Addressing biodiversity knowledge shortfalls in New World Helicopsychidae (Insecta, Trichoptera): Potential distribution, environmental gradients, and identification of conservation and research priority areas

Rafael Pereira; Adolfo Calor

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327580

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 18, 2025
Decision Letter - Halil Ibrahimi, Editor Dear Dr. Pereira, 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 30 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. 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 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, Halil Ibrahimi 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: [We thank the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio) for collecting permits. ARC acknowledge the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (under Grants 303623/2015-2). RP also thanks to the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, finance code 001, PDS-CAPES-88882.453922/2019-01, and PRAPG-CAPES-88887.986811/2024-00) for the doctoral and post-doctoral fellowship. We thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Programa de Apoio à Pós-Graduação (PROAP-CAPES) for financial support, and this study was financed in part by the CAPES – Finance Code 001 (PPG Biodiversidade e Evolução). We would like to thank Dra. Neusa Hamada, Dra. Ana Pes and Dr. Gleison Desidério for providing us with data from LACIA-INPA.]. 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. We note that Figures 1A-H, 2E-F 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 1A-H, 2E-F 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/ 3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please proceed with the suggestions of reviewer. [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? 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 Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, Your study offers a comprehensive and integrative analysis of the biodiversity patterns, biogeographic distributions, and conservation priorities of the New World Helicopsychidae (Trichoptera). This work contributes significantly to our understanding of biodiversity shortfalls in a key aquatic insect group and provides a strong foundation for future taxonomic, ecological, and conservation-based research. After a thorough review, here are my specific comments and suggestions to be addressed in the revised version. 1. Biogeographic Region Framework Needs Revision Although past reviews have debated the classification of New World biogeographic regions, this remains a relevant and evolving topic. I strongly suggest that the manuscript be updated to reflect more current and widely accepted hypotheses in biogeography. In particular, please incorporate the framework presented by Morrone (2014, 2015) and Morrone et al. (2022), which recognizes three biogeographic regions (Nearctic, Neotropical, and Andean) and two major transition zones in the New World. This classification better aligns with your study’s broad spatial scope and analytical objectives and should replace any outdated or overly simplified two-region interpretations. Additionally, you may wish to consult and cite de Moor & Ivanov (2008), who distinguished between the Neotropical and Patagonian regions, aligning the Patagonian sensu Morrone with previous terminology such as the “Chilean Subregion” (Flint 1976). 2. Repetition of Key Information The manuscript currently includes repeated statements, particularly regarding the total number of Helicopsyche species and subgeneric compositions. These repetitions appear in multiple sections and can be streamlined to avoid redundancy. Please revise these instances to maintain clarity and conciseness throughout the text. 3. Formatting of Subgenus Names Ensure consistency and correctness in formatting subgeneric names throughout the manuscript. Subgenera should be properly cited using the standard format: Genus (Subgenus). For example: Helicopsyche (Cochliopsyche). Review the text carefully and standardize all occurrences accordingly. I have identified some minor issues in the MS, but I have provided corrections and inserted comments in the attached Word file using tracked changes. With these significant adjustments, I believe the MS can be reconsidered for publication in PLOS One. Sincerely, Gleison Desidério ****** 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: Gleison Desidério ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript File_revised.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327580.r001
Revision 1
11 Jun 2025 Author Response 1. Technical Soundness and Data Foundation Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents an interesting topic, but the biogeography section is not well explored. The conclusions could be more robust if the phylogenetic relationships among species were discussed more thoroughly. Additionally, the definition of bioregionalization and the choice of some analyses need further clarification. Author's Response: The biogeography section has been further explored in both the results and discussion, and the text has been improved to clarify patterns and relationships between species. The bioregionalization section has been removed, as we believe it will be better addressed in a multi-taxonomic perspective. Reviewer #2: The study is good, but there are limitations related to the use of a single genus, and bias in the resulting bioregionalization, which are not clearly discussed. Author's Response: The bioregionalization section has been removed, as we believe it will be more appropriately addressed from a multi-taxonomic perspective. However, accepting the suggestion, data from another Neotropical subgenus of Helicopsychidae have been incorporated. 2. Statistical Analysis Reviewer #1: The analyses are performed, but important details, such as the choice of "terrestrial ecoregions" to estimate unobserved species, need better explanation. Also, there is a lack of discussion on collection bias in the analyses. Author's Response: We accepted the suggestion and used the freshwater ecoregions from Abell et al. to estimate richness, as it seems more consistent for organisms that spend most of their life in freshwater environments. Reviewer #2: There are no specific suggestions, but some methodological issues need to be addressed more clearly. Author's Response: The suggestions were incorporated, and the Methods section was revised to make it clearer and more direct, allowing for reproducibility of the work. 3. Data Availability Both reviewers confirm that the underlying data has been properly made available with no apparent restrictions. 4. Clarity and Quality of Writing Both reviewers consider the manuscript well-written, but some parts could be revised to improve clarity, especially in the introduction and methods description. Author's Response: Suggestions for improving the writing in certain sections and correcting sentences and paragraphs that were difficult to understand were incorporated. A thorough review of the introduction was conducted, adding recent works, and the methods section was enhanced. 5. General Comments Reviewer #1: The main goal of the manuscript is not entirely clear, especially in relation to biogeography. It is suggested that bioregionalization be better discussed in terms of conservation and its specific characteristics. Furthermore, the role of phylogeny in the conclusions is not discussed, despite being relevant. Author's Response: The biogeography section has been more thoroughly explored in the results, discussion, and conclusion, and the text has been improved for clarity regarding patterns and relationships among species. The lack of comprehensive and current phylogenetic inferences, as well as the absence of consensus among the hypotheses presented so far, made discussions in this area difficult, but we believe the text has been enhanced from the previous version. Reviewer #2: The use of a single genus may limit the scope of the study. It is important to consider additional environmental variables, such as elevation, which affect species distribution. The concept of "pseudoabsence" needs to be better justified, and the analyses need to be clearer, especially concerning the formation of bioregionalization. Author's Response: The bioregionalization section has been removed, as we believe it will be better addressed from a multi-taxonomic perspective. However, accepting the suggestion, data from another Neotropical subgenus of Helicopsychidae [H. (Cochliopsyche)] have been incorporated. In the distribution modeling methods section, concepts have been more clearly justified, and the text on data analyses has been modified for better clarity. Editor: 1. Please note that PLOS ONE is unable to publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images, or images created using proprietary data. For these reasons, we cannot publish images generated by software which copyrights their output. In order to use these images in your submission, we require explicit permission from the copyright owner to publish the figures under the CC BY 4.0 license. At this time, please kindly clarify the following regarding Figure 1 and Figure 2: a) Where did the authors obtain the maps, basemaps, shapefiles, map data, etc. in Figure 1 and Figure 2? Author's Response: The maps and spatial data used in Figures 1 and 2 were created in QGIS v3.40.7. The background land cover raster was obtained from the ESRI Living Atlas (https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/landcover/) via the QuickMapServices plugin in QGIS. Country boundary shapefiles were obtained from geoBoundaries (https://www.geoboundaries.org/). b) Please state whether the maps, basemaps, shapefiles, map data, etc. have been previously copyrighted to your knowledge. Author's Response: To our knowledge, both datasets (ESRI Living Atlas land cover and geoBoundaries country boundaries) are openly licensed and not under restrictive copyright. They are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license. c) If any of the maps, basemaps, shapefiles, map data, etc. in this image have been previously copyrighted, we require specific consent from the copyright holder to publish these images in PLOS ONE, under the CC BY 4.0 license. Author's Response: No additional consent is required. Both the ESRI land cover raster and geoBoundaries shapefiles are explicitly provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) license, which is compatible with PLOS ONE’s publication requirements. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327580.r002
Decision Letter - Halil Ibrahimi, Editor Addressing biodiversity knowledge shortfalls in New World Helicopsychidae (Insecta, Trichoptera): potential distribution, environmental gradients, and identification of conservation and research priority areas PONE-D-25-13848R1 Dear Dr. Pereira, 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, Halil Ibrahimi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327580.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Halil Ibrahimi, Editor PONE-D-25-13848R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Pereira, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Halil Ibrahimi Academic Editor PLOS ONE Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reponses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327580.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .