When did you leave home? Reconstructing juvenile life histories of Coastal Washington adult coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) using otolith structure and chemistry

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Anderson,

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 26 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.

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,

Andrea Belgrano, Ph.D.

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 note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

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. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

 We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

I tend to agree with the comments and suggestions made by both reviewers.The manuscript is a timing and interesting study that will be very useful for providing novel information to be considered in guiding management a policy action towards conservation measured for coho salmon stocks/populations.

[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 research seeks to identify life history types of coho salmon in two tributaries to the Chehalis river in Washington state using the chronological properties of otoliths alongside chemical signatures indicative of marine entry or estuary use. Through these methods, the authors identify several life history types not accounted for in current fisheries management, suggesting additional life history types which may be contributing to a portfolio effect and uncertainty in run size estimates. The work is robust and considers several potential scenarios which may cause uncertainties in their own data. There is some room to add mention of additional uncertainties, however, the results presented here appear to be well supported and suggest a framework for similar monitoring of life history diversity using otolith chemical analysis. Specific suggestions and comments are uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #2: General comments

This manuscript reports important research that offers substantial insights for management and decision-making. While mostly well written there are several instances where the writing is overly vague, especially in the methods section. A light revision with a focus on improving the precision of language would strengthen the manuscript.

Because PLOS ONE is a general-purpose journal with a wide readership, the authors should not assume that all readers are familiar with otoliths. A short paragraph in the introduction explaining what otoliths are and how they grow would improve accessibility for a broader audience.

Research measuring Sr/Ca in otoliths often includes Ba/Ca to help differentiate estuarine from marine water. I am curious why barium was not measured here as it might have provided insight into the mystery surrounding the second and third annuli having a freshwater appearance. A quadrupole ICPMS should allow Sr, Ba and Ca to be analyzed simultaneously.

Line by line comments

Line 28: “…timing of otolith growth…” It is unclear what you are referring to here.

Line 31: The term “annulus measurements” is unclear. What did you measure on the annuli? Distance? Count?

Lines 93 and 96: Revise the sentence beginning at line 93 so that its first half stands as an independent sentence. Then combine the latter half of that sentence with the sentence beginning at line 96 to avoid repetition and improve the overall flow.

Line 138: Was this a carcass survey? Was it by boat, snorkel or foot?

Line 164: How are you delineating the quadrants?

Line 174: This paragraph can use clarification to better communicate your process. When discussing the aging of juvenile otoliths readers might think you are performing daily increment reads so specify that these are annual reads and you are differentiating age-0 from spring age-1. Portions of the methods that were used on both juveniles and adult otoliths should be independent of the paragraph dedicated to juvenile methods.

Line 177: Please specify which otolith structures you are referring to. How is assigned age different than [date of capture]-[Jan 1st]?

Line 183: How did the readers resolve disagreements? How many samples were resolved in this way?

Line 191: Change “corresponding Sr:Ca” to “corresponding Sr:Ca profile” or “corresponding Sr:Ca life history profile.”

Line 196: Expand on this sentence. You don’t need to define each individual life history type here but more detail than “A unique combination” would be helpful.

Line 214: Did you investigate other models for fork length back-calculation other a linear regression?

Line 237: Just R? Were any packages used?

Line 255-256: Rewrite the two sentences in these lines into one.

Line 271: Observing the relative contrast of the annuli between the two sites comes off as rather subjective. Image Pro has the functionality to measure luminosity to objectively compare contrast between the two study areas.

Line 300: Did you explain somewhere the difference between freshwater and marine annuli and is there a citation?

Line 309: Change “Sr:Ca” to “Sr:Ca profiles” or “Sr:Ca life history profiles”

Line 425: Add the word “is” between adjustment and needed.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Ben Makhlouf

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for Anderson et al. PLOSONE.docx

When did you leave home? Reconstructing juvenile life histories of Coastal Washington adult coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) using otolith structure and chemistry

PONE-D-25-42873R1

Dear Dr. Anderson,

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,

Andrea Belgrano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The author(s) have fully addressed in the revised manuscript all the comments and suggestions that were made during the review process.