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: SYMBIOTIC IMMUNO-SUPPRESSION: IS DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY THE PRICE OF BLEACHING RESISTANCE?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was ok on this component although I do make recommendations for changes to the way the results are presented.
Experimental design: The strength of the study is in the following of individual ramets through time.  However, the limited number of ramets which displayed bleaching or tissue loss disease was an extremely small proportion of the overall community thus drawing conclusion based upon this data difficult.  It would have also been much more informative if the zooxanthellae clade of the genets had been reported as zooxanthellae clade has been shown to affect bleaching and disease susceptibility.  Without that information conclusions drawn are  limited.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions drawn and the hypothesis of immune-suppression by zooxanthellae are not supported by the data or other works.  They don't address any other factors that might produce differential bleaching and disease susceptibility with a major failure being not linking zooxanthellae clade to the findings.  They also do not report their findings in a way that allows the study to be evaluated properly.  What size were all of these ramets?  all similar sizes?  clarify.  They also need to report genets/ramets relationships.   Were the ramets that bleached always from the same genet?  Or did that vary among the different time periods?  Ditto for the ramets displaying disease. There is also a current problem in many of the Florida nurseries with fireworm predation common and commonly mistaken for disease.   They may have evidence (clear linear progression?  nocturnal search for fireworms? etc) that it was disease not predation but that was not presented.   Although it is great that they followed individual ramets through time, the study as presented does not support their conclusions.
Additional comments: Looking at individual ramets through time with temperature is a good idea but the authors jumped to too many conclusions based on many false assumptions.  They also use incorrect nomenclature for disease studies.  I have added suggestion to the text to help improve any future submissions.


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: SYMBIOTIC IMMUNO-SUPPRESSION: IS DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY THE PRICE OF BLEACHING RESISTANCE?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In general I think that this is a good first study of individual genets to understand the relationship between bleaching and disease outbreak.

Refs are sufficient, but there are a few areas that I suggest having added references.
Line 77: "...enhanced by thermal stress (ADD REF)"

Raw data is shared, article structure and figs are professiona.

Hypothesis was stated and tested.
Experimental design: The authors acknowledge that their sample size is low, and this is due to it being a field study of corals from a nursery. A few things need to be clarified about this study:

1. Are the genets known genotypes that have disease or bleaching resistance? Lirman Lab has done studies on this, and I wonder if some of the results could be due to the genotypes that are being studied.

2. More detail on the genotypes studies would greatly help this paper be stronger.
Validity of the findings: The novelty was assess and I agree with the authors that this is a very important first step in understanding this phenomena. Data, stats and conclusions were sound and concluding figure was very informative as a model for future studies.
Additional comments: Overall great paper. There are a few spelling, grammar issues and questions about things:

line 66: replace dispute with debate.
line 91: "these observations these disease outbreaks" doesn't make sense.
line 100: explain here what you mean by colonies...you later bring it up, but it is confusing because there is a lot of switching between coral, coral colony and genet...which I think you mean as the same thing, but it confusing for the reader.
line 101: in-situ should be in situ (in italics)----this happens through out the manuscript.
line 125: "...each coral..." again what are you talking about here (genet or colony or ramet?)

Lines 141-143: I suggest putting these first, then showing the equations.


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: SYMBIOTIC IMMUNO-SUPPRESSION: IS DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY THE PRICE OF BLEACHING RESISTANCE?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: meets all standards
Experimental design: The experimental design is solid. Authors adequately addressed all concerns regarding observer variability and sample size. A power analysis was conducted and discussed in text.
Validity of the findings: Manuscript was revised to address comments concerning validity. Concerns about transmission of disease from ramets in close proximity to one another was allayed in the revision.
Additional comments: The authors did their due diligence in addressing each comment thoroughly in the rebuttal.


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: SYMBIOTIC IMMUNO-SUPPRESSION: IS DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY THE PRICE OF BLEACHING RESISTANCE?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Much improved.
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Much improved
Additional comments: Fig 3 really adds to understanding this study!  Please change the word "white band disease" on line 101 to "white syndrome" .  White band disease does not occur on the GBR.   There is a spelling error on line 293 , posses.

Nice job with the revisions!


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: WHEN, WHY AND HOW FOOT ORTHOSES (FOS) SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR CHILDREN WITH FLEXIBLE PES PLANUS: A DELPHI SURVEY OF PODIATRISTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: please see below
Experimental design: please see below
Validity of the findings: please see below
Additional comments: Thanks for the opportunity to review this very interesting and comprehensive paper. There is certainly a need to provide consensus and agreement on a the different clinical interventions currently offered for a flexible pes planus in children.
Congratulation on the author and the team for completing such a extensive Delphi survey.
Please find below some minor comments for your possible consideration:

Line 31-32. Would it be possible to actually provide a percentage on how frequently the different type of corrections are prescribed. For example: vertical [heel] cast pour (XX%); minimal arch fill (XX%), forefoot balanced to perpendicular (XX%). I wonder if you were able to retried this data. If so, it might be helpful for the reader.

Line 36 - I would suggest to remove “First of its kind on this topic” --- possibly argue this within the discussion section, but not on the conclusion part of the abstract.
Very comprehensive background Lit Review.it provides a very strong introduction to your paper. In line 77, “Stretch exercises” - could you possible be more specific on what soft tissue were considered for stretches as part of ‘non surgical treatment’ for pes planus.

Line 108: were you able to acquire data that the pods were ‘still currently practising’. If so, please add it within the sentence. A registered podiatrist, may not necessarily means that he/she is still regularly seeing patients

Line 114: could you please add the % of participants recruited from Australia (%), NZ (%), and UK

Line 119: regarding ‘Academic institutes”. Given that academics that teach within the same institution may needs to provide a standard approach of teaching / curriculum to all their students; therefore, they may be inclined to use similar clinical approaches. It could be argued that, for example:  if you recruited 5 ‘experts’ from the same university in the UK, they may all provide you with very similar answers, especially on the type of devices that they have access to / or that their department that they can afford. Could you possibly specify if more than one participant actually worked within the same institutions. Obviously for confidentiality reasons there is no need to specify what institution. This additional information, may be useful for the readers, so they can be aware on how heterogenous and varied the participants were as part of your data collection.
Line 124: “informed consent” - could you please provide a short sentence with more information on how the consent was obtained. Was it electronically / separate form / signed / implied - please clarify.

Line 139: could you please indicate from which country the two podiatrists were working on ? and if they were part of your existing team. This will certainly promote more clarity on how the preliminary survey were obtained.

Line 154: could you possibly specify if participants were asked to declare any possible conflict of interest ? This could possibly be perceived as they were potentially trying to ‘promote’ certain type of FOs as part of the data collection stage. If you were not able to capture this info, please add a short statement as part of the limitation section.

Line 173: please add a REF justifying this methodological approach of excluding the statements that did not reach 50%.

Line 200: congratulation for gathering the gender data. However, I would suggest that you should not words it as bias. Please remove the "there was a slight gender bias towards”. Just report : “ overall, male participant …..”

Line 381: regarding Pre-Fabricated FOs - could you also mentioned if the participants reported about the facts that they can be supplied at ‘chair-side’ on the same day as the initial biomechanical consultation.

Line 394 - please remove “as with any research”. Good Limitation section, very comprehensive and informative for the reader. well done

Hope this may help
Kind regards


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

Input:
Title: WHEN, WHY AND HOW FOOT ORTHOSES (FOS) SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR CHILDREN WITH FLEXIBLE PES PLANUS: A DELPHI SURVEY OF PODIATRISTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The purpose of study was to garner consensus and agreement, with Delphi consensus survey, from experienced podiatrists of Australia (AU), New Zealand (NZ) andUnited Kingdom (UK), on the presentation and management of paediatric flexible pes planus.

The secondary aim was to develop a clinical protocol based on this expert opinion to direct clinicians on when, why and how FOs should be prescribed for children with symptomatic 96 flexible pes planus.

The manuscript is very clear, good structure and professional language are used. The references support the arguments and provide sufficient background.

.
Experimental design: A Delphi survey consisting of three rounds was conducted where fifteen podiatrists participants’ opinion was sought. Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom were chosen due to similarities in podiatry undergraduate education, scope of podiatric practice and health care contexts. Data was collected using online survey platform

The outcomes of interest were consensus and agreement. All included consensus and agrément statements were compiled to construct ‘A clinical protocol for paediatric flexible pes planus’, that consists of three main sections: Confirm diagnosis; Signs and symptoms; and Intervention.

Research question well defined and relevant . This added value compared to previous similar research that focused on adults. Good description of methods and results.
Validity of the findings: The authors suggest his clinical protocol can be used concurrently with alternative tools such as the pFFP by Evans  (2008) and Harris et al. 2004 flow chart, to help clinicians follow a logical pattern for management of paediatric flexible pes planus.

Some limitations are identified  by authors to this study like the absence of
agreement on a universally accepted definition of paediatric flexible pes planus and some methodological limitations of conducting a Delphi survey method include risks of collusion affecting participants’ anonymity and absence of criteria for defining an ‘expert’ in the field.

Results are robust and conclusion are well stated, linked to original study questions.
Additional comments: The authors have really well addressed the research questions. Overall, well-done, This added value compared to previous research.


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

Input:
Title: WHEN, WHY AND HOW FOOT ORTHOSES (FOS) SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR CHILDREN WITH FLEXIBLE PES PLANUS: A DELPHI SURVEY OF PODIATRISTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: please see below
Experimental design: please see below
Validity of the findings: please see below
Additional comments: thanks for kindly including all the suggested changes so quickly.
I believe the paper now looks even stronger
wish you all the best with your future research
kind regards


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

Input:
Title: WHEN, WHY AND HOW FOOT ORTHOSES (FOS) SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED FOR CHILDREN WITH FLEXIBLE PES PLANUS: A DELPHI SURVEY OF PODIATRISTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No 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: REPLICATION STUDY: ANDROGEN RECEPTOR SPLICE VARIANTS DETERMINE TAXANE SENSITIVITY IN PROSTATE CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: 1. PDX studies is notoriously hard to get consistent results, but how xenograft changes over passage is difficult to evaluate. The current report may simply reflect this reality rather than any technical issues in the original publication. There are two additional ways to validate the results of the original paper:
(1) Evaluate the molecular function of the AR variants in vitro (e.g. will overexpression of these variants change the sensitivity of the prostate cancer cells to microtubule-targeting drugs?)
(2) Analyze human data sets to check the association of AR variant expression and response to microtubule-targeting drugs.

However, these points are obviously beyond the scope of this report. If the authors don't plan to run such studies, please discuss them (including the possible reason why this xenograft change) in "Discussion".

2. Reviewer request to review the raw data of Fig. 1A (size record and growth curve of individual tumors). Please submit them.

3. Is ARv7 expressed as RNA in LuCaP23.1?


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

Input:
Title: REPLICATION STUDY: ANDROGEN RECEPTOR SPLICE VARIANTS DETERMINE TAXANE SENSITIVITY IN PROSTATE CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	PeerJ standards: “Conclusions: Identify unresolved questions / gaps / future directions.” Please add a concluding paragraph summarizing the overall findings and differences between this study and the original study. As is the manuscript ends abruptly with no summarizing comments on the findings of the paper.
2.	A PowerPoint of the N20 blot used in the manuscript can be found at https://osf.io/f39cg/. However, please provide the raw western blot for the N20 antibody used in this manuscript (the manuscript figure is not the same as the blot shown in the raw data).
3.	Please note in the text of manuscript where the bands are located for the westerns. From the raw western image it is apparent that the bands with N20 are not the correct size (~70 kD when they should be ~110 kD). It is also troubling that the N20 antibody did not detect any bands for two AR positive lines (LNCaP and 22rV1).
4.	Please comment on the possible discrepancy between D6F11 detecting what appears to be full-length AR and variant AR but V7 western not showing V7 (as the authors pointed out, there was also a discrepancy in original paper with this). Perhaps there are other truncation variants in the 23.1 xenograft? Also note that N20 and the Precision V7 antibodies used in the two studies are most likely different lots/batches and that could also account for differences seen (batch variability is known to occur with both of these antibodies). A recent paper by Nguyen, et al, (2017) “LuCaP Prostate Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts Reflect the Molecular Heterogeneity of Advanced Disease and Serve as Models for Evaluating Cancer Therapeutics.” The Prostate, 7:654-671, shows decreased tumor growth for both 86.2 and 23.1 for high dose docetaxel (20 mg/kg) but only 86.2 responded to low dose docetaxel (5 mg/kg). Also this paper found low expression levels levels of AR-V7 mRNA in 23.1 (increased levels in castrate resistant 23.1).
5.	Minor change: Line 178, there is no Replication Figure 1C or a graph of area under the curve shown (only 1A--tumor volume graph).  If no other parts are included in Figure 1, then it should just be labeled as Figure 1.
6.	The sentence on Lines 75-77 needs to be edited, “Three mice in the LuCaP 23.1 xenograft group Docetaxel was obtained from LC Laboratories (D-1000) and treated mice received 10 mg/kg docetaxel in 400 μL 13% ethanol/0.9% NaCl per injection.” The first part of the sentence should be deleted so it reads, “Docetaxel was obtained from LC Laboratories (D-1000) and treated mice received 10 mg/kg docetaxel in 400 μL 13% ethanol/0.9% NaCl per injection.”
7.	Lines 74 and 75, if the control mice did not actually receive injections of the diluent alone (or vehicle) then they should be labeled simply as control mice, not vehicle mice.
8.	Lines 171-173, the original study did not show docetaxel sensitivity in the 23.1 xenograft. Did the authors actually mean to say 86.2?
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: PeerJ standards: “Conclusions: Identify unresolved questions / gaps / future directions.” Please add a concluding paragraph summarizing the overall findings and differences between this study and the original study. As is the manuscript ends abruptly with no summarizing comments on the findings of the paper.
Additional comments: This is a very brief replication report of only the in vivo study performed by Thadani-Mulero, et al, 2014. In the original study the authors demonstrated a link between expression of the constitutively active androgen receptor variant ARv567es and taxane sensitivity. This replication study found the opposite, no effect of taxanes on growth of tumors with or without ARv567es. Overall the authors put together a very concise report. However, there are some places were the authors need to elaborate further or clarify points.


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: REPLICATION STUDY: ANDROGEN RECEPTOR SPLICE VARIANTS DETERMINE TAXANE SENSITIVITY IN PROSTATE CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: Tumor heterogeneity is frequently observed in animal studies, especially for those using fresh tumor tissues rather than cultured cell lines that has been adapted to uniform in vitro environment. Therefore, tumors may evolve (or genetically drift) individually, and growth pattern would be expected to be very diverse among them. Based on this concept, there are two major issues in the experimental design of this study.

First, the biomarkers or the targeted molecules need to be examined in every passage for quality assurance. In this study, different spliced forms of AR should be examined (in mRNA AND protein levels) at least in two stages: tumor expansion and implantation for randomization. This has been suggested in the previous comment but was not implemented in the current study.

Second, in such case, simple comparison in average tumor sizes between two groups cannot provide clear information, due to the standard deviation range will be too big in every time point of measurement.

Possibly because of the wide range of the data point distribution, the authors excluded the data of the fastest growing tumors from Fig. 1. This is by any way inappropriate. A better way of group comparison is Kaplan-Meier analysis. This will require a well-defined endpoint, which is totally lacking in the presented animal studies. One of the available solutions is to compare the growth rate constant of individual tumors (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2011/02/06/1078-0432.CCR-10-1762.short). The reviewer suggests to include it in the current study.
Validity of the findings: Since the expression of AR-v7 was not detected in LuCap23.1 by Western blot, and mRNA expression was not examined, no conclusion in the chemoresistant effect of AR-v7 can be drawn from this study. Without well-defined endpoint(s), the effect of docetaxel on LuCap23.1 PDX was also inconclusive.
Additional comments: Studying reproducibility should not be limited only on repeating the protocol of the study to be examined. The causes of variation need to be investigated, too. For such purpose, appropriate quality control/assurance step must be developed, and standard criteria (e.g. endpoint in animal study) should be included.


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: REPLICATION STUDY: ANDROGEN RECEPTOR SPLICE VARIANTS DETERMINE TAXANE SENSITIVITY IN PROSTATE CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have nicely addressed both reviewers' concerns throughout the paper and have added a concluding paragraph.


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: DESCRIPTION AND SPATIAL INFERENCE OF SOIL DRAINAGE USING MATRIX SOIL COLOURS IN THE LOWER HUNTER VALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English is correct and the literature references are correct. However I have found several references that does not fit well with the meaning that the author explained. I cannot find the correlation between the authors' idea and the idea reflected in the literature. In addition, I have encouraged the authors to use an international soil classification instead of Australian or add more information (analytical data about their soils) because it cannot be enough for me in order to identify the characteristics of soils.
The structure of article is perfect and the figures and tables should be improved because there is not sufficient important information for corroborating the outcomes.
In reference to the general paper. They define a future lines that must be applied to the research in order to obtain a final complete paper. There is not numerical data in the paper and the information is based on the tacit knowledge of the researchers that have been different according to the database. In addition, this database is not well explained in the paper
Experimental design: In my opinion the article should be planned by the use of a colorimeter in the experience. As authors explained, the tacit knowledge is the basis of this study, and in my opinion this is a problem because we do not have any information in order to corroborate that tacit knowledge. In addition the authors established a series of statements that cannot be extrapolated to other experiences because they have defined the relationship between soil colour and drainage classes according their experiences. Not always red soils have good drainage and black soils show bad drainage to apply the 1 to 5 index.
In addition, there is not a good description of soils, there is not a definition of why they have decided to classify the soils in those groups and the topographic parameters are not explained. In addition, we do not know if data show a normal behaviour. Which is the level of statistically significance? They have tested the kriging method, and cartography is well developed because they show outcomes of RSME and the correlation between predicted and observed. However it is a part of the article.
I have not known which has been the survey method. How many people have collaborated in the survey? And, there are students that have participated in the study but we do not know which their level about soil colour identification or classification is. In addition material and method section should be reordered because it is a chaos in order to know what the authors have done.
As authors explain in the article there are some limitations that they recognize. In that case, I encourage them to recover the experience and try to afford that limitations in order to create a new article that could be more complete.
Validity of the findings: In this case, the findings cannot be reproduced according their experience in other areas, in addition they did not explain which are the database or information that can make readers to adapt this experience to other areas. I have mentioned that in my opinion data is not robust because there is a lack of information to corroborate the outcomes. The conclusion section should be rewritten and the in reference to statistically, I do not know if data are normal, and which is the significance level of the information that the authors give the readers. There is not any table of statistics summary and the data about colour it is not well defined or explained.
Additional comments: In general, the article tries to establish a direct relationship between colour and drainage in a specific area of Australia. The main problem to classify the article as REJECT has been that there is not enough information to corroborate the outcomes. As authors mention, they include a tacit knowledge of the soil surveyor and observed soil matrix colour. The problem is that we cannot know which the tacit knowledge is. There is not any information about it. In the same way, the authors explain in the discussion that the model shows a limitation due to their mental model of soil drainage. In addition, they hope in the future to add soil texture or other gamma-radiometry data. I recommend that they try to add more information as mineral and physical properties of soils, and in that situation prepare a complete article. I cannot understand that why BLACK soils have to be “badly drained” because this statement it is only used in their tacit Knowledge. I know a lot of BLACK soils that shows a good drainage and they are black due to the wet conditions (without permanent saturation conditions). The landscape position is one of the soil forming factors that affect soil formation but there is more other factors that can favour a good/bad drainage. Soil particle composition, presence of impermeable layers, etc. At the end the authors stablished the relationship “BAD DRAINAGE=SATURATION”.  Why do you decide that correlation soil colour – drainage? Red=5, brown=4, yellow=3, grey=2 and black=1. There is not any data that corroborate that relation.
You should add information about soil profiles. Texture, porosity… but there is not anything to corroborate that yours classification (1-5) is correct.
There are some concepts that they try to relate in order to develop a complete experience but they are only correct in their tacit knowledge and in their local conditions. There is not true that red soils ALWAYS show a good drainage. I have known soils in Mediterranean area that shows red colours but they shows a bad drainage due to the presence of impermeable layers in the profile. The climatic conditions do not allow the development of anaerobic conditions and in this case the statement that you are using for soil colour relation with drainage cannot be applied. In my opinion the simple relationship between colours and drainage capacity cannot be extrapolated to other situations where the natural conditions are different. In the same way, if I want to reproduce the experience, which is the tacit knowledge that we have to add? Which are the profile descriptions?
Another thing that it is strange for me, is the colour measurement. The article is based on colour and the authors decided to identify Munsell colour instead of using a colorimeter which give the CIELAB coordinates. You wrote in the article that “MUNSELL soil colour descriptions are not conductive for quantitative studios”, but you planned an experience in which you need numerical data. Which is the mistake that can be produced in the change of coordinates ( MUNSELL-CIELAB)? There is not mentioned in the article. You have add a reference to the Method of Viscarra Rossel, but the link it does not work (and it does not the “,”). I have looked for information in an article of Viscarra and this is the reference that he added: Viscarra Rossel, R. A. (2004), ColoSol, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra. However, I do not know the mistake or problems derived in the automatic process of calculation. Why did you not use a colorimeter?
The authors could have avoided the subjective vision of soil colour by the humans with the use of colorimeter. Have you tested the correct assignation of colour by the students in the 2001-2011 campaigns? There is an article published by the American Journal of Soil Science where the outcomes about soil colour reveal that student only fit well 26% of soil samples (in the correct chip). It is clear that trained researchers can suffer the same situation and they do not fit well the soil colour, but in this case the identification mistake is lower and it is demonstrated in several articles. Had you trained your students before the campaigns? If not, we have to assumed that can appear two “blanks” in your experience, one for the wrong soil colour chip identification and other by the differences in the adjustments between MUNSELL and CIELAB. And all of this situations can be avoided.
In addition there are several things in the text that it will be some confusion. In my opinion there are some parts of the text that are conclusions or advises that you introduce along the different sections.
“Furthermore, after a number of years surveying the area described in this study, we have developed a mental concept of how soil drainage varies across the landscape. It is a useful exercise to validate such mental models with empirical information.”
“Further in the discussion we propose an approach how to incorporate such features within our simple index”
“Because we cannot rely on this data in our database” Which are the information in your database?

You have used the Australian classification but if an article is addressed for an international audience you should try to classify in an INTERNATIONAL SOIL CLASSIFICATION, or in the case that you want to preserve the Australian classification (that can be correct) you should give us some information of physical and chemical properties in order to know which type of soils you present. By this reason, the soils description shows a lack of information. In the same way, you say that there are some horizons that are disregarded. How many horizons did you disregard? At the end I do not know which the total amount of SOIL profiles/horizons is (used for your study).

This is a list of several things that in my opinion should be improved or clarified. There are more and I have only explain some of my doubts.

Abstract
Line 21  “NSW”. What does it mean? It appears in several parts of the paper and I cannot know its meaning.
Line 26-27  Can you explain me why did you give more weight to the master horizon or depth horizon against upper horizon? Which was the reason? Was it depending the position on the landscape? I asked you all of this questions, because in the text there is no data about if this “assumption” is correct or not. I have to trust your words, because there is not any evidence that explain your decision. For example, could it be an impermeable layer in your profiles? In your area you have among others, calcareous materials that can produce argillic horizons. It depends which type of clay particles you can find impermeable layers. In other way, there is a movement of carbonates that cam produce a petrocalcic horizon. Does it happen in your area?
Line 26  You have written that the estimation drainage index incorporates the whole profile descriptions, but in the paper we can only observe a short description of 3 profiles with the unique data: colour.
Line 50  the reference of Isbell (1996). It is clear that authors are Australian and it is an example. However, as your article is addressed to an international audience, in my opinion it would be better if you change your local classification by a worldwide classification as FAO or USDA. I am sure that you can find some examples and for the audience it will be more understandable.
Line 50  I am not sure that an untrained eye can identify soil texture and mineral composition.
Line 52  I have checked Blavet et al 2000 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29636156_Soil_colour_variables_as_simple_indicators_of_the_duration_of_soil_waterlogging_in_a_West_African_catena)
And if it is correct Blavet et al do not relate texture and soil colour as you explain in the text. I can be wrong, so I ask you to correct me if it is this situation. If it is not correct, please CHANGE or rewrite what you want to express. I think that there is not a direct relationship between soil colour and texture. I have studied red soils from sandstones with a sand texture and white soils with sand texture too.
Lines50-53  This sentence should be reformulated for a better understanding:

“From both a trained and untrained eye, some inference about a soils organic carbon content (Schulze et al. 1993), mineral composition (Schwertmann and Taylor 1977), soil water content (Bouma 1983) and soil texture (Blavet et al. 2000) may be made from observation of soil colour.”

An example can be:

“From both a trained and untrained eye/ From a trained or untrained eye, some inference on soils may be made from observation of soil colour in relation to organic carbon content (Schulze et al. 1993), mineral composition (Schwertmann and Taylor 1977), soil water content (Bouma 1983) and soil texture (Blavet et al. 2000), among others characteristics ”

Line 53-54  The sentence “Our interest in this study is making inference of a soils’ capacity to drain or soil drainage, based on observed characteristics of soil colour” should appear at the end of the introduction section. It is not usual that in the state of art the authors include the goal. Therefore, rewrite the paragraph and send it to the end of the section.

Lines 58. As the authors explain, soil colour patterns can be related to soil’s capacity to drain water. In that situation, the authors can explain some examples or add the references as they have put, but in this case it is not necessary to add inside the brackets “for example”. It is well known that in those publications there will be examples. In the same way, can you say that all red soils have a good drainage? (SOILS DERIVED FORM RED SAND MATERIALS – SOILS DERIVED FROM MARLS) In my opinion the sentence “It has long been established that soil colour patterns san be related to a soils’ capacity to drain water” must be nuanced.

Line 59  “This is because soil colour can be interpreted as a reflection of oxidative and reductive soil processes”. With this sentence the authors are

Lines 65-67   Superscripts of Fe

Lines 73-77  can be summarized in one sentence. It is not necessary to add all of that parameters.

Lines 182 -188  This sentences should be add in the 303-308 lines, because you repeat some variables. Which are the units of the variables?  The authors do not specify.

Lines 215-223  I cannot understand why you limited the data according to your explanation on lines 215-223. Can you explain why did you take this decision?

Outcomes

The data has a normal behaviour? You have used Pearson’s coefficient but in any situation you have referred to the statistical outcomes. We suppose that each Pearson coefficient has been statistically significant but which is the level of this significance?

Line 353  7.8 (units)? Km? m? cm?

Conclusions

Should be rewritten in a paragraph. Along the text you have added some sentences that should appear in the conclusions (lines 390-391, or 411).

In my opinion TABLE 1 SHOWS A LACK of information. They have more than 1546 profiles and the authors only exposed 3 profiles and only data of horizon, depth and colour. I would like to know with is the number of MUNSELL colour notations in the set of profiles, which is the relationship between colour and landscape position, or between colour and geological materials.
Authors should try to summarize the data (that we do not know that they have) in a table in order to understand something and do not have to believe all that they present without any information to corroborate the paper.

Table 2 is correct, but which was the reason for selecting this 3 groups inside each group of colour? How many samples inside the pull of data are directly correlated with this exact data?

Figure 1. There is not any reference about the location of this area in Australia. There is not any level curve and the scale it is not so good. In my opinion there is not a representative definition of the area. I would know if the samples are at the bottom flat, or in the hillslope, and this is not reflected in the map. In my opinion should be improved in order to try to communicate more information, not only a map with several points that explained the campaigns.

Best regards


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

Input:
Title: DESCRIPTION AND SPATIAL INFERENCE OF SOIL DRAINAGE USING MATRIX SOIL COLOURS IN THE LOWER HUNTER VALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: a.	English language usage:  The manuscript is well-written and easy to understand.  The authors described their methods and results well.  I did note a couple grammatical or typographic errors (e.g., a missing apostrophe in “soils organic carbon content” in line 51 and “attune” should be “attuned” in line 403), but these were minimal and did not impede communication.
b.	Intro & background:  The introductory section of the manuscript provides a good summary of literature on the relationship between soil color and drainage class, which is useful in understanding the context of this research.  The literature referenced is relevant to the points cited.  I did note several instances where references are cited in the text, but not included in the list of references; e.g., Torrent et al. 1983 in line 96, Schaetzl et al. 2009 in line 111, Peng et al. 2003 and Cialella et al. 1997 on p. 123.  I suggest that the authors carefully ensure that all cited references are included in the list of references (and vice versa).
c.	Structure:  The structure of the manuscript is a standard structure for research articles.  It is clear and easy to follow.
d.	Figures: The figures are relevant and the captions are good.  I do have the following suggestions to improve figures:
i.	Figure 1 could be cartographically improved considerably to make it easier to read and interpret.  Varying the weight of some of the lines would help.  An inset map or accompanying figure would be useful to an international audience as to where this site is located.  Any geographical feature referred to specifically in the text should also be included on the figure (e.g., the Broken Back Range and Werakata National Park in line 148).  It is possible that roads are not very important to what this figure needs to communicate; omitting them from the figure would make it less busy and easier to read, though perhaps they are useful for comparing locations with Figure 2.  I only see one blue line on the figure (labeled “Hunter River”):  is it the only watercourse, or are the watercourses covered up with the roads?  It seems to me that the watercourses are much more important than the roads to this study.
ii.	Figure 2 is fine, though perhaps omitting the roads would make the figure clearer.
iii.	I would prefer to also see maps of the various terrain variables that are included in the model (referred to in lines 304-306).  This would help the reader to get a better understanding of the topography of the study area and how the drainage index compares to the terrain variables.  If they are not included due to space limitations in the main article, it would be nice to see them at least in the supplementary material, but I would prefer to see them in the body of the article itself.
e.	Raw data:  The raw data is supplied.
Experimental design: a.	The research is original primary research within the scope of the journal.
b.	The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful.  The wording of aim #2 in lines 125-126 is awkward; perhaps it could be re-worded to clarify it.  The manuscript states how the research fills an identified research gap.
c.	The investigation is performed to a high technical and ethical standard.
d.	The methods are well and thoroughly described.  I believe that it would be possible to replicate the study from the description provided.
Validity of the findings: a.	The data are robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
i.	The authors note, correctly, that there are issues with a dataset that relies on visual matching of soils to color chips, especially when done in relatively uncontrolled circumstances, as would be present in a soil survey situation, but I believe that their method does what can be done with such a dataset.  It is helpful that there are quite a large number of measurements.  On the other hand, while the authors seem satisfied with the results presented in Figure 3, the relationship between predicted and observed drainage index appears to me to be weak at best.  It would not encourage me to attempt to use this method to predict drainage using this method.  But of course the authors must present the results they obtained.
ii.	I did not note any description of the digital elevation model used to obtain the terrain variables (source, spatial resolution, etc.).  Since terrain indices can vary considerably with different DEM characteristics, especially spatial resolution, the authors should include this information in the description of their methods.
b.	The conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research questions, and limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: a.	I thought this manuscript was well-done.  With a few minor revisions, I believe it should be published.
b.	While the method of producing the drainage index described here is interesting and could prove useful to other researchers, the specific index is likely to be heavily dependent on the particular soil types present in this study area, and would therefore be difficult to apply directly in another situation.


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: DESCRIPTION AND SPATIAL INFERENCE OF SOIL DRAINAGE USING MATRIX SOIL COLOURS IN THE LOWER HUNTER VALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments to the manuscript entitled “Description and spatial inference of soil drainage using matrix soil colors in the Lower Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia"

In the manuscript, the authors attempted to draw a map of the degree of soil drainage by using matrix soil colors in the Lower Hunter Valley, NSW. The manuscript is well organized with clear objectives and conclusions. However, the manuscript did not bring a better understanding of the empirical knowledge of the relationships between soil color in the study area and the degree of soil drainage. This is mainly due to the lack of the data on the soil water regimes such as volumetric water content at the time of soil sampling, infiltration rate and depth of water table that can be related to other soil attributes. So the map of the soil drainage index presented in Figure 2b appears to be based on the untested assumptions that soil color is mainly originated from the reduction of Fe oxides and accumulation of organic matter, both having been influenced by soil water regimes, and that soil drainage is also influenced by the distance to the nearest river. The soils on the natural embankment near a river are often sandy with a higher relative altitude and lower water table than those in the floodplains. This phenomenon seems to be unaccounted for in Figure 2b. Because some of these inherent drawbacks are pointed out clearly in the first paragraph of the Discussion, the manuscript can be acceptable with some revisions as follows.

Small comments
1)	L65 and other parts: ferric or ferrous iron (Fe3+, Fe2+) upper case letters for 3+ or 2+.
2)	L125-126: Is “if” necessary?
3)	L140: ands some minor sandstone, and?
4)	L164-166: Besides the Australian system, soil taxonomic names according to the international systems such as US soil taxonomy should be described.
5)	L322: “to for” correct?
6)	L380: 0.31?
7)	Table 2: According to a Munsell color chart, 5YR 4/6 is referred to as “reddish brown”, although it is classified as Red 1 by the authors. Please check your Munsell color chart, and add the exact color names corresponding to the 15 classes based on the color chart in addition to your classifications.
8)	Figure 1: Add the number of soil sampling points in each sampling campaign. A blue line is found only at the upper right position (Hunter River) out of the study area. Is it OK?
9)	Figure 2 (caption): Black lines indicate “roads”?
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: TAS3 MIR390-DEPENDENT LOCI IN NON-VASCULAR LAND PLANTS: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. While main figures with numerous BLAST-generated sequence comparisons of TAS3-like loci correspond to standards in description ta-si RNA motives, this monotonous illustrative material insufficiently emphasizes author’s  main findings. I advise to summarize sequence comparison data  in a more general scheme, illustrating common TAS3-motives and placing the information on a general phylogenetic context with the help of available tools like MAFFT https://mafft.cbrc.jp/alignment/server/.
2. Although English is not my native language, I feel it is fine.  Typos are absent. The paragraph text between lines 220-226 requires more clear narration, I advise to rewrite it.
Experimental design: 3. Fig. 10 shows phylogenetic tree of SGS3 proteins. I suggest to use more sequences for four basal members (Charophyte algae) to create more informative dendrogram.
Validity of the findings: 4. Fig. S2 shows nucleotide sequences and encoded amino acid sequences of moss mRNAs potentially recognized by the putative ta-siRNA preceding in the same phase tasiAP2 site in some moss TAS3 loci. However, the authors did not discuss possible functions of these moss proteins and their similarities with other eukaryotic polypeptides.
Additional comments: The article by Morozov et al traces the evolutionary history of two loci encoding small interfering RNAs (TAS3 and TAS6) in mosses.   The TAS3 and TAS6 target mRNAs for ARF transcription factor genes and are deemed to be important for the growth and development of land plants. Processing of TAS3/6 precursor is mediated by evolutionary conserved mir390 microRNA. So, identification of TAS3/mir390 ancestors in deep evolutionary lineages provides useful information to clarify ambiguities in modern concepts of evolution of land plants. Author took advantage of the vast amount of available NGS genomic and transcriptomic data to search for putative TAS3-like loci in basal lineages in Bryophyta sensu lato.  Using both bioinformatics and experimental approaches they identified novel putative TAS3-like loci in Sphagnopsida and Takakiopsida.  By comparing the structural organization of novel loci with those previously identified in other moss lineages authors subdivided them into two major classes and found a new additional sequence element, potentially corresponding to novel moss tasiRNA.  Inter-division comparison revealed striking similarity of sequences from   Folioceros fuciformis (a hornwort) and Bryopsida, and, in contrast, clear differences between TAS3-like loci in Bryophyta and liverworts.  Another interesting finding reported by the author is the discovery of additional “combined” TAS6/TAS3 loci, specifying long RNA precursors for these tasiRNAs in moss transcriptome databases.  Finally, in search of the ancestors of the components of tasiRNA generating machinery, authors found genes encoding putative orthologs of the so-called SGS3-proteins in non-vascular terrestrial plant and charophytes, but not in brown and red algae, confirming current view on the evolution of RNA silencing machinery in plants.
Altogether, I consider the data presented in the submitted manuscript as an important step forward in our understanding of the evolutionary pathway of miR390-dependent TAS3 loci in land plants. The article will be useful to readers of “PeerJ ”  interested in phylogeny of mosses, tasiRNA biology,  plant evolutionary genomics.
The article may be published in the form close to original one after several minor revisions.


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: TAS3 MIR390-DEPENDENT LOCI IN NON-VASCULAR LAND PLANTS: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, Morozov and co-workers used a PCR-based approach combined bioinformatic analysis of publicly available genome and transcriptome resources to  identify (i) new TAS3- and TAS6-like loci encoding trans-acting siRNAs that target ARF transcription factor genes (tasiARFs) and other target genes in basal groups of non-vascular land plants (mosses, liverworts and hornworts) as well as SGS3-like genes in charophyte algae, the sister group to all land plants. These findings extend previous findings of Morozov's and Meyers' labs and imply that the tasiARF-generating machinery may have evolved in a common ancestor of land plants. The manuscript is written in clear and professional English (minor suggestions to improve the text are provided in the attached PDF file). All the relevant background and context literature  is cited and discussed. The main conclusions are well justified. The only major revision that could be recommended concerns the Figures 1-4 and 6-9 that show pairwise alignments of TAS loci. I would encourage the authors to make those Figures more compact (some of them span more than one or even two pages) and, instead of several pairwise alignments, show one multiple alignment in each of the Figures and, in addition to color-coding, indicate/name the two mR390 binding sites, and each of the two or three distinct conserved tasiRNA species. The multiple alignment should help to easier evaluate the conservation of tasiRNA species in different plants, especially in their 5'-seed region and positions 10 and 11, which are important for tasiRNA-directed cleavage of target gene transcripts. Schematic representation of a TAS gene locus above the alignments in each of those Figures would also help to grasp the differences in structural organizations.
Experimental design: The experimental PCR approach and bioinformatic analyses are described in sufficient detail. The study meets high technical and ethical standards.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid and important for the fields of RNA silencing and gene regulation in plants and of plant evolution.
Additional comments: In this study, Morozov and co-workers used a PCR-based approach combined bioinformatic analysis of publicly available genome and transcriptome resources to  identify (i) new TAS3- and TAS6-like loci encoding trans-acting siRNAs that target ARF transcription factor genes (tasiARFs) and other target genes in basal groups of non-vascular land plants (mosses, liverworts and hornworts) as well as SGS3-like genes in charophyte algae, the sister group to all land plants. These findings extend previous findings of Morozov's and Meyers' labs and imply that the tasiARF-generating machinery may have evolved in a common ancestor of land plants. The manuscript is written in clear and professional English (minor suggestions to improve the text are provided in the attached PDF file). All the relevant background and context literature  is cited and discussed. The main conclusions are well justified. The only major revision that could be recommended concerns the Figures 1-4 and 6-9 that show pairwise alignments of TAS loci. I would encourage the authors to make those Figures more compact (some of them span more than one or even two pages) and, instead of several pairwise alignments, show one multiple alignment in each of the Figures and, in addition to color-coding, indicate/name the two mR390 binding sites, and each of the two or three distinct conserved tasiRNA species. The multiple alignment should help to easier evaluate the conservation of tasiRNA species in different plants, especially in their 5'-seed region and positions 10 and 11, which are important for tasiRNA-directed cleavage of target gene transcripts. Schematic representation of a TAS gene locus above the alignments in each of those Figures would also help to grasp the differences in structural organizations.


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: TAS3 MIR390-DEPENDENT LOCI IN NON-VASCULAR LAND PLANTS: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Suggested revisions were made, figures were improved, addressed issues clarified.
Experimental design: New multiple alignments significantly improve perception of the phylogenetic data
Validity of the findings: The author's attempt to reconstrut the evolutionary history of TAS3 miR390-dependent loci in non-vascular land plants shold be considered interesting and convincing.
Additional comments: I am fully satisfied by the amendments and revisions made and support publication of the revised form of this manuscript


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

Input:
Title: TAS3 MIR390-DEPENDENT LOCI IN NON-VASCULAR LAND PLANTS: TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the revised manuscript the authors have addressed all my critical points.
Experimental design: The design meets high stndards
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid.
Additional comments: In the revised manuscript the authors have addressed all my critical points.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW LINEAGE OF CRETACEOUS JEWEL WASPS (CHALCIDOIDEA: DIVERSINITIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I read and offered suggested editings throughout the manuscript (e.g. beginning with suggested changes to the title for clarity) except I only read in detail the description of the first newly described genus/species. I did not read the second or third descriptions in detail because as soon as I started the second I realized the descriptions of the three taxa were not rigorously comparable. It is very important that the descriptions be rewritten so that they are rigorously comparable, i.e. that all features described in one description are described in all, and in the same order with the same punctuation/sentence style. This is important because the three genera are being described in a new family and it is important to distinguish between what might be familial, generic or species features. For example, the minimum number of maxillary palps is described for the second genus, but not the first or third. Therefore the reader does not know if the authors just neglected to describe them or they are not visible. It is understood that many features may not be visible in any one fossil, but if visible and important enough to describe in one taxon then the feature should be described in all, even if only as "maxillarly palps not visible". Also, any feature given as a family level feature should not be repeated in the generic description. Finally, the current sentence structure sometimes is very difficult reading because of sometimes very long sentences with major structures separated by semicolons. I suggest, where possible, shorter sentences restricted to single body parts. For the benefit of the reader it is also good practice to always first state what the body part being described is, what view it should be examined from (if necessary), and then the description of the body part.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Within my edited version of the manuscript I suggested one additional feature, the number of mandibular teeth, as a feature I think important to include in the discussion, one instance of two non-congruent features that should be discussed relative to the implications of character evolution and relationships, one instance where I question the authors observation, and a couple of instance I believe require somewhat modified discussion.
Additional comments: My review consists primarily of the editings, suggestions and comments made in balloons to a Word document sent to me at my request from the authors (I refuse to review PDF manuscripts). I will send this directly to the authors and will also attempt to upload as an attachment with my very brief 'formal' review.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW LINEAGE OF CRETACEOUS JEWEL WASPS (CHALCIDOIDEA: DIVERSINITIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally good. See marked up text.
Experimental design: Not relevant.
Validity of the findings: Good. But discussion must be modified.
Additional comments: See my attached comments as well as marked up text for suggested changes.

1. English is good and mostly unambiguous. I have edited the descriptions to make them flow better and remove inconsistencies. The literature is relevant except that possibly 3 papers on Mymaridae are missing. I added one and referenced the two others that should at least be consulted for the Discussion section, if not actually referenced in the ms. I don’t know the standards for PeerJ. What is important is whether it conforms to taxonomic standards for Hymenoptera descriptions. It is the editor’s business to ensure that journal standards (format, etc.) are followed. My interest as a review is the content. The figures are relevant but not labelled (no real necessity I think) and described. Raw data is supplied. Expermimenal design, etc. does not apply to this ms, which is taxonomic in nature.
2. Validity of findings. At least two of the taxa are clearly new. I am not sure if the male of one new genus and species is not actually the same as the female of one of the other new genera and species. That possibility was not discussed. It should at least be mentioned and evidence given why it is probably not the opposite sex of one of the two females, e.g. wings with microtrichia on surface vs without?
3. A few facts are simply wrong because the relevant papers on Mymaridae were not consulted (author possibly unaware of them since one only published in 2017). They are drawn to the attention of the authors for serious consideration that should lead to some rewriting of the Discussion.
4. Suggestions on how to improve the ms are given on the Word version, using Track changes.
5. The cladogram presented is well discussed and, as usual for Chalcidoidea, rather ambiguous. Not much can be done about this since higher (family-group) relationships within the superfamily are still very poorly understood, at least beyond Mymaridae and Rotoitidae. The discussion covers the essential points


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

Input:
Title: A NEW LINEAGE OF CRETACEOUS JEWEL WASPS (CHALCIDOIDEA: DIVERSINITIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: general:
I have a critical comment to the description of the new family Diversinitidae:
As far as I understood, the family is characterized by a combination of plesiomorphic features (which could explain the "monophyly" of the family in the cladistic analysis).
It seems that not a single autapomorphic feature is given for the new family.
Is it not possible that these very old fossils are stem group representatives, that is, very primitive Chalcidoidea?
Please consider: is it really justified to describe a new family without any autapomorphies? I have strong doubts. This could be very easily a paraphyletic taxon or even a polyphyletic one.

Some special comments:

- line 19: instead of "lineages"  better "crown groups"?
- line 21: see critical comment on the new description
- line 24: " but confirmed its monophyly" : as I read the manuscript, there are no autapomorphic characters that confirm the monophyly of Diversinitidae, see general comment above
- line 38: submitted, in refs  dated as 2017
- line 52, major gap: more explanation would be good
- lines 62 to 64: better place a statement concerning a new systematic placement of certain taxa not in the intro, but better in the discussion
- line 78: can the age of Baltic amber really be dated this precisely? I have doubts.
- line 86+87, erroneous placement: please explain : is this your opinion, or that of other authors?

- line 152 ff: new family:
a differential diagnosis is missing in which the differences to the other families are explained

- line 169, 172: Please explain what means "symmetric" or "asymmetric"
- lines 169 ff: Please label the mentioned characters in the according figures, like axillae in Fig 1D and 2B and 4

- lines 193 and 194: very short diagnosis. Please expand. You could differentiate between apomorphic and plesiomorphic characters and give a differential diagnosis to the other 2 genera

- line 206 ff, description: Please differentiate between the measurements for the holotype and those for the paratype. It should be clear which measurements come from the holotype.

- line 274ff:bettergive a more thorough diagnosis with a differentiation between apomorphic and plesiomorphic characters and add a differential diagnosis to other genera

- line 366: mistake in measurements
- line 388: mistake in measurements
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: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZATIONS ON SOIL BACTERIA AND FUNGI COMMUNITIES IN A DEGRADED ARID STEPPE REVEALED BY HIGH THROUGH-PUT SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Well, This study is mainly focused on the effects of responses of above ground biomass and soil chemical and biological properties. Then data from different sampling month is not necessary. Only focused on the samples which can offer the information of your aim. I strongly suggest to restructure this manuscript and do the related discussion afterwards. Conclusion is fine but need to be edited if “Results and Discussion” changed. Tables and Figures (resolution) need to be checked based on the requirement of PeerJ. Constant format of Unit should be given in whole manuscript.
Experimental design: Experiment design and sampling strategies seems strange not well-expressed. Line 161: why sampled in June July and August, 2016? and Line 165: why only samples from July did the DNA extraction?
Validity of the findings: It is the interesting study. However, language should be corrected. Results and discussion can be focused on your objective.
Additional comments: It is the interesting study. However, language should be corrected. Constant format of Unit should be given in the whole manuscript. Experiment design and sampling strategies seems strange and not well-expressed. Tables and Figures (resolution) need to be checked based on the requirement of PeerJ. Some detail comments will be added as below.
Line 23-30: It is not really methods but only all the tested parameters. Rephrase. Meanwhile, you mentioned fertilization, but which specific fertilization you focused on should also be added.
Line 29:add space between “and” and “5”.
Line 31:  OUT? The explanation in the blanket is not the same as you described in the note part of previous page. And the format of blanket is not correct.
Line 37-38: soil chemical properties? which are they?
Line 43-45: “It was suggested that no fertilization was recommended to restore such degraded arid steppe in dry years.” Very strange conclusion. You didn’t refer any information about dry or wet year. I would say your findings can not support this conclusion (I assume it is your conclusion otherwise you need to add it), especially for such “dry year”.
Line 48: “Degradation” is listed as keyword but it is not specific. Can be changed to “Soil degradation”.
Line 75: check the citation. terHorst ?? Ter Horst?
Line 105: Well, you referred “Metagenomic approaches” but no clear information or review you did about this approach contributes to your study. That means some literature review need to be done in this point.
Line 110-115. These information can be moved to “Methods” section.
Line 114: MBN and MBC should be explained here as they present in the first time.
Line 161: why sampled in June July and August, 2016?
Line 165: why only samples from July did the DNA extraction?
Line 167-187: Only TOC, AP AN, pH, MBC and MBN were tested. The title can be changed to “Tested soil properties” instead of “Soil chemical analysis”.
Line 182-187: If you want to show the equation of MBC and MBN, please use the mathematic way to describe. All the symbols you mention in the equation should be defined and united.
Line 217-236: can be moved to “Statistical analysis” section.
Line 237: “Analysis” into “analysis”
Results and discussion can be focused on your objective. Well, it is mainly focused on the effects of responses of above ground biomass and soil chemical and biological properties. Then data from different sampling month is not necessary. Only focused on the samples which can offer the information of your aim. I strongly suggest to restructure this manuscript and do the related discussion afterwards. Conclusion is fine but need to be edited if “Results and Discussion” changed.


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: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZATIONS ON SOIL BACTERIA AND FUNGI COMMUNITIES IN A DEGRADED ARID STEPPE REVEALED BY HIGH THROUGH-PUT SEQUENCING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I highly recommend to review the English writing by a native English speaking colleague because often it is difficult to follow the ideas the authors try to communicate. For example: text in lines 78-80, 325,
The literature references presented concerning use of inorganic fertilizers to restore degraded land are mainly regional. I suggest the authors to search for references on the topic from somewhere else.
Figures can be improved: In general: the Title should be one sentence title of a figure (instructions for authors) and the Legend is the optional several sentence description. In particular: There are imprecisions in the description of the Results, in line 275 it is written that for MBC, N fertilized plot was significantly higher than other treatments at 10-20 cm layer, it is not N but P. In the legend and on the figure itself (Fig 2), is not needed to write u and d for 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm soil layers respectively because on the figure it is indicated the 0-10 and 10-20 cm layers. However, the authors should check their data because the text for Fig. 2, do not correspond with what it is shown on the figure, see commented (marked) lines 298-300.
The legend of Fig 4. is incorrect, it belongs to Fig 6. and vice versa, the legend of Fig 6. belongs to Fig 4.
Likewise Tables need to be corrected: In the legend of Table 1, it is not explicit the comparison among months and soil layers, but in the text it is written about differences and not differences among months and layers: line 252.
Tables and Figures need to be deeply revised because there are so many imprecisions in the text.
Experimental design: The main scientific contribution of the present paper would be the effect of fertilizer application on diversity and abundance of soil bacteria and fungi and colonization of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on a degraded ecosystem. However, the authors did not include in their experiment, reference plots of non-degraded steppe. Restoration of a degraded land aims to convert the land to the original unperturbed ecosystem. It has been found that after perturbation and into natural succession soil microorganisms change towards its original status. It implies that during nature restoration the efficiency of nutrient cycling can increase by shift in microorganism composition. I suggest to the authors to read the following article: Morriën et. al. 2017. Soil networks become more connected and take up more carbon as nature restoration progresses. Nature communications 8:14349 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14349 |www.nature.com/naturecommunications.
The use of inorganic fertilizers is not common in the restoration of degraded ecosystem.  Although, the authors present some references about the negative effects of inorganic fertilizers to nature, their results in this topic would be their main contribution to knowledge. However, there were not differences among treatments. The authors acknowledge that three years of trial is probably too short time to identify differences among treatments.
There are some confusions and enquiries to solve concerning the methods used in the present experiment: under the Soil chemical analysis section, the authors write the methods for organic C, total N, alkali dispersed N, available P and pH. However, there is not mention to the methods used for the analyses of the soil samples taken before the start of the trial. Except, for available P (line 138); “analyzed by the Olsen method”. However, later, the authors describe (lines 171-173) under Soil chemical analysis the Olsen-P method without mention it. On line 168 the authors write Total organic carbon, it is not needed to write Total. Total carbon is the addition of organic carbon and inorganic carbon. Lines 170-171 it is written Kjeldahl method without explaining that this method is to determine total nitrogen.
Validity of the findings: As I wrote above, the authors did not include in their experiment reference plots of non-degraded steppe. To validate such an experiment it is needed to include reference plots of non-degraded steppe with the same number of replicates as the rest of the treatments. In the same way, the authors recognize, that it is recommended longer experimental trials to validate or reject the effect of fertilizer application on above ground biomass and soil chemical and biological properties on degraded arid steppes.
For the data to be robust it is needed to include plots of non-degraded steppe and a longer experimental trial.
Conclusions are correct, “Three years consecutive fertilizations in degraded arid steppes had no significant influences on the most soil chemical properties and the aboveground biomass”. However, the experiment as it was designed does not permit to demonstrate that fertilization in degraded arid steppes have or not have influence on chemical properties, richness and diversity of the bacteria and fungi and the aboveground biomass.
Additional comments: I would suggest the authors to correct the manuscript for the English writing and peer through the entire paper for basic writing and structure errors, for example do not present tables and figures in the wrong order and label them with the wrong title and legend, as it was the case with figures 4 and 6. Likewise, check over the figures and tables in order to make explicit what it is written in the text of the manuscript, I made some remarks in the text concerning this.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZATIONS ON SOIL BACTERIA AND FUNGI COMMUNITIES IN A DEGRADED ARID STEPPE REVEALED BY HIGH THROUGH-PUT SEQUENCING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was well-revised. All the comments were responsd one by one. In my opinion, all revision and response are acceptable.
Experimental design: Well, in this revised manuscript, this part is improved a lot and would be clear to support your findings.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The revised manuscript was improved. With the revised title of this manuscript, authors did very good job. Now only some editing work should be done for publishing in 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: DISTINCTIVE COURTSHIP PHENOTYPE OF THE VOGELKOP SUPERB BIRD-OF-PARADISE LOPHORINA NIEDDA MAYR, 1930 CONFIRMS NEW SPECIES STATUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well-written paper, well documented, and well-argued, with an interesting subject.
Experimental design: The fieldwork done to support the hypothesis--that the Bird's Head population of the Superb Bird of Paradise should be treated as distinct is well-supported by the data and the argument.
Validity of the findings: I support the findings and think the paper achieves this objective as well.

Some issues to consider during the revision:

Beehler & Pratt (2016) highlighted the distinctness of the vocalization of the Bird's Head population of the Superb. This is the first published suggestion the population should possibly be considered distinct.

On line 22 the paper states "western Bird's Head" when in fact the bird inhabits the eastern Bird's Head. The MS should be searched and "western Bird's head" should be corrected to eastern Bird's Head.
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: DISTINCTIVE COURTSHIP PHENOTYPE OF THE VOGELKOP SUPERB BIRD-OF-PARADISE LOPHORINA NIEDDA MAYR, 1930 CONFIRMS NEW SPECIES STATUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this investigation, Scholes and Laman provide novel audiovisual data on the courtship phenotype of the Vogelkop Superb Bird-of Paradise Lophorina niedda, corroborating recent molecular phylogeographic results by Irestedt et al 2017, and leaving little doubt that this distinctive taxon merits full species recognition.  Some avian systematists (myself included) felt that Irestedt et al 2017 were premature in elevating the Vogelkop Superb BOP to full species given their reliance on just ~900 bp of cyt b and limited geographic sampling in the Bird’s Head/Neck region of New Guinea, leaving open the possibility that niedda and superba lineages may not be reciprocally monophyletic. The distinctive courtship repertoire and vocalizations documented by Scholes and Laman confirms that L. niedda is also isolated from adjacent L. superba populations by its unique display elements and advertisement calls, strengthening the argument for species recognition of this taxon. In general, this study is well written with clear research aims outlined in the introduction, sound presentation of results and conclusions, and relevant literature citations.

My primary concerns with this study center on the limited sample sizes that form the basis of behavioral analyses and the use of un-archived, copyright protected video data, that while viewable online, is not available in the raw formats needed for independent frame-by-frame behavioral analysis. I don’t think either of these issues should prevent the publication of this study, but the authors need to do a better job documenting their data sources and identifying the potential biases/limitations associated with small sample sizes, given that the stated secondary goal of this study is to establish a more thorough characterization of courtship phenotype in the Lophorina species complex for future comparative study. For example, telling the reader to just do a search for L. superba in the ML archive (Lines 132-134) doesn’t pass muster in terms of documenting which “behavioral specimens” were used to form the basis of analysis and description of specific display characters. I provide several recommendations herein that will help mitigate these issues and make this study a more useful contribution for future comparative analyses.

Introduction
Lines 63-68: It would be useful to mention the environmental display context (horizontal tree fall in the understory) somewhere in this paragraph so that the reader doesn’t have to wait for it in the results/discussion.

Materials and Methods
Line 117: A table or appendix listing the ML catalog #’s of the 30 practice displays and 14 displays to females is needed to document and summarize which clips form the basis of analysis. The table should include taxon name, ML # or privately held archive title, locality (lat,long), date filmed, and original source (videographer or audio recordist). A column for which display activity/element the clip illustrates along with time code notes would be useful. It should also be noted if the same individual is featured in multiple clips, as it looks like just three males (2 niedda and 1 superba) form the majority of the analyses.
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: Results
The following ML #’s need be double checked, as they do not correspond to Lophorina specimens. I presume these should be 458000-458003?
Line 197: ML48000 Wrong taxon.
Line 227: ML48002 Wrong taxon.
Line 228: ML48003 Wrong taxon.

Lines 366-370: In general, I find the descriptions of the displays (Advertisement, Horizontal, Pointing, and Cape Presentation) and associated figures sufficiently clear and detailed to diagnose the primary differences between niedda and superba, but I feel the differences in tempo of the “foot stomping” element during the Cape Presentation display may deserve a bit more attention, as this aspect of the niedda display really struck me as being distinct from all other L. superba and L. minor displays that I have observed previously. The stomping in niedda seems to be faster and more pronounced in the absence of the superba bounce. Perhaps the authors could provide some hard numbers and give rates for the cadence of these elements, given they may well vary among local sky-island populations and be informative in diagnosing taxa.

Discussion
Lines 442-477: This section summarizes the key differences in display elements nicely and provides a well-reasoned argument for full species recognition of L. niedda. That being said, a statement at the end of this section is needed highlighting the caveats of basing these analyses on limited sample sizes and relying heavily on a single individual (superba) from a small outlying sky-island population in the Adelbert Mountains and just two individuals (niedda) from the Arfaks. The Vogelkop is a composite terrain with montane bird populations often exhibiting differences between the Tamarau and Arfak ranges. As such, the authors should identify these limitations and use them as a call for further exploration beyond just the easily accessible Arfak ranges.

Conclusions
Line 509-514: The high level of endemism in BOPs of the Vogelkop suggests to me that the entire regional Bird’s Head avifauna (as apposed to just the BOPs) merits additional systematic scrutiny, and stating as much would further strengthen the case for attention from the conservation community that this area of endemism deserves.
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: IDENTIFYING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BASED ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO IMPROVE URBAN SUSTAINABILITY IN HARBIN, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The idea to identify areas of ES priorities in urban areas using as surrogate "very high and high irreplaceability values" it's a very interesting strategy, potentially useful in ecological management, and for the development of conservation strategies - as highlighted also by the authors. The idea of the paper is theoretically useful and sounds suitable for the targeted journal. However, from my point of view, some points and concerns need to be addressed before any consideration of the publications in the Journal.
Experimental design: The experimental design sounds adequate to address the main question raised by authors. The idea to identify areas of ES priorities in urban areas using as surrogate "very high and high irreplaceability values" could be a suitable and cost-effective for ecological planning and identification of conservation priority areas.
I suggested to authors to provide additional explanations about some points, detailed in the section "comments for authors".
Validity of the findings: The findings could be useful also in other contexts, and probably - after a careful correction of some points - the transferability of the study could be more clear.
Additional comments: Specific comments to the authors
Abstract:
"Rapid urbanization...." is causing the degradation of "ecosystems" more than degradation of "ecosystem services". I would explain: If authors focus for example on "cultural ecosystem services" the growth of urbanization cause even an improvement on this kind of ES. I suggest to modify the sentence as
"Rapid urbanization and agricultural development resulted in the degradation of ecosystems, many time affecting also the ecosystem services (ES) and posed a significant threat to urban sustainability."

Introduction
Lines 30-32: "Rapid urbanization...." is causing the degradation of "ecosystems" more than degradation of "ecosystem services" or decreasing the ability of all ES. I would explain: If authors focus for example on "cultural ecosystem services" the growth of urbanization cause even an improvement on this kind of ES. I suggest to modify the sentence as
"Rapid urbanization and agricultural development decreased the ability of many ecosystem services (ES) and thus posed a great threat to sustainability at urban or larger scale (Goddard et al. 2010; 32 He et al.2014; Kamal et al. 2015)."
Or something similar…

Lines 38-41:
"While the identified conservation priorities in the conservation systems have been valuable for biodiversity protection, these priority sites may have missed other areas with important ES functions due to the spatial discordance between biodiversity hotspots and ES distributions (Chan et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2016)."
I suggest to authors to add also this references in this sentence:
Morelli, F., Jiguet, F., Sabatier, R., Dross, C., Princé, K., Tryjanowski, P., Tichit, M., 2017. Spatial covariance between ecosystem services and biodiversity pattern at a national scale (France). Ecol. Indic. 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.036
Ricketts, T.H., Watson, K.B., Koh, I., Ellis, A.M., Nicholson, C.C., Posner, S., Richardson, L.L., Sonter, L.J., 2016. Disaggregating the evidence linking biodiversity and eco- system services. Nat. Commun. 7, 13106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13106.

Lines 46-50: Please, verify that the most accepted definition the  ES are classified into provisioning, regulating and cultural services.

Lines 51-54:
Even if I agree with authors that the ES approach could be useful especially in urban-related areas, I suggest to cite some of the main criticisms moved against the ES approach. Some examples here:
Schröter, M., van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., Remme, R.P., Serna-Chavez, H.M., de Groot, R.S., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-Arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7, 514–523. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091.
Morelli, F., Møller, A.P., 2015. Concerns about the use of ecosystem services as a tool for nature conservation: From misleading concepts to providing a “price” for nature, but not a “value.” Eur. J. Ecol. 1, 68–70. doi:10.1515/eje-2015-0009
Neuteleers, S., Engelen, B., 2015. Talking money: How market-based valuation can undermine environmental protection. Ecol. Econ. 117, 253–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.06.022

Methods
Study area
Lines 92-93: Please, provide more information about the city of Harbin: population, human density. This information could be useful to represent the type of city focused, giving additional information complementary to the environmental description presented in the next paragraphs.

Lines 99-101:
"If the ecosystems were not protected in time...."
This sentence looks more like a sentence for Introduction section than for Methods. Please, re-word.

Lines 123-124:
Are authors providing a summary about the procedure followed by experts to identify and give weights to each indicator? Please, explain better.

Line 133: please, add a "space" between "of" and "54029"

Lines 136-138:
Authors need to cite some references as demonstration of this statement. Who guarantee that this spatial scale is enough to provide detailed conservation and management guidance? Please, provide some examples of studies focused in the same spatial scale.

Line 140:
Add a reference for ArcGIS 9.3

Lines 149-150:
Authors need to consider moving this sentence to AIMS section, in the Introduction section.

Line 156:
Redundant information. Please, re-word in "Methods style". Comments like "Irreplaceability is the key concept in SCP" and other similars are comments for Introduction, not for Methods.

Lines 166-167:
Can authors explain what means "were revised" in this context?

Results
Lines 189-190: The idea to identify areas of ES priorities in urban areas using as surrogate "very high and high irreplaceability values" it's a very interesting strategy.

Lines 197-198: "These areas could be viewed as...." its a sentence not adequate for Results section. Authors have to move to the Discussion section.

Lines 199-201: "This is mainly due to extensive farmlands...." Move to Discussion section.

Line 202:
Define "revised".

Line 235:
Please, introduce a space between "all" and "12".

246: Authors need to remove this sentence from here or to merge into the Methods section. In Results section authors must be limited to present with clarity ONLY results.

Lines 250-252: "Based on the ES functions and vegetation types each priority contained, we suggest management and control policies for each priority group."
This is clearly not a Results sentence. Please, move or re-word.

Line 254: Define "most powerful" in this context.

Discussion
General comment: I warmly suggest to authors to shorten the Discussion section. Currently is too long, and sometimes a little bit trivial. Please, try to focus mainly on your findings.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFYING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BASED ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO IMPROVE URBAN SUSTAINABILITY IN HARBIN, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper has acceptable English but in some sections are not clear/professional enough to understand. It contains some literatures but the background information is not sufficient. The structure is fine and all the sections are clearly divided and raw data shared. Results and discussions are also shown but still not sufficient.
1. English needs improve and double-check, words such as "suitable ranks","excellent method""good knowledge of method", etc. should not be the way in a scientific paper.
2. Literatures are not enough to understand the background. This paper used GIS, C-plan and K cluster but no explanation about any of them. It referred "existing GIS model" many times in line 79/83/88/120 and table 2 but what model in detail? GIS contains numberless models and you can also build your own model, which one/are the models you choose and why? ArcGIS 9.3 or ArcMap?
This paper might be a continuous study based on Zuo 2007 and Xie 2015 (it referred these two papers a couple of times), but it doesn't automatically lead all the audiences to understand the model. Please remember they are separate papers. Similar questions also appear in C-plan and K cluster, the two main software/analysis methods. No background information on what are they? why use them and how did they used in detail? So the Introduction and Method parts need substantial changes to improve. Line 42-45 for example, it doesn't need to repeat the aim of this paper in introduction part several times but show the research gap and how you aim to deal with the research questions. In Section 2 Materials/Method part, what are the data sources? What expertise/literatures you referred to select ES indicators?
Experimental design: This paper studies at ecosystem services spatially and how this meet the aim of local contexts. So it meets the aims and scope of the journal. This research question defined well and meaningful. But my main concern is the way the authors presented the methods.
1. As mentioned above, not enough background information are described, particularly the main software/analysis methods. The 10 ES indicators should be explained earlier than the result part since not many people can understand immediately what the 10 indicators are. This is also relevant to understand the Fig.2 where you use abbreviation but no information about them were provided before.
2. This paper referred Miller's study but still not sufficient information was provided, such as why 10%-12%, the same question is about irresplaceability. What is it and why is it important?
In all, the method part needs substantial improvement.
Validity of the findings: The result part is fine but minor misunderstanding is that the authors used priority 1-12 in Figure 1 and then a-I in Figure 2. These should be consistent. Data is sound and controlled. My concerns is Discussion part. Discussion still more like results but should be with more leap it up to future studies, such as how this contribute to current ES, what is the weakness and how the authors plan the future studies.
Additional comments: This is an empirical paper based on big data analysis. The next step is to make the paper more clear and lift it up to further discussion and avoid replications.


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: IDENTIFYING CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES BASED ON ECOSYSTEM SERVICES TO IMPROVE URBAN SUSTAINABILITY IN HARBIN, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments.
Experimental design: It is good in the experimental design for the present study; but some info should be added.
Validity of the findings: Most of the findings are supported by the data and analysis.
Additional comments: Comments on PeerJ #22812

Title: Identifying priority conservation sites and management strategies based on ecosystem services for urban sustainability in Harbin, China

The present study tried to propose a comprehensive framework for the identification of ES priorities and management strategies for planning areas in Harbin, a northern city in China.

I do think this paper is a good start and it could make a contribution to city management in China.

Major comments:

1. I could not find the reference list in the Reviewing PDF or WORD file.
This is my first time to review a manuscript without showing Reference List. Thus, my comments did not include any reference. However, in some cases, references would be very important for the reviewer to do better.
For example, line 111 said that literature review methods were used to select ES indicators. But I could not find related references for this.

2. In the Discussion section, you should show firstly that the main findings of your study.
Thus, I feel that lines 271-285 are good for any paper, for any city; instead, I did not know if it was good for your study area.
It was the same case for lines 286-295, and even perhaps for lines 296-310.
I found most of your discussion was not related to any of your result, and they could be used for any ES and SCP paper.

3. Similar to point 2, in the section of Abstract: lines 11-15 are good; however, after line 16, it seemed no results and conclusions.

Minor comments:

Line 5: changed to “…Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, Harbin 150040, China”

Line 6: changed to “…Harbin 150001, China”

Lines 107-110: For the ES prioritization, 10 ES indicators were selected to represent the ES that are required by the planning area under the framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and available GIS models or previously published results.
Here, please explain more in details about “available GIS models or previously published results”.

Lines 115-116: please Ref for national research agencies.