Dear Dr. Dell'Ambrogio,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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.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

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper describes a laboratory experiment involving bait-lamina and the effect of soil moisture on the feeding activities of two soil animal species. While the subject matter is potentially interesting for readers, the manuscript cannot be published due to the weak presentation of the data and errors in the statistical analysis.

The most important analysis is missing - to what extent are 52% and 68% for the two species statistically significantly different?

The text is too long-winded. The style needs to be changed to be more concise, with excessive words and repetitions removed.

It is quite surprising, that earthworms contribute in feeding activity on bait lamina strips – they are rather bigger soil animals. Maybe Authors used very small (young) individuals? Please specify animals age/size. Are you sure that the earthworm treatments have not been “contaminated” with enchytraeids?

L163 why two tests? Please combine it and just mark, that experiment was performed in two stages

L171 why were the same values not used as for earthworms? Such results do not compare well

L194 was the biomass of earthworms and enchytraeids comparable? There is difficult to find these information in the text. Moreover, moisture effect may depend on animals density.

L224 why was it done? Rinsighted strips can wash out the medium, making such a measurement pointless

Tab.1 I do not see the point of stating these values. Moreover, table is too big and unclear

L259 combining two species in this analysis has no sense, they do not interact with each other

Reviewer #2: The article submitted by Dell’Ambrogio et al. addresses a technique—the use of Bait Lamina—that provides a simple and low-cost method for assessing soil functional quality. As such, it represents a promising tool for evaluating the functional impacts of various environmental stressors on this key ecosystem compartment. However, its use remains relatively limited, leading to a knowledge gap that sometimes hampers the interpretation of results. In this context, the study by Dell’Ambrogio et al. appears both relevant and important for improving the robustness and applicability of future research employing this technique.

The study, conducted exclusively under laboratory conditions using a single soil type and two model organisms, appears to have been carried out in a rigorous manner, following standardized protocols (number of tested conditions, number of replicates, number of individuals, etc.) that allow for robust statistical analysis and ensure the scientific reliability of the results. The findings are original and respond to a clearly identified knowledge need.

Therefore, this article may be considered suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

However, I question the relevance of so strongly associating this study with the aim of improving in situ use of bait lamina. The experimental conditions implemented in this study are quite distant from those encountered in field situations, both in terms of the organisms present and the physico-chemical properties of the soils (which are not sieved in situ and may span a wide range of pedological conditions). The authors are aware of this and have discussed it in the manuscript. Nonetheless, I believe that the stated objective of the study should be more aligned with the actual scope of the results obtained. In other words, there is no need to overstate the findings, which are valuable in their own right even without a direct connection to field conditions.

For example, I am personally not convinced by the comparison made between the present study’s results and those from previous in situ work by Campiche et al. (Fig. 4). In my view, linking these two sets of results is too speculative—despite the tempting similarity in trends observed with E. albidus—given the many differences between the two studies (which, again, are well discussed by the authors). In my opinion, this comparison should be used solely to feed the discussion, especially to highlight perspectives and the need for further research to better interpret in situ responses. However, if the authors decide to maintain this comparison, it seems essential to provide more information about the data from Campiche et al., to better assess to what extent those results are generalizable across diverse environmental conditions.

Beyond this general comment, which reflects my main concern about the current manuscript, here are a few additional—mostly minor—comments that may help improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript:

________________________________________

Abstract

• In light of the above comment, I recommend revising the abstract to reduce the emphasis on in situ applications.

Highlights

• Similarly, the final bullet point seems too speculative to be featured as a highlight.

• Also, the phrase “field situation” is too vague and should be clarified or removed.

• Some highlights appear too long—please verify that they meet the journal’s character limits.

Introduction

• L.70–71: The word “soil” appears too frequently in the same sentence—please try to avoid this repetition.

• L.94: Replace “at the Ecotox Centre” with “Campiche et al.”

• L.95–97: The information provided here about the work by Campiche et al. is insufficient to allow the reader to fully assess its scope or the generalizability of its findings.

Materials & Methods

• L.161–162: Avoid future tense (“will be expressed”).

• L.163–175: Why is the number of replicates different between the two biological models? This would be helpful to clarify for readers.

• L.220: The phrase “once a week” is odd given that the test lasted only 12 days. Consider rephrasing as “at most once.”

Results

• L.265: How can the high mortality rate observed in earthworms at 25% WHC be explained? Unless I missed it, this does not appear to be discussed.

• Table 1: What does the number 4 in the final column of the last row refer to?

• Figures 3 & 4: Rather than showing only the means, would it not be more informative to display all replicates to better convey data variability?

• Figure 4: How many replicates were considered to calculate the means from Campiche et al.? Were these replicates all from the same soil or different soils? Such information is largely missing in the current integration of this prior work.

Discussion

• L.370–371: The explanation that lower variation in moisture in the enchytraeid test is due to moisture adjustments is not very convincing, especially considering the difference in test duration (2 vs. 12 days).

• L.416: What exactly is meant by “interaction within soil communities,” and how could this influence bait lamina feeding? This point should be expanded.

• L.433: The question of soil quantity should be discussed in terms of density per unit of soil. Were densities higher in the studies cited compared to the present one? Has this hypothesis been tested in previous research?

• L.474: While the point about “sandy loamy soils” is valid, what about other soil types? This should be addressed to better define the study’s limitations.

• L.484–485: Could mobility also be a biological factor explaining the differences in bait lamina feeding efficiency?

• L.498–500: Due to the significant differences between lab and field conditions (unsieved soil, natural species different from lab models, etc.), this hypothesis appears too speculative in its current form. The same applies to lines 521–522 and 541–544.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. Dell'Ambrogio,

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. Note that the reviewer voiced serious concerns about the quality of the revisions implemented in the revised manuscript. Should these concerns persist in the next round of peer review, the manuscript will not be acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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.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

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Although the article deals with an interesting and important issue, it is very poorly written. In fact, every sentence raises doubts, and the revisions made little difference to the overall text. I admit that I didn't read it to the end because the changes are merely cosmetic. The authors must put in much more work to make the text understandable and interesting to readers. Of course it's the Editor's decision, but the text in the current version falls far short of the standard of other papers in PlosOne.

L1 please change ‘soil oligochaetes’ into two tested species names

L20-21 remove this phrase ‘commonly performed under field conditions to measure the impact of chemicals on soils’

L21-24 combine these two sentences in one, more concise

L27 add ‘standard soil’ and add producer name

L44 model validation is not a scientific goal

L41-46 Do the authors mean watering the strips installed in the field?

L73 reference 5 refers to something completely different

L74-80 This is not important in the context of the topic of the work—I suggest focusing more on the ecological applications of the method.

L83 not only in field conditions, these applied also to laboratory applications

L119-121 Why was this done? It could have affected the microbiological decomposition of the medium.

L147-151 Did the authors measure these parameters, or were they provided by the manufacturer?

L149 double parenthesis

L156-8 Why were the soils treated differently? This could have affected the results, albeit indirectly, and the impact of animals and freezing was measured in an interaction that was difficult to determine.

L166-167 This should be relocated to earlier section

L169-176 What is the point of these calculations if the authors used only one soil type?

L179 60% is not intermediate comparing to first series

It is completely unclear what the comparison with the Campiche et al. model is supposed to mean.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Feeding activity of Eisenia andrei and Enchytraeus albidus under different soil moisture regimes assessed by the bait-lamina test

PONE-D-25-35367R2

Dear Dr. Dell'Ambrogio,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS One