Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 14, 2025
Decision Letter - Judi Hewitt, Editor

PONE-D-25-08170Shipping noise tolerance in the shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Harley,

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.

Unfortunately we were only able to find one reviewer but that reviewer was generally supportive with only minor comments that need addressing. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria  and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 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,

Judi Hewitt

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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [Funding was provided by an NSERC Discovery Grant (RGPIN-2022-04683) to CDGH and the Liber Ero Fellowship Program to KDC. AB was supported by an Ecosystems and Oceans Science Contribution Framework grant awarded to KDC and Francis Juanes.]. 

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.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data will be submitted to a public repository upon manuscript acceptance. We are happy to provide the data to the reviewers if requested.].

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance.  We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal  dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

6. 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.

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

8. We note that Figure 1B 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 Figure 1B 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/

9. 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 (if provided):

[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

**********

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 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

**********

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

**********

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: The menauscript is truly well done and, despite focused on a species, support reflections on the general approach to consider the impacts of shipping noise on ecosystems' health. Additional comments are uploaded for minor changes.

**********

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:  Pier Francesco Moretti

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Minor revision request for pone D_25_08170.docx
Revision 1

[This information is also included in the cover letter.]

Reviewer 1 Comments to the Author:

General Comment:

The manuscript presents results of original research, and not been published elsewhere, and written in standard English.

Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a good technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion, supported by the data. Despite focused on a single species, it provide argumentation for reflections and further developments.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for their positive assessment of our manuscript and for recognizing the quality of our experimental design, statistical analysis, and conclusions. We appreciate the encouraging comments regarding the integrity of the research, and we are glad that the manuscript’s broader implications were clear despite the species-specific focus.

Requests for minor revision

Reviewer Comment

Title: the title would be more catching if includes a more general aspect: “Shipping noise tolerance in invertebrates: the case of shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis”

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to broaden the title’s appeal. In response, we have revised the title to highlight the relevance of our findings to invertebrates more generally. The new title reads: “Shipping noise tolerance in invertebrates: A case study of the shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis”

Reviewer Comment

Row 141: what Zoom amplifier has been used? Probably the F6? At what sampling frequency? Please clarify.

Author Response

We used a zoom recorder, H1 handy recorder to save the wav files to an SD card. We added

clarifying details. Line 143-144: “…connected to a ZOOM recorder (H1 Handy Recorder, sampling rate = 48 kHz, 16-bit)…”

Reviewer Comment

Row 158: when the 1h recordings were obtained? There should be a difference between day and night, especially when linked to living organisms’ circadian rhythms. Please clarify and add a comment on this aspect.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have clarified the timing of the recordings in the Methods section on Row 140 which now reads: “At each site, a one-hour recording was made between 09:30 and 17:00 using an underwater hydrophone (Cetacean Research Technology SQ-26; sensitivity: 169 dB re 1 V/µPa; frequency range: 0.020-50 kHz) connected to a ZOOM recorder (H1 Handy Recorder) at one meter depth.” We also revised Row 158 to: “Fig 1. Acoustic Analysis of Study Sites in the Lower Mainland, BC. (A) Relative sound pressure levels at selected sites based on one-hour underwater recordings made between 09:30 and 17:00 using a SQ-26 hydrophone and ZOOM recorder.”

Reviewer Comment

Fig.1 and caption: the figure shows 6 sites, even you implemented the experiments in 9 sites. You missed additional 3 high noise sites in the map (probably because far from the others?). In case, include in the caption the 3 high noise sites that are not displayed.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for this comment. To clarify, although nine sites were initially surveyed to assess ambient noise levels, only six were ultimately included in the experimental component of the study, based on their relative SPL values and the presence of suitable crab populations. We have revised the first sentence of the Methods section to make the site selection process clearer. As the final study was implemented at only six sites, we have chosen to display only these in Figure 1.

Reviewer Comment

Fig.3 and caption: Specify that the initial response is to the simulated predator attack. Add in the caption that the feeding experiments gave 100% uniform response (this is the reason why you do not show in the figure). Again you show 6 sites instead of 9? What am I missing?

Author Response

We have now included a brief mention of the uniform feeding disruption response in the caption, which was why the data are not shown in the figure. The initial response to the simulated predator attack is already specified in the figure caption. Regarding the number of sites, the experiment was only implemented at six sites, not nine. We have clarified this in the Methods section to avoid any confusion.

Reviewer Comment

Main Issue 1: you refer to SPL, but you do not report any information about calibration of the hydrophone+zoom. Please include how calibration has been implemented and the accuracy of sensitivity across frequencies.

Author Response

We used the hydrophone sensitivity provided by the manufacturer, but did not calibrate prior to

deployment. This was consistent to what we found in the literature for these hydrophones, see Lillis

et al. 2018 Drifting hydrophones as an ecologically meaningful approach to underwater soundscape measurement in coastal benthic habitats, so we feel that this is justified. We changed the language to relative SPL, to account for the variation that could be present. Note that we have recently purchased a pistonphone that could be used to calibrate post-hoc if required. However, we added more details on the hydrophone, including the frequency accuracy across frequencies. Lines 141-143: “…underwater hydrophone (Cetacean Research Technology SQ-26; sensitivity: -

169 dB re 1 V/µPa; flat frequency response (± 1 dB) up to 28 kHz, frequency range: 0.020-50

kHz)”

Reviewer Comment

Main issue 2: please clarify why you choose the bird as a predator and provide a spectrum of the signal you introduced to simulate the predator attack. Samples of the spectra of the shipping noise in the 9 sites would also be welcome in the supporting information.

Author Response

Thank you for the comment. We have added a point to Row 223 to clarify that the shore bird was chosen because it is a common predator of H. oregonensis. To clarify, the predator attack itself did not involve noise; rather, shipping noise was played in the background to test its effect on the crab’s behavior, specifically its time to retreat to shelter. The spectrum of the shipping noise used in the experiment can be seen in Figure 2.

Regarding the sound data, we only included the SPL data for the six sites selected for the study, as the other three sites either had incomplete SPL data or did not have crabs, making them unsuitable for inclusion. This information is provided in Table S1 of the supplementary materials.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PONE_D_25_08170 resubmitted.docx
Decision Letter - Judi Hewitt, Editor

Shipping noise tolerance in invertebrates: A case study of the shore crab Hemigrapsus oregonensis

PONE-D-25-08170R1

Dear Dr. Harley,

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,

Judi Hewitt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Judi Hewitt, Editor

PONE-D-25-08170R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Harley,

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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

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

Dr. Judi Hewitt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .