Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281808

Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea, using eggshell DNA

Seung-Ju Cheon 1,#, Md Mizanur Rahman 2,#, Ji-A Lee 1, Seung-Min Park 1, Jae-Hong Park 1, Dong-Hyun Lee 2, Ha-Cheol Sung 2,*
Editor: Tzen-Yuh Chiang3
PMCID: PMC9934327  PMID: 36795686

Abstract

Alien invasive species are posing conservation challenges worldwide. Pet trade, one of the many ways, is worsening the situation. Especially, pet turtles have been released into nature due to their longer life span and peoples’ religious and traditional beliefs. In addition, unwanted and undesired pets are also released. While information on the successful local establishment and subsequent dispersal into new habitats is required to designate an invasive and ecosystem-disturbing species, alien freshwater turtle nests have always been hard to find and identify in nature. Because one should identify nests by the eggs, which do not always guide properly, as adults abandon the sites quickly. We thought the recent advancement in DNA technology may help improve the situation. We studied Pseudemys peninsularis, one of the most traded freshwater turtle pet species, which has already been reported from a wide range of wild areas in South Korea. Yet, it is not designated as ecosystem-disturbing species due to a lack of adequate information on their local reproduction and establishment. We conducted surveys and found two nests in Jeonpyeongje Neighborhood Park, Maewol-dong, Seo-gu, Gwangju. We developed the methodology for extracting DNA from the eggshells and successfully identified the nests by phylogenetic analysis and verified through egg characteristics and morphological features of artificially hatched juveniles. This was the first successful initiative to extract DNA from freshwater turtle eggshells. We believe it will help future researchers identify the alien invasive turtle nests and develop their control and management policies. In addition, our study also included comparative descriptions and schematic diagrams of the eggs of eight freshwater turtles, including a native and three ecosystem-disturbing species, from South Korea. We urged an immediate designation of P. peninsularis as an ecosystem-disturbing species considering its local establishment, distribution range, and potential negative impact on native ecosystems.

Introduction

In the era of conservation challenges, invasive species is a growing global concern [1, 2]. Among many other ways, the pet trade is accelerating the spread of invasive species around the world [3]. Although many countries formulated strategies to control the spread of alien invasive species, unfortunately, a few of the laws in some countries help increase the events of undesired introductions of pet species into the wild [4 and references therein]. For instance, Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, and Isarel do not prohibit the import of fish and other aquatic species [4]. However, the countries like South Korea, which are already well-known as pet trade epicenters, are also at high risk of getting invasive species into their nature despite having many strict laws [5]. To date, species from Testudines are the most frequently wild recorded alien species among 677 reported herpetofauna (110 are turtles) from pet shops in Korea [6]. The report of alien turtle species in the nature of Korea mainly resulted from the abandonment by the pet owners and release during religious events [7, 8]. Currently, more than 13 alien turtle species are currently found in the wild [9, 10]. To facilitate the management and have a legal ground to control, Trachemys spp., Pseudemys concinna, Mauremys sinensis, Macrochelys temminckii, Pseudemys nelsoni, and Chelydra serpentina, among the wild reported alien turtles, have been designated as ecosystem-disturbing species [11].

However, it is necessary to ensure the successful local establishment and subsequent dispersal and secondary spread into new habitats after the introduction of a species to designate it as an invasive and ecosystem-disturbing species [12]. In the case of reptiles, a species is considered to be established if there is evidence of maintaining a population by laying eggs in the local environment after getting released, abandoned, or escaped [13, 14]. Unfortunately, we have little information on the nest sites and eggs of most of the alien turtle species, including Pseudemys peninsularis, recorded from the wild of South Korea.

Freshwater turtle nests have always been hard to find in nature [15]. Furthermore, the identification of turtle nests is largely depended on the identification of the nest-building and egg-laying individuals [16], while some species take a very little amount of time for it [17]. Thus, few researchers suggested using egg external features for turtle nest identification [18, 19], whereas others argued it was ineffective due to overlapping egg diameters [20]. Like many other animal groups, recent studies showed the successful use of DNA barcoding in identifying herpetofauna [2123]. Hence, we hypothesized that eggshells can be used as a source of DNA and in identifying freshwater turtle nests and species, including P. peninsularis, which is already well-practiced in birds and sea turtles [2426].

We studied P. peninsularis, one of the most traded freshwater turtle pet species in South Korea which has already been reported from a wide range of wild areas [27]. Yet, it is not designated as ecosystem-disturbing species because of a lack of adequate information on the successful reproduction and secondary spread in the local environment. Considering the absence of information on the nests and eggs in nature, confirmation is needed for the establishment of this species in the native ecosystems. Thus, we conducted surveys to discover P. peninsularis nests and eggs in the wild of South Korea. We developed a method for extracting genomic DNA from freshwater turtle eggshells and used partial mitochondrial DNA sequence for molecular identification of the species. This is the first initiative for extracting DNA from freshwater turtle eggshells and using it in species identification. Thus, we measured the egg characteristics and checked the morphology of the hatchlings after hatched the eggs artificially to verify the molecular-based identification and validate the sequences we amplified from the eggshells. Furthermore, we presented the comparison among egg characteristics and external features of Korea inhabiting eight turtle species, including a native and three ecosystem-disturbing species. Finally, we suggested designating P. peninsularis as an ecosystem-disturbing species in Korea and strengthening its control and management policies.

Material and method

Discovery of nests and egg collection

Considering previous reports of many alien turtles, the Jeonpyeongje Neighborhood Park, Maewol-dong, Seo-gu, Gwangju (35° 6’55.14"N 126°50’54.24"E; Fig 1), was surveyed for the observation of possible nest sites of P. peninsularis. The Jeonpyeongje Neighborhood Park, has an area of 4.699 ha. It has a reservoir, which is easily accessible by a wooden bridge and is reported to contain many alien turtles, including T. scripta elegans, T. scripta troostii, P. concinna, and P. peninsularis. Thus, we surveyed the reservoir searching for the P. peninsularis nests. We recorded the external features and measured the eggs for comparing and identifying the species. The damaged eggs were excluded from the measurements. The eggs were collected for further analysis.

Fig 1. Distribution of Pseudemys peninsularis and the study area.

Fig 1

(A) Distribution of P. peninsularis across the world. The red star indicates the location of South Korea. (B) Jeonpyeongje Neighborhood Park with the nest sites indicated by the yellow stars. (C) A nest with P. peninsularis eggs. (D) Map of South Korea with study site at Gwangju indicated by a green star. The maps and satellite images were generated using Arcmap 10.8.1 (ESRI, USA; https://support.esri.com/en/products/desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-8-1).

Identification and comparison of eggs

To confirm the identity of the species and the nest, we measured and compared the egg parameters with previous literature. We followed Congdon and Gibbons (1985) and Iverson and Ewert (1991) [18, 28]. We recorded the clutch size of the nests, shell type, mass, length, width, and elongation of the eggs.

DNA extraction

We used DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (QIAGEN, Germany) and followed a partially modified manufacturer’s protocol for DNA extraction. First, we took 60 mg of egg membrane from the eggshell and mixed it with ATL buffer 200μl, proteinase K 20μl, and dithiothreitol (DTT; 1mg/ml) 9.8μl to react 24h at 55°C. After centrifugation at 18,000xg for a minute, the supernatant was transferred to a new 1.5 ml tube and mixed with AL buffer 200μl and ethanol (95–100%) 200μl. Then the samples were transferred to the Qiagen column and centrifuged again at 6,000xg for a minute. After that, we added AW1 buffer 500μl to the column and again centrifuged at 6,000xg for a minute. In the next step, we added AW2 buffer 500μl to the column and centrifuged at 20,000xg for 3 minutes. After the column was transferred to a new 1.5ml tube and eluted in 70μl and centrifuged at 6,000xg for a minute. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplifications were performed using Solg Pfu DNA polymerase (Solgent, Korea) to confirm the mitochondrial DNA sequence. We amplified a Control region, a widely used species-specific sequence, using DES_1 (5’-GCATTCATCTATTTTCCGTTAGCA-3’)/DES_2 (5’-GGATTTAGGGGTTTGACGAG-3’) [29]. Newly generated sequences in the present study were deposited in GenBank (Table 1).

Table 1. List of sequences used in the present study.

Serial No. Description voucher region Accession number Locality Reference
1 Pseudemys peninsularis D-loop OQ186456 South Korea Present study
2 P. peninsularis D-loop OQ186457 South Korea Present study
3 P. peninsularis D-loop NC063096 South Korea [37]
4 P. peninsularis FLMNH10952 D-loop GQ395743 USA [38]
5 P. peninsularis FLMNH150993 D-loop GQ395739 USA [38]
6 P. peninsularis HBS108722 D-loop KC687239 USA [30]
7 P. peninsularis FTA821 D-loop KC687237 USA [30]
8 P. peninsularis FLMNH151505 D-loop KC687236 USA [30]
9 P. peninsularis CRI3953 D-loop KC687235 USA [30]
10 P. concinna HBS123561 D-loop KC687215 USA [30]
11 P. concinna HBS123555 D-loop KC687213 USA [30]
12 P. concinna HBS117819 D-loop KC687212 USA [30]
13 P. nelsoni HBS108599 D-loop KC687233 USA [30]
14 P. nelsoni FTA832 D-loop KC687232 USA [30]
15 P. nelsoni MVZ 164993 D-loop MT424571 USA Papenfuss and Stuart [Unpublished]
16 P. alabamensis HBS123564 D-loop KC687171 USA [30]
17 P. alabamensis HBS123559 D-loop KC687170 USA [30]
18 P. alabamensis HBS123557 D-loop KC687169 USA [30]
19 P. rubriventris USNM544373 D-loop KC687243 USA [30]
20 P. rubriventris MCZ188655 D-loop KC687242 USA [30]
21 P. rubriventris MCZ188654 D-loop KC687241 USA [30]
22 P. texana RCT2 D-loop KX558427 USA [30]
23 P. texana RCT66 D-loop KC687247 USA [30]
24 P. texana RCT2 D-loop KC687245 USA [30]
25 Chrysemys picta D-loop JN993967 USA Myers [Unpublished]

The bold fonts indicate de novo sequences obtained from Pseudemys peninsularis eggshells in the present study.

Phylogenetic analysis

To confirm the identity of the specimens via DNA barcoding and to evaluate their matrilineal relationships, we analyzed our new sequences together with relevant homologous sequences in GenBank (Table 1). Based on previous phylogenetic analyses [30] we used Chrysemys picta as the outgroup. All sequences were aligned by MEGA X [31]. We inferred matrilineal genealogy using Bayesian Inference (BI) analyses and Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods. We used MrBayes 3.1.2 [32] for BI analyses, while the best model was assessed with the software JMODELTEST [33]. The GTR+Gamma was found to be the best model. The analyses were conducted with 10 million generations and sampled every 1000 generations. The convergence was judged in the software TRACER version 1.6 [34] using the average standard deviation of split frequencies (< 0.01) and the ESS values (> 200). We used four Markov Chain Monte Carlo chains to perform two independent runs and discarded 25% of the tree as burn-in. Finally, the obtained tree was visualized with the help of FigTree 1.4.2 [35]. The ML tree was constructed through RAxML 7.0.4 [36], with the GTR substitution model, gamma-distributed rate heterogeneity among sites, and the invariable proportion sites estimated from the data. The analysis used 1000 bootstrap pseudo-replicates. We considered the nodes with equal or more than 0.95 Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP) in the BI tree and equal or more than 70% Bootstrap Support (BS) in the ML tree as well supported. Furthermore, genetic distances were calculated under the uncorrected p-distance model using MEGA X [31].

Artificial incubation and identification of the hatchlings

The collected eggs were incubated at 28–30°C. This temperature range is proven to give a high success rate in a short incubation period [39]. The hydrated moss was placed underneath, which was replaced every two weeks, to maintain the humidity. The eggs were hatched in 47–50 days. The hatchlings were identified through external morphological features.

Ethical permit

This study was approved by the Yeongsangang River Basin Environmental Office of the Korea Ministry of Environment (permission number: 2021–8). The experiments were conducted following the instructions and ethical permissions from the ethical committee, Laboratory Animal Research Center, Chonnam National University, South Korea (Certificate No. 2020–154).

Result

Phylogenetic analysis

The sequences from our study clustered with other sequences of P. peninsularis from the GenBank in the phylogenetic tree. We found P. peninsularis to be a sister clade to P. nelsoni. Whereas, P. rubiventris was a sister clade to P. peninsularis, P. nelsoni, P. concinna, P. albamensis, and P. texana. However, the taxa of the latter clade were highly inclusive with strong node supports (Fig 2A). Furthermore, the BLAST results also revealed similar patterns to phylogenetic analysis. BLAST in NCBI showed the generated sequences had a 99.80% similarity with the sequences of P. peninsularis deposited in the GenBank. The de novo sequences showed very low genetic distances with the sequences of the same species from the GenBank than other species (Fig 2B). Our sequences had 0% to 1% uncorrected p-distances with other sequences of P. peninsularis.

Fig 2. Identification of the samples.

Fig 2

(A) Phylogenetic tree based on mitochondrial DNA control region. Nodal support values placed before ‘/’ are Bayesian Posterior Probabilities (BPP), and values placed after ‘/’ are Maximum Likelihood Bootstraps (BS). In our tree ‘*’ denotes greater or equal to 0.95 BPP and 70% BS, ‘#’ denotes 0.85–0.94 BPP and 60–69% BS, and ‘–’ denotes below 0.85 BPP and 60% BS. The numbers in the parentheses correspond to the serial number of Table 1. The bold fonts indicate the de novo sequences. (B) Pairwise genetic distance (p-distance). We excluded the outgroup from the calculation. The numbers correspond to the serial number of Table 1. (C) Dorso-lateral view of a hatchling of Pseudemys peninsularis. (D) Ventral view of a hatchling of P. peninsularis.

Nest and egg characteristics

We discovered two nests of P. peninsularis at the study area. The clutch size of the two nests was 27 and 07 respectively. As 10 eggs were damaged during the collection, we measured 24 eggs for the identifications. The eggs were oval-elongated shaped and white in color. The eggshells were of parchment type (Fig 1C). We found a length of 31.43mm (±0.878), a width of 22.62mm (±0.549), an elongation of 1.39 (±0.067), a mass of 9.15g (±0.607). In addition, the compilation of egg properties of eight freshwater turtle species from South Korea revealed differences in species level except for Trachemy scripta and Graptemys ouachitensis (Fig 3). These two species had the same egg elongation of 1.64, while others had different egg elongations and thus different shapes (Table 2).

Fig 3. Egg shapes and eggshells of freshwater turtles found in South Korea.

Fig 3

(A) Pseudemys peninsularis; (B) P. concinna; (C) Trachemys scripta; (D) Graptemys ouachitensis; (E) G. geographica; (F) Chrysemys picta; (G) Chelydra serpentina; (H) Mauremys reevesii. The eggs without outlines indicate parchment shells and the egg with a black outline indicates a brittle shell.

Table 2. Egg characteristics of eight freshwater turtles from South Korea.

Species A B C D E F G H
Shell type α α α α α α α β
Mass (g) i 9.15
ii 15.44 9.74 10.06 10.57 6.67 9.91 10.17
iii 11.49 11.99 10.52 6.17 9.63
Mean 10.32 13.72 10.13 10.06 10.57 6.42 9.77 10.17
Length (mm) i 31.43
ii 42.03 35.63 36.18 37.20 31.56 26.49 42.88
iii 36.22 36.36 36.39 33.22
Mean 33.83 39.20 36.01 36.18 37.20 32.39 26.49 42.88
Width (mm) i 22.62
ii 24.92 21.83 22.08 22.04 19.10 25.25 19.47
iii 23.15 23.90 22.17 17.28 25.78*
Mean 22.89 24.41 22.00 22.08 22.04 18.19 25.25 19.47
Elongation 1.48 1.61 1.64 1.64 1.69 1.78 1.05 2.20

A = Pseudemys peninsularis; B = P. concinna; C = Trachemys scripta; D = Graptemys ouachitensis; E = G. geographica; F = Chrysemys picta; G = Chelydra serpentina; H = Mauremys reevesii; α = Parchment; β = Brittle.

* = does not have the egg length in the corresponding literature and is thus excluded from the calculation. i = Present study; ii = Congdon and Gibbons (1985) [28]; iii = Iverson and Ewert (1991) [18].

Hatchling characteristics

The carapace of hatchlings was dark green with parallel yellow stripes. The marginal shells were with a marginal yellow line. There was a green-colored mid-dorsal keel. The dorsal side legs, tail, and neck were mostly dark green with longitudinal yellow stripes. The yellow stripes on the head form a U-shape behind the eyes. The plastron was unhinged and mostly yellow in color (Fig 2C and 2D).

Discussion

We found two P. peninsularis turtle nests in Jeonpyeongje Neighborhood Park, Maewol-dong, Seo-gu, Gwangju, South Korea (Fig 1B–1D), and successfully identified them by combining the egg characteristics, morphological features of the hatchlings, and phylogenetic analysis of partial mitochondrial DNA from the eggshells. This was the first initiative to extract DNA from eggshells, which is already well-practiced in sea turtles [25, 26]. Although our initiative was successful, extracting DNA from eggshells is challenging as it is expected to get a lower concentration than that may yield from muscle or blood [40]. The low concentration and poor template quality may lead to amplification failure [41, 42]. However, using DNA from eggshells is convenient, especially, to identify the nests because it does not require the individual turtles [26, 43]. Furthermore, freshwater turtle nests are difficult to find and are also difficult and time-consuming to hatch the eggs to identify the nests [15]. Thus, although P. peninsularis is widely distributed in South Korea and in many other non-native countries, there are no reports on nests of this species in nature [27]. This is the first report of P. peninsularis nests in nature outside its native range [15].

However, the BLAST results and phylogenetic analysis of the partial mitochondrial DNA from our samples revealed a close relationship and low genetic distances between P. peninsularis and P. nelsoni, P. concinna, and P. albamensis (Fig 2B). This finding is similar to the previous studies [30, 38]. The BLAST results suggested a high similarity between the novel sequences of P. penisularis and P. nelsoni (99.59%), P. concinna (99.39%), and P. alabamensis (98.99%). Similarly, our sequences showed low genetic distances with these species. The uncorrected p-distances between our sequences and P. nelsoni, P. concinna, P. alabamensis, P. texana, and P. rubiventris were 0.2–0.4%, 0.8% - 1.2%, 0.7–1.0%, 0.8%– 1.2%, and 1.6%– 2.2% respectively. The phylogenetic tree topology also supported the BLAST results and uncorrected p-distances by forming inclusive clades with strong node supports (Fig 2A). Although the clades of P. peninsularis, P. nelsoni, P. concinna, and P. alabamensis were inclusive and only P. rubiventris was a sister clade to them, our results recovered almost similar topology as previous genetic studies on the Pseudemys genus and supported the hypothesis of taxonomic confusions in this genus [30, 38].

In addition to molecular and morphology-based species identifications, egg properties also can be used in turtle nest identification. Especially, egg elongation is useful in identifying turtle species [18, 19]. We got an egg elongation of 1.48 for P. penisularis in the present study, which is similar to the previous studies [28]. Additionally, the compilation of data on egg properties of eight turtle species from South Korea revealed an egg elongation of 1.61, 1.69, 1.78, 1.05, and 2.20 for P. concinna, G. geographica, C. picta, and M. reevesii respectively (Table 2). The other two species, T. scripta and G. ouachitensis had the same egg elongation, 1.64. Furthermore, we recovered the schematic diagram of the egg shapes based on the present and previous studies (Fig 3) [18, 28], which showed the effectiveness of using egg properties in identifying turtle nests.

The identification and discovery of freshwater turtle nests have always been very difficult for researchers [15]. Thus, the nests of P. peninsularis have not been reported from outside of its native range even after being widely used as a pet species and having a wide distribution in America, Europe, and Asia (Fig 1A) [4448]. In South Korea, this species has been reported from all over the country including Jeju island [27]. Considering the large body size and capability of basking in a high temperature [49, 50], this species has the potential to pose competition pressure and threats to native species. In addition to proven negative impacts on other turtle species [5153], this species has been reported to bear parasites like Aeromonas enteropelogenes, A. hydrophila, and A. veronii, potential to affect amphibian and human health [54]. Still, this species has not been designated as an ecosystem-disturbing species as it lacks confirmed information on its successful establishment and reproduction [12], which can be evident by reports on its nests in the local environment [13, 14].

The present study has confirmed the successful establishment and reproduction of P. peninsularis in South Korea by identifying its nests in the local environment through traditional and molecular approaches. Thus, considering the distribution and potential negative impact of this alien species on native ecosystems and human beings, we urge immediate designation of P. peninsularis as an ecosystem-disturbing species and its control and management policies. In addition, our study is highly significant as it included comparative descriptions and schematic diagrams of the eggs of eight freshwater turtles from South Korea. It will help scientists in studying freshwater turtles, including alien and also invasive species, in this country. Furthermore, we have presented the first-ever successful use of eggshell DNA in identifying freshwater turtles. We believe it could be significant tool for future researches in identifying the alien invasive freshwater turtle nests and developing their control and management policies across the world.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

H-CS: RE201807039; Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute, funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Pimentel D. Economic and environmental impacts of invasive species and their management. Pesticides and You. 2001; 21:10–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beck KG, Zimmerman K, Schardt JD, Jeffrey S, Ronald RL, Sarah R, et al. Invasive species defined in a policy context: Recommendations from the Federal Invasive Species Advisory Committee. Invasive Plant Science and Management. 2008; 1:414–421. 10.1614/IPSM-08-089.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Park SM, Rahman MM, Ham CH, Sung HC. The first record of an invasive reptile species, Pelomedusa cf. olivacea (Schweigger, 1812) (Pelomedusidae, Testudines), in the wild of South Korea. Check List. 2022; 18(5):989–993. 10.15560/18.5.989. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Patoka J, Magalhães ALB, Kouba A, Faulkes Z, Jerikho R, Vitule JRS. Invasive aquatic pets: failed policies increase risks of harmful invasions. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2018; 27(11):3037–3046. 10.1007/s10531-018-1581-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Park HR, Rahman MM, Park SM, Choi JH, Kang HJ, Sung HC. Risk assessment for the native anurans from an alien invasive species, American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), in South Korea. Scientific Reports. 2022; 12(1):13143. 10.1038/s41598-022-17226-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koo KS, Park HR, Choi JH, Sung HC. Present status of non-native amphibians and reptiles traded in Korean online pet shop. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology. 2020; 34:106–114. 10.13047/KJEE.2020.34.2.106. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Agoramoorthy G, Hsu MJ. Religious freeing of wildlife promotes alien species invasion. BioScience. 2005; 55:5–6. 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0006:RFOWPA]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu X, McGarrity ME, Li Y. The influence of traditional Buddhist wildlife release on biological invasions. Conservation Letters. 2012; 5:107–114. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00215.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National Institute of Environment, NIE. Ecological studies of alien species (III). Ministry of Environment. 2016; pp 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Koo KS, Song S, Choi JH, Sung HC. Current distribution and status of non-native freshwater turtles in the wild, Republic of Korea. Sustainability. 2020; 12:4042. 10.3390/su12104042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ministry of Environment, MoE. Act on the conservation and use of biological diversity. 2022 [Act No. 2022–209, 28, Oct, 2022., Partial Amendment]. Notice of Designated Ecosystem Disturbance Organisms (law.go.kr).
  • 12.Sakai AK, Allendorf FW, Holt JS, Lodge DM, Molofsky J, With KA, et al. The population biology of invasive species. Annual review of ecology and systematics. 2001; 32:305–332. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.32.081501.114037. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shea K, Chesson P. Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2002; 17:170–176. 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)02495-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Van Wilgen NJ, Wilson JRU, Elith J, Wintle BA, Richardson DM. Alien invaders and reptile traders: what drives the live animal trade in South Africa? Animal Conservation. 2010; 13:24–32. 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00298.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Zuffi M. Conservation biology of the European pond turtle Emys orbicularis (L.) in Italy. Stapfia 2000; 69(149):219–228. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Schroeder BA, Foley AM, Bagley DA. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. In: Loggerhead Sea Turtles (eds Bolten AB & Witherington BE). 2003; pp. 114–124. Smithsonian, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hirth HF. Some aspects of the nesting behavior and reproductive biology of sea turtles. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 1980; 20:507–523. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Iverson JB, Ewert MA. Physical characteristics of reptilian eggs and a comparison with avian eggs. Egg Incubation: Its Effect on Embryonic Development in Birds and Reptiles. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. 1991; 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rose FL, Simpson TR, Manning RW. Measured and predicted egg volume of Pseudemys texana with comments on turtle egg shape. Journal of Herpetology. 1996; 30(3):433–435. 10.2307/1565188. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Miller JD. Reproduction in sea turtles. In: The Biology of Sea Turtles (eds Lutz PL & Musick JA). 1997; pp. 51–80. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Nagy ZT, Sonet G, Glaw F, Vences M. First large-scale DNA barcoding assessment of reptiles in the biodiversity hotspot of Madagascar, based on newly designed COI primers. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(3):e34506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rahman MM, Chen JM, Wu, YH Chen HM, Lwin YH., Murphy RW, et al. New country records for three species of frog from Myanmar including two genera (Nasutixalus and Oreolalax). Zootaxa. 2020; 4742(3):531–542. 10.11646/zootaxa.4742.3.7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rahman MM, Nneji LM, Adeniyi AC, Chen JM, Eniang EA, Oladipo SO, et al. Amphibian assemblages and diversity patterns in two forest ecosystems of Southern Nigeria. African Journal of Ecology. 2020; 58:815–827. 10.1111/aje.12776. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tsai WLE, Schedl ME, Maley JM, McCormack JE. More than skin and bones: Comparing extraction methods and alternative sources of DNA from avian museum specimens. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2019; 20(5):1220–1227. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.13077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moore MK, Bemiss JA, Rice SM, Quattro JM, Woodley CM. Use of restriction length polymorphisms to identify sea turtle eggs and cooked meats to species. Conservation Genetics. 2003; 4:95–103. 10.1023/A:1021881319271. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Shamblin BM, Dodd MG, Williams KL, Frick MG, Bell R, Nairn CJ. Loggerhead turtle eggshells as a source of maternal nuclear genomic DNA for population genetic studies. Molecular Ecology Resources. 2011; 11:110–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02910.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.National Institute of Environment, NIE. Nationwide survey of nonnative species in Korea (V). Ministry of Environment. 2019; 144 pp. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Congdon JD, Gibbons JW. Egg components and reproductive characteristics of turtles: Relationships to body size. Herpetologica. 1985; 41(2):194–205. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3892258. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Starkey DE, Shaffer HB, Burke RL, Forstner MR, Iverson JB, Janzen FJ, et al. Molecular systematics, phylogeography, and the effects of Pleistocene glaciation in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) complex. Evolution. 2003; 57:119–128. 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00220.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Spinks PQ, Thomson RC, Pauly GB, Newman CE, Mount G, Shaffer HB. Misleading phylogenetic inferences based on single-exemplar sampling in the turtle genus Pseudemys. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2013; 68:269–281. 10.1016/j.ympev.2013.03.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kumar S., Stecher G., Li M., Knyaz C., and Tamura K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across computing platforms. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018; 35:1547–1549. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msy096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003; 19(12):1572–1574. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Posada D. JModelTest: phylogenetic model averaging. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2008; 25:1253–1256. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Suchard M. Tracer v1.6.0. 2013. Retrieved from http://beast.bio.ed.ac.uk/. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Rambaut A. Figtree v 1.4.0. 2012. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Stamatakis A. RAxML–VI–HPC: maximum likelihood–based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2006; 22:2688–2690. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chung D, Park J, Cheon S, Park SM, Sung HC, Lee DH. Complete mitochondrial genome of the peninsula cooter (Pseudemys peninsularis, Testudines: Emydidae) in Korea. Mitochondrial DNA Part B. 2022; 7(8):1441–1442. 10.1080/23802359.2022.2107463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Thomas GJ, Nelson DH, Morris AB. Phylogenetic relationships in the North American genus Pseudemys (Emydidae) inferred from two mitochondrial genes. Southeastern Naturalist. 2012; 11:297–310. 10.1656/058.011.0211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Du WG, Hu LJ, Lu JL, Zhu LJ. Effects of incubation temperature on embryonic development rate, sex ratio and post-hatching growth in the Chinese three-keeled pond turtle, Chinemys reevesii. Aquaculture. 2007; 272:747–753. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2007.09.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schmaltz G, Somers CM, Sharma P, Quinn JS. Non-destructive sampling of maternal DNA from the external shell of bird eggs. Conservation Genetics. 2006; 7:543–549. 10.1007/s10592-005-9065-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Gagneux P, Boesch C, Woodruff D. Microsatellite scoring errors associated with non-invasive genotyping based on nuclear DNA amplified from shed hair. Molecular Ecology. 1997; 6:861–868. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.1997.tb00140.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Goossens B, Waits L, Taberlet P. Plucked hair samples as a source of DNA: reliability of dinucleotide microsatellite genotyping. Molecular Ecology. 1998; 7:1237–1241. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00407.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Egloff C, Labrosse A, Hebert C, Crump D. A nondestructive method for obtaining maternal DNA from avian eggshells and its application to embryonic viability determination in hering gulls (Larus argentatus). Molecular Ecology Resources. 2009; 9: 19–27. 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02214.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shiau T, Hou P, Wu S, Tu M. A survey on alien pet reptiles in Taiwan. Taiwania. 2006; 51: 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Langton TES, Atkins W, Herbert C. On the distribution, ecology and management of non-native reptiles and amphibians in the London Area. Part 1. Distribution and predator/prey impacts. London Naturalist. 2011; 90:83–156. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kopecký O, Kalous L, Patoka J. Establishment risk from pet-trade freshwater turtles in the European Union. Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems. 2013; 410:2. 10.1051/kmae/2013057. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Iftime A, Iftime O. Alien fish, amphibian and reptile species in Romania and their invasive status: a review with new data. Travaux du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle “Grigore Antipa”. 2021; 64:131–186. 10.3897/travaux.64.e67558. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). 2022 [cited 2022 February 04]. https://www.gbif.org.
  • 49.Ernst CH, Lovich JE. Turtles of the united states and Canada. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, USA. 2009; pp. 387–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Munscher E, Walde AD, Stratmann T, Butterfield B. Exceptional growth rates observed in immature Pseudemys from a protected spring system in Florida. Herpetology Notes. 2015; 8:133–140. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Cadi A, Joly P. Impact of the introduction of the red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) on survival rates of the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis). Biodiversity & Conservation. 2003; 13:2511–2518. 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000048451.07820.9c. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Silbernagel C, Clifford DL, Bettaso J, Worth S, Foley J. Prevalence of selected pathogens in western pond turtles and sympatric introduced red-eared sliders in California, USA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms. 2013; 107:37–47. doi: 10.3354/dao02663 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Jo SI, Na S, An CK, Kim HJ, Jeong YJ, Lim YM, et al. Comparison analysis for using the habitat pattern between the Korean endangered species, Mauremys reevesii, and the exotic species, Trachemys scripta elegans. Korean Journal of Environment and Ecology. 2017; 31(4):397–408. 10.13047/KJEE.2017.31.4.397. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wimalasena SHMP, Shin GW, Hossain S, Heo GJ. Potential enterotoxicity and antimicrobial resistance pattern of Aeromonas species isolated from pet turtles and their environment. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science. 2017; 79:921–926. 10.1292/jvms.16-0493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

