Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ISOTOPIC BIOMONITORING OF ANTHROPIC CARBON EMISSIONS IN A MEGALOPOLIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I must say that the objectives of the article are much clearer in the rebuttal letter than in the first version of the manuscript. In this regard, the revisions in the second version sufficiently compensate for the limits previously found.

I have the impression that in some cases the authors are not very likely to evaluate the reviewers' suggestions. Some examples:

I have no doubt that there is no misunderstanding on their part about the role of biomonitoring. What I mean is that if they write "in lieu of" (L75) an unskilled reader could understand that biomonitoring can replace a chemical-physical approach. And this is not true.

The authors say that “We have to stand by our sampling design and data analyses”.
I can fully understand that the authors cannot think of further sampling and must manage the dataset available to them. However, this does not necessarily make their sampling adequate or robust. I do not agree very much in recalling all the details of the sample design to a work published elsewhere. I would suggest adding at least a few more details.

Looking at the results of the interpolation map in the south-eastern part of their study area, it seems clear to me that there are some issues related to the uneven distribution of the sample points with respect to the area on which the model was run. See for example the net response patterns in Figure 3A. I repeat to avoid misunderstandings: I am more than aware that there are differences between perfect sampling plan and plans applicable in the real world. However, I would suggest to the authors, for example, to insert some information on the variability of the geostatistical model to allow the reader to acquire more information on the areas of applicability of their method.
Experimental design: see basic reporting
Validity of the findings: see basic reporting
Additional comments: see basic reporting


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: ISOTOPIC BIOMONITORING OF ANTHROPIC CARBON EMISSIONS IN A MEGALOPOLIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: PeerJ-41903

Dear Editor,

The authors has taken into consideration changed in the text, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of introduction, methods and disccusion of the manuscript entitled "Mapping pollution in a megalopolis: Isotopic biomonitoring of anthropic carbon emissions". In addition, the total samples number in each site (122 samples) is addecuate for data analysis. Thus, this research is novel and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal, because it is the first studie to investigating this topic.

Sincerely,

PhD. Angel Raimundo Benitez Chavez.
Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas.
Sección de Ecología y Sistemática
Herbario HUTPL
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja
Telf: 072570275 Ext: 3034, Celular: 0985182195
Experimental design: The authors has taken into consideration changed in the text, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of introduction, methods and disccusion of the manuscript entitled "Mapping pollution in a megalopolis: Isotopic biomonitoring of anthropic carbon emissions". In addition, the total samples number in each site (122 samples) is addecuate for data analysis. Thus, this research is novel and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal, because it is the first studie to investigating this topic.
Validity of the findings: The authors has taken into consideration changed in the text, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of introduction, methods and disccusion of the manuscript entitled "Mapping pollution in a megalopolis: Isotopic biomonitoring of anthropic carbon emissions". In addition, the total samples number in each site (122 samples) is addecuate for data analysis. Thus, this research is novel and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal, because it is the first studie to investigating this topic.
Additional comments: The authors has taken into consideration changed in the text, which has resulted in a considerable improvement of introduction, methods and disccusion of the manuscript entitled "Mapping pollution in a megalopolis: Isotopic biomonitoring of anthropic carbon emissions". In addition, the total samples number in each site (122 samples) is addecuate for data analysis. Thus, this research is novel and the topic fits well to the scope of the journal, because it is the first studie to investigating this topic.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.

References contain 18 sources, which appropriately cover the study area.

The paper structure conforms to PeerJ standards and meets the professional article format, such as an original research, extensive data, fundamental methods (conventional and innovative) and techniques, figures, tables. Initial raw data is available.

The paper is complete and include all sections that are needed to report the key findings of the statistical analysis and validation methods referring to figures and maps.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.

Research questions well defined, relevant and meaningful. Introduction discusses published data on the relationship between soil quality and present day production systems in the EU, modern concepts of sustainable development, predicted climate change affecting future agriculture. The observation allowed clearly formulate the research gap being investigated.

The submission stems on a considerable array of available data and impressive use of traditional and innovative methods, e.g. dissimilarity analysis applying Curtis dissimilarity index with “vegan” R package, “vcd” R package for analyzing the degree of association, etc. Conclusions are scientifically sound and meaningful.

Materials and method section show how the study was carried out providing details on available climate and soil databases, crops diversity and spatial distribution, statistical, GIS methods to study spatial characteristics of crop systems in relation to pedoclimatic conditions.
Validity of the findings: It is the first reserach illustrating that farmers take pedoclimatic condition of farming into account when selecting their cropping patterns in all the different climatic regions of Europe. However, economic considerations may override the ecological concern of farming. The principle impact and novelty of the study is recomendation that farmers should  look at existing pedoclimatic conditions to adopt their prictice to changing climate.

The submission provides all underlying data which are available in an acceptable scientifically recognized repositories.

The conclusions summarize the results which are connected to the question investigated and supported by a well-controlled experiments.
Additional comments: The authors investigated climate categories and reference soil groups that are of a general nature and, strictly speaking, are not directly related to the assessment of suitability for agricultural activities. Perhaps it will be more informative to use agroclimatic and agropedogenic categories?

Specific comments. 1. Line 50. Authors may wish considering plural “qualities” instead of singular “quality”. 2. Lines 221,222,273. Consider plural “RSGs” instead of singular “RSG”. 3. Line 410. May be better “programmer” instead of “programme”.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript deals with the analysis of the crops cultivated along different soils types in different climatic zones in Europe. The topic is innovative and pertinent and the results interesting and will certainly capture attention of different background scientists who are studying agricultural activities in Europe. The text is also overall well written and organized, the structure is well defined and the Conclusions are well supported. There are, however some weaknesses that I am sure that can be easily overcome by authors in order to improve the clarity of this manuscript message:
-	The number of references for this text is very low, considering especially the section Results&Discussion and Conclusion. Authors make some very nice reflections on the possible reason of how certain types of soils are more suitable to grow specific crops but often these reflections and not supported by references. This is important to show that these results have some scientific basis.
-	In the Results & Discussion section, it is ok to explain the results by climate zone but, there is no need to explain in the text with bullet points the statistical differences of the soils. Instead, authors can compile the information in a nice table (or even graphics) and then briefly refer in the text, which are the main significances and important links. Otherwise, this section becomes too long and not focus.
-	Conclusion section is also too long, needs to be summarized and the main findings clearly highlighted.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript deals with the analysis of the crops cultivated along different soils types in different climatic zones in Europe. The topic is innovative and pertinent and the results interesting and will certainly capture attention of different background scientists who are studying agricultural activities in Europe. The text is also overall well written and organized, the structure is well defined and the Conclusions are well supported. There are, however some weaknesses that I am sure that can be easily overcome by authors in order to improve the clarity of this manuscript message:
-	The number of references for this text is very low, considering especially the section Results&Discussion and Conclusion. Authors make some very nice reflections on the possible reason of how certain types of soils are more suitable to grow specific crops but often these reflections and not supported by references. This is important to show that these results have some scientific basis.
-	In the Results & Discussion section, it is ok to explain the results by climate zone but, there is no need to explain in the text with bullet points the statistical differences of the soils. Instead, authors can compile the information in a nice table (or even graphics) and then briefly refer in the text, which are the main significances and important links. Otherwise, this section becomes too long and not focus.
-	Conclusion section is also too long, needs to be summarized and the main findings clearly highlighted.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: The study “Farming by soil in Europe: status and outlook of cropping systems under different pedoclimatic conditions” explores the influence of soil type on the distribution of crop types in Europe. It is of scientific and general interest to assess if soil resources in Europe are used sustainable and effectively. Due to the common marked of the European Union and (at the moment) low transportation costs crops should be produced in regions in Europe that are most suitable, allowing their production with lowest input but highest yield. Due to limited quality of geo data on soils and crops the manuscript is too speculative to deliver new insights into the complex interaction of cropping paper and soil. Moreover, other influencing factors that shape the regional distribution of crops are completely ignored.

1.)	An overview map (1:5 Mio; BGR [Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe] (2005). Soil Regions Map of the European Union and Adjacent Countries) on soil types was used as input source to describe the soils in Europe. The authors of this map write that the map presents areas with similar soil development (pedogenesis) conditions. Soil types are only rough indicators for soil quality for agricultural soil production. The relationship is weak. Within one soil types very different production potentials can be found, e.g. a Cambisol can be very sandy with low nutrient and water retention but also loamy Cambisols are found with much higher water and nutrient retention. But also different types can have similar production potentials. Moreover, the effect of cropping that affects soils (e.g. by erosion) is not accounted for in this data set. Thus, the soil type data used are not suitable to explore the cropping potential in relation to crop types.

2.)	The data on the distribution of crops are derived from the MapSPAM project (You et al 2014). These geodata are based on limited data on crop types (405 units with data in Europe) and the map is described as “plausible estimation of crop distribution”. Mainly national data from FAO are used and disaggregated. Moreover, only four different cropping types classes are used to describe the croplands of Europe that expand from the Mediterranean to the Boreal.  Rye, for example, requires different soils compared to wheat – however, both are combined in the class cereals. The other crop type classes get even more heterogeneous. Thus, it is questionable if this is an appropriate data source to explore the distribution of crop types in Europe. I acknowledge that this study is on continental scale, but the diversity of croplands is not captured sufficiently to explore its relation to soil properties.
3.)	The paper uses a statistical approach to explore the ration between soil types and crop type. This is nicely presented in the results and discussion section together with discussion on the reasons for the anomalies that popped up. Beside soil and climate also other reasons need to be taken into account in order to reduce the speculations, e.g. animal and dairy production that is not evenly distributed in Europe but concentrates in certain regions. Food production, e.g. with maize, is thus large independent of soil and climate. Also other influencing factors are considered not systematically but anecdotally (e.g. potato production in the mountains).
Validity of the findings: The questionable data quality of the geo data (point 1 and 2) together with an limited set of drivers that influence cropping pattern (point 3) makes it hard to follow the main conclusion “we have strong reasons to believe that soil suitability-based cropping is not practiced to its full potential”. The paper need to underline this conclusion with data. This would require more transparency on uncertainties related to the data sources.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in acceptable english, however different sections differ in style and grammar, indicating that sections were written by several authors.
In some sections there are large numbers of mistakes, and the spelling of.e.g. oil classification is highly erraneous in some parts.
The raw data were not available/there was no accession number provided.
Quality of references and of figures is ok, text in lines 127-138 should be added to the legends.

Specific comments:
l. 34 omit are
l. 38 areas
l. 39 underline
l. 111 the darker… the larger…
l. 112 ff: where is this citation from, and are the articles cited therein part of the original work? Is there a way to express the contect in your own words or is it necessary to cite the original?  Please be specific about this.
127-138 If I understand correctly, this should be part of the legend to the respective figure(s)?
l. 150 Arensools?
l. 208 are considered
l. 208 Kastanezoms?
l. 218 Kasetnozems?
l. 234 Regoslos?
l. 252 Podzolz?
l. 292 suggests
l. 352 roles
l. 358 internal? Do you mean interim?
l. 366 does not meet
l. 371 requires
l. 380 has been
l. 396 omit are
l. 399 – 402 avoid repetitions!
Experimental design: The research question s well defined and relevant to curent discussions.
Methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: The paper aims at describing the use of major crops across soil types in Europe. Results are affirmative to most situations, and specifically Fig. 4 is important since it indicates zones of potential for future production.
The figure could have been regionalized to better show where regions for improvement are located, and the contents of this figure could have been translated to the conclusions or a recommendation subchapter.
Additional comments: interesitng paper using statistical tools to segregate areas of problematic cropping practises from well planned management schemes.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have successfully answered all the questions/comments from the first review. I am satisfied with the ending result of the manuscript and I think it will be of interest fro the scientific community.
Experimental design: Nothing to report since from the first review I have nothing to point out.
Validity of the findings: Nothing to report since from the first review I have nothing to point out.
Additional comments: Authors have successfully answered all the questions/comments from the first review. I am satisfied with the ending result of the manuscript and I think it will be of interest fro the scientific community.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: FARMING BY SOIL IN EUROPE: STATUS AND OUTLOOK OF CROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT PEDOCLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The level of language use is good. Following the request by one reviewer, literature has been added. The context being provided is too limited in scope ( see below).
Experimental design: This paper has more the character of a review paper. The experimental design relates to the (broad) databases being considered in relation to the issue that the authors decide to raise. Here, this reviewer ( the fifth reviewer!) must agree with the critical reviewer 3. A key phrase in the article is:'soil-suitability based cropping" and: " it is not used to its full potential". Of course, farmers take pedoclimatic conditions into account when farming. They do so on the basis of experience ( "tacit knowledge") but also increasingly on scientific knowledge that reaches way beyond soil aspects.  The implicit suggestion that a suitability judgment by soil scientists would guide farming practices is debatable. In fact, it is the other way around: soil scientists explored farmer experiences to define suitabilities. They did so in the past, see the FAO Land Evaluation Framework of 1976. Now the challenge of meeting the SDG targets and indicators is the name of the game. The fact that "many influencing factors shape the regional distribution  of crops"( reviewer 3) is correct to the extent that trying to match very broad cropping patterns to highly generalized soil classes  is doomed to fail. How about mixed cropping, very important for biodiversity, use of grassland on soils that could be well used for crops and, above all, economic considerations that the authors mention but do not elaborate on. Some soils are classified considering nutrient status and pH. That may be relevant for Africa but not for Europe where fertilization is common practice. The overall scope of this paper was intended to cover status and outlook for cropping systems. The status , as reported, is highly debatable, as mentioned, and the outlook is hardly specified. Scientifically this paper falls short of being acceptable as it does not enrich the scholarly literature. .
Validity of the findings: See above for my comments. This reviewer does not believe ( in agreement with reviewer 3) that the findings are valid. This is due to applying very general and broad databases on the one hand and a too narrow soil perspective on the other.
Additional comments: This reviewer appreciates the fact that you use soil classifications to express relations with , in this case, cropping patterns. In many soil related studies we see now introduction of seperate soil characteristics for grid points with the result that useful information on soil types gets lost. Your problem here is that you had to use very broad crop and soil patterns, that did, in the opinion of the reviewer, not allow specific conclusions as to the relation of cropping patterns with soil types. Indeed, many other factors shape the regional distribution of cropping systems. You name the important economic one but there are others such as mixed cropping, grassland use on soils that would be suitable for cropping, maize for dairy  etc. I hope you will continue with your work, applying soil classification, using soil types as "carries of information". A more detailed analysis on regional level, perhaps in Hungary, could be a valuable contribution to literature.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOFILM PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT STRAINS OF ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ON BIOFILM FORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Description of strains is poor.  The authors just refer to previous publications, but table 1 is not self-explanatory.  What do mean the acronyms CM, CT, HC , etc ?  Another factor that could affect biofilm formation could be clonal relatedness.  This has not been explored here.
2. There is no justification for the selection of genes that were studied.
3. The MICs (line 220) should be given before describing the effects of treatments on biofilms formation, otherwise, the choice of concentrations is unclear. This choice should be justified in the corresponding paragraph (which is not the case now).  It is unclear to me why amikacin, imipenem, and colistin were tested at ¼, ½ and 1 x MIC while tigecycline was tested at 1/16, 1/8, ¼ x MIC.
4. Figure 1 : the 2 panels are redundant.  It is easy to highlight in the top panel which strains are clinical isolates.
5. Figure 2: please mention which breakpoints were used to define S and R.
6.Table 2 is not very informative without breakpoints values; it is also partially redundant with Figure 2.
7.The abstract could be improved taking into account these comments but also making in more self-explanatory: what are the genes studied coding for, what is strain VGH2 ?
8. Lines 117-122: this paragraph should come earlier, when describing CLSM. Live-dead staining could have been more appropriate that syto-9, because more informative.
9. Line 151-152: what do the authors mean by ‘the presence of biofilm formation’ in a paragraph where they study the destructive effect of treatments on preformed biofilms ?
10. Line 171: what do the authors mean by ‘100% non-susceptible’ ?
11. Line 278-279: I do not see to which results this sentence is referring: ‘the induced colistin-resistant A. baumannii has better biofilm formation ability than the parent’
12. There are two references Lin et al, 2017.  Please make the distinction between them by adding a and b.
13. Please check raw data for figure 2.  There are some local language characters and some missing values.
Experimental design: 1.	Biofilms were quantified using an XTT assay.  This is not a standard technique to evaluate biofilm formation.  XTT is indeed rather a measure of metabolic activity in living cells than a measure of biofilm formation, which is classically evaluated using crystal violet staining (evaluation of the whole biomass).  Additional comments on this method are:
a)	Major differences in metabolic activity can be observed when comparing several bacterial isolates from the same species, so that differences in XTT signal could rely simply on difference in metabolic activity.  This metabolic activity should therefore be evaluated for each strain in planktonic culture in order to determine if it is comparable among strains.
b)	Using a metabolic activity assay for measuring antibiotic activity against biofilm suffers of the limitation that usually the absorbance or fluorescence signal decreases in proportion of the number of bacteria only on a limited range of CFUs.  This zone of linearity should be determined to know the limit of sensibility of the assay.
c)	The way BFI is calculated is very unclear to me.  I do not see how the measure of the absorbance in the supernatant is a measure of biofilm OD and why BFI is thus a ratio between the OD of the supernatant and OD of the cells.
d)	Line 165: how was determined the cutoff value of 0.5?

2.	Testing of antibiotic activity against biofilms were performed in 96-well plates while the comparison of biofilm forming capacity and the effect of antibiotics on biofilm formation were performed in 24- well plates.  How does this difference in support influence biofilm formation ?
Validity of the findings: 1.	Lines 228-232: I am not sure this last sentence is correct.  It seems to depend on the antibiotic.  For colistin and tigecycline, similar difference between MIC and BMIC (+/- 1 doubling dilution) were observed against both stains.
2.	First paragraph of the discussion: I am afraid the authors cannot compare biofilm formation in their work and in other studies in which the authors compared different strains using crystal violet absorbance (see my comment #1 here above).
3.	Second paragraph of the discussion:  It is not needed to describe at length the role of genes that were not studied here in biofilm formation. It would be more useful to discuss the role of the genes studied (see also my comment #4 here above).
Additional comments: In this work, the authors compare the ability of a series of clinical isolates and of mutants from a reference strain of A. baumannii to form biofilm as well as to respond to antibiotics in these biofilms.
I identified major methodological issues and also think that the number of exhibits can be reduced, some of the information presented being redundant.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOFILM PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT STRAINS OF ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ON BIOFILM FORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I made my comments below.
Experimental design: I made my comments below.
Validity of the findings: I made my comments below.
Additional comments: Dear Editor,

The paper is very comphrensive, too much detailed and interesting but needs major revision. Furthermore, it is a bit long (I am not sure if length is a problem for the journal).

My requests from the authors are below:
*methods please add references to subtitles/paragraphs without references*please add this well written review to references http://mjima.org/abstract.php?id=173

*in 24-well microtiter plates containing the above compounds at different concentrations
what concentrations please mention furthermore what were the mics of these commpounds for study strains

*LL-37 and tannic acid: why not planktonic susceptibility test not performed

*The data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 16 (SPSS Inc.,
158 Chicago, IL, USA). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.what rests were used and when?

*antibiogram change as antibiotic susceptibility test every part of the manuscript
*If 0.5 was assigned as the cutoff value for the strong and weak biofilm-forming abilities, we found that

please move this part to methods and revise the part in results

*give antibacterial susceptibility data of all study strains

*It reveals no relationship with statistical significance (P>0.05) between
please give exact pp everywhere in the manuscript
*how is the biofilm formation effected by the mean blood concentrations or tissue concentrations produced by standard infusions of your study drugs
*In this study, tannic acid and LL-37 at a concentration below its MIC can decrease biofilm formation,
I could not see data of iyt in results.
*add why the editor should publish your paper-new things in the paper and limitations before conclusion


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOFILM PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT STRAINS OF ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ON BIOFILM FORMATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The way the authors dealt with reviewers' comment is very scholar, no specific effort has been made to integrate the remarks in the body of the text or in the light of existing literature.  A good example is the last sentence of the discussion regarding the limitations of the study.

Some of my questions have not at all been addressed.  It seems that the authors did not understand what was meant.
Q1, related to clonal relatedness: it was obvious that I was asking the question for clinical isolates, and not for reference strains.
Q6: my question was related to the committee used as a reference for breakpoint values: EUCAST, CLSI, other ?
Q10: 100% non susceptible makes no sense as stated before.  I guess that 100% refers to the fact that all isolates (100% of them) are non-susceptible. Therefore there is no need to repeat it.  This sentence should probably read: All of the 22 A. baumannii clinical isolates except ATCC17978 are non-susceptible to many of the tested antimicrobial agents.
Experimental design: Again, some of my comments were not considered.

Q1 a) The authors add a sentence in the text to state that metabolic activity was determined in planktonic cultures (line 361), but they do not show the results.
b) they still  do not provide the zone of linearity of they assay.
c) I still do not understand  why they measure absorbance in cells and biofilms to estimate biofilm formation.
d) an arbitrary cut-off is of very poor predictive value and does not allow comparison with other studies.
Validity of the findings: In the absence of appropriate controls for the experiments related to biofilms and, more specifically, the XTT assay (as suggested above) , I am  still doubtful about the value of these data.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOFILM PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT STRAINS OF ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS ON BIOFILM FORMATION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Many of the replies remain very scholar , the way the text is modified is not at all elegant.
If concentrating on the science
Q1. It is not acceptable to 'speculate'  on the fact isolates could be different simply because they show from 5 hospitals (but there are 21 isolates, meaning a mean of 4 isolates per hopsital) and show different susceptibility patterns.
Q6. I was asking which susceptibility breakpoints were used, the authors reply be mentioning the method they used for measuring MICs
Experimental design: Q1 -c: please make clear in the formula the wavelength at which OD are measured, it will help understanding that the ODcells is measured at another wavelength that the XTT  .
Q1-d: this is still unclear, as you removed the sentence on the cutoff at the first occurrence and not at the second one.  The sentence you left at the first occurrence is not understandable.  I think you did not understand my remark.  I stated that setting an arbitrary cut off does not allow comparing your data with others.  The question was whether the collection could not be divided in weak and strong biofilm producers using a statistical test allowing to split the biofilm values on a non-arbitrary basis. Moreover, I am not really sure a cutoff is really needed in the study.
Validity of the findings: no further comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE TETRAPOD FAUNA OF THE UPPER PERMIAN NAOBAOGOU FORMATION OF CHINA: 5. CAODEYAO LIUYUFENGI GEN. ET SP. NOV., A NEW PECULIAR THEROCEPHALIAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment. It is the first report of a new species.
There is a couple of grammatical errors and statements that are not clear.
One Figure either has the wrong caption or wrongly referred to, not sure (Figure 4).
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Could do with a conclusion at the end of the text.
Read the Discussion and see if it can't flow a bit better, take one aspect at a time, it jumps a little bit, for instance lines 325 to 329 describes the snout and palate, but jumps back to the snout in line 328.
Additional comments: Lines 17-19. Maybe split into two lines, it is too long and loses its meaning.
Line 22. The coronoid process is mentioned throughout the paper, please check, in some figures the caption is absent, also just rephrase this line to make it clear what the separated space defines.
Line 39. Members.
Line 43. Never were tested = never been tested.
Line 99. A depression - show this depression on the Figure.
Line 84. After eroded - and as a result of this ...
Line 114. The caption on the Figure and mention in text is not the same.
Line 118. Show the depression on the Figure.
Line 146. After (Fourie 1974) add (Fig 5D.)
Line 148. The subarcuate fossa seems not to be on the Figure or is it obscured from view?
Line 192. The large pterygoid bears the palatal process, transverse processess, and posteriorly the diverging quadrate ramus.
Line 251. Again just check that the coronoid process is on all the applicable Figures.
Line 294. The secure, maybe you men the entire record.
Line 299. is recognised as a therocephalian because of the presence of ...
Line 301. the dentary.....
Line 304. Instead of has a quite ... has quite a....
Line 309. moderately.
Line 351. eight to nine.
Line 355. broken maxilla instead of broken of the maxilla.
Line 357-358. Not clear what is stated or relevance.
Line 364. Should it not be ruled instead of overruled.
Line 367. therocephalians.
Line 369. therocephalian.
Line 370. evince? rather show.
Line 373. by now, maybe state presently, more prolific.
Line 374. in the baurioids - as being baurioid.
Figure 2. Can't see mf. on Fig.
Figure 3. C. - absent. also mf. and Pt. in caption.
Figure 5. avsq, Cr, imc, Sp, tso and jf missing from some Figures. Check caption, avp, ipr and Sq missing and should qrPt not be qrpt? Where is the transverse process and So?
Figure 7. Missing Pl.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE TETRAPOD FAUNA OF THE UPPER PERMIAN NAOBAOGOU FORMATION OF CHINA: 5. CAODEYAO LIUYUFENGI GEN. ET SP. NOV., A NEW PECULIAR THEROCEPHALIAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Caodeyao liuyufengia is an intriguing taxon, indicative of a diverse therocephalian fauna in China in the late Permian. This contribution is a worthy addition to the recent series of papers on this assemblage. However, some revisions to the manuscript are necessary before it can be published. The manuscript is generally well organized, but the language needs some editing. Some sentences and sections are very oddly-phrased and need to be rewritten, with the Discussion especially needing more work. Notable cases are addressed below in the line-by-line comments.

Make sure that the style of in-text citations is consistent and follows the Instructions for Authors of the journal. You often use different styles, e.g. in line 37 it is “(Liu & Bever 2018)”, and in line 319 it is “(Ivakhnenko, 2011)”, or in line 243 it says “(Ivakhnenko, 2011: figure 8)” compared to line 354: “(Ivakhnenko 2011 figure 8)”.

The structure of the manuscript generally conforms to PeerJ standards, but a Conclusion to your findings is missing and still needs to be written.

An additional subheading (“Cranium”) or subheadings is needed in the Description to parallel the “Mandible” section. It would also be good to change the order of the cranial bones you describe, since your current order is somewhat confusing. The vomer and palatal elements (palatine and pterygoid) should be inserted after the description of the maxilla and circumorbital bones, and before the description of the braincase and occipital elements. In the Discussion section a further subheading is needed to differentiate between the the actual discussion of your results and the phylogenetic analysis section.

The figures look generally good, but need some improvements especially regarding stylistic consistency (see below).

Sincerely,
Luisa Pusch & Christian F. Kammerer
(review undertaken collaboratively)

Comments by line:

24: “Phylogenetic analysis indicates a close relationship of the new Chinese taxon with Purlovia maxima, producing the only monophyletic group in therocephalian phylogeny, represented solely in Laurasia.” I think you mean “the only monophyletic therocephalian group represented solely in Laurasia” (no comma), but even this is incorrect—according to your phylogeny the Ordosiidae (Hazhenia + Ordosiodon) is monophyletic, and this clade is also strictly known from Laurasia.

43: Their positions are also not tested in this paper.
49: “a remarkably therocephalian diversity”—this should be “remarkable”, but I would disagree with the statement entirely. Three therocephalians is not a remarkable diversity, considering that comparable late Permian assemblages like the Cistecephalus Assemblage Zone of South Africa yield much higher therocephalian species richness.
76-77: Weird phrasing, better to say: …“except Purlovia maxima, by a deep and laterally bowed zygomatic arch. It is distinguished from P. maxima by having a tall pterygoid median crest, a wide and flat base of the postorbital bar,”…

79-81: “The following characters might represent autapomorphies of C. liuyufengia: a very large fenestra ovalis and a deltopectoral crest longer than half the length of the humerus.”
85-86: “The snout is deflected”…..“along with a wide crack (Fig.1)”. This is also visible in Figure 4.
87: change “right one” to “right ramus”.
87: “A left humerus was found associated with the cranial material.” Refer to your Figure 6 here.
105-106: “The lacrimo-palatine ridge is nearly vertical and deep (Fig. 3)”. This ridge is also visible in Figure 1.
133-134: change “on the occipital view” to “in occipital view”.
135: change to “paroccipital process”
150: “The canals and fossae of this part are similar to those of the Russian therocephalians Chthonosaurus velocidens and Karenites ornamentatus”…
155: change to “presence of a central process of the prootic”.
157 and 173: misspelling of “post-temporal fenestra”
169: Also refer to Figure 5A here.

188: change “The most anterior portion of this bone” to “The anteriormost portion of the parabasisphenoid”
189: What is bifurcated into two ridges? The anterior portion of the parabasisphenoid or that of the keel?
189: change “continues anteriorly with the keel on pterygoid” to “continue anteriorly onto the pterygoid”.
190: …“and form a concave area between them.” Between what?
192-199: Refer to Figures 1, 3 and 4 here.
199-203: Refer to Figures 1, 3 and 4 here as well.
199: “A small ectopterygoid is located lateral to the vacuity”… Please rephrase, because this statement is repetitive to the previous sentence where you already describe the location of the ectopterygoid lateral to the suborbital vacuity.
206: change “In ventral view palatines border…” to “In ventral view, the palatines border…”
211: “Kotelcephalodon” should be “Kotelcephalon”
212: add comma after “missing”
215-216: “If the vomeronasal organ was housed here, it should have being much smaller than in other therocephalians.” The anterior portion of the vomer housing the vomeronasal organ is broken off in this specimen. In the photograph of the actual specimen there is only one median ridge visible along the dorsal surface of the vomer. It seems the three ridges you described on the dorsal side of the vomer are rather caused by damaging of the bone in that area instead of contributing to the housing of the vomeronasal organ, and there is no evidence that the VNO was smaller in Caodeyao than in other therocephalians.
218-219: refer to your Figure 3 here, where these features are visible.

220-221: refer to Figure 1 here again.
222-229: Also refer to your Figures here, where these characters are visible.
232: change … “portion of the right are occluding to the skull” to “portions of the right ramus are occluded to the skull.”
236: “symphyseal”
238: Pusch et al. (2020) discusses this for Lycosuchus
241: “bauriamorphs” instead of “bauriids” (Bauriidae sensu stricto usually treated as Bauria, Microgomphodon, and Traversodontoides, with ordosiids as a separate family and Nothogomphodon outside of both clades)
246: change to …“ramus, resulting in the lower margin of the dentary being slightly concave in lateral view.”
247: delete “lateral” before “sulcus”
250: change ”forms an angle of 140°” to “is about 140°”, since “the angle…forms an angle” is a confusing and somewhat repetitive statement.
255-256: “The left dentary bears one canine and six postcanines”. This is also visible in the right dentary according to Figure 2.
261: change “transverse flange (Fig.3).” to “transverse flange of the pterygoid (Fig. 3).”
299: change to …“Caodeyao liuyufengia can be recognized as a therocephalian by the presence of a large…”
304: Always spell out genus name at the beginning of a sentence.
305: change “similar to non-eutherocephalians Gorynychus masyutinae…” to “similar to the non-eutherocephalians Gorynychus masyutinae…” (also, on what basis are you considering Kotelcephalon a non-eutherocephalian? It is not included in your phylogenetic analysis.)
306-307: change … “Tatarinov 1999); and quite different”… to …“Tatarinov 1999), but quite different”…
307: How does the vomerine interchoanal process differ from that of other eutherocephalians?
314: change “cynodonts (e.g., Procynosuchus, Thrinaxodon; Brink, 1963; Hopson and Kitching, 2001)” to “cynodonts such as Procynosuchus and Thrinaxodon (Brink, 1963; Hopson and Kitching, 2001)” Cite further references such as Kemp (1979); Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London and Jasinoski et al. (2015); The Anatomical Record, here.
327: change to “This palatal morphology is known in some non-bauriid baurioids”
331: change to “There does not seem to be any justification”…
333: refer to Figure 9 here instead of writing “see below”.
333-334: It would be good to add a new subheading here.
343: change to …“and this clade supported by a paired vomer”…
343: …“this clade is supported by a paired vomer and four lower incisors”. The recovery of a classic “Pristerognathia” (consisting of a monophyletic group of basal therocephalians) seems to be based partly on miscodings. Lycosuchus has only three lower incisors (see also Pusch et al., 2020). This is also visible in the Gorynychus specimen described by Kammerer and Masyutin (2018). According to the authors it is likely that more incisors were present, since they do not occupy the entirety of the symphysial length, but it still casts doubt on the definite count of four for the incisors.
345: change to “contacting or nearly contacting”
348: Not true, see comments on Ordosiidae above.
351: change “eight tonine” to “eight to nine”
352: change …“Caodeyao, absent in Purlovia;”… to …“Caodeyao, which are absent in Purlovia.”…
353: change “the base of postorbital bar” to “and the base of the postorbital bar”
355: change “the broken of the maxilla” to “breakage of the maxilla”
356: Pure speculation.
357: What characters support this position?
359-363: Please rephrase these sentences.
362: should be “Laurasian”
364-365: Rephrase sentence.
366-367: Which species do you mean here? Keep in mind that several taxa of South African therocephalians (e.g., Theriognathus) also have an east African record in addition to the endemic forms.
367: change “Therocephalian” to “Therocephalians”
369: misspelling of “therocephalians”
369-371: Some references would be good to add here.

371: Which taxa do you mean here? Some references would also be helpful.
374: How do you know Yikezhaogia is not a baurioid?
388: delete a (in “((Jia Zhen-Yan, Li Lu, and Xu Xu)”)

Figures:

There are cases in which you use some abbreviations in the figures you forgot mention in the figure captions or mention an abbreviation in the figure caption you do not use in the figures:

Figure 2:  “mf” is listed in the caption, but not used in the figure.

“Sp” is used in the figure, but not mentioned in the caption.

Figure 3:   You use the abbreviation “Cr” for the coronoid, but in the Figure it is labelled only with a “C”.
“Pt” and “mf” are used in the Figure, but not mentioned in the caption.
Figure 4:  “Bo” and “jf” are used in the figure, but not mentioned in the caption.

Figure 5:   Image G is not mentioned in the caption.

“avSq” is mentioned in the caption, but not used in the figure.
“avp” is used in the figure, but not mentioned in the caption.
“Cr”, “crch”, “imc”,”Pt”, “Sp”, “tp”, and “V” are mentioned in the caption, but are not used
and also not visible in the figure. You use the abbreviation “qrPt” for the quadrate process of the pterygoid in the caption, but in the figure it is labelled as “qrpt”.
“tso” is mentioned in the caption, but is missing in the figure.
Figure 7:    “Pl” is listed in the caption, but not used in the figure.

Generally, if you want to highlight non-ossified areas in your drawings in grey such as the foramen magnum, the choana, the fenestra ovalis, the post-temporal fenestra and the jugular foramen, make sure that you do this in all images. In Figure 1 you did not highlight the choana, foramen magnum and post-temporal fenestra. In Figure 3 you did not highlight the choana, and in Figure 4 you forgot to do this for the fenestra ovalis, the jugular foramen and the visible foramen magnum, which is not labelled here. In Figure 5 you forgot to highlight the foramen magnum and the left jugular foramen in B, the fenestra ovalis in E, and the foramen magnum, right jugular foramen and vii in F. In Figure 5D there is a foramen in your drawing visible below the foramen magnum, which is not to visible in the actual specimen. In 5E there is a further non-ossified area visible in the actual specimen where the label line of “adp” points to your drawing, which is not highlighted here.
In Figures 2, 6, 7 and 8 we would suggest to add strokes to all label lines and labels pointing to darker bone areas to make them more visible.

In Figure 6 the label lines and labels are partly displaced such as for f en, dc, or th and cp.

In Figure 7 images A, B, and C are a bit too large compared to the photograph of the mandible in D. It would look better if you would scale A, B and C smaller and D larger that they have a similar size. It would also be good, if the scale bars would have the same thickness.

In Figure 8 avoid it to use different font sizes for your labels. It looks more consistent and neat, if you use the same font size for all labels in your Figures. Also the label line in A, which is labelled as the snout, should be labelled as the maxilla, since the nasal is also part of the snout.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: There is remarkably little discussion of the novel phylogenetic placement of this taxon and Purlovia, considering that you recover them as a completely new lineage of eutherocephalians. Discussion of the character support for this position is essentially absent (by this I do not mean support for a Caodeyao+Purlovia clade, which is discussed, but why these taxa are recovered outside of Whaitsioidea+Baurioidea). No discussion is present either on potential functional or ecological implications of the aberrant morphology of Caodeyao and Purlovia, which beg some degree of interpretation.
Additional comments: No further comments.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE TETRAPOD FAUNA OF THE UPPER PERMIAN NAOBAOGOU FORMATION OF CHINA: 5. CAODEYAO LIUYUFENGI GEN. ET SP. NOV., A NEW PECULIAR THEROCEPHALIAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: I approve all the changes in scientific content from the first version. I have made a number of additional minor edits to the tracked manuscript to improve the grammar, however (see attached file). Please incorporate these into the final version, at which point this manuscript will be ready for publication.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF SMOG ON THE CONCENTRATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE ANTELOPE HOUSE IN THE SILESIAN ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is written in a good English overall and it can be followed and understood.
I think there is a bit of lack of references especially in the introduction (Line from 33 to 37) where statements are made but there is no reference to support the statement (for as obvious as they might sound a reference is always good). Same issue with the sentence from line 51 to 53 in the introduction.
Experimental design: The research question is not very well defined. Although i can understand that it is important for the animal in a zoo to be kept in a good shelter, why is this study specifically focusing on these animals? Why not checking other animals? Are these animals more prone to lungs problems?

The answers to the editor are not complete. Also in my opinion more information on the circulation of the air in the building should be given and what was answered currently to the points of the editor are far from being satisfactory.

Why are high frequency data still not showed? it is not clear if those data are not available because the provided one are already averaged or why the decision was to use daily average data. Maybe it does not make any difference but it is not possible to judge without checking the data.
Validity of the findings: i would say that without the addition of what the editor already requested in more details it might be difficult to asses the impact of the findings. Assuming it is correct that the particulate indoor is affected by the particulate outdoor, it is not clear how this is a larger issue for the animals compared to, for example, being locked in small boxes etc...Are the authors trying to make an analogy with humans leaving indoor and also needing to worry about quality of the air?
Additional comments: I would suggest to strongly consider in a better way the comments from the editor and what was written above. The message of why the animals (and these specific animals) need to be done better as at the moment it is not clear.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF SMOG ON THE CONCENTRATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE ANTELOPE HOUSE IN THE SILESIAN ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are some letter mistakes, some of sentences are not fully clear. I suggest to read it one more time carefully or give for correction to native speaker.
Experimental design: Methods and experimental design correct.
Validity of the findings: The review concerns the work on impact of smog on the concentration of particulate matter in the antelope house in the Silesian zoological garden. The issue raised at work is new. During my work on air pollution, I have not yet come across the impact of dust pollution on animals and rooms in zoos. At the same time, as the authors describe, this problem can be very important. That is why I believe that the work as one of the first on this subject may initiate a new field of research on PM pollution and their impact.
Additional comments: Comments:
Line 22 - Why authors did research on this specific time period. Why not through the whole year?
Line 23 - and other PM10 we are writing with subscript.
Line 30 - and other PM2.5 we are writing with subscript.
Line 33 - delete so-called
Line 34 - Dust its not a proper word. You are writing about Particulate matter pollution (PM), So this words should be used. PM is scientific name of this type of pollution.
Line 37. Fine PM or fine particulate matter particles.
Line 47 - unneeded and on the beginning
Line 53 - Authors should explain how the norms in Poland look like
Line 77 - I don't think the time period between March and Mai is the coldest time in Poland.
Line 76. There is a miss of information about the city of Chorzów. About the particulate pollution in the city, and about in which part of the city the zoological garden is situated. Suburbs or center.
Line 81. The Latin name of the species and author of the name is missing
Line 88. 11,4  m2 should be in superscript.
Line 101. The brand of the station is missing
Line 105. The brand of laser
Line 111 and 115. m3 should be in superscript.
Line 131. The sentences should aligned.

In the whole work there is a miss of role of plants - trees and shrubs in decreasing the amount of PM in air. A lot works were done even for polish cities. Chorzów zoological garden is full of trees. It should be mentioned even in one sentence in the introduction part as a citation. Moreover plants inside the buildings can reduce ale the pollution, we don't know if they are some inside antelope building. Im not specialist of the animals but maybe some should be placed there.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF SMOG ON THE CONCENTRATION OF PARTICULATE MATTER IN THE ANTELOPE HOUSE IN THE SILESIAN ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FRUSTRATION SCALE FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in a good level of English throughout.
Clear structure of the manuscript and the purpose of the study was clearly stated. The references cited were relevant and appropriate. Tables are easy to read though the decimals should be consisted throughout. Figure(s) could be used for illustrating the final outcome of the ESEM.
Experimental design: The rational was clearly stated for selecting the research method, although the process of forming the initial item pool could be further described. For example, the background of the three specialists in psychology and SDT, do they have the related knowledge of the competitive sport and physical education? More expert in different areas could be included for providing the evidence of validity.
Also, the sampling method should be further elaborated, where are the areas for recruiting the participants for forming the item pool? Was there a diversity geographically for sampling from the population? If these could be clearly stated one may be able to replicate the study in the future.
Validity of the findings: The results appear that the questionnaire has good validity and is reliable across the sample, though the necessity for developing the questionnaire was not clearly stated. What are the future implications of this questionnaire? Is this measurement beneficial for better understanding of the theory or can be used to increase our knowledge in the sport and physical education areas? All these points could be addressed further in the discussion section.
Additional comments: Line 266 "...were the same as study 2 and 3." should be "study 1 and 2" instead.
Line 173 “Results and Discussion” should be in bold.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FRUSTRATION SCALE FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The aim of the submitted paper entitled “Development and initial validation of the
Psychological Need Frustration Scale for Physical Activity” was to develop and validate a new scale based on self-determination theory (SDT). The background of the questions is clear and well structured. The literature is relevant and appropriate to address the questions and research gap.
Experimental design: 1.	Why the authors did not conduct a pilot study in study #2? This step is very important to confirm the process of the formal study will not go wrong? Please report it.
2.	Table # 1 shows the basic information of study #2, why I did not see internal consistency coefficients of the subscales? Why study # 2 did not show internal consistency coefficients until study #3? I suppose this basic reliability index is very important. Also, I found the initial of the relatedness need frustration is not consistent, sometimes you use “RO” while sometimes you use “RE.”
3.	In table 2, the item of COMPETENCE “ When engaging in physical activity, at times you feel…you feel inadequate in some situation.” Inadequate in what?
4.	In study #3, you perform a multi-group ESEM, why you did not TWO new samples in study #3? Instead, you use one sample from study #2 and one sample from study #3, is there any rationale to support you to analyze by this approach?
5.	Could you make a table for the criterion-related validity correlations among need frustration, subjective well-being, and negative affect? Also, in this table, you may show the internal consistency coefficients of all the scales that you used.
6.	Line 404, you said your reliability including test-retest reliability? Really? In which study? How many participants for this study? And, what is the time period before the first test and second test?
Validity of the findings: The validity of the finding can be contributed to the researchers only when if this pape is well revised.
Additional comments: What is other potential construct validity index you may use but not available in this study? Could you suggest them for future research?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FRUSTRATION SCALE FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1)Gunnell et al(2013) have shown a clear definition of PA in that study (please see footnote 1), however in your paper PA only have been mentioned but no further information  regarding its content. did all the participants familiar and understand? please explain what you have done regarding this matter.

2)the intro part of this manuscript is easy to read, but I would suggest that basic need thwarting content need to be added at line 52-70. especially what criteria should be included/excluded items.

3)line 61-64 need to re-exam the content of competence and relatedness need frustration.
Experimental design: 1)study 1 need more detail for definition of PA, how and where PNFS-PA item pool was formed. I would suggest that Bartholomew et al(2011B) has done a nice work, it is a source to consult.
2)line 167-168 for the CVI part is not clear, suggest improve.
3)line 239, please double check two degree of freedom, are they all correct?
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: a psychometrically sound measurement is desirable in every aspect of the sport, exercise and pa research. however, a theoretical based and psychometric fit one is not an easy job. I commend the authors for their effort to make one of the scale for further research.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FRUSTRATION SCALE FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Yes, English writing is clear and unambiguous. The background of the questions is clear and well structured. The literature is relevant and appropriate to address the questions and research gap. The tables are appropriate and well-presented.
Experimental design: The authors have properly addressed my questions regarding experimental design, missing values in tables, inconsistent presentation of abbreviations of the variables, and inappropriate presentation of the texts. The revised manuscript looks better than the previous manuscript. Also, the authors addressed the limitation that they haven’t done a pilot study in the first beginning. By such advising, future studies might learn from their experiences. The authors also accepted my suggestions to redo tables for criterion validity and conduct a new study to test test-retest reliability.
Validity of the findings: after the revision of the contents, and recollecting the data and analyses, the validity of the findings are robust and meaningful.
Additional comments: After your efforts to revise, recollect data, and redo the tables, it is better than the previous manuscript. I accept this manuscript. Congratulations.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL VALIDATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED FRUSTRATION SCALE FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is re-writing according to reviewers' suggestion in a good level of English throughout. overall structure is clear and sufficient in literature review. several suggestions have been taken into consideration and the quality of the manuscript has been imporved.
Experimental design: aims and scope of this manuscript now is consistent with the journal's
Validity of the findings: no more revision is needed.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVAL OF EXOTIC SPECIES (EUCALYPTUS) ON CARBON AND NITROGEN CYCLES IN THE SOIL-PLANT SYSTEM IN A SECONDARY TROPICAL ATLANTIC FOREST IN BRAZIL WITH A DUAL-ISOTOPE APPROACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English should be improved because there is a lot of grammatical syntax issues in the text. Notably, authors use the possessive form (for example “elements’ dynamics”, “ecosystem’s compartments”, …), but this form is only used with nouns referring to people, groups of people, countries, and animals, and it is not appropriate in the context of the article. There are some English mistakes: ex: ration for ratio, grater for greater, ... For a better reading of the article, it should be that the article is read and corrected by an English speaker.
Moreover, the article has to be read correctly by authors because there are some repetitions (for example L20 to L24 repetition with L25 to L30).
Authors use lot of acronyms that have to be defined they were used. For example, page 5 – line 175: DBH, page 5 – line 178: IVI, ...

         The introduction of the article is good and the subject and aims are correctly brought. In the introduction, literature references are correctly used to provide the field background and the context.

         The structure of the article is in format of “standard sections” given in the instructions for authors.
Figures are relevant to the content of the article and have a good resolution. However, they would be clearer if the legends were included inside. In title, authors have to check the number of replicates and precise if it is per site, the number of individuals per site, … Same in titles of tables, check and precise at what correspond the number of replicates.
File with raw data is correctly presented and seems to be complete. But it would be interesting that authors precise at what type of species correspond the live leaves in the first sheet of the excel file.

	Results are relevant and defenced correctly hypothesis. It will be good to cite figures or tables in the discussion, to see on which results the discussion is based.
Experimental design: Isotopic composition method used to study dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in soils is well known and not original but the using of this in different compartments of soil-plant systems (different parts of litter, live leaves, soils) is very interesting and less realized. Moreover, generally authors are more focused on one element (carbon or nitrogen) but it is not very common to have a comparison between the dynamics of these two elements. Past management with removing of native forest replaced by species for commercial is an important issue in tropical region. And now, there is an effort to restore the native forest in removing the commercial species. This is the case in the Uniao Biological Reserve, Brazil, since 2015 with the removing of eucalyptus species. But the impact of this management on carbon and nitrogen dynamics is poorly documented and studied because very recent. So, this article is interesting and important for the domain of study of the global cycles of nutrients and impact of anthropic management (disturbance, restauration) on them.
But it will be interesting that authors have a more global conclusion and include the impact of this management on the global carbon and nitrogen cycles and global changing.

The investigation was done on a large number of samples for soils and for litters (25 replicates per site). So, the investigation seems to be conducted rigorously for this part. But for live leaves, only 5 individuals per species and 5 to 7 leaves per individual were sampled. Authors have to justify if it is representative. Moreover authors have to precise which type of species have to be sampled for live leaves (in Materials and Methods part and in the excel file for raw data).

“Methods” part has to be well described to have sufficient information and details to be reproductible. Authors have to justify the methods used.
Authors have to precise which soil classification they used to determine their soils (L162).
For part 2 “Determination of elemental and isotopic composition …”, authors have to be more consistent and justify the methods they used.
      -	Why leaf samples were collected at the third sun-exposed photosynthetically active pair of leaves? References? Why 5 individuals and 5 to 7 leaves? Is it to have the same weight? Is it representative of sites?
      -	25 samples of litter or soil, is it representative? Justify.
      -	Methods used to dry samples have to be justified notably with references.
      -	Why soil have to be dried at 80°C and no at 105°C (classic method to remove all waters contained in soils and notably pellicular water)? Soil samples have been decarbonated? If no, authors have to justify why (because C analyses – concentration and isotopic composition – are supposed to be done on the organic fraction but without decarbonation the inorganic carbon is taken into account).
      -	Why is there a maceration step for leaf and litter samples? Explain. The maceration was done in what: water, other liquid?
      -	Add values of concentration and/or isotopic compositions of standards: PDB, atmospheric N, Wheat Flour, Low Organic Content Soil.
For part 3 “Determination of the soil granulometric fractions”, authors have to be more precise.
      -	What are certified samples: JIS 11, Locopdium, glassbeads? Precise size of their grains?
      -	No JISS but JIS for Japanese Industrial Standard.
      -	Why authors do not use all standards from JIS?
In part 4 “Data analysis”, authors have to change the title, because it is not appropriate for this part. Example: “Statistical analysis”.
      -	Why are the “compartments, study sites and granulometric fractions” used for factors? Explain.
Validity of the findings: Results are clearly exposed and support the discussion and the conclusions.
The data on which the discussion and the conclusions are based are in the correct form for the scientist community interested in nutrient cycles, soils, soil-plant systems and impact of disturbances on them. The data are robust and controlled statistically via ANOVA (two ways), followed by Tuckey test. Authors have to justify why they use these factors (compartments, study sites and granulometric fractions) to statistical analysis.
The conclusion is very short. It will be interesting that authors extend their conclusion in the more general context: global nutrient cycles, global changing, ...
Additional comments: The manuscript of Milena Carvalho Teixeia et al., examines the impact of management (removal) of exotic species in the soil-plant system in a secondary tropical Atlantic forest. The study interests in a dual-isotope approach (d13C and d15N) to reveal the consequences of this management on C and N cycles. This kind of study is of interest to better understand the effects of anthropic disturbance or restauration on natural forests (especially in tropical environment) and C and N cycles in these contexts.
The title should be rewritten (to replace the “sentence” title), as for example: “Consequences of management of exotic species on carbon and nitrogen cycles in the soil-plant system in a secondary tropical Atlantic forest (ReBio Uniao, Brazil), with a dual-isotope approach”.
Maybe, it will be interesting to have a map with the localization of sites.
The discussion is interesting and has a good comparison with literature, but should be more consistent and long. Indeed, the authors should be more critical about their results and replicates (just one date (December 2013) for sampling).
The English language should be improved because there is a lot of grammatical syntax errors.

Detailed comments:
Detailed comments and corrections are added in the attached file. When comments are putted in quotations marks, it is a proposition to rewrite the text or a correction of the text. When there are no “quotation marks”, it is a question, general comment, …
It will be good that authors do not change the name if the site. Example: choose “second growth forest” or “secondary forest”, but do not use the two expressions.
In English, it is better when sites are cited to use “the M3 site”, “the M12 soil”, … Check the text.
There are some mistakes in figures and they could be more consistent:
-	Add legends in the figures.
-	Titles have to be checked, notably the number of replicates. Precise if it is per site, the number of individuals per site or per individuals, … Same in titles of tables, check and precise at what correspond the number of replicates.
-	Figure 1F: N (%) vs d15N (‰) for Site M3: closed triangles (soil) seem to have the same nitrogen isotopic composition = 0 ‰, but it is not the case on the Figure 1E where the values seem vary between 0 to 1.9 ‰. There is a problem.
-	Figure 3: clay < 4 µm. Why not < 2 µm as in literature?

Titles of tables have to be checked and more relevant.
Table 1: irradiance values were obtained on only one sunny day. Is it representative? Justify. There is no a meteorological station close to the studied sites to have a real mean value on few years?
Why is there no value for the surface area of the secondary forest site?


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVAL OF EXOTIC SPECIES (EUCALYPTUS) ON CARBON AND NITROGEN CYCLES IN THE SOIL-PLANT SYSTEM IN A SECONDARY TROPICAL ATLANTIC FOREST IN BRAZIL WITH A DUAL-ISOTOPE APPROACH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have done a good revision of their English in comparison of their first version, but there still are some mistakes/errors in text:
- Check the writing of the carbon isotopic composition, because the size of 13 (δ¹³C) is smaller than the 15 for the nitrogen isotopic composition.
- Precise “in the M3 site” (L.31, L.299, L.328, L.338, …), “in the M12 site” (L.35, L.273, …)
- Check if it is better to use the term “cycle” or “recycling” rather than “cycling”
Examples: L.32; L. 80: “The C and N cycles”; L.88: “the soil texture influences on the recycling or cycles” …
- Check if it is better to use the term “Fractionation” rather than “fractioning”
Examples: L. 108 “thus resulting in N fractionation” no fractioning
- Check if it is better to use the term “decomposition” rather than “decomposing”. Example: L. 120 “high decomposition rates”
- L. 119-120 “tend to provide favourable conditions for decomposition activity by soil organisms”
- L. 85-86: “the litter decomposed material” no “decomposing”
- L. 130-132: “In the União Biological Reserve (Rebio União), a fragment of the Atlantic forest with integral nature protection located in southwest Brazil, presents a specific forestry management which consist on the removal of eucalyptus trees (Corymbia citriodora) until 2015 aiming to restore the native flora.”
- L. 159-164: sentence too long separate in 2 sentences. “We realized this research in three latosolic dystrophic red-yellow argisoil sites, classified according to Miranda et al. (2007) and Embrapa (1999).  One site is a well-preserved secondary forest site; whereas the other two are eucalyptus-harvested sites, by means of clear-cutting, with a single difference related to after-handling time: the M12 (where eucalyptus had been removed 12 months before our evaluation); and the M3 (where eucalyptus removal had happened 3 months before assessment) (Fig. 1, Table 1, Supplementary Material 1).”
- L. 229 to 232: caution values are written with coma. Example: 39,38 ± 0,19 %  Change in 39.38 ± 0.19 %
- L.439: NO3- the 3 is in subscript and the minus in exponent
- L.464: “The concentration of elemental N is greater in the leaves than it is in the soil and the litter fractions …”
- L.489: 6,000 in English for thousand numbers, it is a coma used not a point
Experimental design: Authors made it clear why they used this or that method.
- But, L.159, authors precised from which publication the classification of their soil comes from, but they have to precise the soil classification used: Brazilian Soil Classification System (dos Santos et al., 2018)? US Soil Taxonomy???
- L.212: 75 or 25 soil samples??
- In the text, it appears different terms for the supplementary materials: Supplementary Material 1 or 2, and DataS1, S2, ... Authors have to check which term is the good and do correction.
Validity of the findings: Authors have really improve their discussion and conclusion.
Additional comments: Authors have really improved their mansucript compare to the first version, and reply to reviewer and editor with good aguments.
But there are still some mistakes, notably for English (cf. 1. basic reporting) and Figures:
- There is a problem with figures: it was not possible to open Figures 2 to 5 (.EPS). Authors have to check the format for the submission.
- Figure 2: on the figure, the r value is wrong; it is not 0.03!!! The value has to be negative and maybe around -0.5 or -0.6
- Figure 3: in the title precise the definition of SE; on the figure, the ordinate is not the soil texture but the percentage of sand, silt and clay.
- Table 1: Acronym of site clear-cut 3 months ago is M3 and no 3M


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HERE ARE THE POLYPS: IN SITU OBSERVATIONS OF JELLYFISH POLYPS AND PODOCYSTS ON BIVALVE SHELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of the manuscript is hard to follow considering the findings of it. The introduction should avoid giving information that is not relevant to the findings of the manuscript. Some paragraphs need to improve the flow of ideas
The figures need small changes
Experimental design: The knowledge gap is understandable but it could be clearer
The molecular methods could be more clear, following previous studies (e.g. van Walraven et al 2016)
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript submitted by the authors titled “Here are the polyps: in situ observations of jellyfish polyps and podocysts on bivalve shells” is very attractive in terms of the relevance of the findings. The life cycle of jellyfish has several stages, one of those stages, the polyp stage, is so small that has been extremely difficult to find in the field. Few papers have recorded the presence of polyps in the wild (Makabe et al 2014; Shibata et al 2015; van Walraven et al 2016) yet on artificial structures such as marinas, wrecks, harbours, plastic bottles and aluminium cans. To my knowledge, only Toyokawa (2011) reported finding Chrysaora pacifica polyps on shells and stones on the southern coast of Japan. Given the importance of the polyp stage since it produces the medusa stage, their finding in the wild together with the molecular methodology used in this manuscript to identify the jellyfish species stands out for the Cnidarian audience.
However, the work should be improved if considered for publication. The structure of the manuscript is hard to follow giving information that is not adding to the manuscript findings. In my understanding, the main contribution of this work is to report the discovery of polyps in the wild and the techniques applied to identify them on a species level.
In this sense, paragraphs about environmental factors that influence the reproduction of the polyps seem out of context. In my opinion, a background that describe the life cycle of jellyfish, that highlights the importance of polyps and podocysts, along with the difficulty to identify them without molecular techniques (which then can be link to the ones used in the manuscript) and state who else have found the polyps in the wild will be a better approach for the introduction. That way they can connect these main topics in their discussion with their findings.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HERE ARE THE POLYPS: IN SITU OBSERVATIONS OF JELLYFISH POLYPS AND PODOCYSTS ON BIVALVE SHELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is clear and unambiguous, and for most parts a professional English is used throughout.
Relevant literature references are included, and sufficient field background/context has been provided.
Figures and tables are OK and appropriate raw data made available.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
The manuscript is ‘self-contained,’ and do represent an appropriate ‘unit of publication’. It includes all results relevant to the conclusion.

The research question is well defined, relevant & meaningful. In the ms it is stated how this research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The manuscript clearly defines the research question, which is relevant and meaningful.
Experimental design: Most methods are described with sufficient detail & information to replicate, but additional information is needed for the phylogenetic analyses (as indicated in the pdf).
Validity of the findings: The manuscript reports on a strategy with which we can better our understanding of jellyfish benthic stages and their ecology. I suggest that the authors expand the discussion with a paragraph on how this can contribute also to our understanding on the dispersal and spread of invasive jelly fish species such as the hydroid Gonionemus sp. This means of transportation has already been suggested but there are no references in the literature where actual polyp identifications using barcoding (or any other means) has been done.
The data on which the conclusions are based are provided and made available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository, ie Genbank.
Additional comments: The manuscript is a short (but sweet) account of how molecular technology and barcoding can be used to map and identify benthic stages of jellyfish. Some of the species has previously not been identified as benthic stages in the wild.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: HERE ARE THE POLYPS: IN SITU OBSERVATIONS OF JELLYFISH POLYPS AND PODOCYSTS ON BIVALVE SHELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Appropriate
Experimental design: Not applicable.
Validity of the findings: The findings are novel and well documented.
Additional comments: The manuscript “Here are the polyps: in situ observations of jellyfish polyps and podocysts on bivalve shells” by Lodewijk van Walraven, Judith van Bleijswijk and Henk W van der Veer presents first time confirmation of asexual polyp stages of two large scyphozoan jellyfish species in the North Sea.
The manuscript is well structured, written and the analyses seem appropriate. Sampling permits are explicitly stated and raw data have been deposited. I only have some minor comments outlined below:
Line 68 add at before various
Line 151 states that 2 µl DNA extract were used for PCR reactions, while in line 115 in the methods it is specified that 5µl DNA template has been used. Please check this.
Fig. 5 is not readable, I would suggest to change the light blue to another colour. The same applies to Fig. 6.
Table 1: Please incude % identity information into the table and add position data (latitude and longitude). The failed samples have been mentioned in the text and I would recommend to remove those here. Also, considering the low amount of data presented and the large number of display items, I would suggest to remove the transect figure and rather include the latitude and longitude information in Table 1.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PURPUREOCILLIUM LILACINUM AND METARHIZIUM MARQUANDII AS PLANT GROWTH-PROMOTING FUNGI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1- Luangsa-ard et al. (2011), and Jaroszuk-Scisel et al. (2014) are not found in the “References”.
2- Line 126: Change to “potato dextrose broth (PDB)” not “dextrose potato broth”.
3- It would be useful to collect the statistical analysis of all experiments in one part under Materials and Methods section.
4- All information necessary to understand the table and figure should be included in the title or caption (especially Figure 6).
Experimental design: 1- The experiment is well planned and results are interpreted in the light of the latest literature.
Validity of the findings: 1- The work of the authors is well organized and the results are significant.
Additional comments: No additional comments


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PURPUREOCILLIUM LILACINUM AND METARHIZIUM MARQUANDII AS PLANT GROWTH-PROMOTING FUNGI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English used is not very clear but  some places ambiguous.
Purpureocillium lilacinum is a common soil hyphomycete able to parasitise root knot nematode (RKN) sedentary stages by direct hyphal penetration and by using hydrolytic enzymes. The effectiveness of P. lilacinum in controlling RKNs has been reported under controlled conditions and in pot tests, but  few reports are available on its effectiveness under field conditions. Purpureocillium lavendulum, which has vinaceous colonies similar to those of P. lilacinum. It is characterized by the lack of growth at 35 C, the production of a yellow diffusible pigment and by subglobose or limoniform conidia. P. lavendulum  is a natural enemy of insects and plant-parasitic nematodes, and has been used as an important bio-control agent against agricultural pests. The Metarhizium genus comprises mostly entomopathogenic fungi: some are generalists, while some are specialists. The understanding of the precise mechanism of infection, its virulence and pathogenicity, as well as the enzymes and toxins produced are not well known.
Therefore work on the  Purpureocillium lilacinum,  P. lavendulum and Metarhizium marquandii as plant growth promoting fungi is really questionable?
Although authors have made tremendous efforts in  fungal isolation, molecular and phylogenetic analysis, phosphorus solubilization assay, indoleacetic acid (IAA) production assay, mass production of selected strains and conducted greenhouse experiments but I still have doubts about  the role of these fungi as plant growth promoters.
Sufficient introduction and background how this work is relevant with prior literature has not been appropriately referenced. The submission has not included all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: Research is original but research questions are not well defined and meaningful. Research does not fill the knowledge gap. Most of researches  on above mentioned fungi demonstrate that these fungi have role in biocontrol of plant diseases but this manuscript try to demonstrate the role of these fungi in plant growth promotion.
The investigation must have been conducted rigoruously  both in green house and field condition to demonstrate that  the role of these fungi as plant growth promoters. The research must have also been conducted in conformity with the  ethical standards in the field. Experiment must have been conducted with 5 replication and repeated once.
Validity of the findings: Unless field experiments are not performed under field condition the conclusions drawn are not acceptable. Drawn  conclusion are limited to those supported by the results.
Additional comments: English used is not very clear but  some places ambiguous.
Purpureocillium lilacinum is a common soil hyphomycete able to parasitise root knot nematode (RKN) sedentary stages by direct hyphal penetration and by using hydrolytic enzymes. The effectiveness of P. lilacinum in controlling RKNs has been reported under controlled conditions and in pot tests, but  few reports are available on its effectiveness under field conditions. Purpureocillium lavendulum, which has vinaceous colonies similar to those of P. lilacinum. It is characterized by the lack of growth at 35 C, the production of a yellow diffusible pigment and by subglobose or limoniform conidia. P. lavendulum  is a natural enemy of insects and plant-parasitic nematodes, and has been used as an important bio-control agent against agricultural pests. The Metarhizium genus comprises mostly entomopathogenic fungi: some are generalists, while some are specialists. The understanding of the precise mechanism of infection, its virulence and pathogenicity, as well as the enzymes and toxins produced are not well known.
Therefore work on the  Purpureocillium lilacinum,  P. lavendulum and Metarhizium marquandii as plant growth promoting fungi is really questionable?
Although authors have made tremendous efforts in  fungal isolation, molecular and phylogenetic analysis, phosphorus solubilization assay, indoleacetic acid (IAA) production assay, mass production of selected strains and conducted greenhouse experiments but I still have doubts about  the role of these fungi as plant growth promoters.
Sufficient introduction and background how this work is relevant with prior literature has not been appropriately referenced. The submission has not included all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Research is original but research questions are not well defined and meaningful. Research does not fill the knowledge gap. Most of researches  on above mentioned fungi demonstrate that these fungi have role in biocontrol of plant diseases but this manuscript try to demonstrate the role of these fungi in plant growth promotion.
The investigation must have been conducted rigoruously  both in green house and field condition to demonstrate that  the role of these fungi as plant growth promoters. The research must have also been conducted in conformity with the  ethical standards in the field. Experiment must have been conducted with 5 replication and repeated once.

Unless field experiments are not performed under field condition the conclusions drawn are not acceptable. Drawn  conclusion are limited to those supported by the results.


Instruction: You are one of the reviewers, your task is to write a review for the article. You will be given the title of the article, the number of the round in which the article is located, and your order among the reviewers.

Input:
Title: PURPUREOCILLIUM LILACINUM AND METARHIZIUM MARQUANDII AS PLANT GROWTH-PROMOTING FUNGI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be thoroughly revised by a native speaker. There are numerous instances of misuse of prepositions, verbal tenses and conjunctions. At times the authors employ informal language, i.e., “specially” instead of “especially” (line 23) or phrasal verbs, “it did not stand out” (line 281, which also exemplifies my point about tenses).
The background provided is sufficient, although it is a little hard to follow when trying to introduce the changes in the genus from Paecilomyces to Purpureocillium; I suggest reordering this information. In addition, I recommend including the following references: three previous reports of the genus Purpureocillium/Paecilymoces as natural endophites (Bills & Polishook 1991 Microfungi from Carpinus caroliniana, Can J Bot 69, 1477-1482; Cao et al. 2002, Endophytic fungi from Musa acuminata leaves and roots in South China, W J Microbiol Biotech 18, 169-171; Tian et al. 2004, Study on the communities of endophytic fungi and endophytic actinomycetes from rice and their antipathogenic activities in vitro, W J Microbiol Biotech 20, 303-309).
The in-text citation style should be revised to follow that recommended by the journal and/or to maintain the same format throughout the text.
The structure of the article conforms to the format of standard sections, and the headlines improve the clarity of the manuscript.
The figures are relevant to the content of the article, but the labels of Figures 4, 5 and 6 are incomplete. Following the Instructions for Author, the journal requires a title for each figure, and all figures seem to have only a legend, not a title with a legend (when the latter is optional).
Available raw data is correct.
Experimental design: The manuscript clearly defined the potential use of microorganisms as bioinoculants that promote plant growth, and evaluated different strains of three species of which there is little to no information regarding this subject in three different crops (maize, bean and soybean). The solubilization of phosphorus and the production of a component related to plant promotion, indoleacetic acid, were also evaluated in screening 30 strains, among which the best ones were selected. After that, greenhouse tests were done and growth promotion parameters including plant height, dry mass and contents of P and nitrogen (N) in the plants and in the rhizospheric soil were assessed. Methods are sufficiently described, although some further details necessary for reproducibility would be: 1. reporting the manufacturer of the Wizard SV Gel and PCR Clean-up System (line 130), 2. indicating in which culture medium the viability test was performed (line 220).
Validity of the findings: Discussion of the results is well stated, connected with the main question addressed by the research and limited to which is supported by the results, although I think it is a bit rash to establish an endophytic relationship only with the data obtained and without an experimental intervention that supports it (lines 469-470).
Although the medium for the isolation of fungi was not an original question, I consider it appropriate and relevant to show and discuss these results.
It is important to highlight the demonstration that some evaluated strains were able to promote an increase in plant growth. However, it is not entirely clear to me that the previous screening has a relevant influence on the results, especially when the strains selected showed different results in different plants, and the best strains were selected from a different ability (P-solubilization or IAA production). I believe it would be more appropriate to include at least one strain that had the opposite result to validate the screening. With these results, there is still the chance that some of the other 24 species not evaluated could be better for plant promotion.
On the other hand, it is necessary to include at least some comments on those strains that seemed to produce a detrimental effect on plants, for example the strain LSM 179 on beans and LSM 183 on maize. The former was the strain that produced better results in soybean plants and thus it needs to be mentioned. Differences in the way that the strains interact with the different plant species are mentioned but only for the positive results.
Other comments: 1) it is not true that P level in the roots of the control treatment was higher than in the others; table S2 shows no significant differences among treatments and the absolute value obtained in the control is not the highest (lines 291-292); 2) the N content in soil for soybean plants was significantly different among treatments and also had a high coefficient of variation; thus, this does not seem to be the reason of the absence of statistical differences in the other variables mentioned (lines 312-314).
Additional comments: Section “In vitro screening tests and selection of strains for in planta tests”: there are similar sentences throughout this section. I suggest to include all the information related to P solubilization and IAA production in only one paragraph to avoid repetitions.
Lines 272 and 487: It should read Fig. otherwise FIG.
Line 274: Change supplmental with supplemental
Line 305: the font color of this sentence seems to be darker.
Lines 430 and 432: It should say Fig.6 instead of Fig.1 in all cases.
Line 618: It should say “Goffré” instead of “Goffre”
Table 1: It should say “Table 1” instead of “Tabel 1”