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: MEASUREMENT MATTERS: HIGHER WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO BUT NOT BODY MASS INDEX IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEFICITS IN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND EPISODIC MEMORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Introduction-
1. The Intro is well-written and easy-to-follow except that a hypothesis regarding the association of BMI/WHR with executive function/episodic memory should be provided.
2. P 4, line 85: this reference is old; maybe a newer one?

Results-
1. Some relevant information regarding regression analysis is missing. Please provide data on model summary, including model r2, model r2 change, and model P ANOVA.
2. Please provide table summarizing task performance on executive function and episodic memory.

Discussion-
Currently, the Intro and Discussion are unbalanced. The reviewer suggests the authors expand the discussion. The reviewer suggests the authors elaborate the possible mechanisms underlie the association between obesity and executive function/episodic memory. For example, it has been documented that accumulation of visceral fat may induce secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which thereby results in insulin resistance or central inflammation (Erion et al., 2014; Lambert et al., 2015; Miller & Spencer, 2014; Willette & Kapogiannis, 2014) causing impaired cerebrovascular reactivity (Miller & Spencer, 2014; Willette & Kapogiannis, 2014) or reduced synaptic plasticity (Miller & Spencer, 2014; Willette & Kapogiannis, 2014), respectively.

Erion, J. R., Wosiski-Kuhn, M., Dey, A., Hao, S., Davis, C. L., Pollock, N. K., & Stranahan, A. M. (2014). Obesity elicits interleukin 1-mediated deficits in hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(7), 2618-2631.

Lambert, E. A., Straznicky, N. E., Dixon, J. B., & Lambert, G. W. (2015). Should the sympathetic nervous system be a target to improve cardiometabolic risk in obesity?

Miller, A. A., & Spencer, S. J. (2014). Obesity and neuroinflammation: A pathway to cognitive impairment. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 42, 10-21.

Willette, A. A., & Kapogiannis, D. (2014). Does the brain shrink as the waist expands? Ageing Research Reviews, 20, 86-97.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: Method-

1. Are participants excluded differed from those included in terms of obesity, executive function, or episodic memory? Further, did the authors perform a sensitivity analysis to see whether the exclusion of participants modulates the association between obesity and executive function/episodic memory?

2. BMI is not a continuous variable. The reviewer suggests the authors transform individuals’ BMI into dummy variable (i.e., obese, normal-weight, lean) before entering them into regression analysis.

3. What are the performance indices for cognitive ability? Are performance based on response accuracy, points gained, reaction times, or items recalled? These information should not be omitted.

4. With regard to measures for obesity, have the authors considered %body fat or adiposity fat? These two measures has been adopted in relevant studies in this area (Kamijo, Khan, et al., 2012; Kamijo, Pontifex, et al., 2012).

Kamijo, K., Khan, N. A., Pontifex, M. B., Scudder, M. R., Drollette, E. S., Raine, L. B., ... & Hillman, C. H. (2012). The relation of adiposity to cognitive control and scholastic achievement in preadolescent children. Obesity, 20(12), 2406-2411.

Kamijo, K., Pontifex, M. B., Khan, N. A., Raine, L. B., Scudder, M. R., Drollette, E. S., ... & Hillman, C. H. (2012). The association of childhood obesity to neuroelectric indices of inhibition. Psychophysiology, 49(10), 1361-1371.

5. There are a number of background variables which should also be considered in your study, such as diet or physical activity. Diet has been suggested a key factor in the vicious cycle model (Kanoski & Davidson, 2011; Yeomans, 2017), while physical activity may counteract the detrimental effect of obesity on cognition (Kim & Park, 2018).

Kanoski, S. E., & Davidson, T. L. (2011). Western diet consumption and cognitive impairment: Links to hippocampal dysfunction and obesity. Physiology & Behavior, 103(1), 59-68.

Yeomans, M. R. (2017). Adverse effects of consuming high fat–sugar diets on cognition: Implications for understanding obesity. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 76(4), 455-465.

Kim, T. W., & Park, H. S. (2018). Physical exercise improves cognitive function by enhancing hippocampal neurogenesis and inhibiting apoptosis in male offspring born to obese mother. Behavioural Brain Research, 347, 360-367.

6. Rather than entering all background variables into the regression analysis. The reviewer suggests the authors perform bivariate correlations first to see which background variables are correlated with the predictor and/or dependent variables, and then enter these variables into regression analysis. The reviewer believes that this way of analysis is more logical.

7. Please justify the rationale of regression analysis. It is necessary to clarify why demographics were entered into the first model, why comorbidities of obesity were entered into the second, and so on....
Likewise, please justify why you are interested in the interaction between obesity and age.
Additional comments: The current manuscript has addressed an interesting and important topic. Key findings are that waist-to-hip ratio, but not BMI, is a valid predictor of deficits in executive function and episodic memory across the adulthood after adjusting for the influence of demographics, comorbid health issues, health behaviors, personality traits, and self-perceived obesity. Novelty of the present study is the comparison between BMI and WHR as an appropriate measure of obesity in investigating the relation with executive function and episodic memory. Overall, the manuscript is well-written. The authors should be credited by their efforts in conducting study with such large sample. Reservation, however, should be given to the validity of findings. My concerns lay on the authors’ decisions in 1) selecting indices of obesity, 2) appropriateness and rationale of data analysis, and 3) controlling of potential confounders. All these issues should be answered (or justified) before the merit of this paper could be revealed and contribute to the literature.


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

Input:
Title: MEASUREMENT MATTERS: HIGHER WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO BUT NOT BODY MASS INDEX IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEFICITS IN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND EPISODIC MEMORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This manuscript is clearly written and well organized. The results were appropriately interpreted and discussed. The authors, however, need to add information about the software they used for statistical analysis in the text.


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: MEASUREMENT MATTERS: HIGHER WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO BUT NOT BODY MASS INDEX IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEFICITS IN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND EPISODIC MEMORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors did a great job revising the paper. All of my concerns have been alleviated with this revision. The biggest shortcoming of the study i.e., BMI calculated by participants’ self-reported weight and height, has been mollified by additional data. Thus, I would recommend for publishing this manuscript.

I have some minor comments listed below.

1.	L344: Please change age into sex.
2.	Table 1: Please add a unit of household income.


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: MEASUREMENT MATTERS: HIGHER WAIST-TO-HIP RATIO BUT NOT BODY MASS INDEX IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEFICITS IN EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND EPISODIC MEMORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Prior comment 3, Table 3 & 4- Tables should be self-explanatory. The reviewer suggests the authors to explicitly elaborate what variables were included into model 1-5 in both tables. This should make readers catch up the tables more quickly.

2. Prior comment 4- the reviewer appreciates the summary table of cognitive assessments and performance indices; yet, the reviewer also suggests the authors to provide a table summarizing descriptive stats of performance in each cognitive tasks for clarity.

3. Prior comment 10- Please specify how physical activity was measured? By subjective or objective measurement tool?
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have done a great job in revising the manuscript! The reviewer has only several minor concerns before the manuscript is ready for publication.


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

Input:
Title: DIETARY DIVERSITY IS INVERSELY CORRELATED WITH PRE-PREGNANCY BODY MASS INDEX AMONG WOMEN IN A MICHIGAN PREGNANCY COHORT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see point 4.
Experimental design: Please see point 4.
Validity of the findings: Please see point 4.
Additional comments: GENERAL COMMENT
The authors aimed to evaluate the association between third trimester dietary diversity and self-reported pre-pregnancy BMI in a sample of 100 pregnant women. The authors found that Women who were obese prior to becoming pregnant failed to consume a diverse diet. Furthermore, women who failed to achieve minimum dietary diversity (M-DDW < 5) were less likely to consume fruits and vegetables than women who achieved minimum dietary diversity. This paper is interesting, however, concerns are raised regarding the focus of the paper, result presentation and discussion.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1-	The major concern of that study is the single use of the dietary recall. This should be deeply acknowledge in the discussion section and in the conclusion. The authors should be careful not to suggest that this is an evaluation of dietary diversity during pregnancy, because this represents the third trimester diet.
2-	The abstract is far too long; the background should be shortened to 2 or 3 sentences. The objective should be clearly specified as well as the sample size.
3-	This sample of US pregnant women is composed of a large proportion of obese women (45%), is that representative? If not, please acknowledge and explain why in the discussion section.
4-	The authors emphasize on micronutrient supplementation both in the introduction and in the discussion, while they are not measuring it. Do they have this information ?
5-	In the introduction section, please clearly specify the objective AND the hypothesis.
6-	In the methods section, I would not use the term small for the studies. Just information on sample sizes is sufficient.
7-	In the methods section, please give more information on the diet recall assessment. Was it self-administered ? Was it verified by a dietician ?
8-	Was researchers reviewing the scores were registered dietician ?
9-	What about the MDD-W in vegetarians or vegans and its association with health issues ? This could be discussed.
10-	I would like to read more about the choice of using the MDD-W score instead of the HEI. Not only one study was performed during pregnancy using HEI…
11-	The discussion lacks of focus. This section should be oriented around authors’ findings.
12-	In the discussion section, one of the most interesting findings is not discussed: women who failed to achieve minimum dietary diversity (M-DDW < 5) were less likely to consume fruits and vegetables than women who achieved minimum dietary diversity.
13-	Why the authors are discussing about food desert if they did not evaluate those concerns ?
14-	Why are the authors are talking about microbiota at the end, while this subject is not discussed throughout the MS ?
15-	There are too many figures. They are all not necessary.

MINOR COMMENT :
1-	Please do not use abbreviation for women of reproductive age.
2-	Please revise the sentence on line 120.
3-	Why are the limitations section is presented before the discussion?


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

Input:
Title: DIETARY DIVERSITY IS INVERSELY CORRELATED WITH PRE-PREGNANCY BODY MASS INDEX AMONG WOMEN IN A MICHIGAN PREGNANCY COHORT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a really nicely written article. English is perfect and the text is easy to follow and understand. There is a correct use of references, is well discussed even if not extent of limitations (as the authors reported only one 24HDR is clearly not representative enough) Still there are a couple of issues that remain, to me, a bit unconnected.

The first refers to the intake of Low Nutritional Density Food Consumption; while the introduction is mainly focused on the dietary diversity score you come across suddenly with the results on Low Nutritional Density Food Consumption. I think this point also requires to be introduced, for example, what is a low nutritional density food? how is it defined? what is the importance of check in on these also in this study?

Another point that remains a bit unconnected to me is the very last part of the discussion (line 324-328), where you talk about the gut microbial community. To me there are hundreds of other topics related with your work that could be mentioned, microbiome is only one, and placing this discussion there gives it some importance that to me is too much.

Minor comments:
Table 1: I am bit lost with the p values, a bit more detailed footnote could be helpful. For example, I do not know what are the test for BMI (p=0.1395); Age Group (p=0.5766); Parity (p=0.1030)
Table 2: The asterisk, has any statistical test been applied there?
Figure 2: What are "a" and "b"?
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: As I did state before and you have already noted in your limitation, the inclusion of only one 24HDR is limited in assessing diet. This is clear, but you have been able to put your results in the context of other studies.
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: DIETARY DIVERSITY IS INVERSELY CORRELATED WITH PRE-PREGNANCY BODY MASS INDEX AMONG WOMEN IN A MICHIGAN PREGNANCY COHORT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1- There is not enough literature to show that dietary diversity is a predictor of obesity.
2- Too many information has been given in the introduction which is not required and should be removed or put in the discussion.
3- The background of the study was not explained in the introduction. Previous literature in Americans or other parts of the world should be stated.
Experimental design: 1- One 24-hour dietary recall cannot show the regular eating pattern. Food frequency questionnaire or either three 24-hour dietary recall may be a better choice.
2- Measuring dietary intakes during pregnancy may not a good indicator to investigate its association with pre-pregnancy BMI. It is not logical.
Validity of the findings: 1- No analysis has been given for Table 2. The low sample size (n=40) has restricted to conduct for further analysis. (low power)
2- Table 1 is not informative.
3- Findings were more descriptive rather than analytical.
Additional comments: By measuring dietary intakes during pregnancy, conclusion cannot be made.


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: DIETARY DIVERSITY IS INVERSELY CORRELATED WITH PRE-PREGNANCY BODY MASS INDEX AMONG WOMEN IN A MICHIGAN PREGNANCY COHORT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have fulfilled the reviewers' comments on the Title of MS, introduction, and relevant citations.
Experimental design: The objective and hypothesis of the research is now addressed clearly.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has been improved significantly in particular in the limitation 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: PRIMARY MOLT IN GRUIFORMS AND SIMPLER MOLT SUMMARY TABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Text is fairly clear and unambiguous. Some additional literature citations could be added which I point out. The paper is very professionally organized, data are shared, and it is self contained - no comments there.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: This paper contains two parts, 1) a commentary and suggested revisions on how to score primary molt in birds and 2) a presentation of molt in Gray-winged Trumpeter (Psophia crepitans) [I suggest authors use common name somewhere, if only in parentheses when initially referred to] Both sections are presented fairly well and are interesting and worthy of presentation. Understanding remegial molt sequences in birds is often as much of an art as a science, and I like to look at wings and deduce what is going on in more of a holistic manner. But I also agree that molt summary tables are also helpful or necessary to figure things out, especially in very complicated cases such as cuckoos.

My concerns are summarized by specific comments throughout the text.

Abstract, lines 27-31: The subject of this sentence is stated to be primary replacement but (iv) expands it to the entire wing. This should be restated somehow. Furthermore, (ii) and (iii) are largely if not entirely overlapping and I suggest they be combined in this sentence.

Abstract: Add sentence at end on the evolution of molts in Gruiformes (see below).

Lines 73-77: Run-on sentence - break it into 2 or 3.

Line 80 - Howell (2000) not in lit cited. Maybe Howell (2010) or Heermanns (2000) was meant. In either case, there are better primary sources in this case: I believe that Dorward (1962) was the first to fully document this pattern in Staffelmauser (stepwise) molt and Stresemann and Stresemann (S&S 1966) and several others cited in this paper could be included instead.

Dorward, D.F. 1962. Comparative biology of the White Booby and the Brown Booby Sula spp. at Ascension Island. Ibis 103b:174-220.

Line 82 (and several other places in this ms.): I'm not convinced that a series in the primaries should be linked with a series in the secondaries (vis-a-vis a continuous wave from p1 to s1 or vice versa) and would recommend that this concept be dropped in this paper (it is somewhat peripheral anyway as sequence of secondary replacement is not treated in depth). In specimens I've examined of albatrosses and limpkins, molt of secondaries begins when series among primaries are mid-stream and not when the primary molt reaches p1. I realize that Edwards and Rohwer (2005) suggested this but I believe their data could just as easily be explained as a terminus at p1 and a node at s1 - just coincidentally (and unusually among birds) that the two series are both proximal. A node at s1 seems so evolutionarily fixed in almost all birds that I would favor this explanation in albatross and Psophiidae as well.

Lines 104-116 - Some of this is not relevant to molt and I would suggest reducing this paragraph by 2-3 sentences. On the other hand, it would be good to add here that molt has been documented as proximal by S&S (1966). Note also the short chapter on molt in Psophiidae in Johnson and Wolfe (2018, Studies in Avian Biology 51). Here they mistakenly cite S&S as molt being distal (undoubtedly due to use of the confusing term "ascendant sequence" by them and others in the European literature). They also cite Sherman (1995) on molt (Auk - available through SORA) but not much is mentioned here other than that juveniles retain brown plumage until a year of age, at which time they molt and become indistinguishable from adults. Could be worth citing though. Finally, the sentence on lines 115-116 seems incongruous to me - Because... primaries fade little in the forest.... wear was used for scoring... At one time I also looked at molt in Psophiidae specimens and concluded possible Staffelmauser (as mentioned in J&W 2018) but was unsure, probably because I was assuming distal replacement and may have been confused about what I was looking at.

Line 28 and elsewhere: Most use "juvenile" as a term to indicate birds prior to their first molt. It would seem better to replace this with "first-year" so as to include those undergoing molt, or specifically refer to these molting birds as undergoing the second prebasic molt.

Line 170 and elsewhere: I would also say "suspend" in addition to "arrest" here as suspension of molt (e.g. in raptors during breeding or migration; Pyle 2005) can also occur and confound interpretation of molt sequences in the same manner as arrested molts can.

Line 175: replace "before" with "during". The replacement occurs during incubation, then molt suspends for chick feeding and resumes after chicks fledge. Pyle (2005) can be added as a citation here.

Line 181 (and elsewhere?): "flight-feather" should be hyphenated is such usages.

Line 183: add "P" before "10"

Lines 220-222: I have studied secondary replacement in birds that undergo Staffelmauser (e.g., Pyle 2005 - cited, 2006, 2008; 2013 - cited). In (most) diastatatxic species it works the same as with primaries with waves beginning proximally at s1 and s5 and distally from the tertials and then with new waves commencing before feather termini (at s4 and somewhere between s6 and the tertials) are reached. Interestingly, Bostwick and Brady (1992 - Auk) report that Psophiidae are eutaxic and if correct these species might indeed undergo some other replacement strategy among secondaries. This could be mentioned in connection with secondary replacement in Psophiidae.

Pyle, P. 2006. Staffelmauser and other adaptive wing-molt strategies in larger birds. Western Birds 37:179-185.
http://www.birdpop.org/docs/pubs/Pyle_2006_Staffelmauser_and_Other_Adaptive_Strategies_in_Larger_Birds.pdf

Pyle, P. 2008. Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part 2. Slate Creek Press, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Lines 233-235: I am familiar with the Rohwer-Howell dispute on molt in albatrosses and have not taken sides. But in respect to Howell, the dispute is not over how many series albatross have, just where the nodes and termini are. In any case, I would suggest deleting this here as it seems tangential and a bit of a petty dig.

Lines 241-256: This paragraph seems out of place and a bit tangential and could be deleted or shortened and moved to the Discussion. As an aside (line 242 and elsewhere), I have had success interpreting molt sequences among secondaries on specimens (e.g., Pyle 2013 - cited) and although more difficult than primaries it is not impossible. Futhermore...

Line 262:... it can be done without damage to specimens so I would delete this inference here.

Line 272 (and elsewhere): The term "transient node" seemed fine to me at first but then I started wondering if it might add more confusion than help to the lexicon. As used here it has little evolutionary or even practical value. Maybe "false node" would be a bit clearer, but I might also consider resisting the definition of "transient node".

Line 283: I've also noticed this problem in birds with short p10s and it's great to have this pointed out in writing.

Lines 299-305: This paragraph caused me to consult the Supplemental Excel file and I have a couple of suggestions to this: Most molt-scoring tables have p1 to the left and p10 to the right and for comparative purposes it might be worth switching this order. As I have used and studied these tables, I became confused looking at this one because of this. Second, in the heading please put "P" before each primary number as this will be helpful. Third, repeat the heading above the juveniles so we know what primaries we are looking at. Regarding this paragraph, see above suggestion on age terminology. I would only consider AMNH 178924 to possibly be a "juvenile" depending on what's going on with p1 (see below). The reference to AMNH 431790 requires consultation of the Excel file to understand so I would suggest a bit more explanation here. I agree with authors' ultimate reasoning and it might be pointed out somewhere in the paper (if not already) that the p10 and p3 waves would appear to commence simultaneously (based on AMNH 125285 and a couple of the adult specimens) and thus the inner wave should probably complete at about the same time as p7 or p8 are being replaced in the outer wave.

Lines 306-315: I'm having a lot of trouble with this paragraph and suggest it be deleted or recast. First, see above regarding my suspicions about a correlation between secondary and primary waves. Second, parrots and falcons should not be cited here as in these cases the waves are proximal in the inner primaries and distal in the outer secondaries and so both p1 and s1 should be regarded as termini. Quite different from assuming a wave among one tract carries over to the other tract. Third, since secondaries were not looked at much in this paper how can it be "suspected" that they are "likely" connected? This assumption would entail the wave in the secondaries being distal, rare at best in birds (parrots, falcons, and Galliformes are all I know of - maybe Limpkin - which would be of interest, but this needs confirmation). Fourth, looking at the Excel file regarding these six birds (and the juvenile 178924) I don't see why another interpretation couldn't be that Psophiidae have another distal node at p1? Since this is a common occurrence in birds, perhaps it occurs here as well and there is a terminus at p2 (cf 272991 that would appear to be completing molt with p4 and p2 - also 257106 with p3 and p1 new and p2 old). See also 283174 which has p10 and p1 dropped at same time. Or perhaps more likely is that Staffelmauser patterns are occurring among p1-p3 as well - which could also help explain apparent nodes at p2 (125279, 178923). I would like to see all of these possibilities discussed more thoroughly along with or in lieu of a cross s1-p1 wave.

Lines 328-331: Could cite Pyle 2005, 2006, 2008 here as well.

Lines 338-342: recast or restate this as well (see above). While two waves would be hard or impossible to document among three primaries (though what about 283174?), I believe that some of the evidence still suggests suspended or arrested molts among these feathers (whatever the nodal arrangement). In this case a more holistic look at it (e.g., exact degrees of wear among the three primaries and in context to the precise scenario in the outer primaries) could help us interpret this.

Lines 351-364: This paragraph is also rather speculative and tangential and may not need to be included. Collection biases are well known for all sorts of reasons and could also explain the low numbers of younger birds. Lines 353-354 - this should have been easy to infer by looking at specimens to see if any had mixed rectrices but were not in active molt, comparing rectrix patterns to remex patterns, considering wear to juvenile rectrices, etc. I would drop this. Lines 362-363 - Johnson and Wolfe (2018) conclude that rectrices are not replaced until the second prebasic molt and I would agree with this.

Line 378: Add Pyle (2013) - falcons and parrots.

Line 387: Recast as suggested above.

Lines 393-412: It would be great to include some thoughts on the evolution of molts in Gruiformes here. First, I believe that rails may also molt primaries proximally. I saw this cited (as "ascendant") in S&S (1966) with reference to an older German paper(I can't immediately locate my copy of S&S or I would check the reference). I believe it is also mentioned in Taylor (2010 - Rails of the World). Even though most rails are reported to molt remiges "simultaneously" I think they may just molt them rapidly but in a sequence, as Thompson suggested for puffins (and I've seen in photos and specimens of various alcids as well). In addition to the need for molt scoring tables for Limpkins I would include cranes since their remigial molt sequences are also complex and poorly understood. Molts in finfoots and sungrebes could also be discussed, if there is any information out there. A finding of proximal replacement of primaries in most or all Gruiformes would suggest that this is an evolutionarily fixed trait as suggested for falcons and parrots.

Lines 415-416: Would albatrosses also fit this description?

Hope this helps

Peter Pyle
ppyle@birdpop.org


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: PRIMARY MOLT IN GRUIFORMS AND SIMPLER MOLT SUMMARY TABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I dislike spending time editing grammatical errors and clarity during reviews. Thus, I only edited the abstract for flow and grammar, and encourage the authors to carefully evaluate the entire manuscript in a similar fashion. See below.

General comment: overuse of “the” throughout. For example, “…Using the 80 specimens of Psophia crepitans at the American Museum of Natural History…” is rendered clear without *the*: “…Using 80 specimens of Psophia crepitans at the American Museum of Natural History …”

Given the authors renowned publications, I was a little surprised at the choppiness and lack-of-clarity in the abstract and introduction. For example, in the statement above, why use a present participle in the past tense? This is sloppy in my opinion. It is much clearer with the past tense: We used 80 specimens of…

ABSTRACT

Page 2 line 26   “…the first illustration for generating molt summary tables…” is awkward for two reasons. First, most readers will be unfamiliar with ‘molt summary tables’; thus, describing molt summary tables using the ambiguous term “illustration” may be interpreted as a noun – a literal illustration. Did people draw these tables? Second, try to avoid confusing present participles (words ending in “ing” such as “generating”) in the past tense. Many scientific style guides suggest limiting present participles in general.

Page 2 line 26-27  “…molt summary tables used a temperate passerine…” is awkward. You switch from plural (tables) to singular (a temperate passerine). To the uniformed reader this comes off as contradictory.

Page 2 line 27-28  The following statement makes little sense: “But primary replacement in temperate passerines is far too simple to address the complexities of generating summary tables for…” taken literally, it comes off as passerines are at fault for our collective inability to create complex molt summary tables. Let me be clear, I know what you mean. I suggest clarifying the sentence to express your sentiment.

Page 2 line 36  “…reverse that of…” is awkward.

Page line 38-39 “we develop molt tables that show that the sequence of primary replacement is, indeed, proximal.” Think critically about sentence structure. This is sloppy. “We develop” is present tense when it should be past tense. “…that show that the…” is awkward. The sentence can easily be improved (i.e. …our molt tables found that Psophia crepitans undergoes a proximal sequence of primary replacement).
Please follow my brief example and critically review the writing prior to resubmission.

TABLES

Need to define rows and columns. The reader is left to intuit the details of this table. What is #p and #d and why are they in their own rows without headers? Strange and incomplete presentation of a table.
Experimental design: You have placed the onus on the reader to seek out definitions of molt summary tables. Specifically, the majority of the reading audience is likely unfamiliar with molt summary tables and how they differ from similar data derived from “snap shots”. You need a brief, yet thorough definition of a molt summary table prior to discussing nuances of the system. This is particularly important for the results section where the reader is presumed to be familiar with molt table protocols, once again placing the onus on the reader to familiarize themselves with protocols before interpreting the results.
Validity of the findings: RESULTS

I have always battled with differences between suspended and arrested molts, and how to differentiate them. The authors do a nice job detailing potential difficulties in identifying arrested molts and transient nodes when remiges don’t accrue much wear and I suggest expanding the definitions to include suspended molts. In general, it would be good to define some common terms, in addition to arrested and suspended, specific definitions of “molt series” would be helpful.

In the Primary replacement in Psophia crepitans section, please remind readers how many primaries trumpeters have prior to discussing the nuances of their replacement. Additionally, I suggest using terminology that would provide some insight into putative homology. For example, for the juvenile trumpeters that were found replacing primaries: was this molt a post-juvenile molt occurring shortly after acquiring the juvenile plumage? Or is this a molt which occurs much later in life, and would be similar (putatively homologous) with an adult (definitive) prebasic (post-breeding) molt? This information would be value added for our broader understanding of tropical bird molt.
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: PRIMARY MOLT IN GRUIFORMS AND SIMPLER MOLT SUMMARY TABLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors use specialized terms for descriptions of molt systems but do not define them clearly in the earlier sections of the manuscript (they should be defined in Introduction or at the beginning of Methods preferably with good illustrations).  Defining the terms and illustrating them will make their descriptions of molt summary tables much easier to understand.

In the tables and supplemental information (raw data), some abbreviations need to be explained or spelled out (e.g., # p, # d, pp, p, d).

I found some of the result sections difficult to follow and believe that they need to to revised to clarify or make them flow better (see attached PDF).
Experimental design: The descriptions of the new molt summary table are very difficult to follow as some statements seem to be contradictory (e.g., assessment of directionality).  The new method is supposed to simplify the previous methods, but there is no clear descriptions of the steps to follow to construct new tables.
Validity of the findings: I am not yet convinced that the new method improves the understanding of molt series.  It will be more convincing if the authors reanalyze previously published data and show that it clarifies the results or leads to different conclusions.

There is no evidence to show that P1 is part of the P1–3 molt series (as for 6 of 9 observations, it was scored as nodal).

Discussion on the very low rate of (re)production is highly speculative and doesn't seem to belong to this manuscript.
Additional comments: Please refer to the attached PDF for more detailed 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: PRIMARY MOLT IN GRUIFORMS AND SIMPLER MOLT SUMMARY TABLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Fine (no comment)
Experimental design: Fine (no comment)
Validity of the findings: Fine (no comment)
Additional comments: Review of Rohwer and Rohwer, Primary molt in Psophia and simpler molt summary tables, for PeerJ

Comments to authors

This paper contains two parts, 1) a commentary and suggested revisions on how to score primary molt in birds and 2) a presentation of molt in Gray-winged Trumpeter (Psophia crepitans) [I suggest authors use common name somewhere, if only in parentheses when initially referred to] Both sections are presented fairly well and are interesting and worthy of presentation. Understanding remigial molt sequences in birds is often as much of an art as a science, and I like to look at wings and deduce what is going on in more of a holistic manner. But I also agree that molt summary tables are helpful or necessary to figure things out, especially in very complicated cases such as cuckoos.

My concerns are summarized by specific comments throughout the text.

Abstract, lines 27-31: The subject of this sentence is stated to be primary replacement but (iv) expands it to the entire wing. This should be restated somehow. Furthermore, (ii) and (iii) are largely if not entirely overlapping and I suggest they be combined in this sentence.

Abstract: Add sentence at end on the evolution of molts in Gruiformes (see below).

Lines 73-77: Run-on sentence - break it into 2 or 3.

Line 80 - Howell (2000) not in lit cited. Maybe Howell (2010) or Heermanns (2000) was meant. In either case, there are better primary sources in this case: I believe that Dorward (1962) was the first to fully document this pattern in Staffelmauser (stepwise) molt and Stresemann and Stresemann (S&S 1966) and several others cited in this paper could be included instead.

Dorward, D.F. 1962. Comparative biology of the White Booby and the Brown Booby Sula spp. at Ascension Island. Ibis 103b:174-220.

Line 82 (and several other places in this ms.): I'm not convinced that a series in the primaries should be linked with a series in the secondaries (vis-a-vis a continuous wave from p1 to s1 or vice versa) and would recommend that this concept be dropped in this paper (it is somewhat peripheral anyway as sequence of secondary replacement is not treated in depth). In specimens I've examined of albatrosses and limpkins, molt of secondaries begins when series among primaries are mid-stream and not when the primary molt reaches p1. I realize that Edwards and Rohwer (2005) suggested this but I believe their data could just as easily be explained as a terminus at p1 and a node at s1 - just coincidentally (and unusually among birds) that the two series are both proximal. A node at s1 seems so evolutionarily fixed in almost all birds that I would favor this explanation in albatross and Psophiidae as well.

Lines 104-116 - Some of this is not relevant to molt and I would suggest reducing this paragraph by 2-3 sentences. On the other hand, it would be good to add here that molt has been documented as proximal by S&S (1966). Note also the short chapter on molt in Psophiidae in Johnson and Wolfe (2018, Studies in Avian Biology 51). Here they mistakenly cite S&S as molt being distal (undoubtedly due to use of the confusing term "ascendant sequence" by them and others in the European literature). They also cite Sherman (1995) on molt (Auk - available through SORA) but not much is mentioned here other than that juveniles retain brown plumage until a year of age, at which time they molt and become indistinguishable from adults. Could be worth citing though. Finally, the sentence on lines 115-116 seems incongruous to me - Because... primaries fade little in the forest.... wear was used for scoring... At one time I also looked at molt in Psophiidae specimens and concluded possible Staffelmauser (as mentioned in J&W 2018) but was unsure, probably because I was assuming distal replacement and may have been confused about what I was looking at.

Line 28 and elsewhere: Most use "juvenile" as a term to indicate birds prior to their first molt. It would seem better to replace this with "first-year" so as to include those undergoing molt, or specifically refer to these molting birds as undergoing the second prebasic molt.

Line 170 and elsewhere: I would also say "suspend" in addition to "arrest" here as suspension of molt (e.g. in raptors during breeding or migration; Pyle 2005) can also occur and confound interpretation of molt sequences in the same manner as arrested molts can.

Line 175: replace "before" with "during". The replacement occurs during incubation, then molt suspends for chick feeding and resumes after chicks fledge. Pyle (2005) can be added as a citation here.

Line 181 (and elsewhere?): "flight-feather" should be hyphenated is such usages.

Line 183: add "P" before "10"

Lines 220-222: I have studied secondary replacement in birds that undergo Staffelmauser (e.g., Pyle 2005 - cited, 2006, 2008; 2013 - cited). In (most) diastatatxic species it works the same as with primaries with waves beginning proximally at s1 and s5 and distally from the tertials and then with new waves commencing before feather termini (at s4 and somewhere between s6 and the tertials) are reached. Interestingly, Bostwick and Brady (1992 - Auk) report that Psophiidae are eutaxic and if correct these species might indeed undergo some other replacement strategy among secondaries. This could be mentioned in connection with secondary replacement in Psophiidae.

Pyle, P. 2006. Staffelmauser and other adaptive wing-molt strategies in larger birds. Western Birds 37:179-185.
http://www.birdpop.org/docs/pubs/Pyle_2006_Staffelmauser_and_Other_Adaptive_Strategies_in_Larger_Birds.pdf

Pyle, P. 2008. Identification Guide to North American Birds. Part 2. Slate Creek Press, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Lines 233-235: I am familiar with the Rohwer-Howell dispute on molt in albatrosses and have not taken sides. But in respect to Howell, the dispute is not over how many series albatross have, just where the nodes and termini are. In any case, I would suggest deleting this here as it seems tangential and a bit of a petty dig.

Lines 241-256: This paragraph seems out of place and a bit tangential and could be deleted or shortened and moved to the Discussion. As an aside (line 242 and elsewhere), I have had success interpreting molt sequences among secondaries on specimens (e.g., Pyle 2013 - cited) and although more difficult than primaries it is not impossible. Futhermore...

Line 262:... it can be done without damage to specimens so I would delete this inference here.

Line 272 (and elsewhere): The term "transient node" seemed fine to me at first but then I started wondering if it might add more confusion than help to the lexicon. As used here it has little evolutionary or even practical value. Maybe "false node" would be a bit clearer, but I might also consider resisting the definition of "transient node".

Line 283: I've also noticed this problem in birds with short p10s and it's great to have this pointed out in writing.

Lines 299-305: This paragraph caused me to consult the Supplemental Excel file and I have a couple of suggestions to this: Most molt-scoring tables have p1 to the left and p10 to the right and for comparative purposes it might be worth switching this order. As I have used and studied these tables, I became confused looking at this one because of this. Second, in the heading please put "P" before each primary number as this will be helpful. Third, repeat the heading above the juveniles so we know what primaries we are looking at. Regarding this paragraph, see above suggestion on age terminology. I would only consider AMNH 178924 to possibly be a "juvenile" depending on what's going on with p1 (see below). The reference to AMNH 431790 requires consultation of the Excel file to understand so I would suggest a bit more explanation here. I agree with authors' ultimate reasoning and it might be pointed out somewhere in the paper (if not already) that the p10 and p3 waves would appear to commence simultaneously (based on AMNH 125285 and a couple of the adult specimens) and thus the inner wave should probably complete at about the same time as p7 or p8 are being replaced in the outer wave.

Lines 306-315: I'm having a lot of trouble with this paragraph and suggest it be deleted or recast. First, see above regarding my suspicions about a correlation between secondary and primary waves. Second, parrots and falcons should not be cited here as in these cases the waves are proximal in the inner primaries and distal in the outer secondaries and so both p1 and s1 should be regarded as termini. Quite different from assuming a wave among one tract carries over to the other tract. Third, since secondaries were not looked at much in this paper how can it be "suspected" that they are "likely" connected? This assumption would entail the wave in the secondaries being distal, rare at best in birds (parrots, falcons, and Galliformes are all I know of - maybe Limpkin - which would be of interest, but this needs confirmation). Fourth, looking at the Excel file regarding these six birds (and the juvenile 178924) I don't see why another interpretation couldn't be that Psophiidae have another distal node at p1? Since this is a common occurrence in birds, perhaps it occurs here as well and there is a terminus at p2 (cf 272991 that would appear to be completing molt with p4 and p2 - also 257106 with p3 and p1 new and p2 old). See also 283174 which has p10 and p1 dropped at same time. Or perhaps more likely is that Staffelmauser patterns are occurring among p1-p3 as well - which could also help explain apparent nodes at p2 (125279, 178923). I would like to see all of these possibilities discussed more thoroughly along with or in lieu of a cross s1-p1 wave.

Lines 328-331: Could cite Pyle 2005, 2006, 2008 here as well.

Lines 338-342: recast or restate this as well (see above). While two waves would be hard or impossible to document among three primaries (though what about 283174?), I believe that some of the evidence still suggests suspended or arrested molts among these feathers (whatever the nodal arrangement). In this case a more holistic look at it (e.g., exact degrees of wear among the three primaries and in context to the precise scenario in the outer primaries) could help us interpret this.

Lines 351-364: This paragraph is also rather speculative and tangential and may not need to be included. Collection biases are well known for all sorts of reasons and could also explain the low numbers of younger birds. Lines 353-354 - this should have been easy to infer by looking at specimens to see if any had mixed rectrices but were not in active molt, comparing rectrix patterns to remex patterns, considering wear to juvenile rectrices, etc. I would drop this. Lines 362-363 - Johnson and Wolfe (2018) conclude that rectrices are not replaced until the second prebasic molt and I would agree with this.

Line 378: Add Pyle (2013) - falcons and parrots.

Line 387: Recast as suggested above.

Lines 393-412: It would be great to include some thoughts on the evolution of molts in Gruiformes here. First, I believe that rails may also molt primaries proximally. I saw this cited (as "ascendant") in S&S (1966) with reference to an older German paper(I can't immediately locate my copy of S&S or I would check the reference). I believe it is also mentioned in Taylor (2010 - Rails of the World). Even though most rails are reported to molt remiges "simultaneously" I think they may just molt them rapidly but in a sequence, as Thompson suggested for puffins (and I've seen in photos and specimens of various alcids as well). In addition to the need for molt scoring tables for Limpkins I would include cranes since their remigial molt sequences are also complex and poorly understood. Molts in finfoots and sungrebes could also be discussed, if there is any information out there. A finding of proximal replacement of primaries in most or all Gruiformes would suggest that this is an evolutionarily fixed trait as suggested for falcons and parrots.

Lines 415-416: Would albatrosses also fit this description?

Hope this helps

Peter Pyle
ppyle@birdpop.org

Comments to Editor:

I am not yet familiar with PeerJ's style but suggest a couple of the paragraphs and subjects covered by this paper are not needed here - either too speculative or too tangential.  It will be obvious from my comments to authors which these are. Editor can help decide how to instruct authors on these.

Review of Revision

I'm pleased to see how much work was put into the revision. The added material on molt in Gruiforms greatly increases the value of the paper. Other great additions include much improved descriptions of how molt tables work, excellent summaries of the interpretation, meaning, and value of nodal and terminal feathers, and the new section pointing out confusion of the terms 'ascendent' and 'descendent' (finally in print!). I'm also satisfied with almost all of the smaller fixes attended to.This is a very clearly worded and valuable contribution to the study of primary molt, of several aspects.

However, I continue to have trouble with the emphasis of a primary-secondary (p1-s1) crossover here. It seems incongruous to strongly emphasize problems of previous molt tables for interpretation of species with multiple series and staffelmauser (e.g., Abstract lines 26-30, Introduction lines 135-138, and Discussion lines 509-512) while at the same time having complete faith in the results of a 2005 paper on species that have both of these problems!  I appreciate the insertion of "apparently" twice while referring to this crossover (lines 86, 207) but I still find the wording assuming this crossover to be dangerously conclusive. Mind you I'm not arguing that this crossover doesn't necessarily exist, just that I don't think Edwards and Rohwer (2005) conclusively showed this with the molt tables published there (though much else in that paper is of value). As I recall I reviewed that paper and pointed this out then, but my cautions were not carried over to print. It may be a place where we agree to disagree (not on the fact but on the confidence in the fact) but I continue to recommend this idea be further softened or reduced here, especially since it is a bit peripheral to all of the other great work in this ms. on primary molt series in Gruiformes.

Specific comments

Abstract, line 36: Replace "P10" with "the outer primary" since P10 is not defined yet and given different American vs. European numerical nomenclatures as pointed out elsewhere in the paper.

Line 160: I would replace "two" with "two or more". I have data suggesting that termini in large birds with many secondaries can be among up to 4 feathers between s5 and the tertials. Check also Edwards and Rohwer (2005) on this.

Lines 174-194: Somewhere it needs to be emphasized that the first replacement of juvenile feathers, occurring at the 2nd, 2nd-3rd, or 2nd-4th prebasic molts in staffelmauser species, is the best way to determine stable vs. transient nodes. To me the specimens undergoing this (or these) first molts are most valuable, as this first replacement sequence appears to be fixed with respect to later replacement waves.

Lines 197-199: Pyle (2008 pp 23-25) covers this topic in detail, the result of examination of 100's or 1000's of specimens treated in that work (and see also Pyle 2006). Although I did not create molt tables for every species (for obvious reasons) I believe it deserves a mention here alongside Edwards and Rohwer, as I am convinced the conclusions are at least largely correct.

Lines 214-216 and 248-250 are redundant.

Line 263: Replace "rectrices of immature birds" with "juvenile rectrices" and (later in line) "those" with "basic feathers"

Lines 313-315: In addition to my overall concerns about this (above) - I'm not sure I follow the logic here. It seems P1 would be nodal whether or not there is a crossover to S1.

Line 333 replace "hatch-year" with "first-year" to be consistent with earlier usage and because most inferred replacement occurs in the second calendar year rather than the hatching year.

Line 375: Insert "Gruiform" after "new world"

Line 406: clarify - there may be a typo

Line 529: Since cranes share several similarities to molt in other Gruiforms I think it OK to speculate that they will also be found to have proximal replacement. Amazing this hasn't been documented yet!

Lines 527-529 and 540-541 are redundant.

Line 583: Not sure if "Ironically" is appropriate here, especially if Stresemanns earlier suspected it. After this, replace "molt data" with "molt-sequence data" as sequence seems to be the only part of overall molt strategies that shows synapomorphy (Pyle 2013). Sibley and Ahlquist (1990) also discuss this quite a bit and you might want to reference them. Finally, a sentence pointing out that proximal replacement likely evolved in an ancestral Gruiform (before the families split) would certainly be worth including in this section, along with how fixed it has remained, with the possible exception of the p3 node in trumpeters being derived.

Lines 585-587: Again it seems to me that albatross could combine multiple series and staffaulmauser, but parrots definitely do, as documented by Pyle (2013).

Hope this helps,

Peter


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: PRIMARY MOLT IN GRUIFORMS AND SIMPLER MOLT SUMMARY TABLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I was delighted to see that the authors took the reviewers’ comments seriously and made the manuscript significantly better .  The manuscript is well organized and very easy to read, and all the important concepts are well described/explained.  Both Introduction and Results are much more accessible to a general audience, and detailed background in life histories and previous molt studies of Gruiform birds is particularly informative for understanding the importance of this study.
Experimental design: The authors explained quite well how their study fills knowledge gaps.  The methods are much better explained.
Validity of the findings: Added data from multiple members of the Gruiformes made this study more compelling and robust.  They proved that their methods and findings can be more generalized and widely applied.
Additional comments: Here are some minor specific comments:

Lines 75–76: The order of the two references should be reversed.

Lines 199–204: I am confused about the difference between rate and frequency of feather replacement.  Does the rate mean how fast the feathers are replaced?  How does it help identify stable nodes?

Line 371: Should the ending be “.”?

Lines 410–415:  Could this bias also be a result of bias in collecting dates (i.e., seasonal bias in the state of molt in the specimens)?

Figure 1: The Y axis labels should be in percentages (fractions of 100: e.g., 0, 20, 40, 60, 80).


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: BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS REVEAL EIGHT NEW SPECIES OF FRESHWATER CRABS (DECAPODA: BRACHYURA: POTAMIDAE) FROM YUNNAN PROVINCE, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: A straightforward description of nine new species of freshwater potamid crab from southern China. The English can be improved although the errors therein are not fatal and can be easily corrected. The proper references have been consulted and cited, the authors show a good understanding of the body of knowledge. The species are well described and are compared competently with the closest congeners.
Experimental design: A straightforward taxonomy paper, containing formal diagnoses of the new taxa and some differential comparisons with related taxa.
Validity of the findings: I agree with the authors' findings.
Additional comments: Excellent work! But please check grammar and wording, as these may affect the clarity and reception of scientific information. Many of your B/W photos have their backgrounds not uniformly blacked out, please correct these. A few comparative species need their geographic ranges and type localities included in the Remarks, biogeography being an important feature in elucidating the systematics of this group. I have made my annotations directly onto the manuscript for your reference.


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: BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS REVEAL EIGHT NEW SPECIES OF FRESHWATER CRABS (DECAPODA: BRACHYURA: POTAMIDAE) FROM YUNNAN PROVINCE, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This work reports on important zoological discoveries from an understudied part of the world, and should be published. All of the figures (photos and line drawings) are relevant, and of publication quality. However, there are several points that should be addressed.

1.	The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand the text. Examples of where the language could be improved include lines 32-34, 40-45, 63-65.
2.	The introduction needs more detail. It is suggested that the text in lines 45-50 be improved to include a brief discussion of the number of species and range of the genera Indochinamon, Pararanguna, Parvuspotamon, and Potamiscus.
3.	For each of the nine species only a diagnosis is given and the full description is missing. To be clear, the diagnosis should list only the characters unique to the taxon, and the description should cover all characters of the species, whether unique or not.
4.	It would be good to see a description of the habitat and ecology of each species, especially since most of these were collected relatively recently.
5.	It would also be good to see a consideration of the conservation status of this species (e.g., whether it is found in a protected area, whether there are any immediate threats to it or its habitat, and the number of localities and its range).
6.	It would be good to include a map showing the distributional range of each of these species – one map would work given that most are from a single locality.
7.	Indochinamon includes 21 species, 12 of which occur in China. The five new species of Indochinamon have been compared with 5 species of this genus from China (which is good). However, why did the authors not compare their material with the other 7 species of this genus known from China (and even with the other 9 species from outside China)?
8.	The same questions apply to the other new species: Pararanguna and Parvuspotamon (both formerly monotypic genera); and Potamiscus (12 species, 5 of which are from China, but only two from China were compared here, and the other 7 species were not considered).
9.	There needs to be a statement of why the specimens were assigned to a genus: to Indochinamon, Pararanguna, Parvuspotamon, and Potamiscus. It is not clear why they were placed in these genera rather than in any of the other Chinese potamid genera. That is, what characters does the specimen share with the type species of the genus that justify its assignment to the genus?
10.     After this statement, the authors should point out the the unique characters of the specimens that separate them from all of the other described species currently assigned to the genus. This would be the most powerful taxonomic argument to justify the establishment of a new species, given the fact that no molecular data are brought to bear in this study.
11. The authors should include a statement (e.g., in the Methods section around line 59) stating that the type material and other specimens have been preserved exclusively in ethanol and would be therefore be suitable for DNA sequencing and other molecular analyses. Alternatively they can state that all of the material has been formalin-fixed before ethanol preservation.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of journal.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: See above.


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: BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS REVEAL EIGHT NEW SPECIES OF FRESHWATER CRABS (DECAPODA: BRACHYURA: POTAMIDAE) FROM YUNNAN PROVINCE, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: General comments:
The manuscript No. 22317 described nine new species of freshwater crabs collected from Yunnan Province, China. This is an important addition to freshwater crab biodiversity in the most species-rich province Yunnan, as well as the most species-rich country, China. However, the current version of the manuscript suffers, in my view, of serious drawbacks, including deficient data and data analysis that are described in details below. Hence I will recommend a major revision be undertaken prior to acceptance for publication in the Peer J.
Experimental design: 1.	Detailed information of each species described in the manuscript such as longitude and latitude, altitude, habitat environment, etc should be given. Since Chinese geographic names seem to be less common for most readers, it is preferable to provide a brief map of collecting sites.
2.	Paratypes: please provide the number for each specimen, one number for several specimens is confusing, such as line 107~109.
3.	In the diagnosis sections of the nine species, please give more pronounced description. Besides, explicit figures should be made, including separated figures of the third maxilliped (showing distinct traits of exopod), female thoracic sternum and genital pore, sterno-abdominal cavity with G1 in situ, and left G2.
4.	In the remarks sections of the nine species, please give pronounced descriptive differences when diagnosing the new species, it should be explicitly stated what characters and how are different by use of explicit figures. For several ambiguous species, such as the two species of Indochinamon, independent data from DNA barcoding and molecular phylogenetic analyses of related clades are indispensible.
5.	Figures, the authors could have done a much better job in figure quality than what is presented in the manuscript. Such as Fig. 1, Fig.4, Fig18, Fig. 20, Fig.21, Fig. 22, Fig. 25, Fig. 28.
6.	Names of localities and rivers: please give more pronounced authoritative names of localities and rivers, as well as a consistent name on the same location. Such as those descriptions for Indochinamon jingguense sp. n., in lines 154-155, 160, 163-164, are ambiguous for readers.
Validity of the findings: 7.	Several new species or their assignment are much dubious:
1)	Line 99~. Indochinamon ahkense sp. n. Please provides comparative analyses among the five related species described in the manuscript, as well as among related known species by use of tables.
2)	Line 150~. Indochinamon jingguense sp. n. In terms of morphological characters, it is very similar to I. chinghungense Dai et al., 1975 in G1 and G2. Due to the lack of detailed descriptions and images of the third maxilliped, female thoracic sternum and genital pore, sterno-abdominal cavity with G1 in situ of the holotype, the new species, I. jingguense sp. n. is much dubious in the present situation. In my view, it probably is I. chinghungense Dai et al., 1975. The locality of the holotype of I. jingguense sp. n. is geographically adjacent to Jinghong (Chinghung) where I. chinghungense distributed, and these localities are all located in lower reaches of the Lancang River. Furthermore, the locality of the holotype is quite inexact, since it was sampled from a market in Simao district of Pu’er City, which is adjacent to Jinghong City.
3)	Line 210~. Indochinamon parpidum sp. n.  The new species is dubious.
In my view, it is probably I. hispidum (Wood-Mason, 1871). There are three subspecies, I. h. hispidum (Wood-Mason, 1871), I. h. jianchuanense Dai et Chen, 1985 and I. h. boshanense Dai et Chen, 1985. They are subsequently erected to species level. Please give comprehensive comparative analyses between the candidate new species, I. parpidum sp. n. and these three related species.
4)	Line 258~. Indochinamon aozaoense sp. n.  The new species is dubious, since several distinct characters, including the third maxilliped, female thoracic sternum and genital pore, sterno-abdominal cavity with G1 in situ, and G2, are not provided in descriptions and remarks, and related figures. It cannot be distinguished from I. baoshanense (Dai et Chen, 1985).
5)	Line 316~. Indochinamon lui sp. n.  The new species is dubious, the current descriptions, remarks and figures in the manuscript are not comparable with those for most related known species. It is similar with the former species, however, comparative analyses between these related species are not shown.
6)	Line 375~. Pararanguna hemicyclius sp. n. This is undoubtedly a new species. However, current descriptions, remarks and figures in the manuscript are not comparable with those for the known related species, P. semilunatum Dai et Chen, 1985.
7)	Line 438~. Parvuspotamon diyuense sp. n. The assignment of this new species is much dubious. The first is the distinct characters, including the shape of genital pore and its position on female thoracic sternum, are insufficient in remarks of the ms. The second is the length of terminal segment (distal segment) of G1is not longer than 1/2 of subternimal segment (subdistal segment), in my view, from Figs. 23 of the ms. It is not consistent to those for the genus Parvuspotamon Dai et Bo, 1994.

8)	Line 492~. Potamiscus fumariatus sp. n. and Line 529~. Potamiscus crassus sp. n.: They are undoubtedly two new species. However, current descriptions, remarks and figures in the manuscript are not comparable with those for the known related species, Potamiscus Alcock, 1909. Meanwhile, the locality are dubious. In addition, the genus Potamiscus is not monophyletic, as previously reviewed by Yeo et al. Therefore, the assignment of these two species are dubious.
Additional comments: Minor concerns,
1.	Line 43-44, Please recheck the name of rivers, use the unified naming of rivers in Chinese maps. And a rearrangement of these names with perspicuous westward or eastward is more proper.
2.	Line 46, there are 16 genera of freshwater crabs in Yunnan, not 15 genera.
3.	Line 160, the location in the sentence is quite confusing. At present, Simao is a district of Pu’er City, Yunnan Province.
4.	Figure 10. Please provide left G2.
5.	Figure 13. Please provide left G2.
6.	Figure 16. Please provide left G2.


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: BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS REVEAL EIGHT NEW SPECIES OF FRESHWATER CRABS (DECAPODA: BRACHYURA: POTAMIDAE) FROM YUNNAN PROVINCE, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment,
Experimental design: no comment,
Validity of the findings: no comment,
Additional comments: The names of rivers in figure 1 are not consistent, some of them are named ~ River, but others are named Jiang. Please check carefully.


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: FLOWER-MEDIATED PLANT-BUTTERFLY INTERACTIONS IN AN HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL COASTAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written using technically correct English. The introduction is sufficiently long to show the field of knowledge, and the relevant literature is cited. However, as detailed in the criteria on Experimental design, the introduction requires a thorough review.
The structure of the article conforms to PeerJ standard sections.
Figures:
Fig. 1: Both number of species and genera show similar patterns. The taxonomic representativeness is not a relevant point of the manuscript and it could be summarised in just one figure in the supplementary material (in this case, number of species).
Fig. 2: Which were the criteria for the species selection? If pictures of butterflies are to be included, they should be on relevant species based on criteria mentioned in the manuscript (e.g., degree, strength... or something like that)
Fig. 3: The dendrogram from cluster analysis on presence-absence of butterfly species represents three groups, but this is not clear at all. Which is the criterion for separating TDF-W from the group formed by TDF, PDV and CDS?
What do the figures next to dendrogram branches mean?
Fig. 4: Please, define core and peripheral species here or at least provide some reference to the main text. Provide also a reference to species abbreviations and use a larger font.
Fig. 5: Y-axis titles are missing from some panels (A, C and E).
The raw data is available from an Excel file. Maybe an extra sheet including the meaning of species abbreviations would be useful.
Experimental design: This manuscript presents original primary research on butterfly communities in a tropical region and their interactions with flowering plants used as nectar sources. My major concern on this work is that the research question is poorly defined. The introduction is too long and focuses on the scarcity of butterfly studies over three paragraphs (lines 52-90). I would recommend the authors to shorten the introduction and to be much more specific in the identification of the knowledge gap covered by their work. From my point of view, a good possibility would be focus on butterfly-nectar plant interactions, including community research as a secondary point, and just briefly mentioning the faunal point.
Other important concern relates to experimental design. One of the points addressed in the study is the effect of vegetation type (5 categories) on butterfly communities and network structure. Apparently, vegetation types are not replicated and any conclusion derived on this subject has the problem of being based on confounding effects (vegetation types and sites). This limitation could be overcome if the vegetation types represented a continuum along a gradient, but I do not know if this is the case.
Minor points
Lines 161-162: the sampling was restricted to butterflies foraging on flowers. This is a limitation (discussed in the manuscript) for the research on community characterization, but not on network structure.
Please, provide here the year and the period of sampling.
Lines 182-183: what is the actual sample? Are all individuals collected within a site over the whole season?
Lines 192-198: “With the identity…” These sentences should be moved to the Network analysis section.
Lines 199-212: I understand that nestedness is also network level estimate.
Lines 209-211: please, provide further details on null model 2.
Lines 199-243: which are the bases for selecting the indices at network and species level used in the manuscript?
Lines 230-232: please, provide further details on “dependencies”.
Lines 240-243: the “core-periphery species” issue is cited here by first time.
Validity of the findings: The discussion is too long. The contents in lines 338-385 could be much shortened by summarizing all faunal information.
The conclusions should not start with the list of butterflies in La Mancha, because it sounds too local.
Minor points
Line 246: “Lepidoptera species” instead of “butterfly species”.
Lines 251-253: the sentence concerning the number of genera could be removed according to the points raised for Fig. 1.
Lines 275-279: the passage referring to the similarity and cluster analyses should be revised according to the points suggested for Fig. 3.
Line 282: some individuals were not identified to species.
Lines 283-285: please, move the results concerning differences between vegetation types to the corresponding section.
Line 286: please, include further details on the meaning of NODF_total and NODF(Ce).
Lines 330-331: plants were more specialized than butterflies according to the SA index (negative values).
Lines 487-492: as stated in line 486, one possible explanation for the larger specialization of plants is that the numbers of potential floral visitors are underestimated because there could be others than butterflies.
Lines 492-494: this is an unclear sentence and requires some rewriting.
Additional comments: Abstract
Line 21: the study area is not mentioned in the methods subsection.
Lines 26-34: the network results are barely explained in the abstract.
Lines 43-45: the final conclusion sounds too general.


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: FLOWER-MEDIATED PLANT-BUTTERFLY INTERACTIONS IN AN HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL COASTAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This MS explores the relationships between adult butterflies and their nectar resources in a set of plant communities in a subtropical coastal area in Mexico. Based on timed observations of nectaring butterflies in circular plots in each of 5 habitat types, the authors carried out an analysis of the mutualistic networks between butterflies and flowering plants. Different measures of network structure were used for a comparison of the different communities.

Network data on interactions between adult butterflies and flower species are scarce, even in temperate ecosystems. In this respect, the MS gives interesting and novel information, more so representing a tropical system. Moreover, sampling was made year-round, in one year, totalling over 700 butterly-plant interactions, which represents a rather important dataset.

In spite of this, I believe that the MS needs major rewriting before being considered for publication. In particular, I see some aspects that need major improvement:

1 - In general, the MS it's too long and must be shortenend. For instance, literature is too extensive (ca. 90 references!) and comprises many local titles that to me are too detailed (e.g. local lists of Mexican butterflies). I would keep only those essential and comprehensive works that may be of general interest for non-local entomologists.

2 - Many information given in the Results section could appear in tables, which would not only help to shorten the presentation but also to make it more understandable for the reader. For instance, data on diversity and network metrics (l. 266-355) could be much condensed on a couple of tables.

3 - I would skip Fig. 1 and avoid much of the descriptive results in l. 246-265, which are too detailed and of little interest for the general reader. The same for the first part of Discussion.

On the other hand, I missed some more deep arguments of the expected findings (l. 136-143), which could be somewhat extended and more based on previous findings by other researchers, and then more related to the Discussion.
Experimental design: I don't see the point of distinguishing habitat categories 5 and 6 (l. 154-155), and then pool the data from them into a single category (l. 183-185). Moreover, doing so, you're oversampling this final category, even if diversity here is much lower than on other habitats.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: See some more specific comments on various parts of the MS:

- The expression 'host plant' when referring to nectar sources is probably not correct. I would say that 'host plant' is used only for the tight relationship between larvae and the plants they feed on. In the current context, I would it replace by 'adult resources' or similar expressions.

- The writing should be improved in some parts of the MS. Just some examples, that at present consist of sentences or arguments that are difficult to follow: l. 64-67, l. 94.97, , l. 142-143, l. 364-365, l. 448-453.

- I don't see the point of giving 2 decimals when discussing percentage of species found in the study area compared with local lists. I even would skip these figures, which are of relatively little interest.

- Some references are mising in the references sections.


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: FLOWER-MEDIATED PLANT-BUTTERFLY INTERACTIONS IN AN HETEROGENEOUS TROPICAL COASTAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I much appreciate the author's work for improving their manuscript. They have corrected the figures and moved those of less importance to supplementary material. They have also incorporated most comments to the main text. However, I am afraid there was a misunderstanding concerning the comments to fig. 3. It is clear that the metric used for the dendrogram was Jaccard similarity index. The point raised in the review was actually about the algorithm used for constructing the dendrogram and the threshold to establish groups, not about the metric. Another misunderstanding concerns the figures next to dendrogram branches: I referred to figures 100, 99, 89 and 72.
Experimental design: The introduction is still too long and focused on butterflies and the study area, it sound too local. For instance, the text in lines 55-111 (line numbers based on the document with track changes for all comments) could be substantially shortened.
With respect to the experimental design, the problem associated to the lack of replicated vegetation types is not clearly explained in the text included (lines 181-185).
Index selection (lines 234-298): it could be useful to include some key references.
Validity of the findings: The discussion is still too long. I feel that is still possible to condense the passage concerning the faunal information (lines 401-438). If possible, shortening of other discussion sections could much improve the ms.
The statement raised in lines 562-565 is somewhat circular: vegetation types are based on plant species, so they cannot limit their distribution. This is also included in the abstract (lines 48-52) and the conclusions (lines 576-582) and it should be revised.
Additional comments: Abstract: the background (lines 13-21) should be more focused on community ecology and particularly on pollinator networks, rather than on butterflies.
Conclusions (lines 567-582): I would recommend the authors to carefully think about the points to be included here. At the current stage, it sounds too vague and unfortunately does not provide much to the ms.
Please, check carefully the writing of the ms: at least, passages in lines 143-145, 163-164, 218-221 and 516-520 require some rewriting.


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: SEASONAL CHANGES IN THE ABUNDANCE AND BIOMASS OF COPEPODS IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN BALTIC SEA IN 2010 AND 2011
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper represents comparison analysis of Copepod abundance and biomass in Gulf of Gdansk and in the more open sea area in front of this Gulf. It is mostly descriptive kind of study, however, includes valuable data of differences and similarities between biocenosis of coastal and open sea waters.
The paper should be improved in the structure and discussion with relevant literature. Also, the conclusion should be clarified. See detail suggestions in the "Validity of the findings":
Experimental design: The paper presents original results. The methods are described properly.
Validity of the findings: 59-85– this chapter belongs to „Material and Methods”
68-69 Danish straits is an only connection between Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
112 – Should be a citation here.
116 – Part from “based…Gdańsk” is not necessary here.
119 – I propose to divide chapter “Material and methods” on two subchapters: “Study area” (text from lines 59-85 and also 367-383 with avoiding repetitions) and “Sampling” (current text in the chapter)
210 – “At station P1” is the only technical term. It should be changed to a geographical name.(the same: lines 238, 284, 303)
366-383 – It is not a discussion but the description of the study area. Should allocate to this (proposed) subchapter
384 -491 This part is the description of the results and belongs (after rejecting repetitive information) to the Results chapter.
492 – Subchapter should be supplemented by the comparisons of the Copepod abundance with data from other gulfs of Baltic with wider citation of relevant literature. Here, any discussion with literature is absent.
537-540 – Because Gulf of Gdansk is not isolated from the open sea, why it is unique? Comparing to what? The author declared in 536 line that unique (specific) biocenoses have Gulfs of Bothnia, Finnland, and Riga.
Additional comments: The paper should be improved in the structure and discussion with relevant literature. Also, the conclusion should be clarified.The paper needs revision according to detail remarks below, before publication in the Peerj.


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: SEASONAL CHANGES IN THE ABUNDANCE AND BIOMASS OF COPEPODS IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN BALTIC SEA IN 2010 AND 2011
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: For the paper to be publishable, the language needs to be strongly improved through much of the paper. At present some of the text seems somewhat premature, with issues regarding the wording and grammar, and the text needs to flow better. Improving the text, particularly in the Materials and Methods and Results, would make the paper easier to understand.

The literature references and field backgroud/context seems suffiecient.

Article structure, figures and tables are OK, and raw data are shared.

The submission is self-contained - and includes the relevant results.

This is an appropriate unit for publication
Experimental design: The paper is based on original primary research and is within the aims and scope of the journal.

The research question is well defined.

The methods used are adequate for adressing the research question.

In a few cases, noted specifically in the general comments to the authors, a little more detail should be given in the methodological desrption.
Validity of the findings: The submission is primarily descriptive - which is fine.

The study includes 2 sampling stations - which are located in different environments, Comparisons are made. Both stations are covered for almost two years and the within-station results for the two years are compared .

The results are considered to be robust.

The conclusions are well stated, based on the research questions, and puts these into a larger context.
Additional comments: Review of the manuscript:

«Seasonal changes in the abundance and biomass of copepod in the southwestern Baltic Sea in 2010 and 2011”

Lidia Dzierzbicka-Glowacka, Anna Lemieszek, Evelina Griniene, Marcin Kalarus

PeerJ

This paper is based on time-series on copepod species abundances and biomasses at two stations in the south-western Baltic Sea during 2010 and 2011. One station, P1 (Gdansk Deep), was located in a deeper area and considered to represent the open ocean region, while the other station, P2 (Gulf of Gdansk), was located closer to shore and mainly influenced by coastal water. The study covers the annual cycle over almost 2 years – at both stations. Plankton nets, Copenhagen net and WP2, were used for collection of samples. Both nets had mesh-size 100 µm, and were hauled vertically.
The focus of the paper is seasonal changes in abundances and biomasses of the main copepod species. The results focus on the copepods Acartia spp., Temora longicornis and Pseudocalanus sp., which were found to be the dominant zooplankton groups in this study, both with respect to numerical abundances and biomass.

The main results are the changes in copepod abundances and species-composition during the seasonal cycle, on a coastal versus open-ocean station, with a comparison of the results for 2 consequent years. The results are discussed in relation to hydrological variability – which was also measured. The paper is primarily descriptive, and provides basic yet essential ecosystem information.

Conclusion:
The data and results are interesting, relevant and valuable.

For the paper to be publishable, a major revision would be required. This is because the language needs to be strongly improved through much of the paper. At present some of the text seems somewhat premature, with issues regarding the wording and grammar, and the text needs to flow better. Improving the text, particularly in the Materials and Methods and Results, would make the paper easier to understand.

Regarding the presented concentrations of copepods and the species proportions, I would like to be assured that these (except in the cases when stated otherwise) actually represent the entire water-column as a whole, and that the calculations take into account that the sampling strata are not always equal regarding distance between upper and lower sampling depth. If  this was not accounted for due to not being considered to be of importance, this should be clearly stated and explained. Further, it should be made clear which developmental stages that are included in the presented results – both in the text and figure legends.

Statistical analyses are not applied – but given the scope of the paper this would not seem necessary.

Specific comments:
In the title and throughout the paper the term “Copepod” is used. “Copepoda” is a taxonomic subclass within subphylum Crustacea, which belongs to phylum Arthropoda. Using the term “Copepod” with a capital “C” and without an “a” at the end, as in the title, does not seem to be correct. Why not simply use the term “copepods” (plural form) consistently? For instance, the title could then be “Seasonal changes in the abundance and biomass of copepods in the Baltic Sea in 2010 and 2011”. This modification could be made throughout the paper.

Summary page for the different chapters - on first page:
This is to the point, and generally well written.
I do find the geographical positions confusing due to the symbols phi and lambda (φ, λ), but this could be due to ignorance on my part. These symbols are used when describing geographical positions throughout the paper, both in text and figure-legends. Please make sure that the geographical system presented is right, and correct it throughout if it is not.
It is not clear to me what is meant by qualitative versus quantitative structure. Is this absence/presence versus relative and absolute abundances? This is written a couple of places in the paper.
Lines 24-56 in the paper: Same comments as above – as the text is very similar.
I will not mention all the cases where I consider the writing needs to be corrected or improved in the paper – but only give a few examples in the following.

Introduction
The contents generally seem alright, but there are issues regarding the English.
Some statements surprise me, but this could be due to the writing more than the intended message. An example is on lines 110-112: I hardly think that the physiochemical properties of the environment can be determined by absence-presence of different species (at least not with any precision) – but rather guess that the absence-presence of different species will reflect or indicate the physiochemical environment. I feel that the sentence now is too strong – perhaps more than intended?

Materials and methods
The language needs to be checked and improved in the whole chapter.
Line 120: “planktonic material”. Would it be better with “plankton samples”?
Line 124: Check the description of the geographic position. If this is correct, I apologize. This is relevant for the whole paper, including the figure-legends  – but I won’t bring it up again.
Lines 126-127: It would be good to include some references for the plankton nets.
Line 131: “placed at 1/3 of the diameter of the net inlet”. Are you sure you do not mean “at 1/3 of the distance from the edge of the net towards its centre”? Please check and reformulate if necessary.
Line 138: Better with “ … a list of samples collected at station P1”?
Line 144: Better with “ … , from the ship of …”? Is the word “aboard” needed?
Lines 145-146: “The site of biological material collection was ..” I suggest changing to : “The location for collection of plankton samples …”
Line 146: I am not sure what Mm signifies. Is there an alternative way of giving the distance that is easier to understand – for instance in kilometres?
Line 148: “.. along the water column …”. How about “ throughout the water column”?
Line 151: “ … list of material at P2 station”. Would it be better with “ … list of samples collected at station P2”?
Line 154: Same comment as for line 131.
Line 156: Which developmental stages were identified, the copepodite stages and nauplii? A little more information should be given about this.
Figure 1: Some bottom-contours in the map would be informative for the readers.
The samples collected from both stations P1 and P2 are vertically stratified. My understanding here is based on the text as well as for instance the file “Data_S4.xlsx”. For both stations, concentrations of copepods are reported in the Results. Which depth-strata do these reported concentrations represent in those cases when no specific depth-stratum is mentioned? The whole water-column? If the results represent the entire water-column – how were the data for the different vertical layers combined? The depth layers are not always equally “wide” at station P2 (at least on some sampling occasions) – was this accounted for in the calculations?  This is important information and should be given in a clear way in the Materials and methods – and in the Results (including the figure-legends) it should be specified which depth-stratum that the concentrations represent. I was not able to understand completely how the calculations were made by looking in the data-files – so this should be explained in the text of the Mat&Mat.

In the Results, salinity and temperature data are used to describe the environmental conditions at the time and location of plankton-sampling. The description of the collection of the salinity and temperature data should be given in the Materials and Methods – not the Results. I also think that the description of the CTD-probe(s) and how it/they was/were used should be a little more precise than what is presently given in the Results chapter.

Results:
The text should be checked thoroughly, and improved wherever possible.
Instead of listing so many numbers, I think it would be good to focus more on the main patterns and messages. In many cases it should be enough to refer to the figures for the details. That would probably make the chapter more readable.

Environmental conditions:
The description of the measurements should be moved to Materials and Methods, and only the results shown in the present chapter.
Line 186-187: Which increase is this? Please clarify.
Line 198: Which cases do “the differences in both cases” refer to? This is a bit confusing – please clarify.
Lines 199-200: “the temperature began to level off and uniformely fluctuated”. This is a bit hard to follow- can it be described in a way that is easier to understand?

Copepod abundance:
Please refer to the figures – that would ease the interpretation when reading the text.
In some places the text is hard to follow, for instance as in lines 224-227. As an example, I think that it there would be better to say that “Pseudocalanus elongatus had a higher relative proportion at station P1 than station P2”, and refer to figures 3 and 5. More “straight to the point”. Personally, I also think that the reason for this would belong better in the Discussion than the Results.
Which depth-strata do the zooplankton concentrations and species proportions represent? I assume it is the entire water-column. This must be specified in the text and in the figure legends.
Do the species abundances and proportions represent the sum of all copepodite stages? Again, this should be clarified.
Line 211: This seems obvious – I suggest removing it.
Line 214 and onwards: These concentrations (unless when specifically stating otherwise in the text) represent the pelagic zone, so I assume the concentrations then represent the average of the entire water column. Correctly understood?
Line 239: Also here, the first sentence seems rather obvious. Is it needed?
Line 245: “… over two times lower ..”. Better with “ … less than the half …”.
Line 249: I do not think this looks like two peaks (in 2011). There will always be some uncertainty associated with estimated abundances, and keeping that in mind, I rather think that the presented abundances look rather similar during May-July. If there is a peak in June-July, it is not easy to see in Fig. 4.
Line 281: Alternatively, you could say “In 2011, Eurytemora sp. was rare, only accounting for up to  ….”.

Copepod biomass:
Line 312-313: Whether there are one or two peaks during June-September is not clear to me. What seems clear is that the biomass during these months are higher compared to the months before and after, but I fail to see two peaks. With my eyes, the biomasses seem rather similar during June-September.
Lines 314-315: Is this sentence needed? Perhaps just go straight to the nest sentence where things become more specific – at least that would be my choice.

Discussion:
The Discussion in general is very well written and sharp. This is the level to aim at for the whole paper.

Description of the study area:
This section flows nicely.
Perhaps the word “morphometric” in line 369 could be changed – I am unsure what it means in this context.

Taxonomic composition of plankton:
This section flows well, is interesting, and easy to follow. In the last part of the section, it would be nice to include some references, if the results from the previous studies mentioned are published.
Line 389: Worth mentioning that Hyperia galba is a hyperiid or amphipod?
Lines 390-392: “The percentage of individual taxa and their vertical distribution were determined by metereological and hydrological conditions prevailing at a given time”. This is a rather strong statement, even if it may very well be true. Still, as no statistical testing of the relationships between environmental variables and the plankton species composition and their distributions were made in this study, I would moderate this statement. If the statement refers to other research or general knowledge – it should be cited.

Changes in the abundance and biomass of zooplankton:
Good.

Conclusion
It ties up the results and puts them in a larger context, while also explaining why the results of the study are valuable and how the can be used 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: SEASONAL CHANGES IN THE ABUNDANCE AND BIOMASS OF COPEPODS IN THE SOUTH-EASTERN BALTIC SEA IN 2010 AND 2011
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors improved the article according to my expectations.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: The answers of the authors to my review are satisfied and changes in the text follow my suggestions. From my point of view, the manuscript in the present form can be considered for publication.