i.e., especially about the methodology and the data. All the scripts/codes used in this paper must be added in the supplementary materials. Please, provide also all the link to source where you downloaded the data.

Lines 201 – 203: I think that you should add these important references to support your sentence: “Like many previous regional- to continental-scale climate connectivity studies, we did not adjust conductance values for topography as our focus was long-term range shifts rather than short-term movements”. I would like to suggest:

Kabir, M., et al., (2017). Habitat suitability and movement corridors of grey wolf (Canis lupus) in Northern Pakistan. PloS one, 12(11), e0187027.

Bongi, P., et al., (2023). Coexistence in ecological corridors: understanding tolerance of wolves in the Northwestern Apennines, Italy. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 28(1), 53-69.

Lines 260 – 374: Well written! The figures and the tables are all informative and necessary, but not redundant, ensuring the correct comprehension of the manuscript.

Lines 376 – 491: The paper discussed appropriately the context and the theme, although there is important literature not cited by the authors. I think that the authors should discuss their results also comparing them with those already published on other species/genus/family. In fact your paper discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work that I think should be added in your discussion.

Lines 427 – 428 : I think that you should add these important references to support your sentence: “ There are many factors to consider when moving from the regional scale to that of individual landscapes.”. I would like to suggest:

Fraissinet, M., et al., (2023). Responses of avian assemblages to spatiotemporal landscape dynamics in urban ecosystems. Landscape Ecology, 38(1), 293-305.

Wojkowski, J., et al., (2023). Are we losing water storage capacity mostly due to climate change–Analysis of the landscape hydric potential in selected catchments in East-Central Europe. Ecological Indicators, 154, 110913.

Lines 433 – 437 : I think that you should add these important references to support your sentence: “Whereas our analyses applied global- or regional-scale geospatial datasets available for the entire study area, landscape-scale analyses would also benefit from more detailed integration of biodiversity data (e.g., species distributions, wildlife tracking, or camera trap data), forest characteristics, land-use types and agricultural practices, or barriers to fine-scale connectivity (e.g., roads).”. I would like to suggest:

Salinas-Ramos, V. B., et al., (2021). Artificial illumination influences niche segregation in bats. Environmental Pollution, 284, 117187.

Ehlers Smith, Y. C., et al., (2018). Forest habitats in a mixed urban-agriculture mosaic landscape: patterns of mammal occupancy. Landscape Ecology, 33, 59-76.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Mapping climate adaptation corridors for biodiversity - A regional-scale case study in Central America

PONE-D-24-09375R1

Dear Dr. McCullough,

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,

Lyi Mingyang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Well done! The authors responded effectively to all of the reviewer comments. Now the manuscript is ready for publication in PlosOne.

LM

Reviewers' comments: