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 RELIABILITY OF VERTICAL JUMP TESTS BETWEEN THE VERTEC AND MY JUMP PHONE APPLICATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present a well-written study on the reliability of MyJump vs. Vertec during a vertical jump. I have a number of concerns that, upon being addressed, can improve improve the quality of the paper.

General Comments
- Because consistency is high but absolute agreement is low, I think the reader can benefit greatly from a couple of things. 1) Bland-Altman plots with limits of agreement, so they can visualize the absolute error/bias and its spread, and 2) a regression equation for Fig 1, so that practitioners may "convert" Vertec to MyJump estimates and vice versa.
- There are some issues with reference formatting/names. Please ensure all citations are correct.

Introduction
- The introduction, although informative, is very lengthy and not all of the information is needed to provide the reader with context and a rationale. As such, I think many parts of the introduction can be pared down and streamlined. For example, the importance and use of the VJ, including in sport, can be reduced to one paragraph. To streamline things, I suggest "grouping" references to support more general statements.
L157–158 - Please refine this statement; for example, "reliability, in terms of absolute agreement between the measurement tools, would be low, with a detectable, systematic difference."

Methods
L167–169 - This sentence is difficult to read. I suggest creating a table with participant characteristics.
- Throughout, please change "weight" to "body mass" and "gender" to "sex"
L193 – Please rewrite this equation as (gt^2)/8, where g = 9.81 m/s^2. This is not only cleaner, but will allow the readers to better understand its origins rather than having a number to the hundred-thousandths place
- Please clarify that statistical assumptions are met; that is, normality and homoscedasticity

Discussion
L291 - Please remove "to the real world"
L331 - You can also add that you compared data from a single jump, so between-jump reliability or construct validity of their maximum jump height may not matter.
Experimental design: The focus on "lower limb power" in this study goes against a number of number of expert recommendations, in that vertical jump performance is not a measure of power, but rather is a measure of impulse (see below for references). I recommend dropping power from the paper.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19675467
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26529527
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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 RELIABILITY OF VERTICAL JUMP TESTS BETWEEN THE VERTEC AND MY JUMP PHONE APPLICATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is written clearly and concisely – well done to the authors. The introduction shows good depth of knowledge of background research and published literature.

You make solid points in your discussion – I fully agree on your recommendations of using either My Jump or the Vertec. However, please provide regression equations from your data to estimate one from the other. This would provide readers & practitioners with an accurate equation to compare their population to others, even if they use different measurement tools (Vertec or My Jump).

A Bland Altman Plot would also provide a useful visual for readers to interpret the difference between Vertec & My Jump. Consider plotting the Vertec, and/or the average of Vertec & My Jump on the x-axis (1 or 2 plots).
Experimental design: In your introduction, you described differences in male and female athletes for vertical jump performance – you should in turn split your data into male and female samples and then run the same reliability analysis on the split groups.
I would also like to see if there are differences in reliability for higher and lower level athletes. All this data appears to be in your data bank, so should not require a huge amount of further analysis.
Validity of the findings: It appears you have 2 very large outliers in your data set. Are you sure these are correct – given how well related all other data points are, these seem very unique?

There are some missing data points in your data set – can you explain these? Do you think it is best to remove these participants altogether? For example, participant 88 has 2 jumps missing from the app. The difference between the participants max jumps is 15cm, yet the highest jump was achieved in a trial where there is no app data.
Additional comments: Lines 65-66 could read better. Recommend something like “key component for athleticism to determine performance…”
Line 76 – remove ‘the research’ prior to literature.
Line 86 – replace ‘last’ with ‘lastly’
Line 207 – replace ‘20s’ with ’20 seconds’.
Lines 209-210 – remove this sentence beginning with “All jump trials...”


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 RELIABILITY OF VERTICAL JUMP TESTS BETWEEN THE VERTEC AND MY JUMP PHONE APPLICATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - I thank the authors for their thorough response and edits. I have (mostly) brief comments that I feel need to be addressed before the paper is ready for publication.
- The authors' response regarding the inclusion of "peak power" in this study is appreciated. However, beyond my concern regarding its validity for actually measuring power, there are pure statistical concerns with running ICCs on these measures. Specifically, a regression is used that is a function of both VJ height (differs between measures) and body mass (identical between measures). The constant offset (y-int) is not important as it has no associated variance. However, the body mass will inflate the variance identically in both measures, such that it will inflate the ICCs. That is, it will create shared variance. This can be shown both mathematically (using propagation of error and the ICC formulae) and pragmatically via simulation (example below).

#######################
# Simulation (R code for one example):
library(DescTools)
x1 <- rnorm(150,0,20)
x2 <- x1 + rnorm(150,0,20)
ICC(data.frame(x1,x2)) # shows ICC without a random offset added (akin to VJ)

# If we generate a random offset (akin to adding body mass)
x3 <- rnorm(150,0,30)
ICC(data.frame(x1+x3,x2+x3))
# Note the ICCs are much greater. How much they increase will be a function of the relative variances of x3 to x1 and x2. The larger the x3 variance, the more it will inflate the ICCs given x1 and x2 variance components.
########################

If you insist on keeping peak power (I defer to the editor here), then I think this is worth mentioning in your discussion or limitations: The use of a regression to estimate peak power inherently inflates ICC estimates due to the addition of shared variance.

Introduction
- This is much more succinct. Thank you.

Methods
- L149–151: I think you can get rid of this sentence and just reference Table 1 at the end of the sentence on L149. This would make things easier to read.
- L154: Please include the IRB study ID
- L220: Please add "systematic" before "differences"
- L221: Please add limits of agreement to the BA plots. Depending what they are, you may wish to discuss them when interpreting your results

Results
- L228: No need to redefine ICC and CI here
- L249: When referencing "statistical significance", could you please prefix "significant" with "statistically" (changing adverbial forms as appropriate)? This is to differentiate practical from statistical significance.

Discussion
- L308–309: What are "peak power" calculations an ideal measure of? Please clarify, bearing in mind the limitations of the measure.

Conclusion
- L339–343: You may wish to mention that the provided regressions can improve/correct for this bias

Figures
- Please add limits of agreement to the BA plots
Experimental design: n/a
Validity of the findings: n/a
Additional comments: n/a


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 RELIABILITY OF VERTICAL JUMP TESTS BETWEEN THE VERTEC AND MY JUMP PHONE APPLICATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the addition of regression equations should aid practitioners in comparing data, if needed.
Experimental design: The Bland-Altman plots really help visualise your findings, good work.
Validity of the findings: I have no strong preference - it is clear you have a logical process for cleaning data and the outliers must be from your population as you have pointed out. No need to further amend.
Additional comments: Thank you for addressing my previous 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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper forms a coherent publication; it is clear and generally well-written (but see General comments for some suggested improvements in style/terminology). The structure of the manuscript is accurate and the introduction provides an appropriate context. The illustrations are relevant and appropriately labelled (though I would recommend to include the exact posterior probability values in Fig. 3). The relevant literature is cited.
Experimental design: The research presented here is certainly original, and falls within the scope of the journal. The investigation has been appropriately conducted and the methods are accurately described.
Validity of the findings: The authors' conclusion that their plant represents a new genus and species is well-supported, both by molecular and morphological data. However, some modifications are needed in the genus and species descriptions, and in the discussion of generic characters (see General comments). I will not comment on the chemistry, which is outside my area of expertise.
Additional comments: This paper is of great interest for botany, and may be accepted for publication, but significant revision is required, particularly concerning the following points.

The corolla tube of the new genus is described as "dimorphic" (line 29 & Table 1) but this term is clearly incorrect, as it implies two different types of flowers. The correct term for a corolla tube with a narrow basal portion and an abruptly widening upper one is "campanulate" (meaning literally bell-shaped, as e.g. in a Campanula flower). The inflorescences of the new genus are repeatedly described as "many-flowered", but in fact there are only 1-4(-6) flowers per inflorescence, which is not that many.

In the introduction, the authors report that "botanical exploration, discovery and publication of new species [in Guinea] appeared to have nearly stopped after Independence in 1960. Those few species that were published in the period 1960–2010 were based on specimens collected in the French Colonial period, e.g. Phyllanthus felicis Jean F.Brunel (1987) and Clerodendrum sylviae J.-G.Adam (1974)." This is not entirely true, first because Guinea became independent in 1958 (not 1960), and second because Stanislaw Lisowski made important collections in the country from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, based on which several new species were described - for example Pseudoprosopis bampsiana Lisowski, Mikaniopsis camarae Lisowski, or Bacopa lisowskiana Mielcarek.

The authors list Dissotis controversa (A. Chev. & Jacq.-Fél.) Jacq.-Fél. among the endemics of Mt Gangan, but this species has been reduced to varietal rank, as Melastomastrum theifolium (G.Don) A.Fern. & R.Fern. var. controversum (A. Chev. & Jacq.-Fél.) Jacq.-Fél. (Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Ser. 3, Bot. 17: 71, 1975). The other endemics listed are good species.

The genus Karima is listed among recent discoveries in Guinea, but is not a very pertinent example here, since it is relatively widespread outside the country, and its only species was discovered more than a century ago (though it was misplaced in the large genus Croton).

The discussion of diagnostic characters between Kindia and Leptactina (lines 307-318, and Table 1) needs some modifications. The pollen, and the corolla tube shape and internal indumentum, are clear differences between the two genera. The colleter exsudate is another difference, which is mentioned in the text but surprisingly omitted from Table 1 - please include it there! No differences in the seeds are claimed, but there appear to be some: the seeds of Kindia are bicoloured, while those of Leptactina, as far as I know, are all black. On the other hand, some characters are more variable in Leptactina than implied by the authors: for example, the style arms of Leptactina are not always divergent at anthesis (see the excellent illustration of L. pynaertii in Flore du Gabon vol. 17);  the stamen insertion is sub-basal in L. arborescens, as in Kindia; the calyx tube of L. papalis is well-developed; the staminal connective appendage is, as far as I remember, not always present in Leptactina (check in particular L. arborescens) and I am not sure the pollen presenter of Leptactina is always hairy.

It is also claimed (lines 313-315) that  "The new Rubiaceae from Mt Gangan differs from all other genera of Pavetteae by having many-flowered axillary inflorescences", but in fact, some species of Pavetta do have many-flowered axillary inflorescences - for example P. mayumbensis Bremek.

The generic and specific description are partly redundant; to limit this, either the former can be shortened, or the two descriptions combined into one (which is relatively common practice in the case of monospecific genera).

Some discrepancies between the generic/specific description and the illlustrations (Fig. 1 & 4) have been noted, and it is especially important to check and correct them:
- in the generic description, the corolla lobes are described as "elliptic-triangular" but Fig. 1 shows them to be broadly ovate and apiculate at apex.
- the bracts are described as "cupular, 2, sheathing, with two large and two small lobes" in the generic description, and "cupular, 2, outer (proximal) sheathing the smaller inner (distal), 3.5–4 by 5–7 mm, large lobes oblong-elliptic 4.5–6.5 by 2.5 mm, short lobes triangular 1–2 by 2 mm" in the species description. Actually, Fig. 4H shows four bracts in a single row, fused together at base.
- in the species description the corolla is described as "white, cylindrical, 4–4.5 cm long, 2–2.3 cm wide at mouth" but on Fig. 4G it appears to be significantly narrower, judging from the scale bar (it is also unclear whether the size of 4–4.5 cm long refers to the whole corolla, or to the tube only).
- the inner surface of the corolla is described as "glabrous in proximal 2.2–2.4 cm, distal part of tube with thinly scattered hairs 0.1–0.2 mm long, 30–40 % cover". Actually, Fig. 4I shows a ring of hairs near the base, and no indumentum in the distal part of the tube - either the description or the illustration needs to be corrected.

Some parts of the specific description are not structured in a very logical way, particularly as far as the leaves are concerned: it is common practice to describe first the petiole, then the leaf blade (shape, size, base, apex, upper surface, lower surface) and then the venation (midrib, secondary veins, tertiary veins).

The disk is described as "adnate to base of corolla tube", but I am doubtful about this - it would be unique in Rubiaceae, where the disk is normally free from the corolla tube, though included in it.

Other comments and corrections of lesser importance have been made in the text of 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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See attached PDF
Experimental design: See attached PDF
Validity of the findings: See attached PDF
Additional comments: See attached PDF


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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written by native English speakers. There are no typographical errors although there are some small mistakes the authors missed during the rereading of the msc. These are indicated in the annotated msc.
The authors have good knowledge of the study site and the new species they describe. They cite most of the appropriate references. One reference is missing from the list and one reference listed is not cited in the text, though. See annotated msc for details.
Some additions as to the origin of the materials used in the molecular study have been added. These data are available on herbarium websistes such as Tropicos.

The structure of the article is clear and the figures and tables are all needed.
The manuscript certainly deserves publication in PeerJ.

The structure of the manuscript is good. But at some points the msc is rather exhaustive, notably in the introduction and the Material and methods section
-Botanical exploration and new species discovery in Guinea: all the recently described new species of the region are given in full and all the references are cited (all references of Kew authors). I would suggest this part is shortened. Three examples of new species is surely more than enough.
-Mt Gangan: a Tropical Important Plant Area: a detailed description of the study site is given. Some of this text is copied word for word in the taxonomic treatment (Ecology). Changing this somewhat would be better.
-Material and methods: is it really necessary to cite a reference for the way a specimen is collected in the field?

I have two main concerns about this msc.
1. the species description of Kindia gangan: This description is very, very exhaustive. Many details are unnecessary because most botanists would never measure/describe certain of the organs the authors measure/describe, e.g. the width of midrib on upper and lower leaf surface, the pubescence cover of the three parts of the midrib on the upper leaf surface, the width of the peduncle, the diameter of the internodes, the shape of the apex of the colleters, the width and depth of the disc, etc. These details are only useful if they are also known for other species that could possibly be confused with K. gangan or if they can be used to differentiate the new genus from Leptactina. But these details are unknown for other species. They make the description difficult to read and interpret. The authors also unnecessarily describe certain characters,
e.g. subshrub, multistemmed from base (but this is the definition of a shrub)
e.g. secondary nerves curving near the margin and looping towards the leaf apex and uniting with the nerve above (but this is the definition of brochidodromous)
To bring structure the authors use "." and ",". They only rarely use ";" but this could really help the reader to separate the different parts of the description. Removing the unnecessary details and restructuring the description should be mandatory before acceptance of the article for publication.
There are a few mistakes in the description: stems completely sheathed in persistent dark brown stipules, 5–6(–35) cm long. This length is certainly wrong. The authors also cite the size of the stamens c. 1.5 by 0.1 mm; according to the line drawing, this is wrong and should rather be 0.6 x 0.1 cm. Please check.
For me, the length and width of the corolla tube is confusing in the description: The authors write: Corolla white, cylindrical, 4–4.5 cm long, 2–2.3 cm wide at mouth; with two distinct sections; proximal section slender, 6 by 2 mm; distal section of corolla tube abruptly wider, 2.6 by 1.4 cm. What does 2.6 by 1.4 cm stand for? Is 2.6 the length of the distal section? In that case, 2.6 +0.6 is not 4-4.5 cm. What does 1.4 cm stand for? Is this the width of the distal part? This is different from 2-2.3 cm wide given above.

2. The comparison with the genus Leptactina is not always complete/correct. This is apparent in Table 1 and in the discussion.
Discussion
-“the difference in ratio of calyx tube:lobe (calyx tube well-developed and conspicuous in the new taxon, versus absent or minute in Leptactina s.l.).” There is always a calyx tube in Leptactina. And the calyx tube is very well-developed and much longer than the lobes in L. papalis.
-The authors call the inflorescence of K. gangan many-flowered in this part of the discussion. However 1-4(-6) flowers per inflorescence is pauciflorous in the Pavetteae which can have up to 250 flowers in many-flowered inflorescences.
-Copious colleter exudate is present in the Madagascan Pavetteae genus Robbrechtia (De Block 2003). It is also present in several other Pavetteae genera but this has not been published.
Table 1
-The pollen in Leptactina are (3-)4 colporate, not just 4-colporate
- The corolla tube in Leptactina is narrow but widens somewhat at the throath in the region where the stamens are included.
- De Block & Robbrecht (1989) cite AI as 0.39-0.68; where does your value come from?
- I would suggest splitting up the character of the position of stigma and anthers. In Leptactina the stigma is usually found at the level of the throath but rarely much deeper in the corolla tube, e.g. in L. epinyctios and see other examples in Puff et al. (1996). The stamens are always found in the upper part of the corolla tube, often with the tips excluded.
- Corolla tube length: breadth ratio
The authors cite (15-)20-25:1 for Leptactina. This is true in most species, but some species have short corolla tubes, e.g. L. arborescens. In those species, the ratio could be as low as 5:1 (see e.g. Hallé 1970)
As for Kindia gangan, the authors cite 3:1.  According to the middle photo below in the habit photographs the ratio should be 2:1 rather than 3:1. And this is also the case according to the description: tube  4–4.5 cm long, 2–2.3 cm wide at mouth.
-The outside (abaxial surface) of the stigma lobes in Leptactina is usually, but not always, hairy
-Please cite references for the characters of Leptactina if not observed by yourselves.

The authors do not mention the colouring on the inside of the corolla tube and the base of the corolla lobes (also on the inside), which is spotted with reddish-brown spots. This character is certainly correlated with the shape of the corolla tube but deserves mentioning in the species description. Also, all Leptactina species have an all-white corolla (inside and outside).
The authors mention that the calyx is persistent on the fruit. However, the fruit picture seems to suggest otherwise. A non-persistent calyx on the fruit would also distinguish the new genus from Leptactina.
The authors never mention the fact that a subshrub habit is rather common in Leptactina. While there are no cliff-dwelling species (as far as known), it would be interesting to discuss the relative high occurrence of dwarfy shrubs in this genus (in the whole clade II). Examples are L. angolensis, L. pretrophylax, L. benguelensis, etc.
-Did the authors notice any flower scent while collecting the plants?

References:
- De Block P. (2003) Robbrechtia, a new Rubiaceae genus from Madagascar. Syst. Bot. 28: 145-156.
- Puff C., Robbrecht E., Buchner R. & De Block P. (1996) Survey of secondary pollen presentation in the Rubiaceae. Proceedings of the second international Rubiaceae conference. Op. Bot. Belg. 7: 369 402.
Experimental design: The experimental design for the description of a new species is not exhaustive. There are no great experiments to be done. The methods of the authors and the data presented by them is adequate. Their ecological knowledge of the species is a good bonus. Most new species are described from herbarium material. Here, a detailed study gives good information about habitat and population size.

The chemical profiling of the colleter exudate is superfluous in the context of describing a new species. However, not much is known about the colleter exudate of Rubiaceae and it would be good for this data to be published, so I would not object to it being included in the paper.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid. This is certainly a new species from an interesting area in Western Africa. I think the description of this new species in a new genus is valid. Publishing this new taxon will bring attention to this region and help its conservation.
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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Nothing to add from my previous review. The paper is clear, generally well-written, and forms a coherent publication. The structure of the manuscript is accurate, and so are the illustrations. The relevant literature has been cited.
Experimental design: The research presented here is certainly original, and falls within the scope of the journal. The investigation has been appropriately conducted and the methods are accurately described.
Validity of the findings: The authors' conclusion that their plant represents a new genus and species is well-supported, both by molecular and morphological data.
Additional comments: As noted in my previous review, this paper is of great interest for botany, and definitely worth publishing. The revised version of the paper has been significantly improved, and most of the reviewers' comments have been taken into account by the authors. However, some points remain in need of revision. The most important of them are listed below. Other comments of lesser importance have been made directly in the paper.

Introduction:

- Dissotis controversa (A. Chev. & Jacq.-Fél.) Jacq.-Fél., cited among the endemics of Mt Gangan, is endemic indeed but no longer accepted as a species. Jacques-Félix (Bull. Mus. Natl. Hist. Nat., Ser. 3, Bot. 17: 71, 1975) transferred this taxon to Melastomastrum and reduced it to varietal rank, as M. theifolium var. controversum (A.Chev. & Jacq.-Fél.) Jacq.-Fél. He was the expert on African Melastomataceae, and as far as I know, no recent taxonomic publication has challenged his view, which is accepted e.g. in the African Plants Database. So, the acceptance of the name D. controversa by The Plant List seems to be due to an oversight.

- Among the differences between Kindia and Sabicea, the campanulate corolla tube and bicoloured seeds should also be mentioned (Sabicea spp. have uniformly brown seeds and a much narrower, almost cylindrical corolla tube).

Discussion:

- As already stated in my first review, the first paragraph of the discussion (and also the generic diagnosis and Table 1) should stress an additional difference between Kindia and Leptactina: the seeds are bicoloured in the former vs. all-black in the latter. Even though the authors note that "There is no survey or report of seed colour in Leptactina s.l., and we have not been able to survey all species for that", I have been able to survey the material in the Meise Botanic Garden, and I can confirm that all species of Leptactina with adequate fruiting material for study do have all-black seeds. (Species studied: L. arborescens, benguellensis, congolana, delagoensis, densiflora, hexamera, involucrata, leopoldi-secundi, laurentiana, liebrechtsiana, mannii, platyphylla, pynaertii, senegambica. Species not studied for this character due to the absence of mature fruits: L. angolensis, deblockiae, epinyctios, oxyloba, papalis, papyrophloea, rheophytica). If a reference is needed for this statement this may be cited as "Lachenaud, pers. comm.". The bicoloured seeds of Kindia in fact seem to be unique in Rubiaceae, at least in Africa.

- The section between lines 322 and 332 should put more emphasis on characters that are really unique in Pavetteae, i.e. the bicoloured seeds (see above) and the campanulate corolla tube (in other genera of the tribe, the tube is cylindrical or nearly so) than on the axillary inflorescences, which are not unique in the tribe - even though they are unusual, and must be discussed for this reason.

- I suggest omitting the section from "with the discovery" (line 360) to "the new Rubiaceae of Mt Gangan" (line 369) that I find rather speculative. I see no particular reason to suppose involucral cups and axillary inflorescences are plesiomorphic rather than apomorphic, both hypotheses being equally parsimonious.

Generic & specific descriptions:

- the generic diagnosis should mention three additional characters that separate Kindia from Leptactina: bicoloured seeds (cf. above), anthers not apiculate, and presence of a dense hair band near the base of the corolla tube.

- The leaves of the new species, judging from Fig. 1, are not really appressed to the substrate, as are e.g. those of Plantago media, Costus spectabilis, or Craterostigma plantagineum.

- Since the bracts are formed by the fusion of two modified leaves and their stipules, I suggest to call them "bracteal cups" for more clarity ("cupular bracts" is correct as well, but slightly less explicit).

- the description of the corolla (lines 497-505) is not adequate concerning the indumentum. The proximal portion of the tube is described as "glabrous in proximal part; middle portion of the proximal tube with a densely puberulent band 1–2 mm long". I presume this refers to the inside, but then, what about the outside? For the distal part of the tube the indumentum of both surfaces is described (but why several lines apart?) while the indumentum of the lobes is not described at all. The statement " inner surface of corolla glabrous in proximal 2.2–2.4 cm" (l. 504) is clearly in contradiction with l. 498-499 and the figures, which both make clear that there is actually a ring of hairs near the base of the tube.  All this should be clarified. Please describe both the external and internal indumentum for all portions of the corolla (proximal portion of tube; distal portion of tube; lobes) and follow a consistent pattern.

- The statement that Mussaenda epiphytica seems to have lost its ability to produce long stems (lines 382-385) is, as I mentioned previously, not correct. It is indeed not usual for this species to produce long stems, but it does sometimes occur, so the ability has not been lost. I have seen it in the field on the specimen Dessein et al. 2589, which is recorded as “Epiphytic shrub or liana up to several metres long” - hence the description of the species' habit as "epiphytic shrub (sometimes becoming ± lianescent)" in Lachenaud et al., Plant Ecology and Evolution 146: 121–133 (2013). An image of the concerned specimen is available at http://mediaphoto.mnhn.fr/media/14413926262984pfqv9RVyyspcEGB . The reason why long stems are not usually produced by this species has probably more to do with limited nutrient availability in an epiphytic condition, that to them being disadvantageous.

- The authors state (lines 545-548): "It is possible that the robust, large white flowers are pollinated by a small species of bat since in June and September we saw signs of damage to the inner surface of the corolla inconsistent with visits by small insects." However, the possible involvement of larger insects (e.g. beetles, carpenter bees) is not discussed, and would seem an equally plausible hypothesis. (Whether the flowers open at night or during the day, which would be an important information in this context, is not mentioned).

Table 1

- The anther attachment is not an absolute character to separate Kindia from Leptactina, because one species of the latter genus (L. arborescens) has a sub-basal anther attachment, as in Kindia. It is an exception, however.

- As mentioned above, the difference in seed colour between the two genera should be mentioned in the table.

- The corolla tube of Leptactina cannot be described as "Only slightly campanulate" - it is not campanulate at all (see the following comment) but cylindrical, or sometimes very slightly widening at the throat.

Comments applying to various sections of the manuscript:

- The authors describe the corolla tube of Kindia gangan as "infundibular-campanulate", but "campanulate" alone would be simpler and more accurate: it means, literally, bell-shaped (this can be checked in an English dictionary), while infundibular (funnel-shaped) suggests a more gradual widening of the tube. (Since readers may not be familiar with this term, I suggest adding a brief definition in brackets the first time it is mentioned).

- The anther attachment, erroneously described as sub-apical in the abstract (l. 35) and conclusions (l. 602) is actually sub-basal, as stated in Table 1 and in the generic description.


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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have reworked the manuscript with great attention to the remarks of the three reviewers. They have followed most of the suggestions and remarks of the reviewers. In other cases, an acceptable rebuttal was given.

The mansucript now is correct in the comparison between Kindia and Leptactina, which was its main flaw in the previous version. The authors have kept the elaborate species description, making it in fact even longer. But it is now better understandable and the apparant contradictions in the flower size have been clarified. The elaborate description may be accepted as is.

I have some minor comments/suggestions
- Line 442 in pdf: simple (that is of unbranched hairs ...): I would delete " that is of"
- In fact, I would add to the genus description that all indumentum in Kindia is simple (with the above-mentioned sentence as explication). You could then delete all mention of simple indumentum in the species description (4 times)
- I was interested to read the author's explication on the colour pattern inside the corolla, which they claim is a sign of damage since they did not observe this pattern in all flowers. In the species description they say the colour of the corolla is white. However, the authors show a picture of a flower with dark brown spts on the inside of the corolla (which contrasts with the description). Personally, I would want the author's information on the colour pattern included in the manuscript. It would fit well within the ecology part where the authors describe bat pollination for this species: "The brown spots seem to be the result of damage by flower visitors, perhaps bats. Freshly opened flowers do not have them, nor do all flowers, only those few which show slight damage."
- In the acknowledgements the authors thank two anonymous reviewers; Please change to "three"reviewers.
-line 576 in pdf: add "by"  (by a combination of characters)
- Legend of Table 1: cite also De Block & Robbrecht (1998) for the pollen characters of Leptactina
Experimental design: see first review
Validity of the findings: see first review
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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Nothing to add from my previous review. This paper is clear, generally well-written, and forms a coherent publication. The structure of the manuscript is accurate, and so are the illustrations. The relevant literature has been cited.
Experimental design: The research presented here is certainly original, and falls within the scope of the journal. The investigation has been appropriately conducted and the methods are accurately described.
Validity of the findings: The authors' conclusion that their plant represents a new genus and species is well-supported, both by molecular and morphological data.
Additional comments: This paper is of great interest for botany, as already noted. The new version has been greatly improved from the previous ones, taking into account the reviewers' comments; when these have not been followed, the authors have provided acceptable reasons for doing so. I have only very minor modifications to suggest, which are discussed in the text of the paper. These are not important enough to justify a resubmission to reviewers.


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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: new genus fully justified
Additional comments: You still need to have a look to punctuation in the descriptions, when changing the subject you cannot use commas but need semicolons or periods


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: KINDIA (PAVETTEAE, RUBIACEAE), A NEW CLIFF-DWELLING GENUS WITH CHEMICALLY PROFILED COLLETER EXUDATE FROM MT GANGAN, REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adapted the manuscript as suggested.  have no further comments except for a typo in line 530
line 530: Freshly opened flowers do not have these spot, (should be spots)
Experimental design: see previous review
Validity of the findings: see previous review
Additional comments: see previous review


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: RARE PATTERNS OF DORSAL PUNCTURE IN PTEROSTICHUS OBLONGOPUNCTATUS (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language in the article corresponds to all requirements to international publications. The style of the article is clear and concise.

The literature sources are appropriate and recent, include most publications on the studied species of ground beetles.

Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, corresponds to the standards of entomological experimental publications.

The figures are of good quality, contrasting, organized in accordance with the norms of international publications.
Experimental design: The original research is based on extensive collections of one species of ground beetles. The study is in the scope of our Journal.

The studied issue is relevant and is discussed in many articles, and is studied partly for the studied species of ground beetles; therefore the reviewed article is of great value.

The study corresponds to all ethic standards; the invertebrates were collected with minimal negative impact on the nature ecosystems. The selection is sufficient for formulating the presented conclusions. The method of collecting of the ground beetles adequately reflects the structure of the natural populations of P. oblongopunctatus. The study was financed by the General Directorate of the State Forests, which suggests that the field work was conducted in accordance with the required permissions.

The field and laboratory methods were appropriate, and the data on frequency are grouped in the Table. The frequency of the studies was sufficient.
Validity of the findings: Rational replication is accepted.

The data are analyzed correctly using Chi-square-tests and Mann-Whitney U-test. Data are robust. The data in the table are clear, detailed, and acknowledge the conclusions.

Conclusions are well stated and based on the actual results.

The text has no speculations. The hypotheses and theories in the discussion are substantiated, and the required links to the sources are provided.

The article is organized correctly and practically has no typing errors or inaccuracies. The study makes a good impression and can be recommended for publication.
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: RARE PATTERNS OF DORSAL PUNCTURE IN PTEROSTICHUS OBLONGOPUNCTATUS (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I think, the papers of V.M. Emetz, 1984a (Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 1984, Vol.63, No.2, P.218-221), and 1984b (Ecologia, 1984, No.5, P.85-88) could be discussed within this study too.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: I think lines 114-120 of the chapter “Statistical methods” can be deleted, because the numbers of damaged specimens are few. Thus, in the Table 1 the information about damaged specimens as well as about specimens with unclear sex can be deleted as well.

In lines 154-155 of the chapter “Results” indicated “Altogether, 1071 specimens (346 individuals in 1014, 417 in 1015, and 308 in 1016) of Pterostichus oblongopunctatus were analysed”. However, according to Table 1 the numbers of specimens is not the same: total – 1057; 2014 – 343; 2015 – 413; 2016 – 302. Why? Please check the numbers of the specimens.

In lines 215-217 of the chapter “Discussion” indicated “The result indicating that individuals with unusual puncture patterns had more pits in general, even in the third interval of the elytra, supports the hypothesis that those patterns are related to the moisture conditions during the period of larval development”. But in the MS the information about correlation of the numbers of elytral pits and the moisture conditions during the period of larval development is not presented.

In lines 224-227 of the chapter “Discussion” indicated “A higher number of abdominal setae due to a higher number of pits in the fifth and seventh intervals in females compared to males, as shown in our study, may be explained by the role of this sex in the reproductive behaviour”. However, the information about numbers of abdominal setae in the specimens with usual and unusual numbers of elytral pits as well as the correlation between numbers of abdominal setae and numbers of elytral pits is not presented in the chapter “Results”.

The MS is clearly written in good language.


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

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTITATIVE LOOP-MEDIATED ISOTHERMAL AMPLIFICATION ASSAY FOR THE FIELD DETECTION OF ERYSIPHE NECATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: It is not clear how the samples are treated in the field (for testing in the LAMP assay). If DNA extraction, i.e., spore disruption, needs lab equipment, doesn’t that defeat the purpose? This is not explained well; the M&M section only refers to the DNA isolation in a lab setting.

The authors state that  the LAMP reaction  in this study is modified from a previously described report (Thiessen et al  Plant Pathol 2016, 65,238-249), some of there parameters of the LAMP of the two  systems is different, did the authors assess the optimization of the LAMP protocol?

The authors state that the reason for developing this protocol has something to do with a need for detection of Erysiphe necator  to combat the disease  by monitoring the inoculum. However, the authors didn't provide a solution for the detction of  E. necator at early stage of infection or in grape plants that develop powdery mildew symptoms. Will early detection provided by the proposed protocol allow more rapid screens for resistance? Will it enable the timely spraying of fungicide?
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This is a fairly well-written manuscript that presents useful information, however, there is not a good justification for the work which essentially represents the  development  of a LAMP detection systme that feasible for monitoring  Erysiphe necator  in its infection cycles thus guiding fungicide spraying.


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

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTITATIVE LOOP-MEDIATED ISOTHERMAL AMPLIFICATION ASSAY FOR THE FIELD DETECTION OF ERYSIPHE NECATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting of this manuscript is appropriate, I especially like the supplemental dataset that was applied.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate, I think involving growers in this applied technology is really a great validation of the technology.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid and this publication should have an impact by involving the end user. I feel the data is robust.
Additional comments: Review of PeerJ manuscript 21733v1

This manuscript titled “Development of a quantitative loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the field detection of Erysiphe necator”  looks novel diagnostic tools for GPM. The manuscript is interesting an appropriate for PeerJ and is very well written, however,  I have some comments I wish the author would consider prior to publication.

General Comments:

1) My biggest comment on this manuscript is the lack of DNA concentration, most researchers working with this technology will not be able to count conidia and it would be helpful to have an actual DNA concentration (either using Qbit or Nanodrop). I think it would be helpful to others that want to utilize this approach to detect/quantify E. nector. This could also be added to a footnote in Figure 1. It doesn’t need to be extensive, I would just like to know how much DNA is in 1,000 spores (I realize this is a complicated system because of the possible contamination with host DNA). I would add this to the results section also (around line 183, as a bonus it might make this section a bit longer).

2) Please discuss other isothermal approaches in the Discussion, this section of the manuscript is pretty short. Discussions of Helicase Dependent Amplification (HDA) and Recombinase Polymerase Amplification (RPA) would be helpful since they seem to be the “competing technologies” in the area. Why is the LAMP approach the most appropriate/easy to use? Is it cheaper? Better machines etc. I would add this to around

3) Lines 102-108: Can you please place primer/probe sequences into a Table, it is really difficult when working with diagnostic papers if they are in text due to formatting problems. I think many researchers will be interested in the FRET based LAMP probe you used and how it was designed in a visual format.

4) Line 110: I am not sure if CT is really appropriate, I found LAMP literature in reviewing this that just used “Reaction time (minutes)”. I feel like this term CT may be used incorrectly throughout the literature, it really isn’t a cycle, but I agree it is a threshold.

5) Table 1: Spell out “Laboratory” for L and “Grower” for G in the table itself. I realize it is in the caption, but I ran to this table first, then I had to hunt for it a bit.

6) Figure 1: Can you provide a line for this figure and potentially some error/std deviation bars?

7) Figure 2: Is CT value the appropriate name since it isn’t really a “cycle” Other isothermal literature actually counts the minutes for amplification.

8) Figure 3: Is there anyway to log transform this data? the LAMP and qPCR appear pretty different in this figure but I wonder if it is one particular sample/possible contamination? (I have heard it can be a problem with this technology). I suggest at 7/16 for Part A and 5/27 for Part B that you provide the application for those specific samples in the text to highlight the inconsistency a bit more in the text (around line 197).

9) Line 240: Some of this would be better talked about in the discussion section in discussing the optimization of 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: DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTITATIVE LOOP-MEDIATED ISOTHERMAL AMPLIFICATION ASSAY FOR THE FIELD DETECTION OF ERYSIPHE NECATOR
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed many of my suggested changes and I recommend publication.
Experimental design: No further comments on experimental design.
Validity of the findings: I find their findings valid and worthy of publication.
Additional comments: This manuscript has addressed many of my comments in the original submission. I recommend publication.


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

Input:
Title: GROWTH SCORE: A SINGLE METRIC TO DEFINE GROWTH IN 96-WELL PHENOTYPE ASSAYS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Cuevas and Edwards have put forward a new method for calculating bacterial growth curves. The study merits publication. My major concern with this study is the lack of details on the simulations and some restrictions of the simulations.

First, authors (line 57) have set some parameters to estimate grwoth curves. Is 50 h enough for the simulation of growth curves? Ok for fast growers, but How about the slow-growing bacteria? Can the authors detail by adding a table with different types of microbes and/or indicating the on the figures?

Second, it is not clear at all the sources of carbon used in this study. The authors mentioned a 96-well phenotype assay, but it is not clear which are these 96 compounds used/or not by bacteria. It requires a table or list.

Third, the study performs a significant number of simulations. It is not clear if empirical data was used to validate the new method. Although figure 1 is a very nice representation of the method, it lacks the details of the dots, the examples of bacterial names.
Line 62->please provide examples of such organisms.
Experimental design: ok.
Validity of the findings: ok.
Additional comments: ok.


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: GROWTH SCORE: A SINGLE METRIC TO DEFINE GROWTH IN 96-WELL PHENOTYPE ASSAYS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Better Mathematical models for fitting bacterial growth are required in microbiology and biotechnology fields in the modern post genome era. Authors develop improved forumula named as the Growth Score, in corvering the defects of lost of three phase growth simplicity of frequently used the Gowth level. The aim of this study is sound, but some minor points are raised in experimentals.
Experimental design: Authors described the GS formula, but biomass yield (A) must be defined clear. Auhtors also mentioned to the GS formula is adopted to 96 well format. However, variety of plate type is now available, it is wondering wheter the GS can adopt to 8 well to 384 well format.  The new formula estimating microbial growths can contribute in microbiology and biotechnology fields. Validity and robustness should be tested using in vitro experiments not only in silico.
Validity of the findings: The new formula estimating microbial growths can contribute in microbiology and biotechnology fields.  in vitro experiments not only in silico could strengthen the validity and robustness of the GS froumula.
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: GROWTH SCORE: A SINGLE METRIC TO DEFINE GROWTH IN 96-WELL PHENOTYPE ASSAYS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript Cuevas and Edwards describe the Growth Score, a new approach for estimating microbial growth based on the analysis of growth curves. This manuscript has clearly stated goals, and is written in a straightforward and clear manner. The methodology and the discussion of the results are sound, and this manuscript deserves to be published. Nevertheless some small issues must be addressed prior to publication.
Experimental design: All the experiments are properly designed and performed.
Validity of the findings: Ln 72-75(Figure 1): Apparently the differences between GS and GL values are not random, and tend to be higher towards higher values of these variables, specially those of the GL class “++++”. Analysing a residuals plot could help to properly quantify this bias, and the authors should at least briefly discuss if it is relevant and why it exists.

Ln 80 (Figure 2 Legend): Not clear to me what exactly is the bootstrapping analysis in this context. Do the authors simply mean that the average curves were calculated based on 100 simulated curves for each category?
Additional comments: Ln 30-31: The meaning of the variables μ and λ should be mentioned here already as it is necessary for the interpretation of the Zwietering logistic model.

Ln 100-111: This paragraph does a great job of clarifying the advantages of the GS metric over GL. Yet I do think it would benefit from having some examples of experiments in which the GS would yield drastically superior results than the GL metric, e.g. when comparing slow versus fast growers, or during metanalysis of growth data was obtained with different experimental times.


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: GROWTH SCORE: A SINGLE METRIC TO DEFINE GROWTH IN 96-WELL PHENOTYPE ASSAYS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have enhanced their study according to my previous suggestions. New computational simulations have been included, new figures, and discussion.No further comments.
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
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: GROWTH SCORE: A SINGLE METRIC TO DEFINE GROWTH IN 96-WELL PHENOTYPE ASSAYS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have properly addressed all the issues raised in my initial review. I believe this version is suitable for publication.
Experimental design: Experimental design was updated and is adequate.
Validity of the findings: The results support the findings.
Additional comments: Ln 98-106: this paragraph describing the methods feels inadequate for this portion of the manuscript. I recommend that the authors move it to the end.


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: YOU CAN’T FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN: EIGHT WEEKS OF EXERCISE DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE COGNITIVE FUNCTION AND BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS IN YOUNG AND HEALTHY ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The manuscript presents an interesting approach to investigating the neural mechanisms of exercise-induced neural plasticity, a topic of emerging interest in neuroscience. The paper is very well written, the methods and rationale are clearly explained.  I have some suggestions related to the statistical approach that may make the finally conclusions easier to accept.
Considerations
1. Line 75-76.  Expand on the other sources of BDNF available.
2. 105. References need after this statement ending in humans.
3.  A figure showing the timeline of data acquisition and intervention details for both groups would benefit the reader.
4.  Results.  The text is heavily laden with F stats.   Perhaps this section would be easier to read if these are inserted into a table rather than the text.
5.  Results.  As can be seen from Table 1, the controls and exercise group were not matched for fitness level.  As a result, the statistical analysis may be better served by performing separate ANOVA’s on each group independently.  As it stands, the improvement in the exercise group leads them to have fitness levels that match the controls.    Therefore, the controls aren’t really ‘controls’ for fitness level.  They are controls for the type of intervention.  Their data can be analyzed independent of the exercise group and this is unlikely to impact the main conclusion of this paper.
6. Results. Table 1.   Since the n=12 and 10, the line indicating Sex (male/female)  should have values that sum to 12 and 10 respectively.  At present, these sum to 18 and 14.
7. Title and abstract. The title and abstract should better articulate the finding that exercise of this duration does not lead to substantial improvements in fitness and changes in cognition and neurotrophins. It is true that the small improvement in fitness level has not changed the overall fitness level of the exercise group and this should be emphasized in the abstract and the title.


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: YOU CAN’T FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN: EIGHT WEEKS OF EXERCISE DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE COGNITIVE FUNCTION AND BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS IN YOUNG AND HEALTHY ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript examined the effect of eight weeks of intervention combining aerobic and resistance exercise on several aspects of cognition assessed by CANTAB and biomarkers including resting BDNF and CTHB in young and healthy, but inactive and low-fit adults. The results show no changes in cognitive performance and biomarkers despite improved cardiorespiratory fitness. While respecting the authors’ work on this study, the lack of discussion regarding how the research question was formed, how this study was designed, and how the findings should be interpreted makes this manuscript unacceptable for publication. The null finding on the cognitive and biomarker outcomes is fine but the authors really need to do a better job at writing for better clarity. Thus, a major revision is necessary before this manuscript being considered for publication.

	Line 97: After the literature review, the authors concluded that inconsistent BDNF findings may be due to the heterogeneity of exercise intervention. Why and how? Please explain. Did all previous studies have no baseline PA measures? What was the consequence of not having baseline PA?

	Line 109: It is not clear why this study was necessary. The authors cited a few prior studies in young adult but how the existing evidence inspired this study? Overall the introduction does a good job in reviewing the literature but does not really explain what knowledge gap this study is going to fill. Perhaps the addition of CTHB?

	Line 196: Not sure what does this sentence “exercise group performed one aerobic only and two sessions per week ….of eight weeks” means.

	Line 237: The authors should provide stats for the VO2max analysis. Was that a significant Group by Time interaction? How this interaction was decomposed? What post-hoc test was used? Was a corrected p-value used? Please clarify both in the method and results sections.

	Line 241: Are these stats for response accuracy since the following sentence is for correct response latencies?

	Line 262-270: Does this entire paragraph solely base on Etnier et al. (2006)? It seems like some more citations are needed in this paragraph.

	Line 267: Maybe I miss something here. But if not, I don’t know where is the statement “fitness was negatively predictive of cognitive performance for children” coming from… There are a lot of studies showing positive associations between childhood fitness and performance of various aspects of cognition (Hillman et al., 2008; Khan & Hillman, 2014). This is a completely false statement basing on no citation.

	Line 274-297: Not sure why this paragraph is included. We know the literature, but this does not help explain your findings. Perhaps the purpose of this paragraph was to suggest that covert measures of cognition such as ERP and brain activation are needed to observe the intervention effect on cognition. The authors need to explain better here.

	Line 307: Did you mean little is known in human?

	Line 316: Various duration of exercise session or duration of intervention?

	Line 323: Untrained is not equal to inactive and low-fit. Please define the participants well in the manuscript.

	Line 326: I can’t follow. How come your sample being categorized as sedentary can lead to a conclusion that neurodegenerative changes observed in aging and psychiatric populations are likely confounded by sedentary behavior and poor fitness?

	Line 329: “in” young and healthy population?
Experimental design: 	Why targeted low-active and low-fit individuals? What’s the rationale for targeting this population? The authors may have to address this in the introduction. What is the rationale for N = 22? Did you conduct a power analysis?

	Line 149: What does “or there is a brief delay of 0, 4, and 12 seconds between these steps” mean?

	Where did the cognitive assessment take place? Were participants told to not engage in any physical activity prior to the pre-test and post-test sessions since exercise may have acute effects on cognitive performance? More description regarding the testing days is needed.
Validity of the findings: 	How about the control group? What did they do during the intervention period?

	The authors should report HR during the intervention to demonstrate that exercise intervention was successfully administered.

	Does change of fitness correlate with any change of dependent measures?
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: YOU CAN’T FIX WHAT ISN’T BROKEN: EIGHT WEEKS OF EXERCISE DO NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE COGNITIVE FUNCTION AND BIOCHEMICAL MARKERS IN YOUNG AND HEALTHY ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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: HOST AND SYMBIONT GENETIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO FITNESS IN A TRICHOGRAMMA–WOLBACHIA SYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: It would be useful to have some more specific and relevant background information on this Wolbachia-Trichogramma system (see comments to author).
Experimental design: Original primary research. Question is well-defined, and methods are clearly described.
It would have been useful to include a Wolbachia-free treatment.
Validity of the findings: Data is sound. Results are difficult to follow because of how they are presented (hard to pick out main/important results - see comments below).
Additional comments: This study examines the degree to which the interests of symbionts are aligned with those of their hosts. In a detailed and labor-intensive factorial experiment, the authors measured fecundity, pupal survival, and offspring sex ratio in different host and symbiont genotype combinations. The symbiont in question, Wolbachia, is maternally inherited, and transforms Trichogramma wasps into parthenogenetic females. As a result, it is predicted that fecundity and survival, but not offspring sex ratio, will be aligned. The authors found variation in all traits, but this was largely driven by host and not symbiont genetic background, with the exception of sex ratio.
The interaction between parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia and Trichogramma wasps is one of the best studied insect symbiont systems - this serves to increase interest in this study.
I have a few comments/suggestions that I hope will strengthen the manuscript.

- The results are difficult to follow. It is hard to pick out what is the pertinent/important/main result, as well as whether differences are biologically meaningful (even if they are sometimes statistically significant).
- It would have been stronger to include treatments with uninfected (Wolbachia-free) combinations, as this would give a sense of the baseline sex ratio in the absence of the symbiont, as well as quantify host genotype fitness differences without the symbiont. While this is not possible now that the experiment is complete, it would at least be useful to include information about what is known about sex ratio and fitness in Wolbachia-free T. kaykai.
- As the authors state, this system is unusual because it is one of the only ones in which parthenogenesis-inducing Wolbachia infection is not 100%. So it would be useful to add some information about why this is the case. Is it because of inefficient transmission or fitness costs of infection? Either of these would affect interpretations of the results of the current study. Are males due to incomplete transmission or penetrance in this system? What other studies have examined this? (Paragraph starting on line 267 could be clearer and more strongly connected to the literature.)
- Did the authors have any reason to expect that there would be variation in Wolbachia genotypes? (I wasn't surprised, as I would not have expected much Wolbachia variation.)
- How does the sex ratio and fitness variation compare to other Wolbachia-T. kaykai studies?

Minor comments:
- line 72: would be useful to state here what mechanism is used in the T. kaykai system
- lines 80, 104: 'reproductive survival' is confusing
- line 306: There are many useful and relevant papers on fitness effects and colonization of new hosts. For example, it might be useful to mention fitness costs (and immune activation) of Wolbachia transfers from flies to mosquitoes.
- paragraph starting line 309 is confusing


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: HOST AND SYMBIONT GENETIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO FITNESS IN A TRICHOGRAMMA–WOLBACHIA SYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
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: HOST AND SYMBIONT GENETIC CONTRIBUTIONS TO FITNESS IN A TRICHOGRAMMA–WOLBACHIA SYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See "general comments" - overall this is fine, but see comments.
Experimental design: See "general comments" - the research question is well-defined, relevant and meaningful.  The methods are well described and the statistical analysis is excellent.
Validity of the findings: See "general comments" - data are robust, statistically sound and controlled.
Additional comments: This is a great contribution that systematically investigates the roles of host (parasitic wasp) and symbiont (Wolbachia) genotypes on host fitness and sex ratio parameters.  This is an interesting topic because of the mixture of conflict (Wolbachia causes all female offspring, the host would prefer both sexes) and cooperation (Wolbachia is vertically transmitted, thus benefits alongside the host when hosts produce more offspring) that this relationship entails.  This particular study takes advantage of the fact that the parthenogenetic-inducing Wolbachia is unusually not fixed in Trichogramma kaykai, and can be transferred experimentally via co-incubation of infected and uninfected eggs of the wasp in their own host - a moth egg.  I found many parts of this paper inspirational (one of the best abstracts and introductions I've read in quite a while), but it needs improvement in execution.

The title "Cyto-nuclear fitness interactions in a Trichogramma-Wolbachia symbiosis" is not precise, because in this study, the Wolbachia is acquired by an intact host genotype in which the cytoplasmic and the nuclear genes have not been rearranged by introgression.  I know the idea is that the Wolbachia is the cytoplasmic component, but of course mitochondria are as well, and mitochondrial-nuclear interactions are not addressed here.  Suggest something like "Host and symbiont genetic contributions to fitness in a Trichogramm-Wolbachia symbiosis"

Methods

I assume that the Wolbachia in the 4 lines are identical with respect to MLST typing, but the identity is never mentioned - please provide the MLST strain (s) name(s).

l 182.  "first born progeny of first-born females..." Please explain - given multiple females were used, I don't know what this means.

l 193  "Analysis" or "Statistical analysis" rather than "Statistics."

l. 198 Please give a reference for the Fligner-Kileen test

Results

In general, the results read as if they are only a few steps away from statistical test output.  The finding should be foremost and the statistical details, while present, should be subservient to the findings.  Starting the results section with the word "Nonhomogeneity" is not helpful.  This first paragraph boils down to a result that host-Wolbachia interactions were important for offspring sex ratios and for pupal survival but not for fecundity, but it takes a couple of readings to come up with that result.  It is fine to include that GLMS were a better analysis tool for these data, but that's the thing that should be farther down in the paragraph.

Figures 2-5 are very poorly explained and need significant improvement.  There is a general interpretation of the figure as the figure caption, but no description of the four panels, nor even sufficient labeling.  Each figure should have a-d denoting the panels, the y axis should be on the left, and an explanation of each panel should be in the figure caption.  Included should be what "T1-T4" means, and the meaning of all the pieces of the box-plot (e.g. do the dotted lines show range or some other measure?).

L. 248-249  Not sure how horizontal transfers can show higher fecundity (first part of the sentence), while there is no significant effect of "horizontal transfer on fecundity."

The discussion doesn't reach very deep into the literature for context.  Many of the references in this paper are from the authors' labs, and yet the influences of host genes, symbiont genes, and host-symbiont interactions on phenotype is a topic that there's quite an interesting literature on.  I would particularly recommend a few papers and papers cited therein - Jaenike 2007 Evolution, Weeks et al. 2007 PloS Biol, Newton and Sheehan 2015 AEM, and Hunter et al. 2016 JEB.  Interestingly, the last found, like the current contribution, an interaction between symbiont and host genes in the area of conflict - sex ratios.   I'm not asking that you cite these in particular, but that a revision includes a deeper read of the literature to place the work in context.

Small comments on the discussion.

l. 262 and later - I don't understand the meaning of "good mixer" here.  I do understand the next sentence in which it is suggested that Wolbachia "blend into" the "fitness landscape of the host environment."  If this "mixer" term is a simple restatement of the second statement, I get it better in the second sentence.  I think the authors are saying that Wolbachia should have no influence on host genes that are presumably optimized for fecundity.

L. 309, and referring back to the title.  I suggest "cyto-nuclear" is too broad because the mitochondria are not involved here; the authors are really referring to one cytoplasmically inherited lineage - the symbiont .  I agree with the authors' suggestion that it would be interesting to look at interactions when both horizontal transmission and nuclear introgression are applied to produce infected and uninfected lineages (in the first both genetic components are intact after infection, in the second, the mitochondrial genome associated with the symbiont ends up in a new nuclear background, and makes clear why they should be precise about their language throughout.


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: REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF WHISKERED TERN CHLIDONIAS HYBRIDA IN EASTERN SPAIN IN RELATION TO WATER LEVEL VARIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study aims to investigate the effects of water level variation on the reproductive success of the Whiskered Tern, a declining wetland-breeding bird. The authors assessed basic reproductive parameters for five tern colonies in Spain over the period eight years and monitored losses of broods that were attributed to changes in water level produced by adverse weather conditions or anthropogenic processes (e.g. draining). Field methodology is correct and the field effort is impressive. The scientific problem is sufficiently introduced, but the discussion is very short and does not refer to similar findings in other waterbird species. English is good, but in places is needs some polishing.
Experimental design: While I feel that the study could potentially provide important information, especially for wetland management purposes, in the current form it lacks any basic statistical analyses, which could answer the questions raised by the authors. The study is purely descriptive, as it reports several cases of brood losses due to water level changes. While it is obvious that wetland drainage or heavy rains may cause losses in the broods of waterbirds, it would be much more informative to perform any kind of modelling, quantifying how water level changes affect tern reproduction. For example, the extensive data collected within this study could possibly allow to predict a border range of water level changes that are safe for the Whiskered Tern and do not cause serious losses to broods. It could also be analysed whether and how the impact of water level changes on tern reproduction is affected by habitat variables (e.g. vegetation type, wetland area etc.) or by starting water depth. Such information could be of great value for managers and would allow them to adjust water level policies to the reproductive requirements of the species.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are not sound. Although the authors recommend that water level should not vary by more than 5 cm once the nests are established, I cannot see in the paper any analysis that would support this kind of conclusion.
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: REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF WHISKERED TERN CHLIDONIAS HYBRIDA IN EASTERN SPAIN IN RELATION TO WATER LEVEL VARIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The manuscript needs to be carefully revised for English language errors.
2.	The Discussion has lacks of few important references. Detailed remarks are provided below.
3.	The manuscript needs to be substantially revised and parts rewritten before further consideration of publication. Most of my comments are suggestions to improve clarity. Detailed remarks are provided below.
4.	The raw data are supplied but they are not displayed clearly.
5.	There are no figures, and some data can be best represented by a figure for clarity.
Experimental design: The dataset is impressive, but there are no statistical analyses. Conclusion should be rationalized more strongly. Detailed remarks are provided below.
Validity of the findings: The question the authors seek to address is well defined. However, in the methods section there is a lot of missing information. Both field methods and the calculations of the parameters used in the study should be described much more detailed. Remarks are provided below.
Additional comments: Introduction
Line 67: Can the authors provide the raw data concerning the breeding trend of whiskered tern between 1990-2010?.
Line 70: “(table 2)” is not necessary, a reference is enough.
Line 71-72: I think that synchrony in laying exist only in small groups of nests within a colony, the whole colony is not synchronised in laying. Please rephrase this sentence.
Line 77-78: The authors state that whiskered tern does not breed in the natural wetlands of Albufera, but in their study they examined this species only on the artificial wetlands in Albufera. Please can the authors clarify this issue?
Line 80: The authors state that the main aim of the study was to examine the phenology in relation to water level variability. But in the manuscript there is no data about phenology. Please clarify.
Methods
Line 87: Please provide a map indicating the study area.
Line 89-91: There is no information about type of wetlands where the authors carried out their study. The authors should describe the studied wetlands (rice field etc.).
Line 103-109: Some of the following parameters were not used in the analysis so it is not necessary to list them: date of arrival of pairs to the colony, the number of pairs, the date of hatching, the date of the first fledglings, and the date when the adults with fledglings left the colony.
Line 106-108: I do not understand how these parameters were estimated in the field: the number of chicks/eggs in the nests, % hatching success of eggs, the % survival of fledglings and the productivity. Chicks of the whiskered tern can swim 2-3 days after hatching, so when a researcher enters the colony chicks may have left the nests, and it is impossible to find all of them among vegetation. Precisely how did the authors determine the percentage of chicks that fledged? Were the nests surrounded by mesh? Were the chicks ringed? Did the authors use capture-mark-recapture methods? How did the authors determine that chicks hatched successfully? These field methods should be described in much more detailed.

Result
Line 120-121: Please describe in the Methods section how the presented average percentages of nests were estimated? Is it the average from the mean from each year? N=8 years? Please, also provide the total (not averaged) percentages of nests which contain the respective number of eggs, a figure is an ideal way to show this result. Did the percentages of nests which contained 1, 2, 3 eggs differ between years? Please use a Chi square or similar test.
Line 124: Did hatching and fledging success differ between years? Please use a Chi square or similar test.

Table 1
“Initial Adults no.”, “Pairs no.” – are not necessary, they are not used in the Methods, Result and Discussion sections. The manuscript contain no information about how these parameters were estimated.
“Eggs/Nest no.” – how was this parameter calculated? This reviewer divided 191 by 111 and received the value of 1.7 but in Table 1 the value 2.1 (Eggs/Nests) is stated. This applies to all rows. How were the values calculated? Is it the average from all nests? If yes, please clarify and give SD or SE. I suppose that hatching and fledging success were estimated by division data from Table 1. Please clarify in the Methods how all of these parameters were estimated. Mean – please also provide the SE.

Line 160: “The percentage of nests, eggs and chicks lost in cases where populations did not suffer major environmental problems was 6.1%, 52.4%, and 49.2% respectively (Table 2, colony 2).” – why colony 2? and are these data only for colony 2?
Line 160: How exactly did the authors distinguish lost caused by “major environmental problems” and lost caused by other factors? Please clearly describe in Methods.
Line 160: Why 6.1% + 96.3% is not 100%? Please clarify
Table 2. Much too descriptive. To statistically evaluate if success was affected by water level variation or weather conditions, the authors can compare the fate of nests (dependent variable, hatched vs. not hatched) with an independent variable (for example a parameter describing water level changes a few days before the nest was lost. For successful nests the authors can use data for few days before hatching using for example General Discriminant Analysis (GDA).

Discussion
Line 169: Literature is not complete, there are many more papers about clutch size, hatching, and fledging success in whiskered tern, and also about the influence of water levels on the breeding of terns. For example:
Atamas N. S., Tomchenko O. V. 2015. THE INFLUENCE OF SPRING FLOOD WATER LEVELS ON THE DISTRIBUTION AND NUMBERS OF TERNS (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE LOWER DESNA RIVER). Vestnik zoologii, 49: 439–446.

BARATI, A., Aliakbari, A. AND s. m. Ghasempouri. 2011. Variations in breeding success and daily nest survival of Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybrida) at two Iranian colonies. Russian Journal of Ecology 42: 315–320.

Betleja J., Skórka P., Zielińska M. 2007. Super-normal Clutches and Female-female Pairs in Gulls and Terns Breeding in Poland. Waterbirds 30: 629–634.

Ledwoń M., Betleja J., Neubauer G. 2015. An effective method for trapping both parents and chicks of Whiskered Terns (Chlidonias hybrida) and its impact on breeding success. Waterbirds 38: 290-295.

MINIAS, P., JANISZEWSKI, T. AND B. LESNER. Center-periphery gradients of chick survival in the colonies of Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida may be explained by the variation in the maternal effects of egg size. ACTA ORNITHOLOGICA 48: 179-186.

Spina F. 1982. Contribution to the breeding biology of the Wiskered Tern in Val Campotto (Northern Italy). Avocetta 6: 23-33.

Line 188: 5 cm water fluctuations is normal for carp ponds in Poland where whiskered tern breed, there is no loss caused by this amount (5 cm) of water fluctuation. Birds abandon nests after hard weather – rain accompanied by low temperatures for several days. Because this species has floating nest, in my opinion changes in water level of 5 cm is not sufficient to destroy nests. The authors need to clarify and rationalize their conclusions. Please provide some photos of your colonies described in the Methods where (type of vegetation) whiskered tern nested.
Please clarify - nests were abandoned or they sank after hard weather conditions?.


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: REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF WHISKERED TERN CHLIDONIAS HYBRIDA IN EASTERN SPAIN IN RELATION TO WATER LEVEL VARIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: l. 65 – 84: Although you provide an introduction to the status of C. hybrida, you fail to place your work within the broader literature. Consider the references below for some examples of previous literature that has considered the relationship between water height and nesting success in other bird species (including other terns) in both natural and human managed systems. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I would recommend you read into this area of the literature and discuss how your work fits in.

van de Pol, Martijn, et al. "Do changes in the frequency, magnitude and timing of extreme climatic events threaten the population viability of coastal birds?." Journal of Applied Ecology 47.4 (2010): 720-730.

Anteau, Michael J., et al. "Nest survival of piping plovers at a dynamic reservoir indicates an ecological trap for a threatened population." Oecologia170.4 (2012): 1167-1179.

Bayard, Trina S., and Chris S. Elphick. "Planning for sea-level rise: quantifying patterns of Saltmarsh Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus) nest flooding under current sea-level conditions." The Auk 128.2 (2011): 393-403.

Burger, Joanna, and Joseph Shisler. "Colony and nest site selection in Laughing Gulls in response to tidal flooding." Condor (1980): 251-258.

Mooij, Wolf M., et al. "Exploring the effect of drought extent and interval on the Florida snail kite: interplay between spatial and temporal scales."Ecological Modelling 149.1 (2002): 25-39.

Table 1: What happened in 2008? I see that there was a large rain event, but there was already a particularly low number of breeding pairs in this year. Were there other disturbances?

Table 2: This is a very confusing way to present your data and would be much more appropriate as a figure than a table. I think it would be much more appropriate to present in either a scatter plot (e.g. Effect of water height on % nest loss) or a bar graph (e.g. % Nest loss in years where crops were watered, years with heavy rain and years where neither occurred).

Table 2: You should split your data up to look at nest loss, egg loss and chick loss separately instead of having them all in one column.

l. 133 – 134: A basic plot visualising the variation in water heights over time might be useful.

l. 161: Is 2002 the only year with no major environmental problems? You should specify this. Also, it seems inappropriate to have information about a colony that was not impacted at all by water levels in Table 2 which is about water level variation that affected reproductive success. I think there is enough information in Table 1 to make your point.
Experimental design: l. 81: You predict that the speed at which water heights change will be important, but you don’t test this at all.

l. 104 – 105: Are “empty nests” nests that lost eggs after laying or nest sites that were never laid in?

l. 111 – 115: Is this method of using wooden stakes consistent between different years? Was the stake placed in the same place each year (or kept in the same place across the whole period of the study)? Are there potentially any other official water height measures that you can use to supplement or replace this water height methodology? If the water heights were being controlled in Pego-Oliva NP (l. 113 – 115), is there a more official water height measure at least for this site?

l. 112: You don’t show any correlation results between water level and reproductive success. This would be a very handy result to show.

l. 142 – 143: The wording here is confusing. Do terns ever rebuild nests? If so, how did you take this into account in your data (e.g. were colonies that re-nested counted as new colonies or the same colony?).

l. 143 – 144: As you are interested in the effect of water height on reproductive success, it’s important that you differentiate between damage caused just by rain/hail and that caused by increased water levels.

l. 147 – 149: Were the nests destroyed or just abandoned when water levels declined? How were they destroyed?

l. 152 – 154: If you analyse your water level data statistically, you might need to consider removing these events where a stream of water destroyed nests without a change in water height.

Results: Although you frame your study to be about the impact of water heights on reproductive success you haven’t conducted any analyses to actually look at the relationship between these variables. It seems your dataset would be ideally suited to carry out some sort of simple statistics to look at this link. For example, you could look at the mean water height during the breeding season and some measure of reproductive success (e.g. absolute or percentage fledgling production). You haven’t provided the raw water height data in the supplementary material so I can’t give a worked example.
Validity of the findings: l. 123 - 125: It’s probably more appropriate to provide the mean annual hatching success (58.3%) and fledging success (36.5%) than the total success.

l. 189: It’s not clear, either here or in the abstract, why you suggest a cap of ±5cm. You refer to Table 2 here, but I don’t see how this table provides you with this information. Perhaps with a more detailed analysis you might be able to suggest an ideal water height with more evidence. Even visualising your data outside of tables might help. Until then, this value of 5cm comes across is very speculative.

Supplementary data: As stated above, the raw water level data is not provided. This is necessary data to replicate your results in Table 2.
Additional comments: I feel the subject of the article is interesting and topical and the authors seem to have a nice dataset to study the topic. However, the manuscript fails to really investigate the relationship between water heights and nesting success in C. hybrida in any meaningful way. The long-term dataset provides an opportunity for some simple statistics to help describe the relationship between water heights and nesting success, but this is not done. Furthermore, with all results presented in tables it is hard to visualise the data. At its core this manuscript could provide a useful addition to the literature, both generally and on whiskered terns; however, major revisions would be required to reach a publishable level.

I also think there are a few areas where the manuscript would benefit from clearer English. I understand that the authors are not primary English speakers. I've provided some notes in the annotated pdf to highlight those areas that I feel need rewording.

You state in your methods that you mist net the terns and catch the chicks. You should provide details of your ethics approval for this work.


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: REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS OF WHISKERED TERN CHLIDONIAS HYBRIDA IN EASTERN SPAIN IN RELATION TO WATER LEVEL VARIATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I include remarks in "General Comments for the Author"
Experimental design: I include remarks in "General Comments for the Author"
Validity of the findings: I include remarks in "General Comments for the Author"
Additional comments: Authors have done a great job. I have only minor remarks.
Line 78-83-: What was the cause of the decline of the population? Habitat destruction?
Line 86: Please add Ledwoń et al. 2014 (J Ornithol 2014, 155:459–470)
Line 132-138: Not necessary, I suggest to delete.
Line 142-145: Not necessary.
Line 192: How exactly fledgling success was calculated? Please write it more clearly. For example “We calculated fledgling success as the proportion of chicks that hatched in relation to the number of fledgling” Please rephrase.

Line 193-194: “Multiplying hatching success”? Did you multiple percentages? Why not proportion of eggs in relation to the number of fledgling?  Please rephrase.

Line 199-201: Why 11 events? How did you select these events? Please move here the reasons  from line 243-244.

Line 244-245: why three means, how it was exactly calculated? Is it means for nests, eggs and nestlings? I am sorry but I do not understand.  You write about 11 events from 8 colonies. I also do not understand means from lines 246-247. Please rephrase.

Line 220-225: How these categories correspond with Fig. 5?

Line 235: n=18 – what is it? Colonies? Colonies/years? Please explain
Line 265-278 – Why do you calculate breeding parameters separately for Pego-Olia N.P and all wetlands in the Valencian Community?
Line 292: Fig 4 do not show water level fluctuations.
Line 295-306: Please include, compare and discuss breeding parameters from other studies (suggested papers) with your data. You noted very low hatching (breeding, fledgling) success, please discuss the reasons in comparison with suggested papers. In Poland on carp ponds hatching success in usually about 80-90%.
Suggested papers:
 Betleja J., Skórka P., Zielińska M. 2007. Super-normal Clutches and Female-female Pairs in Gulls and Terns Breeding in Poland. Waterbirds 30: 629–634.
Ledwoń M., Betleja J., Neubauer G. 2015. An effective method for trapping both parents and chicks of Whiskered Terns (Chlidonias hybrida) and its impact on breeding success. Waterbirds 38: 290-295.

Mateusz Ledwoń, Jacek Betleja & Grzegorz Neubauer (2016): Different
trapping schemes and variable disturbance intensity do not affect hatching success of
Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida, Bird Study, DOI: 10.1080/00063657.2015.1136263
MINIAS, P., JANISZEWSKI, T. AND B. LESNER. Center-periphery gradients of chick survival in the colonies of Whiskered Terns Chlidonias hybrida may be explained by the variation in the maternal effects of egg size. ACTA ORNITHOLOGICA 48: 179-186.
Table 2. Please give the number of nests (n)
Fig. 1. What does the “km” on the map mean?
Fig. 3. I do not see “depth” on figure 3 , as is mentioned by Authors.
All the best,
Mateusz Ledwoń