Effects of a simulated marine heatwave on the structure and composition of Mediterranean plankton in a mesocosm study

Zoé Eglaine; Justine Courboulès; Francesco Cipolletta; Cécile Roques; Tanguy Soulié; Diana Sarno; Behzad Mostajir; Francesca Vidussi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0337112

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 3, 2025
20 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Rajdeep Roy, Editor Dear Dr. Eglaine, 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 Oct 04 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, Rajdeep Roy 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. 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. 4. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 5. 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. 6. 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: Dear Dr. Zoe We have received two reviews and both have suggested minor revision. The authors are requested to go through the comments/ suggestion and submit the revised version. While revising please follow the journal guide lines. Academic Editor [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The main idea of the paper regarding to the understanding of each plankton web component responce to MHW was achieved. The idea is original and relevant to the field of studies. The methods were selected correctly and the results were provided in a sound maner. They were also well discussed. Regarding Conclusions, as this part is missing, the last abstract somehow summerise the said before. The References and Figures are appropriate. I found some minor issues that may improve the manuscrip. Please consider them: Line 143, you already mentioned shortening. Thus, you should not multiply it, as in the line 160 and others (l 262, table later…. Maybe better to live in a line 160 and delete an explanation of the shortening before. Line 274, please correct ‘-‘sign for NO2 and NO3, it should be upper Line 291, 294, 296, 297, 315, 316 etc for cells.ml, ‘.’ Should be in the middle of it to differentiate between dot and the multiply sign Also, I noticed that sometimes you have Litters (L) and sometimes ml. It should be unified according to CI. In line 247 you explained the shortening of PCA, please do it only once, there. It is not necessary to repeat as for example in line 415. Line 614 species is repeated. Please add to Line 586, what other groups you mean. Reviewer #2: The present study "PONE-D-25-36140" by Eglaine at al. is a valuable contribution to understanding the effects of marine heatwaves on plankton communities in coastal ecosystems, specifically in the Thau Lagoon, In the Mediterranean Sea, Francia. Tha authors made a notable effort in preapring the mesocosmos experiments and, above all, in carryng out the sampling, as well as statistical analyses that support their finding. The research addresses a relevant topic in the context of climate change, using a solid detailed experimental approach. I believe the results are clear and consistent and support the proposed working hypotheses. Overall, the discussions are well-founded and reflect a careful analysis of the experimental data and their ecological context. Figures are of good quality. References are updated. Although I believe the current structure of the manuscript is adequate and has the potential to be published in PLOS-ONE, I think it could benefit that incluid from metazooplankton data: Although mentioned in the discussion, including more details on their dynamics and relationship with protozooplankton could enrich the analysis, as well as the impact on biogeochemical processes: Explore how changes in plankton communities affect processes such as the carbon cycle or oxygen production. Finally, conduct a thorough review to correct any grammatical or stylistic errors. ****** 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: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r001
Revision 1
9 Sep 2025 Author Response Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-36140 Title: Effects of a simulated marine heatwave on the structure and composition of Mediterranean plankton in a mesocosm study. Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers, We sincerely thank you for the time you have devoted to our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We have carefully considered all your remarks and revised the article accordingly. Below you will find a detailed response to each of the points raised. You will find below a description of the layout changes made to highlight the changes made to the manuscript following comments. - Changes and additions to the text are highlighted in yellow. Example: Adding text - The parts or elements removed from the manuscript are crossed out and colored red. Example: text deletion - Movement of sentences or paragraphs to another location in the revised version are indicated in green. Example: text movement The numbers of lines mentioned below correspond to those of the “Revised Version Without Track Changes”. Journal Requirements: Requirement 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response 1: The manuscript was revised and supplementary files to comply with PLOS ONE’s style and file-naming requirements. Requirement 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. Response 2: The grant information was corrected so that it is consistent between the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections, and the correct grant numbers are now provided. Requirement 3: 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. Response 3: The Data Availability Statement was updated and data underlying this study was already published in SEANOE (https://doi.org/10.17882/108308) and are now fully accessible, in accordance with PLOS ONE’s open data policy. DOI of published data was also mentioned in the Revised Version in Lines 215-216. Requirement 4: Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. Response 4: The title was amended to ensure that it is identical in both the manuscript and the online submission form. Requirement 5: 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. Response 5: As there was no specific recommendation for additional citation was asked by the Reviewers, any change to the reference list was made. Requirement 6: 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. Response 6: We have carefully checked and revised the reference list to ensure completeness and accuracy. No retracted articles remain cited. Reviewers’ comments: Reviewer #1 – comment 1: “Line 143, you already mentioned shortening. Thus, you should not multiply it, as in the line 160 and others (l 262, table later…. Maybe better to live in a line 160 and delete an explanation of the shortening before.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 1: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree with this comment and remove the explanation of the abbreviation at lines 143, 262, and 281, (lines 143, 265, and 284 in revised version) keeping it only at line 160 as recommended. This modification avoids redundancy and improves the clarity of the manuscript. Reviewer #1 – comment 2: “Line 274, please correct ‘-‘ sign for NO2 and NO3, it should be upper.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 2: Thanks for this comment. The notations of NO2 and NO3 were corrected by placing the minus sign (“-”) at the upper position (NO2- and NO3- ) in line 277. Reviewer #1 – comment 3: “Line 291, 294, 296, 297, 315, 316 etc for cells.ml, ‘.’ Should be in the middle of it to differentiate between dot and the multiply sign. Also, I noticed that sometimes you have Litters (L) and sometimes ml. It should be unified according to CI.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 3: Thank you for this remark. As suggested, we have replaced the dot (“.”) with the middle dot (“·”) in all relevant expressions, so that “cells.ml-1” now appears as “cells·mL-1” (lines 294, 297-301, 314, 318, 319, 321, 325-327, 356, 360, 376, 377, and 380). Following the SI unit’s brochure, we have throughout the manuscript also • Standardized volume units to “mL” (instead of “L” or “ml”), • Harmonized the notation “cells·mL-1”, and • Added appropriate spacing between numbers and units/symbols (e.g., °C, %, <, >, and =). Reviewer #1 – comment 4: “In line 247 you explained the shortening of PCA, please do it only once, there. It is not necessary to repeat as for example in line 415.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 4: As suggested, the repeated explanation was removed at line 418 and retained the definition only at line 250 to avoid redundancy. Reviewer #1 – comment 5: “Line 614 species is repeated.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 5: The redundancy was corrected by removing the repeated word species at line 634. Reviewer #1 – comment 6: “Please add to Line 586, what other groups you mean.” Reviewer #1 – response to comment 6: Thanks for this suggestion. To clarify this, the groups referred to “other groups” were specified in lines 586. The revised sentence now reads: Line 605. “Cyanobacteria, picophytoplankton, diatom, autotrophic, and mixotrophic flagellates showed the highest positive resilience slopes compared to the other groups (viruses, bacteria, nanophyto, HNF, all trophic modes dinoflagellates, and ciliates) that exhibited negative or near-zero slopes.” Reviewer #2 – comment 1: “I think it could benefit that incluid from metazooplankton data: Although mentioned in the discussion, including more details on their dynamics and relationship with protozooplankton could enrich the analysis, as well as the impact on biogeochemical processes: Explore how changes in plankton communities affect processes such as the carbon cycle or oxygen production.” Reviewer #2 – response to comment 1: We fully agree with this point. Accordingly, we expanded the discussion by including more information on mesozooplankton dynamic, their interactions within food web, and their influence on biogeochemical cycles. Two new paragraphs therefore were added to the Revised Version: • Lines 504 – 511: “Additionally, Zervouldaki et al. (2024) reported that the copepods, polychaetes, larvae of bivalve, and gastropods, were the dominant mesozooplankton groups present in the mesocosms during the same experiment. The MHW condition had a significant positive effect on copepods, mainly driven by an increase in harpacticoid copepods, while a positive trend was also observed for polychaete larvae [31]. These results are consistent with previous studies demonstrating that warming can stimulate mesozooplankton development at the same location [37] and enhance zooplankton grazing in the Baltic sea [66]. Collectively, these findings highlight that the decrease in the abundances of protozooplankton and phytoplankton communities may be mediated by increased predation pressure exerted by mesozooplankton. “ • Lines 525 – 532: “In addition, Soulié et al. (2022) reported that under MHW, the system tended to shift toward heterotrophy due to increased respiration and phytoplankton mortality [30], further supporting the idea that mesozooplankton exerted a strong top-down control on diatoms and protozooplankton under MHW condition. These outcomes could also impact biogeochemical cycles, particularly the oxygen cycle, where oxygen consumption may exceed production under MHW, with cascading consequences for the carbon cycle through an intensified release of carbon into the water. Consequently, under MHW, coastal Mediterranean systems may act as a carbon source to the atmosphere rather than as a sink of carbon.” These additions strengthen the discussion by clarifying how food web changes can affect biogeochemical process and overall ecosystem functioning. Reviewer #2 – comment 3: “Finally, conduct a thorough review to correct any grammatical or stylistic errors.” Reviewer #2 – response to comment 3: The entire manuscript was carefully revised to correct grammatical and stylistic errors. Additionally, we would like to point out that the entire manuscript has been reviewed by Editage, a recognized brand in the English edition (https://www.editage.com/) to ensure linguistic and grammatical accuracy prior to submission (an available certificate was issued by Editage). We would like to thank the editor and reviewers once again for carefully evaluating our work. We believe that the revisions address the concerns raised and strengthen the manuscript. We look forward to your further consideration. Sincerely, Zoé Eglaine Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r002
22 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Rajdeep Roy, Editor Dear Dr. Eglaine, 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 Dec 06 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, Rajdeep Roy Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Dear authors, Thank you for taking on board all my comments. One additional point was noticed: line 219. Please rewrite it so that it does not imply that picoplankton cannot include cyanobacteria, for example. It usually consists of lots of cyanobacteria as well as other groups, but the way it is written implies that it is something completely different. My suggestion would be: Resistance, resilience, recovery, and temporal stability were calculated according to the methods described by Hillebrand et al. [24] for viruses, bacteria, cyanobacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, flagellates for auto-, hetero- and mixotrophic, undetermined groups, HNF, and ciliates. Additionally, a distinct group of very small algal cells, referred to as picophytoplankton and nanophytoplankton were separated. Also, on line 168, you wrote 'prokaryote' and 'eukaryote'. Please change these to 'prokaryotic' and 'eukaryotic'. After it manuscript can be published. Reviewer #2: The authors responded well to the reviewers' questions and comments. They addressed each point and made the changes needed to meet the editor's and reviewers' suggestions. Among the actions taken, the following stand out: Correction of redundancies and improvement of clarity: The authors removed repeated explanations and adjusted the presentation of abbreviations and notations to avoid redundancies and improve the overall clarity of the text. Correction of technical errors: They corrected the placement of symbols in chemical formulas and standardized measurement units according to the reviewers’ recommendations. Expansion of the discussion: The authors added more information about mesozooplankton dynamics and how these affect biogeochemical processes like the carbon and oxygen cycles. This made the discussion and analysis more complete. Linguistic revision: The authors carefully reviewed the language to fix grammar and style issues, which improved the manuscript's quality and readability. Compliance with editorial requirements: They also updated the title, fixed the funding information, and revised the data availability statement to follow the journal's editorial policies. Overall, the authors worked hard to improve the manuscript and responded well to the reviewers' feedback. These changes have made the work stronger and helped it move toward publication. In summary, the manuscript presents a solid experimental design, detailed analyses, and consistent results that support the conclusions. Moreover, the ecological implications discussed are relevant and well-grounded in data and scientific literature. Conclusion: Based on the revisions made and the manuscript's overall quality, I consider it suitable for publication. ****** 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: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r003
Revision 2
23 Oct 2025 Author Response Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-36140R1 Title: Effects of a simulated marine heatwave on the structure and composition of Mediterranean plankton in a mesocosm study. Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers, We sincerely thank you again for the time and efforts that you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for your valuable and constructive comments. We have carefully considered all your remarks and revised the article accordingly. Below, we provide a detailed, point by point response to each of the reviewers’ comments. We also describe the layout modifications made to clearly highlight the changes introduced in the second revised version of the manuscript in yellow (example: Adding text), while parts or elements removed from the manuscript are crossed out and colored red (example: text deletion). The numbers of lines mentioned below correspond to those of the “Second Revised Version Without Track Changes”. Journal Requirements: Requirement 1: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Response 1: As no specific recommendation for additional citations was made by the Reviewers, no changes were made to the reference list. Requirement 2: 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. Response 2: We have carefully reviewed and updated the reference list to ensure its completeness and accuracy. All references were verified, and no retracted articles remain cited. Reviewers’ comments: Reviewer #1 – comment 1: One additional point was noticed: line 219. Please rewrite it so that it does not imply that picoplankton cannot include cyanobacteria, for example. It usually consists of lots of cyanobacteria as well as other groups, but the way it is written implies that it is something completely different. My suggestion would be: Resistance, resilience, recovery, and temporal stability were calculated according to the methods described by Hillebrand et al. [24] for viruses, bacteria, cyanobacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, flagellates for auto-, hetero- and mixotrophic, undetermined groups, HNF, and ciliates. Additionally, a distinct group of very small algal cells, referred to as picophytoplankton and nanophytoplankton were separated. Reviewer #1 – response to comment 1: We fully agree with this point and rewrite the sentence as suggested by Reviewer 1. Lines 218 – 221: “Resistance, resilience, recovery, and temporal stability were calculated according to the methods described by Hillebrand et al. [24] for viruses, bacteria, cyanobacteria, diatoms, dinoflagellates, flagellates for auto-, hetero- and mixotrophic, undetermined groups, HNF, and ciliates. Additionally, a distinct group of very small algal cells, referred to as picophytoplankton and nanophytoplankton were separated” Reviewer #1 – comment 2: On line 168, you wrote 'prokaryote' and 'eukaryote'. Please change these to 'prokaryotic' and 'eukaryotic'. Reviewer #1 – response to comment 2: We have replaced ‘prokaryote’ and ‘eukaryote’ by ‘prokaryotic’ and ‘eukaryotic’ in line 168. Sincerely, Zoé Eglaine and co-authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r004
5 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Rajdeep Roy, Editor Effects of a simulated marine heatwave on the structure and composition of Mediterranean plankton in a mesocosm study PONE-D-25-36140R2 Dear Dr. Eglaine 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, Rajdeep Roy Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 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 manuscript is accepted from my side, but a few remarks left. Please consider typo on a page 14 (line 352), there C. is correct but C. closterium. Species name should start from lower case. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rajdeep Roy, Editor PONE-D-25-36140R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Eglaine, 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. Rajdeep Roy Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0337112.r006

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 .