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: SCENARIOS OF AVAILABILITY OF WATER DUE TO OVEREXPLOITATION OF THE AQUIFER IN THE BASIN OF LAGUNA DE SANTIAGUILLO, DURANGO, MEXICO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of the manuscript must be revised
The materials and methods section is not complete.
It is not possible to verify the calculations made since the raw data of the different variables are not known (for example, rain, temperature, evaporation)
The period of time for which the balance was calculated is not identified.
The sources of information on socioeconomic factors are not indicated.
The authors should review the application of the concept of microbasin to the aquifer..
There is no detailed review of the state of the art. There are numerous articles on this subject.
The format of the references must be homogeneous
Do not use the word "underground water". It's groundwater
The legends of the maps are in Spanish.
Experimental design: The materials and methods section is not complete.
Details are displayed in "General comments for the author"
Validity of the findings: Details are displayed in "General comments for the author"
Additional comments: Lines 77-80. The author must use the data of the National Water Commission
(CONAGUA 2017 Water Statistics in Mexico http://sina.conagua.gob.mx/publicaciones/EAM_2017.pdf)
"The annual average 79 rainfall in Mexico is of a volume of 1511 km, which classifies Mexico as a country with low water availability" This sentence should be revised. I recommend using the concept of Degree of Pressure. This concept is found in the previous document.
Lines 91-94. The author must use the data of the National Water Commission
(CONAGUA 2017 Statistics on water in Mexico http://sina.conagua.gob.mx/publicaciones/EAM_2017.pdf)
Line 114. The case study is in Mexico. The authors should include examples of aquifers in the country. These examples should focus on the environmental and economic effects that overexploitation has produced.
Lines 172-173. What type of classification was used? It lacks the reference to the climate classification system. The values of average, maximum and minimum temperature and average precipitation should be included
Lines 240-243. Soil textures. The textural classification of the soil must be more precise. Authors should use the triangle of soil textures (USDA reference)
Line 247. Bibliography reference is not included.
Line 258. The information sources of all these factors (health, education, housing, etc.) must be included. These factors are included in the marginalization index. I would recommend the authors include the values of this index and explain their meaning in detail.
Line 306. The objective of the study includes groundwater. The description of the study area does not include the description of the aquifer and its characteristics.
Line 334. Land use varies over time. The authors must indicate to which year the data correspond.
Line 349 and following. This section is difficult to understand. The authors should bear in mind that non-Mexican readers can not know the method of calculating the balance used in Mexico. This method must be explained in the materials and methods section.
The authors must include raw data of the calculations made to know the availability by microbasin.
Line 419. The balance is established by CONAGUA. The authors can carry out a discussion of their values. For example, buy the recharge data from line 284 with the data presented in this section.
Line 448. This section should go before the surface water balance section
Line 468 and following. The authors should review the application of the concept of microbasin to the aquifer. An aquifer is a geological formation whose limits are those of a hydrogeological nature (impervious materials, faults, etc.). The limits of a basin can not be applied in an aquifer.
Availability calculations with microbasins can only be applied to surface waters.
Table 6. It is not possible to verify if the calculations are correct. Calculations of groundwater balances can not be made by micro-watersheds.
Tables 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The method of calculating these indicators is not explained in the materials and methods section.
Figure 5 is repeated with table 4.


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: SCENARIOS OF AVAILABILITY OF WATER DUE TO OVEREXPLOITATION OF THE AQUIFER IN THE BASIN OF LAGUNA DE SANTIAGUILLO, DURANGO, MEXICO
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: There is a mismatch between the title and the content of the paper: the paper only analyses the aspects of overexploitation of the Laguna de Santiaguillo aquifer. I suggest changing the title to this effect.

Related to the aspect mentioned above I suggest replacing your keywords with the following: aquifer overexploitation, fresh water availability, modeling scenarios in watersheds, Laguna de Santiaguillo

The English language needs improvement.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The paper is not far from a possible publication. Besides the inconsistency between the title and the content (vulnerability of the population being not adequately treated), the work also requires other interventions. Some specific comments are listed in the order of reading the text:

1. the text in lines 71-76 should be supplemented with a more detailed explanation of the term "water availability".
2. lines 89-90: please, replace Banco Mundial with the English name ;
3. lines 172-173: please, give more details about what climate classification is;
4. lines 179-206: it would be more useful to complement the characterization of rivers and their hydrographic basins in terms of flows and hydrological regime;
5. lines 306-309: it is necessary to redefine the aim of the article;
6. lines 335-342: please, explain in more detail how you got the map in Figure 4;
7. the text from the rows 350-353 and 449-452 should be moved to the Methodology section;
8 lines 396, 397, 399, 400, 415, 422, 423 and 425: please express the values in cubic meters (not hectometers);


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: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED PET/MRI WITH PET/CT IN EVALUATION OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 81 CASES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Dear authors,
I think that this paper is very interesting and the topic is surely original and not well-investigated previously also due to the low number of patients studied with PET/CT.
The authors focused on the metabolic behaviour of endometrial cancer comparing 18F-FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI.
The topic presented by authors and their analysis are fascinating and with possible clinical implications both for nuclear medicine physicians and oncologist.
However, in the paper are present some points to improve and correct to let the paper more clear and complete.
After these improvements and corrections, I think that the article could be accepted.

MAIN COMMENTS

-	The language should be revised by and English native speaker.
-	In your work you demonstrated a detection rate of 100% for primary tumor with PET/CT and PET/MRI, a very high value. It would be interesting to have the tumor size of the primary lesion. One of the limit of PET/CT is the resolution power (about 5 mm), so it’s very important to understand the tumor size of the lesion. Are all more than 1 cm?

ABSTRACT
-	You use PET/CT or PET-CT and PET/MRI or PET-MRI to explain the same thing. Please choose one of these and use it.

INTRODUCTION
-	In the introduction section when you described the indications of PET/CT in endometrial cancer you did not cite the importance of PET in restaging field (which is well described in literature and probably the main indication). Please add some papers in references section; for example: Clinical and prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT in recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2018

MATERIALS AND METHODS
-	You have written “Two radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians with extensive experience in gynaecological imaging” what do you mean? How many years? Are they expert on PET and CT and MRI?

RESULTS
-	When you described the two groups (37 and 44), you should compare if there are differences statistically significant between the two groups considering age, stage, histological subtype,.. After these analyses you can conclude that the two groups are homogeneous for the main clinical and epidemiological features and so it is possible to compare the diagnostic accuracy of  PET/CT and PET/MRI. Revise table 1 and table 2 adding a column with p value
-	Please describe site of regional lymph nodes and abdominal metastases: inguinal, iliac, ...liver, ovary,...

DISCUSSION

-	The advantages of PET/MRI are many and useful, but there are also some limitations of this technique: the availability, the cost, patients with peacemaker, claustrophobia,.. Please explain also the disadvantages of this method in the discussion section.

REFERENCES
-	I found some references related to the topic that you did not include. Please add it. (Comparison of 18F-FDG PET/MRI and MRI alone for whole-body staging and potential impact on therapeutic management of women with suspected recurrent pelvic cancer: a follow-up study. Sawicki LM, Kirchner J, Grueneisen J, Ruhlmann V, Aktas B, Schaarschmidt BM, Forsting M, Herrmann K, Antoch G, Umutlu L.;  Diagnostic performance of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging fusion images of gynecological malignant tumors: comparison with positron emission tomography/computed tomography. Nakajo K, Tatsumi M, Inoue A, Isohashi K, Higuchi I, Kato H, Imaizumi M, Enomoto T, Shimosegawa E, Kimura T, Hatazawa J.).


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: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED PET/MRI WITH PET/CT IN EVALUATION OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 81 CASES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The specific parameters of pet/ct, pet/mri and pet/mri are expected to be listed.
Experimental design: The number of samples is small. Especially the number of positive lymph nodes is too small.
Validity of the findings: We do not think that such few and controversial conclusions about positive lymph nodes should be listed
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: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED PET/MRI WITH PET/CT IN EVALUATION OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 81 CASES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is clear, literature references are adequate. Tables must improved. English language editing is needed.
Experimental design: Research question is well defined and although the information provided are not completely novel they could be useful in clinical practice.
Methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: Although the data can not be considered conclusive, given their relevance in the clinical field, can serve as a starting point for further studies
Additional comments: The paper by Bian et al. provides a retrospective observational study with the aim to compare integrated PET/MRI with PET/CT in pre-surgical evaluation of endometrial cancer. The study population is of 81 women, a small cohort considering the high incidence rate of endometrial cancer. Moreover, many previous studies have investigated this issue, also in larger studies. Therefore, the information provided is not completely novel. However, in the era of sentinel node mapping, pre-surgical radiological staging has taken a crucial role in the management of endometrial cancer patients.
The description of the two radiological techniques appears adequate and the scientific relevance of the presented study seems adequate.
On the other hand, some criticisms have to be raised:
General points:
a)	Introduction is well written, but the results section is really poor and tables may be improved with more details.
b)	Please underline in the discussion section the concept that in the era of sentinel node pre-surgical evaluation has taken a crucial role in the management of endometrial cancer and that although this article cannot provide definitive conclusions, it illustrates a further useful tool to define the correct surgical planning for patients with endometrial cancer.
c)	The manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form as the English language needs substantial editing.
Specific points:
a)	 Line 121-122: There is probably an error related to the number of patients (30 or 81?).
b)	Table 1: It appears difficult to read, confusing in the organization of rows and columns.
c)	Table 2 should provide information about tumor histotype. In reality, patients are only divided by grading. There is no information concerning the histotype (endometrioid, clear cells, serous, etc.). On the other hand, it’s not clear to me why the terms CIN III and Leiomiosarcoma are present, considering that there are no patients with this diagnosis and that the study is specifically focused on patients with endometrial cancer.
d)	Please provide in Table 2 the division between patients with FIGO stage IIIC1 and IIIC2.


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: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED PET/MRI WITH PET/CT IN EVALUATION OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 81 CASES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors revised the manuscript following reviewers suggestions and now the paper is more clear and complete.
I suggest to accept the 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: COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED PET/MRI WITH PET/CT IN EVALUATION OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 81 CASES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper can be accepted in its revised form
Experimental design: The paper can be accepted in its revised form
Validity of the findings: The paper can be accepted in its revised form
Additional comments: The paper can be accepted in its revised 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: TRAJECTORIES OF CHANGE AFTER A HEALTH-EDUCATION PROGRAM IN JAPAN: DECAY OF IMPACT IN ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Background:  In the title as well as the literature review, it is not clear whether the term trajectory of change refers to (1) a  post-intervention change in behavior , (2) a change in the course of chronic illness as a result of the change in behavior brought about by health education, or  (3)  the change in sustained application of learned skills in specific chronic disease self-management?
. The authors need to clearly articulate what they mean by trajectory of change. The context of what is being discussed needs a little more expansion in the introduction, especially the concept of decay of impact after health education.
Experimental design: The authors need to address or re-articulate clearly the following questions.
1.What is the study population?
2.What is the sampling method used?
What is/are the research question(s)?  What is/are the dependent variable (s)or the outcome(s)? And what are the independent variables? The research question should be well defined, relevant & meaningful.
Validity of the findings: The authors need to address or re-articulate clearly the answers to the following questions, which impact the validity of their findings.
What is the established validity and reliability of each of the research instruments?
Factors affecting the outcome of a chronic disease self-management program have been identified in a prior research (Schulman‐Green, et al., 2016). Accordingly,  they include "personal/ lifestyle characteristics, health status, resources, environmental characteristics and health care system".  It appears that health education is just one piece in a large puzzle and may not appear to explain all the reasons for decay of impact. The authors need to address all these and other confounding factors.
       The authors mention that they resorted to self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions instead of medical records because self-reported diagnosis is accurate enough for research. Nonetheless, this reviewer would argue that  self-reported diagnosis is exactly what it is: self-reported; and everyone who feels “bad, sad, or mad” may report they are anxious or depressed As a matter of fact, the  validity of a self-reported diagnosis of depression among participants in a cohort study even using  Structured Clinical Interview, which is the Gold Standard, was found to be  74.2%, Sanches-Villegas et al., (2008).  Although audience analysis may be one of the important first steps to accomplish before conducting a health education program, the benefits of conducting a survey of the type suggested by the authors in this study every time a health education is planned should be weighed against the cost-effectiveness of such an intervention.
References
- Schulman‐Green, D., Jaser, S. S., Park, C., & Whittemore, R. (2016). A metasynthesis of factors affecting self‐management of chronic illness. Journal of advanced nursing, 72(7), 1469-1489.
- Sanchez-Villegas, A., Schlatter, J., Ortuno, F., Lahortiga, F., Pla, J., Benito, S., & Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A. (2008). Validity of a self-reported diagnosis of depression among participants in a cohort study using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-I). BMC psychiatry, 8(1), 43.

Additional comments: In sum, the authors need to state how the research fills an identified knowledge gap and how the new knowledge will be used to influence population health policies and programs  in the application of health education in chronic disease self-management programs in the study area and beyond.


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: TRAJECTORIES OF CHANGE AFTER A HEALTH-EDUCATION PROGRAM IN JAPAN: DECAY OF IMPACT IN ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors for the narration of the problem right from the introductory part of the manuscript. Nonetheless, many of the literature cited is rather too old; it is suggested that more recent literature is added to this section.
Experimental design: 1. It seems that the study data are solely based on self-reported responses acquired from the respondents therefore, it is essential for the reliability of such responses to be carried out prior to any further analysis. No, any reliability analysis is reported within the manuscript.
2. A more detail explanation on how the GMM is implemented needs to be highlighted in order to allow replication of the analysis in other studies.
Validity of the findings: 1. More explanation should be provided within the groups defined by trajectories supported by the literature
2. Recent literature should be cited to support the findings of the study. Many of the literature cited is quite old.
Additional comments: The authors assessed the effectiveness of a health education programme in benefiting patients with chronic diseases. It was inferred that the benefit of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program in Japan could be effectively measured through the employment of GMM as well as the Logistic regression analysis with respect to more sample size. Overall, the manuscript is well written, and the findings might be useful to the health educators and other relevant stakeholders in evaluating the effectiveness of health intervention programmes. However, a number of issues need to be addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: TRAJECTORIES OF CHANGE AFTER A HEALTH-EDUCATION PROGRAM IN JAPAN: DECAY OF IMPACT IN ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is useful for studying health education and behavioral science. The researcher has presented his writing well along with the necessary descriptions. However, detailed reporting of the research process needs to be added.
Elaboration related to the behavioral theory discipline needs to be given to provide an understanding of the operation of the theory of behavior for readers.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Researchers need to present a more detailed explanation of the guarantee of validity in sample selection, data collection and data analysis
Additional comments: this paper is useful for the development of behavioral science especially health education. Researchers need to present more detailed research processes so that other researchers can use it to conduct similar research. In general, the use of analytical methods (GMM) needs to bring up aspects of benefits in their use in health education applications in the field.
. I give some suggestions to the author
1.	Demographic and clinical information were collected using self-administered (line 114) . Author need to add such explanation how to guarantee the precision of information collected.
2.	In the research background the author mentioned this statement: Health education can benefit people with chronic diseases. However, in previous research those benefits were small, and reinforcement to maintain them was not effective. A possible explanation is that the benefits appeared to be small and reinforcement appeared to be ineffective because those analyses mixed data from two latent groups: one group of people who needed reinforcement and one group of people who did not. The hypothesis is that mixing the data from those two different groups caused the true effects to be “diluted”.   I suggest author to add some elaboration in discussion section to benefit your finding pertaining with this statement.
3.	To test that hypothesis we used data from the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program in Japan, focusing on anxiety, depression, and patient-physician communication. Author need to explain why that type of disease was chosen instead of others.
4.	Data were collected from participants in the CDSMP in Japan. They were recruited through public service centers and the Internet homepage of the Japan Chronic Disease Self Management Association (Japan Chronic Disease Self-Management Association, 2018). (line 101-103). On my point of view author need to explain  which sampling method applied to this research a little bit more detail?
5.	Data were collected four times over one year. Author need to explain how to prevent bias? By repeating the same question, respondent may learn and create certain respond.
6.	How about the participation rate? Did all of them submit respond?  Please give some explanation.
7.	In result section, from 456 participants were analyzed. Among them, 79% were women, 48% were college educated,52% of respondents were partnered (married or living with someone) (line 155).  In my view, the author needs to elaborate about the differences in research results between  groups of respondents, given that the dynamics of information sharing between groups may be different.


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: TRAJECTORIES OF CHANGE AFTER A HEALTH-EDUCATION PROGRAM IN JAPAN: DECAY OF IMPACT IN ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This reviewer commends the authors for adequately addressing the questions, comments and clarifications requested previously on basic reporting.
Experimental design: The questions and comments made on research methodology,  including research questions and method of data collection have been well addressed.
Validity of the findings: The authors have provided the validity and reliability of survey instruments used in their research as requested. The authors have provided point by point response to the reviewer's questions and have incorporated most of the comments made by this reviewer.
Additional comments: I commend the authors' for their attention to detail in their responses to questions, comments, and requests for clarification.


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: TRAJECTORIES OF CHANGE AFTER A HEALTH-EDUCATION PROGRAM IN JAPAN: DECAY OF IMPACT IN ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PATIENT-PHYSICIAN COMMUNICATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is sufficient
Experimental design: It has been revised as suggested
Validity of the findings: Adequately addressed
Additional comments: I thank the authors for revising the manuscript as per suggested.


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: DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION IN SKELETAL ORGANIC MATRIX PROTEINS OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED ARAGONITE/CALCITE SKELETONS UNDER LOW MMG/CA CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: After revision, the manuscript should be sent to an English grammar service before resubmission.

References should be reviewed for correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.
Experimental design: The authors previously (2014) used XRD analysis to quantify calcite versus aragonite in primary skeletons of the same coral species studied in the present manuscript.  XRD has the advantage over Meigen’s stain of being unambiguous and quantitative.  Since the authors previously performed this analysis (and strengthened their 2014 paper with it), I’m curious as to why this analysis was not performed here.  It should be done in place of the Meigen’s stain.

Line 127. DAVID requires a background gene set and there were recently no pre-built ones for corals.  Did the authors make their own?  If so, they should give details.  If they used a pre-built one from another organism, their enrichment could be way off.
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: DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION IN SKELETAL ORGANIC MATRIX PROTEINS OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED ARAGONITE/CALCITE SKELETONS UNDER LOW MMG/CA CONDITIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The current manuscript presents new research pertaining to a coral specie Acropora tenuis. The transcriptomes for Acropora have previously been reported, however, authors of this manuscript tried to investigate the differential expression of genes under low Mg/Ca ratio compared to normal seawater conditions where aragonite is formed by these corals.
Their observations report candidates up-regulated and down-regulated under lowMg/Ca ratio that forms a mixed crystal of calcite and aragonite (which was reported earlier in Higuchi et al. 2017.
Few comments on figures:
Table1: This table has a portion of p and eValues missing in the corresponding columns of the table, and a qualifying cutoff must be added to the figure legend for the convenience of the readers.
Figure1: Some spots on 1a are unstained like 1b, does it mean that 1a also contains calcite? Has this been tested? 1b has some slight stained spots form Meigen’s staining process, with major unstained regions. Has calcite to aragonite ratio been quantified in both the cases? Including this information would be useful.
Experimental design: In this paper, authors are trying to understand the mechanisms involved in making calcite or aragonite in coral skeletons.
Transcriptomics of Acropora tenuis in low Mg conditions showed differential expression of certain genes identified previously.
Adding following information to the manuscript would be helpful.
- A comparison of genes upregulated during calcite formation in shell formers with the current calcite coral data, along with genes upregulated during aragonite formation in aragonite coral vs the previous transcriptomes from Acropora and stylophora. This table would be necessary for a better understanding of differences in calcite and aragonite forming genes.
- A supplemental figure on the list of sequences of proteins mentioned in Figure 3a and 3b from Acropora Tenuis.
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No comments


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

Input:
Title: DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION IN SKELETAL ORGANIC MATRIX PROTEINS OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED ARAGONITE/CALCITE SKELETONS UNDER LOW MMG/CA CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I caught a few minor English grammar mistakes that I have taken the liberty of noting in my comments below.
Experimental design: I strongly recommend repeat XRD analysis of the skeleton samples to achieve higher intensities.  Normally, the calcite peak is much higher than the aragonite peaks, even when the relative proportion of calcite is very low (as the authors have themselves shown in their previous work with better mineral signal).  In the present manuscript, the authors present XRD data where the noise appears to be >10% of the mineral signal peaks.  This heavily complicates interpreting mineral relative composition.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I have taken the liberty of making a few suggestions on altered phrasing to improve the English language flow of the text.  Added or altered words are in italics.

1.	Lines 44, 45. Consider rewording as there is great diversity in calcite versus aragonite spicules in sponges, and calcite versus aragonite versus a mix in mollusks.
2.	Line 52.  Remove the second ‘mMg/Ca (right before the citation).
3.	Line 54. Consider rephrasing as ‘poorly reported form the fossil record whereas rudist bivalves, which produced calcite, were the main reef builder.’
4.	Line 56. Consider rephrasing as ‘… by which calcite versus aragonite crystals…’
5.	Line 59, 60.  Proteins don’t nucleate.  Consider rephrasing as ‘Changing crystal formation may be accompanied by differing nucleation properties of specific proteins…’
6.	Line 61.  Remove the parentheses.  They are unnecessary.
7.	Line 62, 63.  Make CARPs and SAARPs plural.
8.	Line 104.  Where five juveniles from each treatment analyzed?  If so, please explicitly state it.
9.	Line 105, 106; Figure 1.  I worry that the aragonite signal was not picked up in the updated XRD analysis as either the sample size was too small or the dwell time was insufficiently short.  The noise appears as >10% of the signal of aragonite and calcite peaks.  Additionally, the authors’ 2014 publication (with very good signal) indicates that under comparable low mMg/Ca conditions, calcite makes up ~20% of the mineral composition rather than >90% for the same coral species.  How do the author rationalize this?  The authors could easily re-run the samples on a diffractometer with larger sample size and longer dwell time to increase the intensity and allow better interpretation of the relative mineral content.
10.	Line 195. Consider rephrasing as ‘Thus, we propose that change in mMg/Ca in seawater…’
11.	Lines 200-204.  Leave out the part about removing Drake et al. 2013 skeletal proteins from you analysis and consider rephrasing the entire sentence as ‘Sixty eight potential skeletogenesis-related genes, i.e., those whose annotation names match skeletal proteins found in (Ramos-Silva et al., 2013), were upregulated…’
12.	Line 207. ‘… including the gene encoding thrombospondin…’ (thrombospondin not capitalized).
13.	Line 241.  Spell out the number six.


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: DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION IN SKELETAL ORGANIC MATRIX PROTEINS OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED ARAGONITE/CALCITE SKELETONS UNDER LOW MMG/CA CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been significantly improved, however,
1. The authors should consider reviewing the manuscript again through a service for English grammar, and especially to form short and crisp sentences.

For example Line 307 in discussion: (The resulting transcriptome data showed different gene subsets related to skeletogenesis.....between calcite and aragonite corals)
can be re-written as:
Our transcriptome data for gene subsets related to skeletogenesis is provided in the Figure-. The figure shows upregulation and downregulation of (x,y,z) genes implying the change in expression of these genes contribute to the formation of calcite or aragonite crystal polymorph.

2. Manuscript title needs to be more accurate (Changing expression in....) to may be differential gene expression in ...low Mg conditions OR Tracking changes in gene expression in...conditions OR Expression of genes change...under ..conditions).
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: Thank you for adding the XRD data and the additional text which has improved the draft.
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: DIFFERENTIAL GENE EXPRESSION IN SKELETAL ORGANIC MATRIX PROTEINS OF SCLERACTINIAN CORALS ASSOCIATED WITH MIXED ARAGONITE/CALCITE SKELETONS UNDER LOW MMG/CA CONDITIONS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for re-analyzing the 0.5 mM Mg/Ca sample by XRD with a larger sample size so as to obtain higher counts.


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

Input:
Title: A GREEN GARLIC (ALLIUM SATIVUM L.) BASED INTERCROPPING SYSTEM REDUCES THE STRAIN OF CONTINUOUS MONOCROPPING IN CUCUMBER (CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.) BY ADJUSTING THE MICRO-ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT OF SOIL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in clear English language, easy to read and to understand. The authors explain the prerequisite (the problem) and find a possible explanation, by combined knowledge from literature and from empiric observations in cucumber farming. Experimental design, results and discussion are all dedicated to prove or falsify the hypothesis.
Experimental design: The pot experiment contains the usual elements for verification and falsification of the authors hypothesis. Microbial community characterisation via PLFA reads a bit old-fashioned - since DNA based metagenome analysis methods have become comparably cheap and easily available. The results deriving from PLFA are acceptable, however, the chance to get a more detailed insight in the changes of microbial soil community changes is missed.
There is one specific minor flaw in the methodology, line 95: The addition of mineral nutrients was done in form of an organic fertilizer. It is specified by its nutrient contents, but not called by name or by type.
Validity of the findings: The experiment was done three times with 10 pots of each variant. The results are valuable for both, for research and for cucumber production, although the total effect on cucumber growth was not very high. Organic fertilizers release their nutrients over time, according to the biodegradation progress. A question remains open: can the observed effect on cucumber growth be related to increased nutrient mobilisation from this organic fertiliser?
Additional comments: No more comments than already given in the other sections.


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

Input:
Title: A GREEN GARLIC (ALLIUM SATIVUM L.) BASED INTERCROPPING SYSTEM REDUCES THE STRAIN OF CONTINUOUS MONOCROPPING IN CUCUMBER (CUCUMIS SATIVUS L.) BY ADJUSTING THE MICRO-ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT OF SOIL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing is hard to understand, and there are too many grammar/tense errors in the manuscript. Please ask a native English speaker for help. Line 81-82 is too colloquial. In Line 153,157 et al. 37°C there should be a space between the number and  unit. Please check thoroughly in the whole text.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Please see in General comments.
Additional comments: 1. In the introduction part the authors said (Line37-39)the continuous cropping obstacle will cause crop yield and quality reduction, why donot check the cucumber yield and quality?
2. Why choose t-test not ANOVA? Since monocropping and intercropping treatments were compared, an ANOVA analysis is recommended.
3.In all figures please mention n value.
4. In discussion part, you found the differences of  soil microbial structure and diversity after intercropping, please add the explaination the relation between this differces and croping obstacle reducing.
5. Less of "Growth and Photosynthetic Pigment Analyses" in discussion part.
6. It seems the authors are very casual to draft the MS. For example,Line63: .... and C and N  microbial biomass?????? Line 68:... improved P uptake????
7. In refernce Xiao et al. 2012, 2013, they did garlic-cucumber system in plastic tunnel,in discussion can make a comparasion of this two croping method.


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 ARIDITY INDEX GOVERNS THE VARIATION OF VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALPINE GRASSLAND, NORTHERN TIBET PLATEAU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 37, "..was the largest" comparing to what?

Line 40-43, those sentences are not scientifically written. Better change to "soils with higher carbon to nitrogen ratio and soil total nitrogen had larger biomass...", I assume this is a correlation test.

Line 43, "the most critical factor" comparing to what other factors?

Line 61, this sentence is not an example of altered climate changing grassland ecosystem, it has changes of grassland altering climate: "grassland degradation and disappearance affect climate..." Do the authors try to illustrate the impact is bidirectional?

Line 62, should soils be one part of the alpine grassland?

Line 71, use "influence" instead of "determine"?

Line 79, what is "50 mm intervals"? authors could just give the mean annual precipitation.

Line 81, note that the increases in soil temperature is due to the increases in air temperature. I think the sentence is line 80 better to be "Responses of grassland to climate change also varied if soil properties are different"?

Line 83, again, the word "determine" is strong, use "influence" instead

Line 87, omit "In addition"

Line 89, omit "In consequence"

Line 91, past tense too

Line 92, i don't see a "cause-effect" here, omit the first half sentence and change the other half to "To explain the mechanism of environmental variables affecting biomass in different vegetation types, we compared the contributions of the critical environmental variables to vegetation biomass between alpine steppe and meadow."

Figure 5, looks like an exponential curve would be more fitted than a linear
Experimental design: Line 110, what samples? Put "Plant BIO" here

Line 121, "at 4degreeC until measuring chemical properties"

Line 123, concentration not content, right?

Line 124, missing sentences describing quality control (e.g. srm recovery, etc)

Line 142, omit "Next"

Line 147, omit "finally", this is a new paragraph, so don't need to use "finally"

Line 147, what are "other variables"? do authors mean all the independent variables?
Validity of the findings: Line 154, relationship between... and...

Line 157-158, for correlation test, it is the r (not r2) usually being reported.

Line 160, typo? "...the least effect soil on species richness..."

Line 163, omit the first half sentence, start with results

Line 170, omit "obviously"

Line 172, ", and 3.18 to 149.30..."

Line 172, "latter difference"? do you mean differences in BIO?

Line 174-175, why using 30 as a threshold here? authors can just write the exact value out

Line 179, this sentence can be written more straightforward. something like "with the same increase/decrease of AI, larger increases/decreases would be found in steppe than in meadow"

Line 186, those biotic factors are environmental factors, so cannot use "both of which" later on. And is this sentence meaning "changes in BIO (due to changes in climate) also influence the environmental variables?" I am confused

Line 194-197, are those coefficients (e.g. -0.091, 0.111) significant? if not, there is just no correlation (effects).

Line 201, why cite Figure 6 for "our hypothesis"? I don't see any relevance

Line 203, if authors have "increased or decreased" for BIO in the first half sentence, should also use "more or less precipitation.." in the other half sentence. Or simply write "the aboveground biomass/vegetation index depends on the precipitation and temperature"

Line 206, I think this is obvious because AI is an index with information of both precipitation and temperature

Line 224, this sentence is talking about earlier studies, and I was expecting to see examples from literature, but authors give their own examples instead

Line 227-288, again, why using 30 as the divided number?

Line 235, if the decomposition rate is slower, there will be less nitrogen releasing out too, why the soil total nitrogen increases instead?

Line 243, should also discussing leaching (dissolved organic carbon)
Additional comments: This paper explores the effect and contribution of environmental factors on aboveground biomass in alpine steppe and alpine meadow in Tibetan Plateau in China. Environmental factors include annual mean temperature, annual mean precipitation, aridity index, soil total nitrogen, soil total carbon, soil C:N ratio, coverage and species richness. The main finding of this study is that, the aridity index is the critical factor that influencing the aboveground biomass in alpine grassland. I believe this paper adds important value to the community.


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 ARIDITY INDEX GOVERNS THE VARIATION OF VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALPINE GRASSLAND, NORTHERN TIBET PLATEAU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	There are some minor errors of writing in the manuscript (e.g. line 82& line102), please carefully check it.
2.	In figure 4, the bottom part of the confidence interval line of the error bar was missing, please revise it.
Experimental design: 1.	The MAT and MAP data used form Worldclim database website in the study was not well introduced, the authors should make more description of it (deriving algorithms, quality, resolution, accuracy, et al)
2.	The introduction of SEM method applied in the study was not clear, which makes it hard to comprehend how SEM works, and some more introduction should be added. Please make more explanation of the path coefficients derived from SEM, how did you define the grades of thickness of arrow in figure6?
3.	As shown in DEM layer of figure1, the Tibetan Plateau is vast with great elevation changes, which result in the high spatial heterogeneity of natural conditions. The sampling points of the study was concentrated in a line located almost in the same latitude in the middle of Tibet administrative division. Is that enough to explain the phenomenon of entire plateau? Please make further explanation about that.
Validity of the findings: 1.	The description of conclusion was ambiguous, please revise the part in a more specific way. In addition, the prospect of further study is recommended to be added in the part.
Additional comments: This study derived that AI was the dominating factor affecting the grassland vegetation variation characteristics through correlation analysis and redundancy analysis, then discussed the influence factors of two grassland types via structural equation modelling (SEM). The sampling method was robust and the experiment was well designed. However, there should be some enhancements and supplements of the manuscript before publishing.


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 ARIDITY INDEX GOVERNS THE VARIATION OF VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALPINE GRASSLAND, NORTHERN TIBET PLATEAU
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: None
Experimental design: None
Validity of the findings: Now the the fitted line for relationship between AI and Aboveground Biomass is exponential, authors can add few sentences discussing that. For example, if AI is not reaching to a certain point (20-30), the increases in Aboveground Biomass is minimum. But once AI is larger than 20-30, aboveground biomass would increase rapidly.
Additional comments: I really appreciated authors' hardworking on revising this paper. I only have one minor suggestions mention above. I suggested an acceptance for this 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 ARIDITY INDEX GOVERNS THE VARIATION OF VEGETATION CHARACTERISTICS IN ALPINE GRASSLAND, NORTHERN TIBET PLATEAU
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: 1. According to your explanation on the representativeness of the sampling points in Tibet Plateau in this study, it is not enough for the current samples to discuss the entire plateau. I would recommend you revise the study area in your title as central Tibet or southwestern Tibet Plateau.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for revising this manuscript. The revised version is a much clearer presentation of your research than the previous one. I believe that this manuscript is ready for publications after some minor modifications.


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: MULTI-SCALE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE/LAND COVER TYPES AND WATER QUALITY IN DIFFERENT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS IN FUXIAN LAKE BASIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic information of this paper is ok
Experimental design: The expeimental design of this paper is reasonable
Validity of the findings: Some intersting and meaningful results have been found
Additional comments: Fuxian Lake is a famous plateau freshwater lake with good water quality and deep lake water.
It is important to carry out the attribution analysis of water quality change here. The authors should supply more details about the data, and more important, point out the novelty of this study and also strengthen related discussion.

L.15-17: Point out the research significance or scientific question of this study
L. 56-85: Add more relevant references in Yunnan or Fuxian Lake
L. 159-162: The basis or meaning of such scale division needs to be emphasized
L.187-192: The test method for water quality data, accuracy (year, month or day) needs to be explained, the full name of TP, TN, COD needs to be added
L.205-203, L.372-375, those parts should remove to the Materials & Methods section.

Language: the language should be polish by native English speakers.

Tables and figures: to many tables and figures, it is recommended to delete


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: MULTI-SCALE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE/LAND COVER TYPES AND WATER QUALITY IN DIFFERENT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS IN FUXIAN LAKE BASIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The use of English needs to be improved throughout the paper, both to ensure that the content can be understood by reviewers and readers, and to make the paper more professional and of archival journal quality. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines:
line 69-77, much too long a sentence with grammar mistakes
line 80-85, also the same
line 98, the water quality is one of the best nature lakes?
line 99-101, three sentences were put together
...
The authors should check the whole paper to correct the similar expressions.

2. The field background/context provided should be more sufficient.
The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.

3. Article structure were clearly arranged and raw data were shared.

4. The result part should be well modified and further summarized.
Experimental design: 1. Original primary research is within Aims and Scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant & meaningful.

2. Rigorous investigation is performed to a high technical & ethical standard.

3. Methods described are simple and insufficient.
Validity of the findings: This study also got some new findings in the scale relationship between LULC (Land Use/Land Cover, LULC) types.
Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions needs to be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results.
Additional comments: Based on a variety of scales, this paper discusses the relationship between land use and water environment in different water source polluted areas in Fuxian lake basin. The research results are of great scientific significance for the rational planning of land type proportion in riparian zone, the control of urban land development and the improvement of water quality in the basin.

1. Why ignore training and samples of the 2005 in the study period. line 143

2. The whole research method is too simple. In the evaluation of the characteristics of land use, maybe it can be considered to construct a new characteristic index to re-discuss the relationship between land use and water quality.

3. It is suitable to choose three representative rivers polluted by phosphate rock, urban development and farmland as the analysis pair in the study. Give some more data support?

4. Many scholars may select the whole basin, sub-basin and buffer of three dimensions in order to develop relationship between land use and water quality of research. This paper chose a variety of scales to explore Fuxian lake watershed land use different water pollution and water quality, please show the main innovation points of this article?

5. In this paper, selection of the whole basin, basin and buffer three scales, among them, the buffer size to choose the 100 m and 300 m, 500 m, 700 m and 1000 m, 300 m buffer scales are discussed is the biggest impact of the spatial scale, but there is no contrast buffer 300 m scale and whole watershed scale, watershed scale effect on the relationship between land use and water quality.

6. The conclusion part should be more simple and clear to show the reader the what conclusion can be made more clearly.

7. If the decrease of cultivated land does not improve the water quality, can it be concluded that one of the important reasons for the deterioration of water quality in this area is the rapid increase of impervious surface? Is this conclusion representative or taken out of context?


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: MULTI-SCALE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE/LAND COVER TYPES AND WATER QUALITY IN DIFFERENT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS IN FUXIAN LAKE BASIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
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: MULTI-SCALE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND USE/LAND COVER TYPES AND WATER QUALITY IN DIFFERENT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS IN FUXIAN LAKE BASIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal
Validity of the findings: corrected well
Additional comments: The authors have corrected all the questions, and answered the in the correct way.


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: SHOOT AND ROOT TRAITS OF SUMMER MAIZE HYBRID VARIETIES WITH HIGHER GRAIN YIELDS AND HIGHER NITROGEN USE EFFICIENCY AT LOW NITROGEN APPLICATION RATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The is need for prof reading from the an English speaking person or prof-reading services.  There are lots of grammatical errors that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.
2. On the introduction the author need focus more on the  physiology on what has been done in terms of nitrogen use efficiency.  see the following papers

Bänziger, M., Setimela, P. S., Hodson, D., & Vivek, B. (2006). Breeding for improved abiotic stress tolerance in maize adapted to southern Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 80(1–3), 212-224

Bänziger, M., G. O. Edmeades, and H. R. Lafitte. "Selection for drought tolerance increases maize yields across a range of nitrogen levels." Crop science 39.4 (1999): 1035-1040.
Bänziger, M., F. J. Betrán, and H. R. Lafitte. "Efficiency of high-nitrogen selection environments for improving maize for low-nitrogen target environments." Crop Science 37.4 (1997): 1103-1109.
Bänziger, M., and H. R. Lafitte. "Efficiency of secondary traits for improving maize for low-nitrogen target environments." Crop Science 37.4 (1997): 1110-1117.

3. From the attached citation the introduction and the background can be improved.

Abstract:
Line 19 remove the background
Line 21 remove the word methods
Line 25 remove the word Results
Line 31 remove the word Discussion

The state the objective of research or the rationale for doing the research. From the abstract state the design used. Proof reading is need and follow the style of the journal.

Introduction:

Line 36 There is no citation for Tester and Kandgride
Line 38-40 State how nitrogen fertilizer has caused problems in agriculture.  Line 43 can be combined to show the effects of nitrogen fertilizer

Line 48 there is need for a citation on China being the largest consumer of nitrogen fertilizer

Line 48-60; The paragraph is too long break it into two
Line 81-86 ; Some of the materials should be moved to materials and methods or simply delete
Experimental design: 1.mention the season when the experiment was conducted
2. How were the two hybrids identified as NUE  and non-NUE.
3. Line 100 can be combine with line 90
4. Line 105 need revision
5. Pn and PNUE- define the abbreviation before use
6. Line 117 its not clear why the midrib is being avoided.
7. Line 135; replace the worked killed
8. On the materials and methods include the linear model for the experiment.
9. What the maturity of the two hybrids
Validity of the findings: 1. There is need sure that the experiment is bring in new information.
2. The experiment could have been better if more genotypes were used. That will increase the validity of the experiment and increase the population of inference.
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: SHOOT AND ROOT TRAITS OF SUMMER MAIZE HYBRID VARIETIES WITH HIGHER GRAIN YIELDS AND HIGHER NITROGEN USE EFFICIENCY AT LOW NITROGEN APPLICATION RATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The title of the manuscript and the text provide evidence that are important quality assessors of corn hybrids for breeders. I admit that I am not a professional in English but I understand and technically what I read is fine.
The introduction and background are clear and consistent with the cited quotations. Follow order in the development of the text. I consider it to be within the Peer journal standard.
Experimental design: The materials and methods are widely described in detail with sufficient detail and information to replicate. The statistical procedures are adequate.
Validity of the findings: The result is not novel, however it provides knowledge, the evaluation in hybrid germplasm updates the evaluation methodology. It is possible to evaluate this methodology using others and more hybrids as well as other places. The data are sufficient and strengthen a clear analysis with quotes referred to in the text. Clear conclusions and are supported by data, congruent with the purpose of the manuscript.
I believe that it is important to update references, and to be selective those that really contribute or contrast what has been discussed. References of the last ten years is desirable.
Additional comments: I believe that the manuscript must be accepted and continue with the editorial process until its 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: ESTABLISHING AN ECOLOGICAL SECURITY PATTERN FOR URBAN AGGLOMERATION, TAKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HUMAN INTERFERENCE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout. (3/5)

1.1 Language and text format
•	The use of English needs to be improved throughout the paper, both to ensure that the content can be understood by reviewers and readers, and to make the paper more professional and of archival journal quality. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines:

Line 12: is one of the hot issues - a topic of conversation
Line 32: fruitful results - beneficial results
Line 212: More and more - Increasingly

•	Mind the tabs between sentences or parentheses (Line 89, Line 129-142, Figure 2. etc.)

2.	Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided. (3/5)

2.1	 Introduction and Literature Review

•	Introduction (Line 13): However, ecosystem services and human activities are seldom taken into comprehensive consideration in the assessment of ecological security patterns? Already existing literature and previous research indicate this statement?
•	Literature review in general covers the topic. However, considering that some of the methodological tools applied in this research are implemented using Geographic Information Systems (G.I.S), a further description in the Literature Review related to G.I.S and Environmental - Ecological Protection may be added in order to highlight how crucial is the use of G.I.S as a Decision Support Tool for Environmental Management and Natural Reserves preservation.
•      Some of the References are in the Chinese language therefore, in some parts of the research is not possible to cross the validity of the methods and procedures that are implemented.

3.	Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared. (3/5)

3.3 Figures and Tables

3.3.1 Tables:

Table 5: Weights of selected factors for geological hazard sensitivity
Comments:
•	How these weight values are calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process – AHP. Some further information may be added including the results from the AHP (e.g. Consistency Ration – C.R and Consistency Index - C.I)
•	Is any sensitivity analysis applied for the weighting factors?
   Table 7:  Logical coding legend may be added (the corresponding raster types).

3.3.2 Figures:

Figures in the Manuscript must be referred to: e.g. Figure 4.A or Figure 1.D, not as B in Figure 4 etc.

Figure 1: Map layout must be corrected (scale bar at the bottom, north arrow top left or right, the legend must be aligned correctly)
 Figure 2: Spatial patterns of ecological services. (A) Spatial patterns of water production service.  (B) Spatial patterns soil and water conservation service. (C) Spatial patterns of carbon fixation service (D) Spatial patterns of leisure and recreation service.
For Figures, 2.B and 2.D legend classifications are not clearly demonstrated to the maps (colors per each categorization). For example, in Figure 2.D only light blue areas are highlighted.
Figure 3: Non-basic Ecological Line Area must be changed (e.g. light grey) as long as it is not clearly demonstrated to the Legend.
Scalebar can be replaced to the bottom left corner of the Map.
Figure 5: Spatial patterns of resistance surface and ecological corridors (A) Spatial patterns of soil and water loss sensitivity. (B) Spatial patterns of night lighting. (C) Spatial patterns of geological hazard sensitivity index. (D) Spatial patterns of basic resistance surface. (E) Spatial patterns of the corrected resistance surface. (F) Spatial patterns ecological source level and ecological corridors.
Categorization between Figures 5.D (classified intervals) and 5.E (stretched color-bar) is different in spite of the fact that they are demonstrating the same indicator. It must be the same.
Figure 6: Comparison of ecological security patterns. (A) Ecological security spatial pattern (missing gap) (human disturbance) of Beijing−Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. (B) Ecological security pattern (ecological services) of the Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei urban agglomeration. (C) Ecological security pattern (ecological services, human disturbance) of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration. (D) The ecological corridor (human disturbance) of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration coincides with the current corridor. (E) The ecological corridor (ecological services) of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration coincides with the current corridor. (F) Ecological corridor (ecological services, human disturbance) of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration coincides with the current corridor.
(Comments on Figure titles are not appropriate. This can be referred to the Results section)
Scalebar must be placed to the bottom left corner of the Maps.
Multiple Vector data (Line shapefiles) are presented to the Figures, as a result, it is difficult to clarify all levels of information that are presented.

4.	Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses. (3/5)

•     A more detailed explanation for the added value of dividing ecological sources by combining logical coding and ecological service function types combined with the modified resistance surface is needed.
Experimental design: 1.	Original primary research within the Aims and Scope of the journal. (5/5) (No comment)

2.	Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. (3/5)

•      This study will determine the importance of dividing ecological sources by combining logical coding and ecological service function types. Why is this important and how this procedure is differentiated from previous studies? This research question must be further linked with the Litterature Review.
•	Why using the soil erosion sensitivity, geological hazard sensitivity, and nighttime light indices, and the modification of ecological resistance surface to identify ecological corridors is important and how this research fills an identified knowledge gap?

3.	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. (4/5) (No comment)

4.	Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. (4/5)

•	Section 2.3.1: Ecological service function assessment
Selected indices (water production service, water and soil conservation, carbon fixation service, and leisure and recreation service of the urban agglomeration in combination with the natural environment characteristics) are chosen based on previous work or under the consideration of the authors?
•     Section 2.3.2: Ecological Source level
A comparison with previous studies could be useful (e.g. Gurrutxaga et al. 2010: GIS-based approach for incorporating the connectivity of ecological networks into regional planning)
•	Section 2.4: Resistance surface
Selected indices (sensitivity to geological hazards, soil erosion, and night light) are chosen based on previous work or under the consideration of the authors?
How these weight values are calculated using the Analytical Hierarchy Process – AHP. Some further information may be added including the results from the AHP (e.g. Consistency Ratio – C.R and Consistency Index - C.I)?
Is any sensitivity analysis applied for the weighting factors?
Validity of the findings: 1.	Impact and novelty not assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. (4/5) (No comment)

2.	Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled. (3/5)

•	Section 2.2: Data acquisition and pre-processing. Multiple and non-homogeneous datasets are collected having different spatial analysis and resolution. All available datasets rescaled to a common spatial resolution? Furthermore, no pre-processing procedures are highlighted or mentioned.

To the Supplementary Files:
•	Spatial Resolution (Cell Size) is not the same for all .tif images. How the modeling procedures (e.g. Multi-criteria Analysis) are fulfilled with non-homogeneous Spatial Resolution?
•	Spatial Reference or Projected Coordinate Systems are not common for all available data. This is not necessarily a problem as long as ‘On the fly’ transformations during processing are possible, it is just mentioned.
•	Fault Zones data set has no Spatial Reference.
•	Pawc.tif and Geological Hazard Sensitivity.tif seem to be corrupted.

3.	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. (3/5)

•      How this research is differentiated regarding ecological source determination? (e.g. additional indices from previous works, more integrated analysis etc.)
•      How modified resistance surface improves the recognition of ecological corridors? Some further explanation may be added.

4.	Speculation is welcome but should be identified as such. (4/5)

•    Τhe discussion is somehow a repetition of the results. Note that the Discussion section combines the results with current knowledge on the topic and how this research effort highlights some advantages or drawbacks from previous investigations.
Additional comments: This work addresses a topic that I consider important for nature conservation and urban planning in the context of sustainable development and enriches the discussion on this. I congratulate the authors for their extensive data set and their effort to fulfill an integrated analysis related to Ecosystem Services and Nature Conservation and Planning. If there are some weaknesses, they are focused mainly in the use of English, some additional literature review and linkage of the research questions with the results discussion and corrections to some of the Figures and Tables (commented above) which should be improved upon before acceptance.

•	The use of English needs to be improved throughout the paper, both to ensure that the content can be understood by reviewers and readers, and to make the paper more professional and of archival journal quality.
•	Could you highlight more explicitly the advantages and limitations of the methodology and indicators used in this research? Could you describe more directly what is differentiated in your methodology and why Ecological Security patterns recognition is improved? (e.g. from Zhang et al. 2017 research)
•	A flow chart of the research processes could be useful in order to be easier for a reader or a reviewer to clarify the steps that are followed during each task, sub-models, sub-processes etc.
•       It is highly important to provide if all of the spatial procedures were implemented under a common spatial scale (cell size) (e.g. raster files cell size is varying from 100x100 meters to 1000x1000 meters).
•	Could you give more details about the sensitivity analysis carried out for example in the Resistance Surface Calculation (if it is needed) and what parameters and/or variables have an important influence on your model and the results?


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: ESTABLISHING AN ECOLOGICAL SECURITY PATTERN FOR URBAN AGGLOMERATION, TAKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HUMAN INTERFERENCE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper written by Wang et al. entailed an urban agglomeration ecological security pattern taking ecosystem services and human interference factors into consideration. The authors’ investigations indicated a research framework for identifying the ecological security pattern of urban agglomeration and provides scientific guidance for ecological protection and urban planning of the Beijing−Tianjin−Hebei urban agglomeration. In the whole manuscript, in my opinion, it has general scientific hypothesis, complete experimental design, some interesting findings and written well. The adopted methodology is appropriate and results are clear and interpreted well. And, the professional English is also good.
Experimental design: This study uses ecological services to determine ecological sources, divides the importance of ecological sources based on logical coding and functional types of ecological services, combines regional characteristics, synthetically chooses and quantitatively calculates three human disturbance factors and modifies the basic resistance surface of land use that identifies ecological corridor by combining these three disturbance factors. In my opinion, the original primary research is within scope of the PeerJ journal. The experimental design is relatively accurate and reasonable.
Validity of the findings: This study also got some new findings as the ecological source through quantitative evaluation of water production services, soil and water conservation, carbon fixation services, leisure and recreation services. Also, this study determined the importance of dividing ecological sources by combining logical coding and ecological service function types.
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: ESTABLISHING AN ECOLOGICAL SECURITY PATTERN FOR URBAN AGGLOMERATION, TAKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HUMAN INTERFERENCE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout. (3/5)

The use of English needs to be further improved throughout the paper as long as some spelling and grammar mistakes exist. Minor changes are provided to the annotated version of the manuscript.

2.	Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided. (4/5)

No comment

3.	Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared. (4/5)

Minor changes to some Tables and Figures titles.

4.	Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses. (4/5)

No comment
Experimental design: 1.	Original primary research within the Aims and Scope of the journal. (5/5)

No comment

2.	Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. (4/5)

No comment

3.	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. (5/5)

No comment

4.	Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. (5/5)
Validity of the findings: 1.	Impact and novelty not assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. (4/5)

No comment

2.	Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled. (4/5)

No comment

3.	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. (4/5)

No comment

4.	Speculation is welcome but should be identified as such. (4/5)

No comment
Additional comments: I want to congratulate and encourage the authors for their extensive and analytical revision. If there are some last minor revisions, they are mainly focusing on some spelling and grammar mistakes which should be improved upon before final acceptance.


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: ESTABLISHING AN ECOLOGICAL SECURITY PATTERN FOR URBAN AGGLOMERATION, TAKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND HUMAN INTERFERENCE FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is.
Experimental design: The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is.
Validity of the findings: The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is.
Additional comments: The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is.


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: EVALUATION OF FIVE REGIONS AS DNA BARCODES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LEPISTA SPECIES (TRICHOLOMATACEAE, BASIDIOMYCOTA) FROM CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: The use of ITS as a barcoding marker for a genus of mushroom forming fungus, Lepista is presented in this manuscript. Overall, this is a good paper and contributes to numerous other clades of fungi where the ITS region is a favorable barcoding marker.

Some comments to help the authors improve the quality of their paper are listed below:

1. Line 47, remove "(" before However. Line 48, delete 'believed', and then I think the sentence will make better sense.

2. Line 47–48, "two physical" rewrite as " as the two morphological characteristics...the sentence is unclear, please rewrite

3. Line 49, delete "some"

4. Line 54–57, DNA barcoding is different from phylogenetic analysis - please reframe your sentences here...

See these papers: Hajibabaei, M., Singer, G.A., Hebert, P.D. and Hickey, D.A., 2007. DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics and population genetics. TRENDS in Genetics, 23(4), pp.167-172
Vogler, A.P. and Monaghan, M.T., 2007. Recent advances in DNA taxonomy. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 45(1), pp.1-10.

5. Lines 61–63, please cite: Dentinger, B.T., Didukh, M.Y. and Moncalvo, J.M., 2011. Comparing COI and ITS as DNA barcode markers for mushrooms and allies (Agaricomycotina). PLoS One, 6(9), p.e25081. This is a key paper.

6. cox 1 has found to be unsuitable for fungi, so please don't refer in that it was judged to be a suitable barcoding marker...rather say it has been used for mushrooms previously...

7. Line 67, ITS, Internal transcribed spacer region.

8. Fig.1 Legend, explain the key results rather than simply stating what it means...Writing the legend with the key results will make manuscript more interesting for the reader. Same for Fig. 2.

9. Line 184, Lepista should be italics...

10. Are there type species in the samples analyzed? If so, please indicate. Also, how many species of Lepista have been sequenced? The work is based only on <10 species out of possibly 50 - does that give a good indication for the group? Have there been other studies of DNA barcoding on this group?

11. In Fig. 3, please only include values that are ≥70% (significant values) remove the rest as they are not indicative of strong bootstrap support.

12. What does a tree of all the combined markers look like compared to ITS tree? Perhaps add that to the Suppl information and deposit all alignments into TreeBase. This would make a nice, erudite addition to the 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: EVALUATION OF FIVE REGIONS AS DNA BARCODES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LEPISTA SPECIES (TRICHOLOMATACEAE, BASIDIOMYCOTA) FROM CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting
The text is written in a simple English.
 Introduction and background are not very relevant. In the introduction, I miss a hypothesis and/or objectives, questions. These sections are nor really informative enough.
Figures should be labelled on the base of different colours.
Raw data are available from NCBI database
Experimental design: Yes, the manuscript represents an original primary research within Scope of the journal.
The Research question is only mentioned into the abstract.
The investigation uses standard tools commonly applied in DNA sequencing and sequence analyses.
The methods are described with suﬃcient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty are not significant. The authors sequenced some genes, which are largely known to be too conservative.
Data is not robust and the phylogenetic analyses are not really sound. DNA sequences for several species of Lepista available from databases were not included.
Conclusions are in agreement with the evidence. It is difficult to understand the reason of why the authors are not including sequences from other databases in their analyses? Type-sites for some of these species are localized in Europe. In this way, for example, we should find or not depending of the species some intraspecific variation between natural distribution and new distribution site)
Additional comments: The authors should put together sequences from other collections (for example from Europe) available from GenBank and some other database. Some of the species analysed were described originally outside China. For this reason, I’m confident that for developing an accurate barcode approach is imperative to include collections from the complete ranges of geographic distribution of the species analysed, if these have a broad geographic distribution.


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: EVALUATION OF FIVE REGIONS AS DNA BARCODES FOR IDENTIFICATION OF LEPISTA SPECIES (TRICHOLOMATACEAE, BASIDIOMYCOTA) FROM CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written.
Experimental design: The experimental design is clearly stated.
Validity of the findings: The findings are novel and are suitable to be published in PeerJ.
Additional comments: The manuscript is well written but some small changes should be done before the paper is published. Please carefully check the annotated comments and revise the manuscript accordingly.


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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID, DIAPHORINA CITRI (KUWAYAMA), IN CHINA USING THE MAXENT MODEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript analyzed the potential spread of D. citri in china using the MaxEnt model to map the potential spread of D. citri in China under current climate scenarios, and the relationship between the spread of D. citri and the environmental factors. Therefore, the manuscript falls within the scope of the Peer J Journal. However, this manuscript is a bit confusing and it is hard, at least for this reviewer, to follow the introduction, the hypotheses, methodology and results obtained. In this senses, the manuscript would improve if it had a clearer distribution. Otherwise, it is very difficult to evaluate the findings.  My comments attachments try to improve some of the shortcuts I found during the reading.
Experimental design: It is knowing that D. citri is distributed in China (Yang et al. 2006; Ke et al., 1988; Tsai et al., 1988; CABI 2011 and EPPO 2014). However, there are four areas (Chongqing and Hubei) where this psyllid is not localized and the model confirm there are” high susceptibility” areas as a potential D. citri distribution. Maybe the authors could be focus the study on these areas where the psyllid is not present, it could be more interesting.
Validity of the findings: Furthermore, for the development of the potential distribution model the authors should be considered three main factors: a) the availability of susceptible hosts, b) data about the presence or absence of the D. citri in the areas and c) the suitability of climatic conditions for the development of D. citri. This might have affected the results obtained and therefore, it should be, at least, explained in the discussion.
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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID, DIAPHORINA CITRI (KUWAYAMA), IN CHINA USING THE MAXENT MODEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript should be checked against misspelling to better understand the paper. Some examples are marked in yellow in the manuscript (for example lines 49, 83, 100, 314 et seq.). Also, the authors should verify if they refer to the vector D. citri or host (lines 170, 336), kiwi is not known to be a host of this species, only Rutaceae. Some directions to paper sections are confuse, for example, line 166 “…evaluation criteria in 2.2” does not match any part of the manuscript because it is not numbered in their sections.

Some key papers are missing in the introduction, which address the potential distribution of D citri in other parts of the world, for example in Mexico (Lopez-Collado et al. 2013. J Insect Sc. 13, Art. 114), Mediterranean basin (Gutierrez & Ponti. 2013. Fla. Entomol. 96, 1375-1391), Australia (Aurambout et al. 2009. Ecol. Model. 220, 2512-1514), worldwide (Narouei-Khandan et al. 2016. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 144, 655-670). These papers involve a diverse array of methodologies dealing with the potential distribution of D. citri and may also serve to compare with variables selected in this paper.

In several places of the manuscript appears “contribution rate” referring to the proportion or fraction of the given variable to the total model fitting, therefore rate in the sense of change is not an accurate description of the value.

Figures also contain some misspelled words (Figs. 2, 3: Sensitive vs Sensitivity, prediciton vs prediction). Figure 1 is recommended to combine with Fig. 4 as it will show observed versus predicted presence. Caption in Figure 5 refers to a single model not several models.

Table 1 refers to categories of suitability in distribution of the target species not habitat type.

Table 2 need to use period not comma to separate decimals.

The manuscript need to be checked such that citations in the text matched the references at the end of the manuscript (for example lines 62, 111, 121).

The list of references should be check to write the appropriate names, for example lines 360, 366, 418; removing or adding blank spaces (lines 395, 408). Also, some references are unordered (line 449), and duplicated (lines 466 and 469).

It is recommended to upload the point presence data of D. citri in China for future users.
Experimental design: The paper addresses a valid question about the distribution of D citri in China and uses an accepted approach to estimate the potential distribution of this species. However, some issues make the paper confusing and contradicting. For example, the methodology in the paper of Worthington et al. (2016), cited in lines 111-112, is used to select from the 19 bioclimatic variables. However,  Worthington et al. used different predictor layers and applied rank correlation, which usually is a non parametric index better suited to analyze ordinal variables. However, in the current paper, all the bioclimatic variables are continuous, therefore the Pearson coefficient (r) is more appropriate, yet it is confused with the Spearman coefficient (line 182). Moreover, they correctly indicates that if r > 0.8, the correlation is high, but table 2 shows low correlation values AND a significant departure from zero, which would indicate the variables used in the final model are correlated and should be dismissed from this model! Usually, the selection of predictor variables is a step before building the final model but table 2 presents correlation results after the variables have been selected which does not make sense.

Also, lines 111-112 indicates using the methodology in the paper of Worthington et al. (2016) to select predictor variables as mentioned before but in later lines (141-143), they indicate using jackknife within MaxEnt to select environmental variables. But if they were selected previously by using correlation VIF or PCA (as described by Worthington op. cit.) then how is that other variables escaped the selection process?

Regarding the presence point data presented in Fig. 1, it is not recommended to use presence data from a distant region to model occurrence in another zone, instead project the model to a novel zone, also known as trasnferability (Peterson et al. 2007. Ecography, 30, 550-560; Phillips. 2017. A brief tutorial on MaxEnt. Available from url: http://biodiversityinformatics.amnh.org/open_source/maxent/). Therefore, it is recommended to drop those presence data that do not occur within the target region, that is, China.

On the other hand, lines 148-150 present a misunderstanding in the wording of the distribution layer nature. The output file from MaxEnt, ASCII by default, is a text file but the content is in raster format and so the other data types (grd, bil, mxe). It is strange the ArcGis program could not read the file because the structure of the ASCII file is proprietary by ESRI, the creators of ArcGis, thus some steps might be skipped that did not allowed visualizing the output file. Probably the best way to deal with this issue is simply remove this step, which is not fundamental to the analysis.
Validity of the findings: In general, results are clear but some words do not represent the content, for example, lines 186, 243, Fig. 3 refers to a reconstructed model but it would be more appropriate to use final model. This is because the process of model building does not consider assembling and disassembling model components, rather, there is process of variable selection to make the final model parsimonious.

The first paragraph of the discussion (lines 231-243) does not relate directly with the results, rather, is information that justify using MaxEnt. Therefore, this paragraph may be better moved to the introduction or removed at all.

Lines 244-249 refers to a common problem with model overfitting and again, is not the objective of this paper.

The discussion about environmental variables may be enriched by contrasting the findings in this papers with those variables reported in previous papers, as referenced before.

Regarding the conclusions, some parts (lines 334-336) does not derive from the analysis but are more speculative and out of context.
Additional comments: In summary, the paper address an important aspect of knowing the potential distribution in China because both HLB and D citri are native from Southeast Asia. However, the paper would improve by addressing language and grammar issues in both the manuscript and figures; clarify some methodological steps in the analysis, comparing results with previous work and limiting the conclusions to the scope of the research. Other specific comments are annotated within the manuscript


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

Input:
Title: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID, DIAPHORINA CITRI (KUWAYAMA), IN CHINA USING THE MAXENT MODEL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the new version of the article has improved considerably compared to the first. The introduction is easier to follow, the results are better structured and the manuscript is improved and has a clearer distribution. Therefore, the manuscript falls within the scope of the Peer J Journal.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I suggest that authors would improve some other minor points.
Additional comments: Introduction:
L 61-69: I suggest that is not necessary that explain all the infection process…of the huanglongbing (HLB). Please, resume this part and rewrite more general.
L126: “Asian citrus psyllid”  to  “D.citri”
M&M:
L 136-143: This is not M&M. I think that the authors could use this information for the discussion part.
L 168: Remove link and introduced this reference (EPPO, 2019) that appear the data acces to this link...
Discussion:

L 292: Change: true skill statistic (TSS)


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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ASIAN CITRUS PSYLLID, DIAPHORINA CITRI (KUWAYAMA), IN CHINA USING THE MAXENT MODEL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Introduction
L-61: Check for duplicated under dash
L-87, try to avoid using etc. in the manuscript

Materials and Methods
Model selection. The justification to use MaxEnt is extense, reduce this section to a few lines or move to Introduction.
L-159, Table 1 refers to correlation coefficients, not variable contribution
L-197, there are two Wang et al. 2018 in the references, use letters to differentiate them.
Results
L-263 : L-285, move criterion to obtain suitability values for environmental variables to M&M and leave only the ranges for each variable.

Discussion & Conclusions
Some suggestions and corrections are highlighted in the manuscript.
Last paragraph of conclusion is more general and is not directly related to objectives and results.

References
Check upper and lower case words in paper titles and journal names.

Figure 2. Rewrite the legend to avoid repeating D. citri
Figure 3. Check that x-axis title of each plot only contains uppercase letter at the beginning.
Figures 2-4. Write legend of figures in a continuous way, that is, join the two separated statements of the caption.
Table 1 just provide one value above 0.8 to fulfill the exclusion criterion, thus, this particular result is better presented in the text and Table 1 removed.

Other comments are annotated in the manuscript in yellow and sticky notes.
Experimental design: Authors should describe in more detail how they extracted the values to compute the correlation coefficient between the bioclimatic variables: Extracting from the observed presence data of D. citri? From a random sample? Using all the cell values in the raster layers? They should also annotate the sample size. Usually, a significant correlation (abs(r) > 0) is found with large sample sizes even for numerically low r values, as presented for most of the variable pairs in Table 1 at p < 0.01. Explain.
Usually, altitude is not used in modeling species distributions because it is highly correlated with environmental variables and it is strange is not included in Table 1. Explain.
Response curves in Figure 4 should not be the marginal response curves as they are difficult to interpret if variables are correlated, as presented in Table 1. Instead, use the response curves for each variable.
Validity of the findings: Last paragraph of conclusions is more speculative and beyond the purpose of the research.
Additional comments: The manuscript is well written with few redaction errors, some of them annotated in the document. Most of the issues are minor corrections/ suggestions. The only point that need to be explained or better described is the computations of the correlation coefficient. Usually, only for large sample sizes small r values are significantly higher than zero, as presented in Table 1. Thus, the results in Table 1 suggest the analysis was carried on with all the values of the raster layers. Usually, correlation among variables is performed by extracting the values at each of the presence point data and not using the whole raster layer. While it may not affect the general conclusions and results, the marginal response curves generated by MaxEnt are difficult to interpret if variables are correlated. Thus, response curves should be computed for a single variable and, if that was the case, the authors should make it clear.