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: MIXED EFFECTS OF ECOLOGICAL INTENSIFICATION ON NATURAL PEST CONTROL PROVIDERS: A SHORT-TERM STUDY FOR BIOTIC HOMOGENIZATION IN WINTER WHEAT FIELDS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - I thank the authors for their modifications of the manuscript “The mixed effects of ecological intensification on natural pest control providers: a short-term study for biotic homogenisation in winter wheat fields”. The English language has improved considerably, although there are several sentences where a revision is necessary and UK and US English are still mixed in some parts. The objectives and hypotheses paragraph is one of the sections where the writing can be improved. The authors state that they revised the text with a language editor, but I think that an additional revision by a native English speaker will be necessary.

 -Introduction and background
The first paragraph could be reduced considerably and that should not affect what the author is trying to express. I think that too much information is provided and some sentences are too complex. Furthermore, the authors end this paragraph stating that the “the environmental filtering effect of the local habitats or landscape composition may act as a driver for biotic homogenisation, their effects  on the assemblages of natural pests and their enemies has not been explored, which are the most influential drivers for community organisation”. This statement is not true at all, both pests and natural enemies were studied in the context of local and landscape composition in agricultural landscapes and the authors cited some of the articles that did it. Maybe they are referring to something different, but it is not clear in its current form.
-The structure of the article is good and follows the journal´s standards. Also, it can be considered as self-contained as well.
-Figures and tables are improved, although check the comment below on the mix of multi-model and significance tests.
-Raw data and codes are provided with the submission as supplementary files and are clear. I understand that the authors want to keep the original variable names and codes as in their international project,
Experimental design: -The article reports the results from original research and fits well within the scope of PeerJ.
-The investigation is performed following good technical and ethical standards.
-The main research question is clear and the knowledge gap is highlighted. In the hypotheses sections, I still consider that it would be better to talk about aphids and not pests in general.
-In the hypotheses 3, they argue that they were referring to a logical interaction between soil quality and yield/fertilization and that a simple model can show how soil can influence yield. Nevertheless, I think that with their current analyses only one independent variable was included at each model, they cannot really detect what they are referring to. The effects of soil quality on yield can be identified, but if fertilization increases yield only in poor soils cannot be tested without analyzing the interaction between soil quality and fertilization. If the authors are not willing to test it, I think that the last part of the paragraph should be removed and they could refer to this in the discussion.
-Methods are described in detail and with sufficient information.
-The authors replied to the reviewers’ comments in detail and in some cases, I agree with their justification, although in others I still believe that changes should be made.
Particularly, two out of three reviewers suggested that it might be better to analyze the data starting from models with all the independent variables. I believe that this should be tried, as there are no strong reasons to suspect highly correlated factors and, as Rev.#2 mentioned, even averaging models with only one variable have a risk when this approach is used. Furthermore, the multi-model averaging approach and the significance tests are mixed (as pointed out in the comment BW.4.1), but their reply to this comment takes you to another comment that does not deal with this.
-I appreciate the inclusion of the map, but I still would like to see a supplementary table with the characteristics of each site in terms of proportion of semi-natural habitats.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions section should be shortened to show only what the authors found the its implications. As it is, to many references are there and the key message of the story is somehow lost.
Additional comments: -I noticed that some of the comments are replied with “Changed as suggested”, when the text does not show a substantial change in the direction of the comment. Furthermore, I understand that they numbered the reviewers’ comments for organization, but referring to different comments between reviewers is confusing and tedious. Moreover, is some of these cases the concern pointed out by one of the reviewers is not exactly the same, but the authors still state that this was already answered before. Thus, I believe that a new, careful revision of the text following all previous comments is necessary.

Other minor comments are provided below
-Lines 40-42: you state that extra fertilization can compensate for the low yields in plots with set-aside lands, but there were no differences between fertilizer treatments. Please revise, it is not clear
-Line 86: a parenthesis closes after field management but it was not opened before.
-Lines 226-227: what do the authors mean by saying that datasets collected twice were pooled into one database for analyses? Did they sum or averaged the values? Or they included both measures in the analyses? If so, a temporal random variable might be necessary, besides the field ID as a random variable.
-Lines 261-263: I repeat this comment because I do not see a difference with the previous version. If fertilizer use did not affect wheat yield, I do not see how this within field intensification can compensate for the differences between fields. Please explain further.
-Check the reference for Dainese et al. 2019, Sci. Adv. The authors’ list is longer than the one you show here.


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

Input:
Title: MIXED EFFECTS OF ECOLOGICAL INTENSIFICATION ON NATURAL PEST CONTROL PROVIDERS: A SHORT-TERM STUDY FOR BIOTIC HOMOGENIZATION IN WINTER WHEAT FIELDS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised version is an improvement of the original submission; important references have been added, figures have been enhanced, and overall the text is easier to be read. However, there are still several issues that could further ameliorate the paper and should be considered, or at least addressed, by the authors. Few grammatical errors persisted (please, see comments in the pdf) and UK and US spell are still mixed (e.g. fertiliser vs. fertilizer).

I still believe that the introduction would be easier to read if starting directly with the concept of agricultural intensification (which should be defined at the first mention). The first three sentences (lines 52-59) only briefly state that agricultural landscapes are highly homogenous systems (or they often threatened by homogenisation), and that the animal community (indeed all biodiversity) relies on the environmental conditions at both local and landscape scales. This is all true but as it is is somehow trivial. Removing those three sentences would not compromise the introduction at all, and would actually make it lighter, clearer, and more concise.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful.
__________________________________________________

The investigation was carried out accordingly to the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
__________________________________________________

Methods have been sufficiently described.
Validity of the findings: The discussion has been improved compared to the original version of the ms.

The conclusion should be more circumspect, as the authors did not measure biological control directly. A few changes in the text may enhance this section (please see attachment).
Additional comments: Figures were improved after accepting part of the original recommendations. It is not clear why in Table1 (summary of model selection for each group) nitrogen appears to affect significantly spiders, but this is not mentioned in Table2 (summary of the best models). I already pointed out this aspect in the round revision, so I assume that the authors have checked it and everything is correct. Yet, it seems to be an interesting result and maybe the authors could add one sentence about it in the discussion? (just a suggestion).
__________________________________________________

In the reference list there are still errors. For example, Coleoptera should be capitalised in
Kulkarni SS, Dosdall LM, Spence JR, Willenborg CJ. 2017. Seed detection and discrimination by
ground beetles (coleoptera: Carabidae) are associated with olfactory cues. PLoS ONE
12:e0170593. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170593.

and the first author name (Kovács-Hostyánszki) should be capitalised in

Kovács-hostyánszki A, Báldi A. 2012. Set-aside fields in agri-environment schemes can replace
the market-driven abolishment of fallows. Biological Conservation 152:196–203. DOI:
10.1016/j.biocon.2012.03.039.

Please check the comments on the pdf of the original submission, as those things were already indicated there.
__________________________________________________

According to the author guidelines, funders should not be mentioned in the acknowledge because there is a separate Funding Statement specifically meant for that. Please confirms this with the Editor.


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

Input:
Title: MIXED EFFECTS OF ECOLOGICAL INTENSIFICATION ON NATURAL PEST CONTROL PROVIDERS: A SHORT-TERM STUDY FOR BIOTIC HOMOGENIZATION IN WINTER WHEAT FIELDS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: So this is a second revision and I have just gone though your responses /  rebuttles to the manuscript.  Great stuff, I am more than happy with your responses both when you have accepted my suggestions and when you have justified ignoring them.  I can see the other two reviewers have also been pretty thorough as well (I feel your pain having to go though all of these, inclugding mine - it happens to every paper I submit so I know the work this entails).  Ultimately I think this has really improved the work and clarity.  I am happy to recomend accept.

Ben Woodcock
Experimental design: see above
Validity of the findings: see above
Additional comments: see above


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

Input:
Title: ESTIMATION OF NITROGEN LEACHING LOAD FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN THE PUCK COMMUNE WITH AN INTERACTIVE CALCULATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See the attachment.
Experimental design: See the attachment.
Validity of the findings: See the attachment.
Additional comments: See the attachment.


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: ESTIMATION OF NITROGEN LEACHING LOAD FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN THE PUCK COMMUNE WITH AN INTERACTIVE CALCULATOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is essentially a continuation of the article published in the Peer journal in 2019 (Dzierzbizka et. al., 2019). In the example of the Puck Commune, it is shown how it is possible to calculate nitrogen losses from the agricultural lands located in this area. This type of an article can be attributed to “Case studies” articles, which do not fully meet the requirements of the Peer journal. However, the principles of calculating the nitrogen losses because of leaching that are described in the manuscript are interesting for scientists in other countries, which is why I would like to compare the methods of calculation and improve them.

The manuscript describes the stages of calculating nitrogen loss in some detail and in a sequence, but it does not explain how the correction factors for the main parameters that are affecting the amount of nitrogen leaching were calculated. Were either of these factors calculated on the basis of data collected from the lysimetric and field experiments, or were they obtained by empirical means?
The climatic conditions of the region are not sufficiently described. This makes it difficult to compare the data of this work to the results of studies carried out in other Baltic countries.
The manuscript quotes a few references, especially in the “Discussion” section. The articles cited are mainly presented in the “Introduction” section. Only 2 sources are quoted in the “Discussion” section, therefore this section of the manuscript does not fully meet the requirements of the journal. The article presents 10 figures. Figure 4 in this manuscript is very similar to a figure which has already appeared in a published article in Peer journal (Dzierzbizka et. al., 2019). It also does not fully comply with the requirements of the press for the design of the manuscripts. I believe that the Discussion section should contain more comparisons to the results of other researchers, especially from the Baltic Sea region.

Check the list of references cited in the manuscript. Why is the article by Álvarez et. al (2017) at the end of the list of references?
Experimental design: Line 71-72. The article does not state the exact purpose of the work. Since an adapted mathematical model was used to calculate nitrogen losses, the authors based on this model had only calculated (did not determine) the possible nitrogen losses in the Puck Commune region.

Line 81-82. In my opinion, the text does not describe the beginning of the atmospheric precipitation infiltration accurately. Due to climate change, there may be deviations in the beginning and the ending of infiltration during the time period from October to April. In order to better understand the process of the infiltration of atmospheric precipitation in the region, it is advisable to provide data of the standard climate norm of precipitation and air temperature, as well as to indicate the number of days in the year with negative air temperature, as this affects the infiltration regime.

Line 95. A very old source of reference (1982) was used to describe the effect of legumes on the nitrogen content of the soil. I believe that currently there are many more informative articles supporting this fact.

The calculation of nitrogen losses from leaching is based on the concept of parameters of the basic leaching. However, the manuscript does not describe how the basic values were defined clearly. It is necessary to explain this in the manuscript or there should be a reference to a list of references. Therefore, there are some questions as to why such factors are applied to certain factors.
For example:
a) why is the correction factor to determine the effect of plants on nitrogen leaching for legumes and flax the same (1.3) (Table 2)?
b) Why are there such small differences in factors regarding manure and slurry application in autumn and winter? The main nitrogen leaching occurs in winter, as shown in Figure 3.

In Tables 6-7 it is advisable to indicate not only the number of fields with similar soil and agro technical measurement parameters in the Puck commune, but also the complete area of these fields for certain indicators, as their area can vary considerably. Nitrogen leaching depends on the specific field area, not on the quantity.
Validity of the findings: Lines 291-302 repeat the statistical data on the area of the fields under the different crops and how the usage of fertilizers and the ploughing time of the fields both affect the leaching of nitrogen. There is no discussion and no comparison to the results of other studies. The discussion focuses only on the description of the outcomes.

Conclusion
The conclusions do correspond to the objectives of this work.
Additional comments: The manuscript may be recommended to be published in a Peer journal, but there is a need to expand the discussion on nitrogen leaching in farmland. This manuscript presents only the results of the calculation of nitrogen losses calculated on the basis of the mathematical model in Puck Commune and therefore, this is of interest only to a local region. I realize that this model is designed for the soil and climatic conditions of Poland, but there is a lot of published data that can be comparable to the data that was obtained based on the mathematical model. A more detailed discussion will enable the comparison of processes of the nitrogen leaching and improve the methods of calculation of its losses in the countries of the Baltic region.


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: ESTIMATION OF NITROGEN LEACHING LOAD FROM AGRICULTURAL FIELDS IN THE PUCK COMMUNE WITH AN INTERACTIVE CALCULATOR
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The authors of the publication made all the corrections and responded to all my comments. I am satisfied with the answers given. I have no substantive remarks to work, but I am asking the authors for some minor editorial corrections.
Line 126: -1 should be in upper index.
Line  240-244; 288-292; 297-301; 311-315 and Discussion:
I think the authors should use SI unit, i.e. kg N·ha-1, not kg N ha-1.

After correction, I recommend publishing this article in that form.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF LEOPARDS (PANTHERA PARDUS) ON LIVESTOCK LOSSES AND HUMAN INJURIES IN A HUMAN-USE LANDSCAPE IN MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors present an interesting manuscript about the relationships between leopards and humans in the agricultural landscapes of Western Maharashtra in India. The article is well written, in clear and professional English, the context is clearly provided with a good amount of references. I found the article to be well structured and the authors have shared their raw data. The results are relevant to the hypotheses that are clearly stated at the beginning of the manuscript. My major concern is that I find that the authors do not completely answer the question posed in the title of their paper: “When does damage become conflict?”. Some parts of the discussion could be removed to leave more space to better answer this question.

I also have a few minor concerns that I would like to see addressed before recommending this manuscript for publication.

Line-specific comments

Line 2: in the title, add “India” after Western Maharashtra.
Line 30: human-leopard relationships.
Line 31: Please, add the average livestock density.
Line 37: What kind of dogs? Surely not guard dogs? Is it because leopards consider them as prey species?
Lines 41-43: Please be a bit more specific as these recommendations are very broad.
Line 70: The Gehrt et al. (2010) reference is about mesocarnivores, not large carnivores. Please either find another reference of remove “large” in line 69.
Line 72: Do you consider that domestic animals are pets (dogs, cats) as well as livestock? It might be worth defining what the authors mean by “domestic animals”.
Lines 88-91: Please rephrase as it is not very clear what you are trying to say.
Line 98: “(…) for carnivore ecology, notably their diet, and objective (…)”
Line 101: Negative effects on what? Please, state it clearly here.
Line 109: ? instead of . after “who report losses”.
Line 109-111: Please check the grammar in this sentence.
Line 118: Add information about the climate. Is it tropical?
Line 120-122: Clearly state how the human density of your study site relates to that of the district (you state it is 400 inhabitants/km2 in the abstract).
Line 125: Spacing between Felis and chaus.
Line 145: Official information on the number …
Lines 145-146: Are the claims for leopard predation only or for any types of predation by any type of carnivores (large and medium-sized)? Please add this information.
Line 173: Do these shepherds keep the livestock of several owners or is it their own livestock?
Line 179-180: Please explain why it was important to have this farmer with you during the interviews. Is it because it increased trust?
Line 197: Here again, please be clearer about “dog”. Do you mean dogs kept as pets?
Line 214: “between April 2006 and February 2009”.
Line 215 and 218: Are the compensation records for leopards and hyaenas or leopards only?
Line 218: 10 adults per 100 km2.
Line 234: Add a statistical test allowing you to say that.
Lines 255-256: Is there no deaths caused by mesopredators in your study area?
Line 307: Remove “very”
Line 306: Add “Previous” before “Ecological studies”.
Lines 308-311: Is it really the most important aspect of your manuscript? The following sentences seem a lot more important, along with the fact that despite no wild prey and a high density of livestock, leopards do not seem to attack livestock very often.
Line 311: Check spacing between words.
Line 327: Please, give the density of livestock somewhere in the manuscript, preferentially in the Description of the study area.
Line 328-329: It would be good to put that in perspective with other published data on leopard predation on livestock in other places, maybe East Africa?
Line 333: Rephrase “automatic cause”.
Line 335: Remove “G laurence” to the citation.
Line 366-376: I feel that this paragraph is not really necessary in your manuscript as you are not really presenting any results directly linked to compensation in your study. I would thus remove this paragraph.
Line 391: Replace if by whether.
Lines 399-401: Rephrase, “The fact that most livestock are already enclosed at night implies that only minor enclosure improvements will be needed to exclude leopards”.
Lines 404-405: Please rephrase as the sentence is not very clear.
Line 406: Landscapes.
Line 429: Check spacing of words.

Table 1: Please give the years that the information was provided for.
Table 2 can be in supplementary material if not enough space in the paper itself.
I could not review Figure 1 and Figure 3 because of their very low definition. Make sure a higher definition is used next time.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF LEOPARDS (PANTHERA PARDUS) ON LIVESTOCK LOSSES AND HUMAN INJURIES IN A HUMAN-USE LANDSCAPE IN MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was written well. Please see below comments on a few figures / tables not referred to the manuscript and areas where references are missing.
Experimental design: Methods were completed very well and aims are clearly stated.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript was very well written and presented some interesting results. Well done! The finding that domestic dogs increase the likelihood of a leopard attack was particularly fascinating. It was very good how you included suggested conservation actions, especially in relation to mitigating other causes of loss such as disease and discuss avoiding placing intentional blame on leopards for attacks. My main critique was the framing of the manuscript within the definitions of damage / conflict. Although I liked the idea behind this approach, I felt that the terms were poorly laid out and confusingly used throughout. I also felt that you did not properly investigate these terms with the respondents. What were the farmers and shepherds’ views on what constituted conflict / damage or a problem animal? What was their threshold of when does damage become conflict? This was what I expected to find out when the aims were stated but this was not included. Unless this is more adequately addressed, I suggest that the premise of exploring at what point negative wildlife impacts on people actually constitute conflict is dropped as this was not supported well enough with your current set of results. Although the manuscript would loose an interesting angle, it would still stand up as well executed interesting science without this additional dimension.
Additional comments: Please see specific points to address below:

Line 37 – the word ‘probably’ should be changed to probability

Line 83 / 84 – the sentence about the difference between damage and conflict is not well grounded and therefore seems confusing after you have been using the term conflict to imply damage caused by carnivores in previous paragraphs. In lines 418 -421 of the discussion you explain the difference in the literature between damage / impact and conflict better. It would be beneficial to integrate this sentence from the discussion into the introduction to provide the necessary explanation of the terms earlier on. It is a bit confusing how you don’t seem to consistently differentiate between damage and conflict in the manuscript since this is the premise of the argument. It is probably worth swapping the order of the introduction around to open with a discussion of damage / conflict and very clearly lay out your terminology and definitions from the onset so you adhere to them throughout.

Line 93 – remove the words ‘the attitudes of’. This is implied in the sentence.

Line 142 – move the description of the Maharashtra Forest Department included in lines 146 – 147 to the first time the organisation is mentioned in line 142.

Line 145 – add in the word ‘reported’ before ‘leopard encounters’

Line 174 – the statement that migratory shepherds face livestock losses to leopards either needs a reference or it is a finding that is only revealed in the results section and should be omitted here.

Line 187 – Please turn this first line into a proper sentence.

Line 217 – put the word ‘adult’ in front of the word ‘cow’ throughout the manuscript to differentiate between adult cow and calf.

Line 245 – You list Figure 3 here but I did not see Figure 2 referred to in the manuscript prior?

Line 269 - You list Table 2 here but I did not see Table 1 referred to in the manuscript prior?

Line 277 – Should Table 2 listed here be Table 1?

Line 308 – Please include a reference to support the statement that leopards have a complete dependency on domestic animals as prey. It would be interesting to state how much of their diet is comprised of domestic dogs compared to other livestock.

Line 335 – the reference Frank, Woodroffe and Ogada, 2005 should not include G laurence.

Line 341 – Please include references to support the sentence that other studies found that the presence of dogs can deter large predator attacks.

Line 344 – Why are these domestic dogs kept? As companion animals or for another purpose? If you suggest that farmers stop keeping dogs to reduce leopard attacks, do you think that a reduction in dogs would lead to an increase in livestock consumed instead?

Line 361 – 364 – This sentence about mitigating other causes of losses like disease as a means to reduce conflict with carnivores needs a little more explanation to clarify it. Including a bit about how farmers may become more acceptant about a small percentage of livestock lost to predators if they didn’t loose so many due to other causes would be helpful to explain this better. If there is a reference to support that hypothesis that would be even better.

Line 378 – The migratory shepherds are extremely interesting and it would be good to include a bit more in the discussion about why their losses were so much higher than the resident farmers and perhaps differentiating between conflict and damage for shepherds as opposed to the other groups.

Line 393 – It would be worth talking about how to improve conflict prevention for migratory shepherds since they are less able to have predator resistant enclosures and the presence of dogs may not be an attractant for leopards in the same way.

Line 410 – Why are leopards only creating minimal economic impact? Any ideas?

Line 411 – The question should these leopards be termed as problem animals seems very subjective and may be answered very differently by members of different groups or people with different backgrounds / experiences. Did you ask any of the interviewees whether they considered the leopards to be problem animals? Were you able to ascertain what the threshold for this definition might generally be? This is important to meet your currently stated aims (Line 109 - 111).

Line 423 – You state that the impacts were relatively low and widely dispersed. However, 68% of migratory shepherds lost livestock to leopards. This seems quite high and not very evenly dispersed across the groups. To these people the impact of these losses might have big implications on their livelihoods and income. Even a farmer who looses only one animal to predation might feel that the impact is large if they can’t afford that loss. A loss of animal might have other implications as well aside from lost income. It can also represent a lost sense of security, lost time, and emotional strain. I think that it seems quite subjective to call the losses low when you haven’t ascertained what the losses really mean to the interviewees.

Line 426  - 427 – You state that the situation is close to coexistence but again the migratory shepherds and compensation claimants had high levels of livestock losses to leopards. This does not seem like only minor adjustments to human practices are required for them. Are there any retaliatory measures taken against leopards at the study site as a result? This should be mentioned in the manuscript.

Line 429 – You state is easier to prevent conflicts developing. Again it is confusing which definition of conflict you are using. Do you mean human-human conflict or impacts between humans and leopards? This needs to be refined throughout.

Table 1  - Please fill in the number of leopard kills of buffalo by compensation claimants. As previously mentioned, I did not see Table 1 mentioned in the manuscript.

Table 2 – Please fill in the blank spaces in the Do not know and Total columns. Mention in the heading why you only included data from 103 attacks.

Table 3 – Why was ‘dogs present’ listed twice in the top ranking model and the 4th ranking model? Make sure all models listed are consistently capitalised at the beginning.

Figure 2 - As previously mentioned, I did not see Figure 2 mentioned in the manuscript. The findings presented about seasonal differences should be explored in the results and discussion section if you would like to retain this figure.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF LEOPARDS (PANTHERA PARDUS) ON LIVESTOCK LOSSES AND HUMAN INJURIES IN A HUMAN-USE LANDSCAPE IN MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have answered all my questions and have made the changes that I suggested. I am therefore happy to recommend this article for publication in PeerJ once these last minor changes have been taken into account:

1. I just want to make sure that the new title is "The impact of leopards (Panthera pardus) on livestock loss and human injuries in a human use
landscape in Maharashtra, India (#38063)" as there were two different titles in the pdf and word versions. I would use "losses" rather than "loss" and please check if you should write "human-use" rather than "human use".

2. Well done for making recommendations. In the abstract, l.39, you recommend "informing the public". After reading your paper, I would rather recommend informing the migratory shepherds because as you said, there are no human deaths due to leopards in your study area. However, the possibility of being compensated does not seem to be known by everyone (neither the way to do it). Another important recommendation would be to focus on the other causes of livestock deaths. Maybe some of them could be easily tackled (with vaccinations for example).

3. l. 68 "like dogs, livestock and garbage"

4. l. 91, "these carnivores": it is not obvious what species you are referring to. Is it the species you list at l. 69-72.

5. l. 105 "due to leopard depredation"

6. l. 106, please rephrase: (ii) what factors predisposed a farmer to leopard attacks on his livestock.

7. l.120 /km2 instead of per sq km

8. l. 124: if you say that it is high, you should at least give an approximate number. If there is no number, rather say "is thought to be high but no estimation exists to date".

9. l. 149 livestock losses

10. l. 153 "kinds of information :"

11. l. 191 "the risk of small stock versus large stock", remove the "a" or put it everywhere.

12. l. 202 remove the coma after "both".

13. l. 170 "at night"

14. l. 334-335 There is a problem with the sentence: reformulate or remove "recorded in any human dominated landscape".

15. l. 352, check spacing
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Well done on a very interesting and useful paper!


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

Input:
Title: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript from Qian Wang et al. reports the biochemical and metabolic profiles of dairy cows with mycotoxins-contaminated diets. Specifically, the cottonseed contaminated with mycotoxins was cultivated by promoting the growth of fungi, and used to feed multiparous Holstein cows with an experimental period of 14 days. The authors finally provided data of blood parameters, concentrations of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) and NH3-N in rumen fluid, metabolomic analysis of plasma by 1H NMR. Overall, the manuscript seems to be interesting that provides evidence supporting the amino acid metabolism pathways may be affected by exposure to mycotoxins. However, there are issues about the obtained data raising throughout the manuscript.
Experimental design: The authors gave the effort to describe the method of preparation of diets contaminated with mycotoxins and how to determine mycotoxins in contaminated cottonseeds. However, what is exactly fungal species using as “promoting the growth of fungi” (line 93) should be obviously stated. If this method will get an advantage compared to the use of purified mycotoxins should be addressed. Also, this research reported the biochemical and metabolic profiles of dairy cows under the exposure of combination of AFB1 and ZEA in contaminated cottonseeds, please discuss if there is any co-effect of both mycotoxins in the currently obtained data.
Validity of the findings: Line 233: “Table 5”. If it is Table 4 in this manuscript.
Line 316: “Table 5”. If it is Figure 5 in this manuscript.
Figure 5 is confusing. Please describe in detail about how to create Figure 5 with a specific definition of “the matched pathways according to the P-values obtained from pathway enrichment analysis and the pathway impact values produced by pathway topology analysis”.
Additional comments: There are many error typing throughout the manuscript. Also, the manuscript should be revised by a native speaker to meet the professional standards of courtesy and expression for publication.
References should be in consistent format.


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

Input:
Title: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper must be revised by an English editor.
The list of references is not very well prepared.
Experimental design: The experimental design seems to be flawed:
The authors failed to mention the composition of the diet that the cows were consuming previously, especially whether it included cottonseed. So, if the ruminal microbiota had not been exposed to any test ingredient, a minimum of about three weeks would be needed just to get the microorganisms adapted to the new feedstuff. Therefore fourteen days was obviously insufficient, moreover considering that both blood and rumen samples were obtained (only once) on day 7, why run a 14-day trial if samples were obtained only on day seven?
The measurement of the rumen VFA’s might be incomplete without assessing the total ruminal volume, which is usually quite variable between animals.
Although the authors state that the ruminal microbiota is capable of neutralizing the mycotoxins, It is worth noting that no mycotoxin analyses were performed in neither blood, nor rumen, urine, or milk samples. These analyses could yield important information on whether the compounds were in any way altered or destroyed by the microbiota.
I suppose the milk from the experimental cows fed the mycotoxins was destroyed, although this is not mentioned in the article.
Validity of the findings: The statement on line 203 is not what the data in table 2 shows.
Their numerical results seem to indicate the presence of quadratic effects on several parameters, which the authors fail to explain satisfactorily.
The statement of lines 276-7 is technically flawed. The rumen is the principal organ responsible for the absorption of VFA’s, and it has NO mucosa.
The statement on lines 307-8 is not what their data seem to show, i.e. NNH3 levels in rumen fluid were increased, not decreased.
Additional comments: The English of the paper needs to be revised thoroughly.
The reference list needs to be revised: some items are missing (line 99), others are incorrect (line 402); there are inconsistencies in the titles of the journals (use of capital letters, abbreviations).
There are several misconceptions that need to be corrected.


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

Input:
Title: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The submission uses a clear, unambiguous and professional English.

The background/context provided is sufficient BUT literature references have some errors: references in lines 402-403 and 438-441 are not cited in the text.

The submission is self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.

It has professional structure and raw data shared BUT there are some errors in FIGURES AND TABLES:
Lines 231-233 describe Table 5, when they should refer to Table 4, since Table 5 DOES NOT EXIST.
Figure 3 needs a better explanation.
Figure 5 is NOT DESCRIBED in the text, only in the discussion and these results are fundamental for the conclusions of the work.
On line 316, they talk about Table 5 when they should refer to Figure 5.
In Table 2, the word "control", in the corresponding column, is cut off.
It would be advisable to write the expressions in vivo, in vitro and et al, in italics.
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: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: The authors addressed well all comments from my review report. The revised manuscript is thus now ready to publish on PeerJ. Thank you for your substantial effort in the revision.


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

Input:
Title: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript was very much improved from the former version, and this reviewer  considers it suitable for publication.

Just two last small changes the should be performed:

Line 74: NMR is not a simple “manipulation”, but rather a simple method or technique.

Line 420: this reference should be moved to line 484


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

Input:
Title: THE BIOCHEMICAL AND METABOLIC PROFILES OF DAIRY COWS WITH MYCOTOXINS-CONTAMINATED DIETS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The submission uses a clear, unambiguous and professional English.

Errors that I had detected in the bibliography (lines 402-403 and 438-441 in original manuscript) were corrected, now references are correctly cited in the text.

The reference to Table 5 (non-existent) was deleted, to replace it with "Table 4".

Explanation provided in the letter for Figure 3, is more clear.

Other typographical errors were also corrected.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: It seems to me that the comments of the reviewers were attended and that the presentation of the manuscript was considerably improved.


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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Hsueh et al. present results of a meta-analysis on metabolically healthy obesity and CAC. They confirm that MHO is associated with higher prevalence / risk of CAC than MHNO. Some points should be addressed by the authors:

1.	The authors only compare MHO to MHNO / MHNW. However, also MUO (metabolically unhealthy obesity) is of interest. Studies show that cardiovascular risk in MHO is higher than the CVD risk in MHNO, but lower than the CVD risk of MUO. Thus, the message might be that improving one’s metabolic profile may be worthwhile even if the person remains obese. Striving to achieve normal weight – as the authors put it – and keeping normal weight is hard, so MUO may at least be a first intermediate goal which helps to reduce CVD risk (or risk of CAC progression).

2.	In Kowall et al. (2019), there is not only a longitudinal analysis of the MHO CAC association, but also a cross-sectional one (table 2). Why didn’t the authors take this cross-sectional analysis into account?

3.	The authors quote Stang (2010) as a reference for the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. However, this reference is a harsh criticism of the NOS, and the author advises against using the NOS.

4.	On page 15, the authors write that „age, sex, and smoking were important effect modifiers“. On page 14, they write that „univariate meta-regression showed no statistically significant effect modification with age and proportion of women (p=0.08, p=0.31)“. Does this mean that the authors do not support significance testing (what would deserve recognition)? If so, they should state this in the methods section. However, from their result on cross-sectional studies (OR=1.34 (95% CI: 0.91 – 1.96)), the authors conclude that a higher risk of CAC progression „was not detected in cross-sectional studies“ (also: p. 13, line 196). This is wrong because from the confidence interval it is very likely that MHO is associated with CAC prevalence. For problems of significance testing, please cf. Amrhein V et al. The earth is flat (p > 0:05): significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research. PeerJ 2017; Amrhein V et al. Retire statistical significance. Nature 2019.

5.	In the discussion, the authors mention that there is heterogeneity in the definiton of MHO. I suggest discussing that definitons of CAC progress also differ in the three included cohort studies.

6.	P. 20, line 308: Kowall et al. also used waist circumference to define obesity.

7.	P. 13: higher odds of CAC (not: higher risks of CAC), when ORs were estimated

8.	Abstract, line 22: „MHO is defined as obesity without metabolic abnormalities“. This is not correct because some definitions allow the prevalence of 1 (or even 2) metabolic abnormalities.


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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the general comments for the author
Experimental design: Please see the general comments for the author
Validity of the findings: Please see the general comments for the author
Additional comments: In this meta-analysis the authors investigated whether MHO is associated with elevated risk of CAC. For this they included 3 cohort studies and 6 cross-sectional studies in their analysis. They found that MHO associated with elevated risk of CAC compared with MHNO.

Comments:
1. Lines 58-60: The statement ‘Recent research has focused on a phenotype of obese  individuals, termed the MHO, which refers to obese subjects who fulfill the definition of obesity without meeting the criteria of metabolic syndrome.’ implicates that the suggested definition of metabolic health and metabolic syndrome are the same. However, that is not the case. In the first 2 papers that were published back-to-back in 2008 proposing that a distinct metabolically healthy phenotype exists, insulin sensitivity measured by a frequently sampled OGTT was the initial definition (Arch Intern Med. 2008 Aug 11;168(15):1609-16.) and in lack of such data Wildman et al. suggested defining metabolic health when having less than 2 risk parameters of the metabolic syndrome (except accounting for waist circumference) and elevated HOMA-IR and elevated CRP levels (Arch Intern Med. 2008 Aug 11;168(15):1617-24.). This definition is now being widely used (Cell Metab. 2017 Aug 1;26(2):292-300.). Most importantly, the definitions of metabolic syndrome and metabolic health for sure are different in the number of risk parameters that are allowed to be present when considering having a metabolically beneficial phenotype.
2. A limitation of this study is that most studies included in this meta-analysis were conducted in the Korean and, thus, in an Asian population. Because adiposity measures between Asian and Caucasian populations cannot be easily compared and BMI cut-offs separating normal weight, overweight and obesity differ between these populations, this limitation may have affected the results.
3. Another limitation that needs also to be addressed in the discussion is the fact that sample size varied substantially among studies.
4. Discussion, line 229: the statement ‘Another review in 2013, which included only studies with 10 or more years follow-up, also showed that MHO people are at elevated risk of all-cause mortality and CVD.’ is not correct, because that review also included studies with less than 10 years of follow-up and in the analysis including all studies, MHO was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality.
5. Furthermore, the authors should discuss the large study by Lassale et al. (Eur Heart J. 2018 Feb 1;39(5):397-406.) where an increased risk of CHD was found in MHO individuals, when MH was defined by the metabolic syndrome criteria, but not when MH was defined by the absence of any cardiometabolic risk factor.
6. Discussion, line 293: when the authors discuss clinical implications of MH in obesity, they should also address that this concept can be used to investigate how much weight loss and what other treatment options should be recommended in obesity, and that fatty liver is a strong predictor for the regression from the metabolically unhealthy to the metabolically healthy condition (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018 Mar;6(3):249-258.).


