PONE-D-24-14979Biogeography of freshwater fishes in Saudi ArabiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. alharthi,

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 24 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,

Benigno Elvira, 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: 

"National Centre for Wildlife for providing PhD scholarship to Ibrahim G. Alharthi including financial support for the study."

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 Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"We are grateful for the support and assistance of numerous individuals and organizations in the completion of this study. I would like to thank the National Centre for Wildlife of (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for permission to conduct this research and for providing the necessary resources and facilities, special thanks to Mr. Muhammad Al-Nashiri from GIS department for his invaluable contribution in enriching and improving the quality of maps. Thanks are extended to the University of Hull International Fisheries Institute staff for supporting my research."

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: 

"National Centre for Wildlife for providing PhD scholarship to Ibrahim G. Alharthi including financial support for the study."

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, 2, 5 and Supporting Information 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 Figures 1, 2, 5 and Supporting Information 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/

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. 

[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: 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: 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: 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 manuscript and I see no major obstracles to publush this. Indeed, old data had been compiled for that book - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341322582_Freshwater_Fishes_of_the_Arabian_Peninsula ignored in the manuscript, and replaced by a checklist, which just copies the book/steals the information. Maybe not nice.

I have two points - I do not believe that Carassius carassius was introduced and your records must be based on misidentification - please check again and write a short sentece why - and show a picture of such fish. The identification of C. gibelio is likely also wrong - and all are likely to be C. auratus. Please explain some things. Forthermore, I like to see some text how you identified the Oreochromis - this is not trivial and maybe here also you show some pictures. Last but not lease, please add a table to the suppl. materials in which you make clear, which species you have found at which place - this is only for your own work. Basically an excel with a line for each record: species/coordinates/date..... is the way. By this you make your new records available

Thans and good luck

Reviewer #2: The authors document and analyse the distribution of inland water fishes in Saudi Arabia, based on literature records and field surveys, adding new and unpublished data. The paper will be of great importance for inland water fish conservation efforts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and deserves to be published. Here below, I am offering extensive comments, which I trust will help the authors to revise the paper.

My major concerns with the current draft of the paper are as follows: The title reads “Biogeography of freshwater fishes in Saudi Arabia”. Biogeography is defined as “the study of the distribution of organisms across geographic space, and the processes that shape these distributions”. This paper reports the geographic distribution, but does not analyse the processes that shape these distributions. A key factor in shaping the distribution of native inland water fishes is the geological history of the drainage basins, which is not included in this paper. For this reason I would not consider this a biogeographic study. Biogeographic studies only make sense for native species.

The paper would benefit from a clearer distinction between native primary and secondary freshwater fishes and non-native species, above all when reporting similarities in fish populations among drainage systems. There needs to be an explanation why native and non-native species are combined in the cluster analysis. This might generate results that are useful for conservation, but the approach does not provide biogeographic information. The inclusion of historic records and results of recent surveys needs further explanation and discussion.

Here below are more detailed comments. I have also mentioned typos and errors in writing style, because PLOS ONE does not provide copy editing.

The Abstract is not informative. It should summarize major findings and conclusions.

Introduction: An important reference is missing: “Freyhof, J., Els, J. Feulner, G.R., Hamidan, N.A. & Krupp, F. (2020). The Freshwater Fishes of the Arabian Peninsula. Dubai, Motivate Publishing. 272 pp.” This monograph includes the most recently published distribution maps of freshwater fishes native to the Arabian Peninsula.

Another paper that should be added is: Ross, W. (1985). Oasis fishes of Eastern Saudi Arabia. Fauna of Saudi Arabia 7: 303-317.

References [18] and [19] should also be mentioned in the Introduction.

Methods:

P. 3: It should be mentioned that the two secondary freshwater fish species are Aphaniops dispar and A. stoliczkanus. Further below, Planiliza abu (“Mugil cephalus”) is mentioned as a secondary freshwater fish, which is not correct.

The authors state that 16 sites were sampled, with reference to the supporting information provided. However, the supporting information only consists of maps and a table with geographic coordinates without further explanations. The authors should explain what the areas highlighted in red and the black dots mean and how this information was derived.

Supporting Information: The first map attributed to Mugil cephalus obviously shows the Al-Ahsa record of Planiliza abu. What does the area highlighted in red refer to?

For the 16 sites sampled, more detailed information needs to be provided. Were fishes collected, and if so, how? By electric fishing gear, nets and/or visual observations? Has any quantitative method been applied, have specimens been counted by species, size classes, etc.? Have voucher specimens been deposited and, if so, where? Who has done the sampling and how long did the person(s) spend at each sampling site? When were the sites sampled? Dates are important, because wadi fish are usually r-strategists with a very pronounced seasonality in population size and distribution.

“Major drainage systems and wadis in Saudi Arabia” should go into the Introduction rather than the Results section.

P. 3: “Two main natural drainage systems are found in Saudi Arabia”: It should be explained that these drainage basins are in western Saudi Arabia. There are also freshwater bodies in the Central Region and the Eastern Province, but only one species of secondary freshwater fish occurs there. It should be explained that eastern drainage systems end in an endorheic basin.

Caption of Fig. 1: It should be explained what G1 – G4 stands for, which could be done with reference to the text (“groups G1 to G4 explained in the text”). Only M refers to the Al-Madinah Region. Rather than writing that the western wadis drain into the Red Sea, it should be stated that they drain towards the Red Sea (most of them reach the Red Sea only seasonally or not at all, as mentioned further below in the text).

P. 3: The Sarawat Mountains are mentioned in the text with reference to Fig. 1. However, the Sarawat Mountains are neither mentioned on the map nor in the caption.

Throughout the manuscript: The spelling of geographical names must be consistent, e.g. “Wadi Turabah” vs. “Wadi Turbah”.

P. 4: “Krupp [1982]“ should read “Krupp [1983]”

P. 4: A wadi is a river bed, rather than a river valley, usually with a seasonal and/or intermittent water bodies.

It should be mentioned that relatively high discharge in the southern wadis is due to the monsoonal regime in that part of Saudi Arabia.

P. 4: “possibly that may indicating the wadis in this group” should read “possibly indicating that wadis in this group”

P 4 and caption of Fig. 1: Al-Madinah or Al-Madinah region should read “Al-Madinah Province” (to distinguish it from the city of Al-Madina Al-Munawwara).

P. 4: The sentence “The main wadi channel in the Al-Madinah, Wadi Al-Hemad or Idham” is incomplete, please check.

P. 5 and Abstract: The term “Biogeographical distribution” does not make sense and needs reconsideration. It should be replaced by “geographic distribution”.

P. 5 “The distribution of indigenous and secondary freshwater fish species” should read “The distribution of indigenous primary and secondary freshwater fish species” (secondary freshwater fish species are also indigenous).

P. 5: The heat map is a welcome approach, but more detailed information needs to be provided on how the “density of each fish species group” was calculated, given the fact that many of the published records are very old, published more than 45 years ago, while the samples on which some of these records are based are even older. As stated in the paper, water bodies, ecological conditions, etc., have changed considerably over time and there are many threats that have changed population densities. In many cases, species that have been recorded in the past are likely to be no longer there.

P. 5: The statement “Secondary freshwater fish species include Aphaniops stoliczkanus (Day) and Mugil cephalus.“ needs reconsideration (see comments here above).

P. 5: “biological control” should read “vector control” or “mosquito control”.

P 5: “species such Carassius auratus” should read “species such as Carassius auratus”.

Throughout the paper: The use of genera spelled out vs. abbreviated is inconsistent and needs attention, e.g. on P. 5 “Garra tibanica, Garra sahilia, C. acinaces, A. arabicus, Acanthobrama hadiyahensis” should read “Garra tibanica, G. sahilia, Cyprinion acinaces, Arabibarbus arabicus, Acanthobrama hadiyahensis” (spell out the genus when first mentioned, followed by an abbreviation, if mentioned again in the same paragraph).

Species authors should only be given once upon first mention of a species.

P. 6: “Acanthobrama hadiyahensis is endemic to certain wadis” should read “Acanthobrama hadiyahensis is only known from very few water locations”. All of these locations are within the same wadi system. The supplementary map shows 4 locations, 3 of which are mentioned in the text; better list all 4.

P.6: “Aphaniops dispar and Aphaniops stoliczkanusis are land-locked marine species” is incorrect; they are both secondary freshwater fishes (which also occur in the sea and other saline water bodies). Better reword: “Aphaniops dispar is a secondary freshwater fish occurring in the western drainages, while A. stoliczkanus is known from the Central Region and the Eastern Province”.

P 6: “Ctenopharyngodon Idella” should read “Ctenopharyngodon idella”.

P. 6: I assume that the record of Garra buettikeri from Wadi Al-Bagarah by Hamidan & Shobrak (2019) is a misidentified G. tibanica or G. sahilia.

P. 6 and 7: Aphanius dispar and A. stoliczkanus are not land-locked fish species (see comments here above).

Throughout: Abbreviations used in the text, such as EP, MR, MRN, need to be explained upon first mention in the text, or a List of Abbreviations should be added.

Fig. 5: “Carassius Carassius” should read “Carassius carassius”.

Fig. 5: Records of non-native freshwater species are incomplete, Oreochromis mossambicus is missing entirely.

P. 7 “tilapia species” should read “tilapiine cichlids”.

P. 8: “A. hadiyahensis [Critical]” should read “A. hadiyahensis [Critically Endangered]”.

P. 8: “are declining” should read “are declining in population size”.

Discussions: Many statements from the Results section are repeated here without being discussed any further. These statements should be removed. The Discussion requires re-structuring. It may be condensed considerably without losing substance. Some background information included in the Discussion should be moved to the Introduction.

P. 8: The statement “The distribution of the indigenous freshwater fish fauna appears to be

driven by biogeographical features” does not make sense and needs to be reconsidered. Distribution is always a result of paleogeographic events and ecological conditions.

P. 8: “environmental differences between wadis” should read “physical and ecological differences among wadis”.

P. 8: “Environmental conditions, especially flow regime …” should read “Differences in environmental conditions, especially flow regime …”.

P. 9: “and have invaded by fish” should read “and have been invaded by fish”.

Throughout the paper: Mugil cephalus should be replaced by Planiliza abu and Aphaniops stoliczkanus is not a marine species.

P. 9: The context of the statement “but these fish are also heavily exploited” is unclear. This probably refers to Ctenopharyngodon idella, but certainly not to Aphaniops stoliczkanus.

Information about dams in Saudi Arabia given in the discussion is very important. However, this is background information that needs to go into the Introduction.

The statement “These could be a major issue for the sustainability of these species because the dams …” should be more affirmative, these are major threats. Same for the statement “It appears that fish survive dry and low flow conditions …”, which is a well-known fact.

The Discussion identifies some needs for further studies in the future, which is very important and more requirements and opportunities for further research should be outlined. The effects of climate change need more consideration.

P. 11: 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph repeats statements made further above in the Discussion and should be deleted.

References:

Throughout the list of References, the use Italics is inconsistent and needs attention.

P. 13: “Al-Ghamdi, H. S., & Abu-Zinadah, O. (1998)” should read “Al-Ghamdi, H. S., & Abu-Zinadah, O.A. (1998).”

P. 13: “Borkenhagen, K. & Krupp, F. (2013). Taxonomic revision of the genus Carasobarbus

karaman, 1971 …“ should read “ Borkenhagen, K. & Krupp, F. (2013). Taxonomic revision of the genus Carasobarbus Karaman, 1971 …” (Karaman is the author of the genus).

The correct and complete citation of [4] is: Coad, B.W., Alkahem, H.F. & Behnke, R.J. 1983. Acanthobrama hadiyahensis, a new species of cyprinid fish from Saudi Arabia. National Museums of Natural Sciences, Publications in Natural Sciences, 2, i–v + 1–6.

Supplementary Table S1. (The locations of water bodies): This needs more explanations. Are these the records from the literature and the sampling sites? If so, the sources (References) and the dates of the visits to the sampling sites should be added. Abbreviations need to be explained.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jörg Freyhof

Reviewer #2: Yes: Friedhelm Krupp

**********

[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.

Geographical distribution of freshwater fishes in Saudi Arabia

PONE-D-24-14979R1

Dear Dr. alharthi,

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,

Benigno Elvira, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Some minor remarks for the authors’ consideration:

Depository of samples: Data based on the first author’s collections are only objectively verifiable, if specimens have been permanently deposited in a scientific collection. The authors should state whether this has been done and, if so, which collection.

If specimens have been deposited in one or more scientific collections, have they been transferred to 70% ethanol? Formaldehyde is not suitable for permanent collections.

The authors state: “we agree that Aphaniops stoliczkanus and Mugil cephalus do not fit the classification of secondary freshwater species”. However, A. stoliczkanus is a secondary freshwater fish. Please, correct it.

Reviewers' comments:

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

**********

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 #2: Yes: Friedhelm Krupp

**********