Peer Review History
Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-24435 A simulation study of the use of temporal occupancy for identifying core and transient species PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Snell Taylor, 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. Both reviewers found the study interesting and generally well written. However both reviewers also felt some additional justification of the modelling framework is needed, and found the distinction between transient and sink species somewhat unclear. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 2020 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:
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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Patrick R Stephens, 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 2. 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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: 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. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper uses a simulation model to examine the roles that heterogeneity in both landscapes and detection probability influence categorization of species as either 'core' or 'transient' members of a community. The results of the model are in line with the authors expectations that core species will be misidentified as transient mostly due to lower detection probabilities, and that transient species will be misidentified as core mostly due to increased landscape heterogeneity. These results, though not too surprising, reinforce the notion that mis-classification of species is possible, and quantifies under which scenarios different mis-classifications are expected to occur. The model itself is well-described in the Methods section, and the subheadings make it easy to follow this description. The code is available in the supplemental material. The Methods and Results are written very clearly and succinctly, and would be possible to reproduce in any programming language. All in all, I thought this paper flowed very naturally. I have just a few questions: 1) Are 'transient' and 'sink' species the same thing (line 54)? How does this model compare or add to the source/sink dynamic models? 2) Is landscape heterogeneity the major driver of transient species occurrences in communities? I'm not too familiar with the literature on core/transient species in communities, but it seems like factors other than habitat preference might also drive the occurrence of a transient species in a community. For example, naturally low population sizes, meta-population dynamics, etc. This is beyond the scope of this model, but it would be good to mention other factors that influence whether a species is transient. 3) Most of the model parameters make sense and are explained clearly. But why did you choose a 7x7 pixel region surrounding the focal pixel to quantify heterogeneity? Did you make sure that this sized region was truly reflective of landscape heterogeneity on the whole grid? Given enough simulations, this might not be an issue, but maybe a little explanation about why you chose this size would be helpful. Reviewer #2: This is a simulation study that aims to clarify potential biases associated with applying temporal occupancy approaches to classify core and transient species. While the results are somewhat intuitive, as misclassification depends on both detection rates and the spatial proximity between habitats, putting these recommendations “out there” will be useful for many ecologists. I have a few suggestions, but I feel they are relatively minor. Sincerely, Jonathan Belmaker Introduction: The ability to detect core or transient species will depend on how temporal occupancy is used to separate these groups. A few more words here would be useful for the naïve reader to understand how core and transient species are separated in other studies, and what approach will be used here. Methods: Very specific birth, death, immigration rate and carrying capacity parameters were used. I do not believe this will change the results, but some sensitivity analyses to the modification of these parameters would increase the robustness of the findings (this was done for dispersal rate only). For the simulations varying detection probability, the distribution of detection probabilities across species and habitats is not clear. Please clarify. I had to get to the discussion to understand that detection probability did not vary among species. I would like to better understand the rational for this, as it seems less relevant to natural communities than models that vary detection among species. Furthermore, I would expect that when detection rates vary among species the misclassification of core and transient species may increase dramatically. I would strongly suggest to explore adding such heterogeneity in detection rate to the simulations. Results: It does not make sense to use P values in simulation models (as one can always achieve a significant result by increasing sample size). I would delete the P values throughout the text. Discussion: Occupancy modeling should improve imperfect detection. It is worth discussing how these methods may improve the separation between core and transient species given the results presented here. The impact of rarity is strong and nicely seen in figure 5, but I feel does not receive sufficient attention in the discussion. Figures and tables: I am not sure Figure 3 is very informative, as it is not the number of core and transient species that is interesting in this context but the misclassification rates. I would remove. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Andrew Laughlin Reviewer #2: Yes: Jonathan Belmaker [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. |
Revision 1 |
A simulation study of the use of temporal occupancy for identifying core and transient species PONE-D-20-24435R1 Dear Dr. Snell Taylor, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Patrick R Stephens, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: 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 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 ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: This is the second time I am reviewing this manuscript. In general, my previous comments were addressed (for a few small issues I do not completely agree, but this is a matter of opinion and I am willing to accept the authors’ response). I do not have any new suggestions I will be happy to see this accepted for publication. Sincerely, Jonathan Belmaker ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Andrew Laughlin Reviewer #2: Yes: Jonathan Belmaker |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-24435R1 A simulation study of the use of temporal occupancy for identifying core and transient species Dear Dr. Snell Taylor: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Patrick R Stephens Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .