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: ARBOREAL TWIG-NESTING ANTS FORM DOMINANCE HIERARCHIES OVER NESTING RESOURCES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this work, Yitbarek and Phipott analyze whether arboreal twig-nesting ants competing for nesting resources in a Mexican coffee agricultural ecosystem are arranged in a linear dominance hierarchy. The topic is very interesting and timing: there is now an intense debate on the effects of competition and compensatory mechanisms structuring ant communities. Yitbarek and Philpott present an interesting study with timely and novel results. I find the study and results of merit, and are within the scope of PeerJ. However, I see some sections of the manuscript need to be clarified and improvements. The introduction and background to show good context. However, in order to reinforce and enrich the theorical context, it is suggested to attach some references of studies conducted in temperate and tropical environments. The hypothesis is not completely understandable, what is it: to form a "clear hierarchy of dominance" for nesting sites? It is requested to be explicit in the wording of the hypothesis and describe the prediction (s) of the hypothesis. In Methodology I see some terms (triad transitive) need to be clarified. References need to be carefully checked along the entire Ms. General comments:
Page 7, line 55. Delete the dot
Page 8, line 74. It is suggested to add as a background a study conducted in temperate zones with dominance hierarchy: Castillo-Guevara C, Cuautle M, Lara C, Juárez-Juárez B. 2019. Effect of agricultural land-use change on ant dominance hierarchy and food preferences in a temperate oak forest. PeerJ 7: e6255
Page 8, line 76. It is suggested to add as background the studies carried out in tropical areas and plant-ant interaction networks: Díaz-Castelazo C, Rico-Gray V, Oliveira PS, Cuautle M. 2004. Extrafloral nectary-mediated ant-plant interactions in the coastal vegetation of Veracruz, Mexico: richness, occurrence, seasonality and ant foraging patterns. Ecoscience 11: 472-481.
Page 8, line 80. It is suggested to add as a background a study carried out in tropical areas, dominance hierarchy and plant-ant interaction networks: Dáttilo W, Díaz-Castelazo C, Rico-Gray V. 2014. Ant dominance hierarchy determines the nested pattern in ant-plant networks. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 113 (2): 405-414.
Page 9, line 94. It is suggested to be explicit in the wording of the hypothesis and to describe the prediction (s) of the hypothesis.
Experimental design: The method with which the question is addressed is considered very original, applies this approach to an ecological study in an authentic and unique way. However, I see some terms (triad configurations, explicitly explain triad transitive) need to be clarified. General comments:
Pag. 9, line 109. It is suggested to mention at least the taxonomic category of subfamily to which belong the 10 species selected for the study.
Pag. 10, line 129. Pseudomyrmex PSW-53, explain this key or name.
Page 12, line 173. Develop the seven possible triad configurations. Figure 3 refers to the triad sub-types (A-G) only with symbols, but the definition of each type is not clear.
Validity of the findings: The information provided by this research is considered of good quality, the contribution in the field of ecology of the ant community is fortunate, since the study of the dominance hierarchy has been controversial and the information generated from the novel experiments in the laboratory it is an advance in this field. In addition, where it is carried out, the coffee agroforestry system is an ecosystem rich in species and interactions that has been little studied at this level of networks. General comments:
Page 14, line 225. Explain the biological consequences of a transitive triad, that is, its biological significance, giving an example with ant species, how they are expected to behave in relation to nest competition.
Page 15, line 272. To reinforce this part of other factors that influence the dominance hierarchy of ants, it is suggested to mention another study (Castillo-Guevara et al. 2019) that includes experiments in natural conditions in temperate zones.
Additional comments: General comments.
The specific corrections of the Ms are indicated in the PDF.
References. References need careful editing, some quotes are not in the references and vice versa. Some references have erroneous information, it is suggested to check it carefully. The PeerJ format of the references carries the DOI. Add the DOI to all references. The specific corrections of the references are indicated in the PDF.
Figure 3. In the text explain the triad sub-types (A-G) that are represented with symbols in the figure.


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: SARC-F AND MUSCLE FUNCTION IN COMMUNITY DWELLING ADULTS WITH AGED CARE SERVICE NEEDS: BASELINE AND POST-TRAINING RELATIONSHIP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract:

1-SARC-F should be added to key words.

Introduction:

2-Introduction is very long and reading becomes a challenge. Should be focused on one thing and expressed in a simple and  clear way.
3-Line 92: "As the SARC-F contains five items that… ":The sentence is too long. Should be written in a short and clear way.
4-A study should have a single and primary aim. Otherwise it turns into a very long and complicated article.

Materials and Methods:

5-Line 128: "difficult behaviours": What does it mean?
6-Line 145: "the cluster sizes of the exercise and control groups exhibited were not uniform": Should be clarified.
7-Line 169: "Resistance exercises included: (1) chest press;..." :Those exercises should be presented as supplementary figures.
8-Line 174: "The predicted maximum was a conservatively…": It is difficult to understand. Please write in a simple and clear way.
9-Line 180: "Balance exercises included: (1) single leg stand…": Those exercises should be presented as supplementary figures.
10-Line 200: "A detailed description of the outcome...": It is hard to understand the matter. Please write in a more clear way.
11-Line 207: "The final question of the SARC-F…": A score of zero indicates no falls, a score of two indicating four or more falls, a score of one indicates what? It should be written in order and with all details .
12-Line 227: "and quality of life…": Geriatric depression scale and geriatric anxiety index are used for evaluation of patients’ mood, not their quality of life. Should be expressed differently.

For whole writing:

13-References should be given as numbers in paragraphes and in order; rather than names of the authors of the citated study at the end of the sentence. Names should be given consecutively at the end of the whole writing, under the references title.
14-Please use capital letters only at the start of sentences, out of abbreviations.
Experimental design: Materials and Methods:

1-Line 129: "All participants were recruited from the memberships…": How was the participants reached should be stated clearly.
2-Line 211: "Muscle function was assessed by …": Isometric handgrip strength and  isometric knee extension strength show primarily muscle strength, not muscle function. 5-time repeated chair stand test is a power test. These parameters may of course affect muscle function, but they should be categorised seperately from muscle function tests.
3-Line 222: "Due to intense nature of the 5-time repeated chair stand test…": How was it applied? What were the cut-off points? Details should be given.
4-Statistical analysis is too long. It should be shorten and written in a more clear way. Also, multiple correspondence analysis is not a common statistical method. Therefore, some brief and expalanatory information should be given about it.
Validity of the findings: Abstract:

1-Line 35 and 41: "Significant associations…": p values should be written.

Results and Discussion:

2-These parts will be evaluated after they are shortened. Both are very long and hard to understand. Should be written in a clear way.
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: SARC-F AND MUSCLE FUNCTION IN COMMUNITY DWELLING ADULTS WITH AGED CARE SERVICE NEEDS: BASELINE AND POST-TRAINING RELATIONSHIP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written with technically correct and most of clear English. There is an introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge.

Line 26 (Abstract) – Consider changing “extend our” to “understand the”. To over detail an explanation may confuse the reader. It’s better to keep it simple and short for a clear message.

Line 31 (Abstract) - Consider mentioning the place of the study, for example by the end of the sentence “… supported aged care in Australia”.

Abstract - It would be better to include information regarding the SARC-F score, such as higher values represent more inability = sarcopenia.

Line 35 and 36 (Abstract); Line 74 (Results) - The correlation between SARC-F total score and measures of lower-body muscle function are not mentioned on the methods and don’t correspond to the results on Table 2 (r= -0.62 to 0.57). It seems chair stand test are not included as lower-body muscle, which is not clear why, but still it wouldn’t correspond to the results on Table 2.

Line 42 (Abstract) – “SARC-F total and item scores and changes in walking speed and chair stand test performance (|r| = 0.30-0.33 and relative risk ratio = 0.40-2.24, respectively).” The 0.30 is the lowest correlation value and it represents an inverse correlation, so a negative sign should precede it (Table 4).

Line 46 and 47 – “These results add to our understanding of the psychometric properties on the SARC-F,”. I recommend a different perspective, as the “… results advance on the comprehension of the psychometric properties...”.

Line 349 and 350 the sentence can be better written, as: “Collectively, the results of the present study and the literature suggest the SARC-F may be a useful self-report tool from which older adults can describe their current level of physical function and falls risk”.

The results are well discussed with recently literature, recognizes it’s on limitations and strengths, and indicates future studies needs.

Line 444 – review grammar spelling.
Experimental design: The authors clearly define the research question, which is relevant. The knowledge gap being investigated is well identified and clearly state how the study contributes to filling the gap. The article also states the chosen statistical analysis, according to the objectives.

It uses appropriate methodology for experimental study to obtain better and effectiveness source for intervention evaluation, as well as better source of scientific evidence.

However, I recommend providing more information about Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA). It’s not a common technique used on health research and considering the valuable contribution of the study to clinical use, it’s important that the method provide details to improve the comprehension and interpretation of health professionals about the article results.

Line 227 - I recommend the authors to revisit the literature regarding the definition of quality of life, for example the eudaimonic and hedonic components. Depression and anxiety scales are not measuring quality of life, and the instrument EQ-5D is in fact measuring quality of life related to health.
Steptoe, A., Deaton, A., & Stone, A. A. (2015). Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet, 385(9968), 640-648.
Group, E. (1990). EuroQol a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199-208.
Validity of the findings: Authors describe in detail the intervention plan with concern for participants' safety, which is especially important for the age group of the study.

It also mentions the research protocol and it provides as supplementary document, which it supports the replication of the study.

I recommend introducing the confidence interval on the regression tables.

The authors could facilitate the graphics interpretation by highlighting/circling the markers mentioned in the results. Despite the methods explanation (Line 46 to 51), considering the complexity of the study, what represent each dimension and the cumulative variance could be mentioned on the graphic legend and on the graphic, respectively.
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: SARC-F AND MUSCLE FUNCTION IN COMMUNITY DWELLING ADULTS WITH AGED CARE SERVICE NEEDS: BASELINE AND POST-TRAINING RELATIONSHIP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There is great improvement on the revised manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors attended all my suggestions.
Validity of the findings: The authors attended all my suggestions.
Additional comments: The authors attended all my suggestions and the reviewed manuscript shows improvement. The authors were very polite regarding the reply, it demonstrated concern regarding the manuscript's quality and also great knowledge regarding their study.


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: A RAPID SPREAD OF THE STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE OUTBREAK IN THE MEXICAN CARIBBEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript documenting the spread of SCTLD is timely, important, and will add greatly to our knowledge of transmission of coral diseases. This manuscript is very well written, does an excellent job summarizing the current state of knowledge about SCTLD in the Introduction.
Experimental design: The authors follow a well established protocol for coral reef assessment and conduct appropriate statistical analysis on the data set. More details about the environmental conditions would be beneficial.
Validity of the findings: The authors have gone through the exhausting effort of surveying a great number of sites to document this disease outbreak and present a good comparison to baseline disease surveys.

This paper could be improve with a bit more data analysis, specifically more ANOSIM comparisons utilizing the additional categorical variables in the data set.
Additional comments: General Comments

Given the major negative impacts that SCTLD has wrecked upon the Florida Keys, and now the US Virgin Islands, this manuscript documenting the spread of SCTLD is timely, important, and will add greatly to our knowledge of transmission of coral diseases. The authors have gone through the exhausting effort of surveying a great number of sites to document this disease outbreak and present a good comparison to baseline disease surveys. This manuscript is very well written, does an excellent job summarizing the current state of knowledge about SCTLD in the Introduction.

This paper could be improve with a bit more data analysis, specifically more ANOSIM comparisons utilizing the additional categorical variables in the data set, see specific comment below. Additionally, it would be beneficial to the reader to have more context as to the environmental conditions of the reefs. Are some patch versus fore reefs? Are some more turbid or with high water flow or near cities. Any context into the ecology of these reefs helps but disease dynamics into better context.

Did you observe any instances of direct transmission? I know that on low coral cover reefs, it is unlikely to have two colonies close enough for direct transmission to occur. But either way (observed or not), it would be good information to include. Similarly, the caption in Figure 1 mentions the corallivore eating the diseased colony, but it is not mentioned in the text. This is a good example of potential vector-transmission that is worth mentioning, especially if you observed a fish eat from a diseased colony and then from a healthy colony. Studying and breaking transmission cycles is a clear next step in coral disease investigation, but it is hard to assess transmission if no authors comment on it at all in their manuscripts.

I recommend Accept with Minor Revisions.

Specific Comments

Keywords: Consider using SCTLD as a keyword, as this is the abbreviation being used specifically for this recent disease outbreak. I think it will help readers find your manuscript easier online.

Introduction Lines 70-73: This information is interesting, but seems out of place, especially as an ending sentence to a long paragraph about coral diseases. Consider removing this sentence, or moving it higher in the paragraph so that it fits with the chronological presentation of the other diseases.

Methods Line 122: Can you please explain the large range in replicate transects? Was this to due with size and shape of reefs. What was the average number of replicate transects per site. This will help a reader better understand the robustness of the dataset.

Methods Line 167: Consider creating a new paragraph at this line "We then infer..."

Methods Line 167-177 : The way these sentences are written makes it sound like you are comparing the physical area of the reef. Is this not the case. You are assessing the variability of the community in the context of the nMDS. These sentences (and their corresponding sentences in the Results/Discussion Lines 255-261) need to be re-written for clarity. What SEAc is doing is similar to jack-knifing, where the data set has been rarefied and re-sampled in order to get a sense of the variation and sampling depth. I don't think this needs to be explained in the results section. The ANOSIM gives the statistic about whether there are differences between groups. I would recommend giving the ANOSIM statistic and then just qualitatively describing the little overlap between groups on the nMDS plots, stating that this corresponds to compositional changes in coral reefs communities. Along these lines, I do not think that Table 1 is even necessary. I think it would be more interesting if you conducted other comparisons, such as differences between sites before the outbreak, and then assess whether communities from these sites converge onto the same nMDS space after the outbreak. Then a table with the various ANOSIM comparisons would be useful.

Results/Discussion Line 183-185: This is rather a long sentence. Consider making a new sentence starting at "this outbreak should be..."

Results/Discussion Line 191: This disease outbreak may not be linked to above normal thermal stress, but the lack of subsidence during the winter suggests that thermal connection. Can you elaborate on whether the winter sea temperatures were warmer before the outbreak and/or whether the summer temperatures were warmer than normal (although maybe not so warm as to raise the alarm for bleaching). Was there high rainfall in any of these regions before the outbreak? I think that adding some environmental data would give the prevalence data sets more context.

Results/Discussion Lines 201-205: I disagree, especially with the last sentence in this line. As you state in the Introduction that White Plague disease is also a major disease, contributing potentially more to coral declines, yet has a broad host range. Maybe not as broad as SCTLD, but still a broad host range disease is not unprecedented. There is also Black Band Disease which has also contributed greatly to coral decline, and has a very high host range. Please change These sentences to reflect the precedent of WP and BBD in he wider Caribbean. Maybe the impacts of SCTLD are unprecedented for this particilar region of the Caribbean, if so, then need context and more specific wording.

Results/Discussion: I am glad that you brought up local extinctions, because it is not often addressed in bleaching or disease outbreak papers. I hope that you are tagging these colonies to follow them over time.

Results/Discussion Line

Figure 1: Great photo

Figure 3: The caption says that the data represent the top 15 most affected species but the methods say top 11 most affected species. Please correct. Also, consider reformatting the legend so that the dots are presented in numerical order. Also consider giving context to the geography (i.e. major cities, rivers, ports etc).


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: A RAPID SPREAD OF THE STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE OUTBREAK IN THE MEXICAN CARIBBEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: A more in depth explanation of the representativity of the study, to allow generalizations is required, as expressed in the next sectioin: General comments to the author
Additional comments: An interesting and important study.

A few comments in order to improve the quality of the ms

L 93 “… affecting more than 20 species of corals (FEDP, 2019), usually in a specific order.”

Please, support this statement. While meandroid growth forms seem most susceptible, the specific order as generalize statement requires more support.

l181: “Here we describe how the SCTLD affected 82 reef sites distributed along 450 km in the Mexican …”
The surveyed sites comprise the whole reef profile or are constrained to a reef zone per site. If so, all surveys were carried out in similar reef zones?
How the 450km figure was arrived at?

l 196: “ …prevalence in the Mexican Caribbean was below 10%, reaching its lowest point in 2016-2017, just one year before the SCTLD outbreak in this region, with only 1%  (Fig. 4)”.

Please consider the following:
If disease incidence is unknown, prevalence values in time are dependent on mortality through time. i.e. prevalence in t1 is not linearly related to prevalence in t2, as totals and diseased coral numbers change.

Before SCTLD, severe epizootics mostly affected specific groups (Acroproras WB, Orbicellas YBS). Therefore the overall prevalence values may be driven by a few species, not truly representative of the coral community condition.

l 202 “…however, these events have decimated the populations of only a few species (e.g. white-band and white-pox in Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis).”
I believe that Orbicellas have been severely impacted by YBS, as well (See Edmunds, and others), a fact that is recognized below in this ms. Consider re-phrasing

l 207:  “… the following being the most affected (i.e. % disease prevalence)”
Percentage symbol is not necessary; by definition prevalence is expressed as %.

On the same tenet, prevalence is a recognized epidemiological numerical indicator, whereas affected is a colloquial expression, not related to a numerical scale.

l 207 “…Dendrogyra cylindrus (57%)”
A percentage value based on 7 colonies (fig.2) may appear dubious. Better to express it as 4 out of 7 colonies, and perhaps make some comment in fig.2

l 215 “We still found healthy colonies  of … “
This statement implies that a census was carried out instead of a survey. Please modify.

l 232 “… further increase the dominance of A. agaricites and P. astreoides in the region. This may have started to become apparent already.

Regarding the last statement:  These species have been becoming important long before SCTLD appearance, mostly due to disease driven coral mortality events in Caribbean reefs.

l 247 “…of the colonies were already dead as a consequence of the SCTLD “

“...were already dead probably as a consequence… “,   seems more appropriate as it is a post-mortem observation.

l 261 “This is particularly explained by the sudden increase of afflicted colonies and the number of dead colonies, especially from the species Meandrina meandrites, Pseudodiploria strigosa, Diploria labyrinthiformis and Eusmilia fastigiata”.

While the statement is probably correct, the scope of it is not clear enough. For instance, Pseudodiploria strigosa and Meandrina meandrites, and to some extent Diploria labyrinthiformis tend to be common to abundant in some coral assemblages, but their relative importance vary among reef zones and relative degree of reef development. So, in principle the above statement may hold for some conditions, but not for others. To me, the wording implies that each surveyed site comprise the whole reef gradient, if so, it should be clearly stated.

I believe it is fundamental that the authors clarify this to strengthen their work. As it is, the reader wonders in what reef zones the sampling was carried out and if that allows generalizing to the whole reef. In the same tenet, it will be adequate to explain the selection criteria used to choose the 14 sites.

I believe that even if results relate to a single reef zone it does not diminish the relevance of their findings. And if that were the case, restricting the scope of the claims, make for a more credible contribution.

298  “However, the SCTLD is likely to become the most contagious  and deadly coral disease ever recorded”

 Please clarify in what sense is contagious used;  and how that is known

Other: Several citations not included in references, among them Chan etal, 2019 and Precht, 2019


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: COMPLETE MITOGENOME OF OLIDIANA RITCHERIINA (HEMIPTERA: CICADELLIDAE) AND PHYLOGENY OF CICADELLIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English writing needs to be improved greatly.
Experimental design: Sequencing strategy in this paper is ambiguous. In Abstract, the author stated that mitogenomies were sequenced by NGS. However, in the section of Materials and methods, PCR and sanger sequencing were employed. It is unclear which of the sequencing method is used in this study.
Validity of the findings: 2.	One of the most important significance of mitogenome sequencing lies in providing additional molecular data for elucidating phylogenetic relationships of insects. What is the important issues required to be addressed in the Cicadellidae? This manuscript did not present any background or reviews on this point in the sections of Introduction or Results and Discussion. The results of phylogenetic analyses are too simple to make any sense on the phylogeny of Cicadellidae. Detailed phylogenetic results and associated discussion need to be provided.
Additional comments: P5 Line 33 srRNA > rRNAs.
P5 Lines 37-38 The description of relationships among subfamilies is insufficient by using only a set of parentheses.
P6 Lines 56-59 need to be rewrite for clarity.
P9 Line 184 amino acid codons > nucleotide positions


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: COMPLETE MITOGENOME OF OLIDIANA RITCHERIINA (HEMIPTERA: CICADELLIDAE) AND PHYLOGENY OF CICADELLIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article itself is well written, except for a few formatting errors, discussed below;

1)  Methods:  Line 94 – this section needs to be clarified. Did they generate an NGS template, and then confirm this my Sanger / PCR? I believe this to be the case, but the description is not that clear.  Also – information on the data - # reads per base, etc are all needed at some point (a supplemental?) so readers can assess what was done more easily.

2) Figure 3b. In addition to the AGG-K issues discussed in “Validity of Findings", I am not sure that the RSCU data is best presented as a bar graph. Especially one where the bar heights are different. I would suggest either re-organizing the data so there is the 6-codon, then 4-codon, etc groups clustered on the X axis, or replacing this with a table of some kind.  In addition – Ser2 has 4 codons, but the RSCU bar is about 5.7 in height (not 4), and Ser1 is between 2 and 3, while it should be either 4 (with the AAG-S error) or 3 (after correction). There is an error here, somewhere.

To the 4 points by the editor instructions, the presentation is clear, sufficiently references, other than the points above the structure and presentation is clear, and the article is self-contained with relevant results and discussion.
Experimental design: Other than the lack of clarity of the description of the sequencing methods and order described above, it is original research (but a standard analysis of a mt-genome). The research is well defined but a somewhat routine analysis, rigorous (if my assumption of sequencing is correct; again see above). Again, see "Basic Reporting" on how to improve the methods description of the sequence generation.
Validity of the findings: The most important analysis error is understandable, as this important observation has generally been ignored in arthropod mitogenome analyses. And this paper is 13 years old, so the authors may have missed it.  Abascal et al. (PLoS Biology 2006, 4(5): e127.) showed that the mitochondrial genetic code often shifts within the arthropods, where AGG can encode Ser in the standard invertebrate code (I will abbreviate as AGG-S), but Lys in a modified variant of this code (AGG-K). The code even shifts within the Hemiptera, with Triatoma (Cimicomorpha), Homalodisca (Cicadellidae) and Philaenus (Cercopoidea) using the AGG-K code while other use the AGG-S. Thus, the species sequences, and those used in the phylogenic analysis were already predicted to be AGG-K.

The diagnostic for this shift appears to be the alterations of the Lys tRNA having a CUU anticodon paired with a GCU Ser-1 aniticodon.  Figure 3 show both of these diagnostic anticodons. Thus the manuscript should point out that the AGG-K code is most likely used in this species (and most likely all those used in the phylogeny).  I feel it is very important that this is incorporated, so that the message that these alterations are there, and that the phylogenetic of mtDNA can be problematic if this changing of AGG is not take into account.

This then impacts on the codon number and RSCU data presented (Figure 2). Lys and Ser1 will be 3-codon families (Lys - AAG, AAA and AGG; Ser1 AGA AGC and AGU).  And it might be worth seeing what effect this has on the phylogenetic predictions (depending on who in the tree on Figure 6 uses what code).

In addition, there are errors in Figure 3's reporting of the RSCU results, outlined in the " Basic reporting" section.
Additional comments: The authors supply a relatively standard analysis of a new mitochondrial genome from a species within the Coelidiinae. The authors use a mix of NGS and PCR-Sanger confirmation to generate the genome (but see below).  They also supply standard genome and phylogenic analysis.

There are a few things that need clarification, and re-analysis undertaken in light of this. This paper also presents an opportunity to see if the AGG-S and AGG-K is an issue or not for phylogentic reconstruction. The authors need to check the codon use of all genomes incorporated in the study to see if all are AGG-K as predicted (using the tRNAs and checking the relevant alignments for S>R or R>S issues). If they are all AGG-K, widening the phylogeny to AGG-S Hemiptera and seeing if the analysis is altered by this.


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: COMPLETE MITOGENOME OF OLIDIANA RITCHERIINA (HEMIPTERA: CICADELLIDAE) AND PHYLOGENY OF CICADELLIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes sequencing and characterisation of the whole mitochondrial genome of the leafhopper, Olidiana ritcheriina. Overall, the findings are of interest to scientists interested in systematics of this and closely related insects.
Experimental design: I do find the experimental approach overall adequate, but several questions should be answered.
1. Line 130 Why you chose MAFFT 7.310 using the Q-INS-i algorithm for rRNA genes alignment?
2. Line 145 Why you chose using the GTR + G + I model for Bayesian (BI) analysis? Did this model was inferred by model selecting software or by your own experience?
3. Line 244 Are there some similar phylogenetic relationships when you compared with previous results using other genetic markers (e.g. Nuclear genes)?
4. The Table1, Figure 7 in supplementary material is better.
5. Did you use site-heterogeneous mixture GTR+G+I model in MrBayes? GTR is a site-homogeneous model, and MrBayes cannot execute GTR model for AA dataset. How did you realize that?
Validity of the findings: However, one major concern relates to the novelty of this work. Previous studies from author and others have also indicated that Coelidiinae members were clustered into a clade. I am struggling to see the novelty of this manuscript.
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: COMPLETE MITOGENOME OF OLIDIANA RITCHERIINA (HEMIPTERA: CICADELLIDAE) AND PHYLOGENY OF CICADELLIDAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This version has been improved. However, some minor revisions are needed. English writing is still poor, especially in the sections of Discussion and Conclusions.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: P5 L26 and P7 L100: Sangon sequencing should be Sanger sequencing.
P6 L65: Olidiana McKamey McKamey should be normal typeface.
P6 L66-68: this sentence need to be rewriten.
P6 L69: "provide support for" should be "provide insights for".
P6 L76-77 "and, thus, provide a basis for further molecular research on related taxa of the Cicadellidae species." is redundant.
P7 L114 loci should be boundaries.
P8 L126-129 this sentence need to be rewriten for clearity.
P10 L208-209 Triatoma, Homalodisca and Philaenus are the names of genus, they shold be italic.
P11 L241 five concatenated nucleotide sequences should be five concatenated nucleotide sequence datasets.
P11 L245-248 saturation analysis address the issue on whether some positions or partitions of a dataset are saturated, and to test whether these sites can be used for futher phylogenetic analysis.
P12 L291 presenting should be presented.
P12 L292-293 "The assembled and annotated mitogenome has been submitted to the GenBank of the NCBI with the accession number MK738125.“ is redundant.
P12 L300-301 "The Coelidiinae was directly grouped into one clade with Iassinae lineages." >> The Coelidiinae grouped with a clade comprising Iassinae.
P12 L306 imperative  >> needed
P12 L308 help in improving >> contribute to
P12 L209 delete "the still poorly understood".

"sp." in Figure 7 should be normal typeface.


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: COMPLETE MITOGENOME OF OLIDIANA RITCHERIINA (HEMIPTERA: CICADELLIDAE) AND PHYLOGENY OF CICADELLIDAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some of the corrected sections are unclear. Another re-reading is necessary.
Experimental design: Fine. But there are still math errors in the RSCU figure, implying a problem.
Validity of the findings: See Figure 2 problem, mentioned in 2.
Additional comments: Line 26-27 “Sequencing data were analyzed using maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses.”. Do you mean “Phylogenic trees were constructed using maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses.

207 -209 “Abascal et al. (2006; 2012) have showed that the code even shifts within…” should read “Abascal et al. (2006; 2012) have showed that the invertebrate mitochondrial genetic code even shifts within…”

Figure 2 – There are still errors in the RSCU graph. Ser2 sums to ~5.75 instead of 4, Ser1 and Cys should sum to 3 each.

Figure 3 – Labels A-V could just be removed. This time, I was confused what tRNA “B” was at a quick glance.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL GENES ASSOCIATED WITH LITTER SIZE OF INDIGENOUS SHEEP POPULATION IN XINJIANG, CHINA USING SPECIFIC-LOCUS AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT SEQUENCING TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: 1.	Lines 92-93: The authors mention that “Hpy166II + EcoRV-HF enzyme was selected for enzymatic digestion (Jin et al., 2018)”. However, I could not find this reference! They need to explain the basis for selection of these enzymes.
2.	Lines 94-96: At the same time, in order to evaluate the accuracy of the digestion strategy, Oryza sativa indica (http://rapdb. dna. affrc. go.JP/) was selected to evaluate the digestion efficiency (Li et al., 2009b).
            Kindly explain these lines in context of this paper.
3.	Line 141: Using EquCab2.0 sequence information of sheep genome……There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
            EquCab2.0 is for Equus caballus (horse) and not sheep.
4.	The authors have not discussed their results at all. They have just written about functions and previous studies regarding 3-4 genes.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL GENES ASSOCIATED WITH LITTER SIZE OF INDIGENOUS SHEEP POPULATION IN XINJIANG, CHINA USING SPECIFIC-LOCUS AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT SEQUENCING TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see "General comments for the author" section.
Experimental design: Methods section were not described with sufficient detail. With the current format of the paper it is not possible to replicate the experiment. Please see "General comments for the author" for details.
Validity of the findings: The data shared with the manuscript is not sufficient to replicate the experiment. The SNP data provided is very limited and no phenotype/ trait information was shared.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Ma et al. describes a GWAS analysis resulting in the identification of SNPs which might be associated with litter size in indigenous sheep population in Xinjian, China. Litter size is economically the most important trait in lamb meat production and hence this manuscript dealt with a very important topic for sheep breeders. However, I’ve evidenced a number of issues and possible flaws that have to be addressed before being able to assess the validity and sound of the results obtained in this manuscript.

Major Compulsory Revisions:
Line 80 – 85: Needs to describe more about the sheep populations. Are they very similar breeds or are they very different breeds? As mentioned in the introduction (lines 61-62), different breeds possess different major genes affecting their litter size, please justify the reason doing GWAS combining two populations. What was the pedigree structure of the sheep populations? Are there any half sib family, etc? In my opinion it would be better to add MDS plot or PCA or neighbour network to better understand the population substructures (if any) between Hetian and Bashbay sheep papulation and within population variability.
Lines 107 – 111: This is not clear which SNP analysis are you refereeing at line 107. More description is needed for the GLM and MLM models. Please describe the MLM’s fixed effects and random effects. Why do you need to fit two different models? It was not clear how a Manhattan plot (Manhattan chart analysis) was used to analyse population structure? There was no Q-Q plot included in the manuscript. A Q-Q plot and reporting of inflation factor are needed to check whether or not their p-values were overestimated. No need to describe what programming language was used to create plots (Manhattan Diagram). “… and R was used to map.” (to map what?)
Lines 131 – 132: A description of the quality control filters is needed in Materials & Methods section.
Lines 135 – 139: Is there any correction for multiple testing? How have the authors reached their p-value threshold of 5.19e-7? With the analyses in their current form, I am not convinced that the authors can conclude that any, let alone 155 SNPs are
associated with litter size trait in Xinjiang sheep. Is there any explanation why in GLM the number of significant SNP is more that 2.5 times than that of MLM? Is there any overlap between SNPs found in GLM and MLM?

Minor Essential Revisions:
Some typos like “.,” at the end of line 77 needed to be fixed.
Line 41, 172, 257 and 272: is that C>T or G>A? As per description in lines 174-175 this should be G>A.
Line 165: Nine (sites/loci?) of the final three genes.
Line 171: Box plots might be better to understand than Table 2.
Line 207 – 208: Reference is needed for LOC101107541 and LOC101107119 genes.
Line 211 – 212: “.. FSHR gene may be one of the important genes affecting litter size
of Hetian sheep”. What about Bashbay sheep?
In Table 1 for position columns, is that the SNP position? The primer sequence information could be added in Appendix and in Table 1 this information could be replaced with a short description of the genes like function, chromosome, etc.
The legends for Figures and footnotes for tables needed to be expanded.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL GENES ASSOCIATED WITH LITTER SIZE OF INDIGENOUS SHEEP POPULATION IN XINJIANG, CHINA USING SPECIFIC-LOCUS AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT SEQUENCING TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Overview: DNA from the Chinese indigenous sheep from southern Xinjiang with different litter size fecundity were sequenced by the SLAF-seq technique. The work is well written and has clear objectives. It has interesting results and a product of application in the genetic improvement of sheep, the marker genes.

Introduction: It is necessary to be constructed a review of the distribution, prevalence and economic importance of the sheep production market

Material and Methods- Why 126 individuals were subjected to SLAF library construction and not 129?

Results - Most of the results are clear. Nevertheless, there are minor points to be clarified:
Table 1 - Are 5 genes cited or 4? The numerical values are not corresponding throughout the text. I suggest a complete review of the numbers throughout the text. Other forms of evaluation such as quantitative RT-PCR are important for validating marker genes to be used in animal breeding programs.

Discussion- This work is applied research. How would this study and its results impact the sheep breeding programs? It is important that this information is included in the final document. Also, it is necessary for a deeper discussion, citing an effective marker gene already used in sheep breeding.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL GENES ASSOCIATED WITH LITTER SIZE OF INDIGENOUS SHEEP POPULATION IN XINJIANG, CHINA USING SPECIFIC-LOCUS AMPLIFIED FRAGMENT SEQUENCING TECHNOLOGY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thanks to the authors to address my concerns raised in my previous review. I think the manuscript has improved after addressing the issues raised by all the reviewers. Just few bits and pieces:
 In “peerj-36285-Manuscript(tracked_changes).docx”
Line 33: A total of 685,300 SNPs was identified by..
Line 113, 120, and 121: please add reference for PLINK,  Admixture and SPAGeDi software
Line 229: Remove the word “concerns” from “They are only concerns about ovulation rate, low attention to litter size”
Line 268: In this study, it was found that the 75320741 sites of the FSHR gene was successfully classified into three genotypes, namely GG, GA, and AA, in the breeds of Xinjiang Tianyang.
Please double check the number. How a gene has so many sites?


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. My major concern about the number of identified putative members (104). The authors claimed that they have a great variation in their peptide length from 96 to 1,178 amino acid residues. Is all of them contain full C2H2 zinc figure motif, or some of them only partial sequence information? In figure 1, there might be some of the members are missing. A major group of figure 1 (VIII) do not possess C2H2 motif. What is the explanation for this? Moreover, figure 1 and 2 provide similar information. It will be better if the authors make figure S1 as figure 2, and explain the relation with Arabidopsis. However, the number of groups for tomato only is 9 (Figure 2), while this is only 6 in the case of tomato and Arabidopsis phylogenetic tree (Figure S1). Please explain these issues.
Experimental design: 1. The authors stated that ‘We found that 65 C2H2-ZFs contained no introns (62.5%), 29 C2H2-ZFs had 1 to 3 introns (27.9%), and the remaining C2H2-ZFs contained more than four introns (9.6%). But there is no significance of studying presence or absence of intron. It is more interesting if the authors could explain the intron length variation among the genes due to evolution. In addition, kindly describe the analysis of tandem-duplicated gene pair’s identification.
Validity of the findings: 1. What is the reason behind the separation of 34 gene expression profile data detected in leaves, stems, and roots of tomato under heat stress as figure 7 and 8?
Additional comments: 2. Line 62, Put some references for the statement-
however, few C2H2-ZFs have been molecularly characterized in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum).

3. Kindly modify the writing style for the power value, such as
E-value cut-off 116 ≤ 1 ×10−20
E-value < 1 × 10−10


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Xu et al., identified 104 C2H2-ZF genes in tomato based on their homology to Arabidopsis. They examined the genome distribution, phylogenetic relationships, gene structure, motif sequence conservation and expression patterns of these genes.Furthermore, they assayed the expression level of some C2H2-ZF genes under heat stress by qRT-PCR and found their association with heat stress. Generally speaking, this manuscript is well-written. The language, organization, intro & background and quality of figures are good. However, I have a few concerns in regards to the methods and interpretation of results. Since they don’t conflict with the main idea of this paper, I would suggest a minor revision.
Experimental design: The experimental design for this manuscript is generally fine. However, I have a major concern in regards to the expression analysis and heatmap. The authors need to provide details on how they normalized the expression levels derived from different studies. Usually normalization across different rna-seq experiments could be hard, thus I am not convinced about their heatmap. Additionally, they mentioned that their qRT-PCR results were broadly consistent with the RNA-seq data. They did not provide evidence explaining how they draw this conclusion. At least they should compare the RNA-seq data with the qPCR data side by side. They would need to specify how they convert the normalization of RNA-seq data for comparison and what was used as the control.
Validity of the findings: Statements that need to be clarified are listed as follows:
1.The authors did not elaborate how they classified 104 ZFPs into 9 clades in Figure 1. On Line 212, the authors stated that NJ method was consistent with the ‘expected results’. I guess this was referring to Figure 1. However, they should not claim Figure 1 is ‘expected’ as it was too subjective. They also need to explain what Figure S2A-C refers to here.
2. Line 217, the authors claimed Figure 2 was consistent with Figure S1. This point is not convincing. For example, there are 9 groups in Figure 2 whereas 6 groups in Figure S1.
3. Line 232, the authors did not provide information on how other methods is less consistent with Figure 3 compared to NJ. There is no grouping information provided for other methods. How did they perform the comparison?
4. L237, it would be a good idea if the authors would describe the position (N- or C- terminus) of ZF domain and the number of ZF domain in each group to support their grouping. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know the identity of the other motifs. ZF motif is often accompanied by other motifs, which could be important for their functions and classifications.
Additional comments: Minor points:
1.L194-121: It seems that the authors started with 104 genes and after removing proteins without ZF domains, there were still 104 genes. Please clarify on that.
2. Did not find the figure legend for supp figures.
3. Line 253, please elaborate how the tandem-duplicated gene pairs were identified.
4. L285-288. This sentence is confusing, please rephrase.
5. Figure 1, I would suggest the authors to highlight the C-C-H-H structure in the figure (e.g. use arrows).


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in scientifically appropriate English
The literature cited is ample and provides somewhat an adequate background on the paper’s topic. The figures are relevant, well labeled and well described. They are all high quality except for figure 3. The gene annotations are very hard to read as the letter font is too small. The authors should change the font and make it legible.
The structure of the paper is in the professional standard and appropriate. The objectives of the paper are clearly stated and discussed.
Experimental design: This manuscript aimed to identify C2H2-ZF genes from tomato and analyze their structure, available their phylogenetic relationships, genomic locations, and gene structures. Expression profiles of some of these genes under heat stress were also reported. The authors have taken advantage of the abundant amount of phylogenetic and expression data available in databases to identify 104 C2H2-ZF genes in tomato. The authors analyzed the structures of these genes and classified them into nine categories. The authors selected 34 of these 104 genes and performed expression analysis under heat stress. The authors then speculated on the functions of these genes based on their expression profiles.
Validity of the findings: I have issues with the way the authors interpret some of the expression data represented in figures 7 and 8. The authors should be very careful when talking about up and down regulation of genes. The writing results describing figures 7 and 8 in the results section is not completely accurate. That whole section should be carefully rewritten and I will be discussing the specifics in the comments below.
Additional comments: 28 and 29: The sentence is incomplete. Please re-write
39: beta sheets instead of “beta sheet”
70. The sentence should read: and also interacted with ZAT7 or ZAT10 to enhance tolerance to salinity
80. Should read: the Stipules reduced (St) encodes a C2H2 zinc finger
91-92. Should read: the functions of the majority of the C2H2-ZFPs in tomato have not been reported (you have mentioned in the same paragraph, lines 82-86, that some of the C2H2-ZFPs have been already characterized)
285: The references in parenthesis have a different font than the rest of the paper.
286-288. Sentence starting at "To” in line 285 and ending at "(Figure S5) in line 288 is incomplete. Please re-write it
302 and 303: This is one example where the interpretation of the expression data is not accurate. The expression of Solyc11g062060.2.1  is not down regulated in the stems after 24 hours. Figure 7J shows that the levels of this gene are the same in 0 hours and 24 hours. It is down-regulated after 12 hours but the authors’ analysis is based on comparing the gene expression at 0 hours to 24 hours if I am correct.
307 and 308. The authors claim that the genes of groups VI and VII were almost all significantly upregulated in roots, stems and leaves after the heat treatment (Figure 7O-S). When looking at figure 7O, the gene Solyc03g115450.1.1 is not upregulated in leaves. Same thing for gene Solyc02g068980.1.1 which is not expressed at all in leaves at all times.
320. The authors claim that genes Solyc06g075780.1.1 and Solyc05g006310.2.1 were strongly upregulated in the roots and leaves. Figures 8I and 8K show that these 2 genes are not expressed at all in leaves.
323. Seven not six genes are upregulated in the roots, stems or leaves.
326-328. The expression patterns of the genes belonging to the same group were not similar in all the tissue, there was a lot of variability that is tissue-dependent. So the claim in these lines is not accurate
390. Should read: Among the C2H2-ZPs characterized, Zat6…
392. Should read ZAT10/STZ enhances (no “could).
393. Should read: OsZFP213 interacts with OsMAPK3 and enhances salt
395. Take out “were” and “the”
397. Take out “therefore” and “the” preceding 34 C2H2-ZF
413. Should read: we found that it was also induced by the heat treatment
417. Should read: heat treatment are interesting and should be explored in the future.
427. Should read: a strategy to improve heat tolerance of tomato plants.
Overall, the manuscript contains important information regarding newly identified C2H2-ZFPs in tomato. The phylogenetic and structural analysis were done adequately but the expression analysis need to be re-interpreted and re-written in the result and the discussion sections. The authors use this analysis to validate the expression data they retrieved for the database and speculate about the possible function of these genes in stress tolerance, so it is imperative that the data be interpreted accurately. Figure 3 also needs some revision to be more clear and easy to read.


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: It was interesting about investigation of C2H2 zinc-finger genes and their expression patterns in tomato leaf, root and stem under heat stress. This manuscript was written detailed overall. But, there is not described the major key point on manuscript. I fell that a style and contents of the manuscript are difficult for readers to know and/or understand what the authors would like be focusing in results and discussions. The authors should summarize the discussion section concisely and simply. Because mostly they were overlapped with the contents in results sections. Also, the authors missed figure legend of supplemental data. I recommend to revise the all content of the manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: It was interesting about investigation of C2H2 zinc-finger genes and their expression patterns in tomato leaf, root and stem under heat stress. This manuscript was written detailed overall. But, there is not described the major key point on manuscript. I fell that a style and contents of the manuscript are difficult for readers to know and/or understand what the authors would like be focusing in results and discussions. The authors should summarize the discussion section concisely and simply. Because mostly they were overlapped with the contents in results sections. Also, the authors missed figure legend of supplemental data. I recommend to revise the all content of the manuscript.

Minor points and other comments
1. You should edit the alignment of text. All text is aligned with the left except for references.
2. I recommend summarize the examples of C2H2-ZFPs (Line 78-90) in introduction.
3. In Figure 1, It is necessary to get clearly grouping standard about homology. The proteins were categorized into nine groups based on their homology so why didn’t you divide group Ⅲ?
4. Add NJ and ML detail parameter description. (line 133-135)
5. Plz, describe the normalization method in more detail (line 154)
6. In Line 214 and 285, you should revise the references as same font to the paragraph.
7. Line 235-236 seven to 31. Is it 7 to 31?
8. Line 268, I think you missed the Solyc09g009030.3.1. Check the group Ⅱ.
9. You should be revise the image quality of Figure 3 that is hard to identify the gene name.
10. Solyc06g075780.1.1 and Solyc05g006310.2.1 are upregulated in roots and stems showed in Figure 8. In Line 319-320, the authors are described as these genes are upregulated in roots and leaves. Please check this point.

11. I think it would be better to add a legend about the Fig 5 color.

12. The authors should be explain sum up the key points about Figure 7 and 8 that would be more helpful the readers to interpret about the results.
13. In Figure 7, You should write about 18 selected C2H2-ZF genes criteria in the legend. What are those C2H2-ZF genes yardstick of selection?
14. Fig S2A, B and C have different explanations as to which method they use. (line 211-212 and line 227-229)


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments.
Experimental design: no comments.
Validity of the findings: I still have a query regarding the grouping of all C2H2-ZFP sequences from Arabidopsis and tomato. they were grouped into six groups (A to F) in figure 1A, while tomato members were grouped into nine groups (I to IX). This provides a different grouping pattern. Uniform grouping pattern will provide a clear idea about the family diversification and differentiation.
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have done some work and responded to some of my concerns. However, there are still some problems remain to be solved.
Experimental design: The authors have resolved my concerns.
Validity of the findings: 1.Tree:
It is still not clear how Figure 1A is largely consistent with Figure 1B. The authors said that some genes in Figure 1A are closely related to Figure 1B. However, I did not see any direct evidence from their description. They did not mention by what criteria they define ‘closely related’. Maybe they could try to pinpoint those genes in the figure. They claimed that this method has been widely used in Liu et al., 2015 and Yang et a., 2016. While Yang et al., is a chinese manuscript I could not access, Liu et al., did not perform any analysis regarding consistency between different trees. Please clarity on that.

2.Heatmap:
L280, it seems that group III is very similar to II and IV. Please explain why this is excluded. In addition, the x-axis label of heatmap is unclear. I am not sure which column refers to fruit development (L290). The authors may also consider pinpoint the genes discussed in the paper on the figure. It is very hard to locate them in the figure.

3.qPCR:
First, I would suggest the authors to revise the first sentence of this section on L295 (to confirm the reliability ….). It seems that you had talked about qPCR ahead of this. Second, the statement that ‘genes with similar expression patterns were classified into the same clusters’ seems to be reckless. Except for the last group, genes in other groups all have different expression patterns. Third, the authors need to rewrite the description of gene expression patterns and improve the organization. The current version is inaccurate. Many genes they claimed to increase/decrease at 24h were actually DE at 12h. Many genes they described as ‘no change’ were actually lowly expressed, beyond their range of detection. Furthermore, the description is not well-organized nor reader-friendly. The authors could focus on genes with distinct pattern and only illustrate a few examples. Meanwhile, it is a good idea to label the group of genes in Figure 7 and 8 so that the audience would have a better idea. Finally, the authors need to clarify what their t-test was compared to. I assume should be values at 0h.

4. Discussion:
The authors said ‘classification of C2H2-ZFs in NJ tree displayed the difference’. Isn’t it conflicting with their statement on consistency? In addition, the authors talked about similar functions regarding flowering on L425. Do those genes belong to the same clade in Figure 1A?
Additional comments: Minor points:
1.L65, petunia should not be italic.
2.Please clarify the sentence ‘indicate we could assume the putative function of these genes in tomato’ on L196. What kind of putative function?


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: ok.
Experimental design: ok.
Validity of the findings: ok.
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have solved some of my concerns. There are still a few points that need to be clarified.
First, for figure 1, they mentioned ‘some genes in Group VIII and IX was closely related to Group B’. However, there are many genes also related to group A based on the color code. It looks that Group VII is also related to group A. Meanwhile, there is a green clade that does not have correspondence in Figure 1B. Therefore, the claim that Figure 1A is consistent with Figure 1B may not stand.
Second, on L284 and 287, the authors stated that group VIII have both patterns of high expression and low expression?
Third, the authors did not explain what the textbox refers to in figure 6. Presumably genes in group IX showing similar patterns? I am very confused about what category of the genes with arrow correspond to. And they did not label all the genes discussed in the text. Did not find the labels of Solyc03g025440.3.1, Solyc04g056320.2.1, Solyc06g065440.1.1, and Solyc11g017140.2.1.
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed most of my concerns. There are two minor points that need to be modified.
1. L205, should be ‘clustered’.
2. L203, the authors’ claim that ‘some genes in Group VII, VIII and IX was closely related to Group A and B’ is not true, consider group VII is only related to group A not B.
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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in scientifically appropriate English
The literature cited is ample and provides somewhat an adequate background on the paper’s topic. The figures are relevant, well labeled and well described. The authors addressed my concerns about figure 3. The gene annotation is now clear
Experimental design: No comments on the experimental design. It's adequate
Validity of the findings: The authors addressed my concerns regarding the interpretation of the gene expression data
Additional comments: I thank the authors for addressing my minor revisions. I have no revisions to add.


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: GENOME-WIDE IDENTIFICATION OF C2H2 ZINC-FINGER GENES AND THEIR EXPRESSION PATTERNS UNDER HEAT STRESS IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: It was still interesting about investigation of C2H2 zinc-finger genes and their expression patterns in tomato leaf, root and stem under heat stress. This manuscript was written detailed overall. I have no doubt on author’s results. The authors have addressed the issues raised in my previous review.

I hope author could be clear about below (minor comment)
1. Figure 1 is very small to confirm the gene names as belong to groups. I think that listing of gene names in suppl. data additionally could be better to readers.
2. Authors should check or change the inequality sign as ≤ in P.11 Line 267.
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: ASSESSMENT OF NORTH AMERICAN ARTHROPOD COLLECTIONS: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES FOR ADDRESSING BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript provides a timely and useful analysis of the current state of entomological collections, in terms of digitization activity, data accessibility, and growth trends. A report like this is especially relevant, given relatively recent investments by funding agencies in the U.S. (especially the National Science Foundation) and elsewhere. The authors cite recent and important papers, provide relevant context and background information, and provide a number of charts and figures (maybe too many; could some be made supplementary?).
Experimental design: The authors' stated aims are to "[characterize] different types of arthropod collections, [articulate] challenges specific to arthropod collections, and [assess] digitization efforts to date with a focus on meeting research data needs". The primary author is in a prime position to perform this kind of analysis as one of the leading researchers of SCAN, the primary data portal through which most North American insect data are shared. As I stated earlier, this type of analysis is timely and useful, given that we are several years into a massive effort to digitize natural history objects and make the data available for research. I find no major flaws with their experimental design, and I appreciate the comparisons with collections of other taxa (plants, vertebrates) and between countries. I found the classification of collections into tiers to be unintuitive, mainly in that Tier 1 included the _smallest_ collections. Also, albeit a minor quibble, their criteria for what it means to be "digitized" are clear and relevant but leave me feeling unsatisfied. For example, we've invested *heavily* in terms of resources, training, person hours, etc. in digitizing our collection, but because we cannot satisfy all four criteria, especially "(3) capturing habitus image(s)" and (4) vetting species-level identifications" it would be difficult to say we digitized much. Maybe 1,000 of our specimens satisfy all 4 criteria?
Validity of the findings: Their results are useful if largely unsurprising. The authors provide a reasonable discussion of each result and a decent assessment of the impacts of the ADBC program. Their conclusions - backed by data - should help the collections community validate increased collection efforts and argue for increased investment in digitization, infrastructure, etc.

The discussion around NSF's 10 Big Ideas and any recommendations regarding NSF strategic planning are likely irrelevant to readers outside of the U.S. Generalizing these recommendations to "science-funding agencies" or some such would be more inclusive and timeless.
Additional comments: Altogether this manuscript represents a much needed analysis of the current state of the art in entomological collections in North America. You have interesting observations, great recommendations about how we need to scale up our collections and activity, and overall it's an interesting paper. The references need a bit of work, as many are malformed or are missing critical information. The English is clear but would benefit from some editing - remove extraneous commas, remove some redundancy, define acronyms when first used, add missing references, etc. I highlight these issues directly in the 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: ASSESSMENT OF NORTH AMERICAN ARTHROPOD COLLECTIONS: PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES FOR ADDRESSING BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Meets standards, including citing the more relevant prior literature, except that nearly a dozen of the citations in the text or Table 1 are not cited in References.  Also, although all of the References are cited in the text, but many of them lack full publication data.  These omissions are all highlighted and commented in the attached copy of the main manuscript.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment here, but see general comments below
Additional comments: This important work is a very welcome contribution, and should stimulate discussion and iimproved solutions for making collection data available to the wider community of naturalists.  But the minor details are often sloppy (poor grammar, incomplete reference data or missing references, etc.) as noted in detail in the attached annotated pdf, and attention should be paid to fixing these details.

In general terms, the data sources are massive and comprehensive, and the analyses of these data and arguments drawn from them seem to be thoughtful and appropriate.  But one of the most important resulting arguments (how many specimens to collect and digitize per species) seems to be one of the most weakly supported. I.e., the number the authors came up with for the proposed effort (2500 records for each species) was arrived at simply by aiming to “match efforts for chordates” (line 340), rather than based on some more objective calculation (or estimation) of how much information can be extracted from X number of specimens, and how much is enough to be useful.  Such a goal (matching chordate information) is fine as an objective but probably quite unrealistic, given the far greater manpower and resources (on a per-species basis) available for chordate studies compared to arthropod studies, and the more charismatic nature of chordates which can generate public support and involvement more easily.  Perhaps the authors could discuss this issue more, and work to strengthen their arguments for the number they came up with.

Lastly, one general limitation of the authors’ approach is that it refers only to collection digitization in the strictest sense, i.e. digitizing full individual specimen data as a mininum starting point.  Although this is the ideal and desired endpoint, in practice the recommendations for collection growth and especially greater digitization effort are likely to be more aspirational than realistic in the several-decade time frame.  More intermediate or coarse levels of digitization, such as collection inventories that record collection holdings (number of individuals of each species or unidentified lot and the region(s) they are from, and presence of types) can be prepared with 1-2 orders of magnitude less effort, and still provide invaluable online information to systematists (e.g., to determine if a loan request or collection visit is necessary in connection with an ongoing taxonomic revision) and also provide firm data about the current status of a collection to collection curators or managers to aid the preparation of grant proposals to complete the detailed digitization that is desired in the long term.  Perhaps the authors could add a brief statement about this option as an intermidiate step?


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: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in a clear, unambiguous, technically correct English, and is conformed to the professional standards of courtesy and expression.
All the literature references are relevant, and correcly listed. Introduction furnished sufficient field background/context to demonstrate how the research fits into the broader field of knowledge.
The structure of the article conforms to the suggested format of  PeerJ. The figures are relevant to the content of the article, and appropriately described and labeled, their resolution is sufficient. All appropriate raw data have been made available in accordance with the journal data sharing policy.
The submitted paper is “self-contained”, and can be regarded as an appropriate ‘”unit of publication” being all the included results relevant to the hypotheses.
Experimental design: The research described in the manuscript is surely included within the aims and scope of the journal. The research question was well defined, relevant & meaningful. The research examined some interesting mechanism of insect thermoregulation filling an identified knowledge gap. The technical standard of the present research is high and have been conducted rigorously in accordance with the prevailing ethical standard in the field. The methods were described with sufficient detail and information to be reproducible by another investigator.
Validity of the findings: The present research explore new and interesting aspects of insect thermoregulation, which could have a larger impact on studies of insect physiology. The provided underlying data are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. The data on which the conclusions are based are provided in the Supplementary Material section. The results confirmed the hypothesis, and the conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: The paper is surely interesting and the experimental design is correct. Hovewer, I have some comments for the authors:
I'm wondering if the potential presence of "ultraviolet" dots on the elytral surface was tested.
The exact portion of the elytron used in the spectrophotometric analysis and thickness measurement must be showed in figure.
Since a low number of individuals was here examined, was the elytral colour variability (i.e., more or less extended dark dots) tested for the two species? The research was limited to two species, thus the results have to be confirmed using a larger dataset.

rows 56-61. the phrase is unclear, please modify it
rows 62-64. please explain better the problem of "limited evolvability" and "huge diversification"
rows 64-67 perhaps the phrase should be modified. The authors defined the Coleoptera as the most diversified animal group (this could likely be) but without explaining the reasons why. It is also unclear how the high diversification should be related to the thermoregulation mechanism. The presence of thickened forewings is a rather common pattern in insects (e.g., Dermaptera, Orthoptera and so on), although usually not so sclerotized as in Coleoptera. The presence of thick forewings cannot be regarded as a peculiar aspect exclusive to Coleoptera.
row 97. the phrase could be modified into "any other exoskeletal character could be involved in the thermoregulation mechanism".
row 117. According to the authors, the O. medius specimens were not identified using DNA barcoding but only by morphological characters. In row 115 the very same characters were defined "subtle and overlapping".  Was the rate of incorrect identification tested before the research?


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

Input:
Title: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript analyzes spectrophotometric and biometric characteristics of the elytra of the two related insect species, with the addition of certain statistical analyzes of the obtained parameters. I found the idea interesting, but several aspects and implications could be improved and some points need the attention of the authors.
-	The use of the English language needs to be improved. It would be the best to consult a native speaker colleague or some language service. The authors should pay attention to the length and construction of the sentences, especially in the introduction part.

-	The authors cite two papers previously published by them:
Alves VM, Hernández MI, Lobo JM. 2018. Elytra absorb ultraviolet radiation but transmit NIR radiation in Neotropical Canthon Species (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae).
Photochemistry and Photobiology 94:532-539.
Amore V, Hernández MIM, Carrascal LM, Lobo JM. 2017. Exoskeleton may influence the internal body temperatures of Neotropical dung beetles (Col. Scarabaeinae). PeerJ
5:e3349.
These two papers have similar hypotheses and methodology with the submitted manuscript, only other insect species were analysed. I would like the authors to discuss this prior work of theirs and to state how their current manuscript advances beyond or correlate with this prior work.
Experimental design: - In the first two lines of Materials and methods (101,102) authors say that studied specimens are Onthophagus coenobita (Herbst, 1783) and Onthophagus vacca.  Later in the text they explain that O. medius was studied and not O. vacca – ask them to synchronize the text.
- I suggest shortening the text about O. vaca, it’s not relevant for the study, or to move it into discussion. Also, lines from 118-135, about ecological characteristics of the species, should be displaced and analysed in discussion section. Here, give some basic morphological description of the species that initially attracted your attention (like, O.coenobita has yellow elytra and O. medius yellow with dark spots).
- How did they measure the weight of the specimens?
Validity of the findings: - Paragraph form lines 242-245 “The transmittance of the NIR radiation significantly decreased when elytron darkness and thickness were higher, obstructing the penetration of infrared radiation. Darkness seems to be the most influential parameter in this case (i.e., highest absolute values of the standardized regression coefficients).”- darkness is due to pigments, mostly melanin, that has absorption spectrum with an exponential decrease from the UV to the IR part of the spectrum (Pantelić et al., 2017, Physical Review E, 95(3), 032405, not cited), thus it should increase absorption in the visible and UV part of the spectrum, without special impact in IR. I would like authors to explain and discuss this.
- The previous comment also relates to the statement from lines 276-277 (“...while elytron darkness seems to be especially relevant in preventing the entry of NIR radiation
into the beetle body”)
- 259-256 “This research aims to assess if the characteristics of the elytral exoskeleton may contribute to facilitating the thermoregulation of beetles by differentially transmitting, absorbing or reflecting radiation of distinct wavelengths in correspondence with the environmental preferences of the species.”- Please be careful with this kind of statements, because you haven’t done any thermal measurements or thermal exchange mechanisms analyses, but only spectrophotometric and biometric analyses. Thus, this is not the primary aim of the manuscript, please rephrase it.
- 295-301 “This supposition would contradict the thermal
melanism hypothesis, which predicts that darker colour may be advantageous under colder
environments (Kalmus, 1941; Schweiger and Beierkuhnlein, 2016, Galván et al. 2018), but could explain why desert beetles are often dark (Turner & Lombard, 1990). In our case, the darkest elytra seem to make the access of infrared radiation into the body more difficult but do not seem to influence the absorbance of visible and UV radiation, unlike other situations that have been studied.”- Too bravely and freely interpretation without clear evidence, see first comment  from this section.

- One very important statement is that authors have measured transparency of the elytra in the near IR part of the spectrum (1400 nm), but insect cuticle shows two strong IR transmission minima at approximately 3 and 6 µm (Pavlovic et al., 2018, Journal of thermal biology, 76, 126-138, cited). It would be helpful if authors pointed out to this and discussed it or to extend their measurements to this part of the spectrum.
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: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written and present novel and relevant results on the physical mechanisms responsible for the management of environmental radiation by the exoskeleton of these beetles. I have only some specific comments, all of them related to their criteria for considering a P value statistically significant.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: Please, see my general comments.
Additional comments: This study analyzes whether the elytra of two sympatric and close related beetle species (Onthophagus coenobita and O. medius) respond differentially to the radiation of distinct wavelengths in agreement with their ecological preferences. The paper is well written and present novel and relevant results on the physical mechanisms responsible for the management of environmental radiation by the exoskeleton of these beetles.

I have only some specific comments.

Line 194. Change “are” to “were”
Lines 221-222. I do not believe that “UV reflectance values are slightly higher in the specimens of O. medius than in O. coenobita (0.53% vs. 0.27%). The value of O. medius, 0.53%, is almost twice the value of O. coenobita, 0.27, so it is clearly higher.
Line 224. If t=2.56, P=0.01, you cannot say: “they tended to vary”, they significantly varied, but, please, explain in which way lower or higher? And also explain what was your criteria for considering a P value statistically significant. P ≤0.05 is generally considered statistically significant. Check your owner lines 194-195 “When these between-species comparisons are statistically significant (P≤0.01)…”
Lines 224-225. In the same vein, in the case of Elytron position, you find significant differences, so you cannot say: Elytron also seemed to…
Line 227. Eliminate “seems to be” and replace by: is
Line 239. P=0.02 is statistically significant when you decide that the significance level is less than or equal to 0.05 (in the case that you consider this alpha level as significant), why do you decide to consider this P value as marginally significant?
Lines 259-262. This sentence is too long. A period at the end of line 259 “expectation. “solves this problem.


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: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is clear, and correctly used in the manuscript
The references are enough, the background is properly discussed.
The structure of the manuscript is correct, figures are of good quality, tables are clear.
The results are interesting, and support the hypothesis
Experimental design: The design of the present research is surely original.
The research questions are clearly defined, the identified research gap was filled by the present study
the investigation was correctly done, in conformity with the ethical standards in the research field.
The methods were destribed in details, and can surely be replicated
Validity of the findings: The research is inttresting, and new results are given.
The dataset is robust and the identification of the material was verified
Conclusions are correctly discussed, and related to the present findings
Additional comments: I appreciated the research, and surely can suggest to accept the paper in the present form


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: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: previous comment: -	The authors cite two papers previously published by them:
Alves VM, Hernández MI, Lobo JM. 2018. Elytra absorb ultraviolet radiation but transmit NIR radiation in Neotropical Canthon Species (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae).
Photochemistry and Photobiology 94:532-539.
Amore V, Hernández MIM, Carrascal LM, Lobo JM. 2017. Exoskeleton may influence the internal body temperatures of Neotropical dung beetles (Col. Scarabaeinae). PeerJ
5:e3349.
These two papers have similar hypotheses and methodology with the submitted manuscript, only other insect species were analysed. I would like the authors to discuss this prior work of theirs and to state how their current manuscript advances beyond or correlate with this prior work.

authors' respons: I am sorry but we disagree. In the first of these two mentioned papers the thermal ability of the beetle exoskeleton of some Geotrupidae species to regulate internal body temperature is examined subjecting dried specimens to several light sources. At this moment we still did not have access to a spectrometric device and the obtained results suggested that the variability in heating rates was mainly due to physical parameters as body volume. Subsequently, we continue the research in this field using a spectrophotometer on five Neotropical Canthon species (Scarabaeidae). The results provided by this study indicated that all the species showed a similar pattern in which the light from shorter wavelengths and higher frequencies is almost entirely absorbed by the elytra, while radiation from longer wavelengths and lower frequencies can mostly pass through the elytra. In this paper we suspect that one of the considered species (C. quinquemaculatus) might have a differential response linked to its ecological preferences. This possibility has motivated us to examine this question in other phylogenetic close and sympatric species with clear discrepant ecological preferences. The results provided in our study constitute a natural follow-up to examine the probable association between the ecological preferences of different species and the behaviour of the elytra under different radiations. So, it is obvious that the three papers follow the same research line but do not address the same issues, nor address them in the same way.

new comment: i suggest a shortened version of the comparison of the previous and this paper (a part of your answer) to be included in the manuscript.
Experimental design: no new comments
Validity of the findings: Deleted statement from the discussion (lines 404-406, track changes word version):

"However, Pantelić et al.,(2017) talk about the low capacity of melanin in the absorption of the IR spectrum in a dusk moth species, which could indicate that the structural component in which the pigment is embedded could influence its response"-   nicely correlates with the rest of the discussion, and explains that the structure could have a high influence to reflection/absorption properties of the elytra, and I suggest keeping it in the manuscript disscussion.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed my concerns in their revision. I have just two more suggestions, mentioned above. After that  I support acceptance of this manuscript for publication.


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

Input:
Title: VISIBLE AND NEAR-INFRARED RADIATION MAY BE TRANSMITTED OR ABSORBED DIFFERENTLY BY BEETLE ELYTRA ACCORDING TO HABITAT PREFERENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The paper has improved and now is clear and unambiguous. The authors present new and relevant results on the physical mechanisms responsible for the management of environmental radiation by the exoskeleton of these beetles. I have only one stylistic correction.

Line 428.- Author names and year in bold.