PONE-D-24-46649Spongy moths from Europe and Asia: Who could have higher invasion risk in North American? PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Feng,

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 Jan 12 2025 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,

Fang Zhu, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

3. 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, we expect all author-generated code to 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 National Science Foundation of China (Grant ID: 42263012).  

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 Figures 1, 2, and 3 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, and 3 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/

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Authors,

I have received feedback from two reviewers regarding your manuscript titled "Spongy moths from Europe and Asia: Who could have higher invasion risk in North American?." After careful consideration of their comments, I would like to inform you that the reviewers have recommended major revisions.

Reviewer 2 has suggested only minor revisions, while Reviewer 1 has raised concerns that require more substantial changes to strengthen the manuscript. Specifically, Reviewer 1 expressed that while your study is a good one, addressing an important issue of species invasion and focusing on species from the "Top 100 Dangerous Invasive Species" list, they believe the study would benefit from a deeper integration of current knowledge in systematics, genetics, and ecology of the studied species. By incorporating a more thorough understanding of these areas, the manuscript would present a more comprehensive discussion and better align with the current state of research in this field.

Both sets of feedback are valuable, and I encourage you to carefully revise the manuscript, addressing all the comments and suggestions from both reviewers. Please ensure that you provide a detailed response to each comment, explaining how you have incorporated their suggestions or justifying any changes you have chosen not to make.

Once these revisions are completed, please submit the revised manuscript along with your response letter at your earliest convenience.

I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Best,

Fang (Rose) Zhu

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: 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: Dear editor and authors, I saw this MS earlier submitted via another journal. My decision is same as previously, this MS could be published after revision according to recommendations provided below.

Submitted MS provide the data of comparing the constructed models of L. dispar expansion in North America in the case of different population origins (from Asia or from Europe). The results of this comparison are given with in MS. I think it is good study which touch actual problem of species invasion, especially using as the example the species belonging to top 100 dangerous invasive species in the word. I also think that this study is acceptable for the auditory of considering journal. My criticism is belong to put this study more deep in actual knowledge about systematics, genetics and ecology of studied species that would make more close of discussion perspectives to observing reality at the moment. I think after this improving this MS might be accepted by the journal. See deleted comments below.

L38-41 Please refer also to more modern studies like Picq et al., 2023 who study SM populations in worldwide format demonstrating that population structure is more difficult than thought earlier.

L 51-53. Sorry but I miss the logic of this part of text. L.dispar was invade in north America from Western Europe (i.e. by nonflight females) that was confirmed by genetic studies (Wu et al., 2015, Molecular ecology, Picq et al., 2023 Evolutionary application). Does author discuss here the potential of Asian strain invasion or recorded fact of Asian spongy moth invasion in last sentence? If the last, please justify.

L 54-57. Yes, this is logical prediction but it could miss with facts. For example, both strains have the features of ballooning of first instar larvae (Martemyanov et al., 2019, Plos ONE), that could be more important for spreading than modest flight ability of females which are nonfeeding and can not flight for a long time (I,e, 750m/day, 5-6 days maximum, i.e. the distance of migration is 4-5km per season). If you will compare the moving of border range in North America (studies by Sharov or Tobin) or in Asia (Ponomarev et al., 2023, Insects for example), in both cases the distance will overcome the maximal flight ability of females. So flight ability of Asian population is less likely critically important for the speed of expansion in continental scale. Please consider this augments in more detail.

L75-82 When you discuss the effect of climate on L. dispar please put it in the context of microclimate. It is very important for such phenomenally adaptive species as LD and behavioral adaptation is one of the most important mechanism for such adaptation. For example formally supercooling point of L. dispar overwintered embryos is between -23-29C (Fält-Nardmann et al., 2018), however owing to laying the eggs masses under the snow cover (Ananko, Kolosov, 2021, Journal of Thermal Biology) or on the rocks in mounting areas (Ananko et al., 2022, Insects) that allow embryos avoid such temperature even outside temperature is significantly lower (-30C and lower). So overwinter temperature is unlikely to be an direct important climatic factor. I would say that microclimate condition are more limiting for LD expansion then general climate conditions. Please include this facts in the discussion of the theory.

L109-114 I think authors need to present this paragraph in more detail and more clear. Did I correct understand that you plan to use for created SDM the parameters from European and Asian populations of SM? This is important paragraph which will make more clear the following text.

L243 please decode MSS

Fig 2 please make the figure caption more informative and clear: which territory, which populations. Otherwise it sound confusing: c) “Range of native spongy moths in Europe” while figure present North American continent.

L 303-308 I agree that European SM and Asian SM possess wider range than American population but I think that for Asian SM the border is too wide and at south border (at least according to figure 1) include closely related species such as Lymantria obfuscata (India), L. xylina (China), L. albescens (Japan). Please check it.

L 311-312 you could also argue that North American population went though strict bottleneck (Wu et al., 2015) that would decrease plasticity level of invader population,

L 313-314. I am not native English speaking researcher but I think to avoid confusing between insects sources and range (territory) better to write “spongy moth FROM Asia/Europe” if I correct understand what authors want to say. If it is correct please use this correction for other parts of text whenever it was used.

L 313-320. I hope this data based on true L. dispar records (i.e. not on closely related species) with correct species identification. This question address to the data sources used for this study rather than to authors of this study. To me the south border of Asian SM range includes some closely related species. In turn, I did not find north Africa locations for European spongy moth populations (see Picq et al., 2023) what will make the latitude gradient equal for both strains Asian and European subspecies.

L 322-327 I miss what authors would say here. You could use more informative reference (Djoumad et al., Scientific report) describing unique mt genome of Caucasus populations of Lymatria dispar which possibly will described as separate subspecies in future (see Picq et al., 2023). But anyway I do not understand what kind of comparison here authors would make. I confuse in the context of following text and miss what authors want to highlight. Please make it more clear and logic.

L 332-337. Again, maximal female flight ability of Asian strain measured in Km per season is significantly low to compare with speed of spreading of range border. For example see recent study of Ponomarev et al., 2023, Insects where speed of border range moving is 50 km/year and studied population belong to European spongy moth according to genotyping by sequencing markers (Picq et al., 2023). So female flight ability is mostly local tactics of the species rather than spreading strategy. Typical example is population in Altai mountings which formally belong to European genotypes, but the life cycle is obligatory related with female flight ability allowing to lay eggs on the rocks remote from host plant (Ananko at al., 2022, Insects). So this traditional features of Asian SM populations is less likely to seriously invest to spreading of population at continental scale.

L380-389 As I read it I think that logic is broken here. If most data used in the analysis were collected in the part of the season this mean that stable range could be less then described according to the reasons described in this paragraph. Possibly I misunderstand the message of author, anyway this mean that rewording is needed.

I think after major revision of this MS it could be acceptable for the journal.

Reviewer #2: Major Comments:

Population Structure:

What is the population structure of spongy moths in North America? Does it represent a combination of European and Asian populations, or does it constitute a distinct, new population?

Methods:

The description of the methods is unclear. Please provide additional details, specifically clarifying the purpose of each method and how it was implemented.

Figures:

For Figure 2, there are 4 sub-figures, but the authors only explain 3. Similarly, Figure 3 contains 3 sub-figures, yet the authors describe only 2. Please ensure all sub-figures are adequately addressed in the text.

Minor Comments:

Typographical Errors:

Typos in lines 37, 43, 48, and 56 et al, need correction.

Line 111:

What does "SDMs" stand for? Please define the term for clarity.

Line 157:

How were the importance scores of the remaining predictors calculated in the final species distribution models and the preliminary ecological niche models? Please elaborate.

**********

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:  Martemyanov Vyacheslav

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.

Spongy moths from Europe and Asia: Who could have higher invasion risk in North American?

PONE-D-24-46649R1

Dear Dr. Feng,

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,

Fang Zhu, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors Feng et al. have done excellent job addressing the reviewers' comments and revising the manuscript. I have no further comments, and I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

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 #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: Authors address all comments. Authors are right that the accuracy of species identifying is independent from their efforts so range scale of L. dispar is based on the data referred one the certain studies. Thus to me current version of MS much more clarified and is acceptable for the publication in PLoS ONE.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

**********