19 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-32805Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea using eggshell DNAPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sung,

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 02 2023 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through the Project for the Development of Biological Diversity Threats Outbreak Management Technology (RE201807039), funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE). "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"H-CS: RE201807039; Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. We note that Figures 1a,1b and 1d 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1a,1b and 1d 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/

5. We note that you have referenced Unpublished in page 6 which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

**********

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: Dear Authors,

I read the MS titled "Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea using eggshell DNA" with interest. Congratulations on a catchy article. I see the merit of the given study for further monitoring and research activities and it is obvious that the goal of the paper should be overlapped to future practice widely. The text is clearly written, and the analyses and outputs are well-presented and described. Just a few mine minor comments are highlighted directly in the PDF copy attached. Check the format of the listed references carefully. The comments and suggestions are not plenty and easy to follow. After incorporating the suggestions in the text, it is my great pleasure to recommend this MS for publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[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: PONE-D-22-32805_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281808.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


19 Jan 2023

Point-by-point response to academic editor and reviewer’s comments

Response to comments from the academic editor

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. We have modified the symbols of the author’s affiliation, font sizes of headings and subheadings, spacing of the first lines of all paragraphs, formatted tables, etc., following the guidelines.

Comment 2: Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI) through the Project for the Development of Biological Diversity Threats Outbreak Management Technology (RE201807039), funded by the Korea Ministry of Environment (MOE). "

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"H-CS: RE201807039; Korea Environment Industry & Technology Institute. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have deleted the ‘Acknowledgements’ section and omitted funding information in the revised manuscript. We have included the amended 'Funding Statement' in the cover letter.

Comment 3: In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Response: We highly appreciate your comment. We have modified the ‘Data Availability Statement’ accordingly. All relevant data are within the manuscript. Please, check line 287.

Comment 4: We note that Figures 1a,1b and 1d 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1a,1b and 1d 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/

Response: We appreciate your concern. The maps and satellite images were generated using Arcmap 10.8.1 (ESRI, USA; https://support.esri.com/en/products/desktop/arcgis-desktop/arcmap/10-8-1), which is free to use and we referred the source in the figure caption. Please, check lines 108 – 113 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 5: We note that you have referenced Unpublished in page 6 which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

Response: Thanks for your advice. We have changed the reference following your suggestion. Please, check Table 1 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 6: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have checked the references and confirmed their complete and correctness. Besides, we have added one additional reference suggested by the reviewer. Please, check lines 314 – 316. We have mentioned that in the response of reviewer’s comments too.

Response to comments from the Reviewer:

Comment 1: I read the MS titled "Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea using eggshell DNA" with interest. Congratulations on a catchy article. I see the merit of the given study for further monitoring and research activities and it is obvious that the goal of the paper should be overlapped to future practice widely. The text is clearly written, and the analyses and outputs are well-presented and described. Just a few mine minor comments are highlighted directly in the PDF copy attached. Check the format of the listed references carefully. The comments and suggestions are not plenty and easy to follow. After incorporating the suggestions in the text, it is my great pleasure to recommend this MS for publication in PLOS ONE.

Response: We highly appreciate your reviewing efforts and positive comments. We have modified the manuscript as per your instructions and tried to resolve all issues you mentioned. Herein, we are responding to each of your concerns point by point.

Comment 2: ‘Not only, un wanted and undesired pets are also released’

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have added the information in our revised manuscript. Please, check line 27 – 28.

Comment 3: ‘I suggest to add a brief note on the focused legislative regulations which are unfortunately ineffective in many cases. See: Patoka, J., Magalhães, A. L. B., Kouba, A., Faulkes, Z., Jerikho, R., & Vitule, J. R. S. (2018). Invasive aquatic pets: failed policies increase risks of harmful invasions. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27(11), 3037-3046.’

Response: We highly appreciate your advice. We have added the suggested brief note in the updated manuscript. Please, check lines 50 – 54.

Comment 4: ‘Do you know how many turtle species are pet-trade in the country?’

Response: Thanks for your question. There are 110 turtle species are pet-trade in the country. We also have included the information in the manuscript. Please, check line 57 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 5: ‘This info has to be moved to the results section.’

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have transferred it to the results section as per your suggestion. Please, check line 194 of the manuscript.

Comment 6: ‘Since the captions have to be self-explaining, the full name is required in each caption where is the first mentioned.’

Response: Thanks for your valuable comment. We have modified the scientific name accordingly. Please, check lines 155 – 156.

Comment 7: ‘Full name in this cell’

Response: Thanks for your advice. We have modified it accordingly. Please, check Table 1.

Comment 8: ‘Unpublished’

Response: We highly appreciate your comment. We have corrected the word accordingly. Please, check Table 1.

Comment 9: ‘The full name here’

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have modified the scientific name. Please, check line 190 – 191 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 10: ‘Italicized’

Response: Thanks for the advice. We have modified the scientific name. Please, check line 191 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 11: ‘Italicized’

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have modified the scientific name. Please, check line 205 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 12: ‘abbreviated Graptemys’

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have abbreviated the scientific name. Please, check line 206 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 13: ‘Here, P. concinna is adequate’

Response: Thanks for the advice. We have modified the scientific name. Please, check line 211 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 14: ‘abbreviated Graptemys’

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. We have modified the scientific name. Please, check line 211 – 212 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: ‘Italicized’

Response: We appreciate your advice. We have italicized the scientific name. Please, check line 254 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 16: ‘Check all these species if cited above or not. If yes, use the genus abbreviation.’

Response: Thanks for the advice. We have checked and modified the scientific names accordingly. Please, check lines 257 – 258 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 17: ‘Change i to y.’

Response: Thanks for the comment. We have rechecked the whole manuscript and corrected the scientific names if needed. Herein, we have abbreviated the genus name following your previous suggestion. Please, check line 257 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 18: ‘including alien and also invasive species.’

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have modified the sentence accordingly. Please, check lines 280 – 281 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 19: ‘Change m to M.’

Response: We highly appreciate your comment. We have modified the name accordingly. Please, check line 292 of the manuscript.

Comment 20: ‘Change y to Y.’

Response: Thanks for the advice. We have corrected it accordingly. Please, check line 302of the revised manuscript.

Comment 21: ‘Italicized.’

Response: We appreciate your suggestion. We have corrected the scientific name and turned it into italicized. Please, check line 308 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 22: ‘Family, thus regular and not italicized.’

Response: Thanks for the comment. We have turned it in to non-italicized regular font. Please, check line 308 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 23: ‘Just article No. 12:13143.’

Response: We appreciate your comment. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 315 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 24: ‘- or –?’

Response: We highly appreciate your comment. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 319 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 25: ‘dtto.’

Response: Thanks for your comment. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 327 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 26: ‘Change c to C and b to B.’

Response: We appreciate your advice. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 349 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 27: ‘Why abbreviated.’

Response: We highly appreciate your comment. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check lines 410 – 411 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 28: ‘Just article No. 410:2.’

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 435 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 29: ‘Aquatic Organisms.’

Response: We appreciate your advice. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 453 of the revised manuscript.

Comment 30: ‘Italicized.’

Response: We appreciate your comment. We have corrected accordingly. Please, check line 460 of the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewers comments_MMR.doc

Decision Letter 1

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

2 Feb 2023

Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea, using eggshell DNA

PONE-D-22-32805R1

Dear Dr. Sung,

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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: N/A

**********

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

**********

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: Dear Authors,

I am satisfied with the revised version of your manuscript. The text was improved and all my comments and suggestions were incorporated into the text. Just correct the name of P. nelsoni in the Table 1. I have no further comments and congratulations to the catchy study.

Sincerely

**********

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: Jiří Patoka

**********

Acceptance letter

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-32805R1

Confirmation of the local establishment of alien invasive turtle, Pseudemys peninsularis, in South Korea, using eggshell DNA

Dear Dr. Sung:

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. Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-32805_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewers comments_MMR.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES