Dear Dr.  O'Brien,

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 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Funding for this research was provided by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.”

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.

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, 2 and 3 in your submission contain map 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 1, 2 and 3                                                               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. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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. O'Brien,

After this review round, both reviewers believe your manuscript is almost ready for acceptance. Therefore, please aply the suggestions made by the reviewers and resubmit your manuscript and I am sure the text will be accepted for publication in PLoS One.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 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.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

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: I enjoyed reading the manuscript by O'Brien and collaborators. They studied an alternative method to predict protected areas (PAs) network connectivity, measured connectivity using simulated PAs, and provided PA characteristics that benefit connectivity. The density values maps were an excellent output of the tool presented and are very suitable for application in decision-making on conservation planning. The manuscript is well-written and has a robust general design.

After addressing a few issues, I found this article suitable for publication in Plos One.

One of my concerns is the lack of a practical perspective on how this method (and tool) will be made available to stakeholders who are central to protected area planning. While I understand that this was not the primary goal of the study, providing insights into how the tool will be delivered to key stakeholders could help bridge the gap between academic ideas and practical implementation. Without this, the method risks being another valuable yet underutilized concept published in the literature.

Additionally, some information requires a detailed explanation instead of being limited to a single sentence or citation. For instance, "well-connected" and Canadian protected area networks. The first terminology appears multiple times in the text, however, what is its meaning? It would be helpful to specify the criteria or requirements for connectivity in this context. For the second, it would be beneficial for international readers to include a brief explanation of how PA establishment works in Canada, as this process varies significantly between countries. Further, the five cost ranks were not well explained. 0.1 is the value within the PA and 1000 is the value on a very anthropogenic landscape, but the intermediate values remain unclear. Finally, a schematic figure summarizing the methods could be a valuable addition, helping readers better understand the sequence of analyses performed.

In the next few lines, I detail smaller issues:

Abstract - concise and well-written. The only lack is to provide a practical view of how this tool will be available to the decision-making actors.

L.83 - "(in fact, likely the opposite)" - Require an explanation.

L.106 / 119- The terminology "well-connected" needs to be explained.

L.124 -Please, provide the reader with the difference between generic parks and PA networks. Were generic parks the simulated ones? The sentence is not clear.

L. 128 - Why did you prefer to use random PAs within the study site than to choose characteristics that are important (size, edge, distance to other PA, etc) to PA effectiveness?

L. 128-133- The PAs establishment is different around the world. For comparison reasons, it is essential to provide details on how this works in Canada. In addition, in L.212-213, the broad readership does not know about it.

L. 137 - Provide information on the 5 cost ranks. Include it in the legend of Figure 1.

L. 159 - Why did you choose to work with small-sized (6.25 km²) PAs?

L. 180 - Which ones?

L. 248-249 - Interesting result. A discussion on this is needed.

L. 295-298 - Repeated information, is not necessary.

L. 306-308 - I agree. However, to make the bridge between academics and conservation in practice, how to deliver this approach in a practical way?

L. 317-327 - To this discussion, movement data (Movebank database) on known species could be simulated, and this may be the next step of this study.

L. 332-337 - Is there any more bias linked to the nodes? This info may fit better in the Method Section.

L. 393- 410 - Very nice paragraph.

Figure 2 needs quality improvements.

Table S1 fits better in the main text, very important information.

Reviewer #2: General Evaluation

The manuscript reports original research on integrating connectivity measures into conservation planning. The study presents relevant results that may inspire replication in other contexts. The proposed strategy for addressing functional connectivity can be objectively implemented into conservation/restoration targets, and thus constitutes a valuable contribution to conservation science.

The manuscript has significant merit and should be considered for publication in PLOS One after the authors address the methodological clarifications, improve figure quality, and strengthen the interpretation of results. Below I provide some specific recommendations:

Materials and Methods

Line 129: Provide a clear rationale for the selection of 20 sentinel nodes. Explain how this choice could be adapted in landscapes with different numbers of nodes or spatial extents (e.g., 2,500 nodes or 50 nodes). Clarify whether micro-fragments are included.

Line 137: Explicitly classify all cost values. Which correspond to natural areas (e.g., 0.1), and what about the others?

Lines 156–157: Specify whether the 50 new generic parks represent intact natural areas or partially degraded areas. Detail the criteria for distance within the randomization process.

Line 156: Remove the term “randomly”, since the parks were selected according to a 50 km distance criterion and are evenly distributed. Justify why 50 parks were chosen.

Lines 163–165: Specify the basis for the variety of possible additions of protected areas (e.g., vegetation type).

Lines 165–168: Revise this unclear sentence. If generic parks reduce costs from 1 to 0.1, but natural areas were already 0.1, clarification is needed.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Improve resolution and add labels directly in the image. Present one map with natural areas, sentinel nodes, and generic parks overlaid, and another with cost analysis results.

Figure 2: Replace with a higher-resolution map.

Figure 3: Make the map more self-explanatory by replacing “A”/“B” with “top candidate parks” / “bottom candidate parks” and labeling black dots as “candidate parks”.

Table 1: Report that the edge-area-ratio yielded p = 0.09 under a 95% threshold (non-significant), but would be significant under a 90% threshold. This should be mentioned and its implications discussed.

Discussion

Lines 303–304: Avoid using sentinel node proximity as a conservation parameter, as sentinel nodes are analytical constructs.

Lines 317–318: Specify which side of the SLOSS debate the results support (single large vs. several small).

Lines 317–327: Specify which connectivity model is most suitable for the study region.

Lines 354–356: Specify that, while natural areas adjacent to developed areas may contribute more to increasing overall connectivity, intact areas remain essential under other conservation criteria (e.g., species restricted to intact habitats).

Lines 395–397: Revise the apparent contradiction regarding temporal applicability. Specify the temporal scale at which the method can project future scenarios (medium- or long-term), and what adjustments would be needed to account for future conditions.

Conclusion

Emphasize how this approach differs from existing methods (e.g., Integral Index of Connectivity in Conefor, or direct resistance values).

Highlight the novelty of prioritizing areas based on their potential to increase overall connectivity when added to the conservation network.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Bertassoni, A.Bertassoni, A.Bertassoni, A.Bertassoni, A.

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

Dear Dr. O'Brien,

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 Mar 13 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. O'Brien,

After this new review round, the reviewer believes your work is nearly suitable for publication in PLoS One after minor reviews are implemented. I hope the provided suggestions help you to improve your text. Once you finish implementing them, the work will be ready to be sent out for production.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The manuscript PONE-D-24-48938R1 presents important results for implementing connectivity in conservation planning, with strong policy relevance and timely alignment with the Kunming–Montreal GBF and 30 × 30 targets. It also presents a clear methodological framework with strong practical applicability for managers and practitioners. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript in PLOS ONE, following minor revisions to address some writing details. Below I provide several comments that can be addressed with additional clarification in the text:

The manuscript presents an approach that is theoretically well established in the connectivity and conservation planning literature. However, it provides a meaningful methodological increment by integrating techniques such as the use of sentinel nodes, MPER, simulations, and regression to predict connectivity gains from new protected areas. This methodological extension is particularly valuable for practical applications, as it creates a simplified model that managers can use to prioritize candidate areas based on site and landscape attributes. I believe that the methodological novelty is not sufficiently clear in the Introduction, which may confuse readers, given that the underlying techniques and metrics are well known.

To better specify the innovation of the study, I suggest replacing the phrases “we developed a novel predictive model” (lines 454–455) and “we highlight the novelty of our approach” (line 411) with “we extend the sentinel node framework by developing a predictive surrogate model for prioritization” and “we provide an operational tool to translate connectivity metrics into planning-relevant rankings”, respectively.

The cost–benefit relationship of this approach relative to other techniques (e.g., Marxan and Zonation) is not clearly discussed and should be clarified in the Discussion.

The predictive model is based on a relatively small training dataset (n = 50, with 8 predictors), which may limit its generalizability due to potential overfitting. I suggest acknowledging this more explicitly in the Methods.

The title would benefit from emphasizing the practical applicability of the study, for example: “A predictive approach for incorporating connectivity into protected areas planning”.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

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.

A predictive approach to integrating connectivity into landscape scale protected areas planning

PONE-D-24-48938R2

Dear Dr. O'Brien,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. O' Brien,

I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in PLoS One! Congratulations on the hard work you and your co-authors employed on improving this contribution.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

Reviewers' comments: