Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247158

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia

Ernesto J Acosta 1,2,3,4,*, Adriana Rodríguez-Forero 5, Bernd Werding 4, Andreas Kunzmann 1
Editor: Michael Schubert6
PMCID: PMC7899373  PMID: 33617572

Abstract

Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. are two holothuroids exploited in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Until recently, they were considered a single species. During one year, 222 individuals of Isostichopus sp. and 114 of I. badionotus were collected in two bays of the Santa Marta region to study their reproductive biology and collect information on their size, weight and habitat. Both sea cucumber morphotypes showed an annual reproductive cycle, with a reproductive season from September to November, closely related to the increase in water temperature and rainfall. In both sea cucumbers the population structure exhibited a unimodal distribution composed of mature individuals and a sex ratio of 1:1. Isostichopus sp. had an average size and weight (193 ± 52 mm and 178 ± 69 g) and size and weight at first maturity (175 mm and 155 g) that was much lower than I. badionotus (respectively, 324 ± 70 mm and 628 ± 179 g; 220 mm and 348 g). While 98% of Isostichopus sp. individuals were collected in the upper 2.5 m, on rocky bottoms between cracks, 73% of I. badionotus individuals were found between 3 and 7.8 m depth, exposed on sandy bottoms. These differences imply that management measures (e.g. minimum catch size) should not be the same for both sea cucumbers morphotypes.

1. Introduction

Although sea cucumber fishing is not a traditional activity in Colombia, for almost two decades it has become an additional source of income for indigenous communities and fishermen on the Colombian Caribbean coast, who extract this resource with practically no regulation [14]. Fishing experience in neighboring countries, such as Panama, Mexico and Ecuador have shown the vulnerability of sea cucumbers to over-exploitation due to low recruitment rates, late maturity and density-dependent reproduction [57]. However, in Colombia this activity continues to be carried out illegally on different species and tends to be mostly unregulated and unquantified [8], encouraged by growing demand from Asian markets, where sea cucumber is considered a gastronomic delight of high economic value [810].

Existing records on this fishery as well as confiscations made by Colombian environmental authorities indicate that one of the species most frequently caught and of greatest concern for its protection and conservation is Isostichopus badionotus [1, 3, 11], because it is one of the most valuable in the Caribbean reaching prices in Asian markets between 132 and 358 USD Kg-1 [12]. Sadly, fishermen who sell sea cucumbers to intermediaries receive an average of only 3 USD Kg-1 [1, 3].

Despite the fact that I. badionotus has several morphotypes with a wide variation in its coloration and external morphology, this species has been recognized as a single species based on ossicle morphology, which is the main taxonomic character in sea cucumbers [13, 14]. However, recently Vergara and et al. [15], based on DNA analysis, morphology, and habitat preferences, found that one of these morphotypes shows a different genetic lineage and may not correspond to the Isostichopus badionotus species. They provisionally called it Isostichopus sp. and for practical reasons in this work we will call it morphotype Isostichopus sp., while the other morphotype is called I. badionotus.

Notwithstanding the fishing pressure on the different morphotypes of I. badionotus, as well as on other species of sea cucumbers, research on these exploited species in Colombia has been limited to a few studies on abundance and distribution [2, 16] and reproductive biology [17, 18]. However, there are still many gaps in knowledge, particularly about their reproductive patterns and how they are influenced by variables such as temperature, salinity, rainfall, and food availability.

The present study describes aspects of the reproductive biology of the holothuroids I. badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in the Santa Marta Region using the gonadal index (GI) and histological examination of the gonads. It also evaluates the influence of environmental and chemical variables (temperature, rainfall, the percentage of organic carbon content in the sediment) on their reproductive biology and analyzes the structure of their populations (frequency of length and weight, sex ratio, mean size and weight at first sexual maturity, fecundity). This research is intended to increase the current knowledge about the biology and ecology of sea cucumbers native to the Colombian Caribbean Sea and provide a scientific basis for the development of management measures and conservation of this resource.

2. Materials and methods

Specimens of Isostichopus sp. were collected from December 2015 to January 2017, while specimens of Isostichopus badionotus were collected from February 2016 to January 2017 in the Taganga Bay (11° 16’ 07.42” N– 74° 11’ 37.16” W) and Rodadero Bay (11° 12’ 27.40” N– 74° 13’ 47.44” W) in the Caribbean region of Santa Marta, Colombia (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Study area.

Fig 1

Box in inset A is magnified in inset B; box in inset B is magnified in the main panel. Source: Information base INVEMAR.

Due to the wide variety of shapes and colors that I. badionotus has, this study focused on the collection of organisms with the most common morphotype of this species present in the study area, described by Vergara et al. [15] as I. badionotus morphotype II.

Monthly 14 to 20 individuals of each morphotype (I. badionotus and Isostichopus sp.) were collected by snorkeling. For this purpose, a pair of snorkelers swam a transect 5 m wide by approximately 1000 m long, twice. The first trip was made bordering the coast line and the second at a distance of approximately 10 m from the coast line. The maximum search depth was 10 m for logistical and safety reasons and although it is likely that there are individuals at greater distance and depth, this could not be assessed in the present study. In October, no collections could be made due to the passage of Hurricane Matthew, which affected the Colombian Caribbean during that month. All sea cucumbers were individually packed in plastic bags with seawater and transported to the Aquaculture Laboratory of Universidad del Magdalena. The depth of capture of each individual and the type of bottom it occupied were recorded (classified as rocky, sandy, coral, rock-coral, rock-sand, rock-sand-coral). Additionally, surface sediment samples (with a thickness not greater than 10 mm) were taken near the individuals to determine the percentage of organic carbon content using a mass spectrometer, Euro EA 3000 elemental analyzer (EuroVector). Salinity and water temperature were recorded on a monthly basis, while total rainfall data were taken from the records of the Simon Bolivar airport meteorological station of the city of Santa Marta.

The individuals were sacrificed in the laboratory by placing them in seawater at 4°C, which was also intended to reach a maximum state of contraction that allowed to reduce the error during length measurements, due to the capacity that they have to extend or contract at will. Then the following body measurements were taken: total body length (TL), using a flexible 1-m tape measure at the nearest 0.5 cm (after sacrifice by thermal shock the contracted body had a C or S shape, and the tape contoured the body, so that the total length is the contour length); gonad volume using a graduated cylinder at the nearest 0.1 cm3; body wall weight (BW), defined as the weight of the individual without viscera or gonad and gonad weight (GW) at the nearest 0.1 g. Gonad index (GI) was calculated using the formula, GI = (GW/ BW)* 100 [19, 20].

The histological analysis of the gonads was performed at the Marine and Coastal Research Institute INVEMAR. A sample of approximately 2 g was taken from each of the gonads and processed in a Shandon Citadel 2000 automatic tissue processor according to the technique of dehydration, clarification and impregnation. The gonad tissue was cut to 5 μm thickness using a Microm HM32 manual rotary microtome and the sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin [21].

Sex, maturity stage and occurrence of reproductive events were assigned using the classification scale of Ramofafia et al. [6] based on shape, color criteria and microscopic characteristics of oocytes and sperm: (I) Indeterminate, (II) growth, (III) mature, (IV) partially spawned and (V) spawned. Finally, the mean size at first sexual maturity (L50) and mean weight at first sexual maturity (W50) were defined as the length and weight at which the gonads of 50% of individuals were mature or had spawned (stages III, IV and V) [22].

To estimate the L50, the proportion of mature individuals at different size intervals was modelled using the following equation:

P=1/(1+e(a+b*TL)),

where P = percentage of sexually mature females, TL = total length (mm), a and b = constants. The same equation was used to estimate the W50, replacing TL by BW = body wall weight.

Fecundity was estimated using the method described by Conand [22], starting from the average diameter of a mature oocyte (stage III), its volume was calculated assuming that it has a spherical shape and subsequently fecundity was estimated by dividing the average volume of the gonad of individuals in stage III by the average volume of an oocyte. The collection of individuals was carried out under the framework permit of the University of Magdalena registration number 1293 of December 18, 2013, granted by the national environmental licensing authority ANLA. Likewise, the processing of the specimens followed the international, national and institutional guidelines applicable to the care and use of animals.

3. Statistical analysis

The relationship between the sex of the individuals and the variables total length, body wall weight and gonad index were evaluated through one-way ANOVAS. The same analysis was applied to compare the percentage of organic carbon in the nearby sediment of both sea cucumber morphotypes. Differences between treatments means were tested for significance using a post-hoc multiple comparison test (Tukey’s HSD). Prior to data analysis, assumptions of normality were tested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and homogeneity of variance by the Levene test. When the assumptions were not met, the data were appropriately transformed or the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test was used in conjunction with the Bonferroni test. A regression analysis was performed with the monthly average of these variables to determine the relationship between environmental parameters (temperature, salinity and rainfall) and the GI Then a Spearman correlation analysis was performed to measure their strength of association. The sex ratio was evaluated with the Chi-square test. These analyses were carried out with the statistical program Statgraphics XVII.

The calculation of the L50 and W50 confidence intervals as well as their graphing was performed with the statistical program R version 3.6.3.

4. Results

4.1 Habitat description

Isostichopus sp. was found mostly in shallow waters, collecting 98% of the individuals in the first 2.5 m of depth and 2% between 2.6 and 4 m, generally hidden under rocks or in crevices, where 2 or 3 individuals shared the same refuge. Regarding bottom type, 94.5% of the individuals inhabited rocky bottoms, 4% rock-sand, 1% sandy, and 0.5% rock-coral.

Isostichopus badionotus was generally found at greater depths, 20% between 1 and 3 m, 73% between 3 and 8 m, and 7% between 8 and 10 m and in most cases the individuals were exposed. About 39% inhabited sandy bottoms with large rocks (diameter > 0.5 m), 27% sandy, 21% rock-coral, 8% rock-sand-coral and 5% rocky bottoms. No significant differences were observed between morphotypes in relation to the percentage of organic carbon in the sediment (Isostichopus sp. = 0.33% and I. badionotus 0.34%) (n = 31; F1,29 = 0.24; p = 0.629).

4.2 Population structure

From 222 individuals collected of Isostichopus sp., 91 (41%) were females, 68 (30.5%) males, 1 (0.5%) hermaphrodite and 62 (28%) did not have gonads. In I. badionotus from 114 individuals collected, 44 (39%) were females, 56 (49%) males, 14 (12%) did not have gonads. In both morphotypes, individuals without a gonad were observed in the months after the breeding season. The sex ratio was not significantly different from 1:1 (I. badionotus: n = 100; X2 = 1.4; p > 0.05; Isostichopus sp.: n = 158; X2 = 3.3; p > 0.05).

4.3 Body length-weight, distribution of size and weight and first maturity

a) Isostichopus sp

The average TL was 193 ± 52 mm (± SD), maximum 380 mm and minimum 75 mm. These values varied depending on sex (♀ = 195 ± 45 mm, ♂ = 202 ± 52 mm and without gonad 179 ± 61 mm). The individuals without a gonad were significantly smaller than the males (n = 221; K = 6.513; p = 0.039).

Length-frequency distribution was unimodal with a peak in the range of 180 to 215 mm (Fig 2A). The L50 was established at 175 mm (95% confidence interval: 174–176 mm) (Fig 2C). The smallest individual with gonads was a male (110 mm).

Fig 2. Population structure.

Fig 2

A and B distribution frequency of length and weight Isostichopus sp.; E and F distribution frequency of length and weight Isostichopus badionotus; C and D length and weight at first maturity Isostichopus sp.; G and H length and weight at first maturity Isostichopus badionotus.

The average BW (± SD) was 179 ± 69 g, maximum 558 g and minimum 18 g (♀ = 187 ± 58 g, ♂ = 190 ± 71 g and without gonad 154 ± 77 g). The individuals without gonads were significantly less heavy than females and males (n = 221; K = 11.410; p = 0.003).

Frequency distribution of the BW was unimodal with a peak in the range of 153 to 198 g (Fig 2B). The W50 was established at 155 g (95% confidence interval: 154–156 g) (Fig 2D). The smallest individual collected with gonads was a male (39 g).

b) Isostichopus badionotus

The average TL was 324 ± 70 mm (± SD), maximum 480 mm and minimum 110 mm (♀ = 329 ± 55mm, ♂ = 341 ± 64 mm and without gonad 240 ± 78 mm). The individuals without gonad were significantly smaller (n = 114; F2,111 = 14.74; p = 0.001).

The length-frequency distribution was unimodal, with a peak in the range of 355 to 390 mm (Fig 2E). The L50 was established at 220 mm (95% confidence interval: 217–221 mm) (Fig 2G). The smallest individual collected with gonads was a male (210 mm).

The average BW was 628 ± 179 g, maximum 999 g and minimum 72 g (♀ = 654 ± 152 g, ♂ = 669 ± 145 g and without gonad 383 ± 200 g). The individuals without a gonad were significantly less heavy (n = 114; F2,111 = 20.14; p = 0.001).

Frequency distribution of BW was unimodal with a peak in the range of 607 to 642 g (Fig 2F). The W50 was established at 348 g (95% confidence interval: 344–350 g) (Fig 2H). The smallest individual collected with gonads was a female (363 g).

4.4 Histological and morphological description of the gonads

In both sea cucumbers the gonad was composed of two tufts of tubules with a racemose appearance located at the anterior end of the coelom, which came to occupy most of the perivisceral cavity at the stage of maturity (III). The color of the gonad of both sea cucumbers varied from beige–whitish to ocher, without an apparent relationship between color and sex. Only one case of hermaphroditism was observed in Isostichopus sp., where 3% of the gonad contained sperm and 97% oocytes.

Histology showed 4 of the 5 stages of gonadal development proposed by Ramofafia et al. [6]. In this study the indeterminate stage (I), where the gametes do not yet have defined cellular structures that allow their differentiation, was not observed. A description of the histological characteristics of gonad development is shown in the S1 Appendix.

4.5 Gonad Index (GI)

In both morphotypes the lowest GI values were recorded in the first half of the year, with the lowest values in January 2016 for Isostichopus sp. (0.4 ± 0.2%) and February 2016 for I. badionotus (0.8 ± 0.6%). From May onwards, a gradual increase was observed, reaching its maximum value in August with 4.7 ± 0.9% and 7.6 ± 0.9%, respectively (Fig 3A and 3B), coinciding with the increase in water temperature and the onset of the rainy season (Fig 3C and 3D). Between September and December the GI decreased rapidly, indicating massive spawning, recording in January 2017 a GI of 1.5 ± 0.5% for Isostichopus sp. and 1.3 ± 0.4% for I. badionotus.

Fig 3. Average monthly variation of the gonad index and physico-chemical parameters between December 2015 and January 2017.

Fig 3

(A) gonad index Isostichopus sp., (B) gonad index Isostichopus badionotus, (C) temperature °C; (D) rainfall mm. The bars indicate the standard errors.

Both Isostichopus sp. and I. badionotus showed a significant relationship between GI and rainfall that explains more than 50% of the annual variation of GI. Temperature explained 24% and 42% of the annual variation of the GI, respectively. Finally, salinity explained 10% of the variation of the GI and did not show a significant influence (Table 1).

Table 1. Estimation of the percentage of variation of the Gonad Index (GI) in relation to environmental parameters.

Sea cucumbers Parameter % annual variation of GI explained by parameter n Spearman’s correlation P Regression model
Isostichopus sp. Temperature (Temp) 24.5% 13 0.555 0.055 GI = (-2.14129 + 0.00359296 * temp2)
Salinity (Sal) 10.2% 13 0.192 0.502 GI = sqrt (-203143 + 0.0222892 * Sal2)
Rainfall (Rain) 58.6% 13 0.752 0.001 GI = 1.19406 + 0.293588 * sqrt (Rain)
I. badionotus Temperature 42% 11 0.645 0.041 GI = 1/(-2.87434 + 92.7004/temp)
Salinity 10.7% 11 0.373 0.239 GI = 1/(-1.64506 + 73.7991/sal)
Rainfall 59.2% 11 0.761 0.016 GI = sqrt (5.23381 + 0.00487448 * rain2)

In general, the females had heavier gonads (Table 2) and a higher GI (Fig 3A and 3B), however, the differences in GI between females and males were only significant in Isostichopus sp. (n = 159; F1,157 = 18.39; p = 0.001).

Table 2. Gonad weight of Isostichopus sp. and Isostichopus badionotus.

Sea cucumbers Gonad weight (g)
Months All SE Female SE Male SE
Isostichopus sp. December—2015 4.4 1.7 3.1 1.9 5.2 2.6
January 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.4
February 2.9 1.5 5.5 3.8 1.9 1.5
March 1.6 0.5 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.4
April 4.6 2.6 5.7 3.7 2.1 1.3
May 2.1 0.4 2.6 0.6 1.6 0.5
June 3.8 0.8 4.8 1.2 2.2 0.4
July 8.9 2.3 10.9 2.8 3.0 0.9
August 7.9 1.6 9.8 1.9 3.3 1.4
September 6.8 1.7 5.4 2.1 9.3 2.9
November 3.3 1.0 3.4 1.1 2.2 2.2
December 3.0 0.6 4.4 1.0 2.1 0.6
January—2017 2.3 0.5 2.8 0.7 1.5 0.7
Isostichopus badionotus Months All SE Female SE Male SE
February 4.9 3.5 7.0 4.8 0.6 0.0
March 10.3 3.2 14.7 0.9 8.8 4.1
April 10.6 4.7 13.4 6.3 3.4 1.3
May 25.5 6.5 27.2 9.5 22.3 6.6
June 23.9 2.3 23.5 4.3 24.2 3.0
July 33.8 5.8 43.2 15.2 28.5 3.2
August 48.4 6.3 57.1 8.9 40.9 8.5
September 28.8 4.6 32.9 8.9 27.2 5.6
November 8.4 3.2 12.5 0.0 6.3 4.3
December 16.3 4.0 17.6 9.6 15.6 3.9
January—2017 9.3 3.2 22.3 5.7 4.9 1.5

4.6 Reproductive cycle

Isostichopus sp. had by December 2015, 46.7% of mature individuals (III), 6.7% growth stage (II), 13.3% partially spawned (IV) and 33.3% without gonad. In January and February 2016, the percentage of individuals spawned (V), partially-spawned (IV) and without gonads increased (Fig 4A), indicating spawning activity, consistent with the GI decrease (Fig 3A). In March a decrease in the percentage of spawned (V), partially spawned (IV) and without gonads (5%, 15% and 45%, respectively) and at the same time individuals in the growth stage (II) (10%) and mature (III) (25%) were recorded, which marked the restart of gametogenesis. From May onwards gonads developed rapidly. In August most gonads reached maturity (76.5% stage III and 5.9% stage II) (Fig 4A), coinciding with the beginning of the rainy season and the increase in temperature (Fig 3C and 3D). Histology revealed that spawning started in September with 7.1% spawned stage (V) and 35.7% partial spawned stage (IV) (Fig 4A). The highest spawning activity occurred between September and November, coinciding with a strong decrease of the GI and the maximum values of temperature and rainfall (Fig 3A, 3C and 3D).

Fig 4. Stages of gonadal development.

Fig 4

(A) Isostichopus sp., (B) Isostichopus badionotus between December 2015 and January 2017, (II) growth, (III) mature, (IV) partially spawned and (V) spawned. No stage I individuals were observed in this study (see the text).

In I. badionotus, by February 66.7% of the individuals were partially spawned (IV) and 33.3% mature III. In March, there was a decrease in partially spawned (IV) and mature (III), and at the same time individuals in growth stage (II) and without gonads were observed, marking the restart of gametogenesis (36%, 27%, 9% and 28%, respectively) (Fig 4B). From May onwards, the gonad developed rapidly, reaching a maximum in August with 79% mature (III) and 21% growth (II), coinciding with the maximum value of the GI, an increase in the water temperature and the intensity of rains (Fig 3B, 3C and 3D).

In September, the percentage of mature (III) individuals sharply decreased and partially spawned (IV) increased (21% and 72%, respectively) (Fig 4B), indicating the beginning of the spawning season, which extended until December and was congruent with the decline of the GI and maximum temperature and rainfall records (Fig 3B, 3C and 3D). The spawning season of both Isostichopus sp. and I. badionotus is characterized by the occurrence of partial spawning and the absence of individuals without gonads.

4.7 Fecundity

The average fecundity (± SE) for Isostichopus sp. was 16.6 x 106 ± 2.1 x 106 oocytes/individual (maximum 56.4 x 106 and minimum 2 x 106 oocytes) and in I. badionotus was 74.9 x 106 ± 9.5 x 106 oocytes/individual (maximum 157.1 x 106 oocytes and minimum 18.7 x 106 oocytes). The graphical relationship between the fecundity with the length and the weight of both sea cucumbers is shown in the Supporting information S1 File.

5. Discussion

The length and weight of Isostichopus badionotus obtained in this study (324 mm and 628 g) were higher than those reported in neighboring countries, such as Venezuela (113 to 474 mm and 58 to 527 g) [23], Panama (329 mm and 214.4 g) [24], Belize (220 mm) [25], Mexico (220 mm and 454 g) [26] and Cuba (612 g) [27]. However, despite the differences observed between regions, the values obtained in this study are within the growth ranges of the species, which can reach a maximum size of up to 450 mm [8, 13].

The recorded size and weight of Isostichopus sp. (193 mm and 178 g) were similar to those reported for this same morphotype by Vergara and Rodríguez [28] (189 mm and 232 g) and to that found by Agudelo-Martínez and Rodríguez-Forero [18] (217 g).

However, as the study that identified the genetic differences between Isostichopus badionotus and the morphotype Isostichopus sp. is recent, we do not have sufficient evidence to affirm or deny that the studies carried out previously in other countries would have taken into account the differences between morphotypes when carrying out their studies.

According to Conand [29] the average weight of most sea cucumbers of the order Aspidochirotida of commercial importance is in the range of 270 to > 400g, Isostichopus sp. could be considered as a small species. However, Agudelo-Martínez and Rodríguez-Forero [18] point out that in the Chinese market I. badionotus is marketed with a dry weight range of 8–76 g and according to Hernández et al. [30] the conversion rate from wet to dry weight of Isostichopus sp. is equal to 8% of the body wall weight. Therefore, the estimated dry weight for Isostichopus sp. in this study would be 14 g, which is within the marketing range and could in part explain the constant fishing of this sea cucumber [3].

The length and weight distribution frequency recorded in this study are similar to other populations of I. badionotus and other holothuroids species, characterized by being unimodal, mostly composed of mature adult individuals with low presence of juveniles [19, 24]. However, it is likely that the juveniles did not have a "low presence" per se, but due to their cryptic habits, their size and that they usually occupy places that are difficult to access, would have made observations scarcer.

The occurrence of individuals without gonads in both morphotypes, which were characterized by showing a greater proportion after the spawning season and possessing a smaller size and weight, could be due to a process of reabsorption of the gonad after spawning, which would mainly affect the smaller individuals (young). This assumption is supported by four facts:

  1. The total of individuals without gonads possessed all of their internal organs except for the gonad, ruling out the occurrence of auto-evisceration [31].

  2. Their average weight and size is greater compared to the weight and size of the smallest individual with gonads in each morphotypes (I. badionotus, 210 mm; 362 g and Isostichopus sp., 110 mm; 38 g), ruling out that this part of the population is made up entirely of immature individuals.

  3. The number of individuals without gonads is greater in the months following spawning, which has also been observed in I. badionotus by Lima et al. [32] in Brazil, in Isostichopus sp. by Agudelo-Martínez and Rodríguez-Forero [18] in Colombia, and in other sea cucumbers of the order Aspidochirotida by Herrero-Pérezrul et al. [5].

  4. The presence in the spawned gonads of both morphotypes of patches composed of dark brown tubules that had intense phagocytosis and are associated with processes of reabsorption from the gonad [6, 7, 33]. In addition, the fact that the number of gonadal tubules increases as the sea cucumber grows [3436] would suggest that the processes of phagocytosis after spawning would affect the whole gonad in young individuals with a small gonad.

Mean size and weight at first sexual maturity (L50, W50) are parameters commonly used for all fisheries in the world as a reference point for establishing the minimum capture size-weight [7, 29]. The L50 obtained of I. badionotus was higher than the one reported for the same species in Panama (130 to 150 mm) and Venezuela (180 mm), and equal to that reported in Cuba (220 mm), countries where strong exploitation of this resource has been reported [20, 37, 38]. However, the values for Panama and Venezuela are similar to the L50 found for Isostichopus sp. in this study.

On the other hand, the L50 and W50 obtained in this study show clear differences between the morphotypes: while 50% of the individuals of Isostichopus sp. reached the mean size of the first sexual maturity at 175 mm and 155 g, the presence of gonads in I. badionotus is only observed in individuals > 210 mm and 362 g. Therefore, both sea cucumbers should have a different management in relation to the minimum size or weight of capture. In the same way, about 50% of the individuals of both morphotypes collected were below the mean size and weight of the first sexual maturity. According to Froese [39], it is a sign of overexploitation when more than 5% of the catches are below the first maturity. However, further studies on the effects of fishing on the population structure, growth and recruitment of these sea cucumbers are needed to support this finding.

Concerning the histological descriptions of the gonad development, both morphotypes showed similar characteristics to those previously described for other species of the order Aspidochirotida [5, 6, 40, 41]. However, the absence of individuals of stage indeterminate (I) may be due to the rapid recovery of the gonad after spawning.

Despite the fact that gonochorism is a common characteristic in holothuroids, the presence of hermaphroditic individuals has been reported in a low percentage in different species, I. badionotus 2%, Holothuria atra 1.2%, Isostichopus fuscus 0.8 and 1.1% [5, 41]. According to Herrero-Pérezrul et al. [42], one of the possible causes of the formation and increase of hermaphroditic individuals is population reduction due to overfishing.

The GI as an indicator of reproductive activity and effort revealed that both Isostichopus sp. and I. badionotus showed an annual reproductive cycle, where temperature is closely related to gametogenesis and spawning occurs in the warmer months (September–November). These results are consistent with those reported for I. badionotus in Panama, Venezuela, and Brazil, where spawning peaks occurred in the warmer months [20, 43].

The influence of temperature on gametogenesis and spawning has been previously reported in several species of tropical holothuroids [5, 22, 35, 40, 44]. However, this study observed rainfall as a further important factor in the gametogenesis and spawning of the sea cucumbers studied. In this regard, Leite-Castro, Souza, Salmito-Vanderley, Nunez, Hamel & Mercier [45] and Benítez-Villalobos, Avila-Poveda & Gutiérrez-Méndez [46] found that during the rainy season there is a significant increase in phytoplankton, related to the contribution of nutrients from runoff and rivers. They also point out that this increased food availability can provide sea cucumbers that ingest phytoplankton (either directly in the case of suspended feeders or as phytodetritus in the case of deposit feeders such as I. badionotus) a boost of energy to complete gametogenesis, especially vitellogenesis.

The above corresponds to the observations in the study area, where the Gaira and Manzanares rivers discharge during the rainy season about 280 Ls-1 and 330 Ls-1 of water loaded with abundant dissolved organic nutrients, respectively [47].

Likewise, it has been reported that several tropical sea cucumbers complete their gametogenesis and have their spawning season during the rainy season, as is the case of Holothuria mexicana [20], H. scabra [48], H. grisea [45] and H. fuscocinerea [46]. Benítez-Villalobos et al. [46] point out that sea cucumbers associate their spawning season with rainy periods as a reproductive strategy, because the increase in primary production that is produced would ensure that the larvae are able to feed and survive.

In general, the fecundity calculated for both morphotypes was much higher than that reported for I. badionotus by Zacarias-Soto et al. [49] (2 x 105 to 1.06 x 106 oocytes/individual) and Palazón [23] (62 x 103 to 5.06 x 106 oocytes/individual). Likewise, I. badionotus also recorded higher fecundity than species, such as H. scabra (9 x 106 to 17 x 106 oocytes/individual), Stichopus variegatus 7.2 x 106 to 12.5 x 106 oocytes/individual) and Actinopyga mauritiana (23.6 x 106 to 33.7 x 106 oocytes/individual) [50], while Isostichopus sp. showed similar values.

The amount of oocytes that can be produced by a sea cucumber is affected by several factors, such as feeding, size or genetics [51] and although the individuals collected in this study showed a larger size and weight than those reported in neighboring countries, it is possible that the method used to calculate fertility has overestimated it.

However, the fact that the fecundity of I. badionotus was 3.5 times greater than that of Isostichopus sp. could be explained in part by the larger size of I. badionotus and in part by the behavior of the morphotypes. On the other hand, Isostichopus sp. by showing a more gregarious behavior, sharing shelter and concentrating on specific habitats (the rocky and shallow bottoms) could require a smaller number of gametes during spawning to obtain successful reproduction. While I. badionotus by occupying more varied habitats and being more distant from each other, would require a greater effort in gamete production to increase the chances of reproduction.

Finally, one of the main characteristics observed in both morphotypes during the breeding season was the occurrence of partial spawning. This capacity, that some holothuroids can spawn more than once during the reproductive period, is considered by some researchers as a way to increase the success of reproduction, especially in species that produce very small oocytes [5, 51], as it is the case with I. badionotus (100 μm) and Isostichopus sp. (98 μm).

6. Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that both Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. have an annual reproductive cycle, in which spawning events occur in the warmer months with higher rainfall (September to November). This suggests that warm seawater temperature and /or rainfall act as reproductive synchronizers and spawning triggers in both morphotypes.

In the same way, this study found that Isostichopus badionotus, besides showing a significantly larger size and weight than Isostichopus sp., had also marked differences in relation to the size and average weight of the first sexual maturity, the fecundity and the depth and type of bottoms they inhabit. These characteristics support the results of Vergara et al. [15], who argue that these are different species, and also imply that the implementation of management and conservation measures (e.g., closures, minimum catch size, allowed fishing gears) should not be the same for both morphotypes.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Description of the macroscopic and histological characteristics of the ovary and the testes in both Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp., throughout the development of gametogenesis.

Including photographs detailing each stage of development.

(DOCX)

S1 File. Graphic description of the relationship between fecundity and length (S1 Fig, S3 Fig), and fecundity and weight (S2 Fig, S4 Fig) for both Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank The Universidad del Magdalena, especially the Aquaculture Technology Research and Development Group (GIDTA), the Marine and Coastal Research Institute INVEMAR, the Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) GmbH, the Giessen University and Corporation CEMarin, for the support received and the facilities provided for the preparation of this work.

Data Availability

The database for this manuscript is available at: https://osf.io/qtac7/.

Funding Statement

E.A. This study was funded by corporation center of excellence in marine sciences CEMarin Call N° 5 of year 2015. https://www.cemarin.org The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1. Ortíz E, Benavides M, Borrero G. Estudio de caso: Pepinos de mar (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea: Aspidochirotida). In: INVEMAR, editors. Informe del Estado de los Ambientes y Recursos Marinos y Costeros en Colombia: Año 2010. Santa Marta: Serie de Publicaciones Periódicas No. 8; 2011. pp. 219–220.
  • 2.INVEMAR. Elementos técnicos y generación de capacidad para el ordenamiento y manejo de los espacios y recursos marinos, costeros e insulares de Colombia. Código: ACT-VAR-001-013. Informe técnico final. Convenio MADS-INVEMAR No. 57. Santa Marta. 2013. Available from: http://cinto.invemar.org.co/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/54f6aae2-9543-47b9-9e5a-3a84e6fbaa75/Elementos%20técnicos%20y%20generación%20de%20capacidad%20para%20el%20ordenamiento%20y%20manejo%20de%20los%20espacios%20y%20recursos%20marinos,%20costeros%20e%20insulares%20de%20Colombia.%20Código:%20ACT-VAR-001-013.%20Informe%20técnico%20final.%20Componente%204:%20Caracterizar%20poblaciones%20de%20pepino%20de%20mar?ticket = TICKET_500897c2136f11bd66d0cc53b0d93ad2c97d6ed7
  • 3.Rodríguez A, Vergara W, Agudelo V. First insight into Colombian Caribbean Sea cucumbers and sea cucumber fishery. SPC Beche-de-mer Inf Bull. 2013; 33: 9–16. Available from: https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/beche-de-mer/411-beche-de-mer-information-bulletin-33 [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Puentes V, Escobar F, Polo C, Alonso J. Estado de los Principales Recursos Pesqueros de Colombia– 2014. Serie Recursos Pesqueros de Colombia–AUNAP: Oficina de Generación del Conocimiento y la Información, Autoridad Nacional de Acuicultura y Pesca–AUNAP. 2014. Available from: https://www.aunap.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ESTADO-DE-PRINCIPALES-RECURSOS-PESQUEROS-EN-COLOMBIA-2014-version-digital.pdf
  • 5.Herrero-Pérezrul MD, Reyes-Bonilla H, García-Domínguez F, Cintra-Buenrostro CE. Reproduction and growth of Isostichopus fuscus (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) in the southern Gulf of California, México. Mar. Biol. 1999; 135: 521–532. 10.1007/s002270050653 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ramofafia C, Battaglene SC, Bell JD, Byrne M. Reproductive biology of the commercial sea cucumber Holothuria fuscogilva in the Solomon Islands. Mar Biol. 2000; 136: 1045–1056. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Toral-Granda MV, Martínez PC. Reproductive biology and population structure of the sea cucumber Isostichopus fuscus (Ludwig, 1875) (Holothuroidea) in Caamaño, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Mar Biol. 2007; 151:2091–2098. 10.1007/s00227-007-0640-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Purcell SW, Samyn Y, Conand C. Commercially important sea cucumbers of the world. Rome: FAO Species Catalogue for Fishery Purposes No. 6; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Purcell SW, Lovatelli A, Vasconcellos M, Ye Y. Managing sea cucumber fisheries with an ecosystem approach. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper; 520; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lovatelli A, Conand C, Purcell SW, Uthicke S, Hamel JF, Mercier A, editors. Advances in sea cucumber aquaculture and management. Rome: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper; 463; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Reyes-Sánchez FJ, Puentes-Cañón GM, Ramírez JG, Ortiz-Gómez E P. Primer registro de capturas de Holothuria mexicana e Isostichopus badionotus, a partir de la pesca artesanal de la media Guajira, Caribe colombiano, entre junio de 2006 a junio de 2011. Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Equinodermos. Puerto Madryn, Argentina. 2011. Available from: http://rediberoamericanaequinodermos.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CLE-2011-Libro-de-Resumenes.pdf
  • 12.Purcell SW, Ngaluafe P, Lalavanua W, Ceccarelli DM. Market price trends of Latin American and Caribbean Sea cucumbers inform fisheries management. Regional Studies in Marine Science 2018; 17: 127–132. 10.1016/j.rsma.2017.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Borrero-Pérez GH, Benavides-Serrato M, Diaz-Sanchez CM. Equinodermos del Caribe colombiano II: Echinoidea y Holothuroidea. Santa Marta: Serie de Publicaciones Especiales de Invemar No. 30; 2012. Available from: http://www.invemar.org.co/redcostera1/invemar/docs/10454EQII__web.pdf
  • 14.Borrero-Pérez GH, Solís-Marín FA, Lessios H. Understanding the color variability and confusion of the valuable sea cucumber Isostichopus badionotus (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) based on mitochondrial DNA, morphology and habitat preferences. 8th North American Echinoderm Conference Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 9–13 July 2017, pp. 36. 2017
  • 15.Vergara W, Agudelo V, Castro LR, Rodríguez A, Eeckhaut I. Morphological and molecular characterization of Isostichopus sp. in the Colombian Caribbean Sea. Journal of Basic and Applied Genetics. 2018; Vol. XXIX (2): 33–48. Available from: https://sag.org.ar/jbag/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/BAG_VXXIX_2_2018_ART3_WEB.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koike H, Usseglio P, Ramos F. Baseline assessment of virgin biomass of sea cucumbers in Old Providence and Santa Catalina, Western Caribbean. SPC Beche-de-mer Inf Bull. 2015; 35: 42–49. Available from: https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/beche-de-mer/440-beche-de-mer-information-bulletin-35 [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ortiz-Gómez EP. Biología reproductiva del pepino de mar Holothuria (Selenkothuria) glaberrima Selenka, 1867 en Santa Marta, Colombia. M.Sc. Thesis, University Jorge Tadeo lozano. 2011. Available from: http://bdigital.unal.edu.co/8154/1/1190351.2011.pdf
  • 18.Agudelo-Martínez V, Rodríguez-Forero A. Gametogenesis, spawning and larval development of Isostichopus sp. aff badionotus. SPC Beche-de-mer Inf Bull. 2017; 37: 65–73. Available from: https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/beche-de-mer/473-beche-de-mer-information-bulletin-37 [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tuwo A, Conand C. Reproductive Biology of the Holothurian Holothuria forskali (Echinodermata). J. mar. boil. Ass. U.K. 1992; 72:745–758. 10.1017/S0025315400060021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guzmán HM, Guevara CA, Hernández IC. Reproductive cycle of two commercial species of sea cucumber (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) from Caribbean Panama. Mar Biol. 2003; Vol.142: 271–279. 10.1007/s00227-002-0939-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ordás MC, Gómez-León J, Figueras A. Histopathology of the infection by perkinsus atlanticus in three clam species (Ruditapes decussatus, R. philippinarum and R. pullastra) from Galicia (NW Spain). Journal of Shellfish research. 2001; 20: 1019–1024. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Conand C. Sexual cycle of three commercially important holothurian species (Echinodermata) from the lagoon of New Caledonia. Bull Mar Sci. 1981; 31 (3): 523–544. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Palazón Fernandez JL. Reproducción del pepino de mar, Isostichopus badionotus Selenka (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea). IX Congreso Latinoamericano sobre Ciencias del Mar. San Andres Isla. 6–20 September 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Guzmán HM, Guevara CA. Population Structure, Distribution and Abundance of Three Commercial Species of Sea Cucumber (Echinodermata) in Panama. Caribb J Sci. 2002; Vol. 38, No. 3–4: 230–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rogers A. Density, Abundance and Distribution of Sea Cucumbers in Belize. Proceedings of the 66th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute November 4–8, 2013. (pp. 1–4). Corpus Christi, Texas USA. 2013.
  • 26.López-Rocha JA. Distribution and abundance of the sea cucumber Isostichopus badionotus off the Coast of Sisal Yucatán. Proceedings of the 64th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. Puerto Morelos, Mexico. October 31—November 5, 2011, pp. 1–7. 2011. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264310578_Distribucion_y_abundancia_del_pepino_de_mar_Isostichopus_badionotus_frente_a_la_costa_de_Sisal_Yucatan
  • 27.Alfonso I, Frías MP, Aleaga L, Alonzo CR. Current status of the sea cucumbers fishery in the south eastern region of Cuba. In: Lovatelli A, Conand C, Purcell S, Uthicke S, Hamel J-F, Mercier A, editors. Advances in sea cucumber aquaculture and management. Rome: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper; 463; 2004. pp. 151–159. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vergara W, Rodríguez A. Nutritional Composition of Sea Cucumber Isostichopus sp. Natural Resources. 2016; 7: 130–137. 10.4236/nr.2016.73013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Conand C. The fishery resources of the Pacific island countries. Rome: FAO Fisheries Technical Paper Part 2. Holothurians; 1990. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-t0293e.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hernández O, Alcendra E, Carreño O, Cabrera E, Corvacho R, Rodríguez A. Sea Cucumber (Isostichopus sp. aff badionotus) Dry-Salting Protocol Design. Scientific Research Publishing; 2017; 8: 278–289. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.García-Arrarás JE, Greenberg MJ. Visceral regeneration in Holothurians. Microscopy research and technique. 2001; 55: 438–451. Available from: http://rediberoamericanaequinodermos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/13.-Microscopy-research-and-technique-Garcia-Arraras-2001-55-438_451.pdf 10.1002/jemt.1189 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lima RPN, Ventura CRR, Campos-Creasey LS. Gonad morphology and gametogenesis of the sea cucumber Isostichopus badionotus from southeast Brazil. In: 6th European Conference on Echinoderms 2001, Netherlands. Proceedings. Banyuls-sur-Mer, France; 2001. pp. 301–306.
  • 33.Ramofafia C, Byrne M. Assessment of the "tubule recruitment model" in three tropical Aspidochirote holothurians. SPC Beche-demer Inf Bull. 2001; 15:13–16. Available from: https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/beche-de-mer/185-beche-de-mer-information-bulletin-15 [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hamel JF, Himmelman J H, Dufresne L. Gametogenesis and spawning of the sea cucumber Psolus fabricii (Duben and Koren). Biol Bull. (Woods Hole). 1993; 184:125–143. 10.2307/1542223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chao SM, Chen CE, Alexander PS. Reproduction and growth of Holothuria atra (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) at two contrasting sites in southern Taiwan. Mar. Biol. 1994; 119: 565–570. 10.1007/BF00354319 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Demeuldre M, Eeckhaut E. Gonad development in the sea cucumber Holothuria scabra Jaeger, 1833. SPC Beche-de-mer Inf Bull. 2012; 32: 15–23. Available from: https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/beche-de-mer/400-beche-de-mer-information-bulletin-32 [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rodríguez-Milliet E, Pauls SM. Sea cucumber fisheries in Venezuela. In: Mooi R, Telford M, editors. Balkema, Rotterdam: Proceedings of the 9th international echinoderm conference; 1998. pp. 513–516.
  • 38.Ortega M, Alfonso I. Abundancia y distribución del pepino de mar Isostichopus badionotus (Aspidochirota: Stichopodidae), en seis localidades de pesca al norte de la Isla la Juventud, Cuba. Revista Cubana de Investigaciones Pesqueras. 2011; vol. 28, No. 2: 8–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Froese R. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish and Fisheries. 2004; 5: 86–91. 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2004.00144.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Conand C. Reproductive biology of the holothurians from the major communities of the New Caledonia lagoon. Mar Biol. 1993; 116: 439–450. 10.1007/BF00350061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Foglietta LM, Camejo MI, Gallardo L, Herrera FC. A maturity index for holothurians exhibiting asynchronous development of gonad tubules. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2004; Vol. 303: 19–30. 10.1016/j.jembe.2003.10.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Herrero-Pérezrul MD, Reyes-Bonilla H, García-Domínguez F. Casual hermaphroditism in gonochoric Isostichopus fuscus (Ludwig, 1875) (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) in the southern Gulf of California, Mexico. Bull Mar Sci. 1998; 63(3): 611–615. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Toral-Granda MV, Lovatelli A, Vasconcellos M. Sea cucumbers. A global review of fisheries and trade. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper; 516; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fajardo-León MC, Michael G, Singh C, Vélez B, Massó R. Estructura poblacional y ciclo reproductor del pepino de mar (Isostichopus fuscus) en Santa Rosalía B.C.S., México INP SEMARNAP. Ciencia pesqurea N° 11 nueva época; 1995. Available from: https://www.inapesca.gob.mx/portal/documentos/publicaciones/cienciapesquera/CP11/CP11-08.pdf
  • 45.Leite‑Castro LV, Souza J, Salmito‑Vanderley CS, Nunes JF, Hamel JF, Mercier A. Reproductive biology of the sea cucumber Holothuria grisea in Brazil: importance of social and environmental factors in breeding coordination. Marine Biology. 2016; 163:67 10.1007/s00227-016-2842-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Benítez-Villalobos F, Avila-Poveda OH, Gutiérrez-Méndez IS. Reproductive biology of Holothuria fuscocinerea (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) from Oaxaca, Mexico. Sex Early Dev Aquat Org. 2013. 1: 13–24. 10.3354/sedao00003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mancera-Pineda JE, Pinto G, Vilardy S. Patrones de distribución estacional de masas de agua en la Bahia de Santa Marta, Caribe Colombiano: Importancia relativa del Upwelling y Outwelling. Bol Invest Mar Cost. 2013; 42(2): 329–360. 10.25268/bimc.invemar.2013.42.2.55 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Krishnaswamy S, Krishnan S. A report on the reproductive cycle of the holothurian Holothuria scabra Jaeger. Curr Sci. 1967; 36: 155–156. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Zacarías-Soto M, Olvera-Novoa MA, Pensamiento-Villarauz S, Sánchez-Tapia I. Spawning and Larval Development of the Four-Sided Sea Cucumber, Isostichopus badionotus (Selenka 1867), under Controlled Conditions. Journal of the world aquaculture society. 2013. Vol. 44, N°, 5. 10.1111/jwas.12061 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hopper D, Hunter C, Richmond R. Sexual reproduction of the tropical sea cucumber, Actinopyga mauritiana (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea), in Guam. Bulletin of Marine Science 63 (1): 1–9. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233566006_Sexual_Reproduction_of_the_Tropical_Sea_Cucumber_Actinopyga_Mauritiana_Echinodermata_Holothuroidea_in_Guam [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mosher C. Spawning behavior of the aspidochirote holothurian Holothuria mexicana Ludwig. In: Lawrence JM editors. Balkema, Rotterdam: Proc. Int. Echinoderm Conf. Tampa Bay; 1982. pp. 467–468.

Decision Letter 0

Michael Schubert

15 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-04776

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. native to the Caribbean coast of Colombia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Acosta Ortiz,

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 comprehensively addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 30 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:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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,

Michael Schubert

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

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

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

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

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

a).    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 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].”

b).    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/

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.

[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: I Don't Know

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: No

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: 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: Please see my appended comments.

It seems that I have to put in 200 total characters into this box in order for the system to accept my review, so I will simply keep typing here until I reach a total of 200 characters.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes results of a study about the reproductive periodicity of two species of sea cucumbers found in Columbian waters. Both species are apparently exploited in illegal fisheries. The study has the potential to support more refined management plans for the two species, such as by informing the planning of seasonal closures and minimum legal size limits.

Generally, the manuscript needed more work on tightening the text and editing out typographic flaws prior to submission. Did all of the co-authors carefully read this manuscript and approve of this version to be submitted? This is mandated by the Vancouver Protocol, and indeed specifically by this journal’s policy. Overall, there are numerous careless errors with the writing (and I don’t just mean English usage). Some paragraphs are comprised of one unwieldy sentence, some careless errors with units and precision, flaws in syntax of citing authors. The job of the scientific reviewers is not to edit the manuscripts in this regard. This should be accomplished by the authorship team.

The Results section is far too wordy, and some of it repeats what has already been stated in the Methods (e.g., ANOVA tests and post-hoc tests). I recommend that the authors trim down the Results section by around 40%.

The authors also used a loss-on-ignition method (line 81) to “determine the content of organic matter” in sediments. This method was borrowed from terrestrial ecologists long ago. Bias of this method for analysing tropical sediments that can contain recent carbonates has been long recognised (Dear 1974, Telek and Marshall 1974, Hirota and Szyper 1975, Morse and Mackenzie 1990, Luczak et al. 1997). The problem is that, some carbon will be lost (as CO2) from the mineral component in addition to the oxidative decomposition of organic matter, leading to an overestimation of organic matter. Although this bias is likely to be fairly consistent among treatment and control samples in the current study, the use of such methods in manuscripts like this can be a detriment to the field of research because other authors will consider publication of the work to be peer-approval of the methods for other studies. I believe that the authors must either remove these results from their manuscript (which would not be a great loss anyway) or re-analyse the sediments in a more correct way that does not lead to overestimation of organic matter.

Abstract:

Line 13 says holothurians, but elsewhere it says holothuroids. Be consistent and say holothuroid throughout.

According to the authors, Isostichopus sp. is not yet described taxonomically. Is it indeed a separate species or a putative species?

Line 15 says “the two bays”. But there are not on two bays in this region.

On line 20 and elsewhere in the manuscript, please replace “presented” with something else such as “had”.

You could say “much lower” on line 21.

On line 25, is it the design or the measures that should not be the same for the two species?

Body Text

Syntax or typo errors on lines 22, 63, 69, 70, 82, 84, 103, 120, 125, 138, 144, 152, 177, 191, 214–216, 221, 240, 254, 261, 285, 296, 299, 323, 328–329, 341.

There are many inconsistencies that need to be fixed. For example, sometimes spaces before and after equal sign but sometimes not.

The first paragraph of the Introduction is one big unwieldy sentence—please revise. Same for first part of second para in Introduction. Other instances in the manuscript should be revised too.

Errors with citation styles: authors should not write “described by [15]”, or “”[18] point out”, or “by [30]”. Name the author(s) in such cases. Fix these throughout the manuscript.

Line 50 says “which they named Isostichopus sp.” but the species has not been named.

Don’t start sentences with numbers. Please rewrite them to start with a word.

On line 85, please describe how the animals were measured? Why was a flexible tape measure used? Was the tape contoured to the body such that the length is the contour length? If so, state this.

Describe the ANOVA analyses better. What factors? Are the factors random or fixed? One-way or two-way ANOVA?

All statistical terms should be italicized, including F, p, K, X2, etc.

The precision used for stating values in the Results section is most often unwarranted, especially when one looks at the error estimate. For body weights and lengths, round to nearest whole numbers.

The methods section already says that ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used. So in the Results, there is no need to say things like “ANOVA results showed…”. Likewise, please don’t have statements such as “The percentage….is shown in Fig 4”.

Lines 205–207 says that the GI values of both species were highest in August, with “This increase coincided with an increase in water temperature, the onset of the rainy season and an increase in organic matter concentrations in the sediment.”. Sorry, but from the Figure, I cannot see a good correlation between organic matter and the GI values. These appear unrelated. Please either analyse this correspondence or reword.

The wording in the Discussion could be tightened.

Don’t use hyphens to indicate a range in data or time periods. Use en dashes in these cases. Also, the en dash replaces the word “to” so it is a grammatical error to write “between XX–XX”.

For the Discussion, the authors have not convincingly proven or shown that temperature, rainfall and runoff are all needed for the animals to spawn during late summer. This would imply that if there was a year without much rain, then the animals would not spawn. Instead, be more circumspect and say warm seawater temperature and/or rainfall.

The graph axes going from December 2015 to January 2017 with only one year of months in between looks very strange. I would suggest to just have the months in the axes, and explain about the pooling of monthly data in the captions.

How does the average fecundity of I. badionotus compare with estimates of fecundity of other species? 124 million oocytes seems like a lot. Please can you compare with values from other studies on other species?

**********

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: Jason Hodin

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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Acosta_etal_PLoSOne_review_Feb2020.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247158.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 May 2020

We believe that the corrections and suggestions provided by the reviewers were adequate and valuable in improving the manuscript.

The authors adjusted the manuscript as best as possible to the requirements and suggestions provided by the reviewers and the editor.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS ONE.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michael Schubert

13 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-04776R1

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. native to the Caribbean coast of Colombia.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Acosta Ortiz,

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 comprehensively addresses the points raised during the review process.

It is requested that the response letter very carefully details the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments and that it includes clear justifications as to why certain comments have been implemented in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, given the lack of quality of the manuscript text, the writing will have to be improved significantly to render the manuscript acceptable in PLOS ONE. The measures taken to improve the manuscript text need to be indicated in the response letter.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 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:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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 #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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: I would like to congratulate the authors on their substantial efforts to revise the manuscript. It is now much more readable and the new analyses have, in my opinion, greatly improved the manuscript. I only have a few minor suggestions remaining.

If the authors revise the manuscript in the ways I suggest here, I would then deem it suitable for publication. If the authors object to any of these changes, please state their reasons why.

I have also pointed out a few times below where I would like the authors to include -in the manuscript itself- issues that they wrote about in their response to my original review, yet did not mention in the revised manuscript itself, as far as I can tell.

Below, I reference the line numbers in the new version of the paper.

=====

Lines 20-22: please change to read:

“Isostichopus sp. had an average size and weight (193 + 52 mm and 178 + 69 g) and size and weight at first maturity (175 mm and 155 g) that was much lower than I. badionotus (respectively, 324 + 70 mm and 628 + 179 g; 220 mm and 348 g).”

Line 76: change “divers’ to “snorkelers”

Line 78: This would be a good place to mention what the authors mentioned in their response to my original review: that there are likely individuals below 10 meters, but this could not be assessed in the current study.

Lines 89-94 should be a single sentence. Therefore, please change Lines 90-92 to read:

“…using a flexible 1-m tape measure at the nearest 0.5 cm (this tape contoured the body, so that the total length is the contour length); gonad volume using

Line 106: change “states” to “stages”

Line 134: please give version of R software used

Line 153 and 155: change “had not gonads” to “did not have gonads”

Lines 164, 290, 292, 294, 297, 299, 305: Thank you for providing p-values. But please do not provide that many figures after the decimal place. 3 is sufficient.

So, for example, on line 164 please either write p=0.039 or something like p<0.04.

The K values on lines 164 and 304 are probably also a bit too precise. e.g., on line 164, “6.513” is probably sufficient.

Line 171: Please change “with” to “that was”

Lines 189, 199 and elsewhere if relevant: When listing the F statistics please subscript the degrees of freedom numbers. So, on line 189, the “2,111” should appear as a subscript following “F”

Lines 189, 199, 304: p=0.0 is not acceptable. Please write p<0.001

Lines 228, 258: Change “micras” to “µm”

Line 247: change “testicles” to “testes”

Line 310: In Table 1, the first row of data is missing cell borders.

Line 331: please add to figure legend: “No Stage I individuals were observed in this study (see the text).”

Line 333: change “whose presence” to “such individuals”

Line 353-356: I still have a problem with the way the exponent figures are listed here. It is very random. Can the authors please make it more easily comparable between species? I suggest rewriting all of these figures as x 10^6

Line 380: Can the authors please add (perhaps here) a note regarding what they wrote in their response to my original review? Namely, that it’s not likely that the individuals have “low presence” per se, but that due to their size and cryptic habitat, few were observed.

Line 392: please fix this reference where it says “Aspidochrotida [5] and 4”

Lines 419-421. interesting. is it possible that hermaphroditism increasing in exploited areas is also possibly due to other co-occurring environmental inputs? In areas with heavy fishing there may also be correlated heavy run-off of land-based pollutants.

Line 472: please correct the word “arts” here

Somewhere in discussion: can the authors please somewhere point out what they wrote in their response to my original review, namely:

“we do not have sufficient evidence to affirm or deny that the studies carried out previously in other countries would have made a correct identification of the species in the light of the new findings.”

I believe this is important to mention as it is relevant to their comparisons with prior studies that they made throughout the paper.

Figs:

Fig 2 & 5: please make sure that the quality of Figs 2 & 5 are improved when published. The resolution in my version was poor.

Fig 3: panels D,H,L & P still need scale bars

Fig 6: I’m afraid I still can’t distinguish the grey colors of stages II and III. Can the authors please try one more time to make a visibly different set of grey scale colors for stages II-V in Fig. 6?

Thank you for including the fecundity x body size plots in you response to my original review. I strongly suggest that the authors include these four plots as supplementary material.

Reviewer #2: In the title, just write “in Colombia” instead of “native to the Caribbean coast of Colombia”.

Authors, simply writing over and over in the response document “Has been changed accordingly to the recommended” does not tell the reviewer or Editor where to find the correction in the revised file, or what was done in some instances. In doing so, you are making the job harder for the reviewer.

Subscript the degrees of freedom after the F when reporting F-values.

Okay for the removal of the analysis of organic matter from the manuscript.

Could the authors please double-check all of their references to Figures? For example, line 283 states “an increase in water temperature and the onset of the rainy season ( Fig 5A, B, C)” but that should then be Fig. 5C, D.

To the first submission, I advised “On line 20 and elsewhere in the manuscript, please replace “presented” with something else such as “had”.” The authors replied “Answer: Has been changed accordingly to the recommended”, yet this remains a grammatical flaw in a couple places in the manuscript.

You cannot have p = 0.0 in an ecological study such as this. Please fix this (surely the senior authors can help out here).

Authors were asked in the first review to revise instances in the manuscript where sentences were long and unwieldy. They claim in the response document to have changed this, but there are still clear examples in the manuscript. Just as a glaring example, the second sentence of the Introduction is 68 words long! This is not right for a reviewer to have to make the same recommendation twice.

Authors were asked in the first review to fix up the precision used for stating values in the Results section. Again, they claim in the response document to have changed this, but there is still unnecessary precision in the manuscript. For example, lines 146, 147, 150, 152-155, 164, 168, 169 and so on…. Again, this is not right for a reviewer to have to make the same recommendation twice.

In the first review, I noted the specific lines with typos or grammatical errors. Many were not fixed up. The authors need to go back over the original submission and fix the errors on those lines.

The process of contouring the measuring tape to the body to measure it’s length is not a standard practice for any other animal I can think of. This seems to be a methodological flaw.

In the first review, I noted “Don’t use hyphens to indicate a range in data or time periods. Use en dashes in these cases.”. This still appears as an error in some cases.

Still typos. E.g., line 392 “sea cucumbers of the order Aspidochirotida [5] and 4.”. Line 258 “The bar indicates 100 micras”. Please, all authors, proof-read the version before submission. You are all supposed to approve the submission.

The Results section in the original submission was 151 lines. I advised that it was too long and wordy, and recommended to shorten it by around 40%. Instead, the authors have expanded this section and it is now 222 lines. Sorry, this section remains too wordy and I cannot offer my recommendation to have it published like this. So many of the sentences are verbose; there are words that are unnecessary. There are four authors on this manuscript, some of them well published. I am sure some of them could help to revise this section, even if the lead author is a doctoral student. Moreover, it is their duty to do so as authors, according to this journal’s ethics policy, not to mention international codes of ethics including COPE and the Vancouver Protocol.

I like this study. But I am still concerned about the fact that the authors state throughout the manuscript that Isostichopus sp. is a separate species, yet there is no rigorous scientific results to show this. Their response document says only that “We believe they are two separate species.”, but science must be founded on more than beliefs. Without genetic or other morphological evidence to show that they are two distinct species, this should not be reported as such in this manuscript. I am not intending to be difficult here. Rather, this just appears incongruent. Perhaps the authors could reconsider the way in which this putative species is framed in this manuscript?

In the first review, I gave several recommendations and asked for clarification in the Discussion. The author simply replied “Has been changed accordingly to the recommended”, but I cannot see what changes were made and how these points have been addressed. This approach for responding to careful comments by reviewers is grossly insufficient.

**********

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: Jason Hodin

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.

Decision Letter 2

Michael Schubert

9 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-04776R2

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Acosta Ortiz,

Thank you for re-submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Following an evaluation of the submission and discussions with the reviewers, I am hereby returning the manuscript, granting you one, final, opportunity to comprehensively address the shortcomings of the manuscript. In the last decision letter sent to you, I specifically requested "that the response letter very carefully details the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments and that it includes clear justifications as to why certain comments have been implemented in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, given the lack of quality of the manuscript text, the writing will have to be improved significantly to render the manuscript acceptable in PLOS ONE. The measures taken to improve the manuscript text need to be indicated in the response letter."

Yet, the revised manuscript has not been amended according to the reviewers' comments and the manuscript text has not been revised extensively. Although, based on the PLOS ONE publication criteria, these shortcomings would justify rejection of the manuscript in its current form, I am willing to reconsider a revised manuscript, in which all comments have been addressed comprehensively.

Should you decide to re-submit your manuscript, you will need to include a very detailed description of how the manuscript was improved. In addition, you will need to include a signed statement from each one of the authors detailing their respective contribution to the study, the writing of the manuscript and its revision. This measure is necessary, as the reviewers have noted potential ethical issues related to a possible lack of involvement of some of the authors in the compilation and revision of the work.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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:

  • A detailed 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'.

  • Individual statements from the authors of the study detailing their respective contribution to the study, the writing of the manuscript and its revision.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247158.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


27 Nov 2020

In this new version of the manuscript, the text was reduced throughout the manuscript, unnecessary words, phrases and repetitive or redundant words were deleted. With special emphasis on the results section, which went from 2106 words in the first version to 1625 in this version.

Also the concept of separate species was redefined throughout the manuscript, indicating that they are two morphotypes of the same species.

In the discussion the effect of rainfall on gonadal development and spawning has been addressed in more depth. Based on references we explain the influence that the rainy season has on the increase of primary production and consequently the development of gonads in sea cucumbers.

Finally, in this new version of the manuscript, numerous editorial corrections were made (spelling, grammar and syntax corrections) in order to improve the quality of the manuscript.

All changes that were made are detailed in the letter of response to comments from reviewers, indicating the line number of the change in the manuscript with change tracking.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Michael Schubert

4 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-04776R3

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Acosta Ortiz,

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 Feb 18 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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)

**********

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

**********

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: I am pleased that the authors have been given a final chance to revise the manuscript and that they have done so with appropriately detailed responses to my and the other reviewer's comments.

I have very few reemaining comments, which would need to be addressed before publication, but they are all quite minor. Please see the attached comments

**********

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: Jason Hodin

[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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: 3rdReview_PONED2004776R3.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 22;16(2):e0247158. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247158.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


30 Jan 2021

All the recommendations suggested by the reviewers have been taken into account and the respective corrections have been made in the manuscript. Please note that the new line numbers refer to the manuscript with Track Changes.

The changes described below have also been described in the response letter to the reviewers.

1. BODY MEASUREMENTS

This was what I wrote in my 2nd review:

Lines 89-94 should be a single sentence. Therefore, please change Lines 90-92 to read: “...using a flexible 1-m tape measure at the nearest 0.5 cm (this tape contoured the body, so that the total length is the contour length); gonad volume using…”

The authors wrote this in their latest response:

Answer: Has been changed accordingly. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the lines: 108 – 113.

But the authors did not include the parenthetical I requested regarding contouring the body with the flexible tape. I will note that Reviewer 2 had a similar comment:

REV 2: "The process of contouring the measuring tape to the body to measure it’s length is not a standard practice for any other animal I can think of. This seems to be a methodological flaw." To which the authors responded in detail:

Answer: The measurement was made on the ventral part of the sea cucumber, which is the flattest part of the animal. Measuring from the mouth to the anus. However, due to the ability of these animals to elongate and contract at will, it was decided to standardize the measurements, taking them just after sacrifice by thermal shock in water at 4°C, as this guaranteed that all the animals were in a state of contraction, thus reducing the error. However, in some cases the contracted individuals had a C or S shape for which a flexible metric measuring tape was used to follow the C or S-shape contour of the body. We have deleted this misleading sentence now.

This is not an acceptable solution., As Reviewer 2 notes, the measurement technique employed was unorthodox. Here, the authors have justified that unorthodox technique, but something like the above description (i.e., of the thermal shock treatment preceding measurement, and thus necessitating contour measurements) needs to be included in the Methods. Please add this text before publication.

New answer: The detailed description of the method used for the measurement of sea cucumbers has now been included in the methodology. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the lines: 95 – 100.

2. FIGURE EXPONENTS

This was what I wrote in my 2nd review:

Line 353-356: I still have a problem with the way the exponent figures are listed here. It is very random. Can the authors please make it more easily comparable between species? I suggest rewriting all of these figures as x 10^6.

The authors wrote this in their latest response:

Answer: Has been corrected. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the lines: 429 – 432.

Thank you. But the authors appeared to have made an error when changing the figure exponents. Here is how the prior version read:

I. badionotus, the estimated average fecundity (+ SE) was 74.9 x 10^7 + 9.5 x 10^7.

...and here is how the current version reads (Lines 266-267).

I. badionotus, the estimated average fecundity (+ SE) was 74.9 x 10^6 + 9.5 x 10^6.

The authors seemed to have forgotten to change the values preceding the exponents here as the correct value would appear to be 749 x 10^6 + 95 x 10^6.

Please correct this before publication.

New answer: The average fecundity figures for I. badionotus are now correct and agree with the values in the graph of the supplementary material S1 Fig.

The confusion was due to a typing error in the first version submitted, where it was written that I. badionotus had a fertility of 74.9 x 10^7 + 9.5 x 10^7, while it really was 74.9 x 10^6 + 9.5 x 10^6.

3. LINE 159-160 Please change this sentence to read as follows: The sex ratio was not significantly different from 1:1 (I. badionotus: n = 100; X2 = 1.4; p > 0.05; Isostichopus sp.: n = 158; X2 = 3.3; p > 0.05).

New answer: Has been changed accordingly. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the lines: 163 – 164.

4. LINE 273 Please change this sentence to read as follows: ...higher than those reported in neighboring countries.

New Answer: Done, please see corrections in the line 277.

5. LINE 301 AND FOLLOWING

This assumption is supported by four facts....

Both I and Rev 2 had problems with this section. I think the problem is that the "four facts" is written as one extremely long sentence.

I would like to see these four facts separated as a numbered list. I.e.,

This assumption is supported by four facts:

1) The total of individuals without gonads possessed all of their internal organs except for the gonad, ruling out the occurrence of auto-evisceration [31];

2) Their average weight and size is greater compared to the weight and size of the smallest individual with gonads...

And so on. If the section is formatted this way (as a separated numbered list) then readers will have a much easier time digesting this information.

New Answer: Has been changed accordingly. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the lines 305 - 316.

6. LINE 384-385

Please change this sentence to read as follows:

...especially in species that produce very small oocytes [5, 51], as it is the case with I. badionotus (100 μm) and Isostichopus sp. (98 μm).

New answer: Has been changed accordingly. The changes can be seen in the manuscript with corrections in the line 391.

7. SUPPL S1 Fig (1).docx Thank you for including these figures as supplementary material, but when I opened this attachment, I only saw the Figure captions/legend. The four Figures themselves were not present! Please fix this before publication!!

New answers: The inclusion of the figures has now been verified.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers..docx

Decision Letter 4

Michael Schubert

3 Feb 2021

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia

PONE-D-20-04776R4

Dear Dr. Acosta Ortiz,

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,

Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Michael Schubert

12 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-04776R4

Ecological and reproductive characteristics of holothuroids Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp. in Colombia

Dear Dr. Acosta:

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. Michael Schubert

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Description of the macroscopic and histological characteristics of the ovary and the testes in both Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp., throughout the development of gametogenesis.

    Including photographs detailing each stage of development.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File. Graphic description of the relationship between fecundity and length (S1 Fig, S3 Fig), and fecundity and weight (S2 Fig, S4 Fig) for both Isostichopus badionotus and Isostichopus sp.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Acosta_etal_PLoSOne_review_Feb2020.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers PLOS ONE.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 3rdReview_PONED2004776R3.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to the reviewers..docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The database for this manuscript is available at: https://osf.io/qtac7/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES