Peer Review History
Original SubmissionMarch 11, 2022 |
---|
PONE-D-22-07335Global change differentially modulates Caribbean coral physiology and suggests future ‘winners’ and ‘losers’PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bove, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR:Hello, I have now had this article reviewed by two experts in the field. Although one was more favorable, the other necessitated a "major revision." I think most of the comments can be adequately addressed and so I am optimistic that this work can ultimately be published in PLoS ONE upon accommodating them. Looking forward to seeing the revised version in the coming weeks. Anderson Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2022 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: 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, Anderson B. Mayfield, 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “This research was partially supported by the Women Diver Hall of Fame Sea of Change Foundation Marine Conservation Scholarship and Lerner-Gray Memorial Fund of the American Museum of Natural History Grants for Marine Research awarded to CBB. JBR acknowledges support from NSF BIO-OCE award #1437371.” We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This research was partially supported by the Women Diver Hall of Fame Sea of Change Foundation Marine Conservation Scholarship (https://www.wdhof.org/scholarship/marine-conservation-scholarship-graduate) and Lerner-Gray Memorial Fund of the American Museum of Natural History Grants for Marine Research (https://www.amnh.org/research/richard-gilder-graduate-school/academics-and-research/fellowship-and-grant-opportunities/research-grants-and-graduate-student-exchange-fellowships/the-lerner-gray-fund-for-marine-research) awarded to CBB. JBR acknowledges support from NSF BIO-OCE award #1437371 (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/programs/biores.jsp). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 4. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Hello, I have now had this article reviewed by two experts in the field. Although one was more favorable, the other necessitated a "major revision." I think most of the comments can be adequately addressed and so I am optimistic that this work can ultimately be published in PLoS ONE upon accommodating them. Looking forward to seeing the revised version in the coming weeks. Anderson [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? 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: Partly ********** 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: Specific comments It is important to understand the physiological effects of warming and acidification on coral and symbiotic algae. By this way, to understand the varied responses of the different symbiotic partners is critical for predicting the future of tropical coral reefs. This manuscript assess the physiological responses of three species of Caribbean corals come from inshore and offshore environments, and then independent and combined test under four ocean acidification conditions and two warming temperatures, with a long time experiments. These results help us understand the physiological responses and relationship between some species of corals and symbiotic algae under warming and acidification. And it require more investigation in multi-stressor, multi-species studies to explore these complexities of coral responses under global change. There are still some questions about this manuscript. Are the morphology of the three corals the same (such as massive, branching...)? And will different morphology influences the response of physiological effects of warming and acidification on coral and symbiotic algae? In this experiments, the energy of coral completely came from the symbiotic algae. Will the physiological effects on corals and symbiotic algae keep the same or change if the coral get energy by feeding (heterotroph) under warming and acidification in field? General comments Comments while reading Methods Page 6. The authors did not describe or cite any references about how to control the PCO2 in the four CO2 treatments. How to create the pre-industrial CO2 condition and maintain it? Page 9, line 226-228. How to see “no interactions” from S2 Table? line 237. It suggests to use the full name, not the abbreviation in first time to mention noun. It replaces “ all PCs calculated above as… “ as “all Principal compound analysis (PCs) calculated above as …”. Results Page 11, line 266-267, 275, 285-286. How to read no significant interactive effect between temperature and pCO2 from S2 Table? Are the Fig S3D (DIC), S3E (HCO3), and S3F (CO2 seawater) cite here correct? Page 11-12, line 289-297. The Figure 1 had A to F figures, however, the description only for A to C, without D to F. The figure reveal the symbol “sum”, the figure caption describe as sum/red = colour intensity. It is recommended to use uniform notation. Discussion Page 16-17, line 426-427. How to see “no interactions” from S2, S3, S8 Table? Supplemental Materials for manuscript S5 Table. I may confuse the results of S. sidera analysis. Did S. sidereal results only in offshore analysis, without any inshore analysis? Reviewer #2: This paper studies the physiological response of three Caribbean coral species to two individually and combined global stressors (warming and acidification). Multiple physiological parameters in the corals are assessed using multidimensional analysis. Based on these data, the response of the coral species as well as 2 locations (inshore and offshore) are compared. The study includes a comprehensive amount of data on coral physiology that are of great value to understand the physiological response of these coral species to global stressors. The paper could benefit from addressing in a more clear way (1) the ecological relevance of the experimental treatments and whether they reflect values that are relevant to Caribbean reefs, and (2) what the observed changes in physiology mean for the future of these coral species. In general, my main concern with the study is that the multivariable approach obscures the specific effects of the treatments on these corals species (or the lack of effects) and makes it harder to