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: COMBINING MOTOR IMAGERY WITH ACTION OBSERVATION TRAINING DOES NOT LEAD TO A GREATER AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM RESPONSE THAN MOTOR IMAGERY ALONE DURING SIMPLE AND FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: The main concern is related to methodological concerns.
Details about autonomic nervous system (ANS) recordings should be provided.
More, the way in which these dependent variables are computed should be given. This is a strong lack in the method section.
Validity of the findings: This is dependent upon complementary information about methods of ANS data recordings and processing.
Additional comments: The aim of the study was to compare motor imagery (MI) efficiency to the association of MI and action observation (AO). The dependent variables were mainly related to autonomic nervous system recordings, i.e. heart rate, respiratory rate and electrodermal activity.
Results did not provide any evidence of a gain due to the association of MI and AO. The authors interpreted their results as a consequence of movement difficulty. As movement was very easy to perform, AO did not help the construct of the mental image of the movement and thus, did not change autonomic activity.

General comments:
Line 70: … due to an inhibitory mechanism in the primary motor cortex on the descending corticospinal tract pathways. However, this inhibition is not complete, for it is well known that the training of mental practice involves a component of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) (Guillot and Collet, 2005a).
	Do you have any reference which could show where does the ANS activity originate? You mention that inhibitory mechanisms come from the primary motor cortex and it seems implicit that this only refers to somatic commands. TO prevent any misunderstanding, I think that you should give additional information about the origins of ANS commands and why this is not inhibited. To sum, inhibitory processes seems different according to the origin of the command, i.e. from somatic or vegetative centres.

Line 75 and after (80, 84, 93, 95 and 154): … changes in the ANS that cause excitatory sympathetic responses,
I would suggest to remove ‘excitatory’ when referring to the sympathetic system as it is well known that it mobilizes the resources of the organism to face energy demands, whereas the parasympathetic branch is a moderator system. You should also refer to sympathetic nervous system with caution when you describe ANS commands as these also include those from the parasympathetic branch (e.g. those controlling the respiratory system and the cardiac system as well). I suggest to use a more general terminology when you describe the commands originating from the ANS, which are not restricted to the sympathetic branch, e.g. neurovegetative variables or more generally physiological variables as your experiment only involve physiological recordings.

Line 165-167: A Biopac MP150 system, a measurement device of autonomic changes, was used for the quantification and evaluation of autonomic variables.
I would suggest slightly changes in this sentence. A Biopac MP150 system, a measurement device of autonomic activity, was used for the recordings and processing of autonomic variables.

Page 7: Autonomic system variables. I would suggest to give additional information about sensors used for the recording of EDA and HR. It is important for the reader to know that the recordings were made with respect to the international guidelines. Please, give information about EDA sensors diameter, surface, diameter. It is necessary to give the recording method, constant current or constant voltage with their features to ensure that current density did not exceed the international standard. Give also information about the method for HR recordings.
L250 -252: It is not really surprising that you evidenced no significant difference among the EDA baseline level of the 3 groups. EDA is very specific to each individual and can vary from 1.5 µS to 70 µS (or from 15 to 700 k). Thus, the dispersion within a given distribution is very high and has little chance to be statistically different from another distribution. You may try to normalize your data and make the comparison again to make you data processing more reliable. However, I acknowledge that there no actual reason to find a difference among your three experimental groups.

Line 255: changes in HR. I suppose that you refer to mean heart rate. However, the way in which you extract your values from the initial signal has not been described. I suggest that you could emphasize the method section by providing the exact dependent variables you extracted from each physiological signal and how you processed each variable.
This may also apply these principles to respiratory rate and EDA. It is not clear to me whether your comparisons were made from mean values calculated within a determined period of time (or from any other method you should specify). You should give this information to make the reader aware of you own methods of data processing.
In the discussion section (Lines 385-388) you refer to the studies by Peixoto et al. (2017) and Guillot et al. (2008). You reported that the variables they used were similar to those of your studies. However, they processed autonomic responses whereas you did not give detailed information about the way you processed your data. I supposed that you only processed mean values computed on a given period of time (i.e. the duration necessary to elaborate the mental image of the knee movement) but this was not clear to me. If now you refer to autonomic responses, this refers to a different data processing of ANS variables. In this context, what about the HR responses and the RR responses?
L 284: no association was found between the ANS response and the ability to generate motor images (p > .05). It seems that this finding contradict several previous publication showing that ANS activity during MI was different between 2 groups of participants made of individuals with high vs low MI abilities. I suggest that this difference comes from methodological concerns and I advise the authors again to give more information about the way in which they processed their data.

Discussion section:
L 296: I suggest that you may avoid using sympathetic excitatory response when you refer to general ANS variations. As previously underlined, you should keep “sympathetic response” to the variables which are only on the control of the sympathetic branch i.e. EDA.
L 300 – 316: You provided evidence that action observation associated with motor imagery did not elicit stronger ANS responses by comparison with MI alone. You considered the following hypothesis: the movement that were asked to observe are very simple (extracted from movements used in the MIQ-R test). Thus, action observation does not bring additional information in the understanding of what should be actually mentally represented and does not really help MI. This could be mention as one of the strong argument of the discussion section. As a consequence, you should question the role of AO + MI in more complex motor skill and underline movement complexity as a limited factor of your experiment. I mean that complementary data should consider movement complexity as a dependent variable to be tested.
The main limitation of this study comes from a lack of information about the methods of data processing. You should really improve this section by giving information related to the variables you really processes unless every comparison of your data with those from previous studies could be discussed and contradicted.
The other concern is related to the new knowledge brought by your study. You mentioned that the association of AO with MI did not bring additional effect (by comparison to MI alone). You interpreted this result by referring to movement complexity. I wonder whether this finding is enough innovative to be worthy to be published. As previously suggested, I wonder whether this experiment would bring additional scientific value by including an independent variable related to movement complexity.


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: COMBINING MOTOR IMAGERY WITH ACTION OBSERVATION TRAINING DOES NOT LEAD TO A GREATER AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM RESPONSE THAN MOTOR IMAGERY ALONE DURING SIMPLE AND FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Describe the introduction more detail  why did you make a hypothesis in this study. MI and AO can increase the ANS activity. However, in introduction, there is no previous literature about the difference between MI+AO and only MI trial. Therefore, I suggest that you provide more neurophysiological information (i.e. PET, fMRI, NIRS, and TMS) during MI+AO and MI trial.
Experimental design: In present study, there are no significant difference in various ANS indices during MI+AO and MI only trial. However, in this study, you did not study about the ANS activity during AO only. Therefore, it is unclear how only AO trial effects on the result of this study. I think you need discuss about effect of AO on the result of this study in disussion, or measure the ANS activity during AO in isolation.

In this study, the ANS activity was measured after each MI session for 30 seconds. However, immediately after MI session, the LF/HF ratio as index of sympathetic nerve activity was returned at rest level (Bunno et al., 2015). Additionally, many authors measured the ANS activity concurrent with MI session (Decety et al., 1991, 1993; Demougeot et al., 2009; Williamson et al., 2002). Please explain why the author measured the ANS activity after MI session.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This study was well designed and described. However, as above, there are several points should be described in detail. Also, I suggest you discuss what clinical significance does the result of this study has.


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: COMBINING MOTOR IMAGERY WITH ACTION OBSERVATION TRAINING DOES NOT LEAD TO A GREATER AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM RESPONSE THAN MOTOR IMAGERY ALONE DURING SIMPLE AND FUNCTIONAL MOVEMENTS: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I think that revision has been made sufficiently for comments. In future, I would like you to promote the research to resolve the limitation.


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: FABRICATION OF CALIXARENE-GRAFTED BIO-POLYMERIC MAGNETIC COMPOSITES FOR MAGNETIC SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION OF NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS IN WATER SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English should be revised by a native speaker throughout the manuscript. Some sentences are not well-written and are hard to understand.

Abbreviations should be revised. Some terms for which abbreviations have been provided appear latter in the text and should be replaced by their abbreviations.
Experimental design: In the work by Yaacob and co-workers, authors have synthetized a calixarene framework functionalized bio-polymeric magnetic composite and used it for the magnetic solid-phase extraction (m-dSPE) of four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs from tap, drinking and river water samples prior their determination by HPLC-DAD. In particular, authors carried out a suitable characterization of the sorbent by FT-IR, XRD, FESEM, EDX, VSM and BET analysis. They also optimized parameters such as sorbent amount, extraction time, sample volume, type and volume of elution solvent, desorption time and pH of the sample in order to maximize the extraction efficiency of the procedure. Finally, the methodology was validated and applied to real sample analysis. However, and despite the interest of the use of this sorbent, some aspects, especially related with the optimization of the extraction procedure, preclude the publication of this manuscript in this journal:
1)	During the optimization of the extraction, authors selected 30 minutes as the time which provided the highest peak areas. Although it seems to be justified by the data shown in Figure 7 (A), 30 minutes is a relatively long extraction time. Considering that the next value that is below is 20 minutes, authors should have done some tests between 20 and 30 minutes of extraction to check if peak areas decreased or not. They should have tried to reduce the extraction time.
2)	The values of peak areas obtained with 10 minutes of elution are practically the same as those obtained with 5 minutes. Moreover, the repeatability obtained in both cases is also very similar. However, authors opted for 10 minutes.
3)	Regarding the elution step, ACN was selected as the elution solvent which provided the highest peak areas. However, MeOH was the best solvent for the elution of fenoprofen and similar recoveries were found for another analyte in both cases. Thus, a mixture of both sorbents should have been tested. Authors commented that when more than 1.5 mL of ACN were used, the peak areas decreased due to the dilution factor. However, such decrease is not justified since in the description of the m-dSPE procedure they say that the elution extract was dried and then reconstituted in 0.7 mL of ACN. If that is so, the peak area should be practically the same using 1.5 mL or using higher volumes, considering that this volume is enough for the complete elution of the target analytes. On the contrary, the values obtained with 2 and 2.5 mL of ACN are very similar to the ones obtained with 0.5 and 1.0 mL.
4)	Authors say that best peak areas are obtained at pH 4 and they try to justify it by means of the pKa of the analytes. However, considering the pKa values of these analytes, at pH 4 some of them will be ionized while others will be in their neutral form. Therefore, peak area values obtained at pH 4 are not justified. Further tests should be done at pH 3 and 5.
In conclusion, the optimization of the methodology was not properly developed, some experiments are missing, results are not properly justified and some of them are incongruous.
Validity of the findings: The bad experimental design make that the obtained results are not reliable.
Additional comments: In the work by Yaacob and co-workers, authors have synthetized a calixarene framework functionalized bio-polymeric magnetic composite and used it for the magnetic solid-phase extraction (m-dSPE) of four non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs from tap, drinking and river water samples prior their determination by HPLC-DAD. In particular, authors carried out a suitable characterization of the sorbent by FT-IR, XRD, FESEM, EDX, VSM and BET analysis. They also optimized parameters such as sorbent amount, extraction time, sample volume, type and volume of elution solvent, desorption time and pH of the sample in order to maximize the extraction efficiency of the procedure. Finally, the methodology was validated and applied to real sample analysis. However, and despite the interest of the use of this sorbent, some aspects, especially related with the optimization of the extraction procedure, preclude the publication of this manuscript in this journal:
1)	During the optimization of the extraction, authors selected 30 minutes as the time which provided the highest peak areas. Although it seems to be justified by the data shown in Figure 7 (A), 30 minutes is a relatively long extraction time. Considering that the next value that is below is 20 minutes, authors should have done some tests between 20 and 30 minutes of extraction to check if peak areas decreased or not. They should have tried to reduce the extraction time.
2)	The values of peak areas obtained with 10 minutes of elution are practically the same as those obtained with 5 minutes. Moreover, the repeatability obtained in both cases is also very similar. However, authors opted for 10 minutes.
3)	Regarding the elution step, ACN was selected as the elution solvent which provided the highest peak areas. However, MeOH was the best solvent for the elution of fenoprofen and similar recoveries were found for another analyte in both cases. Thus, a mixture of both sorbents should have been tested. Authors commented that when more than 1.5 mL of ACN were used, the peak areas decreased due to the dilution factor. However, such decrease is not justified since in the description of the m-dSPE procedure they say that the elution extract was dried and then reconstituted in 0.7 mL of ACN. If that is so, the peak area should be practically the same using 1.5 mL or using higher volumes, considering that this volume is enough for the complete elution of the target analytes. On the contrary, the values obtained with 2 and 2.5 mL of ACN are very similar to the ones obtained with 0.5 and 1.0 mL.
4)	Authors say that best peak areas are obtained at pH 4 and they try to justify it by means of the pKa of the analytes. However, considering the pKa values of these analytes, at pH 4 some of them will be ionized while others will be in their neutral form. Therefore, peak area values obtained at pH 4 are not justified. Further tests should be done at pH 3 and 5.
In conclusion, the optimization of the methodology was not properly developed, some experiments are missing, results are not properly justified and some of them are incongruous.
Other specific comments:
-	Authors selected 30 mg of sorbent as the amount which provided the highest peak areas. However, the explanation they gave to justify the decreasing in peak areas when higher amounts of sorbent were used is not clear. Authors should rewrite this or find a suitable explanation to this fact.
-	English should be revised by a native speaker throughout the manuscript. Some sentences are not well-written and are hard to understand.
-	Abbreviations should be revised. Some terms for which abbreviations have been provided appear latter in the text and should be replaced by their abbreviations.
-	Were LODs and LOQs experimentally checked?
-	Authors should explain how the mixture of the sample and the sorbent was carried out during the extraction. How did they stir the mixture?
-	How was the calibration curve experimentally developed?
-	Details about organic solvents, mobile phase additives, analyte standards, etc. should be given in the materials section.
-	‘Sorbent amount’ should be used instead of ‘adsorbent dosage’.
-	Concentration units should be changed to ‘μg/L’, since ‘mL’ is not an International System unit.
-	Complete equations of the calibration curves should be provided in Table 1.


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

Input:
Title: FABRICATION OF CALIXARENE-GRAFTED BIO-POLYMERIC MAGNETIC COMPOSITES FOR MAGNETIC SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION OF NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS IN WATER SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It’s highly significant for public health to monitor medicinal compounds in aquatic environments. This work reports on an MSPE procedure for analysis of NSAIDs in water using a novel magnetic nano-composite material. The study is well designed and performed. Results are solid. The proposed MSPE-HPLC-UV method has advantages over the existing methods. It’s my recommendation that this work is accepted for publication with minor revisions.
Experimental design: Study is well designed .
Validity of the findings: The results are solid.
Additional comments: 1.	Solution pH has a huge impact on the MSPE efficiency. However, it’s not mentioned through out the article how the pH was maintained at 4.
2.	Caption for Fig 10. The spiking concentrations of NSAIDs should be stated here.


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: FABRICATION OF CALIXARENE-GRAFTED BIO-POLYMERIC MAGNETIC COMPOSITES FOR MAGNETIC SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION OF NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS IN WATER SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This work described the fabrication and characterization of a material for MSPE, and its performance for extracting several pharmaceuticals were assessed.
The paper was written in a logical order, with clear language. Literature review was comprehensive, and sufficient background was provided in the introduction.
The structure of this paper is well organized, with raw data shared in supporting information. So in general, I think this work meet the standard of PeerJ, and should be accepted for publication after minor revisions.
Experimental design: The research question was relevant and clearly defined. Well controlled experiments were conducted, and methods were described with enough details that readers should be able to replicate. From the information provided, the investigation was performed to a high standard.
Validity of the findings: Most of the data look solid and convincing, and the figures and tables support the conclusions. The conclusions are well stated, and
The only two questions I have on the results are:
1, the use of peak areas as a measure of analytes concentration, in Figure 6,7,8,9 and SI 4. I understand that all the recoveries are based on relative comparison, but why not quantify the concentration in accurate units?
2, the authors mentioned recoveries in the text, but I did not see the baseline (100%) in any of those bar plots. This cause some difficulties when connecting the text to the figures. Standard bars or a horizontal lines should present in those figures.
Additional comments: Line 56, "These drugs pose toxic effects in aquatic ecosystems and may cause harm to not only marine life but also to humans"you will need reference for such statement.
Figure 1, I see there is some notice about "Auto Gamma Correction" used, which seems to blur the figure. After all, these are common pharmaceuticals, why not just use plain presentation for the structures (like those in Figure 2)?


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

Input:
Title: FABRICATION OF CALIXARENE-GRAFTED BIO-POLYMERIC MAGNETIC COMPOSITES FOR MAGNETIC SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION OF NON-STEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS IN WATER SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: A more sufficient survey of background should be performed, please focus on the synthesis of calixarene modified magnetic nanoparticles. The relative information should be added in Introduction.
Experimental design: Overall, the experimental design of this manuscript was quite thorough, except that the adsorption capacity of the synthesized nano composite should be better added.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The author synthesized calixarene-grafted biopolymeric magnetic nanocomposite, and used it as the adsorption medium for the analysis of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in environmental water. The nanocomposite was carefully characterized, the extraction conditions were thoroughly evaluated, and compared to previously reported methods, the proposed method exhibited a better performance. However, there are some issues need to be addressed before publication. Therefore, I suggestion a major revision of this manuscript should be made before the acceptance by Peer J. The specific comments are listed as follows.
1.	In the Introduction, the instable property of naked MNPs in acidic environment or other harsh condition were indicated as a disadvantage. However, Fe3O4 was immobilized on the surface of the designed nanocomposite, thus directly exposed to acidic solution when extracting samples. It seems controversial. Please revise the manuscript to make the points consistently.
2.	Many calixarene modified magnetic nanoparticles were reported so far. Please compare the advantages of the prepared nanoparticles with the reported ones in the aspect of synthetic methods, etc.
3.	Please indicate the binding mechanism of caixarene with guest molecules more clearly. Are there other interactions existed aside from pai-pai stacking interaction, hydrophobic or hydrophilic interaction? In other words, why can NSAIDs be selectively extracted by caixarene modified nanocomposite?
4.	An adsorption isotherm and adsorption capacity should be investigated to elucidate the adsorption behavior between sorbent and NSAID.
5.	It would be better if Figures 6-9 could be merged into one.


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: NITROUS OXIDE VARIABILITY AT SUB-KILOMETRE RESOLUTION IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: General commend
    N2O is one of the most important greenhouse gases; it also acts as key ozone depletor. The Southern ocean was considered as one of the most important N2O source to the atmosphere; however, very limit data is available. The authors provide a set of precious data using a state-of-the-art technique. The data is in good quality, and provide some very important information, base on which the authors draw reasonable conclusions. I understand the difficulty of writing a manuscript using a single set of N2O data. However, it seems that the authors do not make good use of their surface hydrographic data. The authors separate the study area in the study area, but the criteria for this separation, and the hydrographic processes that influence the distribution of these distribution patterns is not clearly addressed; instead, the authors discussed the factors that regulate the distribution patterns by citation of other studies, but some of the citation is inappropriate, and the mechanism of how the source and sink characteristic are ambiguous. Moreover, the structure of the MS may need to be rearranged. Major revision is needed before this paper can be accepted for publication.

Specific commend

Line 147. The air sea exchange evaluation method of Wanninkhof 1992 is widely used, but Wanninkhof 2014 published another work to update the 1992 result, which I would suggest the authors to use.

Line 154. JR260B and JR255A/GENTOO are two cruise tracks both cross different frontal structures of the southern ocean, there may be possible similar phenomenon along this cruise tracks, whereas the JR260B itself contains a round trip cruise track, also show some different signal on the same region, that can also provide some interesting information.

Line 166. How the authors determine the location of the frontal structure? Generally, there are different criteria that mark the location of the frontal structures, including temperature, salinity or oxygen at certain depth. The authors should provide these criteria for different fronts.

Line 200. There is not enough evidence to convince the reader about possible remineralization of sinking bloom biomass. There is a gap between the de Baar’s work and the above conclusion. A image or description of distribution of chlorophyll distribution pattern may be helpful.

Line 223. Antarctic Surface Water should be deleted

Line 237. One of my concerns is why the authors arrange the sections in this way, they discuss the distribution of N2O and saturation, then flux, and then back to possible biogeochemical processes that may influence the distribution? It will be better to discuss all the possible factors that will influence the distribution pattern, then to discuss the result of the air-sea flux evaluation.

Line 255. The citation of Bange et al (1996) used here may be inappropriate, these are two very different locations.

Line 267. Again, the criteria of these frontal structures are needed.

Line 295. Is the nutrient or Dissolved oxygen measured during this cruise, especially the latter, which is an important criterion to indicate the UCDW?

Line 344. I don’t think undersatrautions of N2O in the sea ice appropriate expression, there is no study about the solubility of N2O in the sea ice. A quote here may be more rigorous.

Line 385. It’s inappropriate to consider this -0.5 μmolm-2 d-1 as a sink, even the authors does not provide the uncertainty of this flux. Therefore, the possible reason of the “sink” should be cautious.

Line 441 the term “Eddies” appears for the first time in the MS after the Abstract, it also appears in the Figures 3. Is there more information about this eddy, how to identify this eddy structure, and what kind of eddy? At least the authors should provide this information in results.

Line 456. As mentioned before, I wonder why the authors put this section as a final part of this MS. There are factors those will influence the distribution of the N2O and so as to it air-sea flux, including hydrographic ( temperature, salinity, frontal structures) and the biogeochemical process, which can be learn from distribution patterns of nutrient and chlorophyll etc. so, it will be better to discuss all the factors influence the distribution then to discuss the air sea flux.

Line 457. Did the authors try to plot the N2O against NO3- or Chlorophyll in different frontal zone or front respectively? It’s very difficult to find correlation between N2O and Chlorophyll or NO3- of the whole study area, since different hydrographic and biogeochemical processes presents in the different zone or front. For example, ASSW is fresh and cool water mass which should be more equilibrate with the atmosphere, whereas where upwelling of CDW approaching the surface, higher N2O concentration presents, then above correlation should definitely be different.

Line 476 superscript of NO3- is missing, and there are several same typo below.

Line 515 The term “sink” should be used carefully, the “sinks” generally present during summer when the sea ice melt or surface water cooling, therefore it should be seasonal event, so temporal sinks is a more appropriate expression than “sink”.

About the Figures
Figure 1. I would like to know how the lines marks the frontal structure comes, satellite remote sensing data?

Figure 2. I would suggest the authors to expand the color scales of all these Figures (the same for Figure 3 and Figure 4), that may provide more information for this Figure.

Figure 3. The T-S plots can provide important information about the water masses; however, for the surface water it will not be that effective. Moreover, I think it is inappropriate that the authors mark the “approximate” positions of the fronts in Figure 3. The frontal structure generally shows sharp change of parameters such as temperature, salinity etc. Take SAF for example, which marks by sudden change of temperature from 4-8°C. Therefore, its hard marks the approximate position of the SAF on the ST plot. Instead of using ST plot, I suggest the authors use latitude/longitude/distance against N2O concentration/Saturation/temperature/Salinity, with which, frontal structure will be easier to indicate.


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: NITROUS OXIDE VARIABILITY AT SUB-KILOMETRE RESOLUTION IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is generally well written and structured. The introduction shows necessary information on the N2O distribution in the Southern Ocean with appropriate literature cited. Some more information on the microbial (nitrification, denitrification, nitogen fixation) and physical processes (transport processes, solubility effects) that can influence the N2O distribution should be given, however, as these are discussed in the course of the manuscript.

The manuscript is accompanied by the measured concentrations of N2O, its saturation and corresponding fluxes, together with sampling time and position data in the supplement. The data seem sound and presented in a clear format; it would nevertheless be very helpful to also include temperature and salinity as well as wind speed in the data submission. This would allow the recalculation of saturation and flux measurements.
Experimental design: The manuscript „Nitrous oxide variability at sub-kilometre resolution in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean“ by Grefe et al. reports surface measurements of nitrous oxide from two cruises in the Southern Ocean. These data help to fill an important gap in global ocean N2O flux estimates, as measurements from the Southern Ocean are sparse and its role for N2O emissions is still unclear.

The method description of the N2O measurements and the calculation of saturation and air-sea fluxes is detailed and comprehensive. However, I found it confusing that the nitrate and chlorophyll a data products that were used are described quite at the end of the manuscript (section 3.3), but potential links between N2O and chlorophyll a  discussed already in earlier sections. Maybe it makes sense to move the description of the data products to the methods section. I would also recommend to include more details on the data products used – e.g. which spatial resolution was used? How were the N2O data matched onto the gridded data products (see my comment below)?

Specific comments:

Lines 143-144: please specify how the in-situ data are matched to the CCMP data. Did you use the closest (in time and space) available data or were the CCMP data interpolated? Were CCMP data compared to in-situ wind speeds?

Lines 159-160: „Surface water saturations [...] based on these values.“ Did you use the average atmospheric mole fractions from the respective cruises (323.6 and 324.0) to calculate N2O saturations and fluxes?
Validity of the findings: While the N2O distribution and the derived N2O emissions seem conclusive, the discussion of the N2O source processes needs some improvement:
The authors attribute the general N2O supersaturation found during their measurement campaings mainly to N2O production by nitrification and try to correlate N2O saturations with chlorophyll a and surface concentrations of nitrate as indicators for nitrification. I have several difficulties with this argumentation:

I) Other processes that could influence N2O saturations in the surface waters should be discussed in more detail. Can physical processes account for the observed saturations (e.g. cooling/warming of surface waters, mixing of water masses with different temperatures/salinities, bubble effects) What is the role of diapycnal mixing for the generation of oversaturation in surface waters? Rees et al. (1997) reported substantial oversaturations of N2O in the circumpolar deep water, a finding which is consistent with the increase in N2O in waters influenced by the UCDW found during JR255A/GENTOO. Could these waters supply sufficient N2O to the mixed layer to generate the observed saturations?

II) I doubt that the correlation between the in-situ N2O data and monthly averaged Chla and climatological nitrate for the entire dataset provides much meaningful information (as shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7. Surface chlorophyll a as well as nitrate concentrations can at best be interpreted as indirect indicators for nitrification and associated N2O production, as nitrification is attributed to remineralization, not to primary production. This process may not coincide in time and space with high productivity.
Similarly, high nitrate concentrations in the surface ocean are not necessarily a good indicator for nitrification, as nutrient assimilation strongly influences the surface nitrate concentrations.

Moreover, as mentioned by the authors themselves, there may be a significant bias between in-situ measurements and monthly averaged or even climatological datasets. Nevertheless there may be a correlation between N2O and chlorophyll a for parts of the cruise track (e.g. the data from Stromness Bay) as an indication for an influence of primary productivity on N2O emissions.
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: NITROUS OXIDE VARIABILITY AT SUB-KILOMETRE RESOLUTION IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This paper is improved alot after rivision, though its a pity that no enough matching parameters like nutrient and DO and so on for each cruise, which can not be improved by further revision, however, the N2O underway data in this region is an important contribution to community. Therefore, I recommend publish of this paper, but before that some minor revision is need.
I would like to see the author provide the criteria of the frontal structure in the paper. The authors response that there are criteria explained in section 3.1.1, they surely are, however, the explanation is something like warmer and colder, or freshening, that's quanlitative discription not quantitative, if possible a temperature or salinity range as a criteria will be better, the reader may not familiar with the proerties of these frontal structure, the may not be able to tell them from the figures.


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: NITROUS OXIDE VARIABILITY AT SUB-KILOMETRE RESOLUTION IN THE ATLANTIC SECTOR OF THE SOUTHERN OCEAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please view my previous review and my comments to the authors below.
Experimental design: Please view my previous review and my comments to the authors below.
Validity of the findings: Please view my previous review and my comments to the authors below.
Additional comments: The revised manuscript was improved by the authors. As suggested, information on the physical and biological processes influencing N2O concentrations in seawater have been added to the introduction section, and the data accompanying the manuscript now allow the re-calculation of saturation and gas exchange fluxes. Likewise, information on the methods used for matching the gridded Chlorophyll a and nitrate data products was added.

I think that the data presented in this manuscript are a great contribution to the knowledge on the oceanic N2O distribution.

My main concern regarding this manuscript however was that the authors try to find a correlation between N2O saturation and Chlorophyll a and nitrate concentrations as an indicator for in-situ N2O production. In the manuscript, the authors indeed discuss the shortcomings of this approach. I would however be interested if at least short-term data products of satellite Chlorophyll a (e.g. 3-day or 8-day averages) are available that could be matched to the N2O data and produce more significant correlations between these parameters.


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: GENETIC ANALYSIS OF WATER LOSS OF EXCISED LEAVES ASSOCIATED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN WHEAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting is fine
Experimental design: Experimental design is fine
Validity of the findings: The finding is valuable and fine
Additional comments: Minor corrections/suggestions:

(1) The title of this manuscript has to be modified and shorten. This is not suitable to use two phrases in one title: ‘water loss of excised wheat leaves’ and ‘excised-leaf water loss’. Author can choose and keep either first or second part of the title only. Alternatively, it is possible to merge two parts of the title together with the elimination of repeated phrases.

(2) L54, L56, L59, L527, L530, and in entire manuscript. It would be better to use a term ‘drought tolerance’ rather than ‘drought resistance’ because ‘resistance’ is more suitable for ‘disease resistance’.

(3) L186. Please specify what types of 702 molecular markers were used for genetic mapping and QTL analysis? In the indicated Reference, DArT markers were used but earlier SSR markers were employed. Please indicate, if only these or other molecular markers were present in the used genetic map.

(4) L234, L241, L426 and in other parts. Please use a special mark ‘cross’ indicating a hybridization and hybrid analysis rather than letter ‘x’. The correct marks were used on Lines 238 and 289.

(5) L387. Please indicate, what does ‘constitutive’ mean in the context of leaf traits? This term can confuse Readers for ‘constitute gene expression’. Therefore, it would be better to replace ‘constitute’ to another term with similar meaning.

(6) L428-434 and in other parts of the manuscript. Please explain and modify accordingly to make clear phrases ‘increasing allele’ and ‘alleles increasing’. Is this increased frequency of a certain allele in analysed progeny? Increased probability or something else? The meaning of these phrases must be very clear for all Readers.


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: GENETIC ANALYSIS OF WATER LOSS OF EXCISED LEAVES ASSOCIATED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN WHEAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: - The manuscript (MS) by Czyczyło-Mysza et al. is written in very good English, both fluent and technically correct.

- It contains a sufficient Introduction for the reader to enter the research topic; subsequent sections are also well structured, enabling the reader to follow the experimental and analytical work done.

- Figures and Tables are generally well done and correct. However, numbering has to be checked. In fact, no Fig. 4b was included in the Reviewing PDF, but it is quoted on page 14 of the MS (under “Genetic analysis of yield per plant” heading). As only Figure 4a seems to exist, it should be named Figure 4. In the Reviewing PDF, what is called Figure 5 legend (probably meant as legend to Fig. 4) seems incomplete, and some formatting problems were also found in other Figures (e.g. 1 and 2). As no separate Figure legends file or page was found to check this, the authours/journal should verify the correctness/completeness of the legend content.
Also, Table S1 is quoted in several places in the MS, starting from page 15 under ”Coincidence of QTLs between yield, ELWL and constitutive leaf traits”, but there is no such Table in the Supplementary materials…
A slightly different formatting is suggested for Figure 5 (attached PDF, in place of annotated MS).
Experimental design: The investigation has been conducted rigorously, with a comprehensive description of methods
Validity of the findings: A very large amount of data is provided (including the raw data), and results from statistical analyses are sound. Hence the conclusions are fully justified.
Additional comments: The paper provides an interesting and useful piece of information, which contributes to clarify the relative validity of selection criteria to be applied under normal and droughted wheat growing conditions.
It definitely deserves publication, with virtually no modification, except for the very minor ones concerning Figures and Tables, as indicated in the "Basic reporting" section.


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: GENETIC ANALYSIS OF WATER LOSS OF EXCISED LEAVES ASSOCIATED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANCE IN WHEAT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Fine
Experimental design: Fine
Validity of the findings: Fine
Additional comments: All corrections are fine


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: AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF TREADMILL RUNNING TO ESTIMATE TIMES TO FATIGUE AND EXHAUSTION IN RODENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) The manuscript is written in a clear, unambiguous and technically correct English. The manuscript also conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression. I have a minor comment regarding language: the authors wrote “time to fatigue and exhaustion” in some sentences, but “times to fatigue and exhaustion” in other sentences. I suggest a standardized use of this phrase throughout the manuscript. In addition, this phrase was repeated 9 times in the abstract; the readability of this section would improve if authors avoid unnecessary repetition.

2) Relevant prior literature was appropriately referenced. However, the manuscript does not include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. The manuscript lacks a clear theoretical dissociation between fatigue and exhaustion that could be presented already in the introduction.

3) The structure of the manuscript conforms to an acceptable format of standard sections. Figures are relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled. All appropriate raw data were made available in accordance with PeerJ Data Sharing policy.

4) The submission represents an appropriate unit of publication and includes all results relevant to the hypothesis. It seems to me that coherent bodies of work were not inappropriately subdivided merely to increase publication count.
Experimental design: 1) The manuscript consists of original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal. The topic addressed in the present study can classified into the following categories: Biological Sciences and Environmental Sciences.

2) The submission clearly defines the research question, which is relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated was identified, and statements were made as to how the study contributes to filling that gap.
3) The investigation was conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard. Moreover, the research was conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.

4) Methods are described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
Validity of the findings: 1) The manuscript does not present pointless repetition of well known, widely accepted results.

2) The data are robust, statistically sound, and controlled. I have a minor question about statistics that is written in the “General comments for the author”.

3) The conclusions are appropriately stated, connected to the original question investigated, and limited to those supported by the results.

4) The authors did not discuss their findings in a speculative way.
Additional comments: Zaretsky and colleagues developed an objective method to estimate times to fatigue and exhaustion in rats subjected to treadmill running. The authors hypothesized that the change in the time-averaged position of a rat on a treadmill could be used to correctly estimate times to fatigue and exhaustion. To test this hypothesis, the authors compared the times to fatigue and exhaustion measured by a human observer to times measured by an automated video tracking system. Rats were subjected to treadmill running at either room temperature (24oC) or in hot environment (32oC). The estimates of times made by the observer and the automated video tracking were not statistically different from each other. In addition, both the observer and the automated video tracking determined that exercise in a hot environment, compared with the exercise at room temperature, resulted in shorter times to exhaustion and fatigue, as expected. I have the impression that Zaretsky and colleagues have succeeded in their attempt to develop an objective method that estimates times to fatigue and exhaustion in running rats.

The topic addressed by the present study is relevant, and the findings are very concise and clear. Of note, the development of an objective method to measure times to fatigue and exhaustion is a substantial achievement by the present study, which may greatly influence future studies on this topic. Despite the aforementioned strengths, the authors should improve their paper before publication; particularly, a clear theoretical dissociation between fatigue and exhaustion must be presented already in the introduction. I am also presenting some additional comments aimed at improving the present paper as follows.

Major points:
1. The manuscript does not define the terms fatigue and exhaustion. Although this is a major limitation in the exercise physiology literature, a clear theoretical model explaining the differences between the two terms is important to support the different objective criteria used to determine fatigue and exhaustion.

1.1. These definitions can be very simple, but they will improve a lot the clarity of the manuscript. For example, is exhaustion a condition of extreme fatigue?

1.2. When should a researcher measure time to fatigue instead of time to exhaustion? Do the measures of times to fatigue and exhaustion provide different information? More specifically, when is it relevant to measure time to fatigue? Are there different physiological mechanisms underlying fatigue and exhaustion?

Minor points:

1. Abstract, methods: what was the criterion used to determine that the observer was trained? For how many years has this trained observer been performing experiments with rats subject to treadmill running?

2. Methods: when developing a new method, the authors should quantify the test-retest reliability of their results. In this context, it would be very important if authors calculate the reliability and the intraclass correlation coefficient of the time to fatigue or time to exhaustion when using their recently developed method. For this purpose, it is useful to determine fatigue and exhaustion in a same rat at a same environment during two different exercise sessions on separate days. These analyses are important to determine the minimal difference needed to be exhibited for one to be confident that a true change in performance of an animal has occurred [Weir. J Strength Cond Res, v.19 (n.1): p.231–240, 2005].

3. Methods, lines 103 – 122: was the 5-day familiarization protocol sufficiently long to ensure that rats would run steadily on a treadmill? Could the rats present a more steady performance if they were subjected to additional familiarization sessions?

4. Methods, lines 111 – 112: the authors should present the intensity in amperes (not only the frequency) of the mild electric stimuli used during the familiarization sessions and experimental trials.

5. Methods: the information about relative humidity and ambient temperature was written in two different sections of the manuscript (lines 90 – 91 and lines 117 – 118). The authors should avoid unnecessary repetition of information.

6. Methods, lines 121 – 123: the authors wrote that “When a rat was consistently unable to maintain the pace of the treadmill and received three continuous electric shocks on the grid at the back of the treadmill, the belt was stopped”. Is this information correct? Did the trained observer use this criterion to determine exhaustion?

7. Methods, lines 141 – 153: the authors did not describe the meaning / characteristics of treadmill running associated with scores 2 and 4? Why didn’t the authors use these two scores?

8. Methods, lines 249 – 250: the authors wrote that: “In the first 15 min of recording, the lowest points on the curve do not fall below 0.15 m”. Is the 0.15 value a normalized position on the treadmill?

9. Methods, lines 266 – 269: I felt that the information in the following two sentences is not coherent (average coefficient of 0.75 vs. was exactly the same). “Manual scores and average positions correlated significantly with an average coefficient of 0.75±0.03. The time to reach averaged position close to zero was exactly the same as the time of exhaustion determined by the observer in the case of each rat.” Please amend these sentences to make them more coherent.

10. Results, lines 295 – 297:  the authors wrote that “At room temperature, exhaustion developed 58±5 min after fatigue if determined by the observer or 52±2 min if determined by the video tracking (p>0.05)”. Why did the authors determine time to exhaustion after fatigue? These results would be much clearer if times to exhaustion had been determined from exercise initiation.

11. Discussion, lines 320 – 321: the authors wrote that “We tested video analysis technique using rats running on the treadmill in two environmental conditions: at room temperature and in hot environment”. The fact that aerobic performance was degraded in the heat is not a novel finding provided by the present study. The authors should state in the methods or discussion that performance was compared between the two environments to test the sensitivity of their new method. Previous investigations have indicated that aerobic performance is lower in the heat than at room temperature, including studies using very similar ambient temperatures to those used in the present study [Drummond et al. PLOS One v.11 (n.5): e0155919, 2016].

12. Discussion, lines 350 – 352: the authors wrote that “At room temperature, exhaustion is dependent on multiple inputs, e.g. dehydration, interacting with thermoregulation”. Dehydration is not an expected outcome in exercising rats, as they do not sweat to regulate their temperature. The authors may want to suggest the involvement of other physiological responses that could underlie the development of exhaustion.


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: AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF TREADMILL RUNNING TO ESTIMATE TIMES TO FATIGUE AND EXHAUSTION IN RODENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interest paper about the objective determination of fatigue in rodents. The authors have done a nice job describing the methods to perform an automatic analysis of time to fatigue in running rats. This study is an important contribution to experiments using animals in exercise physiology science. I have included some specific comments that the authors should consider.
Introduction
The authors can improve the introduction of the paper by describing previous studies that measured the total exercise time in rodents. It is important for the reader to understand how this measure has been made in order to understand the novelty of the proposed method.
The authors should also mention in the introduction the theoretical basis of the effects of heat on fatigue.
It is important to explain that the rats run through an electrical stimulus and the magnitude of this can drastically influence the total exercise time.
Line 72: please include in rodents … and measure time to fatigue and exhaustion in rodents.
Experimental design: Methods
Is the sample size adequate? The total exercise time in running rats is a variable that presents a high coefficient of variation. Generally, a sample size greater than 6 is required.
Experimental protocol
Line 112. How many milliamps and how many millivolts were applied to the electric stimulus?
Line 114. Please change “treadmill running” to “constant-speed exercise”
Authors should provide further details of manual determination of total exercise time. For example, some authors establish as a criterion for the interruption of effort when the rat remains in the electric stimulus grid for more than 10 seconds.

Results
It is important for the authors to describe in graphs or tables the correlation coefficient between the time to fatigue values reached by the manual method and by the automatic method.
Is the automatic analysis specific for the Columbus treadmill? On the other hand, the Excel spreadsheet can be modified for use with other apparatus. There is variation in the size of the belt between different treadmills.
The authors should present a graph with the internal temperature values of the rats during running at 24°C and 32°C. This will contribute to the discussion of the effects of heat on fatigue.
Line 286. Delete “…results in faster fatigue and exhaustion” and maintain Exercise in a hot environment

Paragraph 1 – If the automatic analysis does not differ from the manual, how important is the use of automatic analysis? The authors should explain this in the first paragraph of discussion.
Validity of the findings: The results presented support the conclusion of the authors. Statistical analysis was well done. The papere will gain in quality with the presentation of correlations and internal temperature values of rats.
Additional comments: Many previous studies have evaluated exercise time to fatigue in rats. Perhaps the present paper will be better if the authors compare the data obtained with these previous studies in the discussion session.


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: AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF TREADMILL RUNNING TO ESTIMATE TIMES TO FATIGUE AND EXHAUSTION IN RODENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Zaretsky and colleagues have answered my comments in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, they have improved the introduction section, which now provides a strong scientific rationale that conducts the readers to the main problem addressed by the study. The definitions of the terms “fatigue” and “exhaustion” were presented in the revised introduction, and the authors provided clear examples that support these definitions. The revised manuscript is much better than the original one. Congratulations!


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

Input:
Title: AUTOMATIC ANALYSIS OF TREADMILL RUNNING TO ESTIMATE TIMES TO FATIGUE AND EXHAUSTION IN RODENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors accepted the suggestions of the reviewers about english, article structure and background.
Experimental design: The first version of the manuscript already presented adequate methodological description and the authors accepted the main suggestions of the reviewers about the details of the experimental design.
Validity of the findings: The methodological advances reached in the present study will contribute to the study of fatigue mechanisms in experiments involving animals.
Additional comments: My main suggestions have been accepted by the authors, so I agree with the publication of the 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: WHO BEARS THE COST OF FOREST CONSERVATION?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Ok here
Experimental design: OK here
Validity of the findings: OK here
Additional comments: Please see attached .pdf file with comments for both the author and editor.


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: WHO BEARS THE COST OF FOREST CONSERVATION?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I found this article to be well written and the methods clearly explained. I noted that the choice experiment design had a problem with the lack of a 'status quo' option, due to data sensitivities and legal issues. This is a matter of some debate in the literature with purists claiming that this omission means that welfare estimates cannot be found. However, I think the second best approach used by the authors and the qualitative follow checks are reasonably convincing. The other feature of the valuation exercise which has also been the topic of much debate in the literature is WTBC versus WTP, the choice of WTBC will have a bias effect on the results.
Overall the authors have adopted mostly 'conservative' assumptions and have gone to great lengths to collect meaningful data sets.
I also note that the authors say their local costs results are in line with a study from Uganda (lines 477-479). A recently published study on Tanzania has the following local costs: $191-668 /ha, see J.Green et al (2018) Local costs of conservation exceed those borne by the global majority, Global Ecology and Conservation.


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: WHO BEARS THE COST OF FOREST CONSERVATION?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: Given the reference to qualitative data and the importance of this in your interpretation, I wondered why there wasn’t more detail given in the methods and results. I understand that these are referenced in other papers (Rakotonarivo et al) but isn’t that also the case for the quantitative data?
Validity of the findings: The standards are met but I have suggested some clarification below regarding the choice experiment results.
Additional comments: This is an really important piece of work that is the only case I know of that compares compensation provided to conservation costs experienced by local people. It show that costs are substantially higher than gains over the longer term, especially for the poorest – with implications for justice and sustainability.

I am generally skeptical of economic methods such as contingent valuation applied cross-culturally in rural settings. These methods need to be underpinned by substantial local experience, qualitative research and extensive piloting in order to produce valid data and to understand what the answers people give really mean. I am convinced that is what has been undertaken here and there appears to be a meticulous attention to detail in applying these methods, but I have one query with regard this:

The phrase ‘opportunity costs’ seems to be glossing over a lot of issues that I think it needs clarification, especially in light of some of the criticisms of WTP/A methods. Perhaps your qualitative data can provide this. Do the high estimated costs encompass non-material losses for example the cultural attachment to swidden farming, a sense of autonomy/control etc (alongside cultural reasons for valuing conservation as suggested in line 516)? The fact that those with more experience of forest conservation have higher opportunity costs (lines 384-388) suggests that they understand the full extent of the range of costs, but also perhaps shows resistance to further loss of rights. In the introduction (line 99), you seem to suggest that this method does not capture multi-dimensional wellbeing, but it’s not clear what the respondents' thought processes are here. If a range of non-tangibles are captured, it suggests that perhaps monetary/material compensation is not simply commensurable – and seems to be in keeping with your conclusion that land tenure (rather than or in addition to compensation) is the solution, which otherwise isn't fully justified.


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: MOTOR SELF-REGULATION IN GOATS (CAPRA AEGAGRUS HIRCUS) IN A DETOUR-REACHING TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I recently reviewed the same study for another journal. The author addressed most of my suggestions in the current manuscript, however apparently he still missed an important study that already looked at the reduction of latency in retrieving the reward across trials on the cylinder task (Kabadayi et al. 2017, “Are parrots poor at motor self-regulation or is the cylinder task poor at measuring it?”). Thus, the sentence beginning in line 319 is incorrect, and this study is not the first one that investigated the trial effect on latency to obtain the reward on the cylinder task.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The author cites a large-scale study that measured motor self-regulation on 36 species, using the cylinder task (MacLean et al. 2014). Since the author can only interpret the 65% success rate of the goats in relation to this large-scale study, it would be helpful to compare the performances of the goats with those 36 species (or the meaningful subset of those species) in a graph or a table. In the absence of such comparisons, it becomes confusing for the reader to assess how well goats did in relation to other species – thus the aim of the study.

Besides, MacLean et al. (2014) found absolute brain size was a significant predictor of the cylinder task performance among 36 species. The author then should then discuss the apparently high performance of the goats in relation to the absolute brain size of these species. For example, Kabadayi et al. (2016) renewed the top 10 list of MacLean et al. after the inclusion of three bird species they tested, and they included a figure showing the relationship between the absolute brain size and the cylinder task performance within 10 bird species.

Which was the species in MacLean et al. that was most closely related to goats, and how well did they do? 65% success rate of the goats in this study only makes sense after such close comparisons and analyses. Without such closer investigations, and with using vague terms such as 'low', 'intermediate' and 'high' in describing the cylinder task scores, the reader finds it hard to get the main point of the study (the comparative investigation of motor self-regulation).
Additional comments: Lines 81-83, the author puts a question whether inhibitory control is a unitary phenomenon or different tasks measure different aspects of it, however the study only administers one task, leaving these discussions rather redundant and unanswered. Besides, there is also evidence that detour reaching tasks do not purely measure motor self-regulation as implied in ln 90, because there are various potential factors affecting the performance, such as the previous experience with transparency, rule learning and functional generalization from the opaque barrier to the transparent barrier (Kabadayi et al. 2018). Given the motivational and emotional factors, age, as well as the level of previous experience with transparency affects the detour task performance, why did the author not suggest task batteries in the future as a more beneficial way to assess motor self-regulation in goats, or acknowledge the limitation of using a single task in the current study?

I welcome the investigation of the trial/learning effect on goat performances in this study, however the author misses an important study that already looked at the reduction of latency in retrieving the reward across trials on the cylinder task (Kabadayi et al. 2017, “Are parrots poor at motor self-regulation or is the cylinder task poor at measuring it?”). Thus, the sentence beginning in line 319 is incorrect. Although the author did not find a learning effect on “accuracy” within 10 trials, administering more trials could eventually lead to a ceiling effect. For example, Boogert et al. (2011) found that although not detected within 10 trials, trial effect was eventually found in song sparrows after around 50 trials where their performances peaked. The authors should discuss this possibility for goats too.

In fact, a study with parrots (Kabadayi et al. 2017) questioned the efficiency of the cylinder task as a measure of motor self-regulation, especially when different species are compared only with the terminal scores obtained within 10 trials, with the currently very strict coding criterion (every contact with the transparent cylinder counts as incorrect, regardless whether the touch was aimed towards the reward behind the barrier). The author might consider analyzing the incorrect trials for whether the touch to the barrier was directed towards the reward. Kabadayi et al. (2017) precisely looked at this with parrots, and found that two parrot species’ failures were not ‘food directed’, i.e. they touched the barrier ‘away’ from the reward. This implies they were merely exploring the transparent cylinder rather than trying to reach for the visible reward, pointing to yet another weakness of the cylinder task and its strict coding criterion (all touches to the barrier counts as a motor self-regulation failure). Conducting similar analyses on the failure patterns with goats would strengthen the study.

Lines 60-64: Why does this discussion come in the second paragraph and not in the first?

Ln 83: An important empirical study that is relevant to this is Brucks et al. 2017 in Frontiers in Psychology: 'Measures of Dogs’ Inhibitory Control Abilities Do Not Correlate across Tasks'

Ln 97: Remove 'must'

Ln 106-108: What is meant by 'high' and 'low'? This is critical for the whole interpretation of the goat performance. Is 65% high or low? What is 'intermediate' performance? Is it 50%? This is the reason why I suggest presenting the results of the goats together with the other species on a table or a graph, so that the reader gains an insight on the level of motor self-regulation in goats in relation to other species.

Ln 297: It was Kabadayi et al. (2016) that analysed the trial effect for bird species tested in MacLean et al. (2014). Three corvid species tested in Kabadayi et al. (2016) did not show any trial effect.


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: MOTOR SELF-REGULATION IN GOATS (CAPRA AEGAGRUS HIRCUS) IN A DETOUR-REACHING TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I enjoyed reading this article, it is very well written. The experiments are accurately described and I did not notice any missing information for fully understanding the study.
Experimental design: The experimental design is flawless, as it is based on a consolidated (and rather straightforward) task run before in several other species.
Validity of the findings: Data and statistical analysis are convincing. Findings are interesting and nicely discussed, conclusions are sound.
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: MOTOR SELF-REGULATION IN GOATS (CAPRA AEGAGRUS HIRCUS) IN A DETOUR-REACHING TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) Despite I’m not English mother language I would suggest author to carefully check the manuscript with the help of a native English speaker. In several parts the sentences and the context regarding a specific paragraph appear disentangled with each other. This make difficult to follow the manuscript’s reasoning (i.e. see lines 115, 117, 119-123, 268, 313-320, 333)
2) The introduction section is not well defined. The Author uses the proper citations but the rationale is weak and does not provide a clear frame for the hypothesis (which is lacking). It is undeniable that researching and comparing on new species can help to build a more structured overview on the argument, but the author should formulate his statement on a strong concrete premise.  For example, which are the assumptions on social and cognitive abilities in goats, on which, by the way, the expected results seem to be based?
3) The Introduction should be shortened a bit. Qualitative descriptions of unfitting tests are unnecessary to the aim of the study (lines 78-89) and could be avoided. It could be more useful if the author focuses on why detour (cylinder task) properly fits with the aim of the purpose of the study. For example the detour/cylinder task may be introduced at the beginning, followed by a clear explanation as to why  this task  seems to be the best one for studying motor self-regulation in goats (by moving earlier lines 91-95).
4) In my opinion, the greater issue consists in the fact that, in the present form, the manuscript lacks in a clear hypothesis. The assumptions on which this work seem to lie on are: “broad the range of specie” (lines 104-106); “in addition it was investigated whether short, distinct pointing gestures made by the experimenter during baiting would influence the side of the cylinder to which the goats detoured” (lines 113-115) and “it was analyzed whether the goats would show a side bias in detouring the cylinder” (lines 116-117). Despite lines 117-119, what the author expects and why is not clear to me. Saying a few more words could help to define the rationale behind this work.
5) Line 21, 48, 66 and others: giving the meaning of “prepotent” I’m not sure this word is properly used here.
6) Figure 3 is complex and not easy to read. Maybe such data can be shown in Table.
Experimental design: 1) The experimental design mixes two different paradigms (detour and human pointing). This is not an error “per se”, but the author should be aware that the submitted results may be the natural consequence of the animal’s evaluation of the entire sets of stimuli. More broadly, could the presence of a human have affected in some way the behavior and the latency to reward? May the human pointing give us some adjunctive information about animals taking into account to solve (or not solve) the task? I suggest the author to clearly describe this mixing procedure in the Animals, material & methods section. Furthermore I would suggest to not considering his results as separate outcomes, adding some sentences in order to discuss them together (see points below).
2) On line 199 author states that the side of human pointing was counterbalanced across trials. Which Criterion was used in this case?
3) On lines 188-189 author states that if the goat did not retrieve at least one reward within 60 s, the experimenter offered the reward by hand. This means that the behavior performed by the goat at that time has been positively reinforced (i.e. if goat was standing at the end of 60 sec, this behavior was reinforced). Does not the Author believe that this procedure could have affected the results in some way?
Validity of the findings: Regarding the discussion, I would suggest the author to spend some few more words to discuss together his results by mixing the two different paradigms studied (detour + pointing). Regarding that, I would recommend to expend references (i.e. Lovrovich et al 2015 and Baragli et al 2017 and similar). Therefore he should include additional citations to discuss together the results obtained. On line 278-279 author declare that, at the individual level, goats showed ambiguous results. Could such results have been affected by factors linked to individuals? For example, by personality or the way through animals perceive and use human pointing. See lines 282-283: could have the shy/bold traits affected results at individual level?
Additional comments: Dear Editor
I have carefully read the paper titled “Motor self-regulation in goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) on a detour-reaching task” in which author designed a specific test mixing detour and pointing paradigms, with the aim of studying inhibition of motor control in goats. Despite the topic is worthy of interest and the experiment looks generally well designed, I have found some major issues that should be solved before considering this paper 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: MOTOR SELF-REGULATION IN GOATS (CAPRA AEGAGRUS HIRCUS) IN A DETOUR-REACHING TASK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments.
Experimental design: The author replies to all of my concerns and I’m satisfied about his reply.
Validity of the findings: The paper expands the knowledge on topic.
Additional comments: I’ve no further comments.


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

Input:
Title: ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT PREVENTS OXIDATIVE STRESS IN ZEBRAFISH SUBMITTED TO UNPREDICTABLE CHRONIC STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: To validate the hypothesis I think that the author should  quantify the cortisol levels in the zebrafish
Additional comments: Perhaps, the author theory about the EE could increase GR as consecuence  of downregulation of neuroendocrine axis activity could be evidence by determination of cortisol levels and  GR .


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: ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT PREVENTS OXIDATIVE STRESS IN ZEBRAFISH SUBMITTED TO UNPREDICTABLE CHRONIC STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors here report the contribution of the environmental conditions  for Zebrafish exposed to  unpredictable chronic stress (UCS) protocols. They characterize this impact using a set of different oxidative stress biomarkers. The paper is well written and easy to follow.
Experimental design: The experimental procedure is well explain both along the text and within the figure. No major concerns relate to animal care and the  access to the raw data allows a straightforward independent statistical reanalysis if desired.
Validity of the findings: The results are interesting and highlight a potential byas in the results obtained by other researchers working with Zebrafish (or other models), who did not pay attention to the housing conditions. The references from the introduction show the impact of housing on oxidative stress in other models,  but my impression is that the paper would really highlight its importance if the authors are capable cite an example of how this fact led to a missinterpretation of the results.  Are there any reports on this line?
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: ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT PREVENTS OXIDATIVE STRESS IN ZEBRAFISH SUBMITTED TO UNPREDICTABLE CHRONIC STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well presented and the language on the whole is good. A couple of areas that would benefit from some clarification in terms of sentence construction are:

line 71.  water quality. This needs and additional word to qualify what is meant - optimal water quality, defined water quality, water quality monitoring?

lines 99-102. This appears to be a circular argument and needs a bit of redrafting.

lines 157-160. This needs a little restructuring

line 179. change was to were

The background to the study was well explained with appropriate references and the structure and figures were well presented.
Experimental design: The experimental design is robust and well explained as was the research question. Ethical approval was obtained and the technical approach was sound.
Validity of the findings: I really liked this study and think it is both timely and important.Overall the data appear to be robust and well explained. I do have some queries around the interpretation of the data as outlined below
.
TBARS - all seems fine
ROS - ROS is observed to increase in the stressed, barren fish. EE21 (non-stressed), ROS is the same as barren but when stressed, ROS falls considerably compared to non-stressed. Can this be explained?
SH - SH levels falls following stress in the barren fish but increases in the EE fish although apparently coming from a lower starting point. It isn't clear if there is any statistical difference in this data although in the text it is stated that EE prevents an effect (although there isn't an observed effect in the barren group).
SOD - OK but is the effect at 28 days significant?
CAT - there is no effect on CAT in the barren group but EE increase CAT. However, stress seems to have an effect on CAT at 28 days - is this significant?

The conclusions presented in lines 297-299 I don't think can be drawn from the data presented.
Additional comments: I really liked this manuscript and think it is a great piece of work. I have outlined a few queries regarding the interpretation of the data. This might arise from the statistics not being described in the text and perhaps a table showing all the significant / no-significant comparisons would be useful.


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: ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT PREVENTS OXIDATIVE STRESS IN ZEBRAFISH SUBMITTED TO UNPREDICTABLE CHRONIC STRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting of methods and data as well as intro/discussion was clear.

My concern is with the results section. While the data is clearly presented in the figures it is not clearly described in the Results. This section should receive scientific and language editing.
Experimental design: A clear extension of a previous study using the same model. It is original research that addresses biochemical changes in the brain in response to an environmental manipulation. The behavioural and biochemical methods were well described.
Validity of the findings: Consistent with their previous work, EE mitigate some but not all of the deleterious effects  of the chronic stress-paradigmn.
Additional comments: a few comments on the text in the introduction are attached.


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: ENRICHED ENVIRONMENT PREVENTS OXIDATIVE STRESS IN ZEBRAFISH SUBMITTED TO UNPREDICTABLE CHRONIC STRESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: revised manuscript is acceptable for publication
Experimental design: revised manuscript is acceptable for publication
Validity of the findings: revised manuscript is acceptable for publication
Additional comments: revised manuscript is acceptable for publication


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

Input:
Title: THE LARGEST EUROPEAN THEROPOD DINOSAURS: REMAINS OF A GIGANTIC MEGALOSAURID AND GIANT THEROPOD TRACKS FROM THE KIMMERIDGIAN OF ASTURIAS, SPAIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The conclusions are consistent with the data provided, although I suggest to expand the comparison record also to the North African (e.g. Moroccan) bone and track record.
I would also add more details on the tracks presented, with more deteiled descritpions and a more complete table.
Figures are all nice and very accurate, but I'd add some outline drawings for the tracks, and if possible some 3D models, to help the readred understating the author's interpretation.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript is sound and worth the publication after major (moderate) revisions.
Specifically, I think that a more deteiled description and thorough interpretation of the tracks is needed, both for more solid interpratation and to provide the reader with enough information on the tracks. Specifically, I find the table too reduced, and I suggest to add more fundamental measurements for all the tracks examined.

I agree with the division of the two types, but I have some doubt about the interpretation, which seems to be quite vague, despite the good quality of the material presented. In my opinion tracks of type A are very similar enough to Jurabrontes and Iberosauripus, while the tybe B (In particular Fig 6A) are very similar to Megalosauripus, as defined in Razzolini et al (2017).
Some interpratative outline drawings should be added to help the reader understanding how the interpretation was made, and to prevent misinterpretation given by the lightening of the tracks (especially of those in the field). Also, if possible, some 3D models should be added to the publciation.

More in general, it owuld also be interesting to support your temporary connection hypothesis, a comparison with the bone and track record from N. Africa.
Detailed comments are in the pdf.

I hope my comments will help you improving the manuscript. Feel free to contact me to discuss about any comment I have made.

Best regards


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

Input:
Title: THE LARGEST EUROPEAN THEROPOD DINOSAURS: REMAINS OF A GIGANTIC MEGALOSAURID AND GIANT THEROPOD TRACKS FROM THE KIMMERIDGIAN OF ASTURIAS, SPAIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors describe an interesting set of theropod specimens from Spain, which adds to the scarce information currently available about the Spanish record of Upper Jurassic theropods. The work represents an increase to the known Iberian record of theropods and has great interest for knowing Iberian Late Jurassic theropod faunas and for understanding their biogeography.

I have only a few questions and punctual suggestions:

The authors say that no complete pes is known in any Jurassic non-coelurosaurian tetanuran with the exception of Allosaurus. An almost complete pes of an allosauroid from the Portuguese Upper Jurassic, first interpreted as an Allosaurus and more recently tentatively assigned to a carcharosontosaurian allosauroid (Malafaia et al. 2008; 2017) could add some information to the discussion regarding the possible identification of the different track morphotypes. A detailed description of the specimen is not available and its identification is unstable, but as the most complete theropod pes currently known in the Upper Jurassic Iberian record, I think it could be useful to mention it.

In Geological setting
L. 134-135. Ruiz-Omeñaca et al. 2009c reported a second tooth (MUJA-1018) from the same locality (Playa da Vega). Could be this specimen also from the same level as the theropod caudal vertebra?
L. 141-143. Are the sauropod caudal vertebrae and the quadrupedal dinosaur footprints unpublished or are those mentioned in Ruiz-Omeñaca et al. 2006 and Lockley et al. 2008?

In Size of MUJA-1913
L. 311-318. The last sentence of the second paragraph is very long. I suggest number the features to make it easier to read.

In Late Jurassic apex predators in Europe
L. 403. Instead of "pedes" should not be "pes"?


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

Input:
Title: THE LARGEST EUROPEAN THEROPOD DINOSAURS: REMAINS OF A GIGANTIC MEGALOSAURID AND GIANT THEROPOD TRACKS FROM THE KIMMERIDGIAN OF ASTURIAS, SPAIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has improved and is suitable for publication without further modification.
The comments to my remarks are sound and the text ahs been modified accordingly.
It's is a pity that no 3D models could be added, but I understand the logistic issues and hope that they will be published in the future.


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: PHYLOGENY AND DIVERGENCE TIMES OF SUCKERS (CYPRINIFORMES: CATOSTOMIDAE) INFERRED FROM BAYESIAN TOTAL-EVIDENCE ANALYSES OF MOLECULES, MORPHOLOGY, AND FOSSILS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 85: More references are needed for relaxed clocks, the uncorrelated log-normal/exponential clock are just two of many published relaxed clock methods.

Line 223: These aren’t “BEAST models”, they would be divergence time estimation models, or perhaps clock models.

I think it would also be commenting on the fact that the most complex clock partitioning scheme was the best supported one, and that the one that simply separates molecular and morphological rates was the next best supported one. This suggests that morphological rates are decoupled from molecular rates, which is an interesting result for certain.
Experimental design: Line 189: It is suspicious that the statistic used to assess convergence is varying throughout the manuscript. Even though this area is somewhat subjective, ESS scores >200 (or even 100) have emerged as a standard in Bayesian phylogenetics and their absence here could mean that ESS < 200 are being obtained. If this is the case then the reader/reviewer needs to know this. If it is not the case, then reporting the ESS score would reinforce the convergence of the MCMC. MrBayes output files “.p” can be opened in tracer, or R, and the ESS values for the parameter estimates can be obtained.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I feel that this manuscript is a great example of a divergence time analysis done well. The model selection and sensitivity testing is well justified and adds a robustness to the results. My only concerns relate to a lack of clarity on some very small points, clarifying these points would be worthwhile.


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: PHYLOGENY AND DIVERGENCE TIMES OF SUCKERS (CYPRINIFORMES: CATOSTOMIDAE) INFERRED FROM BAYESIAN TOTAL-EVIDENCE ANALYSES OF MOLECULES, MORPHOLOGY, AND FOSSILS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: •	The article is written in a clear and technically corrected english.
•	The background of the article is quite adequate and the literarure is apporpiately referenced.
•	The structure presents an aceptable format.
•	The article presents coherence and the findings resulted appropiate to assess the original hypotheses.
Experimental design: •	This research is within the aims and scope of the journal
•	Research question and hypotheses are clearly stated, and contribute to an importante part of knowledge in diffrenet topics, such as, sistematic and evolution of Catostomid fishes, and the application of relevant methological tools of analysis in sistematics and evolutionary topics.
•	Does not present any technical or ethical objection.
•	 Methods section are described sufficiently.
Validity of the findings: •	Findings obtained answer fully the research and hypotheses, and as was mentioned above, represents  a relevant contribution within its line of research.
•	Data sets and methodological analyses are appropiate and novel.
•	Conclusion is fully linked to both, the research question and the results supported.
Additional comments: I recommended the acceptance of the manuscrit “Phylogeny and divergence times of suckers (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) inferred from Bayesian total-evidence analyses of molecules, morphology, and fossils”, since to is a relevant contribution for the systematics and evolution of the Catostomidae. In addition, presents the application and validity of a novel methodology.


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: PHYLOGENY AND DIVERGENCE TIMES OF SUCKERS (CYPRINIFORMES: CATOSTOMIDAE) INFERRED FROM BAYESIAN TOTAL-EVIDENCE ANALYSES OF MOLECULES, MORPHOLOGY, AND FOSSILS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript on phylogeny and divergence times of suckers is very well written. It provides a nice overview of the problem and specifies particular hypotheses to be tested in this study.
Experimental design: This research is clearly within the scope of the Journal. The Research questions are well defined and fill not only an important knowledge gap on the phylogeny and temporal framework of diversification of suckers, but moreover represents an exceptional showcase on how to perform a proper phylogenetic analysis plus divergence time inference and gives practical adives on how to optimizse such analyses. The methods are descibed detail so that readers will be able to follow their procedures and apply them to their own data.
Validity of the findings: This is an important study with great Impact in the field and as far as I can judge, the findings are based upon solid and statistically sound data. The conclusions are well stated and founded, linked to the original Research questions/hypotheses stated in the introduction.,
Additional comments: This is a very nice and well written study that I enoyed reading. Congratulation to a great piece of work. I only have a few very minor comments that will be easy to implement in a revised version:
1. introduction, lines 68 & 72: I would refrain from calling datasets/analysis based on just two loci "multilocus datasets/analyses". Exlplictely state that these analyses are based on 2 loci, but don't uses the word "mulitlocus" here.
2. M&M, lines 152+: Seven datasets? I only Count six (at least six are described in this paragraph). I cannot find a dataset 5.
3. Results, line 277: "0.3-36%" to "21.9-97.6%"? Shouldn't this read "0.3-36%" AND "21.9-97.6%"?
4. Results, line 363: ???? it appears that something's missing here after "(see below)". I'm not a native English Speaker, but to me this sentence, as it is, does not make much sense.
5. Results on phylogenetic informativeness profiles: Very interesting and unexpected (at least to me) that you include the 2nd mtDNA positions and not the 1st as well. I would expect (maybe I'm a bit naive) that These two behave similarly.
6. Discussion, line 534: Change "latippinis" to "latipinnis" and "insiginis" to "insignis"
7. Discussion, line 572: I think you can delete this sentence as it's clear that your results must agree with the fossil record (as you use the fossils to calibrate your tree).
8. Discussion, line 603: inflated mtDNA substituion rates in Sun et al. (2007)? Where's your evidence for that? Unless I've overlooked it, you only discuss substituion rates of your 2nd mtDNA positions in this context, and comparing rates of 2nd positions to rates of entire genes doesn not make much sense here.