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: IMPACT OF BODY WEIGHT GAIN ON HEPATIC METABOLISM AND HEPATIC INFLAMMATORY CYTOKINES IN COMPARISON OF SHETLAND PONY GELDINGS AND WARMBLOOD HORSE GELDINGS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: good improvements
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: nice improvements, no further remarks to the paper


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: GARDEN CENTRE CUSTOMER ATTITUDES TO POLLINATORS AND POLLINATOR-FRIENDLY PLANTING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment - all fine.
Experimental design: No comment - all fine.
Validity of the findings: No comment - all fine.
Additional comments: •	Quite an interesting and timely paper as these topics are often discussed – how many people are trying to plant for pollinators, and how to get people to buy more pollinator-friendly plants.  Findings are unsurprising given the audience targeted and previous general knowledge, but it is good to have this documented.
•	Line 113 – you say the garden centres are representative of the area; are they representative in terms of socio-economic status of the customers and availability and cost of plant stock?  I.e. are any of them more expensive or believed to be more high-end?  (you do say later that you had a similar proportion of males: females and ages but this is another angle)
•	Line 199 – how many logos in colour vs black and white; stylized vs real photos; have text besides logo and title?
•	Line 238 – what was the sample size for this question? And following ones? Is it always 150 unless otherwise specified?
•	Line 277 – do you have any data on what is actually being purchased vs what they say they prefer to purchase? i.e. do respondents say they purchase for pollinators when asked via the survey ‘select all’ responses, but do they actually do so in reality?  Ditto for Line 282 – testing similar varieties/appearances of plants with and without the labels? (you get into it briefly in the interviews/Line 287 area, but any more information than that)?
•	Line 307 – do you need to perhaps clarify better in the paper questionnaire respondents vs interviewees, when you discuss the results?  Technically respondents are also interviewees.  When I hit this example I paused with a bit of minor confusion then was find for the other uses.
•	Line 460-462,488 – why didn’t you discuss the bee hotels & pesticide usage, and the reasons for visiting in the results section? (or did you?)
•	Line 498 paragraph – repeating results here again; can you summarize rather than repeating yourself?
•	Table 1 caption: you state three garden centres were: a) chains and b) independents.  Clarify how many of each type of garden centre was used – it implies here that there were 3 of each, but that is not accurate as previously you said 5.  Or perhaps this is a typo, and you mean to say three garden centres, and the letters a and be refer to the table superscripts.
•	Table 2: for the last column, does the label/package mention pollinators, why is the total sample size for this calculation not the same as the overall sample size?  i.e. /47 vs /49 for plants?
•	Figure 1: label the x axis as ages?
•	Figure 3: minor comment, consider listing the types (plants, seeds, bulbs) in the same order as you do in Table 2
•


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: GARDEN CENTRE CUSTOMER ATTITUDES TO POLLINATORS AND POLLINATOR-FRIENDLY PLANTING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: I find this to be a relevant and informative piece, but I am uncertain and confused by some of the experimental design and analysis relating to label size and proportion, in particular that in my reading of this piece the size and proportion of the logos are not assessed in any manner that seems to add value to this point. Were larger logo more commonly recognized? Were logos on one type of plant more commonly recognized? This particular analysis doesn't go far enough and there is quite a bit of potential to expand on it. My suggestion is removing this analysis in its current form, or providing some expanded analysis (either with survey data if possible, or an analysis by the authors of the validity of each label). Unless I have missed something in my reading there wasn't an analysis of the validity of the logos by the research group, and this would be useful. Perhaps this is pending in a subsequent publication, but as I have stated before, the current treatment of logo analysis is more confusing than useful. I would be very happy to see the authors provide their own review of the logos, and highlight if there are the perceived information gaps that some of the interviewees alluded to.
Validity of the findings: Following up on my comments above, I think there is room to expand on  expert inference and opinion in the discussion, especially with respect to the quality of information available to the public.

As a further follow-up, my suggestion of moving away from the statistics of logo size would leave room to quantify some of the findings of the survey, and present them graphically. I would suggest some additional visual of the coded survey responses to help outline the points made about a strong interest in pollinator gardening combined with the deficit in information.
Additional comments: This is a great piece on public impressions and very relevant to planning conservation actions. I have some concerns about the presentation of findings and am suggesting some more detail be added to further quantify the 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: OPPOSITE ASYMMETRIES OF FACE AND TRUNK AND OF KISSING AND HUGGING, AS PREDICTED BY THE AXIAL TWIST HYPOTHESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -	The manuscript is written in clear, unambiguous, professional English language throughout.
-	The Intro shows the context, but the literature is not well referenced and there are several highly relevant papers missing (see specific comment). This should be easily remedied, though.
-	The structure follows standards in the field.
-	The figures are great.
-	I could not find any reference in the paper whether or not the raw data are supplied. This should be mentioned somewhere in the text. The raw data itself is provided as an Excel Sheet on the homepage.
Experimental design: -	The author provides original primary research within Scope of the journal.
-	The research question is well defined, relevant & meaningful.
-	It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
-	The standard of the investigation seems to be high. Since no participants are tested but databases and pictures are analyzed, no ethical approval was needed it seems
-	The Methods are described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. I must admit I am not an expert for analysis of 3D surface data, so I cannot judge this part of the methods 100%
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: General comments:
Intro:
-	 Page 2, line 91: The statement “Since the evolutionary selection for bilateral symmetry is due to locomotion and sexual selection, it will only affect the external shape of the body.” Needs citations.
-	The section on asymmetries in kissing and hugging at the end of the introduction needs to be redone for several reasons. First the author omits pretty much all of the relevant literature by citing only one paper on kissing and none on hugging.
-	For asymmetries in hugging please integrate the relevant literature:
-	Turnbull, O.H., Stein, L., Lucas, M.D., 1995. Lateral Preferences in Adult Embracing: A Test of the “Hemispheric Asymmetry” Theory of Infant Cradling. The Journal of Genetic Psychology 156, 17–21. 10.1080/00221325.1995.9914802.
-	Packheiser, J., Rook, N., Dursun, Z., Mesenhöller, J., Wenglorz, A., Güntürkün, O., Ocklenburg, S., 2018. Embracing your emotions: Affective state impacts lateralisation of human embraces. Psychological research. 10.1007/s00426-018-0985-8..
-	Ocklenburg S, Packheiser J, Schmitz J, Rook N, Güntürkün O, Peterburs J, Grimshaw GM. Hugs and kisses - The role of motor preferences and emotional lateralization for hemispheric asymmetries in human social touch. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018 Dec;95:353-360. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.10.007
-	These papers are generally in line with the authors finding of a rightward bias for hugging.
-	For kissing the authors state: “A left-sided bias of 65% has indeed been found for kissing (Güntürkün, 2003).” But if you read that paper the abstract reads “Here I show that twice as many adults turn their heads to the right as to the left when kissing, indicating that this head-motor bias persists into adulthood.” This is very confusing and the author need to rephrase or explain better why they make this assumption.
-	Also in general pretty much all of the literature shows a rightward bias for kissing but is not cited. The following paper should not be ignored but integrated in the intro:
-	Barrett, D., Greenwood, J.G., McCullagh, J.F., 2006. Kissing laterality and handedness. Laterality 11, 573–579. 10.1080/13576500600886614.
-	Chapelain, A., Pimbert, P., Aube, L., Perrocheau, O., Debunne, G., Bellido, A., Blois-Heulin, C., 2015. Can Population-Level Laterality Stem from Social Pressures? Evidence from Cheek Kissing in Humans. PloS one 10, e0124477. 10.1371/journal.pone.0124477
-	Karim, A.K.M.R., Proulx, M.J., Sousa, A.A. de, Karmaker, C., Rahman, A., Karim, F., Nigar, N., 2017. The right way to kiss: Directionality bias in head-turning during kissing. Scientific reports 7, 5398. 10.1038/s41598-017-04942-9
-	Ocklenburg, S., Güntürkün, O., 2009. Head-turning asymmetries during kissing and their association with lateral preference. Laterality 14, 79–85. 10.1080/13576500802243689.
-	Based on these papers the author should consider rephrasing the kissing hypothesis.

Results:
-	Please provide effect size measures.

Discussion:
-	The authors states: “All results were in line with the predictions. Moreover, the kissing bias agrees accurately with earlier findings (G¨unt¨urk¨un, 2003, reported 65% on the basis of 124 pairs).” This is not correct. As reported above, Güntürkün finds a right bias. Please rephrase. Also include the papers on hugging and kissing asymmetry mentioned above into the discussion.


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: OPPOSITE ASYMMETRIES OF FACE AND TRUNK AND OF KISSING AND HUGGING, AS PREDICTED BY THE AXIAL TWIST HYPOTHESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is written clearly and well. I suggest, however, that figure be added to show the locations of the exocathion, endocanthion, nasion, menton, etc. in order to assist the more general reader.
Experimental design: This looks fine.
Validity of the findings: The author has provided empirical evidence supporting the Axial Twist Hypothesis.
As far as I can tell, the data are reliable and the conclusions are supported. Although the magnitude of the biases away from symmetry are small, the authors explain why this would be so and provide evidence for the predicted differences in magnitude of bias between adults and children. They also provide behavioural data (kissing and hugging) consistent with the direction of bias in the aurofacial region versus the body.
Additional comments: I enjoyed reading this paper. It adds evidence in support of a clearly presented hypothesis about development of structural asymmetry of the face versus body, and makes predictions about further measures of asymmetry.


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: OPPOSITE ASYMMETRIES OF FACE AND TRUNK AND OF KISSING AND HUGGING, AS PREDICTED BY THE AXIAL TWIST HYPOTHESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Everything is fine in the revised edition.
Experimental design: Everything is fine in the revised edition.
Validity of the findings: Everything is fine in the revised edition.
Additional comments: The author did a good job in integrating my comments and give a more balanced view of the kissing/hugging asymmetry literature. I think the paper is now ready for acceptance.


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: OPPOSITE ASYMMETRIES OF FACE AND TRUNK AND OF KISSING AND HUGGING, AS PREDICTED BY THE AXIAL TWIST HYPOTHESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper has been improved by the changes made and, in my opinion, it is ready for publication. I have, however, found one more correction that needs to be made:

530: The citation of Rogers et al 2013 is incorrect. The title of the book is ‘Divided Brains: The Biology and Behaviour of Brain Asymmetries’.
Experimental design: Please see above.
Validity of the findings: Please see above.
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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript reads well, but a thorough proofread is still needed. In particular, the language used in the method section needs further work.

In the introduction section, the coverage on the mixed results regarding instructional self-talk is unnecessarily long, and distracts the reader away from the main point about the role of mindfulness. It can be summarised into a paragraph sufficiently by highlighting the results are mixed with a summary.

While the mention of attention is appropriate, there is after all a difference between attention and mindfulness. The bit about the self-regulation of attention in mindfulness is relevant but not expanded.  A fuller deliberation as to why the tendency to self-regulate towards the present moment awareness would be associated with the better use of self-talk is needed after line 126. Some possible explanation could be less mind wandering, better thought suppression, and better awareness of the situation.

The paragraph starting on line 127 seems abrupt. If it is related to the rationale of research design, it should be clearly prefaced. The large vs fine muscle deliberations is fuzzy. It should be further clarified to justify the hypotheses. In any case, the use of unrelated distraction self-talk is not well-justified. It can in fact introduce other psychological influence to the experiment, such as leading the participant to perceive it as an unnaturally challenging task (nonsense task).  I provide more details and advice in the General Comment section.

Figures 1a, 1b and 2 are missing.

Can we have a translation of the IRB/informed consent form in English?
Experimental design: The research is original and conforms to the aims and scope of the journal.

In terms of the research question, as previously alluded to, the rationale as to why the large vs fine muscle activity is tested is unclear. This is certainly an area that deserves clarification in order to fine tune the research question. The use of the unrelated distraction self-talk as the control, and its limitation also needs clarification.

The methods described does not have with sufficient detail and information to allow replication. The description of the way the self-talk message was given is unclear. Did the participant read it once aloud, and then use it for practice by silently saying it? If it is as described in the manuscript, there is no need for manipulation check as the participant said it aloud. Then again, saying it aloud does not mean that the strategy is used. So its not so straightforward. Further, to what extend is this ecologically valid? Do athletes frequently say it aloud when using the self-talk strategy?

Also, what was the lecture on self-talk about? Would knowing what self-talk is affect the result in any way? More details would be needed.

Overall, the method description is unclear.
Validity of the findings: The major flaw is in the use of the distractor self-talk. See general comments.

The results for the self-talk of manipulation check should include an explanation why this range of score is justified for ascertaining successful manipulation.

The display of results is incomplete. Only Figure 3 is shown. Figure 1a, 1b and 2 are missing. It is also not clear what they are from the text. Even in line 271, reference  to Figure 1 is incorrect.

The point about generalising to older adult is unnecessary. By the same token, this result also does not generalise to adolescent. So the paragraph starting from line 339 can be removed.

Can we have a similar figure for the standing long jump as seen in Figure 3.
Additional comments: The results shown on Figure 3 is the main gist of this research. It suggest that those with low mindfulness cannot cope with unrelated self-talk. The author/s explained it in the discussion, which is suitably done. This is the most interesting part of the result in my opinion.

After reading this manuscript multiple times and making some suggestions, I am in the opinion that there is substantial justification needed for why the distracting self-talk condition is used. The results do not show that the instructional self-talk is useful as much as showing that unrelated self-talk is disruptive, and strong dispositional mindfulness can counteract this effect. I would be very careful about using the results to suggest that instructional self-talk is effective over the control. Here we are comparing the use of instructional self-talk with a distracting self-talk (which is not really realistic). So the hypothesis test on the “effects of self-talk on motor performance” is not really well set-up and tested.

I suggest that the author/s revise the manuscript substantially to focus just on the finding that mindfulness suppresses the ‘distractor’ effect arising from the current manipulation arrangement.

Some specific comments are provided.
Line 43. Use "Self-talk is one of the popularly used skill in PST", instead. Unless you have evidence to back it up.
Line 57. State briefly what the current study seeks to investigate at the end of para 1.
Line 60. Give a straightforward example of self-talk here.
Line 65. "Notably" starts in a new para.
Line 72. Add comma after "doing so".
Line 80. Is this an endurance task rather than a skill acquisition task that can be facilitated by instructional self-talk?
Line 81. Add "which" after studies.
Line 83. Add "too" after "results'.
Line 85. Group rather than groups.
Line 113. Add "that" after "explain".
Line 135. Add a hint to why it is important that both large and small muscle actions are investigated in this study.
Line 142. Delete “for”.


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
Overall the writing of this study is free of any grammatical or structural written errors. For the abstract, the description of statistical method is not accurate and the discussion is not clear enough to interpret the findings.

2) Intro & background to show context.
Line 75-103. The authors are recommended to concise the paragraphs which describe the findings of instructional self-talk on motor performance. It will be better to just mention the most important studies that have supported the effects of instructional self-talk on motor performance and those which have found inconsistent results. At the end of this paragraph, the most important idea is that the authors need to argue the possible variables which may result in the inconsistent findings.

Line 116. Please clarify whether mindfulness disposition is a kind of attention ability. Furthermore, it should be justified that attention is a kind of ability.

Line 136-138. The description of the purpose of the present study is needed to revise. It was to examine the moderating effect of mindfulness disposition on the relationship between instructional self-talk and motor performance, instead of the mediating effect of mindfulness disposition. In the part of hypotheses, the authors are recommended to mention how the interactions of mindfulness disposition and self-talk type would influence performance in fine and gross motor skills. So far, the authors did not describe the possible directions of the interactions.

3) Literature well referenced & relevant.
Literature has been well-referenced and relevant. The format follows the requirement of the PeerJ.

4) Structure conforms to PeerJ standard, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
The structure of the manuscript conforms to the standard of the PeerJ and the norm of relevant disciplines.

5) Figures are relevant, high quality, well-labelled & described.
Table 2 is not well-presented by following the APA format. Some figures are disappeared from the manuscript.
Experimental design: 1) Original primary research within Scope of the journal.
This study is well-focused and properly builds on previous work. The purpose of this study falls within the scope of the journal, which is to examine the effects of mindfulness disposition and instructional self-talk on motor performance.

2) Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
As mentioned above, the authors are suggested to clearly point out the existing knowledge gaps and then describe how this study can solve these questions based on the previous research.

3) Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
This study is well designed and also follows the ethical standard to claim the approval of the institutional research board while recruiting college students as the participants.

4) Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Line 162. Please report how to estimate the sample size of the formal experiment.  The final participants were 23 in the high mindfulness group and 26 in the low mindfulness group. Was the sample size big enough to estimate the experimental effect?

Line 230. The statistical methods seem redundant. The first analysis utilized two separate one-way repeated-measure ANOVA to compare the nature of self-talk conditions on standing long jump performance and line tracking task performance. Actually, these questions could be solved in the following 2 × 2 (self-talk × high vs. low mindfulness disposition) mixed design ANOVA. When you examine the main effect of self-talk on performance, the authors could figure out the differences of two self-talk conditions in gross-skill or fine-skill performance. Therefore, the first analysis was suggested to deleted from the parts of statistical analyses and results.
Validity of the findings: 1) Negative/inconclusive results accepted.
In general, the results of this study are recommended to revise because the interpretations of the statistical results were not completely accurate.

2) Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
The figures which are mentioned in the part of the results are not found in the end of the manuscript. The authors need to revise the manuscript. Furthermore, at the beginning of the results, please report the differences of two groups in the demographic data.

Line 265. Regarding the analysis of line tracking test, the mixed design ANOVA should report the main effects of self-talk and mindfulness disposition.

Line 280. In the part of the discussion, the authors mentioned that participants with low mindfulness performed poorer in-line tracking task than high mindfulness participants under unrelated self-talk condition. However, at the end of the results, the authors reported that participants of the low mindfulness group made more errors in the unrelated self-talk than instructional self-talk. The discussion did not match the results. The authors are suggested to revise the descriptions of the interactions between self-talk and mindfulness. Actually, the two interactions above could be both observed.

3) Conclusion well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Line 283. When using references to support the effects of instructional self-talk motor performance, the authors are suggested to use the latest and most important research. Too many references are not recommended.

Line 300. In your study, mindfulness was manipulated as a moderator instead of a mediator. Please try to clarify your description.

Line 305-325. In addition to discussing the difference of high and low mindfulness in line tracking under the unrelated self-talk condition, the authors should also discuss the difference of instructional and unrelated self-talk conditions in line tracking within the low mindfulness group. Furthermore, more citations are needed to support the findings.

Line 357. In the part of the application, given that there were no differences for the high mindfulness individuals between the utilization of instructional and unrelated self-talks, how the practitioners could apply this information to their PE classes?
Additional comments: Generally, the justification of research questions is needed to further improve to make the research questions clearer. The authors are also suggested to re-interpret the statistical results to precisely describe the findings of this study, which will make this study increase the contribution to the effects of mindfulness and self-talk on motor performance.


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised version is definitely much improved than the previous. The introduction section reads better now and covers pertinent points in a more logical fashion.

In terms of language use and readability, there are still some areas that need tidying up, particularly in the method section. It pays to revisit this section and let a colleague who is not familiar with the study judge whether the descriptions are immediately clear. For example,  in "To apply unrelated self-talk for the line tracking test, we refer to Chang and colleagues’ (2014, p.141) method by asking participants to tell themselves “ the weather today, my clothes’ colors, and my pets’ names.”", is unclear whether the participants had to answer those questions or they just said those words. The "Experimental procedures" section is also unclear. Were they told to use the 'instruction contents',  silently or aloud, just before execution of the task after they were given the contents? In the rebuttal it was mentioned "Yes, the participant read it aloud, then use it for practice silently.", but the same info is not relayed in the manuscript. These sort of processes need to be better articulated. Also what is the experimental design? Since you mentioned paired sample t-test in one of the results, I assume its a within-subject design. This information should be included explicitly.  It is not sufficient to mention  "counter balanced order" on line 274 and "each self-talk twice" on line 275. Lastly, where was the experiment held? Quiet room with no others around, or done in a group? How long did each session last? These details should be provided.

In reporting the results and discussion, refer to the numbered RQ/hypotheses directly. This will improve readability tremendously.
Experimental design: The research question portion is still not well-defined. Essentially, the title refers to "interaction", and thus the entire paper should just focus on the interaction of the mindfulness and self-talk instruction factors. The other questions (RQ/HYP1 and RQ/HYP2), and how its currently written, distracts the reader in reaching your main contributions. It is sufficient to frame the effects of self-talk, and effects of mindfulness as simple effects after addressing the interaction question. It can also be clearer if you separate DVs, the long jump and tracking tasks as two separate RQ/HYPs. In summary, go straight to (1) interaction of mindfulness and self-talk on long jump, and then (2) interaction of mindfulness and self-talk on tracking task.  Each of these should be followed up discussions of simple main effects.

Line 199. Is the Chinese version of the scale used?

Line 270. To what extent does the participants know the purpose of the study. I imagine if you were telling them that you wanted to test whether their level of mindfulness has an impact on how they use the self-talk, this may directly impact on the way they behave later.

Line 274. "Then participants completed six trials of standing long jump and 4 trials of hand-eye coordination of fine line tracking test (i.e., each self-talk twice.) " How long is the wait between the tasks? Would the increased arousal following the jump affects the tracking task?

Are the participants receiving concurrent feedback during the tracking task?
Validity of the findings: Still some rooms for improvement and I withhold my assessment of the validity.
Additional comments: Overall, I think this study is worthy of getting published, provided the method used has no major weakness. In terms of presentation, the RQ/HYPs need to be further streamlined as mentioned above. Most importantly, the main focus should be on "why those with high and low mindfulness dispositions would respond to self-talk
messages (task related and unrelated) differently in affecting motor performance?" This needs to be at the core of the introduction.

I think you should focus/explain why those with high mindfulness might behave differently (say, ignore possible bad performance, refocus better) when they are supplemented with task-related self-talk. The reverse, those with poor mindfulness may also be affected by task-unrelated self-talk more. This can form the backbone of your rationale, and the discussion.

Currently, questions and rationale such the one raised on Line 157 addresses part of the questions. I suggest going for the main question regarding interaction so that it is more relevant in making a theoretical contribution overall.

Please ensure the writing is in good standard throughout. E.g. on line 254, we can see "can’t".


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
Overall the writing of this study is free of any grammatical or structural written errors. For the part of the abstract, although the authors have replied to the comments, the statistical methods and results are still not accurate, as well as the interpretation of the finding is suggested to be more precise.

2) Intro & background to show context.
In the part of the introduction, the authors are recommended to make sure which sentence or description is citation or quotation. When you use the quotation, you have to present the sentences by using an italic type and citing the page numbers. For the citation, you do not have to show up the page numbers.

Line 190-192. The hypothesis (c) seems redundant because it has been included in the hypothesis (b). Please think over this suggestion.

3) Literature well referenced & relevant.
Literature has been well-referenced and relevant. The format follows the standard of APA style.

4) Structure conforms to PeerJ standard, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
The structure of the manuscript conforms to the standard of the PeerJ and the norm of relevant disciplines.

5) Figures are relevant, high quality, well-labelled & described.
Table 2 is not well-presented by following the APA format. All the information in the figures overlapped that in Table 2. The authors are suggested to remove the overlapping information.
Experimental design: 1) Original primary research within Scope of the journal.
This study is well-focused and properly built on previous work. The purpose of this study falls within the scope of the journal, which is to examine the effects of mindfulness disposition and instructional self-talk on motor performance.

2) Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The authors have clearly pointed out the existing knowledge gaps and described how this study could solve these questions based on the previous research.

3) Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
This study is well designed and also follows the ethical standard to claim the approval of the institutional research board while recruiting college students as the participants.

4) Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Line 213. The authors need to report how to estimate the sample size of the formal experiment. Since the study was a mixed factorial design instead of a test-retest design, please re-estimate the sample size by using an accurate method and report this estimation in the text.

L280. The authors did not revise the statistical method in a more accurate way. The statistical methods still seem redundant. The first and second analyses utilized separate paired t-tests to compare the nature of self-talk conditions and the interactions of self-talk and mindfulness on standing long jump and line tracking task performance. Actually, these questions could be solved in the following 2 × 2 (self-talk × high vs. low mindfulness disposition) mixed design ANOVA. When you examine the main effect of self-talk on performance, the authors could figure out the differences of two self-talk conditions in gross-skill or fine-skill performance. Furthermore, when you check the simple main effects, you could find out the interactions. Therefore, the first and second analyses are suggested to be removed from the parts of statistical analyses and results. If you still have questions, please consult to an expert in statistics.
Validity of the findings: 1) Negative/inconclusive results accepted.
In general, the results of this study are recommended to be revised because the interpretations of the statistical results were not completely accurate.

2) Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
The figures presented in the part of the results overlapped Table 2. Furthermore, the authors are suggested to revise the results regarding those two separate two-way mixed ANOVAs. Please clearly report the main effects, interactions, and further comparisons.

3) Conclusion well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The discussion needs to be revised following the new results.
Additional comments: The authors are suggested to rewrite the parts of statistical analysis and results. Then, try to more precisely describe the findings of this study based on the new results, which will make this study increase the contribution to the effects of mindfulness and self-talk on motor performance.


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The quality of the manuscript had improved tremendously from the first version. Congratulation on the great effort!

Some minor points:
Line 47. page number is missing for the reference.
Line 63. It will be a good idea to briefly declare the aim of this study at the end of the firsts para.
Line 126. add 'tendency for" before ".. having an open"
Line 185. Since you listed jump before line tracing, this order should follow later (e.g. line 236, 255)


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
Overall the writing of this study is free of any grammatical or structural written errors. For the part of the abstract, the authors are suggested to revise the sentence “simple main effects indicated that participants performed better in both standing long jump and line tracking under instructional self-talk.” In this case, the results were based on the main effects of Self-Talk Type, instead of simple main effects. Please revise this sentence as “participants performed better in both standing long jump and line tracking under instructional self-talk than unrelated self-talk.”

2) Intro & background to show context.
The authors have rewritten the introduction which is clearer than the former version.

3) Literature well referenced & relevant.
Literature has been well-referenced and relevant. The format follows the standard of APA style.

4) Structure conforms to PeerJ standard, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
The structure of the manuscript conforms to the standard of the PeerJ and the norm of relevant disciplines.

5) Figures are relevant, high quality, well-labelled & described.
Table 3 and Table 4 are suggested to be removed from the manuscript because the information has been presented in the text.
Experimental design: 1) Original primary research within Scope of the journal.
This study is well-focused and properly builds on previous work. The purpose of this study falls within the scope of the journal, which is to examine the effects of mindfulness disposition and instructional self-talk on motor performance.

2) Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The revision has clearly pointed out the existing knowledge gaps and how this study could fill these gaps.

3) Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
This study is well designed and also follows the ethical standard to claim the approval of the institutional research board while recruiting college students as the participants.

4) Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
The materials and methods described in the manuscript are sufficient for other researchers to replicate.
Validity of the findings: 1) Negative/inconclusive results accepted.
The results of this study are recommended to revise because the interpretations of the statistical results were not completely accurate.

2) Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.

Line 304-315. For the section of “Interaction effects of mindfulness and self-talk in standing long jump,” the following statement is recommended. The 2 by 2 mixed design ANOVA showed no significant self-talk × mindfulness group interaction in standing long jump, F(1,47) = 0.001, p = .97. However, the analysis revealed a main effect of self-talk on standing long jump, F(1,47) = 6.22, p = .02, η2= .12, indicating that participants performed better under instructional self-talk than unrelated self-talk. Further, there was no main effect of mindfulness group for standing long jump, F(1,47) = 0.01, p = .92.

For the section of “Interaction effects of mindfulness and self-talk in line tracking,” please revise the paragraph as well. Furthermore, the degrees of freedom were incorrect (Line 310-322). For example (Line 318), under unrelated self-talk, high mindfulness performed better than low mindfulness in line tracking, F(1) = 7.05, p = .01, η2= 0.07, you should utilize an independent t-test to compare this simple main effect and report the t value and Cohen’s d.  For the comparison of performance under instructional self-talk and unrelated self-talk for low mindfulness participants, you should utilize a paired t-test to compare this simple main effect and report the t value and Cohen’s d.

Line 332. Furthermore, “two main effects” indicated that participants performed better in standing long jump and line tracking under instructional self-talk, instead of “two simple main effects.”

Line 339-342. “The unique finding is that low mindfulness participants performed better both in standing long jump and line tracking under instructional self-talk. However, for high mindfulness participants, their performance did not differ in line tracking under instructional self-talk vs unrelated self-talk,” these expressions did not match the results of statistical analyses which only showed main effects of self-talk on standing long jump and line tracking.

3) Conclusion well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Although some revisions in the part of Discussion are needed, the conclusion is appropriately stated based on the results of this study and the findings of previous work. Also, the authors have raised their arguments, limitations, and recommendations according to the findings of this study.
Additional comments: Generally, the justification of research questions has been  improved in the revision. The authors are suggested to refine the statistical results to precisely describe the findings of this study, which will make this study increase the contribution to the effects of mindfulness and self-talk on motor performance.


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My concerns were addressed adequately.


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: INTERACTION OF MINDFULNESS DISPOSITION AND INSTRUCTIONAL SELF-TALK ON MOTOR PERFORMANCE: A LABORATORY EXPLORATION
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments.
Experimental design: No further comments.
Validity of the findings: No further comments.
Additional comments: The authors have refined the statistical results and interpreted them precisely, which will make this study increase its contribution to the effects of mindfulness and self-talk on motor performance.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIGILANCE CAPACITY AND PHYSICAL EXERCISE: A MIXED-EFFECTS MULTISTUDY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The purpose of this article was to provide a systematic, quantitative review of the literature depicting the relationship between physical activity and cognition as measured by reaction time as part of the Psychomotor Vigilance Task.  To accomplish this objective, the author(s) compiled 7 unique studies that were purported to assess the aforementioned relationship comparing type pf physical activity (i.e., externally paced, self-paced, vs. sedentary behavior) while controlling for age, sex, and type of VO2 test.  A multilevel linear mixed-effects model was employed to assess this relationship.

Overall the manuscript is well constructed and conforms to the basic standards. However, initially the narrative leads the reader to believe that the author(s) have done an extensive search of the extant literature prior to conducting their analysis. Yet later in the manuscript it appears that the author(s) are simply providing a systematic review of their own respective body of work. The author(s) need to address this issue, be clear and consistent throughout. Furthermore, several grammatical and structural issues are consistent throughout. Please see specific comments below:

Abstract
1.	P1 line 21-35: The use of parentheses is often misused and disrupts the flow of the manuscript. For example, the author(s) state: Further analyses confirmed the absence of effect of VO2 and self-paced sport practice (with respect to the sedentary condition) on RT. Please consider removing the parentheses and rewriting the statement for clarity: “With respect to the sedentary condition, further analyses confirmed the absence of effect of VO2 and self-paced sport practice on RT.
2.	P1 line 33. Please consider replacing the term “expertise” with a more participatory term such as “participation” or “involvement”. The use of the term “expertise” is overstated here and throughout the manuscript unless the author(s) can provide greater rationale and detail regarding participant characteristics and years of experience.

Introduction
1.	Please use page numbers throughout.
2.	P1 line 46-47: Please add parentheses around text: (i.e., the ability to stay focused, and to detect and respond efficiently to target stimuli in order to attain the goals of the task).
3.	P1 line 50: Replace attain with accomplish.
4.	P1 line 55: Please replace this sentence “The enhanced physical or cardiovascular fitness is one of the main consequences of the regular practice of physical exercise that has been related to cognitive performance” with “Enhanced physical or cardiovascular fitness is one of the main consequences of regular practice of physical exercise that has been related to cognitive performance”.
5.	P1 line 51-53. Consider revising the current sentence to read: …that used a measure of reaction time (RT) from the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) consistently used by our research group (ADD REFERENCE).
6.	P2 line 61: Delete “the”
7.	P2 line 62: Delete “the”
8.	P2 line 63: Add reference to the end of the sentence.
9.	P2 line 64: Replace “Exercise practice” with “Physical activity”
10.	P2 line 64: Awkward. Please consider revising sentence to read: “Given the variety of physical activities available, exercise is far more than just a way for enhancing cardiovascular fitness (ADD REFERENCE). In fact, given the varying perceptual and cognitive demands of physical activity it is expected that cognitive enhancement would follow sustained practice (ADD REFERENCE).
11.	P2 line 68: Whenever using i.e., or e.g., please add parentheses. Please amend the remaining document.
12.	P2 line 72: Replace “cognitive skills demands” with “cognitive demands”
13.	P2 line 73: Please add reference after “research”.
14.	P3 line 83: Replace “This is the…” with “For this…”
15.	P3 line 83: Delete “why” and add “have” after we. The sentence should read: For this reason, we have decided to perform a mixed-effects analysis on data from 7 unique studies involving 361 participants.
16.	P3 line 89: Replace the use of “’” with “minutes”
17.	P3 line 95: Consider revising this sentence to read: “In brief, this report aims to advance our current understanding of the research linking physical activity and cognition, with a focus on vigilance.

Methods

1.	P5 line 135: Add parentheses before and after i.e.,
2.	P5 line 133-142: Please consider rephrasing this paragraph. There are considerable run on sentences. This section is difficult to interpret as currently written.
3.	P5 line 147: Delete “(vigilant)”
Experimental design: 1.   P3 line 101. Ethics Statement. Given that this research is using previously published research as data, the inclusion of an ethics statement is not necessary. For example, the author(s) would not have consented participants for inclusion in this quantitative review since they are using preexisting and previous published data. As a result, please consider removing this section.

2.	P4. Line 109. Types of Studies and Sample Characteristics. The author(s) should consider providing a greater rationale and description of the inclusion criteria for articles retained in the review. Equally, the author(s) should describe the search strategies used to obtain said articles. For example what search engines were used? Search terms? Did the author(s) use an ancestry or descendancy approach to search the existing literature? How many articles were unveiled vs. retained? Please be as detailed as possible.

3.	P4. Line 109. Types of Studies and Sample Characteristics. In the section, the author(s) again use the term expertise. As it currently stands this is a fatal flaw in the rationale for the subsequent analyses given that no information is provided indicating any level of “expertise” in a given activity. At best, the author(s) have identified participants varying in the type of activity frequented but not in varying levels of expertise. Please alter the language around ‘expertise” or provide greater detail regard participant characteristics warranting the use of the term expert. Please correct throughout the manuscript.

4.	P6 line 172. Design and Analysis. It is unclear where the specific data points that were collapsed into a single dataset have come from. This appears to arise from a lack of clarity surrounding the inclusion criteria and how the author(s) access the raw data from the studies included. A more thorough description is needed here.

5.	I commend the author(s) for their attempt to employ higher level statistical analyses. However, the more complex the analysis the more removed we become from a practical interpretation of the results. Given the access to raw data, and the ability of the author(s) to normalize the data, I would encourage the author(s) to consider a much simpler analysis. For example, an ANOVA comparing externally paced, self-paced, and. sedentary behavior on RT. Equally, given the interest in the role of VO2 on cognitive performance an ANCOVA can be equally employed.
Validity of the findings: Although I believe the initial research question is of interest to the readership of Peer J, several practical, methodological, and inferential decisions lead me to question the overall utility of the article and its ability to advance our understanding of the relationship between fitness level, cognition and activity type. For example, the author(s) suggest that children who practice externally-paced tasks outperform those who engage in self-paced tasks suggests that simply looking at RT as a dependent variable limits the insights gleaned from such an investigation, as such the authors should consider including on their analysis the number of errors during the test. In other words, does activity type and fitness level influence not only speed but accuracy as well? As a result, the methodological approach to this investigation is called into question and warrants further detail and elaboration.

Results appear mixed given the different types of tests chosen. Can the author(s) justify drawing a positive conclusion based on the AIC results while ignoring those of the BIC? In other words, it appears that the author(s) report results using AIC in some situations and BIC in others. I would encourage the author(s) to use and report both approaches with each analysis and then later offer an explanation for any similar and/or disparate results; including the implications of disparate results.
Additional comments: There are sections of the manuscript that are clear, concise, and well written. However, much of the manuscript is need of significant re-write due to formatting, grammatical, and punctuation errors. Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the article.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIGILANCE CAPACITY AND PHYSICAL EXERCISE: A MIXED-EFFECTS MULTISTUDY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: 1. In my opinion, the study 3 should not be included in the analyses because there was no participants who belong to Extremely-paced sports in the middle age group.
2. The exercise effect might be different between age groups. Thus, the authors should consider the interaction effect of  age groups (adolescent, young adults) × aerobic fitness, and age groups × sports types.
3. Individual PVT performance might be change in the day. Thus, it should be described what time the participants conducted the task.
4. There is no explanation why RTs larger than 1000 ms were removed from the analyses.
5. With the exception of the 7 studies which was included in the analysis, the authors published the other paper which could be included the analyses (Luque-Casado, A. et al., Scientific report, 2016). The authors should describe the criteria to include the analyses.
Validity of the findings: There is no description about random slope effect of task trial number.
Additional comments: In this study, using previous studies, the authors performed mixed effects multistudy analysis to examine whether cardiovascular fitness, sports-related expertise, or both are the key factors associating to the vigilance performance. In the results, they found only externally-paced sports was associated with PVT performance. The results is interesting and might sheds light on how physical activity influence vigilance performance. However, the authors have revealed that participants who engage self-pace sports have higher vigilance performance than sedentary participants in several studies. It is difficult to think these positive effects of self-paced sport was false-positive results due to small sample size. The authors should carefully discuss the difference between studies which showed positive effects of self-paced sport and studies which showed null effects from the aspect of the experimental design, task design, and participants’ characteristics.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIGILANCE CAPACITY AND PHYSICAL EXERCISE: A MIXED-EFFECTS MULTISTUDY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This brief report presents a mixed-effects analysis including data from seven studies (total N=361) that used the same measure of vigilance capacity. This manuscript is particularly clear and well written. The state of art is update and from my point of view the data analysis seems relevant.
Experimental design: This study, within ams and scope of the journal, aimed to examine whether cardiovascular fitness (VO2) and/or type of sport expertise (externally-paced and self-paced) could explain the association between the regular practice of exercise and vigilance capacity (reaction time RT from the first 5’ of a Psychomotor Vigilance Task).
Validity of the findings: The null effect of VO2 and the non-significant RT difference between self-paced exercise and the sedentary condition (well differentiated in terms of cardiovascular fitness) did not support the cardiovascular fitness hypothesis assuming that increased VO2, induced by regular exercise, is responsible for cognitive improvement. Interestingly, the present findings suggest that only externally-paced sport practice (which required rapid adaptation and response to the constantly varying exercise environment) affects vigilance in particular. The results of the present study open new perspectives related to cognitive improvement related to sport expertise, and to the potential benefit effect of regular perceptual and cognitive solicitations induced by physical activities.
Additional comments: I would like to congratulate the authors for this particularly noteworthy work and for the innovative perspectives that this study offers in the field of exercise and cognition. I am favorable to the publication of the present article in his current form without modifications.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VIGILANCE CAPACITY AND PHYSICAL EXERCISE: A MIXED-EFFECTS MULTISTUDY ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no major complaints.
Page 12, line 263/264: an unnecessary bracket need to be deleted.
Page 17, line 282: "electroencephalografic" should be corrected.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I think that the present results are interesting and worth sharing.
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: HIGH RESISTANCE TO CLIMATIC VARIABILITY IN A DOMINANT TUNDRA SHRUB SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: This article adds much needed data to improve understanding on vegetation dynamics in the Arctic under different scenarios of climate change. It is particularly good that you have 6 years of data, and an impressive number of plots and sites. The article is well written with good, clear English throughout. I do not find any major problems with the work, but offer some advice for minor changes to help improve the manuscript.

Line 20. Not sure why it is important to say ‘allelopathic dwarf shrub’ here, as it does not seem relevant to anything else in the abstract. If you want to allude to its role as a ‘niche constructor’ perhaps try and phrase it slightly differently. But this is just a suggestion.

66-71. This section about the importance of Empetrum as niche constructor species is very interesting and highlights its importance in the ecosystem. However it would be useful to have a bit more detail about its positive and negative effects. e.g. When you say  it ‘has been found to mediate the positive effects of increasing summer temperatures in plant community structure’ it would be useful to know how/by what mechanism. Similarly, how does it ‘reduce the recovery of tundra heathland’?

90. For the second hypothesis I find it a bit unnecessary to say ‘varying winter conditions’, as this is quite vague/unclear, and then immediately after you refer to freezing exposure and shallow snow. So I would recommend changing the sentence to something like ‘b) that freezing exposure (ref) and shallow snow cover (ref) can give shorter shoots…’.

108. Missing word. Should say ‘Empetrum thrives IN a wide range of habitats’.

111. Correct ‘in addition to be resistant’ to ‘in addition to being resistant’.

170. I think index needs a capital letter to start – Index.

190-199. Looking at figures 2,3 and 4, and reading the accompanying text in the results it is hard to know if there are any statistically significant differences between sites or years. I would make this clear in the text specifying significance if relevant, and/or in the figures with the use of asterisks or letters to denote differences.

205. Change ‘three times less’ to ‘three times fewer’.

227 and 229. Can you please specify Fig S2 a or b for extra clarity.

242-247. These results about the interaction between freezing days and GDD are very interesting and perhaps counter-intuitive, as it seems that with high GDD, there is a positive relationship between FD and berry production. I was hoping for some explanation of this finding in the discussion (such as in the section 304-311). As this is not simply that Empetrum is tolerant to freezing, but even that it has a benefit.
Please try to offer some account for why this might be, and possible implications this could have for berry production in light of possible changing winter conditions.  Is it that the freezing stimulates some kind of compensatory growth, as discussed earlier in the manuscript for shoot growth? Would this therefore be able to be maintained for year after year, or Empetrum resources would run out, and berry numbers would fall again?

266. Change ‘what suggests’ to ‘which suggests’.
305 and 316. Change ‘what could’ to ‘which could’.
307. Change ‘what could’ to ‘that could’ (or with a comma before, it can be ‘continentality, which could’.)
318. Comma not need between change and could.

329. Be careful, there is a full stop instead of a comma after ‘Furthermore’. Or perhaps you don’t need this word.

Fig. 3 caption. Be careful that there is a space after ‘years’ and between ‘of abiotic’.

Fig 4. Again check there is a space between ‘the climatic’. At least on the review version it seems not to have it. Also, I would increase font size of axes titles (numbers seem ok) and legend.

Fig. 5. The font size of predictor variables is small, and at the moment the growing degree days and other variables are all written over each other, so it is hard to read. Maybe use points with labels offset, or don’t put all the GDD labels on, as it is not very readable as it is.

Fig. 6. Also seems to be some words without spaces between, but am now thinking this is a problem with the formatting of the review version.

Fig S2. I know its “only” supporting information but I would recommend increasing font size on FigS2. Also it would be good to add a more informative title to each plot, so it can be seen easily which is Continental Index and which is sampling year, especially as these seem to appear in the opposite order in the text (lines 227-229). Perhaps change this around.

Yours sincerely,
Catherine Preece


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: HIGH RESISTANCE TO CLIMATIC VARIABILITY IN A DOMINANT TUNDRA SHRUB SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in scientifically appropriate English.

The data is presented in several figures, which mostly are appropriate. The description of what is shown in the graphs, however, could sometimes be improved. For instance, Figure 6 has eight panels, which are separated into two groups by berry/shoot growth. It is unclear from the figure label what the horizontal separation means, though, and even in the text I can roughly conclude what the categories must mean based on the interpretation, rather than come to the interpretation based on the meaning of the categories.

The literature cited is ample, though in some places better publications exist than the ones being cited, even though they may be older. A prime example of this is line 52: the two Myers-Smith papers cited here are a) a paper using satellite data and b) a paper studying shrubs across a treeline in Canada. There are papers discussing the effect of experimental warming on E. nigrum specifically, such as Parsons 1994 (J of Ecology 82(2) 307-318), which even does so in the Scandinavian subarctic.

The structure of the article is in the professional standard and appropriate.

The hypotheses are clearly stated, and are discussed in the Discussion.
Experimental design: The submitted article asks the question whether climate change will change the fitness and performance of Empetrum nigrum, a panarctic, ubiquitous dwarf shrub. Rather than the experimental approach that is often used to answer these questions, the authors use a gradient of continentality and year-on-year variation as a proxy for climate change. This is an important test to establish whether Empetrum nigrum, in the long run, will disappear or be outperformed by other shrub species as the arctic changes with changing climate.
Validity of the findings: I have a general issue with the use of “resistance” in this manuscript. The authors argue that E. nigrum is resistant to climate variation because there is always positive shoot growth. I would argue that there being positive shoot growth is a sign of E. nigrum being alive, rather than resistant to climate variation, and that in fact the correlation between GDD/freezing days and shoot growth suggests that E. nigrum does respond to climate change – if there was resistance, in my understanding there would not be a response to climate variation. This is not a flaw in the study per se and need not affect the manuscript beyond a simple rewording of the conclusion and relevant parts of the Discussion.
Additional comments: These are some specific comments based on the manuscript line numbers:

35: This is true, however, as you state in the next sentence, while warming occurs across all seasons, most warming has been shown to occur in winter and spring – I think this should be mentioned here (an old reference for this would be Serreze et al 2000, Climatic Change 46:159-207, although I’m sure more recent ones also exist).
58: I think more importantly, there are weaknesses to experimental warming/any ecosystem experiment that do not exist for a large-scale gradient such as the one you use here, so this is something worth mentioning here.
66 and ff: I am aware that colloquially, you would refer to E. nigrum as Empetrum, but in this case the correct scientific notation would be E. nigrum (or Empetrum sp if you would like to refer to the genus). This is an issue throughout the manuscript.
66: I am not entirely sure what this sentence means – how has E. nigrum mediated the positive effect of summer warming? You do not need to re-state your previous paper here, but this is a fairly unclear statement.
76: I think part of the problem is that even six years, which is an admirably long time for an experiment, is likely to be too little time to observe a complete die-back of one or more species, especially if you are measuring plants that, by definition, are there, rather than the ones that are not there. To a certain extent the nature of the study (the climate gradient) compensates for this, but here, too, you are basically stating that E.nigrum can still exist in the places where it was dominant six years ago, rather than that it necessarily maintains its competitive fitness.
86: Even if you define resistance as you do, the important question here surely will often not be whether a single species (in this case E. nigrum) can grow under varying climate conditions, but how the response which you are anticipating compares to that of other dominant species. Ie, will other shrubs outcompete Empetrum, which is slow growing as you state later in the article.
108: should read “E. nigrum thrives IN a wide range of habitats”  I assume.
94-113: I think this would be better merged with the Introduction. It seems to give the rationale for working with this particular organism, so it would be better suited there.
124-129: I am unsure why this is relevant – surely if you are monitoring herbivory (large-scale herbivores, that is), the interesting part here would be if the grazing pressure differs between sites, rather than which herbivores are present? (I may be missing something)
142: was there a standard for which shoot was selected (eg, apical, second from apical, etc)?
179: It would be worthwhile restating which variables these are specifically here.
183: is there a reason why site was not included as a random variable here? Was it included in the model at all elsewhere?
239: this is a very minor quibble, but I think this should read “we selected GDD+1C based on the AIC”…
266: “which suggests that…”
256-258 and 267: Something about this juxtaposition seems off to me; the point about ice encasement is an important one (especially since your gradient study may verify experimental findings, although this may be hard to prove considering you could not look at ice formation on the plants – this is not a criticism of the study, there is only so much time!), but you spend ten lines explaining why ice encasement may affect vegetation, before citing two papers that say experimentally it does not affect Empetrum nigrum, which is the only species you are interested in. Maybe rewriting this paragraph to make the experimental finding clearer earlier may work better.
305: “which could indicate”
316: “which could be advantageous”
318: It could, but only if E. nigrum is the only species that responds this way to an increase in GDD – if other species respond in the same way or even show a more pronounced response, then the result could be that E. nigrum is outperformed. I think this consideration of comparative competitiveness should be mentioned somewhere in the manuscript.

Overall, I think this is a study containing a lot of hard work and some valuable data, so the above points are hopefully useful for a possible revision. The manuscript may need, in my opinion, some clarifications, but no new data analysis or data.


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 GENES ENCODING SMALL HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS FROM BEMISIA TABACI AND EXPRESSION UNDER THERMAL STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In this paper, the authors isolated and characterized three sHSP family genes. Quantitative Real-time PCR analyses revealed the expression of three BtsHSPs genes under thermal stress. This study gives an important scenario to understand the effect of Bemisia tabaci acclimation. I suggest the manuscript will be accepted for publication after minor revision. Some mistakes have been presented.

In abstract, "In conclusion, our results show that B. tabaci sHSP genes have distinct regulatory roles in the physiology of B. tabaci under thermal stress." — this should be rephrased as "In conclusion, our results show that different B. tabaci sHSP genes show differential expression changes under thermal stress."

Line 57, “study” should be revised to studies.

Line 66, "have replaced by MED" => have been replaced.

Line 68–77, this section of the introduction, which provides the motivation for the present study, is very vaguely phrased ("There are a number of studies on the physiological and biochemical mechanisms of insect stress tolerance … many candidate genes related to temperature adaption and stress have been screened and identified in different insect species"). Please provide a more specific review of what is known about the roles of sHSPs in temperature adaptation in other insect species, since this is the subject of the current study.

Line 87, clarify whether the N numbers (120) are per temperature treatment, or across all temperatures.

Line 91, "Adults and pupae exposed to 26°C were included as a control." — ??: 26°C is one of the treatments (l.95 "exposed to a range of temperatures (-12, -10, -8, -6, 26, 39, 41, 43, and 45°C)") so why an additional 26°C control? Or is this referring to the same 26°C group?

Line 92, "Each treatment included four biological replications." Only here it becomes apparent that N=4, not N=120. N is the statistical sample size; pooling 120 whiteflies in a tube is not "N=120"; the statement on l.94 therefore needs to be rephrased as "cohorts of 120 adults or pupae", and it needs to be made explicit that N=4.

Line 99, an oligo(dT)18 primer 18 should be subscript.

Line 111, "ClustalX software" — needs reference.

Line 116, please cite the reference about MEGA v. 7.0.

Line 154, "The four resulting phylogenetic trees could be divided into two major clusters that were highly similar; thus, only the neighbor-joining tree is shown…" — this makes little sense as written (how can four trees give "two major clusters that were highly similar"?); please rephrase to explain fully.

In the section of Genomic Structure of Three Genes Encoding B. tabaci sHSPs, I found three B. tabaci sHSPs all lack introns, but you analyzed the position and size of the intron of three B. tabaci sHSPs. Please check it.

Line 176, "Melting curve analysis revealed the presence of a single, sharply defined peak…" — please include melting curves as supplemental data. Why was the identity of the qPCR products not confirmed by sequencing?

Line 197, "The previously reported…" needs references.


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 GENES ENCODING SMALL HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS FROM BEMISIA TABACI AND EXPRESSION UNDER THERMAL STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Bai et al. investigated genes encoding small heat shock proteins from Bemisia tabaci and expression under thermal stress. This study is designed well and suitable for publication in this journal. I just have some minor comments:

1.	Line 103 the sentence of “Characterization of B. tabaci Genome” should be revised.
2.	mRNA relative expression in Figures 4-6 is not correct and should be revised.


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 GENES ENCODING SMALL HEAT SHOCK PROTEINS FROM BEMISIA TABACI AND EXPRESSION UNDER THERMAL STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Your introduction needs focus on sHSPs of insects and needs more detail.
1 I suggest that you improve the description at lines 54-58. There are a lot of works with agricultural insects，multiple small heat-shock protein genes have been identified in Plutella xylostella, Chilo suppressalis, Dialeurodes citri, Spodoptera litura.
2 The sentence you use in Lines 64-71 is not closely related to the subject.
3 Temperatures in Figures 4-6 should labeled with ℃,and Figure 3 is not necessary.
4 Only 3 sHSPs genes were isolated from Bemisia tabaci, which is less than other insects. I suggest the authors explained it in part Discussion.
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: BIOCHAR PREPARED AT DIFFERENT PYROLYSIS TEMPERATURES AFFECTS UREA-NITROGEN IMMOBILIZATION AND N2O EMISSIONS IN PADDY FIELDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The well written and presented paper addresses the effects of two corn straw derived biochar on nitrogen use efficiencies and gaseous loss in a paddy rice growing pot trial using various rates of urea fertilization. Given previous results of biochar amendments in rice growing and their effects on N2O emissions, it is doubtless of value to investigate the underlying mechanisms and effects of different biochar characteristics.
Experimental design: see under section 3
Validity of the findings: Despite the importance of the subject, the experiment has unfortunately three important flaws impacting the value of the study.
1)	The biochar was produced in a low-tech laboratory set-up where a sealed, the biomass containing container was heated to the respective pyrolysis temperature and eventually cooled down to room temperature before opening. Due to this procedure, the biochar pores and surfaces are agglutinated and clogged with condensed pyrolysis gases. This leads to low specific surface area as well as high PAH and VOC contents of the resulting solid product. Such a biochar (which would certainly not pass IBI or EBC thresholds) cannot be considered standard biochars and are likely to cause bio-toxic effects. As the intention of the experiment was to compare the effects of a low and high temperature biochar, the biochars used in the experiment cannot be considered representative for biochars made at HTTs of 400°C, respectively, 700°C.
2)	NH4 analyses of the biochar amended soils were done after single 2M KCl extractions. However, as shown in several studies (Hagemann et al., 2017; Haider et al., 2017; Kammann et al., 2015), serial extractions are necessary to correctly analyze the mineral N in biochar or biochar containing samples. The large underestimation of NH4 in the soil system directly impacts the conclusions of the study (N-retention, N-balance).
3)	The authors used very high amounts of biochar (21 t/ha, 63 t/ha) which are irrelevant for any practical application in paddy rice (at costs of at least 10,000 / 30,000 USD per ha). For scientific purposes, such high application amounts might still be interesting e.g. to reveal underlying mechanisms. However, the experimental set-up did not allow any mechanistic interpretation and only showed pure effects.
Additional comments: For the above reasons, the reviewer estimates the scientific value of the manuscript as rather restrained though the execution of the pot trial and the redaction of the manuscripts follows good standards.

More comments can be found directly in the PDF version of the manuscript.


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: BIOCHAR PREPARED AT DIFFERENT PYROLYSIS TEMPERATURES AFFECTS UREA-NITROGEN IMMOBILIZATION AND N2O EMISSIONS IN PADDY FIELDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article reports on a 3 way full factorial experiment rice pot experiment using 15N-urea as fertilizer.  The most interesting findings of the article are that biochar can decrease both the yield and the losses as N2O.
English is generally good.
Literature is up to date, but the literature on biochar and nitrogen is very vast and I suggest the authors to review their citations to include either only review papers or studies that have been conducted in a very similar environment, for example limit the citations to biochar in rice fields. For example at some point the authors cite a study from Gonzaga 2018. Positive and negative effects of biochar from coconut husks, orange bagasse and pine wood chips on maize (Zea mays L.) growth and nutrition, to justify a decrease in biomass, I am sure you can find a study that fit better your case.
Raw data are shared but some part of the statistical tests are in chinese
The hypotheses are not very clear, specially the first one. It would be specially important that the authors describe exactely the mechanisms behind the hypotheses that they want to test.
The results are interesting, specially the one about the recovery of N in the plants and the N2O emission factor. The experiment is well conducted.
Experimental design: The research is original, the research question is well defined (effect of biochar on several environmental parameters, like emission factor, etc) though the hypotheses is not really well defined (see previous point and general comments).
The methods are clearly described, except for: biochar surface area and porosity, and soil porosity, soil capillary porosity, and soil air filled porosity.
It would have been great if the authors would have collected leached water and measured 15N in leachates. The authors define N loss all the 15N that was not recovered at the end of the study, this heavily rely on the assumption that there are no mistakes and all the 15N applied is recovered in one pool or another (excluded a little of N2O that cannot be captured). The current setup is acceptable, but if 15N recovery was estimated from all pools (including leached) the confidence in the results would be much stronger.
Validity of the findings: The data are correctly analyzed, I do disagree with their conclusion that:
"biochar application could enhance base fertilizer 15N retention in the soil over the rice growing season", because this is not the conclusion I would draw from table 4.
The data are robust and statistically sound.
The upfront delineation of clear hypotheses would be very helpful in the presentation of the results in a more orderly fashion. Sometimes authors attempt to describe the results by reporting individual interaction treatments (e.g. the B700 compared to B400 at 2.1%w and 210 Kg N ha-1), which makes it very hard to follow for the reader, who is more likely to be interested only in questions like: does biochar reduce N2O ?
Additional comments: ABSTRACT
The introduction of the abstract is a bit generic, I suggest the authors talk more specifically about the hypotheses that exist in literature on the effect of biochar on teh N cycle.
-"Low-(B400) and high-temperature (B700) biochar treatment reduced the N loss rate by up to 66.42 and 68.90%, respectively, following co-application of 2.1% biochar and 168 kg ha−1 N fertilizer.": I would try to simplify the reporting of this result, cause you have 18 possible combinations: 3rates * 2temperature * 3Nitrogen, so why report specifically about these two? You could report for example, Biochar reduced N loss by ~67%, whereas N addition increased N loss by xx%. I think for the readers it is more useful to report about the two factors tested than about the individual combinations (in a nutshell, go for the big target!).
-"Compared with the non-biochar control, 2.1% biochar plus[...]": substitute 2.1% biochar with "an addition rate of biochar of 2.1% w/w"
-"biochar had multiple effects on fertilizer N recovery": a bit vague, try to report only on the most important effects (e.g. reduced N2O emission) and report also the direction of the effect (increased, reduced...).
INTRODUCTION
"To increase the production of grains, fertilizer nitrogen (N) application has increased." : can you report a specific citation for increase in N fertilization in Rice in the region of the study?
"In China, the average is below 40%, indicating that nearly 40-50% of N input is lost": 1)The study from Vitousek reports on a specific case of corn-wheat rotation in North China, a bit far from your case (Rice) 2)These numbers are large scale and very specific, so indicate which of the two papers (Liu or Vitousek) is the source.
"However, meeting the demands for increased food production while minimizing adverse environmental impacts through improved N recovery remains a challenge (Fixen & West, 2002)." Why do you use the adverb "however", there's no contrast with your previous sentence. Also this is really broad introduction, narrow it down to the point.
"The application of biochar is considered an effective way of mitigating the negative impacts of agricultural production, improving nutrient uptake and conditioning reactive N in agricultural
systems (Sun et al., 2017; Woolf et al., 2010)." Through which mechanism can biochar achieve this? As it is now the statement is a bit broad.
"(Initiative, 2012;Lehmann & Joseph, 2009)" review format of citation.
"Biochar has therefore received increasing attention due to its contribution to agricultural practices": which agricultural practices?
"had a more positive effect on soil N than high-temperature biochar because of the more stable aromatic structure and higher hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) contents.": 1) can you expand the link between the aromatic structure and positive effect on soil N? 2) What do you mean with positive effect on soil N? Does it increase available N? Does it decrease losses?
"Three levels of stable isotope 15N-traced fertilizer" reformulate as it is now it seems you had three treatment with different isotopic labels.
"pyrolysis temperature indirectly affects soil N retention for plant uptake and rice yield by affecting the quality of biochar": I suggest you elaborate on 1)The effect of pyrolysis temperature on biochar quality. Which quality are you considering (e.g. C concentration, C/N, ...) ? In which direction do you expect the change and what mechanism underlies this effect? 2) Retention in the soil or in the plant? Also here why? Hypotheses 2 seems more strict and falsifiable, even though also here the underlying mechanisms is not reported.
MATERIALS
2% w/w of biochar seems a lot it means approx 60 t biochar/ha. Considering how voluminous charcoal is, how feasible is this application rate?
Did you have gravel at the bottom of your pots?
"Basic properties of straw-derived biochar samples": Can you report on how the basic properties were measured, specially porosity and capillary porosity.
"The soil was classified as silt loam according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil taxonomy." Silt-loam is a texture, not a class of soil taxonomy.
"Annual precipitation is concentrated, and the annual air temperature differs (Sui et al., 2016)": annual air temperature differs, a bit vague.
I assume that you did not measure NO3 because the soil was mostly underwater (but the first 5 cm not, so 1/5 of the soil was areated), if this is the case report it explicitely here as you do also in the discussion.
"The soil remained flooded to a depth of 5 cm except for aeration at the top-tillering stage to control effective tillering." At a first read I understood that the soil was waterlogged below the first 5 cm of soil, at a second reading I understood that the soil was completely waterlogged except for 5 cm of water. How did you maintain waterlogging? Did you add water regularly? Please report it.
RESULTS
Here the author consider loss all what is not recovered, under the assumption that there was no mistake in the analysis of the data or in the handling of the experiment this is correct. Nonetheless my trust in the results would be much stronger if the authors would have a measure of the 15N recovery that include the leached N, and ideally also of the 15N lost as N2O.
Please report the significance of the results. If the differences are not significant do not report them, unless they are very important and specify although not significant.
The results are very difficult to navigate in the way they are reported now, because they often report comparison between individual treatment, e.g. B400 decreased compared to B700 at 2.1% the 15N uptake.
I think that the reader is interested mainly in the two hypothesis that you reported and in the effect of two factors (biochar rate, pyrolysis temperature): so I would suggest reporting the significant effects highlighted in bold in table 2, otherwise it becomes nearly impossible navigate through the 3*2*3 combinations of treatment.
"reached 316.03 and 306.00 mg pot−1" Can you report it to what would be equivalent in ton/ha? Or percent of applied fertilizer?
Interestingly your N2O emissions tend to decrease over time (maybe until tillering you had less water?) and there are no spikes after N fertilization events (fig 3), I would consider commenting this in the discussion.
"The average emission factor under high-biochar treatment (C2.1) was 0.14%, which was significantly lower than that under all other biochar treatments": So I am a bit lost with the units. I think as a rule of thumb that the emission factor used by IPCC is 1% (i.e. if you apply 200Kg N ha you lose 2 Kg N-N2O, Grace 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/SR16091). In the result section you report 0.14% in table, i.e. much lower than expected. In the table 5 the results are 2 orders of magnitude lower than that (maybe those are fractions and not % as reported in the column heads?).
"Following biochar application, fertilizer N can be lost as NH4+-N": but the study from Cheng 2017 that you cite two lines below report the opposite: "The accumulate NH4 +-N in the leachate from the control treatment was 11.08 mg, which was significant higher (p > 0.05) than those in the biochar amended soil"
"however, the amount is very small compared with NO3–-N, and therefore, the nitrate content in paddy soil is very low and barely detectable (Cheng et al., 2017) .": but if the leached NO3 is high than also the soil NO3 must be high the NO3 must be sitting in soil before it was leached out, right? Also, I coudl not find any measurement of NO3 in Cheng et al. 2017.
"In our study, a lower soil NH4+-N concentration was observed under high-temperature biochar treatment (B700) than low-temperature treatment (B400) with 0.7% biochar application only (Fig. 2).": This does not seem to be significant as B400 is labelled cd and B700 cde. Am I right?
"The difference in the NH4+-N sorption ability of biochar is thought to be due to (1) differences in the ash content between biochar samples prepared at different temperatures; and (2)
differences in the amount of certain functional groups on the biochar surface (Zheng et al., 2013)." If the difference is not significant I would discuss it in this section, as it can be misleading for the reader.
"Team CW, Pachauri RK, Meyer LA. 2014" check the citation format.
"In our study, N2O emissions were higher under B400 treatment than B700 treatment (Fig. 3), suggesting that the enhanced N immobilization and NH4+ sorption ability of low-temperature (400oC) biochar increases N2O emissions (Clough et al., 2013).": Or the fact that B400 had more N content (but who knows in which form) may have an impact on the N2O emission.
"Complementation experiments": revise english.
Line 337-344: It's a bit vague, I'd consider removing it.
"(1) the high application rate of biochar, which increased soil pH and therefore resulted in a decrease in nutrient availability (Gonzaga et al., 2018)" : this could be tested if you have some soil left.
"the large surface area of biochar, which immobilized inorganic N in soil." But I don't see big differences in NH4 in soil at teh end of the season (figure 2).
"These growth improvements could be explained by an increase in soil C": I think you should focus on explaining the differences between your results and theirs, I would limit the speculation on explaining their results (also I am sure that adding biochar increased SOC also in your experiment).
"Crop biomass directly affects grain yield.": I am not sure I see the point of this statement.
"These findings suggest that our low-temperature biochar has a larger surface area and lower porosity compared with high-temperature biochar, as explained by the adsorption of organic molecules by the biochar surface, affecting soil pH and reducing rice yield." I feel this has been already discussed.
"This study confirms that[..]requires evaluation." : I would focus the conclusion on the finding from this study.
"The results suggest that biochar application could enhance base fertilizer 15N retention in the soil over the rice growing season": Judging from the standar error of the 15N loss rate of table  4. I don't think you can state that.
"the biochar effects were not proportional to pyrolysis temperature" Considering that you only had two temperatures I don't see how you can assess proportionaly or linearity in the effect of pyrolysis temperature.


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: BIOCHAR PREPARED AT DIFFERENT PYROLYSIS TEMPERATURES AFFECTS UREA-NITROGEN IMMOBILIZATION AND N2O EMISSIONS IN PADDY FIELDS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors prepared a sophisticated and thorough rebuttal. They replied detailed to all comments and suggestions. The manuscript improved decisively.

The main and only problem of the paper remains the low and non-representative quality of the two biochars as discussed in my earlier reviewer comments. The authors describe the production process more detailed which is helpful. They refer to a publication by Jian et al. (2018) to proclaim low PAH contamination of their biochar, however, Jian et al. (2018) did not use analytical methods adapted to the biochar matrix (as described in the IBI and EBC standards as well as in the literature). However, as Jian et al. (2018) was accepted for publication in 2018, the authors may certainly justify the use of their biochar in the experiment, although the eventual influence on the presented results is important. Here, the absolute PAH content is of lesser importance than the fact that the porous structure is apparently clogged by condensed pyrolytic gases (causing very low BET surfaces for the low and the high-temperature biochars).
However, as the authors added a discussion on the biochar quality and made the reader aware that pyrolytic condensates and PAH may cause some of the observed effects, I think that the paper fulfills now the exigencies of the journal and can be recommended for publication.
Experimental design: see my first review of the paper and above section 1
Validity of the findings: see my first review of the paper and above section 1
Additional comments: see my first review of the paper and above section 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: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF 50 YEARS OF CORAL DISEASE RESEARCH VISUALIZED THROUGH THE SCOPE OF NETWORK THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All basic reporting is to standard and no major issues are presented.
Experimental design: The experimental work is well laid out and clear
Validity of the findings: Findings are valid and interesting
Additional comments: Overall;
This study undertakes an assembly of the literature associated with coral disease investigations then conducts a network analysis exercise to identify what diseases have been studied the most and more importantly what maybe understudied and therefore require more attention in further studies.
The approach is interesting and novel and I have no major concerns with the study. It is laid out logically and the construction of the manuscript is solid.  It is acceptable for publication with only minor corrections.
The one major element that could be added however in my view - is stronger emphasis on the take home message(s).  This approach is most valuable to the scientific field if identifying what are the aspects of coral disease research that should be the focus for future studies.  Previous studies have highlighted microscopic histological approaches to link tissue disease signs with the gross lesion characteristics.  This current network analysis identified some limitations in the research to date; but does not emphasize strongly enough what should be the future research focus areas.  When reading the manuscript these take home messages are just skimmed over.  For example linking studies focused on immune systems to some coral disease maybe a recommendation out of the study.  Hence I would recommend perhaps in the concluding paragraph a list (perhaps dot point list) of the 4 to 6 focal areas of research that should be undertaken to progress coral disease understanding – that is directly informed from this network theory approach.

Minor Points;

•	Abstract line 3: remove “in Order”  Start the sentence as “To gain a better insight…
•	Introduction Line 2:  this sentence should maybe qualified as for some areas;  i.e. Not all reefs and regions have been heavily impacted by disease unless you are including Bleaching (which be definition is a disease I know).  However in this context I believe the term disease is not referring to bleaching mortality.
•	Methods line 48:  be sure to make available the papers included in this study; it is says here this is provided as supplementary materials but I could not find this file in the submitted document (unless I missed it).
•	Line 89: Agin remove “In Order” not required.
•	Table 1:  Is the Northern Sector of the GBR separate from the central and Southern regions. Why is the  Central and Southern GBR grouped but not the Northern?  Just need a justification or some further information on the Bioregions?
•	Line 164: infection perhaps instead of “affection”