understand the implication of the stressors on the individual corals species and on the reefs of the future. Specific comments: Abstract: It would be useful to immediately introduce what species are considered “winners” or “losers” and why. Since “winners” and “losers” are in the title, it is expected to report this as the main result. The introduction includes a nice description of the physiological parameters studied and how they have been seen to be affected by environmental stressors. This is very useful. Results of previous studies about the relative susceptibility of Caribbean coral species to the stressors would be useful to offer some context. What species are becoming less or more abundant in locations that have experienced intense warming or OA? Also, the introduction could benefit from including some context for the meaning and implications of physiological “plasticity”. In this paper, higher plasticity is assumed to imply higher susceptibility to environmental conditions. This should be better supported by adding some references to understand the results. Methods: Generally, well organized. The authors provide enough details to understand the study and statistical analysis. Lines 115 and 116 can be mentioned at the end of the paragraph for people that want more details, but perhaps these are not the best lines to start describing the study. Lines 135-140 could become a table with the factorial CO2 and temperature conditions. From lines 135 to 138 it is not clear why 2 different values are presented for every CO2 treatment. Line 200 mentioned that the images were analyzed for each timepoint, but I do not think there is a previous mention of when the time points are. Lines 215-219. If mortality was 90-72% how many samples per coral species per treatment were actually analyzed? These numbers are more important than the 288 total samples reported in lines 130, if most of these 288 corals died before the physiological data was collected (tissue samples). Results The PCA section is clear and well organized. However, better organization of figure 1 is possible. For example, if different shapes are used for the CO2 treatments, colors can be used for the temperature (or vice versa) and then the top and bottom panels do not have to be duplicated. Since this is a fully factorial study it is perhaps better to visualize both treatment levels in one same panel. In general, there are too many mentions to the supplementary information (Tables and Figures) in the results and discussion section. Is this necessary? It gives the feeling that half of the paper is actually not in the paper. Lines 305-306. It is expected to have a strong correlation between symbiont density and Chl-a. Even more, I think you can argue that this variables are not independent and therefore you should include only one in your model. A more interesting and less redundant variable could be Chl-a content per Symbiont cell, and drop total Chl-a. Discussion Please elaborate some about how the studied treatments reflect the present or future conditions of these Caribbean corals. Lines 449-450: Please provide some citations and explain how plasticity could be a detrimental response to stressors. Plasticity (Figure 3) is a big part of the discussion, but the negative connotation given to more plastic responses should be explained. Similarly, lines 455-457 could use references that support reduced capacity of corals with higher plasticity to persist under climate change scenarios. Lines 490 and 524: photosynthetic efficiency was not presented as part of the data. Was it measured? Small comments: Writing style: “clearly” is used multiple times across the manuscript. This can be removed from most of the sentences and let the reader decide if something is clear based on the data. e.g., Line 395 could be: “pCO2 treatment drove differences in coral physiology” instead of “pCO2 treatment clearly drove differences in coral physiology”. Lines 479-481 are repeated in the manuscript. Thank you for making your data and code available. ********** 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: 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-22-07335R1Global change differentially modulates Caribbean coral physiology and suggests future ‘winners’ and ‘losers’PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Bove, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2022 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 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, Anderson B. Mayfield, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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 : Hello, I apologize for this taking so long, but one of the original reviewers was too busy to review it, and then 13 others declined (likely because they were in Bremen)! But I digress. The new reviewer has raised some minor issues, but I don't see them as being an issue. I'll be looking forward to seeing the revised version in a few weeks. Thanks, Anderson [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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 #3: Please see the uploaded word document for general comments as well as specific comments to the authors. ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: 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.
|
Revision 2 |
Global change differentially modulates Caribbean coral physiology PONE-D-22-07335R2 Dear Dr. Bove, 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, Anderson B. Mayfield, 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Thanks for addressing all of the comments in the re- review. I think the authors have done so adequately and appropriately. I think the title change is good, and appreciate the clarifications on the heterotrophic feedings as well as the efforts to distinguish this work from previous, similar studies. I believe this is now suitable for publication in PLoS ONE. ********** 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: No Reviewer #3: No ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-22-07335R2 Global change differentially modulates Caribbean coral physiology Dear Dr. Bove: 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. Anderson B. Mayfield 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 .