Dear Dr. Ayres,

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 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If 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,

Joel Harrison Gayford

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

We thank our Bahamian partners and stakeholders who have enabled and supported this work: Gittens and the Dept.Marine Resources, E. Carey and S. Cant from Bahamas National Trust, S.Cove from Stuart Cove’s, J. Todd, P. Nicholson, R. Sands from Grand Isle Resort, A. Phillips and A. Musgrove from Bahamas Dive Guides, Dive Exuma, and The Exuma Foundation. We are particularly grateful to the following partners for logistical and operational support: Stuart Cove’s, The International Seakeepers Association, The Grand Isle Resort, GIR Bahamas, M/YMarcato, J. and M. McClurg, Fleet Miami, R/V Sharkwater, Atlantis, Bahamas Dive Guides, Dive Exuma, The Exuma Foundation, Vemco, and the Ocean Tracking Network. For field work support, we thank B. Shea, O. Dixon, S. Aldridge, J. Halvorsen, E. Staaterman, E. Quintero, J. Sternlicht, T. Gilbert, J. Roth, S. Moorhead, E. Sudal, and M. Adunni. This work was covered under a permit to Austin Gallagher from the Department of Marine Resources. We also thank our funders: The Wanderlust Fund, The King Family, Sternlicht Family Foundation, Lush, Maverick1000, National Geographic Wild, Seaworld and Busch Gardens Conservation Fund, Thayer Academy, WCPD Foundation, and Anomaly Entertainment.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

This work was supported by grants to BTW from the following funders: The Wanderlust Fund, The King Family, Sternlicht Family Foundation, Lush, Maverick1000, National Geographic Wild, Seaworld and Busch Gardens Conservation Fund, Thayer Academy, WCPD Foundation, and Anomaly Entertainment. The funders did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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 delete it from any other section.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that the raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. 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.

6. 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.

7. We note that Figures 1 and 7 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 7 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

9. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

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: This manuscript titled "Space use and habitat selection of tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cuvier) across ontogeny throughout The Bahamas" (PONE-D-25-14869) presents an analysis of tiger shark spatial ecology using a five-year acoustic telemetry dataset from The Bahamas. The study is in a good position to advance our understanding of ontogenetic shifts in habitat use and regional connectivity of an ecologically important apex predator in a vulnerable subtropical ecosystem. The combination of network analysis, GAM modeling, and integration with the Ocean Tracking Network makes this potentially a strong and highly relevant contribution. However, improvements in organization, writing clarity, better contextualizing of the literature in the Introduction and Discussion would significantly strengthen the manuscript. Addressing the flow of the introduction and trimming repetitive results would greatly improve readability. A more critical reflection on methodology limitations (especially relating to array coverage and tag detection variability) is also recommended.

Major Comments:

- While the introduction contains relevant background information and appropriate citations, it suffers from issues with structure and flow. Several paragraphs appear fragmented or incomplete, and the transitions between key themes (such as ontogeny, conservation, and nursery habitat use) feel abrupt. The authors should consider reorganizing the introduction into a more streamlined narrative, potentially by combining certain paragraphs and ensuring each one clearly builds on the previous in a flowing manner.

- Additionally, the introduction frequently uses phrases like “has been documented” without clearly elaborating on the nature or significance of those findings. Rather than simply stating that movement patterns or nursery use have been previously reported, the authors should use this space to immediately and briefly explain how they were documented (e.g., via satellite telemetry, mark-recapture, etc.) and highlight what implications or gaps remain.

- A clearer comparison with existing literature (e.g., Gallagher et al. 2021, Hammerschlag et al. 2022) is needed to inform the reader in more depth and emphasize what is new in this paper beyond sample size.

- The final paragraph of the Introduction lacks the structure typical of hypothesis-driven studies. It transitions too quickly into a summary of the methods and findings, rather than clearly articulating the study's research objectives and hypotheses. Currently the only value of this study beyond others that I can see is the larger sample size, which typically does not warrant an additional study.

- The results section is very long and at times too descriptive. Consider streamlining if possible.

- The discussion is thoughtful and highlights ecological mechanisms, but it would benefit from stronger synthesis and focus on key findings to drive the value of this present study.

- The finding that sub-adults had highest edge densities is intriguing and consistent with exploratory behaviors during this life-stage. However, the inverse relationship with adults requires more discussion, especially in light of potential detection biases (e.g., seagrass areas with many receivers may inflate local detections).

- The GAMs seem appropriate but need further clarity; how were variables selected, and were interactions tested?

- The issue of shark growth over the study period is acknowledged, but the way this was addressed seems vague. Did the reclassification of life stages affect the statistical models?

- There are numerous typos, grammatical issues, and awkward phrasings (e.g., “and connectivity was low”, “most were between...”). A thorough review is needed before publication.

Minor Comments and Edits:

- Title: Consider rephrasing to make it more concise and active, e.g., “Ontogenetic Shifts in Space Use and Habitat Selection of Tiger Sharks in The Bahamas”

- It appears the figure captions are duplicated in the text and at the end with the figures.

- The manuscript refers to “Figure 6A,” which implies the existence of additional subpanels (e.g., 6B, 6C), but no such panels are presented or described.

- Good to see animal welfare and permitting addressed. However, consider briefly summarizing how long handling typically lasted and tagging success rate.

- As mentioned in the text, The Bahamas is an expansive archipelago. More attention should be paid to what areas in The Bahamas are being studied and why.

- Include the sample size and key finding about sub-adults’ motility.

- Line 35-40: Too many citations in a row. Add context or split sentences.

- Line 60: Protected from what?

- Line 252: “Gravid implications” is likely a typo for “grave implications”.

- Line 275: “female tiger sharks are also known to aggregate at Tiger Beach” → include GPS range or region coordinates if possible.

- Wordy expressions should be revised for clarity. Examples:

- Line 20: “acoustically detected at receiver stations” → simplify to “detected at receiver stations”

- Line 263: "sharks could also be selecting warm shallow seagrass to accelerate growth" → "sharks may use warm shallow seagrass to enhance growth rates"

- Line 275: “high concentration of movements within the same four adjacent shallow seagrass stations” → “highly localized movements among four neighboring seagrass-stations”

Reviewer #2: Line 76 - What are your specific Aims of the study? You state what you did above, but not what you are trying to resolve/address by this research. This will give your Discussion more direction. Has a network analyses been done before on tiger sharks? What can it tell us that's novel? What are the challenges with this approach for a highly mobile species like this?

Line 92 - Were sharks also placed in tonic immobility? Was any anesthesia used?

Line 94 - lower case s for sub-adult

Line 128 - Table S2 needs to include an 'Island' column, so the reader can understand which array they were caught and tagged in.

Figure 2 - Suggest as it's not a significant result, move to supp material.

Line 160 - Check your use of 'Adult' vs 'Adults' throughout, currently inconsistent.

Line 164 - 14 not fourteen (usually <10 is spelt out - disregard if this is a journal formatting rule).

174 - Were any tagged sharks from one island detected in the other over the duration of the study? This wasn't clear. If so/not, warrants some points in the Discussion.

254 - These different habitat types would be good to be captured on a map for readers.

264 - Reference needed.

274 - Reference needed.

278 - From Table S2 I can only assume (until Island is included as a column) that only one mature male was tagged in the New Providence array? Therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to state that only large females were detected here if hardly any mature males were tagged? I think the language here can be softened considerably on these points. Same with using the term 'aggregation' - probably needs some qualification of how you are classifying an aggregation herein. As tiger sharks are semi-solitary, is an 'aggregation' different to what we perceive it to be in a more schooling elasmobranch species?

282 - 'Concentration', or regular detection of large individuals moving through this section of the array? Watch for word choice again here.

284 - Small ones can 'chase' them too - they may not be as successful though. Suggest slight re-word.

306 - These last two paragraphs are overly focused on prey/diet drivers of habitat use. While important, there is no deep discussion about the habitat types that may be apparent from your detection data by shark size/sex, other possible drivers of space use in your arrays (detections time of day, current strength/direction, tides, other?). Considerations of these ideas may reveal something more important than just prey drivers and will strengthen your Discussion. It may help if you clarify your project Aims clearer above, it will guide your Discussion points better here.

316-328 - Suggest you re-think the points in the paragraph here and their relevance, as I don't recall MPA's being an important part of this study (again, coming back to characterising your Aims/Research Questions for the study earlier should help here).

350 - What about outside of The Bahamas? What applicability does the approach you took in this study have to other locations across the world? How is that important for a species like this that connects various regions globally? The Discussion is very parochial in its current form.

References - check you ref list for issues like italics for species names etc.

Figure 1 - Needs more details. Most readers won't be from The Bahamas. What islands are each that are zoomed in on? Can they be labelled? Can you also include a larger map of where The Bahamas is in relation to the USA? This is important as you discuss connectivity to the USA.

Figure 2 - Move to Supp material

Overall, this paper has the potential to be a good contribution to the existing literature on tiger sharks once the aforementioned points have been addressed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Bonnie J Holmes

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Ayres,

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 Nov 08 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Joel Harrison Gayford

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have made a commendable effort to address the majority of my comments, and the manuscript is much improved in terms of organization, clarity, and methodological detail. However, I feel a few points remain only partially addressed:

- The introduction is better structured, but it still lacks explicit hypotheses. The objectives remain descriptive, and the study would benefit from clearer, testable hypotheses to frame the analyses.

- The discussion of adult versus sub-adult edge densities briefly acknowledges potential bias, but the treatment is thin. Differences in receiver density and detection range across habitats (e.g., dense seagrass vs. more open reef or shelf environments) could confound observed patterns, and this is not critically evaluated. More consideration of how array design and habitat-specific detectability may have influenced edge density outcomes would strengthen confidence in the ontogenetic differences reported.

- While the Results have been streamlined, some sections remain overly descriptive, with repetition of percentages and site names that could be condensed.

- The authors did not include details on handling duration. A brief summary of handling times would improve transparency.

**********

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

Ontogenetic Shifts in Space Use and Habitat Selection of Tiger Sharks in The Bahamas

PONE-D-25-14869R2

Dear Dr. Ayres,

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,

Joel Harrison Gayford

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: