Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 18, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-26124 Modeled buoyancy of eggs and larvae of the deep-sea shrimp Aristeus antennatus (Crustacea: Decapoda) in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea PLOS ONE Dear Ms CLAVEL-HENRY, 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. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Atsushi Fujimura Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Additional Editor Comments: Please address all the comments, especially the Reviewer2's first point. Justify your choice of egg densities, or rerun the model with more realistic densities. 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: No ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 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: No ********** 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: No ********** 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: The paper uses a circulation model for the eastern coast of Spain with estimated buoyancy and swimming for eggs and larvae of a deep spawning shrimp to calculate the potential recruitment areas for the adults. The simulations start July 1 (with one starting September 1) making different choices for egg density and active processes. The major finding of interest is that there is a trade-off between temperature and drift distance (and direction) with slower transport at depth where cooler temperatures prolonged development in contrast to faster movement and development near the surface. The secondary effect is that the deep flow is often in a different direction from the surface flow leading to different recruitment location. The primary determinant for the drift path was the egg buoyancy (L564) with an additional effect due to nauplius vertical motion, that may differ from that of eggs. An issue with the analysis is that information is sparse on the character of eggs and nauplii of this species of shrimp during development. A good effort is made to use similar species, although there seems to be a bit of difference in characteristics among these species. In spite of this sparseness, the authors have made these choices clear so the reader can evaluate the results. My own interpretation of these results is that egg buoyancy is variable within a species and the model results inform the drift path of these shrimp based on this inherent variability. A clear message from Fig 9 is that the Blanes/Palamós region provides abundant recruits to the Balearic Islands; this has management implications since the islands are not strictly self-recruiting. Minor comments: L175ff: It is important the the larval code includes both lateral and vertical turbulent effects, although these effects seem small compared to the persistent circulation in determining the final drift location. L239: There is a difference in horizontal diffusivity being 100 here and 10 on L185. L221: It would be nice to have identified the drift duration units to be days. These formula would apply for a constant temperature. But, the drifting organisms experience a range of temperatures. How is this information used? Also, these formulas might be more informative in the form D = Do exp(-a(T-To)) for some choice of base temperature (To). I am curious that all forms have the same e-folding temperature value (1/0.072 = 13.9 C). That value is close to the surface to bottom temperature difference (L152:153, 27.6 - 13.1 = 14.5). Given the large number of papers consulted, It seem odd that all forms would have the exact same coefficient. This might be that the Q10 values for all similar species is the same. Maybe the authors can comment on this result. L395: I am not sure of the meaning of "The individuals from the region 2 shaped circular structures having different sizes." Are the eddies different sizes? Are the individuals different sizes? Are the individuals circular or spherical? Along the same lines, the area between the coasts and Islands have numerous eddies. How persistent are these flows? They likely are important in changing the flow path, so some statement of their size, strength and persistence would help the reader. Would the results be very different if the release time had been a week or two earlier or later than July 1? Reviewer #2: To model the rising, transport and dispersion of the eggs and larvae, you must use background data as realistic as possible; data such as temperature, salinity, water-density, and current (motion of water) as physical properties, and egg/larva size, shape, and density as biological ones. There are at least two fatal problems in this paper: (1) The egg density smaller than 900 kg/m^3 is not realistic at all. Eggs are of protein, lipids and water (with ions). Lipids and water with ions in the eggs are less dense than ambient seawater, and thus provide the buoyancy. However, density of lipids is typically 900 kg/m^3, and proteins 1300. Therefore, 900 kg/m^3 for the egg density is entirely unrealistic. I understand that you needed to adopt this unrealistically small density for the eggs to force the eggs spawn in the deep bottom to reach the surface. Does this mean that: Because, without adopting such too small density, the model cannot explain the eggs to reach the surface from the bottom, there might be a possibility that the adult shrimp swim to the surface to spawn (which must be a so far unknown behavior)? (2) Also, in Lines 152 and 153, I am afraid the values of seawater density you are showing might be wrong: Average summer surface temperature, salinity, and seawater density from the ROMS outputs are 27.6, 37.5 PSU, and 1026.3 kg/m3, respectively. Average summer bottom temperature, salinity, and seawater density are 13.1 ºC, 38.2 PSU and 1035.35 kg/m3. The seawater density as calculated from the temperature and salinity should be T S density 27.6 37.5 1024.41, 13.1 38.2 1028.85. Because you are using the wrong values for the egg density and seawater density, I am afraid your model, and the following discussions based on the computational experiments are invalid; therefore, this paper is not worth being published. ********** 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Modeled buoyancy of eggs and larvae of the deep-sea shrimp Aristeus antennatus (Crustacea: Decapoda) in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea PONE-D-19-26124R1 Dear Dr. CLAVEL-HENRY, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Atsushi Fujimura Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-26124R1 Modeled buoyancy of eggs and larvae of the deep-sea shrimp Aristeus antennatus (Crustacea: Decapoda) in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea Dear Dr. Clavel-Henry: I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Atsushi Fujimura 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 .