Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment

M. Jordana Rivero; Julio C. Pascale Palhares; Taisla Inara Novelli; Luciane Silva Martello; Simón Pérez-Márquez; Andrew S. Cooke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331238

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 12, 2025
17 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Juan Loor, Editor -->PONE-D-25-07671-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water consumption and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rivero, 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 May 01 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, Juan J Loor 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: “This research was partially funded by the Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) Partnership award “Measuring Sustainability Metrics for Ruminant Livestock Production Systems in Brazil and UK for a global assessment” funded by the Newton Fund. Rothamsted Research receives strategic funding from the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the United Kingdom. Support in writing up the work was greatly received by BBSRC through the strategic program Soil to Nutrition (S2N; BBS/E/C/000I0320) and Growing Health (BB/X010953/1). This work was partially supported Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.” Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research was partially funded by the Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (ASA) Partnership award “Measuring Sustainability Metrics for Ruminant Livestock Production Systems in Brazil and UK for a global assessment” funded by the Newton Fund. Rothamsted Research receives strategic funding from the Biotechnological and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the United Kingdom. Support in writing up the work was greatly received by BBSRC through the strategic program Soil to Nutrition (S2N; BBS/E/C/000I0320) and Growing Health (BB/X010953/1). This work was partially supported Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.” 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. 6. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Provisionally, the data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Jordana Rivero (jordana.rivero.visiting@rothamsted.ac.uk) .” 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. 7. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data 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. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 8. 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. 9. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. [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 ******** -->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 authors describe drinking behaviour of beef cattle with/without shade availability, a topic that has not been well researched despite close links with welfare and, therefore, is of high importance considering rising temperatures due to global warming. The article is in general well written. However, there is a lack of consistency in wording that needs to be addressed and authors provide only n=2 per group which is a very small sample size. In many cases it is unclear if values are calculated per pen or per animal, this must be more transparent. It is described that in heat animals start to play with water instead of drinking – how did you ensure to measure intake or consumption? For me, the dataset is this small, that I suggest to change the original research article into a short communication. L17 Please move “steers” before brackets : Nellow Steers (Bos indicus) L19 rephrase to “allocated in two groups” L 26 Hard to read, please shorten or split in two sentences: Environmental factors such as Air temperature, humidity, and solar radiation influenced water intake in both groups, with higher air temperatures increasing water intake due to greater drinking frequency and higher relative humidity reducing water intake by decreasing visit frequency. L29 water demand, not requirements – please pay attention to wording consistency throughout the manuscript L38 please also indicate the threat of heat stress for animal health and welfare L42 space lacks at the end of the sentence before bracktes with source L46 Cattle use evaporative cooling to dissipate heat load. However, evaporative cooling increases the cattle´s need for water to maintain homeostasis [6], consequently increasing the demand of the production systems. L59 please delete water before drinking behavior and in the following text. Generally maintain the same phrase (drinking behavior OR water drinking behavior, better drinking behavior; water intake OR water consumption, better water consumption) L83 months, not mo. L88 May not an unequal number of animals per group per see affect outcomes as drinking frequencies, behaviors etc ? Did you check your data regarding a potential effect of access per animal? L98 Please provide, if possible, any information of the wells´ water quality L103 water consumed instead of drunk, please change through the whole document How was water consumption measures? Which devices were used, how were the water trough sized? L119 (“W) Fig 1: Provide the size of pens in the figure, it would additionally be desirable to have a picture/sizes of the trough/shade constructions. L129 Was normal distribution of variables checked by wilcox rank test? Please specify. Please indicate the packages used, also to illustrate the figures L141 ranged from.. to.. Please use protected spaces before units L162 was is meant by V= ? L162 who is “them”? Individuals of this group? Generally, use (cattle OR animals OR individuals and maintain consistency) L164 What is meant by spending 39% more?time? Here also use protected spaces before ALL units in the whole document. LL170 p = 0.053 = 0.05 = significant, no tendency needed here. L174 X and Y correlated positively (r = , p < ) L176 delete “than with shade” L177 what means 5-6 fold? L185-193 This information is doubled, as its shown in Fig. 3. However, I understand why mentioning key correlations. You may indicate exact r values at the end of the phrases to provide additional information and/or remove the Fig. in Supplementary File. L200 specify “affected” 224 highlight, however, that 242 consistent wording- better demand than requirement 243 please delete/rephrase “elsewhere” 252 replace it with shade Rephrase “water search frequency” the frequency cattle seek for water? L310 Please indicate a source for this statement 395-397 repetition of “justify investments” ****** -->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: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r001
Revision 1
14 May 2025 Author Response Reviewer’s comments (R) Authors’ response (A) R: The authors describe drinking behaviour of beef cattle with/without shade availability, a topic that has not been well researched despite close links with welfare and, therefore, is of high importance considering rising temperatures due to global warming. The article is in general well written. A: Thank you for your valuable comments and time dedicated to review our manuscript. We have addressed all your comments. A clean version of the revised version highlights the changes in blue text. R: However, there is a lack of consistency in wording that needs to be addressed and authors provide only n=2 per group which is a very small sample size. In many cases it is unclear if values are calculated per pen or per animal, this must be more transparent. A: Values are calculated per individual animal. Text has been added to clarify the RFID tags were uses to track individual cattle. R: It is described that in heat animals start to play with water instead of drinking – how did you ensure to measure intake or consumption? A: Individual water intake was measured using the Intergado™ System (Intergado Ltd., Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil), which employs RFID technology to track individual cattle and water flow meters installed in the troughs to precisely record the volume of water consumed during each drinking event. The system logs only the water volume that flows through the trough during a drinking event, as detected by the flow meters, ensuring that non-consumptive interactions, such as splashing or playing with water, are not recorded as intake. Additionally, the water troughs were designed and tailored to beef cattle drinking behaviour, minimizing spillage and supporting accurate measurement water intake. R: For me, the dataset is this small, that I suggest changing the original research article into a short communication. A: The journal does not specifically take short communications, though it can occasionally be a prefix in the title and may be down to editor discretion here. Given that smaller sample sizes are more prone to Type II errors, the extent to which significant differences and associations have been found in our study is, we believe, relatively convincing, especially given the little research done in this area. We would also note that the sample size is higher than numerous other livestock behaviour full papers in this journal: N= 20 (10.1371/journal.pone.0285933) N = 19 (10.1371/journal.pone.0131632) N = 15 (10.1371/journal.pone.0265037) N = 24 (10.1371/journal.pone.0118617) N = 18 (10.1371/journal.pone.0144583) R: L17 Please move “steers” before brackets : Nellow Steers (Bos indicus) A: Done. R: L19 rephrase to “allocated in two groups” A: Done. R: L 26 Hard to read, please shorten or split in two sentences: Environmental factors such as Air temperature, humidity, and solar radiation influenced water intake in both groups, with higher air temperatures increasing water intake due to greater drinking frequency and higher relative humidity reducing water intake by decreasing visit frequency. A: Rephrased and split. R: L29 water demand, not requirements – please pay attention to wording consistency throughout the manuscript A: The expression “water demand” was used consistently throughout the document. R: L38 please also indicate the threat of heat stress for animal health and welfare A: Added. R: L42 space lacks at the end of the sentence before bracktes with source A: Space added. R: L46 Cattle use evaporative cooling to dissipate heat load. However, evaporative cooling increases the cattle´s need for water to maintain homeostasis [6], consequently increasing the demand of the production systems. A: Rephrased. R: L59 please delete water before drinking behavior and in the following text. Generally maintain the same phrase (drinking behavior OR water drinking behavior, better drinking behavior; water intake OR water consumption, better water consumption) “drinking behaviour” used throughout the manuscript. A: We prefer to keep “water intake” consistently throughout the document since this is how the response variable (WI) was defined and presented in tables and graphs. R: L83 months, not mo. A: Changed. R: L88 May not an unequal number of animals per group per see affect outcomes as drinking frequencies, behaviors etc ? Did you check your data regarding a potential effect of access per animal? A: Group sizes were balanced except for one pen, which had one fewer animal due to an illness after the adaptation period, with no replacement available. While we acknowledge the theoretical possibility that group size differences could affect access to resources and influence drinking behaviours, this was not observed in our study. The water troughs, designed and sized by Intergado Ltd. according to manufacturer specifications for beef cattle, provided adequate capacity and access for all animals in each pen, minimising competition. The Intergado™ System recorded consistent metrics across groups. Statistical analysis of these variables showed no significant differences attributable to the minor variation in group size, confirming that access to the troughs was not restricted and that drinking frequencies and behaviours remained unaffected. R: L98 Please provide, if possible, any information of the wells´ water quality A: There is no information available. R: L103 water consumed instead of drunk, please change through the whole document A: “drunk” replaced throughout the manuscript. R: How was water consumption measures? Which devices were used, how were the water trough sized? A: In the original manuscript, we briefly mentioned the use of the Intergado™ System (Intergado Ltd., Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil) for monitoring individual water intake, as referenced in Chizzotti et al. (2015). The Intergado™ System utilises RFID technology to identify individual animals and water flow meters attached to the troughs to measure the volume of water consumed during each drinking event. The troughs were designed and sized by Intergado Ltd. to accommodate the cattle’s drinking behaviour, ensuring sufficient access and capacity for accurate measurement, though specific dimensions were not detailed in our study as they followed the manufacturer’s standard specifications for beef cattle. We have included this new information in the manuscript. Similarly, we enhanced the description of the feed intake masurement. R: L119 (“W) A: Amended. R: Fig 1: Provide the size of pens in the figure, it would additionally be desirable to have a picture/sizes of the trough/shade constructions. A: As mentioned in the manuscript, each pen is 400 m2. We have added photos of all the relevant features in the pen. R: L129 Was normal distribution of variables checked by wilcox rank test? Please specify. Please indicate the packages used, also to illustrate the figures A: The Wilcox rank test does not require a normal distribution and thus testing is not necessary. The decision to use non-parametric tests for this was a factor of both sample size and non-normal distributions of variables and the desire for consistency in testing methodologies. Text has been added in this regard. We have also changed the model used for the data to a zero inflated model to better account for the distribution of the data. Citations for R packages added. R: L141 ranged from.. to.. Please use protected spaces before units A: Amended R: L162 was is meant by V= ? A: This is Wilcoxon’s V, a test statistic. It represents the sum of the ranks of positive differences between the treatment groups. R: L162 who is “them”? Individuals of this group? Generally, use (cattle OR animals OR individuals and maintain consistency) A: Amended R: L164 What is meant by spending 39% more?time? Here also use protected spaces before ALL units in the whole document. A: Sentence slightly amended. The expression “spending xx% more time” means the duration (e.g., in minutes or seconds) was greater by that percentage compared to the other group. R: L170 p = 0.053 = 0.05 = significant, no tendency needed here. A: We respectfully disagree with the reviewer. The limit for significance is 0.05. Only values up to 0.050 are considered significant. Hence, given that 0.053 > 0.050, this is a trend only. R: L174 X and Y correlated positively (r = , p < ) A: Changed. R: L176 delete “than with shade” A: Done R: L177 what means 5-6 fold? A: The term "5-6 fold" means an increase of 5 to 6 times the original value (i.e., a multiplication factor of 5 to 6). This phrase is a common scientific shorthand. R: L185-193 This information is doubled, as its shown in Fig. 3. However, I understand why mentioning key correlations. You may indicate exact r values at the end of the phrases to provide additional information and/or remove the Fig. in Supplementary File. A: Here we are describing the results in terms of correlations (as we do with tables). We agree that the exact r-value should be provided and this has now been added for the significant correlations highlight However, we prefer to maintain the figure in the main document as this provides additional information. A supplementary table with the exact r and p values has been added. R: L200 specify “affected” A: Changed to ‘associated’ R: 224 highlight, however, that A: We disagree with the suggestion. The phrase is correct in grammar and meaning. R: 242 consistent wording- better demand than requirement A: Done throughout the whole manuscript. R: 243 please delete/rephrase “elsewhere” A: Done. R: 252 replace it with shade A: Done R: L256 Rephrase “water search frequency” the frequency cattle seek for water? A: Rephrased to enhance clarity, but the expression “water search frequency” was retained as it’s grammatically correct. R: L310 Please indicate a source for this statement A: Added. R: 395-397 repetition of “justify investments” A: Sentences rephrased. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revision note Plos ONE_AC.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r002
27 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Juan Loor, Editor <div>PONE-D-25-07671R1-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rivero, 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 Aug 11 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, Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: I COMMEND THE AUTHORS FOR THE EFFORT IN ADDRESSING THE COMMENTS FROM THE ORIGINAL REVIEWER. UNFORTUNATELY, THE REVIEWER DECLINED TO REVIEW THE REVISED PAPER AND GIVEN MY LACK OF EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA OF RESEARCH I SOUGHT ADDITIONAL REVIEWS FROM TWO INDIVIDUALS WITH THE REQUIRED EXPERTISE. ALTHOUGH ONE FO THE REVIEWERS BELEIVES THERE IS A LACK OF INNOVATIVE ASPECTS IN THE RESEARCH, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IN-AND-OF ITSELF IS A REASON TO REJECT THE PAPER. PLEASE ADDRESS THIS ASPECT BY PROVIDING GREATER CONTEXT AND, PERHAPS, HOW THIS WORK MOVES THE FIELD FORWARD ALBEIT IN AN INCREMENTAL WAY. LASTLY, PLEASE ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SECOND REVIEWER AS WELL. ENSURE THAT THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT REFLECTS THE CHANGES MADE TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THE REVIEWERS. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #2: No 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 #2: 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 #2: No 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 #2: L84: Use body weight (BW) instead of liveweight (LW) for consistency and clarity. L91–94: Why was the initial BW estimated using a regression based on only two time points? This approach is typically used for calculating average daily gain (ADG) when three or more data points are available. Alternatively, consider using the average BW from two consecutive weighing days. L96: Were animals fed ad libitum or were they restricted to a specific amount? Please clarify this in the text. L98–100: What was the nutrient composition of the diet? Include a table with detailed dietary composition. L104–106: Please rephrase this sentence for clarity and flow. L123–126 (Fig. 1): Why were the +S pens all located on the same side (east) of the facility? Was there no randomization in pen assignment? L136–137: I strongly disagree with the approach taken here. While individual animal data can be collected for dry matter intake (DMI) and water intake (WI), the pen should be considered the experimental unit when comparing treatments. The shade treatment was applied at the pen level, not at the individual animal level, and thus treatment effects cannot be independently assessed at the animal level. Reviewer #3: I recommend rejection of this manuscript due to a lack of innovation. Although the study was well designed and the statistical analyses are appropriate, the manuscript does not offer any new or relevant insight into the topic under investigation. The discussion is well grounded in the literature, showing that what they have discovered can easily be found in the literature. But overall, I don't believe the work has the level of impact required for publication in this journal. As the authors themselves recognize, future studies could explore the long-term effects of shade provision on cattle performance using a more integrated approach. For example, incorporating landscape-level shade mapping (based on sun position), GPS tracking of cattle movements, water intake, weather conditions and animal health and performance metrics would result in a more comprehensive and impactful study. I encourage authors to consider expanding the scope of their research in this direction to strengthen future submissions. ****** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r003
Revision 2
1 Jul 2025 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed your comments in the Revision Note and modified the manuscript accordingly. We hope you find our responses and modifications satisfactory. Thank you again. Sincerely, Jordana Rivero Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Revision note PLOS One round 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r004
5 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Juan Loor, Editor -->PONE-D-25-07671R2-->-->Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rivero, 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 Sep 19 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, Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #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 #3: Partly ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> 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 #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 #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 #3: 1: Should environmental variables be considered part of the Results or Methods section? In my opinion, the THI within the pen should be treated as a result, since it was affected by the treatment (shade). However, the other environmental variables (e.g., ambient temperature, rainfall, etc.) should remain in the Methods section, as they are not controlled by the experiment and are more appropriately described as background conditions. 2: I suggest presenting the diet ingredients and nutrient composition in a separate table rather than in the text. 3: This is just a general comment for consideration in future studies, no changes to the current manuscript are needed because de explanation is already in the limitations. While I understand and agree that the individual tracking system (feed and water troughs) allowed for the measurement of individual-level responses, I respectfully disagree with the classification of the individual animal as the experimental unit. This issue led to a lengthy discussion "Variability in water intake and drinking behaviour" From a statistical and conceptual standpoint, the experimental unit is defined as the smallest unit to which a treatment is applied. In this case, the shade treatment was pen. ****** -->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 #3: 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.--> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r005
Revision 3
5 Aug 2025 Author Response Thank you for your input. Responses uploaded as an attachment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer response PLOS ONE drinking behaviour.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r006
13 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Juan Loor, Editor Shade provision and its influence on water intake and drinking behaviour of Nellore cattle in feedlot in a tropical environment PONE-D-25-07671R3 Dear Dr. Rivero, 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 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, Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Juan Loor, Editor PONE-D-25-07671R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Rivero, 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. Juan J Loor Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331238.r008

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 .