PONE-D-24-22486Trait diversity in exploited fish of the Azorean islands: Insights from a multifunctional approachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Costa,

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. The MS is well written, structured and very interesting, with a clear and reliable methodology. Data provided by the MS are essential to improve the knowledge base regarding the effect of anthropogenic pressure on teleost species and stocks. There are some major concerns that should be fixed, fllowing the suggestions and comments provided by the reviewers, in order to improve the MS quality, clarity and readibility.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 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,

Claudio D'Iglio, 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: 

   "This work was performed under the framework of the project FunAzores co-funded by AÇORES 2020, through the FEDER fund from the European Union: ACORES 01-0145-FEDER-000123. Okeanos team received national funds through the FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., under the project UIDB/05634/2020 and UIDP/05634/2020 and through the Regional Government of the Azores through the initiative to support the Research Centers of the University of the Azores and through the project M1.1.A/REEQ.CIENTÍFICO UI&D/2021/010. AC is supported by the national funds through the FCT within the scope of CEECIND/ 00101/2021 and https://doi.org/10.54499/2021.00101.CEECIND/CP1669/CT0001"

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 Competing Interests section: 

   "The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) 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/

6. 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:

The MS of Costa et al. provide very interestinf and important data regarding the effect of fishery on the functional traits diversity of several marine fish species. These are essential information to understand the effect of anthropogenic pressure related to fishery, in order to improve the conservation of heavely exploited species and stocks.

The paper is clear, well structured with a well defined, clearly presented, methodology, but despite this there are some major concern regarding the clearity and readibility of the paper (especially regarding the Discussion and Introduction sections) to be fixed to improve th MS quality.

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: No

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: No

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: Article: Trait diversity in exploited fish of the Azorean islands: Insights from a multifunctional approach

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-22486

General Comments

Costa and colleagued performed a study to detect the effect of fishery on the functional traits diversity of several marine fish species.

The paper is well structured and well written. The tested hypotheses are well defined, as the methods used too. Despite this, a major problem of the paper relies on the lengthy of both introduction and discussion that make the paper difficult to be followed in some parts.

Specific comments

Concerning all the manuscript:

Please carefully check all the scientific names and use the correct zoological nomenclature, each first time a species is mentioned, e.g. Pagellus bogaraveo (Brünnich, 1768). After the first time P. bogaraveo can be used. Apply this rule for all the mentioned species. “Sparissoma cretense” (line 355)

Title:

The title well frames only part of the performed study, and it should be modified to better reflects all the parts of the study. It would be better to highlights, starting from the title, “the potential impacts of exploitation on the ecological roles of fish species targeted by fisheries”. Moreover, it is no clear which traits are focused. Add “functional”?

Abstract:

Lines 44-47: which findings highlighted the importance of adaptive management strategies? Please briefly state here or re-arrange the abstract conclusion.

Keywords:

“ecosystem functioning” is a bit off topic. Please consider replacing with another keyword.

Introduction:

Despite the authors well introduce their study, as already motioned, some parts of the introduction are too lengthy bringing the lecturer to information far from the paper. All the paragraph related to Azores fisheries can be drastically reduced to few lines.

Material and methods:

2.2 “Lading data” � Landing

It is necessary to present the list of total fish species as part of this paper. It is unconceivable that a reader has to switch to another paper to see on which species the study is performed.

Table 1: Swimming mode � Correct the following: “Thunniform(Tetr)” (Tetr) is already used for Tetraodontiform.

Discussion:

Discussion section is very detailed, but it needs to be reduced, avoiding redundance of some sentences. This could help in improving readability of the paper and the focus on specific results obtained.

Conclusion:

I suggest the authors be more cautious in drawing the conclusions of their study.

As the authors state in different points of their paper there is, in the results “the absence of significant variations in trait diversity across decades…”; then, drawing strong conclusions without a historical data base is not possible. Please avoid in the conclusion the use of terms as “valuable”, it is a bit self-aggrandizing.

Reviewer #2: I found this manuscript interesting, well-written and with a huge amount of data correctly analyzed. As reported by the authors, it represents the first attempt to connect trait diversity to fish landings over time through a comprehensive analysis using null models, a nice approach which led to interesting results, even if limited in some cases by the strict relation among fishing activities and ecosystems dynamics, which, as the authors know, match with multiple aspects of the anthropogenic pressures, such as climate changes, pollution, habitat removal for coastal areas, etc. However, considering the novelty of the study for the area, and the good results obtained, even this strictly focused view could result important for future studies in this field, also to deepen other aspects starting from the data here reported by Eudriano F.S. Costa and colleagues.

Introduction section missed an important aspect of fisheries research, linked to the use of different fishing methods and their relapses in marine environment. Indeed, by-catch represents an important source of bias in scientific data collection, because often discarded after capture without landing. At the same time, essential species for marine ecosystems are often collected within this undetected resource, leading to importante consequences in habitats equilibria and their protection's management. Please add a period about this topic in this section, to contextualize better the treated topic also considering the important limitations which still today affect the landed's databases from a biological point of view.

Try to improve the quality of all the Figures, especially the ones that reports written informations, such as 2 and 5, which resulted very hard-to-read in the present form.

Table 1: please add more details in the caption about the trophic position and growth coefficient values.

The period among lines 206 and 217 could results more appropriate in introduction section, due its more general view compared to the subsequent part of the paragraph which on the contrary resulted focused on the methodology of present study.

Line: 319: Are the authors referring as "types" to local and coastal fishing vessels reported in lines 157-158? Please clarify and better argue this first essential sentence of the results section. Considering the amount of parameters and variables (correctly) analyzed in your study, being more clear as possible in focal points could results essential for the readers.

Within the results section, try to reduce comments more similar to discussion than results, such as lines 354, 366 (..indicating..), 382 (..suggest..). I understand is not simple to totally separate the concepts of results and discussion in this kind of manuscript (maybe more adapt to a style as "results & discussion" section), but try your best for manuscript fluency, if possible.

I understand the focus of this study, and agree with, but the main limitation of this document is represented by the climate changes effects occurred during the studied period all over the world, comprises the treated area, which were not mentioned at all. Indeed, even if fishing activities represents a strong source of alterations for marine organisms, a wider approach should be adopted when evaluating ecosystem equilibria, as in this case. At least mentioning as limitation of the study would be correct, highlighting the importance to cross multiple approaches to this problem. Indeed, as stated by the authors about the decline in ecosystem functions, and hypothesized from literature for the Azores (reported in line 424) "..particularly due to fishing activities", the reader is induced in thinking also to other untreated aspects, over fishing activities. Also, the period about life traits and reproductive cycle aspects (lines 593-619) couldn't ignore these additional aspects involved in environmental changes, which are reported to strongly modified essential functions, as for example: spawning, hatching and survival of teleosts.

Another important source of potential biases which needs to be better argued is represented by fishing regulation in the Azores Islands in the last four decades, interested by the study. For example, in lines 535-536 the authors reports: "Implementing fishery measures such as quotas, minimum landing size, area, and temporal fishing closures...(is crucial to mitigate the impact of fishing on ecosystem functions and processes in Azores)". Were these aspects uniform during the data collection's period? If not, what possible influences in the collection of analyzed data could there be? Hypothesis about the previous management's effects on these resources (and the analyzed data)?

Lines 555-576: in this context, it would be also important to evaluate the different predatory approaches of the studied species, which sometimes use also vertical migrations during their feeding activity, sometimes not. Moreover, also different fishing gears, baited or not, sometimes drives the species in moving during their feeding activity. I understand that these are not simple aspects to evaluate without specific approaches, but, at the same time, should be mentioned among the possible sources of biases.

Add the potential limitations of this study to the conclusion section.

Double-check references list for scientific name and style.

Best regards

The reviewer

**********

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: Marco Albano

**********

[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.

The potential impacts of exploitation on the ecological roles of fish species targeted by fisheries: a multifunctional perspective

PONE-D-24-22486R1

Dear Dr. Costa,

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,

Claudio D'Iglio, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: 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: Dear Authors,

thank you so much for considering all my comments and for addressing relative revisions.

All the best regards

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

thank your to seriously revised your document considering all my previous comments. The manuscript looks more clear and complete now in some parts and your argumentation for hard-to-solve comments were reasonable.

Best regards

**********

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: Yes: Gioele Capillo

Reviewer #2: Yes: Marco Albano

**********