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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, the authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the presence or progression of coronary artery calcification in metabolically healthy obesity compared to metabolically healthy non-obesity or normal weight. This article gives a good introduction with relevant literature cited. The article structure and tables/figures are appropriate, and the raw data is shared. This article generally uses clear and professional language. I have a few suggestions to clarify language below:
1.	Line 56: “section” should be changed to “group”
2.	Line 78 “…several limitations concerning the association…” is a bit vague
3.	Line 80 “Asia” should be changed to “Asian”
4.	Line 160: Please clarify that the “included studies” you mention are the nine studies included in the systematic review, rather than the six studies included in the meta-analysis.
5.	Line 267: “we classified participants as metabolically healthy using at least one component from the criteria in our study.” Should this say “at most one”? Also, from Table 1 it looks like the number of components needed for MHO classification varies from study to study. Could you clarify this?
6.	Line 282: “impact of MHO on CAC risk decreased as the proportion of smokers increased.” Is this smokers in the MHO group, or in total across the MHO and control groups?
7.	In the paragraph beginning on line 285, the first sentence suggests that the paragraph will talk about mechanisms of metabolically healthy obesity, but the paragraph goes on to talk about the mechanisms of disease in obesity. Perhaps consider revising.
8.	Line 298: Authors state “only nine studies were included in our review,” which is slightly misleading since only six of those made it in to the meta-analysis.
9.	Line 303-304: Duplicate sentence
10.	Line 313: Please change “causal” to “temporal”, since neither cross-sectional nor cohort studies alone can show a causal relationship.
Experimental design: The design of the systematic review and meta-analysis is generally good. My comments are below:
1.	The meta-regression analyses do not have a large enough sample size. The recommended minimum number of studies suggested in order to conduct a meta-regression is 10, and there are only 5 included in the meta-regression. This limitation should at least be mentioned, or the meta-regression should be omitted. Looking at figures S1 and S3, the slope of the line appears to be heavily influenced by a single influential study. The multivariable meta-regression should not be included in this study, as the R-squared value of 100% suggests extreme overfitting of the model to the data. There are 3 effects to estimate in the model and only 5 observations.
2.	It is not explained why one of the 6 studies from the meta-analysis was not included in the meta-regression. Looking at the raw data, it appears that there are no values for smoking, age, or sex in the MHO group in the Echouffo-Tcheugui et al. 2019 study. However, these values are presented in Table 2 of Echouffo-Tcheugui et al. 2019, and so this study should be included in the meta-regressions and the raw data should be updated.
3.	Smaller notes from within the text:
a.	Line 196-7: the risk of “CAC progression” was said to be higher in cohort studies, but not in cross-sectional studies. It isn’t possible to measure CAC progression in cross-sectional studies, so this should be re-worded.
b.	Line 259: Should “DBP<85” instead be “DBP>=85?”
c.	Line 265-266: “These criteria modifications for metabolically healthy individuals explained the heterogeneity in our meta-analysis.” Please elaborate/provide evidence for how the criteria modifications explain the heterogeneity.
4.	The protocol for systematic review was published online prior to analysis. However, the protocol for the systematic review reported in PROSPERO does not always match what is reported in the Methods section for this paper. These deviations from the protocol should be addressed in the manuscript. Some discrepancies include:
a.	Line 111-112: Inclusion criteria for obesity definition includes obesity defined by Waist Circumference, whereas the registered protocol only allows BMI-defined obesity
b.	Line 114-115: Includes studies which report “the presence, extent, new development, or progression of CAC”, whereas the protocol only mentions the progression of CAC. However, this may be due to the inclusion of cross-sectional studies (allowed in the original protocol), which by design cannot assess CAC progression.
c.	Line 131-132: The cutoff for high quality studies in the PROSPERO protocol was at least 7 for all studies, whereas in the manuscript it is listed as at least 6 for cohort studies and at least 7 for cross-sectional studies.
d.	The protocol says subgroup analysis will be run by country, but this was not done in the manuscript.
e.	The protocol says sensitivity analysis will be run by excluding one study at a time and re-calculating the overall effect estimate, but this was not done in the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The study is relevant and well-designed, but I have serious concerns about the validity of the findings as the manuscript is written currently.
1.	There are many contradictions between the effect estimates from the individual studies reported in the raw data, in Table 1, and Figures 2-3. For example, Echouffo-Tcheugui et al. 2019 is reported as having an OR for the relevant effect measure of 1.94 (1.18-3.19) in Table 1, 1.94 (1.28-2.95) in Figures 2 and 3, and 1.94 (1.38-3.19) in the raw data. Another example: in Kowall, 2018, the effect estimate is reported as 1.24 (0.78-1.79) in Table 1, and 1.24 (0.78-1.97) in Figures 2-3 and the raw data. There are several other such inconsistencies, mostly with the upper bounds of the confidence intervals of the individual effect estimates. Since the confidence intervals are presumably used to calculate the standard errors for the effect estimates, it is likely that the overall meta-analyzed effect estimate reported in this study is not valid.
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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Based on the fact, and also as mentioned in the response of the authors to the referee's comment number 5, that the risk of CAC was not elevated in subjects with MHO, when defined as having no metabolic risk parameter, compared to subjects with MHNO, the authors need to re-word the statement in the conclusion: 'People with obesity should strive to achieve normal weight even in the absence of metabolic abnormalities.' e.g. to 'People with obesity should strive to achieve normal weight even when only one metabolic abnormality is present.'


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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see "General comments for the author" section.
Experimental design: Please see "General comments for the author" section.
Validity of the findings: Please see "General comments for the author" section.
Additional comments: I appreciate the authors addressing the comments in my original review and believe they have adequately addressed nearly all suggestions I offered. I now understand the reason for some of the upper confidence limits being slightly different in Figures 2 and 3 from the original reported results in Table 1, and I agree with the authors that this minimal rounding error as a result of the meta-analysis is not cause for concern to the validity of the findings. In fact, I think the sentence added by the authors: “Another statistical issue is that the overall meta-analyzed effect estimate may not be so valid because the original confidence intervals are used to calculate the standard errors for the effect estimates. But we do not think the main result will be changed due to the statistical conversion” can be omitted, since the rounding error does not seem to affect the main result. Or, perhaps, it could be changed to explain that some confidence bounds are slightly different in Figures 2/3 compared to Table 1, and explain that it is due to rounding error because the ORs reported in the original studies are not so precise.

However, there is still one study which appears to be incorrect in the main analysis, and not due to rounding error. For Echouffo-Tcheugui et al. 2019, Table 1 appears to correctly report the OR and its confidence interval as 1.94 (1.18-3.19). However, in the raw data, it is reported as 1.94 (1.38-3.19), which appears to be a typographical error. This means that the standard error calculated for this study appears to have been calculated based on an incorrect and narrower confidence interval than the CI from the original study. In Figures 2 and 3, the OR and 95% CI are reported for Echouffo-Tcheugui et al. 2019 as being 1.94 (1.28-2.95), which is not similar to the correct CI (1.18-3.19), likely due to the 95% CI being calculated by the meta-analysis program on a too-small standard error from the incorrect confidence interval in the raw data (1.38-3.19).

If I am misunderstanding what happened here, please let me know, but this appears to be an error that may affect the final conclusions of the study. The overall meta-analyzed estimate, as well as the subgroup analyses, Figures 2 and 3, and the meta-regression and funnel plots, would also be affected and need to be re-done.

Finally, I have a few small wording/English language use suggestions:
Line 113: I am not sure if “besides” means “in addition to” here? I think the latter phrasing would be clearer if so.
Line 146: change both instances of “p-value” to “p-values”
Line 271: change “reached to zero” to “reached zero”
Line 274: change “standard” to “standards”
Line 309-310: change “obesity subjects” to “obese individuals” or similar
Line 322: change “which mainly existed” to “mainly”
Line 338: change “the statistical limitation” to “statistical limitations”
Line 340: change “smoke” to “smoking”
Line 342: change “researches” to “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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have adequately responded to all my comments. I suggest they should drop a word on comment 1 in the discussion (MHO as an intermediate step for persons with MUO).


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: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments
Experimental design: No further comments
Validity of the findings: No further comments
Additional comments: No further comments


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: On line 204, lower bound "1.23" should be "1.25" to match result in Figure 3.
Additional comments: Thank you for incorporating my suggestions, and best of luck with your publication!


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF METABOLICALLY HEALTHY OBESITY AND ELEVATED RISK OF CORONARY ARTERY CALCIFICATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you for incorporating my suggestions, and best of luck with the submission.


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: MHEALTH TECHNOLOGY FOR ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RESEARCH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The present manuscript: mHealth technology for ecological momentary assessment in physical activity research: a systematic review

The manuscript systematically reviews publications on EMA methodologies relating to physical activity behavior in order to identify the main procedures and instruments of applying mHealth technology during the first 10 years since the emergence of smartphones.

Although this is a very interesting paper, the manuscript needs to be revised due to mistakes in language which lead to misunderstandings.
The final conclusion is not clear to me, how the authers come to the new definition of the term mEMA.

Developing the new aspect from the review might be considered as a research aim, next to the systematical review.

The authors should also comment on the aspect if there is a difference in mHealth technology that provides feedback in comparison to technology without feedback function, since this could have an effect on physical activity levels.
Direct feedback might also be an issue in mEMA.

ABSTRACT:
Line 20: The abbreviation EMA should be explained when firstly used.

INTRODUCTION:
Line 60: Please specify “many health disorders”
Line 63: ….evidence can be “contrasted” the term is unclear in this context.
Line 72: Therefore it would be “interesting”…. Please change the term ‘interesting’ and specify the importance
Line 84: ‘when’ should be changed to ‘if’ deleate the word ‘some’ in the sentence
Line 88: delete the word ‘some’
Line 89: Specifically we would like to point out……
Please change the whole sentence, to make the context more clearly
Line 102: delete the word ‘some’
Line 105: the verb is missing in the sentence
Line 110 “massive” the word in over exaggerating

Line 125: “The search comprised the period between 2008 ad 2018…because we were interested in analyzing the use of mHealth…..”
The relationship in this sentence is unclear. Please explain why you selected the time period from 2008 – 2018 specifically?

RESULTS
Line 187/188 it is not clear why you analyzed 76 instead of 74 articles?
Please explain this issue more clearly
Line 195: Why do you explicitly refer to the year 2017 with 19.7% of publications? Please comment.
Please change the ‘comma’ into a ‘point’ in 19,7%

Line 196: When you are referring to publications in North America, please add there the publication rate of the USA. Because you are referring to North America.

Line 202 and Line 204, Line 2017 please delete “old”.
Line 207 Grammar: Studies designs or study design? Singular or plural? Please correct.
Line 217, change ‘between’ to e.g. ‘for a duration of’
Line 222: the word ‘only’ is not understandable? Why ‘only’?

DISCUSSION
Line 287 – Line 303: “Table 1 describes…..” should not be part of the discussion. I would suggest it for the section RESULTS
The whole section is very long for a usually short summary of results at the beginning of a discussion. Please change to a more specific summary or your main results and move the description of results to the section ‘RESULTS’.
Line 307: “76,5%” should be changed to 76.5%
Also the section from line 304 to 312 is a description of results. Please change or comment, why this part should belong in the description of the discussion.
Line 318: the abbreviation PDA is used already in Line 317. Please add the description of PDA to the section where it is mentioned first.

Line 370 … add “year” when referring to the age of the population
Line 378: ‘relevant’ it is unclear what is meant by that? Why is it that the results found are more relevant?
Line 412/412: ‘weekdays’ and ‘non-working days’ this is unclear. Please change to 'working days' or 'non-working days' OR 'week days' and 'week-ends'
Line 427 ‘really’ I would suggest to delete the word, since it exaggerates.

Line 453/454: The sentence is unclear. What is the benefit of using own devices? I recommend to insert a reference for this statement.

CONCLUSION
Lines: 471 – 484 the conclusion is not clear. The authors bring up the new term ‘mEMA‘. The evidence for this new term at the end of the paper is not clearly explained. A new definition of this term is given in the conclusion.
I would recommend to bring it to the introduction of the paper and ask the research question of this term can be used from the reviewed literature?
REFERENCE:
The following references are not correctly cited. Mainly authors are missing: Reference number: 66, 83, 101, 103, 113.
Experimental design: The authors used the PRISMA Statement to design their review. The design is clearly stated.
Four databases were searched from 2008 to February 2018.
A possible research aim towards the new definition "mEMA" should be included in the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: I think the findings are valid.
I do not think that figures 2 – 4 are needed.
Additional comments: The final conclusion is not clear to me:
What exactly is the benefit of mEMA and mHealth and the possible combination of these?
How do you draw these statements from the literature review you have done?

Please further discuss the impact of feedback given by the technologies? Some devices such as accelerometers give immediate feedback on the physical activity level to the user, others do not. Please discuss this issue in terms of EMA and mEMA.


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: MHEALTH TECHNOLOGY FOR ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RESEARCH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English used throughout the manuscript was choppy and at times, very difficult to read. The manuscript would benefit from extensive editing for English language to improve clarity.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The Introduction doesn't set up the Conclusions, and could benefit from editing to help the reader better understand the purpose of the manuscript.
Additional comments: The abstract has issues with English word choice, and should be checked over for grammatical errors. This is also generally true for the entire article. The word choice and writing made it difficult at times to discern what the purpose of the article was. The Discussion provides more information on the goals, and I suggest re-writing the Introduction to highlight that this review focused more on methodology and classifying what methods are used in EMA studies, as this is not as clear as it could be.
Introduction
1.	Line 65, there are two ‘_ _’ that should be deleted.
2.	Line 71, ‘neither’ and ‘nor’ should be ‘either’ and ‘or’.
Methods
1.	Why didn’t the authors use index terms during their literature search? It’s possible that they may have missed some articles with their search strategy terms.
2.	Line 154, ‘synthesis’ should be ‘synthesize’.
3.	Line 178, ‘researches’ should be ‘researchers’.
Results
1.	Line 195, ’19,7%’ should be ’19.7%’.
2.	Throughout the results, there are errors and inconsistencies with reporting of the percentages. Sometimes a comma is used to delineate a decimal, sometimes a period. Please correct.
3.	Line 248, ‘no used’ should be ‘did not use’.
Discussion
1.	Lines 280-282: I’m confused about this sentence that the authors found evidence to use the term mEMA. Inventing a new nomenclature didn’t appear to be the main aim of the study in the Introduction, therefore it’s confusing as to why it is relevant to develop this nomenclature.
2.	Lines 319-320: This sentence on EMA registrations is difficult to decipher. Please re-word to improve clarity.
3.	Line 327, seems to be missing a word in between ‘allowed to’.
4.	EMA, mHealth, and mEMA section- this appears to be very repetitive of the Results section, and the authors need to synthesize the results more into overarching conclusions, not simply repeat what can be found in Table 1.
5.	Line 375, ‘adherents’ should be ‘adherent’.
Conclusions
1.	The font changes from lines 471-483. Please correct.
Figure 1- there is an extra arrow leading from ‘after duplicates removed’.
Figure 2- the font is very small, and it’s fuzzy. Is there a way to correct this? Also, in the text the authors state that the age range for university students overlapped with that of adults. Were the studies that included these age ranges double counted in the figure?
Figures 3-6- the font is very small and fuzzy. Suggest improving figure quality to make it easier to read.


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

Input:
Title: MHEALTH TECHNOLOGY FOR ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RESEARCH: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Another read-through for minor edits to English language is needed in Discussion.
Experimental design: The methods are well-described and presented in the text as well as in multiple tables/figures. The authors have been responsive to reviewer feedback and improved the clarity of the manuscript objective.
Validity of the findings: Findings appear valid and conclusions and recommendations are supported by findings.
Additional comments: Overall, the authors were very responsive to the suggestions from reviewers. The English language edits have greatly clarified the overall objective and interpretation of findings. This manuscript will be a good contribution to the field.

Results: What was the degree of agreement for paper reviewers?
Line 212-  ’13.663’ is too many decimal points. ’13.7’ participants should be sufficient and matches other decimal places reported in this manuscript.
Line 299- I’m unsure why the authors refer to this manuscript as a ‘qualitative synthesis’, and they have used quantitative methods to classify studies.
Another read-through for minor edits to English language is needed in Discussion.
Line 394- ‘prognostic’ should be changed to ‘prospective’
Line 412- the authors state that ’20 studies were found directly differentiate…’. It would be more consistent with other results reported in the Discussion to provide the percentage of studies that differentiate between days. In addition the word ‘to’ is missing between ‘were’ and ‘found’.
Lines 452-467- this reviewer agrees that we should encourage the use of participants own devices. In addition to the rationale for this conclusion mentioned by the authors, the use of a participants own device may be more feasible in older populations because they are familiar with that device, and thereby increase adherence and minimize drop out. The authors may want to consider adding this conclusion to this paragraph of the Discussion.
There are a few cases where the fonts are not consistent throughout the manuscript and references. The references also need to be checked- some include addresses (e.g., reference 44).
Table 1, point 2, definition of PA: ‘any intensity higher than the basal metabolic rate’ also includes sedentary time (defined as basal to 1.5 METs). Therefore I would suggest revising this statement.
Table 2: change ‘,’ to ‘.’ To delineate decimal points to match manuscript text.
Figure 3a appears to have the words on the X axis cut off.


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: HOW MANY ONTOGENETIC POINTS ARE NEEDED TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE ONTOGENY OF A CEPHALOPOD CONCH? A CASE STUDY OF THE MODERN NAUTILID NAUTILUS POMPILIUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I feel that this manuscript is well designed to PeerJ. English is very clear (at least I feel so), because this manuscript is easily understandable even for non-native speaker (=me). The manuscript has sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate. Figures are beautiful, which is relevant to the content of the manuscript. The raw data is shown in supplementary file. Therefore, in this point of view, the manuscript totally follows the standards of PeerJ.
Experimental design: I feel that the experimental design of this manuscript is well organized. The investigation of the manuscript was conducted rigorously with a high technical standard. Therefore, in this point of view, the manuscript totally follows the standards of PeerJ.
Validity of the findings: I found one point that should be revised, to increase the robustness.
(1) Is the examined specimen male or female?
I think that the information of male or female is important, because this study examines the whorl width of the shell. Nautilus shells show sexual dimorphism, which is well recognized in the difference of whorl width. Therefore, I’d like to request to add the information of sex of the examined specimen, if possible. As far as I see the cross section of the specimen in Fig. 1F, the specimen seems to be male.

(2) Information of shell diameter of the examined specimen
It is better to mention the shell diameter of the examined specimen in Material section (lines 73–75). We can recognize from the figures that the shell diameter of the examined specimen is around 170 mm. However, I think it is much fair to mention in the main text.

(3) The definition of Septal spacing index (SSI)
As far as I recognize from Fig. 1E, septal spacing index (SSI) at the last preserved aperture is eight. If so, it means this index represents the septal number of the “previous” half-whorl. I feel this is strange. I guess that this index should be counted and calculated in the “last” preserved half-whorl at each measured aperture point.

(4) Different shell diameter of the timing of the onset of morphogenetic countdown
This study reveals the timings of the onset of morphogenetic countdown are different among the different parameters of shells (WER, WWI, SPI, SSI). As far as my recognition, such difference of the timings of the onset of morphogenetic countdown has never been documented and demonstrated. Therefore, I’d like to request to the sentence of lines 123–124 should be more emphasized or the authors prepare another manuscript to fully demonstrate such difference. Relating this, I’d like to know whether the timing of morphogenetic countdown of shell coloration (the presence or absence of brown stripe coloration) is concordant to the timings in this study. Seilacher and Gunji (1993) mentioned the morphogenetic countdown in modern Nautilus only in shell coloration. I expect that the authors can discuss more fully with 3D data the differences of timings of the onset of morphogenetic countdown among plural different parameters of shells, which might be better to prepare another manuscript.

(5) Shell diameter at which morphogenetic countdown starts
The authors mentioned that the shell diameters at which morphogenetic countdown starts in WER are different, depending on measurement intervals (lines 136–138). I agree that “the timing at which it occurs is shifted”, however I’m not sure that the shift is always toward “larger conch diameter”. I think that larger or smaller depends on where the measurement point with 90° interval is situated. In the case of this manuscript (Fig. 2H; the shell diameter of measured point is around 100 mm), the shift is toward “larger” conch diameter. However, if the measurement point with 90° interval is situated a little bit smaller shell diameter (e.g., about 90 mm in shell diameter), the shift would be toward “smaller”.
This is same for SSI case (line 166). The authors mentioned “the growth change occurs at a seemingly slightly larger diameter in Fig. 4H and 4J”, however, I feel these also depend on how the measurement points with 90° or 180° intervals are settled.
I’d like to request to add more explanation how the measurement points are settled. Then, if the authors want to mention that the shift is toward “larger” or “smaller”, the authors should confirm in advance that the shifts are always (not depending on how the measurement points are settled) “larger” or “smaller”.

(6) shell shape change before hatching
The authors found that the shell shape changes before hatching. This is very interesting and new finding. The authors thought that this shell shape change “might be linked to the profound growth change from the conical, Patella-shaped initial conch” (lines 143–144). This is very interesting suggestion. I guess that there are some previous studies about shell formation within egg capsule in modern Nautilus (possibly in “Nautilus” book in 1987 from the Plenum Press).
I’d like to know whether the shell diameters at which the previously unknown shell change occur are concordant to the shell size “growth change from the conical, Patella-shaped initial conch” in the literatures.

(7) The fluctuation in middle ontogeny
The authors also found that the fluctuation in middle ontogeny in WER and WWI. I’d like request to add more suggestions what kind(s) of ontogenetic event(s) are related to such fluctuation of shell shape.

(8) A sharp drop of SPI at a diameter of 90 mm in Fig. 4A
The authors supposed that the onset of morphogenetic countdown in SPI is situated around 70 mm in shell diameter (Fig. 4). However, is a sharp drop of SPI at a diameter of 90 mm in Fig. 4A the onset of morphogenetic countdown in SPI?

(9) Suggestion for ammonoids
I feel that the discussion about “Measurements in other taxa” is not enough. The authors mentioned “For ammonoids, a much denser sampling may be required” (lines 36–37, 191–193, 210–211). However, I cannot fully understand why a much denser sampling is better in ammonoids. The authors cited their submitted manuscript (Tajika et al., submitted) for the reasons. However, we cannot understand the details of Tajika et al. (submitted). How many ammonoids were analyzed? What geological ages, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, or both? How is shape of the examined ammonoids, normally coiled ammonoids or heteromorphs? If normally coiled ammonoids, how is shape, similar to those in modern Nautilus? How is the completeness of the examined ammonoid sutures? I think, without such information, we cannot understand why the authors conclude that a much denser sampling is better in ammonoids. Therefore, I’d like to request that enough information to recognize why a much denser sampling is better in ammonoids should be mentioned in the revised manuscript.

(10) Several minor suggestions
Line 130: “abovementioned” should be “above mentioned”.
Line 176: I think “adverse conditions” is ambiguous. Please mention it more specifically.
Line 179: Please add “°” after 30.
Line 242: Please add journal information.
Line 290: “Ontogenetic trajectories of the septal position index (SPI)” should be “Ontogenetic trajectories of the siphuncle position index (SPI)”
Fig. 4B: The position of “onset of morphogenetic countdown” seems to be a little bit larger from the peak at 120 mm.
Fig. 4B, D, F, H: Please add arrows showing the position of “point of hatching”.
Additional comments: This manuscript is of great interest for many paleontologists, especially cephalopod workers, because it provides an interesting information how many ontogenetic points are needed to precisely describe the ontogeny of modern Nautilus conch. It contains great possibility to apply various cephalopod shells (nautiloids, ammonoids). I made some comments that should be revised, to increase the robustness. However, most of them are trivial issues, so that I think the authors can revise the manuscript easily. Therefore, I would like to strongly recommend accepting this interesting manuscript for the publication in PeerJ, with minor revision.


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: HOW MANY ONTOGENETIC POINTS ARE NEEDED TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE ONTOGENY OF A CEPHALOPOD CONCH? A CASE STUDY OF THE MODERN NAUTILID NAUTILUS POMPILIUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written with clear and very professional English. The figures are good and straightforward. The raw data are shared. The results are very relevant towards providing answers to the work questions/hypotheses.

Regarding the field background, the authors state that the number of studies using computed tomography has increased dramatically over past decades. Then they give a list of 8 works on cephalopods, particularly (L. 49). Of those, I am just surprised that there seem to be very few that worked on tomographic reconstructions of the living Nautilus conch. It is just a personal comment, I’m very confident that they have all the literature in mind. I was just expecting more, but this makes their work even more interesting!
Nevertheless, I think the authors could add some more references that performed tomography to elucidate the morphology, ontogeny, paleobiology and evolution of cephalopods. For instance, I think that L. 49-51 they could cite Inoue & Kondo 2016 who worked on ammonite suture line growth using tomography; and I’m guessing there should be more of this kind to cite.

Inoue, S., & Kondo, S. (2016). Suture pattern formation in ammonites and the unknown rear mantle structure. Scientific reports, 6, 33689.

Overall, since there are less than 20 references in total (15 if excluding the ones from the first author), I recommend that the authors try to find a bit more related works, if possible and if within the frame of the work, naturally (to be cited in the introduction and in the two last parts of the discussion).
Experimental design: The research questions are remarkably well-defined. It is explicitly stated how this work is going to fill an identified knowledge gap.

Two small questions remain:

Why did you choose to measure every 10, 30, 45, 90 and 180 degrees? From 45, you chose to double the degrees, why not do the same before so that the difference between each interval is similar? (i.e.,  about 20° instead of 30°?).

Did you test the degree of measurement errors by taking the same measurements 3 times for the same specimen as you did in your 2018 paper?

Tajika, A., Morimoto, N., Wani, R., & Klug, C. (2018). Intraspecific variation in cephalopod conchs changes during ontogeny: perspectives from three-dimensional morphometry of Nautilus pompilius. Paleobiology, 44(1), 118-130.
Validity of the findings: The findings are very robust.

I was just a bit puzzled about one thing when you write L. 31 (and a few times elsewhere) that “a previously undocumented growth change before hatching was detected when measurements were taken every 10°, 30° and 45°”: Why was this change not documented in your previous work (Tajika et al. 2018 in Paleobiology)? If I am not mistaken, you have also reconstructed ontogenetic trajectories in this work, with measurements from 45° intervals as you stated in the methodology of this paper.

Regarding the discussion on the effects of sampling density on the accuracy of growth trajectories (i.e., by graphically comparing the ontogenetic trajectories at different sampling densities), don’t you think it would possible for you to precisely determine the differences in the shape of the graphs depending on the intervals taken? Perhaps there is a statistical way to quantify the differences between two graphs. Something that would tell you, for instance, that WER graph 10° shares 90% of similarities with SSI graph 30°. What I can think about is for example to calculate the surface of each curve and to compare them or to calculate an overlap percentage.

Alternatively, wouldn’t it be possible that even with a figure superimposing the 5 graphs (each with a different color and different degree of transparency), the reader could see where the main differences lie? It might be worth trying.
Additional comments: Overall, the manuscript is well structured: the working hypotheses are particularly crystal-clear; so is the methodology. However, it just seems to me that the first 5 paragraphs of the discussion might fit better as results, if it is doable. I suggest this based on the near absence of references and real discussion in those paragraphs and also based on the way the graphs are routinely compared in them.

Furthermore, one general issue to me is that I was expecting a slightly more developed discussion, given the interesting methodology and results. At least, I recommend that the authors clarify some parts of the discussion. For instance, they write L. 174 that finer details may be lost by poor resolution sampling, such as the hatching event. This is surprising because in all cases (10, 30, 45, 90 and 180°), they could document the hatching at nearly the same moment (about 20 mm; Fig. 2). I acknowledge that with 180° interval it is not the exact same moment, so it might be good to specify that “poor resolution” means 180°. I think that there are in the discussion too many unclear or uninformative terms such as "more or less" (l. 173), “smaller”, “larger”, “poor”. I strongly recommend that the authors more strongly link the discussion to their results.
This might actually be solved with a restructuring of the paragraphs included in the discussion, as I commented already above, perhaps?

In conclusion, I have great confidence that this paper overall meets the standards for publication in PeerJ; and I therefore believe that this paper will be acceptable after minor revision.

Here are my minor suggestions-only to the authors:

→ Title: I suggest “How many ontogenetic points are needed to adequately/suitably/satisfactorily/accurately describe the ontogeny of a cephalopod conch?”, the way you actually wrote it L. 23 and L. 53.
→ Title: “living” instead of “modern” might be even more straightforward
→ L. 18: “ morphological analysis” in plural?
→ L. 24: replace “the effect” with “the impact”?
→ L.26: replace “trajectories of a conch” with “trajectories of one/a single conch”, i.e., the way you wrote it L. 73 “a single adult specimen”
→ L. 36: Could you already in the abstract briefly give some reasons why “for ammonoids, a much denser sampling may be required”?
→ L. 44:  “yet” or “although” might be here more appropriate than “whereas”
→ L. 46: “ideal model group”. I think one of these two terms is enough: “cephalopods are an ideal group” or “cephalopods are an ideal model”. I would also right after this sentence add what you wrote in the abstract, i.e., write that this is because the entire ontogeny is visible within a conch.
→ L. 52: “throughout ontogeny”?
→ L. 67: regarding the intervals, see my comment in the “experimental design” section
→L. 68: replace “the effect” with “the impact”?
→ L. 73: I suggest you write “Linnaeus, 1758” with the very first mention of Nautilus pompilius, i.e., L. 61.
→ L. 75: “..collected in Southeast Asia (exact locality unknown)”
→ L. 83: “(e.g., Korn 2010…) since there many other works that could be cited here.
→ L. 85: “WWI = ww/dm1”, isn't it?
→ L. 86: Shouldn’t it be “ah” instead of “wh” in “vd/wh”. I don’t see any “wh” in Figure 1F. Furthermore, you write “additionally, the number of septa was counted every 180° and here I get confused since in Figure 4, there is a SSI graph for each case (10°, 30°, 45°, 90° and 180°).
→ L. 94: I am not sure the word “gaps” fits the best here. I only suggest “differences” or “disparity”.
→ L. 98: “There is a critical point….plateau” You might want to call Figure 2 and 3 here.
→ L. 102: “WWR decreases until a diameter of approximately 25 mm, followed by a relatively stable value at about 2.8. Is this regardless of the intervals taken for measurements? In case you are referring to a specific figure here, you should call it (as done in the next sentence). Is this value of 2.8 of importance? If yes, shouldn’t you add a horizontal line on the graphs to represent this mean value?
→ L. 103: “Before the attainment of maturity at a diameter of about 100mm…WER show an increase to reach nearly 3.0” As it is, the sentence is misleading. The reader could understand that the attainment of maturity occurs at a diameter of about 100 mm, which is not the case if I am not mistaken (maturity is reached at a diameter of about 180 mm). I would remove “Before the attainment of maturity” as it is not very informative or write: “At a diameter of about 100mm, WER shows an increase to reach nearly 3.0 at maturity”.
→ L. 104-107: “WWI displays…..becomes roughly stable at 0.53 in later ontogeny” Again, is this regardless of the invervals taken for measurements? Is this value of 0.53 of importance? If yes, shouldn’t you add a horizontal line on the graphs to represent this mean value?
→ L. 107: “The morphogenetic countdown in WWI starts at a diameter of approximately 140 mm”. I suggest you add “140 mm, instead of 100 mm for WER” so that the reader is reminded of the difference in the onset of the morphogenetic countdown depending on the parameters.
→ L. 108: “SPI rapidly increases…” Actually for WWI, WER, SPI and SPI, shouldn’t there be a “the” before? “The SPI” as for “the Septal Spacing Index”
→ L. 110: “showing some fluctuating trend” This is not very informative. Furthermore, couldn’t it be some noise due to measurement errors?
→ FIG. 4A: I am not sure to understand why you think the onset of the morphogenetic countdown is at a diameter of about 75 mm. I don’t see anything peculiar there. In the text, you do not say anything about this value of 75 mm. Since you write that “Throughout the rest of ontogeny, SPI decreases, most likely indicating the onset of the morphogenetic countdown”, you should put it at a diameter of about 50 mm to be consistent.
→ L. 123: “ The second distinct growth change occurs before the attainment of maturity” The word “before” is not very informative. Would it be wrong to write “shortly before”? And then write “However, the timing of the onset of this morphogenetic countdown appears to vary among the conch parameters”.
→ L. 135: “there is a slight growth change… of approximately 120 mm” I suppose this is visible in Figs. 2B, D and F.
→ L. 142: “which is first documented here” See my comment in “Validity of the findings” section.
→ L. 172: I don’t quite understand the title of this section.
→ L. 173: “are more or less sufficient”. I think you shouldn’t use “more or less” here. The aim of your study was precisely to assess when measurement intervals were or were not sufficient. From your results, I think you can assert that measurements taken at demi-whorls are sufficient in revealing overall ontogenetic trends.
→ L. 177: “This follows that when addressing…” Would it be possible to rephrase the beginning of this sentence? It is not clear to me what you mean.
→L. 179: “is desirable” Given what you just wrote in the previous sentence, I think you should replace “desirable” with “mandatory”. Maybe also precise that what you mean with “higher resolution” is a minimum of 45°.. and optimally <30°.
→ L. 188: “…short term fluctuations in growth parameters vary profoundly in intensity between the two groups”. Fluctuations that vary is an unnecessary repetition:. I suggest: “..there are short-term but profound fluctuations in growth parameters between the two groups”.
→ L. 190: it’s better that you cite again “Tajika et al. submitted” at the end of this sentence.
→ L. 191: “smaller” Please be more specific, smaller than what? 45°? 30°?
→ L. 193: “thus allowing for larger angular increments” Again you could be more specific: give here a optimal value, which you actually give in the abstract (45°)
→ L. 198: “when working with a fewer number of ontogenetic points” perhaps?
→ L. 199: replace “the growth change” with “this growth change”
→L. 201 “accuracy is diminished at larger angular increments”. Isn't it is too obvious to be stated? (at least the way it is written - the following sentences are much more informative).
→ L. 207-211: I recommend that somehow you write the information contained in these two sentences as precisely in the discussion. It seems to me that it is more confusing as it is written for the time being in the discussion.