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: INTEGRATIVE MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE GENE EXPRESSION PROFILES IN CERVICAL CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: How to evaluate the biomarkers identified by the model?
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors applied the existing machine learning methods on four Cervical cancer microarray gene expression datasets to identify the differentially expressed genes.  Then the GSEA enrichment analysis was applied on the genes to identify the potential biomarker for Cervical cancer. Overall, the analyses are standard. The contribution to the computation is limited.

Major comments:
(1)	Detailed description of integrating four datasets is required. It is very hard to follow how to do the intersection process. All the top 10000 genes are differentially expressed genes?
(2)	Rank Product did the differential expression analysis to select the up-regulated and down-regulated genes. It is not necessary to do the feature selection again by using the other methods.
(3)	Most of the eight machine learning methods are not comparable, e.g., HC is an unsupervised machine learning model to clustering the features and SVM and RF are supervised machine learning models to classify the samples.  In additional, how to select features by applying RF?


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: INTEGRATIVE MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE GENE EXPRESSION PROFILES IN CERVICAL CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed my concerns.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed my concerns.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed my concerns.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my concerns.


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: INTEGRATIVE MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE GENE EXPRESSION PROFILES IN CERVICAL CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for addressing my questions in the rebuttal letter. I have the following three questions:
(1). There are only 21,000 ~ 22,000 human genes, how to get around 40,000 genes in your analysis? Biologically, it is not convincing that the top 10,000 genes are differentially expressed.
(2) Again,I still feel it is misleading to list eight incomparable methods in the manuscript. If the eight algorithms are not comparable, how could the scores calculated for each gene in eight algorithms are comparable? In addition, what is the computation contribution of this manuscript if all the eight algorithms packages are available in R or Python?
(3) Whether the findings are reducible on the RNA-Seq data?


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: INTEGRATIVE MACHINE LEARNING ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE GENE EXPRESSION PROFILES IN CERVICAL CANCER
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all of my comments and I recommend 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: EFFECTS OF AGE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMOTIONS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: A META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: BASIC REPORTING
Introduction
•	Lines 60-62: This statement doesn't really reflect the literature on aging and emotion processing. There are many studies showing the effects of age on emotion processing, for example, the well-known positivity effect among older adults has been established in several studies (e.g. Williams et al., 2006).  In addition, there are studies that assess how cognitive processing in old age influences emotion identification (see Mitchell, Kingston, & Barbosa Bouças, 2011; Orgeta, 2010; Orgeta & Phillips, 2008; Sullivan & Ruffman, 2004 for example). It would be beneficial for authors to delineate exactly what they mean by both emotion identification and emotional processing at the beginning of the manuscript, and whether or not they are treating these terms separately throughout the paper.
•	Lines 74 onwards: This part of the introduction discusses age-related positivity biases in relation to memory. It is unclear how this links into the question of how old age influences emotion identification, which is addressed in the current paper. The authors should either omit the details on age differences in emotion memory or make a direct link between the literature on positivity effects in memory and emotion perception in old age. Later (lines 85-89) there is also mention of studies on age and the dot probe task – it is not made clear what construct these studies measure or how it relates to emotion identification.
•	Lines 90-101: Again, it would be useful for the authors to outline exactly what they mean by “emotional processing”, and whether or not they are using “emotion identification” and “emotion processing” interchangeably.
•	Lines 101-103: The authors highlight the need to study age differences in dynamic vs. static stimuli, and this is an interesting point to pursue further. However, this seems to be the only point where this issue is discussed. The authors should consider discussing whether this has an impact on age effects in emotion identification in more detail in the introduction.
Overall the introduction should review in more depth the previous literature on emotion identification, linking more clearly into the aims of the current study. Literature on emotion memory and dot-probe should only be discussed if it can be shown to be relevant to the aims. It would be nice in setting out the literature and aims to distinguish between possible participant characteristics influences and task influences on emotion identification.
Experimental design: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Method
•	Generally, exclusion and inclusion criteria are clearly reported.
•	The PRISMA diagram is a useful addition to the method section.
•	The statistical analysis section should be presented in full paragraphs.
Validity of the findings: Results
•	What was the overall effect size for age across all emotions?
•	The stimulus moderating effects described in the analysis section need to be presented in tables and text. This will add real strength to the paper, whether or not the effects are significant.
•	The text describing the meta-regression statement is unclear and not detailed enough. Do the results mean that females were better at identifying fear than males but worse at identifying disgust? It would be good for the authors to clarify. It would be useful to be more precise when talking about ‘effects’.
Discussion
Much of the discussion concentrates on speculation about age differences in emotion identification unrelated to the results of the current study. It would be more useful to outline and discuss the key findings from the meta-analysis at the beginning of the discussion before going on to speculate about possible links to the brain. I missed proper discussion and interpretation of the key effects of gender and stimulus types.
•	Lines 188-190: It is not clear that the findings disagree with those of Ruffman et al. where an age difference in happiness identification was also reported.
•	Lines 191-196: The authors compare findings from emotion identification tasks to the literature on age-related positivity effects. It would be useful to further suggest how the tasks used to assess emotion identification are different from tasks used typically to assess positivity effects (for example, many studies assess positivity effects using memory paradigms, see Mather & Carstensen, 2005) - not many studies have addressed the issue of whether typical emotion identification labelling tasks tap into age-related positivity effects and it would be good if the authors could consider how this task may be insensitive to positivity effects.
•	Lines 203-207: The authors suggest that their results are consistent with prior findings on reduced amygdala activation associated with memory for negative stimuli, however findings suggested that older adults are typically worse at identifying a handful of negative expressions and happiness. It is unclear how a decline in the sensitivity to memorise negative stimuli influences identification of happiness. It would be good if the authors could highlight why this process may not be affecting older adults' perception of happiness. Are there perhaps separate causal mechanisms underlying identification of happy expressions?
•	Lines 215-219: The authors highlight that a reduction in the tendency to look at the mouth region of faces might cause difficulties in recognising facial expressions for older adults, but how does this explain the age-related differences in recognising emotions that are predominantly expressed via the mouth region, such as happiness, sadness?
•	Lines 225-228: This is an interesting observation, and it would be good if the authors could expand on this point - why might differences in education be important for emotion identification? Expanding on this point further may help the authors highlight the novelty of their study.
•	Lines 244-251: While I agree that it is essential to use terms uniformly, aging studies more often adopt the term "emotion recognition" rather than "emotion identification" to describe the ability to identify emotions (see for example Franklin & Zebrowitz, 2017; Grainger, Henry, Phillips, Vanman, & Allen, 2017; Richter, Dietzel, & Kunzmann, 2010; Ruffman, Murray, Halberstadt, & Taumoepeau, 2010; Sullivan & Ruffman, 2004; Sze, Goodkind, Gyurak, & Levenson, 2012; Wieck & Kunzmann, 2017). It therefore seems to make more sense to adopt this terminology to ensure consistency with the literature.
Conclusion
•	Lines 258-259: The finding that females were better at recognising some emotions than others was not adequately discussed in the discussion section. It would be good if the authors could address this issue further, and suggest how this influences age-related differences in emotion identification.
Additional comments: Summary
This paper reports a meta-analysis of 24 studies examining the effects of age on the ability to identify facial expressions of emotion. Findings suggested that older adults are worse than younger adults at identifying anger, fear, sadness, surprise and happiness. Furthermore, education moderated the effects of age on emotion identification.
The authors should be commended for recognising the need to conduct an up-to-date meta-analysis on the effects of age in facial emotion identification. As such, the findings provide a useful extension of the findings reported by Ruffman, Henry, Livingstone and Phillips's (2008) meta-analysis. The conclusion that sample characteristics are important is novel, and should be expanded upon.  Overall, we recommend that the authors make some amendments to the manuscript (see below) to improve clarity and impact of the paper. Comments have also been made to the pdf (see attached).

References from review:
Franklin, R. G., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2017). Age Differences In Emotion Recognition: Task Demands Or Perceptual Dedifferentiation? Experimental Aging Research, 43(5), 453–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2017.1369628
Grainger, S. A., Henry, J. D., Phillips, L. H., Vanman, E. J., & Allen, R. (2017). Age Deficits in Facial Affect Recognition: The Influence of Dynamic Cues. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 72(4), 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbv100
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005
Mitchell, R. L. C., Kingston, R. A., & Barbosa Bouças, S. L. (2011). The specificity of age-related decline in interpretation of emotion cues from prosody. Psychology and Aging, 26(2), 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021861
Orgeta, V. (2010). Effects of age and task difficulty on recognition of facial affect. The Journals of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 65B(3), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq007.Advance
Orgeta, V., & Phillips, L. H. (2008). Effects of Age and Emotional Intensity on the Recognition of Facial Emotion. Experimental Aging Research, 34(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730701762047
Richter, D., Dietzel, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2010). Age differences in emotion recognition: The task matters. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 66(1), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq068.
Ruffman, T., Henry, J. D., Livingstone, V., & Phillips, L. H. (2008). A meta-analytic review of emotion recognition and aging: Implications for neuropsychological models of aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32(4), 863–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.01.001
Ruffman, T., Murray, J., Halberstadt, J., & Taumoepeau, M. (2010). Verbosity and emotion recognition in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 492–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018247
Sullivan, S., & Ruffman, T. (2004). Emotion recognition deficits in the elderly. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114(3), 403–432.
Sze, J. A., Goodkind, M. S., Gyurak, A., & Levenson, R. W. (2012). Aging and Emotion Recognition : Not Just a Losing Matter, 27(4), 940–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029367.Aging
Wieck, C., & Kunzmann, U. (2017). Age differences in emotion recognition: A question of modality? Psychology and Aging, 32(5).
Williams, L. M., Brown, K. J., Palmer, D., Liddell, B. J., Kemp, A. H., Olivieri, G., … Gordon, E. (2006). The Mellow Years?: Neural Basis of Improving Emotional Stability over Age. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(24), 6422–6430. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0022-06.2006


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF AGE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMOTIONS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: A META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors on conducting a meta-analysis. However, the main concern I have is that only data published since 2008 are analysed, thus neglecting the body of work prior to that date. This provides a potentially misleading account of the overall effect of age on the identification of facial expressions of emotion. There is also no reference to any attempt to identify and integrate unpublished research. This leads to the ‘file drawer’ problem and a potential over-representation of confirmatory results. Furthermore, if the current study is examining differing moderators to the previous Ruffman et al. meta then it would make sense to include the studies that were included in Ruffman’s paper.

The Introduction suggests that Ruffman et al. found an age-related decline in recognition of all expressions except happiness (line 81). I don’t think this is correct. Ruffman et al. state “older adults were worse on fear, surprise and happiness in some modalities… In contrast, recognition of disgust seems relatively preserved” (p. 971).  This is also reflected in Ruffman’s Table 1 particularly in relation to recognition of emotion just in faces.

The influence of cognitive (attention and memory) and sensory (visual acuity) processes on emotion identification are referred to in the Introduction. However, neither of these variables are assessed in the meta-analysis. It would be preferable to focus the Introduction on the variables that are examined. These appear to be briefly referred to in the last paragraph of the discussion and instead should be elaborated on earlier throughout the Introduction.

Also in the final paragraph of the Introduction, when referring to previous effects of college education, for example, please clarify whether those effects were found in young and/or older adults. Then, also please describe the predicted effect of each of those moderators on age differences in emotion recognition.
Experimental design: The paper explains that it fills a gap in the literature by (1) conducting the meta on studies published since the previous meta on this topic and (2) examining different moderators to the previous meta. But, I believe all studies up to the search date should be analysed to fulfil this aim. In addition, the moderators being tested seemed to change throughout the paper and were not sufficiently introduced in the Introduction or described in the Results or Discussion. It is therefore difficult to see how this paper does fill any gaps.

Why were only studies that allowed effect size data to be directly recorded, calculated or measured included (criterion 2; line 122)? Why were authors not contacted for relevant data when it was missing from a manuscript, as is standard practice? [I now see this mentioned on line 140, so perhaps line 122 needs further clarification?]

Please specify how many articles for which researchers read the full text (line 126), and does full text mean the full article?

Was a search of studies citing the Ruffman meta conducted?

There needs to be an explanation of what a positive (versus negative) effect size represents.
Validity of the findings: Table 4 indicates that sex and education were entered as potential moderators. Were the other potential moderators outlined at the end of the introduction also examined? The other moderators are also not mentioned in the Results text.

In the Discussion, moderators should be discussed earlier, and before reference to potential neural mechanisms which were not the focus of the current meta.

Line 215 refers to differences between young and older adults with respect to how they examine stimuli and their physiological responses. But neither of these things were measured in the current meta. Please clarify further or remove this section.

Line 222 the significant association with sex is not elaborated.

I’m not sure how the paragraph concerning emotion recognition versus identification fits with the aim of the present meta.
Additional comments: It is stated on line 72 that “we will discuss below, an obvious memory improvement for positive faces”. But the following paragraph refers mainly to emotion recognition rather than memory.

On line 81, what is meant by “posterior studies”?

The paragraph starting on line 85 would be better integrated with the earlier paragraph about the positivity effect.

The final sentence of the Introduction is unclear.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF AGE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMOTIONS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: A META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This new version is much improved.
Experimental design: The design is appropriate.
Validity of the findings: The interpretation of the results is much clearer now.
Additional comments: The authors have dealt well with the reviews.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF AGE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMOTIONS IN FACIAL EXPRESSIONS: A META-ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: My main concern from the initial paper was not sufficiently addressed. That is, the data included in this meta-analysis only dates back to 2008. This excludes a large body of the existing data, thus potentially providing a misleading account of the effects being tested. I believe this can only be rectified by adding all of the excluded data into the meta-analysis. Alternatively, the paper could be presented as a systematic review (without effect sizes) that refers back to previous reviews/metas.


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: LONGEVITY AND SURVIVAL OF LEPTOCYBE INVASA (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), AN INVASIVE GALL INDUCER ON EUCALYPTUS, WITH DIFFERENT DIETS AND TEMPERATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Survival of one insect pest is experimentally measured under lab conditions.

The paper is clear and well organized, but two part must be changed:
1.the abstract which deals mainly on protocols.
2.the beginning of discussion which should summaries main results.

Hypotheses are in majority supported by results (see section 3 of comments).
An additionnal serie with males would be welcome because males are less resistant than females in most insects.
Experimental design: Good, some details could be added:
1. are females virgin or mated or undefined?
2. temperature bioassays, are females placed individually in vials?
3. were females controlled and observed, for fresh weigth or body size, feeding behavior, general activity, or the day before death...?
Validity of the findings: The question is what are the best conditions for survival of females for a controlled culture of this pest?
The proposed protocol does not answer to the whole question, because 1. groups of females were not tested and it is known that living in groups induces mortality, 2. females are not controlled for egg laying, and it is also known that females which lay eggs leave less times than constrained females (trade off between reproduction and survival). I suggest to reduce the goal of the paper to the first step of mass culture, that is survival of individual non reproductive females.
In the discussion, a parallel is made with nectar (line 149), it may be true, but honey is not nectar, and many published works use honey; I suggest to refer to such data.

line 158, what is C. noackae?
Additional comments: Paper could be improved without major revisions, and focused on the experimental protocol.


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: LONGEVITY AND SURVIVAL OF LEPTOCYBE INVASA (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), AN INVASIVE GALL INDUCER ON EUCALYPTUS, WITH DIFFERENT DIETS AND TEMPERATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In “Longevity and survival of Leptocybe invasa (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae), an invasive gall inducer on Eucalyptus, with different diest and temperatures” the authors evaluate survival and life span of the blue gum chalcid, a pest in eucalypts. In two separate experiments the authors exposed newly-emerged females to different diets at the same temperature and differ temperatures with the same diet.  The study is elegant, clear and well done. This manuscript provides good insight on the life history of this eulophid but would benefit from certain clarifications.

Introduction
The introduction needs improvement in the flow. There is information about L. invasa, the focal species (Lines 70-73), then it moves into general information about all insects overall (Lines 73-87), followed again by specifics about L. invasa (Lines 88-91). I suggest the authors consider improving the flow of this section. Start broad with studies and knowledge about research done in longevity and survival in insects, then move into your study species; what is known about it and why the research your doing is important.
Additionally, the introduction would benefit from more detail about the how biological characteristics affect species especially details on the role of temperature and diet affect in other hymenoptera. Giving more detail would let the reader understand the relevance of this study. Please see the attached PDF for more comments

The other sections are structured clearly.

The figures are representative and useful. The Raw data is shared as supplemental data.

The study is self-contained and the analyses of survival are appropriate for the hypotheses.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and the methods presented are appropriate. There are however a few clarifications needed (please see comments in the attached PDF).

Have the authors done a power analysis to determine whether 25 individuals/tretament (as I assume that is the number of individuals used/treatment) is enough to be able to compare 6-7 treatments?

Statistical analyses for survival are sound.

There is no mention about the analyses done to test the differences for the longevity. Was is just ANOVAs followed by post hoc tukey tests to determine the differences between each of the treatments?

Additionally, it would be beneficial to include information about which statistical program was used.
Validity of the findings: Many species of hymenoptera have been tested for longevity and survival. These are important life history traits to know to develop proper management practices so this stdy is valid and provides good insight on a pest species.

The results section seems straightforward and well written but there are again some clarifications needed.

Line 120. There is no statistical difference between the longevity of L. invasa fed with 50%, 100% 100%+eucalyptus. You could mention that there seems to be some biological difference; at 50% the individuals live longer.

Line 122. I agree that the 50% solution has higher proportion of survivability but 100% and 100%+eucalypt are similar in that they all have some survival until 12 days. This parallels the longevity; 50%, 100% and 100%+eucalypt are not different from each other.

Lines 124-126. It should be mentioned that 14 and 18C are the temperatures with highest longevity, based on your table there is overlap.

The discussion is well written, it nicely roots this study with the literature. This is what the introduction needs. But there are a couple of minor points (please see attached PDF).
Additional comments: This is an interesting study and clearly it was done with care. I hope the authors are continuing with this work. Maybe trying to determine the interaction between temperature and diet of survival and longevity of L. invasa.


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: LONGEVITY AND SURVIVAL OF LEPTOCYBE INVASA (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), AN INVASIVE GALL INDUCER ON EUCALYPTUS, WITH DIFFERENT DIETS AND TEMPERATURES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I have made extensive comments on the manuscript itself. Therefore, I comment here briefly.
The language is fine in most places. In some places (see Abstract, Results, Discussion sections), the language can be tightened so that the meaning is clear.
The authors do a good job of citing literature. However, I would suggest re-looking at the background and motivation parts of the manuscript. Reading through the manuscript, I got a feeling that the authors are torn between two motivations (a) understand the biology of the species such that the knowledge is useful in pest control etc. (b) come up with a method of culturing this species in the lab. The writing has to be such that these two motivations do not often clash.
Experimental design: The experiment is well designed. I suggest that more information be given about (a) Ancestry of the population used for the experiment (b) its regular maintenance protocol (c) reason for choosing the particular treatments (d) sample size (e) results.
Validity of the findings: Findings are simple and straight forward, which is very nice. I would request the authors to reconsider their discussion. As it stands, discussion gives a lot of details about results from other studies. However, it is important to discuss your own results with the two stated aims of this study in mind.
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: LONGEVITY AND SURVIVAL OF LEPTOCYBE INVASA (HYMENOPTERA: EULOPHIDAE), AN INVASIVE GALL INDUCER ON EUCALYPTUS, WITH DIFFERENT DIETS AND TEMPERATURES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: changed as suggested
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Changes I suggested were made by authors.


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: JAPANESE KNOTWEED (FALLOPIA JAPONICA): AN ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE (COMPARED TO OTHER PLANTS) AND TYPICAL RHIZOME EXTENSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -	The text is clear, unambiguous, professional English language used
-	Introduction and background is OK, literature  well referenced and relevant. The spreading modes description is missing (vegetative regeneration and possible generative reproduction)
-	Structure is OK
-	Figures and tables are clear, high quality and relevant
Experimental design: -	Original primary research on actual topic
-	Questions are well defined, clear and relevant
-	Methods of study are well described, but the statistical analysis used is missing.
Validity of the findings: -	Validity of results is high as well as the novelty of findings
-	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research questions and limited to study results
Additional comments: I appreciate the topic of the study and serious research in this field. I suggest to the authors add the topic of presence of other taxa of the genus Fallopia, mainly the hybrid F. ×bohemica, which can cause similar damages as F. japonica. I also miss the mention of regeneration ability form rhizomes and possible generative spread (within the genus) – my suggestion is to add least short paragraph on this topic.
The description of statistical analysis used is missing for both, the surveys and the rhizome case study. This is the only weakness of the manuscript and it should be added before 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: JAPANESE KNOTWEED (FALLOPIA JAPONICA): AN ANALYSIS OF CAPACITY TO CAUSE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE (COMPARED TO OTHER PLANTS) AND TYPICAL RHIZOME EXTENSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript, "Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica): An analysis of capacity to cause structural damage (compared to other plants) and typical rhizome extension" is interesting and novel. However, I feel that before publication there are major edits to the language and the organization of the manuscript that are required.  Please proof read to remove awkward long sentences and redundancy.
Specific comments:
Line 53: flood not floor
Line 63: There is no mention of when knotweed first came to the UK. Consider moving lines 156-164 to the introduction.
Line 84: What is a knock-on impact?
Lines 120-130: This description of basic physiology of plants is unnecessary.
Lines 135-137: Awkward
Line 180-182: Missing word?
Line 468-471: Redundant. This has been described more than once already.
Experimental design: METHODS
Literature Assessment:
Expand the search to include damage by other plants. At a minimum by B. davidii, as it is highlighted in another section and in a table.
Impact Survey:
Did surveys include questions about other plant species?
Rhizome Extent Survey:
Include information on how the data was analyzed.
RESULTS
Literature Assessment:
You describe the results of a literature review that is not described by your methods. It reads like a literature review that is not appropriate for a results section.
Line 260: "This variable was investigated further" This process should be described in the methods, not the results.
Lines 263-276: There is an unnecessary level of detail about soils.
Table 4. Replace "Ivy" with "Woody Climbers," or at least be consistent with the text in the body of the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: I agree with and appreciate the novel findings presented by this manuscript.  However, the description of the methods and the clarity of the discussion should be improved.  The manuscript is at times redundant.
Line 359: Why would a house built prior to 1900 indicate that the damage  is correlation/exacerbation and not causation? This conclusion is not clear.
Beginning at line 401: You go into great depth with the B. davidii comparison. Please provide more description of this plant in an earlier section.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE REAL BIGFOOT: A PES FROM WYOMING, USA IS THE LARGEST SAUROPOD PES EVER REPORTED AND THE NORTHERN-MOST OCCURRENCE OF BRACHIOSAURIDS IN THE UPPER JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: [***NOTE*** I see that copy-pasting this review has destroyed all the formatting. I suggest the authors read the original version, which I have uploaded to http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/tmp/secret/Bigfoot-comments-MikeTaylor.doc and which contains exactly the same information as I have pasted here, but more legibly.]

This is a good paper providing a clear description and adequate illustrations of a significant specimen. The paper can be published in essentially its present form, although I list below some minor points that should be improved. I also suggest some further additions that the authors may wish to make, but which should not be required for publication.
The writing is clear and unambiguous throughout, with the exception of a very few phrases which I mention below. The introduction establishes the context of this work well.
References to the literature and plentiful and relevant. However, in many cases, citing page numbers would be a real improvement. For example in lines 150–132, the manuscript reads “The proximal and distal articular surfaces [of metatarsal I] are slightly beveled compared to the long axis of the shaft, but not to the degree as seen in flagellicaudatans (Janensch, 1961; McIntosh, Coombs & Russell, 1992; Harris, 2007; Whitlock, 2011; Tschopp, Mateus & Benson, 2015; Tschopp & Mateus, 2017).” Especially when referring to long papers such as that of Janensch, which runs to 59 pages, it would make a big difference to provide page numbers, so the reader can go straight to the relevant section. That goes double for Tschopp and Mateus 2017!
Some specifics:
The claim that “this [pes] represents the northernmost occurrence of a brachiosaurid in the Morrison Formation” cannot be strictly correct given the presence of “a nearly complete small brachiosaur” in the same quarry, and in light of the fact that “Brachiosaurid material from this site has been reported in the past (Foster, 2003; Bader, Hasiotis & Martin, 2009)”. This should be easy to reword, both in the abstract and in the places where similar claims occur in the main text. It may be wise to amend the title, too – either to make the northernmost claim more precise, or to excise it for a shorter title.
“The pes described herein consists of an astragalus (KUVP 142200), metatarsals I to V, five non-ungual pedal phalanges, and one ungual (KUVP 129724)”. It would be useful to add these KUVP numbers to Table 1, and explain how they differ in meaning from the field numbers.
Within the “Description and Comparison” section, the authors may wish to consider adding sub-headings for the astragalus, metatarsals, phalanges and ungual.
“The astragalus KUVP 142200 (Figure 2A) is slightly wider transversely than proximodistally tall and anteroposteriorly long.” It would be useful to explain how the orientation of this element was established. It would also be helpful to have this element illustrated in more views – perhaps all six cardinals. (I assume the necessary photos already exist.)
“The lateral surface of the astragalus KUVP 142200 received the fibula. It faces laterally, and has no distinct bony shelf that would have supported the fibula, unlike the condition in diplodocids.” It would be helpful to include comparative illustrations here and elsewhere: one of the joys of born-OA venues like PeerJ is that there is no real limit on what illustrations can be included, so it’s often good to take advantage of this to help the reader. Similarly, “The metatarsals of KUVP 129724 can be distinguished from diplodocid ones by the absence of a well-developed posterolateral process on the distal articular surfaces of mt I and II, and from flagellicaudatan metatarsals more generally by the lack of distinct rugose ridges close to the dorsolateral edges”: this would be easier for non-pes specialists to makes sense of if comparative diagrams were included. (That said, this is only a suggestion, not a requirement! If it’s inconvenient to do, just skip it and get this paper out. I don’t want to be That Guy.)
“The dorsolateral corner of the proximal articular surface bears a distinct, tapered projection.” I couldn’t locate this in the illustration: please highlight it.
“The proximal and distal articular surfaces are slightly beveled compared to the long axis of the shaft.” It would be helpful to see this in lateral views of the metatarsals. Again, there is the option of including many more illustrations – why not take advantage of it?
“The distal articular surface is beveled medially.” What does this mean? That the medial aspect of the distal articular surface is located more proximally than the lateral aspect? Or vice versa?
“The distal articular surface [of phalanx I-1] projects slightly dorsomedially.” I can’t locate this projection: please highlight it in the illustration.
“This is slightly larger than the type specimen of Brachiosaurus altithorax (2030 mm femur length; Riggs, 1904).” I would move this fact up ahead of the speculation about cartilage thickness. Also perhaps specify that it’s only 2% larger – which is not to be sniffed at, but not quite as spectacular as people might imagine otherwise.
“Our detailed description and systematic assessment of the pes KUVP 129724 confirmed the presence of large-sized brachiosaurids.” It would be more usual to say “confirms”.
The abbreviations “mtt” is used only in Table 1, where space is not at a premium, and “php” is similarly rarely used. It might be better to write the terms out in full: “metatarsal” and “phalax”. (There’s no need to specify “pedal”, as this paper doesn’t mention hands.) In any case, isn’t “mt” the usual abbreviation for “metatarsal”? It’s used elsewhere in the manuscript, e.g. lines 133ff.
Two of the measurements in Table 1 (proximal width of mtt III and distal width of mtt IV) carry asterisks, but their meaning is not explained in the table caption.
The field numbers for the astragalus and phalanx V-1 are six-digit numbers, while those of all the other elements are three-digit numbers with a “BP” prefix. Why the discrepancy? It might be useful to discuss the history of the assignment in the text. Oddly, these are not the same two elements that have their own KUVP numbers. Perhaps discuss the assignment of the various numbers in more detail.
Table 2 is interesting. It would be helpful to explain a little more in the caption – for example, what the various rows contain, especially the “L” and “R” that sometimes appear after semicolons. (Yes, I figured out that they mean “left” and “right”, but it helps to be explicit.)
Figure 1 is excellent, and very helpful in understanding how the elements were found. However, it would be more useful still if the four parts were designated A–D, and citations added to each part where relevant in the text. It would also be helpful to add specimen numbers to the quarry maps, including the identities of the three partial skeletons that are shown.
In Figure 2, does the scale bar apply to all parts of the illustration (e.g. including the astragalus)?
More importantly, what is the orientation of the various elements in Figure 2? In particular, I can’t be sure whether in the proximal views of the metatarsals, the dorsal surface is at the top or the bottom. (A case could be made for composing the illustration either manner.)
In Figure 2, the proximal facet of mt III looks far wider in dorsal view than it does in proximal view. Are the parts of this illustration correctly oriented and scaled?
In the text, phalanges are referred to as II-1, III-1, etc., but in the Figure 2 caption, they are simply called II, III, etc. Please be consistent.
Figure 3 is clear, but rather clumsily executed: for example, the grey shading does not always reach the outline of the Morrison Formation. It might be worth tidying up a bit.
Experimental design: This research is fully within the scope of the journal. However, the other questions that reviewers are asked to address in this section and the next do not really apply to descriptive/comparative papers such as this one. There is no “experiment” whose design can be comment on, and no numerical data whose statistical power can be assessed. But this is a solid and well-constructed paper by the standards of descriptive palaeontology.
Validity of the findings: I am satisfied that the conclusion – that the specimen belongs to Brachiosauridae – is well supported by the evidence that the authors present.
Additional comments: In understanding the morphology that this paper describes, I found it helpful to refer to a photo of an articulated pes of the Berlin Giraffatitan mount. My photo is not publication quality, but if any of the authors have good photos of this mount, it might be worth including one or more images of its left pes (or right pes reversed) in an additional figure for comparative purposes. I know that the elements of the mount’s pedes are sculptures, but they are based on real elements, and adequately represent the form of the complete foot. Once more, this is an optional recommendation, and if the authors do not have such images (or if they simply disagree with me), that’s fine.
Finally, another purely optional suggestion. We now live in a time where it is cheap and easy to create 3D models of bones using photogrammetry: see for example the model of the Xenoposeidon holotype vertebra that can be downloaded from https://figshare.com/articles/Untitled_Item/5605612 or browsed at https://sketchfab.com/models/7f88203e0bbb49a194cb254ab05c4b22. The authors could do a great service to their peers if they published similar photogrammetric surface scans of the bones described in this paper: for example, other researchers could attempt to articulate the bones virtually into a complete pes, model the associated muscles, etc. I do not recommend delaying publication until this is done – I just recommend it to the authors as something well worth doing in parallel with or subsequent to the publication process.


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 REAL BIGFOOT: A PES FROM WYOMING, USA IS THE LARGEST SAUROPOD PES EVER REPORTED AND THE NORTHERN-MOST OCCURRENCE OF BRACHIOSAURIDS IN THE UPPER JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in clear, unambiguous, professional English language. The introduction provides enough background to be informative and the literature documenting the known distribution and occurrence of Morrison sauropod pedes is appropriate and well-referenced. The structure conforms to Peerj standards and the basic norms for paleontology in general. The figures are excellent, but there should be other figures as I will discuss in the general comments. That said, in particular I really appreciated Figure 1 which does a great job of showing the geographic location and quarry map in an intuitive and clear way. The raw data which I take to be the measurements of the pes are incorporated into the paper.
Experimental design: The research is original and the authors have a pretty simple and straightforward observation that they are reporting the largest sauropod pes ever reported and that this pes expands the northern-most occurrence of brachiosaurids in the Morrison Formation. The investigation and methods are fine, but there should be more substance to this paper as I detail in the general comments.
Validity of the findings: Regarding the validity of the findings, the first part of this research (the largest sauropod pes) is supported by the measurement data – they are reporting the largest sauropod pes ever discovered and described. The inferences about the overall hip height and general dimensions of the hindlimb also follow from their data logically because sauropod hindlimbs are generally similar in proportions and these animal grew isometrically, so their inferences on overall size of the animal are consistent with typical practices in paleontology. Where things get a little less clear and could use some more elaboration is in the second portion of this research where this pes is identified as brachiosaurid, which I will comment on in the general comments.
Additional comments: I first want to commend the authors on reporting and providing photographic documentation of a sauropod pes and its original relation and orientation in a quarry map. Oftentimes such descriptive work is overly simplified or a quarry map is not provided, so this preserves the history of the discovery and will make it possible many years into the future for other paleontologists to understand where this pes came from and how it was associated with other fossils.

I have no issues with the measurements provided or the claim that this is the largest known sauropod pes. It clearly is. What is less clear is whether there is enough data to support this being assigned to a brachiosaurid. It is no doubt the pes of a Macronarian sauropod for all of the reasons the authors articulate, such as the lack of the posterolateral process on metatarsal I. The descriptions of the material are fine, but when it comes to the systematics two things would be incredibly useful and would bolster the authors’ inference that this is a brachiosaurid pes.

First, the comparisons of this pes to other sauropod pedes are all qualitative in nature, and it would be far more robust to do something quantitative, whether that be a phylogenetic analysis wherein the characters of the pes are integrated into a dataset to elucidate where this pes shakes out on the sauropod family tree. If it would be too difficult or not robust enough to run such an analysis, an equally valid approach would be something with morphometrics or even geometric morphometrics to show whether there are statistical differences between the shapes of the pedal elements or selected pedal elements in this sauropod with other known neosauropods. One could run something akin to a canonical variates analysis to see if the shapes or measurements of known neosauropods predict where this pes falls. But something more than simply descriptive comparisons because there is the possibility that this pes is just a very large camarasaurid foot after all. From just a few linear measurements, we cannot tell much beyond the fact that this is a big foot – more quantitative data might show that this cannot be a camarasaurid, which would bolster the authors’ inference. In my experience, non-titanosaur Macronarian pedes can be difficult to tell apart qualitatively.

Second, given all of the comparisons the authors make to other neosauropods and eusauropods generally, more figures are necessary and encouraged so that the reader can see and visualize particular anatomical features and draw their own conclusions. So, for example, when the authors say at line 169 that “Metatarsal V … [is] similar to the brachiosaurids Giraffatitan and Sonorasaurus …” it would be extremely helpful to see that directly in the paper, whether through detailed line drawings, photos, or some combination. I’m glad to see that the authors have photos of nearly all orientations of the pes, but it would also be good to have photos of the ventral in addition to the pictures of the dorsal sides of the metatarsals. Overall, more comparative figures would be extremely helpful and likely further bolster the authors’ inferences that this pes is indeed brachiosaurid.

Overall, the paper provides valuable data on a very large sauropod pes and, if more comparative and quantitative work were done, may expand the range of brachiosaurids in the Morrison.


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 REAL BIGFOOT: A PES FROM WYOMING, USA IS THE LARGEST SAUROPOD PES EVER REPORTED AND THE NORTHERN-MOST OCCURRENCE OF BRACHIOSAURIDS IN THE UPPER JURASSIC MORRISON FORMATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Any chance of including the manus from the KU site near Newcastle? As a second specimen, this would seem relevant to some of the points in the text about range and 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: SATELLITE TRACKING OF JUVENILE WHALE SHARKS IN THE SULU AND BOHOL SEAS, PHILIPPINES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript suffers from a variety of grammatical issues. These include:

1) Interrupted sentence structure
2) Word misuse
3) Subjective statements
4) Out of place wording/sentences

As for references, in general there is a considerable amount of background material and context. However, the authors appear to over-cite themselves continuously via "pers obs."

The structure of the article generally has professional appeal, but there are multiple (albeit fixable) stylistic issues documented in the figures and tables.
Experimental design: The proposed work fits within the journal's Aims and Scope as it involves novel biological/environmental research. There were no major hypotheses to be tested, but a very applied question was addressed using towed-float satellite telemetry to explore movement patterns of a shark species of major economic concern. This technique was utilized with generally high technical and ethical standards (although some details were missing).
Validity of the findings: The investigation was limited based on relatively short duration tracks (generally <60 d); however, these documented important deep-shallow and inshore-offshore habitat connections that will be important for conservation and management planning moving forward. Some of the discussion involving the relationship of movements and prey availability were somewhat weak as there was no sampling of prey concomitant with shark tracking. As such, I feel the authors need to be careful not to extrapolate their findings too extensively, and recognize that there are multiple factors that may explain the patterns they observed over a relatively short-term period.
Additional comments: Please see annotated PDF for your perusal with detailed suggestions on how to improve 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: SATELLITE TRACKING OF JUVENILE WHALE SHARKS IN THE SULU AND BOHOL SEAS, PHILIPPINES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have added to our knowledge of whale shark dispersal and movements in the Philippines and as such the study merits publication following revisions.

The article meets structural requirements and professional english is used throughout. Restructuring of sections would improve understanding and flow and remove redundancies. The manuscript requires more primary literature cited, notably where comparable work has been conducted years previously. The authors need to state their hypotheses while further strengthening the rationale for the study, and tie their discussion and conclusions into these.
Experimental design: The research fills a geographical knowledge gap for the target species and uses commonly used tracking technology and analytical methods. However, this manuscript requires a stated research question.
Validity of the findings: Data is robust. Conclusions would need to be linked to the research question when this is formulated and included.
Additional comments: The authors have added to our knowledge of whale shark dispersal and movements in the Philippines and as such the study merits publication. The analyses are standard but the manuscript would benefit from strengthening through the removal of redundancies, restructuring of text and sections, choosing a voice, as noted below.

Specifically:

The authors may wish to articulate in their introduction greater emphasis on a strong justification for this research, also necessary to detail are the research questions that they surely used when formulating this study and the basis for deploying satellite tags (see lines 92-99). This would further help restructure and shorten the abstract to reflect answers to the research questions asked as opposed to a run-down of movement results.

Ensure identification and recognition of earliest researchers in the area e.g. LN 78 should cite Quiros 2007 and Pine et al. 2007. Instead of “Authors unpublished data” for # of sharks identified, cite Wildbook for Whale Sharks database at www.whaleshark.org.

Remove pers. Comms if you already have a citation eg LN 93. In the same vein the authors need to reduce their Authors unpublished data annotations throughout the manuscript, especially where citations exist eg Quiros 2007 noted above.

LN 92-99 setting up the premise for the study but needs to set up the justification first of why it’s a high priority for research and also note who set this priority. Then move into the research questions that will be answered by the methods used.

Methods
Streamline methods to avoid integrating elements for introduction/results/discussion. Study sites needs to focus on the sites. All other information and other studies can be appended to the introduction or discussion where it is more appropriate.

Why are the authors using two photo Identification methods (wildbook and i3s) when wildbook can provide a site specific database as well? Need to explain this further in methods, results and discussion.

Authors need to chose a voice – active or passive – and stick with it. Methods contains a mix of both.

Results
Suggest the authors follow the same sequence of the study’s elements in methods as in the results for better flow, eg. Photo ID then tagging, which would also intuitively place the sizing and sexing with the photo ID followed by tagging which usually takes place post ID. Also suggest that the tagging/distances be combined with the horizontal movements to reduce redundancies and ensure that a figure with tagging locations overlaid with movements leads the results on that section.

LN 233 Assumption that the whale shark carried the tag into the Pacific; could currents have carried it there if detached in the Sulu sea?

LN 245 Specify temperature and or ranges when mentioning “cooler”

Time at temperature: suggest creating a composite figure for all tagged sharks to identify patterns in time spent at temperatures to compare to shark 818.

Discussion
Suggest a restructuring of the discussion and conclusions to reduce redundancy within and between sections, improve flow and provide support for the importance of this study. Specifically, there is a need to set up a strong introduction and tie into your questions. Too quickly jumping into the implications at LN 262 and along the discussion subsections.

Expand citations from comparable studies that preceded Rohner to include diel vertical migration.
LN 330 remove “displaying strong inter-annual philopatry to the site (Authors, unpublished data)”

Acknowledgements
Include the research permit number and year provided.

Figures

Fig 3 – need to outline the natural park it is not showing up on the provided figures
Fig 5  include x axis timeline and add a composite for all sharks tracked to tease out diel patterns of time at temp preferences.


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: SATELLITE TRACKING OF JUVENILE WHALE SHARKS IN THE SULU AND BOHOL SEAS, PHILIPPINES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors are clear and unambiguous in most of the paper (there is a need for more quantitative estimates in the discussion. All citations, figures and references are well done.
Experimental design: This is a very well done study with 17 satellite tracked whale sharks. The experimental design and post hoc treatment of the data (filters) are well described.
Validity of the findings: Data is robust and conclusion are well stated. However, some opinions are given in the discussion that do not seem to be justified in the current context of the paper.
Additional comments: This is a data rich (17 spot tagged whale sharks) study that investigates the movement and residence time of an endangered and popular target species. Overall, I think the manuscript is in good shape and recommend its publication in peer J. There results that “juvenile whale sharks and their affinity not only to coastal areas, but also to offshore habitats, and reinforce our understanding of their connectivity across the Sulu and Bohol Seas, and thus highlighting the importance of the area for this endangered species” seems well supported by their data.
I have few minor issues that should be addressed.
In the abstract the claim is made “Whale sharks transited through TRNP, suggesting that these remote atolls might be used as navigational waypoints rather than as a feeding aggregation.” I don’t believe the authors can offer this fine of a mechanistic understanding. While interesting, I don’t think the data suggest that the islands are used as navigational waypoints and suggest deleting this reference.
Line 122-123 . “in 2014 there was a substantial increase in the number of sightings and thus selected as a tagging location” A little more detail here would be useful to the reader. Why was there a sudden increase (more observational opportunities, recovery of the population?)

Line 138-143, this should be in the results section.

Line 260 “Some whale sharks displayed strong site fidelity” be more quantitative what does “some” mean?

Line 263 “they still spend a substantial proportion of their time offshore” define substantial.

**In general there is a lack of quantitative details in the discussion, the data is clearly available to define these qualitative terms better.

Line 283-286. “The presence of whale sharks at TRNP could be linked to foraging – or cleaning, as has been documented in Malpelo Island, Colombia (Quimbayo et al., 2017) – though neither activity has been reported to date. Therefore, it is more likely that TRNP is used as a navigational waypoint by whale sharks traveling through the Sulu Sea”

Again, I think this is too far of a jump. It may be a possibility but the others (although not reported) seem just as likely if not more likely to me.

Line 294 “little time” please define.

Line 354-357. Whale sharks clearly move between areas and thus unsustainable tourism practices (e.g. provisioning, overcrowding, seasonal captivity) at one site have the potential of affecting the population at large. Though legislation is only the first step, it is a necessary tool to safeguard the sustainable future of this Endangered species. While I agree with the statement, I think this conclusion is not supported and beyond the scope of the paper. It is an opinion that should be further expanded into an opinion paper but doesn’t belong in the current 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: LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF PREFERENCES FOR CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN THE SETO INLAND SEA, JAPAN: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is interesting.
Experimental design: It is OK.
Validity of the findings: OK.
Additional comments: This paper is worth to be published in the Journal after minor revisions.

Lines 2,15,86  Seto Inland Sea  -  the Seto Inland Sea
After line 384.  From Table 1, protest increases for Projects 1,2 and 3, but WTP increases for only
         Project 2. You have to discuss the reason of such difference between Project 2 and
         Projects 1 and 3.
Line 471.   What is ESVD?


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: LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF PREFERENCES FOR CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN THE SETO INLAND SEA, JAPAN: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper addresses an important and under-studied problem in environmental and resource valuation: whether and how valuations of possible outcomes can be inter-temporally transferred.  Economists have increasingly used transfers of study results across geographic space, but much less attention has been paid to the possible transfer of results regarding preferences across time.  As authors point out, there are many situations in which long-term planning requires speculation regarding the possible evolution of preferences across time, and the general tendency in resource economics to assume static preferences raises deep and complex issues regarding the understanding and measurement of future preferences.

One reason this topic is understudied is that, by its nature, empirical study of these questions requires series of data obtained at disparate times, times usually greater than the duration of most studies (which are often limited by funding sources and other factors). The authors provide a significant service by presenting (quasi) panel data that allow comparisons across a period of time. I applaud this work and the call for replications based on other cases with similar data (if available).

One minor question:  At line 239, it is written:  "Similarly, the rate of part-time workers, unemployed, and housewives who did not have good internet access was 36% in 2015 but 3% in 1998." This seems counter-intuitive to me.  Is this correct? Given the increased penetration of internet access, one would expect the opposite.
Experimental design: Before I continue with this review, a caveat: I am not an economist, though I value what  I have learned in working with economists.  I will not presume to pass judgment on the technical and measurement aspects of this paper other than to note with plaudits the careful and thoughtful treatment of protest answers.  I am assured that other readers will check this work carefully.  My role is rather to look at the paper from the broader perspective of a philosopher and sustainability theorist; the remainder of this review should be understood in this light.
Validity of the findings: At lines 429-439, authors call for more valuation studies of intertemporal preferences for ecosystem services.  This is an important recommendation.  However, I would also argue that we need some much deeper thinking about how to understand and value resources and changes to natural and artificial systems across time.  This paper is myopic in assuming that methods developed for one-time assessments of preferences as a measure of value can simply be applied by using (to the extent possible) these methods in temporal series.  Those not so schooled in economic methodology, such as myself, might be quite skeptical of using a methodology that begins by assuming preferences are fixed, and then tries to measure how preferences change across time.

For all its strengths in using technical methods to study an important problem in resource and environmental valuation, the paper rests on a very shaky theoretical base.  This may be inevitable given the current level of understanding and research by economists on this topic, but it ignores a significant literature on the topic of how to understand intertemporal relationships and perpetuates the isolation of economists from broader discussions of important problems having to do with the impacts of current activities on the future.  That literature includes, for example:

B. G. Norton, “Intergenerational Equity and Environmental Policy: A Model Using Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 1, pg. 137-159, 1989.

Brian Barry, "Sustainability and Future Generations," in Dobson, Fairness and Futurity, Oxford U. Press, 1999, 2003.

Brian Barry, "Inergenerational Justice" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  2003, revised, 2015.

B.G. Norton, R. Costanza, and Bishop, R., “The Evolution of Preferences: Why ‘Sovereign’ Preferences May Not Lead to Sustainable Policies and What to Do about It,” Ecological Economics, 24(1998): pp. 193-212.

B.G. Norton, Sustainable Values,  Sustainable Change: A Guide to Environmental Decision Making.  U. of Chicago Press, 2015

It would, of course, be asking for a very different paper to expect that all of the issues raised in this broader literature in the present paper.  I am not asking for this--assuming the technical aspects of the paper pass muster, I support publication without major revisions.   But it would be a contribution to the broader intellectual process if the authors were to demonstrate awareness of these broader issues by adding appropriate references and by locating their economic approach to these problems in a broader context.  For example, authors mention in passing that most economic studies (with much shorter duration) assume/profess that individual preferences are fixed.  This is an apparent empirical assumption that is contradicted by the rapid change of, for example, U.S. attitudes toward smoking and LGBT marriage.  In fact, of course, its a methodological assumption that is useful in making short-term economic comparisons.  But to fail to even note that this paper exploits this assumption, and that there are alternatives in related literatures is to perpetuate the intellectual isolation of economists.
Additional comments: In summary, then, this paper makes a significant contribution in that it attacks a neglected topic and presents a case study that, in the context of its presentation, provides a clear example of how, given interesting data gathered in studies separated by 17 years, it is possible to use economic methodology to better understand some aspects of the evolution of preferences.  We can all learn from this.  But the paper, as it stands, does not speak to non-economists, nor does it encourage economists to see the paper as one interesting possibility among many for thinking about how we should evaluate the changes we cause, especially how we should weight changes that might seriously affect the future.  While I do not advocate a major rewrite of the paper, I do think a couple of paragraphs setting the broader context and recognizing that there may be alternative approaches, would broaden the interest and also the reach of 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: LONG-TERM EVOLUTION OF PREFERENCES FOR CONSERVATION PROJECTS IN THE SETO INLAND SEA, JAPAN: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is clearly written and well understood; literature references and background information is provided to a satisfactory degree; the structure is professional following the state-of-the-art and raw data are shared; the paper id self-contained.
Experimental design: This research is within the aims and scope of the journal and well defined with a very good explanation of the corresponding knowledge gap; the investigation os rigorous; the methods have been described with enough detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: PARTICULATE MATTER COLLECTION BY HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA, L.) NEAR TO A CEMENT FACTORY IN ITALY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Language needs to be thoroughly revised. I could follow the text but with great difficulty.

The introduction section nicely explains PM, its origin in the cement factory and its possible adverse health effects. However, considering that in this paper honeybees are used as samplers of PM it would be good to have a few sentences about the use of honeybees as bioindicators.

Some things in the text should be better defined. For example:
“Several studies also provide evidence that there is a positive correlation between weight and non- exhaust emissions, even suggesting that the use of electric vehicles may emit comparable level of PM as conventional vehicles because of their relatively high weight (reviewed in Timmers and Achten, 2016).”
Here it should be pointed out that weight refers to the weight of the car.

In the section 3.2 Environmental impact of PM the authors say little that is in accordance with the title of this section. Instead this section mainly has suggestions to the plant management on how to reduce the spreading of PM. Although this is very useful and should remain a part of this paper it should not be in the section with the above title.
Experimental design: My biggest concern about the design of the experiment is that the bees were sampled only once. It would have been more useful to know if there were any changes in PM collected by bees depending on different months or seasons. However, the research done proves that honeybees in combination with the method applied can be used for long term monitoring of the pollution in the region. This greatly improves the knowledge of the scientific community on the use of honeybees as samplers of PM.

Specific comments:

 “Measurements were carried out on particles present in distinctive areas on the insect wings and head, chosen as standard areas. Specifically, 4 areas of the wings and 1 area of the head wide 450 x 450 µm have been considered (Figure 2).”
It would be useful to include an explanation why where those 4 areas of the wing chosen as standard areas.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are too general. The authors should focus in short on the findings presented in the paper, and then go on to general remarks.
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: PARTICULATE MATTER COLLECTION BY HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA, L.) NEAR TO A CEMENT FACTORY IN ITALY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is presented in reasonably good scientific English.  However, there are cases where word choice seems strange to me.  I have attempted to highlight problematic areas and make language suggestions in the attached pdf.

The introduction provides sufficient background on the use of honey bees as environmental samplers as well as some background on the process of making cement.  The intro is informative without being overly long.

There are too many figures and, while reference in the manuscript is made to “supplemental materials”, it is not clear which of the figures are destined for “Supplemental”.  The figures themselves, however, are high quality and add to the manuscript -- there are just too many of them. I would really have liked to have seen example images that could help me understand what the 4 different levels of particulate contamination look like.
Experimental design: The research question, whether bees can be used as bioindicators for particulate matter, is an interesting and important question that the manuscript does a fair job of beginning to address.

The most serious criticism I have of this paper is that results came from 10 bees collected from 2 sites (5 per site) at a single time point.  While the work appears to be performed to a high technical standard with the use of SEM/EDX, this is simply not enough replication to allow for generalizable conclusions to be drawn.  As a proof-of-concept paper I think this would be valid, but more replication across time is needed to demonstrate that the observed patterns hold up to replication.

The methods are, for the most part, well described and should make it possible for the study to be replicated.  I was a bit confused about which parts of the bee were studied from the description in the text (which should be reworded), but Fig. 2 makes it clear what was being studied.
Validity of the findings: Given the low level of replication, the only statistics it is possible to do were the comparison of contamination levels between bees and between sites.  It could be argued that using individual bees in the site comparison is pseudoreplication and multiple samplings at different time points should really be used.

The discussion is overly long and should be reduced.  Given that the statistical inference is preliminary, given the low level of replication, the discussion delves into the more anecdotal nature of the results.  While some discussion of this nature is welcome, particularly as it relates to possible emissions from the cement plant and roadways, I found it to be overly long.
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: ABSENCE OF HETEROSIS IN HYBRID CRESTED NEWTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Language
The language used is American English, which is clear and unambiguous throughout the manuscript. On line 132 the following misspelled word was noted: “growh” instead of “growth”.

Intro & background
The research background is well presented and the cited literature is relevant. However, there are issues with one of the references:
A reference from the list is missing from the main text of the manuscript: Arntzen, J. W., & Wallis, G. P. (1991). Restricted gene flow in a moving hybrid zone of the newts Triturus cristatus and T. marmoratus in western France. Evolution, 45, 805-826 (lines 258, 259).

Structure
The structure of the manuscript conforms to the PeerJ standards.

Figures
The figures are relevant, in high quality, well labelled and described. However, the manuscript will benefit from an additional figure, showing a stained cross-section of a phalange with arrows indicating LAGs, age at maturity and endosteal resorption (and possibly line of metamorphosis).

Raw data
The raw data used for the analyses is supplied.
Experimental design: Originality
The manuscript presents original primary research that is a continuation of and addition to a series of studies on Triturus phylogeny, conducted by the authors. The research falls within the scope of PeerJ.

Research question
The research question is well defined and relevant, aimed at filling a knowledge gap for the hybridisation process in the genus Triturus.

Investigation and methods
The investigation meets accepted ethical standards and for the most part is performed to a high technical level. Most methods are described with sufficient detail and information in order to be replicated. Where the Materials and methods section is lacking is in the description of the skeletochronology (lines 130-139), which is very superfluous and without any detail. Firstly, they fail to state the exact number of individuals from each morphological group – from what can be counted in the raw data (peerj-28183-SupplInf_4.xls) these are approximately half of each group, and the reason for this decision must be explained. Secondly, the statement “Lines of arrested growth (LAGs) were counted as in Francillon-Viellot et al. (1990)” (line 132) is ambiguous – if the authors followed the exact procedure of Francillon-Viellot et al. (incl. cross-section thickness, preparation and staining methodology), they should state so more clearly; if not, provide information on how the cross-sections were actually prepared. The authors should also clearly state how they have interpreted and controlled for endosteal resoprtion – this process could potentially destroy the first LAGs and if overlooked could skew the results of age determination (i.e. estimated age could be 2-3 years less than the actual age). In addition, the “Other statistical analyses” (line 139) should be clearly stated and their use justified.
Validity of the findings: For the most part the data presented by the authors is robust and the statistical analyses have been adequately interpreted. Still, some issues are left unexplained:
1.	What was the observed level of endosteal resorption and how many LAGs were affected? This is important, as the authors themselves state that increased longevity is one aspect of the hybrid vigour and ignoring resorption could lead to erroneously low estimated age.
2.	Was a metamorphosis line observed? Its presence could be related to harsher conditions and, consequently, to longevity and growth. Since some of the authors have publications on estimating age with the presence of metamorphosis line and endosteal resorption (e.g. Üzüm & Olgun 2009), there is no need to recommend reference literature – this is something they know how to do and need to do it in order to better validate their findings.
3.	Were there statistically significant differences in terms of SVL, age or longevity between the five morphological groups from Vlasi? Even if genetically they all classify as second generation hybrids, this data could still be informative.
4.	The authors state that females are larger than males – but for the purpose of better comparison to other members of the Triturus genus, a sexual dimorphism index could be calculated (following Lovich & Gibbons 1992, as some of the authors have done in previous publications – e.g. Üzüm & Olgun 2009).
5.	The authors state that “Longevity increased over species as T. cristatus, T. marmoratus, T. ivanbureschi and T. macedonicus (Figures 2 and 4).” (lines 182, 183). However, from figure 4 it is clear that longevity of T. macedonicus is greater than that of the T. macedonicus x T. ivanbureschi hybrids. Furthermore, in the text of figure 4 it is stated that “The Vlasi populations of hybrids shows no evidence for hybrid vigour in size, growth or longevity.”
Additional comments: Overall, the manuscript is informative and will present a valuable contribution towards understanding hybridisation in closely related amphibian species, newts in particular. However, it cannot be published in its current form for the following reasons (ordered by importance):
1.	It is almost certain that endosteal resorption was present in at least part of the studied individuals. This process should be discussed and carefully controlled for, because if the actual longevity of the hybrids is greater than the authors have estimated, this would dent their conclusion on the absence of heterosis in T. macedonicus x T. ivanbureschi hybrids.
2.	Although less important, the line of metamorphosis should also be discussed, as if it is present in a large number of individuals, this could indicate harsher conditions that negatively affect all tested heterosis components (size, growth and longevity).
3.	A presence of figure of a stained cross-section with the main features indicated by arrows is next to mandatory in a serious skeletochronology study.
4.	Overall, the data from the skeletochronology and the morphological measurements should be better presented and discussed (see points 3-5 from Validity of the findings).


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

Input:
Title: ABSENCE OF HETEROSIS IN HYBRID CRESTED NEWTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some editorial work needed, odd and awkward phrasing is present.
Experimental design: Seems fine.
Validity of the findings: Interpreted reasonably.
Additional comments: Dear Editors at PeerJ,

    This paper identifies hybrid individuals of two species using genetic markers and then assesses growth curves, finding that there is no difference between the hybrids and parental species. I think the paper is methodologically sound, and results soundly interpreted. I do think that there needs to be a more careful explanation of the lack of statistical differences for the main result that growth curves are not different between the hybrids and the parental species (more details below). I also think that the discussion need to highlight that the interpretation of a "unimodal hybrid zone" (line 204) needs to qualified in that only a single pond was assessed. Perhaps this is the core of the hybrid zone where hybrids are abundant, but elsewhere in the areas of sympatry they are not. Basically, it's not robust to say that the whole hybrid zone in unimodal, when only a single locality in that zone was assessed. Other than that, I think there are some clarification (awkward wording/phrasing) and methodological details that need to be made.

Specific comments:

Abstract sentence 2 I don't understand: "A bimodal hybrid zone of distantly related species in France combined low gene flow with hybrid sterility and heterosis whereas a suite of unimodal hybrid zones in closely related Triturus showed more or less extensive introgressive hybridization with no evidence for heterosis." Is this in reference to other studies?

Abstract L27 & 29: "The study with..."; should be "This study used 13". Also, the next sentence has awkward phrasing, and should probably be something like "estimated growth curves are not different from the parental species".

L43: "evidence accumulates that", should be "accumulated evidence suggests that"

L97: confusing language.

L96--99: How were multiple phenotypic measures used to make these designation decisions? Was a PCA performed? Is there some quantifiable metric that is used/scoring card scheme?

L103--104: Are those known to be pure populations? How?

L105: "to stay away from", bad phrasing. Should probably be something like "distant from other species"

L134: How are those 13 individuals distributed across the age and sex classes (i.e., all juveniles)? How was a juvenile classification made (if they are sexually mature, i.e., have rapprochment, then they are not juvenile)?

L137: please cite the R core team as well.

L125: I think you should say why you tested HWE and LD (presumably to look for the presence of null alleles and that markers were unlinked...no?)

L128: What sort of prior did you set (Jefferies, or uniform)? Did you test if the prior had an effect (as suggested in the NewHybrids manual)? Did you define allele frequencies in the fashion described in the manual (section 3.5.2 is relevant to your markers, I think, as it sounds like your markers are limited to one species or the other.)

L132--134: How was this rapprochment decided? Is there some sort of quantifiable measurement?

L145: What constitutes a "high frequency"? Please clarify.

L151: change to "significant comparisons"

L155: Ambiguous which marker these results are about, presumably the mtDNA? Please clarify. Also, please state here why this is expected, so the reader does not have to go dig up another paper Also, how was this determined that the offspring had this marker of the one species, by eye, with a tree, blast, etc.?

L165: Please clarify what H and S refer to, and how this ANOVA was done (presumably in the HLsest software?).

L167: Could you please add a sentence describing why this is important and what this indicates? (for both the anova test, and the correlation).

L169: Was this limited to hybrids? Or all samples?

L174: Please clarify what you mean by "a more regular transition". Do you mean a less drastic shift in resource allocation?

**L175--183**: It is not clear that there was a statistical test done here. It seem that in table 3, all of the CIs are overlapping (it would be nice to have that in the growth curve plot), and that is why you say there is no hybrid vigor. Perhaps a statement attesting to the statistical nature of this test needs to be done. I also think a more general test could be done with these data, like a multiple regression with age and size as dependent variables, and species (macedonicus, ivansbureschi, and hybrid) and sex as independent (the result of a non-significant species effect would support the conclusion).  Or just a linear model with SVL as the response and age, species, and sex and the independent. But that is probably unnecessary, as table 3 seems to have equivalent information (people are just generally more familiar with linear models, I find). It could be helpful to have the CIs plotted along with the growth curves, if possible.

L188: Unclear wording. You say "we were unable to determine the extent of hybridization", but where was that information? The only morphological measurements I can see in this paper related to the growth curves (and is that what you mean? If so, perhaps reference that figure here).

L189--191: These definitions of unimodal or bimodal are clarifying, and should maybe be stated in the introduction (where I was uncertain what you meant by uni/bimodal hybrid zones).

L199: perhaps you mean "binning" instead of "banning"? I'm also uncertain what that refers to. Please clarify.

L200: citation needed.

L201: It's not clear what you mean by absence of LD. I thought your LD test was just between markers to ensure that you are not pseudoreplicating the genetic data (i.e., markers are independent). Please clarify.

L225: To be fair, you don't explicitly test here that hybrids are fertile, you only infer it from the presence of F2 or later hybrids. This sentence should probably be changed to reflect that.

L227: Citation needed, as you didn't test that here.

L231: Perhaps you should tag on that this would be an area for future investigation, because it's a little odd to end your paper saying what could contradict it without saying why.

Figure 2/4: I think it would be helpful to group figures 2 and 4 into a single figure (as "a" and "b" subfigures), to show what heterosis would look like, if it were to be present.

Figures 1--4: Y axis labels should be next to the Y axis, not on top.


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: ABSENCE OF HETEROSIS IN HYBRID CRESTED NEWTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study reports on the hybrid origin of a single population of Triturus newts from Serbia. Based on diagnostic SNPs, the authors find that all individuals are at least second or third generation hybrids. They also estimate age, size and longevity in this population and reference populations of the parental species, and conclude that there is no heterosis in the hybrids (i.e. being fertile,  the hybrids allocate energy into reproduction). The authors then contrast this hybrid population with data from T. cristatus/marmoratus from a previous study. The introduction provides some relevant information for understanding hybrid zones, and the aims of the paper are clearly defined.
Experimental design: The number (13) of diagnostic SNPs is rather small, but sufficient to determine the hybrid nature of the newt individuals. The analyses are well-done and clearly explained, the English is mostly unambiguous (see a few minor comments below), and illustrations & tables provide important information and are easy to understand.
Validity of the findings: I found one major issue which should be improved upon before acceptance – the validity of the main conclusion of the paper, mentioned in the abstract & conclusion sections. The authors propose that in the genus Triturus heterosis is restricted to hybrids that are infertile, and that this is more likely the case for genetically incompatible as opposed to genetically compatible species. This far-reaching conclusion is based on a single hybrid population analysed in this paper, and references to the cristatus-marmoratus hybrid zone and hybrid populations of some other species (which ones?) of the complex. No data is provided for these other hybrid zones (with the exception of some previously published data for Von Bertalanffy growth curves for marmoratus – cristatus). The analysis of other zones in the complex is thus a purely verbal one, and rather minimal at that. Therefore I find it hard to justify some of the statements in the abstract (e.g. first and last sentences), or the conclusions of the paper (lines 225-231). Indeed, the first sentences of the abstract (lines 20-24) had me thinking that the paper is an empirical analysis of several hybrid zones in the Triturus species complex. This is certainly not the case – there is data for a single hybrid population between two species.
I would recommend de-emphasizing this aspect of the paper and sticking to the main aims which are nicely laid out in lines 85-90. In particular, I would rework the abstract to more accurately reflect the data and analyses in the paper, and I would remove/modify the conclusions section which seems rather far-fetched given the data at hand. The idea that hybrid zone structure is at least partially determined by genetic divergence of the hybridizing species is interesting and worth pursuing in the discussion. However, I don’t think you can conclude that this is the case based on a single hybrid population and verbal treatment of a handful of other examples from the genus.
Additional comments: Minor issues:
Line 43 awkward wording, try: …, accumulated evidence shows that in diploid animals, reproductive isolation….

Lines 51-53. What exactly do you mean by level of hybridization? Spatial extent (width of hybrid zone), proportion of population in hybrid matings? Also, Zuiderwijk (1980) seems rather outdated, as many taxonomic changes have occurred in this vertebrate group since 1980.

Line 56. the accumulation of reproductive isolation is not really tested in this paper, therefore I suggest rewording the sentence by replacing reproductive isolation with introgressive hybridization, or something more general like speciation continuum, etc.

Line 95 Remove “A” (start sentence with Morphological)

Line 96, change to:  determined five groups, including…

Line 100, collect tissues/tailtips

Lines 163-167, define the abbreviations H, S and SVl in this section

Line 203, replace “just” with “only”

Line 203,  “the“ documented distributions

Line 215, should be “infrequent hybridization”

Line 225, should be “demonstrated here”


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOMETRIC RELATIONSHIPS AND SEASONAL VARIATION IN SIZE, WEIGHT, AND A CONDITION INDEX OF POST-SETTLEMENT STAGES OF THE CARIBBEAN SPINY LOBSTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear unambiguous professional English used throughout:
-	Well-written and easy to read, with some caveats.
Minor inconsistencies, such as using (or not) abbreviations for weight (W), carapace height (CH) etc. See for example between lines 236 and 249.
In several areas, the writing could be more concise, for example:
Line 150: Delete ‘For the present study’ and start the sentence with “We used samples…
Lines 209-210: Full-stop after (Figure 2). Then delete …’shows the great overlap in size range between stages.’ It is quite obvious from the preceding ranges and the Figure.
Line 285: replace the winding sentence with: ‘The small measured range gave rise to wide variability in most relationships (r2 <0.5) ….’
-	Intro and background show context:
The Intro is well-written and structured, and provides the required context.
Line 82: Delete ‘fighting ability’ which does not make sense here. Maybe in other taxa, or life stages, but probably not in pueruli or 1st stage juveniles.
The references cover the field well. Throughout the paper, the standard of one author followed by et al. should be used (not 2 authors + et al.).
Line 136: What would ‘local effects after the post-settlement molt’ be? A sentence to be added to explain likely local effects.

The structure does not always conform to the norm, with parts of the Materials and methods appearing in the Results section and vice versa.
Lines 171-174: Move to Results section.
Lines 174-176: Delete. It is already in the results section (see lines 210-212).
Lines 178-181: Delete. Already stated in lines 158-159. Elaborate the initial (158) text to define the calendar seasons – which months in each season and why.
Lines 189-191: Delete. Already stated in lines 163-165
Line 194-195: Delete the sentence…’As the effect of location was not significant…’ This is already in the Results section (lines 230-235), where it fits much better.
Line 214-216: This needs to be moved to the material and methods to describe the seasons that were selected (see comment above)
The Figures and Tables are relevant and good quality. The raw data has been supplied in an excel file.
Experimental design: The research questions are well defined, and relevant. The manuscript addresses an important knowledge gap in a novel way.
The experimental design is generally rigorous and performed to a high standard. There remain some points to be considered in more depth by the authors:
-	Selection of seasons: In tropical ecosystems, seasonal effects can become blurred, and in many cases studies rely on dominant environmental drivers to define ecologically relevant seasons, for example monsoon seasons; or wet / dry periods etc (see  Munga et al. (2013) – Species composition, distribution patterns and population structure of penaeid shrimps in Malindi-Ungwana Bay, Kenya, based on experimental bottom trawl surveys. Fisheries Research 147:93-102). The authors should define their calendar seasons (which months incorporated in each season) and also motivate exactly why they chose these specific intervals. Alternatively, investigate whether there are environmental drivers that would better describe seasonal effects on larval settlement, rather than simply splitting the year into four 3-month groups.
-	Distinguishing between 1st and 2nd stage juveniles: There will certainly be overlap in the size-ranges of 1st and 2nd stage juveniles in nature. How did the authors decide which specimens were in the 1st stage (and thus included in the study) or 2nd stage (and excluded)? This needs to be explained in the Materials and Methods. The question is pertinent, because in Figure 2, there appears to be 2 modes in the category for 1st juveniles. Note that there are single modes (and roughly normal size distributions) for transparent- and pigmented pueruli, respectively. The second mode might reflect the inclusion of 2nd stage juveniles.
The methods have been described with sufficient detail –but with some redundancy (repetitions) as indicated in 'Basic reporting' above.
Validity of the findings: Data of lobster settlement patterns are quite scarce globally, because it is labor intensive to collect and numbers that are caught on collectors are often very low (as also experienced in the present study). I commend the authors for undertaking this taxing (but important) project, and for analyzing the data in a logical and scientifically rigorous way. I have no doubt that the findings are valid, and found the conclusions to be strongly supported by the data and analyses. As with any manuscript, some improvements can be made (see comments above) – the most important ones are improving the structure of the manuscript by removing repetitions; revisiting the seasonal stratification strategy used; and checking whether inclusion of stage 2 juveniles might erroneously have contaminated the data.
Additional comments: Good work. This study fills in an important knowledge gap in a clear and unambiguous way.