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

Input:
Title: A SCOPING REVIEW OF DETERMINANTS OF PERFORMANCE IN DRESSAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Consider if you want to add to the introduction that the review was conducted part of, or in preparation for, a larger study commissioned by the FEI. This makes it more understandable why the para dressage perspective, thinking that I will not be the only one wondering about this. I can’t find any statement about source of funding, but maybe this is provided to the journal separately.
Experimental design: I am happy that the authors appreciated my comments regarding the paper being a scoping review. I think the paper and the supplementary material benefit from the changes made, adapting them to the scoping review framework.
The authors have amended the unclear points regarding the search strategy in a good way.
Validity of the findings: I appreciate that the authors have provided a better explanation for figure former 2, now 3. I feel the supplement linking the figure and the discussion makes it more transparent, which I felt was an important issue in the previous submission. Only, you need to change figure number in the supplement, it is referring to figure 2 (should be 3). I’m still not a huge fan of figures 2-3, but a particular graphical illustration will seldom appeal to all readers.

Supplementary text S2: ‘Systematic Review and/or Meta-Analysis Rationale’ is no longer relevant, I assume this was left in by accident and is to be removed?

I’m fine with the amendments that have been made to the discussion. I’m less bothered by it being lengthy now when re-reading it from a scoping review perspective only and not searching for the type of conclusive remarks and recommendation statements that should be part of a systematic review.
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: PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THREE INFLAMMATION-BASED GLASGOW PROGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this retrospective, single center cohort study, the authors aimed to investigate three kinds of GPS in patients who present with AMI. Results have revealed that the GPS has a good predictive value for the occurrence of MACE during hospitalization among these patients regardless of STEMI or NSETMI, the choice of PCI mode. The language of the article was sufficient. The tables and figures were also adequate. In terms of references, I can suggest that a recent article, which investigated the CAR (CRP/Albumin Ratio) in AMI and combines a similar parameters, should be added to the article. Hence, I recommend to cite below article in your text:
1-Prognostic efficacy of C-reactive protein/albumin ratio in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2019 Apr;53(2):83-90. doi: 10.1080/14017431.2019.
Experimental design: In method section, I have some concerns;
1-Which method was used to measure CRP and albumin level?
2-In which time period  was CRP and albumin level measured in the studied population?
3-Did you use the DeLong method to compare the AUC values of three kinds of GPS?
4- In order to show the model had an adequate calibration, the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic should be presented.
5-How did you obtain the long-term MACE events in the study? With outpatient follow-up or telephone contact?
Validity of the findings: The conclusion was sufficient.
Additional comments: Thank you for this interesting study.
Some comments about the study
1- Did you exclude the patients who had an acute infection(s), auto-immune disease, and cancer?
2-You should add an information that multi-center and prospective studies are needed to determine the exact role of the GPS in patients with AMI.
3-You should add some clinical information to the discussion part. For example, patients with higher GPS might need more aggressive statin treatment or close-follow up after such event.


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: PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THREE INFLAMMATION-BASED GLASGOW PROGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is well-designed and reported, despite several typo errors the language is fluent and convenient.
I have minor concerns about the study.
Another important index named as prognostic nutritional index (PNI) has been reported to have prognostic value even in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism.
PNI also includes albumin as a component, thus please add this score to discussion section with the help of a citation to 'A Novel Independent Survival Predictor in Pulmonary Embolism: Prognostic Nutritional Index.'.
Experimental design: The research is within the aims and scope of the journal.
Validity of the findings: The impact and novelty of the study is adequate.
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: PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THREE INFLAMMATION-BASED GLASGOW PROGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The introduction is adequate for the research question of the paper.

The language is clear and understandable.

The structure is in accordance with the standards of the journal.

Line 48. In the Abstract, there is a mistake: No NSETMI…… it would be NSTEMI

In Materials and Methods, it would be necessary to clarify the characteristics of the GRACE score.

Line 120 to 121:  in outcome event, “the primary endpoint event was MACE during hospitalization, which included cardiovascular death, all causes mortality. I think it can be a mistake…. All cause mortality is a secondary endpoint.

In References: there are references which the scientific journal´s names are in uppercase and others in lowercase

For the sample size calculation, in addition to indicate the web page where you calculated it, you must explain which kind of contrast you performed.

Selection of the predictors should not be based on the univariate analysis (see the PROBAST statement), therefore you must recalculate your results.

Missing data should be imputed, instead of carrying out a complete-case analysis.

Could you determine the outcome probabilities and the calibration of the models?


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: PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THREE INFLAMMATION-BASED GLASGOW PROGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no further comment
Experimental design: I have no further comment
Validity of the findings: I have no further comment
Additional comments: Thank you for revision
I have no further 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: PREDICTIVE VALUE OF THREE INFLAMMATION-BASED GLASGOW PROGNOSTIC SCORES FOR MAJOR CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS IN PATIENTS WITH ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION DURING HOSPITALIZATION: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-designed and presented. I want to thank the authors for their valuable contribution.
Experimental design: The research is well-designed, the methods are described with sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: The underlying data have been provided well and the statistics is convenient.
Additional comments: After the revisions, the value of the manuscript significantly increased. The manuscript has a great value to the literature.


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

Input:
Title: MULTI-WALLED CARBON NANOTUBES PRODUCED AFTER FOREST FIRES IMPROVE GERMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF EYSENHARDTIA POLYSTACHYA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: For me the paper is clear but I not English mother tongue.

Introduction and literature are satisfying.

Structure is conform to journal standards.

Figures are of good quality and interesting. Caption and figures label need minor corrections (see attached PDF).

Raw data was supplied for germination and plant growth
Experimental design: The research fits the Aims and Scope of the journal.

The research fills a knowlege gap on the role of natural fire products on post-fire germination.

Investigation was conducted rigorously.

Methods are reproducible. For clarity I suggest minor revision of experimental design.
Validity of the findings: In M&M I suggest to clarify experimental design (page 7 lines 103-104) as follows:

treatments are three: natural MWCNTs, synthetic MWCNTs and amorphous carbon, each with three different levels (concentration: 20, 40, 60 mg/mL) replicated ten times in polypropylene container each containing 1 seed (?). Treatments where compared with the control (concentration: 0 mg/mL) with the same number of seeded polypropylene container replicates.
Additional comments: The work analysis the role of two natural wildfire products, MWCNTs  and amorphous carbon, and one  synthetic product, MWCNTs, on germination and seedling biometric growth parameters of a native legume species (E. p.) growing in fire prone pine forests. Natural wildfire products were collected from two Mexican pine species in the same burnt forest.
Results indicate that natural MWCNTs  improved significantly emergence and growth of seedling of the tested species, mainly at 40 g/mL of concentration.
Overall, the manuscript is of interest and contains remarkable data for a large audience, the methods applied are rigorous, well explained and the results obtained are confirmative.
In the attached PDF are my specific and minor comments.


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

Input:
Title: MULTI-WALLED CARBON NANOTUBES PRODUCED AFTER FOREST FIRES IMPROVE GERMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF EYSENHARDTIA POLYSTACHYA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript " Multi-walled carbon nanotubes formed after forest fires improve germination and development of Eysenhardtia polystachya " is interesting and well written and experiments were well performed. Literature used is appropriate. The presentation of the data is clear.

However, In the Introduction some information about environmental concentrations of MWCNTs should be introduced. If there are no information about it, at least indicate that no information on environmental concentrations exists and why…. I know that is difficult to quantify, but it is important to mention it.
Experimental design: Experiments were well performed. However, it should be added some important details regarding the experimental design:

Line 94 –  The choice of the concentrations are based on which premise? Previous works? or concentrations found in the environment?

Lines 103-104: “The experiments were performed using a completely randomized experimental design using ten treatments with n = 8.” Here, when you say n=8 you mean 8 replicates per treatment? In table 1 I saw that you have 3 assays and 8 seeds per assay.
in this statement is not clearer this information. please clarify and indicate that you have 3 replicates per treatment.
Validity of the findings: Results are convincing and conclusions are well stated, linked to the aim.
Additional comments: General Comment: The manuscript " Multi-walled carbon nanotubes formed after forest fires improve germination and development of Eysenhardtia polystachya " is interesting and well written and experiments were well performed. The presentation of the data is clear. Results are convincing and publication is recommended. I still have some comments in order to improve the manuscript before to be published.

Lines 158 – 159 - treatments with synthetic MWCNTs negatively affected plant height for all concentrations?

Table 1 – can the authors include the standard deviation? Can you also include significative differences among treatments (at least for day 17). For survival percentage, please introduce the number of days after planting (60?)

Figure 1 A and B – It is possible to maintain the same order for both 1A and 1B (for example: control, synthetic MWCNTs, Natural MWCNTs and Amorphous carbon)? I suggest to maintain the same order used in figure 2. Plants from control seems to be smaller (aereal part) when compared with remaining conditions. However, this data is not concordant with data presented in fig 2C, were is possible to see that in mean, the height of control plants, for example, was significantly higher than plants exposed to synthetic MWCNTs.

figure 2 – statistical significance is indicated with different uppercase letters in the figure and not with lowercase letters as referred by the authors in the figure caption. It is missing the letter “C” in the figure 2C.

Figure 3 – it would be interesting to have also a figure of roots from control.

Figure 4 – figure 4D does not have the letters of statistical significance; again uppercase letters were used for the remaining figures, instead of lowercase as mentioned in figure caption.


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

Input:
Title: MULTI-WALLED CARBON NANOTUBES PRODUCED AFTER FOREST FIRES IMPROVE GERMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF EYSENHARDTIA POLYSTACHYA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments attached
Experimental design: Comments attached
Validity of the findings: Comments attached
Additional comments: Comments
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes formed after forest fires improve germination and development of Eysenhardtia polystachya (#41130)
Author reported the formation of MWCNTs in nature after forest fires has been documented and their effect on Eysenhardtia polystachya seeds germination.  Results showed that natural MWCNTs in all applied doses accelerated the emergence and improved the germination of this plant, significantly promoting leaf number, root growth, and the dry and fresh weights of shoots and roots was studied. These findings indicate that MWCNTs from natural sources act as plant growth promoters, contributing to the germination and development of forest species such as E. polystachya.
This work is interesting, which is a significant advancement over existing knowledge, but it needs minor improvements before considering for publication.
Specific comments
1. Abstract should contain some quantitative information also.
# What about the toxicity of nanoparticle to the tissues, have authors considered this factor ?
# the abbreviation used must be explained on their first appearance, or provide separate list of abbreviations
# How author will compare their findings with physical pre-sowing seed treatment because these are safe versus chemical treatment ?, some references are included below to discuss this issue in present investigation
Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 173 (2017) 344-352., Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 166 (2017) 212-219., Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 165 (2016) 283-290., Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 6 (2016) 176-183., Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology, 170 (2017) 314-323., Effects of X-ray irradiation on growth physiology of Arachis Hypogaea (Var. Kampala). , Chemistry International 3(2017) 296-300.


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: LIGHTNESS INDUCTION ENHANCEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AT LOW FREQUENCY MODULATIONS ACROSS A VARIETY OF STIMULUS CONTEXTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is, for the most part, clear and unambiguous, with the following exceptions:
1.	The main "nulling" paradigm is not well defined. Referring to line 136-137: "Specifically, participants were asked to null any perceived modulation in lightness" - it is best not to define nulling with the term itself, but substitute it with other words, such as cancel out, or extinguish.
2.	Do the authors mean to use “static” rather than discrete?  Line 138: “the surrounding lightness illusion stimulus was modulated discretely or continuously in time”. Discretely here would imply step-wise increments of changes to lightness, which I believe is not what the authors did. They would better describe their method using “static” instead of “discrete”. This applies to all uses of “DSM” and “discrete static modulation”. “Modulation” implies change to the stimulus, which was not performed. This looks like a static condition (described as 0 Hz).

In regards to referencing, the nulling paradigm is not properly cited. It is referred to, and defined, in Adelson (1993) but not in Blakeslee & McCourt (2008). Nulling is also used in Adelson (1993) with a static image, so the nulling paradigm here needs to either refer to another reference with temporal modulation, or clarify the difference between previously published methodologies and what is used here.

Figures are in general clear. Error bars are used and defined. Figure 1B: are there supposed to be c annotations on the white checkerboard squares? Otherwise the luminance inversion is not consistent in this figure.
Experimental design: There would be more consistency if all of the stimuli were the same size, because then you would also be controlling for the size of the surround area. Does the size of the effect for Munker-White change when presented using a square aspect ratio?

For the Simultaneous Contrast (SC) effect, an area 8 times the target patch is modulated, which is the same for the checkerboard, so it appears that these two stimuli are more directly comparable in terms of changes to luminance given fixed area. With Munker-White (MW), if the “flankers” are modulated, this is approximately 4 times the target patch area, which also differs if the “assimilators” are modulated, which are approximately 10 times the patch area. If the size of the effect is dependent upon the surround area, then the flanker effect would be weaker than the assimilator effect, which is shown here. Please justify your reasoning for choosing a different size stimuli for MW.
Validity of the findings: The authors compare static to continuously modulated stimuli, but do not clearly state the differences in the rank order of the effect between these two conditions. In Figure 2, in the static condition, the strongest effect is shown by SC, then checkerboard, then MW. This rank-order changes with the temporal modulation, such that SC still remains with having the highest effect, but is now followed by MW and then checkerboard. This suggests different mechanisms occurring between the static versus continuously modulated stimuli. The figure-ground effect would remain the same between static versus continuously modulated stimuli. What other mechanisms would you propose could cause this difference?
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: LIGHTNESS INDUCTION ENHANCEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS AT LOW FREQUENCY MODULATIONS ACROSS A VARIETY OF STIMULUS CONTEXTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The authors do not cite any literature investigating the role of figure-ground on lightness induction, nor do they explain the figure-ground theories in depth, despite stating several times that there are numerous sources and strong support for the theories. It would greatly strengthen their argument if they included this. Additionally, it seems that most literature investigating the role of figure-ground cues in lightness induction talk about perceptual grouping as a whole, not specifically figure-ground (Gilchrist, 1999). It would be more fitting to use something like  ‘perceptual grouping’ instead of ‘figure-ground’ in the text.
2. Figure 1C is a little bit confusing, given that the authors include the luminance inversion symbol when in reality, those are not the two states it is fluctuating between.
3. Typos/grammar issues:
Throughout: should be a space before the first parenthesis when citing.
Throughout: Some phrasing is a bit repetitive.
Lines 36-39: Awkward, repetitive phrasing.
Line 68: ‘modulations’ should be ‘modulation’.
Line 68: There should not be a comma after ‘studies’.
Line 71: There should not be a comma after ‘states’.
Line 74: There should not be a comma after ‘understood’.
Line 81: ‘T- junctions’ should be ‘T-junctions’.
Line 106: Add ‘the’ before ‘lightness’.
Line 190-191: Parentheses are in the incorrect spots.
Lines 188-191: Awkward, repetitive phrasing. Delete last phrase.
Line 205: There should not be a comma after ‘lightness’.
Line 205: Delete ‘by’.
Line 208: Delete ‘, which is’. There should also be no comma there.
Line 220: ‘Michselson’ should be ‘Michelson’.
Line 240: There should not be a comma before ‘strongly’.
Line 254: ‘found’ should be ‘find’.
Line 258: There should be a comma before ‘we used’.
Line 314: There should be a comma after ‘presentation’.
Experimental design: 1. The authors use discrete, manual switching (DSM) between extremes of an illusion and call it the ‘0 Hz’ condition (in comparison to the continuous modulation (CSM) conditions). While the inclusion of these trials is useful, there are substantial significant differences between the DSM and CSM conditions. Given that observers are required to fixate at a static illusion for an extended period of time, adaption is likely to play a huge role in the perception of brightness. The authors ought to bring up this caveat and consistently distinguish these trials from the CSM trials. It is a bit of a stretch to label them as the ‘0 Hz’ conditions and for their conclusions to depend strongly on this assumption.
2. Figure 2: The statistics here seem awkward. Looking at differences between slopes in Fig 2A, it would be difficult to believe that MWf and SC have slopes significantly different from 0, yet MWa does not. Or, more specifically, do they really think that there is a difference between MWf and MWa?
3. The authors should indicate how well the linear functions fitted the data and plot them, perhaps in Fig 2A. Considering that it neither hurts nor helps their claim of figure-ground involvement, the statement that MWa does not have a decreasing trend while MWf and SC do is misleading.
4. Lines 214: Readers would have a better idea of the authors’ predictions if they plotted the potential ‘inverted-U’ shape from the JNTM.
5. Lines 226-232: It is probably best to use effect sizes to describe the magnitude of the difference between the DSM and slowest CSM nulling amplitudes, instead of just comparing mean amplitudes.
Validity of the findings: 1. The authors are convinced that the degree of figure-ground segmentation in particular influences lightness induction, based on their comparison of three configurations with differing figure-ground ambiguity. However, these three illusions differ in more ways that just figure-ground ambiguity. Particularly, they have power at different spatial frequencies. There are numerous spatial filtering theories that have been able to explain most brightness induction effects (e.g., Blakeslee and McCourt, Dakin and Bex), yet the authors do not mention them, let alone challenge them.
Additional comments: The subject of temporal modulation influences on lightness induction is an interesting and worthy topic, and the authors point out a significant hole in the literature.


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

Input:
Title: SITE SELECTION FOR SUBTROPICAL THICKET RESTORATION: MAPPING COLD-AIR POOLING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SUB-ESCARPMENT LOWLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is extremely well written, such that it was a joy to read, and the substance of the research was conveyed clearly. The introduction provided an excellent context to the study, though it would benefit from some mention of the few previous studies which examine the influence of frost in restoration.

The structure is also very good and the figures and tables are of high quality. I would suggest that the MS would benefit from additional use of photographs (see General Comments). The results are relevant to the hypotheses.
Experimental design: This MS is within the aims and scope of PeerJ. As described in the General Comments this research is of great importance and will make a very useful contribution to a clear (and substantial) knowledge gap.

The study is a robust one, drawing on several different approaches to address the aims. It is suitably replicated. The methods are described in appropriate detail.
Validity of the findings: The underlying data have been provided and represent a robust effort to address the aims. The conclusions are sound, relevant to the stated aims and are supported by the results.
Additional comments: This paper was a joy to read. It is well structured and well written, so it flowed very easily and was readily understood. It tackled an important and interesting topic in a robust way, producing sound findings that are not only interesting as regards a fundamental understanding of the mechanisms driving the boundary between Karoo and thicket biomes, but vital to practitioners seeking to restore degraded patches of thicket. Despite frost being a key determinant of vegetation patterns, scant research has been conducted on this environmental factor in the context of restoration ecology (for exceptions see Scowcroft & Jeffrey 1999; Scowcroft et al. 2000; Curran et al. 2010; Rorato et al. 2018). This paper will make an important contribution towards filling this large knowledge gap.

My main suggestion is that the manuscript could be improved by the addition of a photograph of the study species and by earlier reference in the main text to photographs showing the biome boundaries.

I have provided more detailed comments on an annotated version of the MS.

References

Curran, T.J., Reid, E.M. and Skorik, C. (2010) Effects of a severe frost on riparian rainforest restoration in the Australian wet tropics: foliage retention by species and the role of forest shelter. Restoration Ecology 18: 408-413

Rorato, D. G., Araujo, M. M., Tabaldi, L. A., Turchetto, F., Griebeler, A. M., Berghetti, Á. L. and Barbosa, F. M. (2018), Tolerance and resilience of forest species to frost in restoration planting in southern Brazil. Restoration Ecology 26: 537-542.

Scowcroft, P. G., and J. Jeffrey. (1999) Potential significance of frost, topographic relief, and Acacia koa stands to restoration of mesic Hawaiian forests on abandoned rangeland. Forest Ecology and Management 114:447–458.

Scowcroft, P. G., F. C. Meinzer, G. Goldstein, P. J. Melcher, and J. Jeffrey. (2000) Moderating night radiative cooling reduces frost damage to Metrosideros polymorpha seedlings used for forest restoration in Hawaii. Restoration Ecology 8:161–169.


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: SITE SELECTION FOR SUBTROPICAL THICKET RESTORATION: MAPPING COLD-AIR POOLING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SUB-ESCARPMENT LOWLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see general comments below.  While generally well-written, the language is scientifically imprecise and vague, hiding any potentially significant results.
Experimental design: See general comments below.  In general, I found the experimental design to be unclear, as written. There is strength in the application and modification of the model to the Southern Hemisphere and the testing across a robust observational dataset.  Unfortunately, the presentation of the work does not include hypotheses, and is unclear regarding description of the scale of the research (as currently written).
Validity of the findings: This could be the first application of the model to the southern hemisphere and restoration of thicket is a large concern for the region.  I would be enthusiastic about efforts that can help guide management, especially to prioritize (spatially) where to do this restoration under limited resources.  Some strengthening of this could be undertaken (see suggestions in general comments).
Additional comments: There are strong elements of this work that lend itself to eventual publication.  This research appears to be the first test of a cold-air drainage model (frost prediction) in the Southern Hemisphere (but see comment below).  This work also has potential for guiding restoration efforts in the Eastern Cape of South Africa, for a currently threatened and valuable ecosystem, thicket.  The work leverages a broad-scale empirical dataset: the Thicket-Wide-Plot Experiment.  One significant result of the study is the validation of lower productivity of spekboom inside frost areas vs. outside. Unfortunately, the paper suffers from several major limitations that preclude my support of publication at this time.

Major Comments

I believe the manuscript could be reworked to highlight some of the more significant findings.  It seems to me that this is the first time the cold-air pooling model was applied in the Southern Hemisphere; this should be emphasized as a core outcome of the work.

There are no hypotheses associated with the study objectives.  What did you expect to see, and why?  Relate your expected results back to current scientific understanding and your specific results.

Overall, there were many places in the manuscript where the language could be more specific and tailored to the actual results of the study.  For example, in the abstract, the authors refer to a “strong visual match.”  Was this really a qualitative (and subjective) result, or one that was founded on cross-validation and statistical results (if the latter, report the details).  Other examples include:
	L 80 “functional ecosystems” – what does this mean in this context?
	L105 	“many hours of field observations” – how many?
	L116 – “similar soil conditions” – explain what soil conditions you mean
L168	“resulted in improved predictions” – report the statistics

L173 “visual analysis” – what is this?
	L181 – “boundary based test” – what is this?
I recommend the authors review the entire manuscript to avoid obscure or over-generalized language.

Even having gone through the paper several times, I found myself often confused about the scale (grain and extent) of the study, and how the data and sites mapped onto the methodological approaches.  What I mean by this is that the authors seemed to interchangeably use the terms “along the sub-escarpment coastal plateau” (L 86), “site” (L95) or “valley” (e.g., L 111), a “grid cell” (L133) or “region of interest” (L160) or “broader surrounding landscape” (L 154), or “two valleys on the Koboega Farm, with only one GPS point provided).  Similarly, the figures refer to the area covered by the WTP and the two valleys.  By the end of all this, I was very confused!!  I recommend the authors very clearly outline the grain/resolution of the study (for each question, if they differ).  If there is a broader extent to which the study is relevant, this can be addressed in the intro and discussion.   Throughout, consistent terminology would really assist the reader.

The Lundquist et al. (2008) model, given the fact that it is fundamental to this study, needs to be explained to the reader in the introduction.  What did it do (and why) and WHY is this the best model to test in this region?

Throughout, I found that there was a mix of content among the sections (intro, methods, results, discussion).  The authors should clearly map their text onto these sections.  If it is appropriate for the journal to mix results and discussion (for example, the paragraph beginning L 248), fair enough.  An unfortunate consequence of this choice, however, is that the results do not clearly stand-out, substantially diminishing the impact of the paper, unfortunately.  Another example is L201-206 – This seems like an important motivator of the study and probably should go in introduction not in the methods.

The role of herbivory was unclear.  Was this controlled for in this study?  Was it a focus of the study?  And/or is it simply a justification for the restoration goals that motivated the study?  Moreover, it wasn’t clear if you were referred to livestock herbivory or natural herbivory.  What is meant by “indigenous herbivory damage.”  I wasn’t even sure if you were referring to humans or non-humans!

Minor comments:

Abstract:
-emphasize first-time application in S.hemisphere; emphasize the changes that you made to the model; emphasize the use of large-scale empirical dataset
-present actual results (with the most impactful details); highlight the key results!
-The final sentence says “cold air mapping should be conducted” – but isn’t this what you did?  Perhaps make this last sentence more impactful for actual restoration efforts (presumably by managers who might not do all the work you did in the project).

Intro
L72 – from “forming”[?] clumps?
L72 – ‘causing breakdown of the microclimate’ – rephrase
L80 – drought hardy species (add hyphen for drought-hardy?)

Methods
L93 – Here is where I would have liked more introduction to the Lundquist model in the previous section
L93/94 – do you mean the empirical data (observed from TWP)?
In general – this first paragraph says what you did, but does not relate it to your questions (or hypotheses)
L107 – this is the first reference to “Cape Folded” and folks outside of SA will not know what you mean.  Can you also provide a general climate description for the region?
L111 – are these the two valleys in the farm?  Unclear.
L116 – remove (and elsewhere)
L121 – does “elsewhere” in this context mean in the study region, or outside of the study region?  Clarify.
L123 – would be better to say what the adjustments were – the current subheading is uninformative (“adjustments to the Lundquist model”)
L130 – what does “rank” mean in this context?
L132 – what stats package did you use here?  If this is R, you should provide the full R package citation here.
L142 – what is meant by “such as how a conventional slope or topographic position index might be calculated”?  Seems like you are making assumptions here, but I am not sure what they are.
L146 – careful of the formatting of the equation – didn’t print well for me.
L159 – original used twice
L160 – “poor frost prediction” – provide details
L163 – what are the “high elevation” values in Lundquist?
L165 – what do you mean by “original” – in Lundquist, or in your methods?
L178 – “thicket shrubland boundaries at additional sites” – I have no idea, now, what is being tested or where
L180 – in general, you need to introduce the TWP in the introduction, particularly to mention that these are experimental plots. Also be consistent in using the acronym or not.
L181 – “the boundary-based test used three additional sites…” – now I am really, really confused about the scale of the study.  Three additional plots?
L183 – “large areas” “many areas” – vague
L210 – why were only 70 of 310 plots useable?
L218 – the productivity data are not a key part of this paper as currently presented.  In some ways that is fair, as you state in the introduction that you expected these results and that is in fact the motivating factor for the study (identifying frost-free zones).  On the other hand, if the data is used to validate your model, it seems important to emphasize more.  Right now, there is a mix of how these data are presented.  The methods are in the supplemental, but the main text has the figure.   Depending on how you want to frame these results, I would recommend consistency in how they are presented.
L243 – I don’t know what is meant by “purported boundary” here
L248 – much of these could be intro, too?
L274 – you’ve mentioned this experiment many times already, so why is it getting it’s own sub-heading now?
L295 –“very cold area’

Conclusions
Reframe this around your major results of validating a model in a new area and leveraging large experimental network.  Make stronger case for restoration application and potential.


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: SITE SELECTION FOR SUBTROPICAL THICKET RESTORATION: MAPPING COLD-AIR POOLING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SUB-ESCARPMENT LOWLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: Line 240. It’s not clear where the boundary between thicket and shrubland is in Figure 4, so it’s difficult to fully assess this conclusion that the prediction was tightly aligned. I suggest another line is added to show where the boundary is.

Caption of Figure 4 mentions a red line. I couldn’t see it on the photos.
Additional comments: 1. There are extensive plains around Jansenville, stretching towards Darlington Dam, that is known as Noorsveld. Various vegetation maps indicate that this huge area would have been dominated by spekboom. How does this fit in with the theorising on frost? It’s an area spanning more than 100 km in width, so of great importance from a restoration perspective. Do these plains experience frost? The introduction indicates that plains would generally not have been favoured by spekboom because of frost occurrence. These vast plains of Noorsveld seem to contradict that point. It would be useful for restoration practitioners to get the views of the authors set out in this paper. There are patches of this Noorsveld south of Jansenville (about 10 km South on the R75) where spekboom is indeed dominant. This is easily seen on Google Earth. This suggests that spekboom would have been a dominant plant in amongst the noors over enormous areas. Yet this Noorsveld presumably gets frost, being a plain?

2. Given that climate change is likely to increase average temperatures in the region, what is the likely effect on frost occurrence and thicket distribution? Climate change is an elephant in the room with regards to restoration, and it would be appropriate for the authors to address it. Perhaps frost occurrence will decrease and thicket will expand as a result? What are the authors views? It’s worthy of some speculation in the paper because the issue needs to be thought through and fully researched in the years ahead. It’s time to put it on the table and start dissecting it.

Line 126. Depressions, not depression.
Line 186. Semi-colon should replace the comma.
Line 195. The experiment, not this experiment. ‘This’ was used in the previous sentence. No need to repeat it.


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: SITE SELECTION FOR SUBTROPICAL THICKET RESTORATION: MAPPING COLD-AIR POOLING IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN SUB-ESCARPMENT LOWLANDS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The overall structure of the paper, particularly the framing of the study is much approved.  I understand the authors' intention to not lead with hypotheses, which is certainly valid in many important scientific studies.  That said, I believe the goals of the effort are now much more clearly identified and the authors' attention to this is much appreciated.
Experimental design: Much clearer explanation of the scale of the experimental design and the calibration/testing phases - thank you!
Validity of the findings: The visual comparison of the results is probably the weakest part of this evaluation - as there may have been rectification issues with the imagery, and/or the quantification of specific differences is impossible to infer at the site level.  But, the authors interpret this approach fairly - only making generalizable conclusions across sites with similar characteristics.
Additional comments: I want to thank the authors for the careful revision of this manuscript.  I was pleased to review it again and can confirm that my major concerns have been adequately addressed.  The paper is methodologically much clearer and the clarity of the results is also vastly improved.  Overall, this paper tests a cold-air-pooling model in two valleys in the Eastern Cape, South Africa and then compares these findings more broadly to a regional-scale data set.  The results can aid restoration of thicket in this area by identifying areas that are prone to frost (and thus likely associated with lower spekboom productivity).


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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “Body condition scoring system of reintroduced banteng (Bos javanicus D’Alton, 1923) into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand” was well written and showed the reintroduction process of large herbivore as Banteng. The advantage of this manuscript is the work with reintroduction of Banteng, which is unique work. Moreover, the authors analyzed the correlation of the body condition scoring index. However, the low number of animals in the findings was low, compared to the previous work (9 Banteng in this study compared to 111 bantengs in Prosser, N S et al. (2016).

The topic should be changed to
“Monitoring Body condition score of reintroduced banteng (Bos javanicus D’Alton, 1923) into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand” as the authors did not develop the body condition scoring system, but rather used the method developed by Soares, F. & Dryden, G.M. (2011) and  Prosser, N S et al. (2016), even camera trap was used which was similar to the work by Prosser, N S et al. (2016)

The English should be rechecked as typing and grammatic errors, which could be better and fluent English.

The authors took three bulls, four cows and two calves into the calculation. I don’t know that the BCS of calves were included in the calculation or not, which probably was not appropriated.  The authors showed the different between male and female, but did not show the different between adults and calves.

Table 1 could be put in the supplement
Experimental design: The use of camera trap to identify the banteng BCS as well as method for identify individuals was good, and well design, as described for the objectives of the study.
Please add more on the statistical analysis for one more paragraph.
Validity of the findings: The findings were good with the results compared from year by year of reintroduction.
However, BCS in Banteng were not novel findings, the advantage of this study was newly performed in the reintroduction group, not a wild population.
Additional comments: Line 82-83
“However, they are protected under the Reserved and Protected Animals Act, B.C.2535 of Thailand (Lekagul & McNeely, 1977).”
This is weird to refer to this article, as this act was announced in BC2535 (1992), but the authors referred to the article in 1977, which was 15 years earlier than the act was announced.

Line 93
The wild banteng population in Thailand was estimated at only c.470 in the 1990s

What is “c.470” This is the number? If it is specific term in this field, please explain more for the readers who are not in this field.

Line 164-168
Were there any other large mammals e.g. guar, any kind of deers, wild buffalo etc.
Banteng was mentioned 2 times in this sentence, please remove one.

Line 168-169
This phrase and references “banteng (Chaiyarat et al., 2019; in 30 m 169 UTM pixel, ArcGIS 9.3, ESRI 2007)” were mentioned here, which was not related to the context.
About the camera trap or methods should be mentioned elsewhere.

Line 169 and 320
ESRI (2007) and
ESRI. (2007). ESRI® Data & Maps 2006. NY: ESRI
Should be clarified more, as the readers may not understand the meanings, or any context why this reference is here. What does ESRI stand for?

Line 202
“BSC” should be changed to “BCS”

Line 202
The authors can use abbreviation “BCS”

Line 273
Please correct “are required,t he integration”

These references are not listed in the text, even they are the statistical analysis papers, it should be referred somewhere else.

Corder, G.W. & Foreman, D.I. (2014). Nonparametric Statistics: A Step-by-Step
Approach. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mann, H.B. Whitney, D.R. (1947). On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables
 	is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Ann. Math. Statist. 18(1), 50-60.
Niedballa, J., Sollmann, R., Courtiol, A. & Wilting, A. (2016). camtrapR: an R package
for efficient camera trap datamanagement. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 1457–1462.
Wayne, W.D. (1990). Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. In Applied Nonparametric
Statistics: pp. 358–365. 2nd edn. Boston: PWS-Kent.


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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “Body condition scoring system of reintroduced banteng (Bos javanicus D’Alton, 1923) into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand” addresses the important aspect of conservation management, i.e., the effect of reintroduction on banteng. There are very few publications on this species, so the authors’ efforts of studying such animals should be commended. The authors have advanced the conventional way of measuring body condition by the camera-traps. The manuscript is well thought of. However, there are several major aspects which I was concerned about, particularly related to writing style, study design and analyses. Thorough proofreading of the manuscript is recommended. I have listed these concerns, as per the Journal format, below:

Basic reporting:
1.	The title “Body condition scoring system of reintroduced banteng (Bos javanicus D’Alton, 1923) into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand” needs modification. It is not clear whether the authors are trying to highlight the body condition scoring system? Or, the effect of reintroduction on banteng’s physical health?
2.	Abstract:
a.	Background: Lines 31-33 seem very abrupt. It is also important to highlight briefly why such studies on ‘banteng’, in particular, are important. A brief statement about their conservation status would be valuable.
b.	Methods: The authors should state how they score the body condition. It was not direct visual scoring, but the photographs through camera-traps. This aspect should be included. It appears that only “Two newborn banteng” were captured via camera traps in 2018 from the first group that was reintroduced in 2015. This should be explicitly explained.
c.	Line 41: …into the natural habitat.
d.	Results: What were the age-differences? Were they adults? Or, a newborn? Was the increment statistically significant? A clearer statement is recommended.
e.	Conclusions: This needs to be very strong. The current statements under the Conclusions “The results from the present study suggest that the BCS of reintroduced banteng can be used to monitor the body condition of reintroduced banteng. These findings are important for possible translocation elsewhere.” should be modified. Lines 45-46 appears repetitive, rather format it as the body condition of reintroduced banteng can be used to monitor “the effect of reintroduction…” And how these findings are linked with translocation?
3.	Line 56: clear space before (IUCN).
4.	Lines 67-77: How is the social dynamics/grouping in banteng? The authors highlight the global population of banteng, then Line 95: they mention the local population, and state that it is increasing, so what is the current population now? They should mention the current status of banteng.
5.	Lines 113-114: Morfeld et al., 2016 was on captive Asian elephants. Authors can also refer the study on wild populations of Asian elephants: Pokharel et al., 2017 (Conservation physiology) studied the effect of seasonality (variations in resources) on body condition and stress of wild Asian elephants.
6.	Lines 201 to 202: Font colour appears different.
7.	Lines 205 to 215: Kindly mention the sample size here and wherever required.
8.	Line 273: correct “the”
9.	Line 274: No “full stop”
10.	Scientific names to be in italic, see lines 300, 303, 314, 345, 357, 363, 371, 374, 375, and wherever required.
11.	All table legends: Banteng scientific name to be in italic and same applies for Figure 1. Figure 2 and others.
12.	Figure 2: It’s BCS, not BSC.
13.	Legends are in different fonts, make it uniform.
14. Thorough proof-reading is recommended.
Experimental design: Experimental design:

1.	Lines 116 to 118 should clearly state the hypothesis and objectives (though have been included in the current manuscript) of this study. It is important to justify how studying the body condition will promote the conservation of this bovid species (?). The study should be hypothesis-driven.
2.	Methods need major corrections. Issues pertaining to methods/designs are listed below:
a.	If the studied animals were monitored using the radio-collared signals over a period of time and also photographed using camera-traps, why was not seasonality included in the analysis?
b.	As seasonality (as a proxy of resource distribution) has been shown to influence the body condition and also animals’ physiological states (Pokharel et al., 2017), the authors should define the change in body condition in terms of resources. The influence of dietary shift between captivity and the reintroduced sites cannot be discounted.
c.	Age-class wise variation should also be included.
d.	The authors have not explained the statistical analyses. This should be added. Why were Spearman’s correlation and Mann Whitney U/Mann Whitney Wilcoxon tests performed? Based on what these tests were selected? What was the distribution of the data? What software was used to analyze? What were the sample sizes for male, female and their age classes? All details should be included.
3.	Were the scoring criteria defined in Table 1 designed by the authors for their study? If so, kindly mention this. If it was adopted from other studies then cite them.
Validity of the findings: Validity of the findings:

1.	Though the authors used camera-traps for assigning the body condition score, the authors should/must validate that the use of camera-trap photographs for scoring the body condition. Even in the normal scenarios, where photographs are captured for assigning the body condition, the scores can be highly biased as the animal might be in different postures: moving, not on the uniform ground, angle of light exposure, our distance from an animal, etc. This might affect the scores. Thus, most of the research validate their studies by including inter-assessor variations. Pokharel et al. (2017) validated the scores by assigning the BCS on the field itself and also capturing the photographs, which was then re-analyzed by the observer and other assessors. In camera-traps, lighting effect, moving animals, clarity and many other factors might complicate to visualize the fat deposition, depression and projections of bones, etc (Figure 2 is the right example for such caveats). It is thus highly recommended to either validate the camera-trap photographs with normal photographs or to refer to the published work where they have used a similar technique and validated the scoring system.
2.	Line 198 onwards: Body condition score system: would not cropping an image change the angle of deposition or shadow? Would not that bias the scoring? Validation or proof of validation of the camera-trap technique is highly recommended.
3.	Lines 222 to 223: A graph to visualize this trend is recommended. Kindly refer to Figure 3.
4.	Lines 225 to 227: terms ‘dramatically and slightly steady’ should be backed up with p-values.
5.	Graphical visualization of change in patterns of body condition is highly recommended. Figure 3, in this context, should be slightly modified. Does the red or blue dots represent female and male? Does that mean there were 13 females in the first year? How many photographs were assessed per individual in a particular year?
6.	The discussion should highlight the possible reasons behind increasing body condition and its implication on evaluating the effectiveness of the reintroduction. And how this is important for the conservation of banteng.
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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is well written, but there are a few areas that could be rearranged to improve flow, and a couple of sentences where I would appreciate re-wording or clarification.
I also suggest the authors add an 'analyses' section to the methods to clarify exactly how the data were statistically analysed.
The raw data for how each BCS score was calculated from the seven body areas is included, but does not indicate which individual was assessment, so it is difficult to assess how over-representation of certain individuals may bias the results (i.e. 36 assessments from 9 individuals). I think this is important information to include.
Experimental design: The authors should more explicitly outline their goals in the introduction, and add an analyses section to outline what they did - this would help the reader interpret the results, and would allow for replication as required.
More information about how the data were handled would also make it easier to assess whether appropriate statistical analyses were performed.
Validity of the findings: More information is needed on how many of the 36 data points were contributed by each of  the nine individuals - it is difficult to assess whether the results are statistically sound without this.
Clarification on the potential influence of season is also required - if BCS was assessed in the wet or dry season, or a combination, would that impact the results?
Additional comments: This study uses camera trap photographs to repeatedly assess the body condition of a small population of reintroduced banteng, as a method of assessing their acclimatization over a period of three years. This is a great idea that could also be applied more widely across other populations and species where individuals are identifiable from camera trap photos. There are a few areas where I would like some clarification (such as whether there may be any seasonal effects that should be considered here, and how exactly the data points were created), and I feel the statistics may need to be reassessed to take into account season and the repeated observations across individuals, but overall I think this is a useful study and should be considered for publication, pending revision.

My main concern with the manuscript as it stands, is that I don’t understand exactly how the BCS data were created, so I can’t assess the suitability of the statistics used. It would be helpful if you could explain exactly how the data were used in your analyses – you had 376 images, which ended up as 36 data points, but only a maximum of 9 individuals each year (only 7 of which were adults). I understand that individuals were measured across the three years, but there must be multiple measurements for some individuals within a year also – such as year 1 where you have 13 female and 10 male data points, but no more than 7 adults. If the BCS scores were taken at different times throughout that year, then this needs to be explained. I am also unclear on where the two calves fit into the data – I feel it would be unusual to compare the BCS of a calf with that of an adult, so this needs to be clarified. I am also slightly concerned that since there were fewer data points in years 2 and 3, whether there are enough to assess the between year comparisons statistically. I think this information should be made more clear in the manuscript itself, rather than just if readers look at the supplemental material.

Please add a section to the methods outlining the statistical analyses that were performed, including how the photographs were used to create your BCS scores (i.e. how many assessments per year per individual, whether these were averaged by year or used as discrete measurements), the variables and statistical tests used. I do have some concerns over the statistical analyses performed - you need to take into account in your analyses the potential confound of season, and your analyses should also take into account that you have repeated measures from the same individuals over time (even within a year perhaps) – this has the potential to bias your results if some individuals are over-represented, but there are options for using all the data but taking these things into account statistically. It also seems as though the rate of BCS change over time differed between males and females – this should be considered within the analyses if your sample size allows, or discussed further if it doesn’t.

A couple of specific questions relating to this:
The authors state that seven banteng were reintroduced in 2015 (four individuals) and 2016 (three individuals) (lines 37-38), and that camera traps were set up for three years following release (line 183), during fieldwork from January 2015 to November 2017 (line 35). How far apart were the two releases, and does this mean the 2016 individuals were only assessed twice (in 2016 and 2017), or that the 2015 release individuals had been out longer than the 2016 individuals when first assessed? Please could you clarify this information?

I am unfamiliar with the seasonal conditions in this area (although I note the authors mention a dry and a wet season (lines 97-98) – please could you elaborate on this a little, and explain whether the time of year that the BCS was assessed was the same for the three years of assessment (and for the potential multiple assessments within a year), or if not, whether there is any reason to suspect that the different rate of BCS change between years 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 may be confounded with any seasonal effects.

I have also added some comments/suggestions by section/line below.

Abstract:
Line 30: I suggest that you add quality to this first sentence – ‘Large forest-dwelling mammals are highly sensitive to habitat structure and quality’, because I think BCS is going to be reflective of the quality of the habitat.
Lines 43-44: I don’t see the female BCS decrease during lactation in the results – please could you expand on this in the results, or rephrase here.
Lines 45-47: I suggest editing this section to something like: ‘The results from the present study suggest that camera traps are a practical tool to assess the BCS of reintroduced banteng, and can be used to monitor their condition post-release. These techniques are important for possible translocation programs elsewhere.’

Introduction:
Lines 60-61: Is there a word missing from this sentence – ‘common conservation strategy’ perhaps?
Line 62: I suggest ‘including the endangered banteng’ here
Lines 63-64: I suggest adding another sentence here explaining the situation - introduction into a zoo doesn't sound like a reintroduction, so was this into a semi-wild situation, or what exactly happened? And also, what criteria do you use to say this was successful – has the population grown since reintroduction?
Lines 65-66: I suggest that you add a sentence here to explain that this introduction is the one that is being used for this study – I didn’t make that connection without looking up the reference, so it would help the reader to include that information more explicitly here.
I would suggest reorganizing the introduction slightly to help guide the reader through the issue you are addressing with your study. I would perhaps move lines 63-66 to after line 96 ‘In Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, banteng were locally extinct’. This would set up the importance of the banteng as an endangered species, explain the threats and low population size, and then discuss the reintroductions that have been done so far and the need to assess BCS because of the shift in diet.
Lines 80-81: I’m not sure that I understand your statement ‘since banteng that are traded in the market are a domestic species and not a wildlife species’ – do you mean that these are hybridized with domestic cattle, or something else – please could you clarify this?
Lines 89-90: I suggest reordering this sentence: ‘Accidental hybridization in the wild and active inbreeding between banteng and domestic cattle in captivity to develop the livestock industry reduces the purity of the genetic status of both the wild and captive populations’
Lines 116-117: It would be helpful if you elaborated a little more on your specific aims here – that you assessed BCS over three years using camera trap photos, that way the reader knows what your specific goals were before they get to the results.

Methods:
In the abstract you mention that the reintroductions were done at two times - 2015 (four individuals) and 2016 (three individuals) – please could you add this to the methods, and explain why these were done in two sets, and how far apart the releases were done as this may influence the BCS data if the time between release and the first camera trap photos was very different for the two groups (especially since they were released in the dry and wet season, respectively, as per lines 97-98).
Lines 126-129: Do these species make up a large proportion of the banteng diet? Please expand on why this information is important for the reader to understand
Line 139: What training did they receive?
Line 142: Were the soft release cages also individual, or were they kept in groups?
Line 143: Was there any opportunity to assess their BCS before the release?
Line 145: Do you mean tap water? I might re-word to ‘provided with fresh water and artificial salt licks’
Line 149: What were the banteng immobilized with?
Line 163: This should read ‘to reduce bias’
Line 168-169: I suggest moving the reference/information to the previous line after ‘banteng’ and before ‘and other large mammals’: (Chaiyarat et al., 2019; in 30 m 169 UTM pixel, ArcGIS 9.3, ESRI 2007) to improve flow.
Line 169-171: I would move this sentence on the number of photographs to the end of this section, after you have described the set-up of the cameras.
Line 175: I recommend deleting ‘along each stretch’ and leaving this as ‘camera traps were set up at distances ranging between….’
Line 183: I would move this to the section on camera trap surveys, along with the other camera set up methodology. Also, this should read ‘Camera traps were set up’
Line 183: Please expand on the details here – were the cameras set up for the entire 3-year period, or only for certain times across those three years? If only for certain times, was this during the wet season, dry season or a combination of the two? This could influence the BCS, and so is relevant information for the reader to understand.
Line 186-187: You state that ‘Photographic exposure and sharpness were adjusted due to poor quality visualization’ – was this just where necessary, or were all photos modified?
Line 187: This should read ‘sufficiently’
Lines 188-189: This might read more clearly as ‘The visual body condition of banteng was scored on a five-point pictorial scoring system’
Lines 193-194: I suggest moving this sentence up to before the previous one – state that it is seven region scoring system, then list those regions
Line 194-195: The following might read more clearly: ‘The body composition scores for each area were tabulated to create the database for analysis and future survey’

Results:
Line 201: Please could you explain what you mean by capture rates here – do you mean you only photographed 30.8% of the target animals in the first year, 77.8% in the second and 20% in the third year? How many repeated photos of the same individuals did you obtain, and how were these spread out temporally? It is important for the reader to understand where the data you use in your analyses came from – how many individuals were represented, and if the same individual was re-scored, was this a week apart or 6 months.
Lines 202-203: I suggest rephrasing to ‘criteria for BCS were based on body composition of seven areas’ (also note you had BSC here, instead of BCS)
Lines 203-24: You had not introduced what statistical comparisons you were making previously, so please ensure that information is added to the methods, as it is difficult for me to assess your results when it is not clear how data were processed/analysed.
If you were using each photograph, Spearman’s rank correlation would not be an appropriate analysis to perform here – my understanding is that you are looking to see how the BCS score of one region correlates with the BCS score of each other region, however you have repeated observations of the same individual multiple times, so your analyses could be biased by inequality in the number of photographs of the same individual. If you had, for example, an individual with poor correlation between two body parts, and that individual happened to be photographed more times than another where the body parts correlated better, then your overall result will be affected by this pseudoreplication. However, based on the degrees of freedom reported, this does not seem to be what you have done (although the df doesn’t match the number of individuals either – so perhaps mean BCS for each individual sighting event within each year, which would also have an element of pseudoreplication?). Please clarify how the number of photographs translated in data points and how this analysis was performed.
Lines 216-219: Again, please clarify which data were used to calculate these averages – was each individual included multiple times within each year? If so, this needs to be taken into account in your analyses. Also, on Figure 3, I don’t see any data points that scored a BCS 5 (and the lowest point was <2) – so do you mean that scores for the body regions ranged between 2 and 5? Please could you clarify this.
Line 223-229: Since there was a significant difference in BCS between males and the females, these analyses would be more appropriate if separated by sex (or sex used as an interaction term). I would suggest that your best approach, taking into account my questions regarding season and repeated assessments of the same individuals, is to use a mixed effect model. This would allow you to use repeated measures from each individual (within a year as well as between years), and you could also incorporate season and sex as covariates. This should strengthen your analyses, as you will be able to determine if males increase in BCS faster than females (which it looks like they may do). Additionally, it might be interesting to look at the female(s) that reproduced separately from those that did not – even if by separating individuals out in Figure 3 if you cannot do it statistically, so that we can see whether the slower rate of increase in BCS in females compared to males is confounded by the fact that two of the females reproduced and were lactating, reducing their BCS relative to the female(s) that did not breed.

Discussion:
Lines 235-237: I’m not sure if I understand this sentence – do you mean that the BCS assessment that you used here was previously recommended for use in Sabah? I suggest re-wording this sentence.
Line 245: I suggest you delete ‘reintroduced banteng’ from this sentence – the same would be true of any species, so by keeping this statement general, you increase the relevance to readers interested in using this approach for other species.
Line 249: I’m not sure that I understand your meaning in this sentence - could you please clarify?
Line 253-254 and 264-265: these are excellent points - could you suggest ways in which the method could be validated and calibrated? If you have access to the captive-bred animals, this is something that could be added to the study and would significantly strengthen this as a tool, or at least elaborated on in your discussion as important next steps that would advance our understanding.
Lines 259-260: Your statement about males developing body condition during reproductive periods illustrates why it is vital that you include in your methods when the BCS was assessed, please add this information and discuss how this impacts your results.

Tables and Figures:
Figure 2B – are you able to provide photographs for BCS 1 and ribs/hindquarters/tail head for BCS 2, even if not from your study? This would be very useful if someone else were to go on and use your BCS assessment criteria.
Figure 3 must have repeated observations from some of the individuals - e.g. 13 female BCS scores in year 1 when there was a maximum of three females. This needs to be taken into account in the analyses, and I also suggest using different markers per individual so that reader can see if all individuals increased in a similar way – for example, this would allow us to see if the female that did not reproduce increased in BCS faster than the two that did.
Table 1 - this may be to do with the PDF for proofing, but the layout could be improved to make text easier to read (not going on to so many lines), and could be shortened in places – for example Neck BCS 2 – you could remove the word appearance (all are based on appearance); Dewlap BCS 5 – would ‘large flap of skin’ be sufficient?
You have results repeated in Table 2 and in the text, which is typically avoided. If you keep this analysis (taking into account mu other comments), I would suggest keeping the table and only discussing the results (not presenting the statistics also) in the text. Table 2 is also missing the df for neck – these should be added for consistency.
Table 3 – as with other analyses, it would be useful to add a description of how these numbers were calculated in the methods section – how many individuals/assessments contributed to these means? Are the calves included, or just the adults?
Table 4 needs to be separated by sex (since there’s a significant difference between sexes) – actually, tables 3 and 4 could be combined if the data were reanalysed to assess changes in BCS across years, separated by sex


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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “Body condition scoring system of reintroduced banteng (Bos javanicus D’Alton, 1923) into Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand” was well written and showed the reintroduction process of large herbivore as Banteng. The advantage of this manuscript is the work with reintroduction of Banteng, which is unique work. Moreover, the authors analyzed the correlation of the body condition scoring index.
Experimental design: The experimental design as good, and have added information as requested.
Validity of the findings: The findings were good with the results compared from year by year of reintroduction.
the authors added information as requested.
Additional comments: The manuscript look good now. I do not have any more 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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have done a good job of incorporating some of our suggestions. The revised form looks much better than the original. However, the manuscript still needs a thorough proof-reading. I also recommend rewriting some of the portions. I have listed my recommendations below:
1.	Some of the information mentioned in the manuscripts requires references.
2.	Line 33: ...aim of the present study "was to".
3.	Line 84: "the selling of this meat" sounds incorrect, kindly rephrase.
4.	Line 99: The sentence is not correct. Kindly correct it.
5.	Line 117: Individual's (font not correct).
6.	Line 135: ‘crated’ do the authors mean created?
7.	Lines 135 to 139: These sentences need to be rephrased in context to Salakphra Wildlife Sanctuary. For example, the sentence “The height above sea level is between 700 and 1,000 m.” is incomplete, the height of what? This can be rephrased as: “The altitude of the study site ranges from 700 to 1,000 m asl.”
8.	Lines 161 to 162: It is not clear what authors wanted to convey. This sentence should be modified.
9.	Lines 181 to 182 end without ‘full-stop’.
10.	Lines 182 to 183: The sentence is not correct. Kindly re-write it.
11.	Line 224: It is not clear who was the inter-assessor? What does ‘variate’ mean in this sentence? This sentence needs re-phrasing.
12.	Line 235: “seasons”
13.	Lines 288 to 289: “seasons”
14.	Lines 297-298: there are multiple ‘key’
15.	Most of the figure legends are incomplete. Kindly correct them.
Experimental design: 1.	Lines 32 and 33: The sentence is too abrupt. Authors are instantly talking about the influence of body condition, without mentioning why reintroduction is needed for the banteng.
2.	The last paragraph of "Introduction" still does not do justice in mentioning the hypothesis and objectives clearly. Kindly re-write.
3.	Statistical analyses: I appreciated the authors for including this section. It would be good if authors could mention what kinds of data (categorical/ordinal/continuous) were collected and why those statistical tests were used.
Validity of the findings: Authors have now incorporated some of the suggestions on validating the BCS through camera-traps and using the inter-assessor differences. The results now look promising. However, what concerned me was the discussion. The discussion should properly highlight the importance of findings and what it means in the context of other studies. There are lots of grammatical errors in this section and also the sentence formations are incorrect. I have listed some of my concerns pertaining to the Discussion section below:
1.	Lines 277 to 279: these sentences are not correct.
2.	The first sentence of the discussion should highlight the findings or what the study indicated.
3.	Lines 289-290: “This finding indicated high resource quality of the area as recommended by Pokharel et al. (2017)” this sentence does not reflect why it was used.  Do the authors mean the “influence” on BCS? Kindly rephrase it.
4.	Lines 290-293: This sentence is long and not correct. It needs complete rephrasing.
5.	Line 323: Authors can include one of the publications on Asian elephants highlighting the influence of lactation on the body condition (Pokharel, S. S., Seshagiri, P. B., & Sukumar, R. (2020). Influence of the number of calves and lactating adult females in a herd on the adrenocortical activity of free-ranging Asian elephants. Wildlife Research, 46(8), 679-689.)
6.	Lines 324-325: why authors highlight that the ‘fluctuations’ in BCS is due to mortality?  Authors are recommended to provide references here.
Additional comments: The revised version looks better than the original manuscript. But it appears that the authors did not proof-read the discussion section. So kindly proof-read the manuscript and rephrase the sentences. The results are promising. But these results should be well-highlighted in 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: MONITORING BODY CONDITION SCORE OF REINTRODUCED BANTENG (BOS JAVANICUS D’ALTON, 1923) INTO SALAKPHRA WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: There are still some spelling and grammatical errors that should be corrected - in particular, please spell check the manuscript for banteng (in a few places is spelled bateng), check for BSC instead of BCS. Additionally, I feel the discussion could benefit from a second review for sentence structure.

Lines 136-139: please review this sentence – remove second ‘of’ after introduced
Line 141, 142, 275: please check the spelling of banteng (here is bateng) throughout
Line 539: Change BSC to BCS – please check for this error throughout
Still some editing for English language required, particularly the discussion
Experimental design: Please explain the inter-observer reliability assessment in more detail

Lines 490-493: Suggest: 'Inter-observer reliability was assessed using BCS from the training cage and the captured photographs, which were reanalyzed by the observer and other assessors' and add details of how this was assessed, what were criteria for passing - was there a percentage of images that all observers had to agree on before proceeding?

I am still concerned that there is no explanation of how many images per individual were used in each year, and no notable consideration of how repeated observations on a few individuals may have impacted the results. The authors have provided the total number of BCS scores and total number of individuals, but not how many BCS scores per individual per year. As per my previous review, if some individuals are over-represented in the data, this could bias your results i.e. pseudoreplication. At the very least, this should be added to the discussion as a potential limitation, not ignored. It is clear from Figure 4 that individual variability in BCS was potentially quite high - the third year only had one female represented, and all data points are fairly tightly distributed, whereas year 2 had two females and a much wider range. This variability makes it difficult to see whether all three females did indeed increase BCS across the study period, or perhaps only the female that did not breed gained condition. It would be possible to use different markers for each individual (and open or closed for male and female) then we can at least visually determine whether all four females and three males increased BCS over time.

One benefit of conducting BCS via photographs is that you can identify individual animals and peotentially investigate why some might be adapting better than others to the habitat - i.e. dominant males might do better than subordinate if the habitat is sub-optimal, breeding females may lost more condition than non-breeding females etc. So I think the ability to look at individual differences is not a bad thing here.

Also please note that Figure 4 legend states red dots for both males and females, which should be corrected.

Figure 3 legend - please add the samples numbers used in this figure (both number of individuals and BCS scores per individual)
Top section of figure 2 - should say ribs, not rips
Validity of the findings: Please add more detail regarding the criteria if inter-observer assessment, and discuss that the small sample size and individual differences in BCS change over the study period may influence your results. This does not take away from the usefulness of the method or the study, but makes it easier for the reader to interpret.
Additional comments: Thank you for responding to my previous comments - there are still a few of my concerns that remain, so please consider including these in your final 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: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is well written, and the rationale for the study is justified. The relevant literature is cited, and sufficient background is given. The only thing missing is the hypothesis that is being tested. A suggested hypothesis, i.e., that weak resistance is more easily reversed than strong resistance, is explained below.
Experimental design: This paper is timely in that it addresses a discrepancy in the literature, i.e., the failure of one laboratory to repeat the result of another that found that heat shock, and specifically upregulation of the Hsp90 gene in response to a brief increase in ambient temperature, induced susceptibility to infection in a schistosome-resistant snail. This question is of obvious importance in schistosomiasis epidemiology, especially with rising global temperatures. The experiments are well designed and the results are unambiguous.

Previous studies on effects of elevated temperature on resistance used the BS90 snail, which is highly resistant to infection. It would be informative to state in the Introduction what the susceptibility phenotype of the BgGUA snail is to infection with SmGUA. Based on the approximately 40% infection prevalence in control snails, it appears partly nonsusceptible, and indeed this would be a reasonable justification or hypothesis for this study, i.e., to see if weak resistance is more susceptible to heat treatment than the near complete resistance of BS90 snails.

Since these results are in effect a refutation of those of the original study claiming reversal of susceptibility by heat treatment, minor experimental details that differ should be noted. For example, were snails incubated in distilled water overnight prior to exposure to high temperature, and were the high temperatures obtained with the use of a water bath, as in the Ittaprasert and Knight study?

On line 111, the term "age matched" is used, but it seems as though "size matched" may be more accurate, since snails of the same size can be of markedly different ages.
Validity of the findings: The results are unambiguous and the interpretation straightforward. As mentioned above, that even a low degree of resistance or nonsusceptibility (versus that in BS90 snails) is not reversible by heat treatment is a novel twist that further weakens the case for the claim of susceptibility reversal, and it perhaps bears mentioning.

The use of "heat shock" in the title and text should be considered. My understanding of heat shock is exposure to an elevated temperature that elicits the heat shock response, which is characterized by expression of heat shock proteins (Hsps). Ittiprasert and Knight and Nelson et al. documented that their treatments caused upregulation of Hsp70 and Hsp90 in BS90 snails, i.e., heat shock, and the former authors showed with the use of an Hsp90 inhibitor that it was this specific protein that was responsible for susceptibility reversal. Although it is reasonable to assume that similar treatments would cause heat shock in another strain of Biomphalaria glabrata, without evidence of elevated expression of Hsp genes, can you claim that the snails in this study were heat shocked?
Additional comments: No further comments.


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

Input:
Title: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Most of my remarks relate to the material and methods used for this study. Please see general comments for the authors.
Validity of the findings: Supplementary experiments could be done to reinforce the conclusions. Please see general comments for the authors.
Additional comments: The paper entitled “Neither heat shock, nor multigenerational exposure to a modest increase in water temperature, alters the susceptibility of Guadeloupean Biomphalaria glabrata to Schistosoma mansoni infection.” presents information about susceptibility of the snail Biomphalaria, the major intermediate host for Schistosoma mansoni, in a context of global warming. Here, sympatric snail population from Guadeloupe were infected with a compatible parasite strain for which a prevalence around 50% is expected. The topic is interesting especially that previous conflicting studies carried out two groups on the same snail strain (Bs90, qualified as resistant) lead to different conclusions. Abstract and Introduction are well written. The results are clear and well discussed.
Most of my remarks relate to the material and methods used for this study.

Cercarial shedding was determined weekly during 10 weeks. It would have been more informative if the counting has been proceeded as described in Theron et al, 1997 Experimental parasitology. According to me, cumulative cercarial production per snail is the only relevant criterion to conclude on the increased risk (or not) of transmission from infected snails.
Also, no observation about the length of the prepatent period was given. Please discuss about this point.
Have the parental population, the first and second generation, been successively removed from the tank? No detail is mentioned while the authors indicated studying the third (at least) generation.

Possible Suggestions.
Line 54 :  please cite for review Augusto RC et al, 2019 Frontiers Microbiol.

In previous study, the authors selected susceptible and resistant snail lines from Guadeloupean population.  It could be relevant to demonstrate if the results are identical from different snail genotype and/or phenotype (as suggested by the authors in the abstract).

A snail heat shock was performed at 32°C for 6h. Did the authors observe an increase transcription of two molecular markers, HSP70 and 90 as described by Knight and coll. ? In my mind, it would be judicious to monitor their expression to discuss their relevance.

Addressing these points may require minor revisions and supplementary experiments, but will significantly improve the quality of the manuscript, which has great potential to provide novel insight into Biomphalaria - Schistosoma complex interaction in the face of global warming.


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: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Allan et al is a succinct report that suggests that temperature-based modification of snail susceptibility to Schistosoma may not be widespread. The manuscript is clearly presented and touches on appropriate references; particularly those by Knight et al, and Sullivan that deal with the same topic.

Additional clarity could be provided in the results section, which is incredibly brief. The title of the singe results section is almost as long as the text. It would seem to me that a bit more detail could be provided here.

In addition, there is a statement made in the discussion, line 168, that states that 'particular environmental conditions' may impact snail susceptibility. A bit more detail could also be provided here with respect to what the conditions might be.
Experimental design: The study design is relative simple and easy to follow. It is unclear, however, whether the cumulative snail infection prevalence and cercarial shedding amount is being reported, or whether only the 10-week time point is being reported. The authors state in the methods that the snails were monitored for a period of 10 weeks, but no time series is presented.

If the snails were in fact monitored weekly for 10 weeks, it may be worthwhile for the authors to present the cumulative data alongside the data on a per-week basis. Perhaps the impact of temperature in this infection system is observed in the time to cercarial shedding, or the amount of cercariae shed early in the infection.

The authors do not address snail mortality in the methods or results. Since snails could have died over the course of the study, particularly those that were placed in the heat shock treatment, it would comforting to know whether mortality rates in each treatment group differed and how that was addressed when calculating infection rate.
Validity of the findings: This study incorporates a reasonable number of snails for each treatment. Again, I'd like to know more about the monitoring process, as this could expand the scope of the manuscript slightly to include a temporal aspect to the analysis.
Additional comments: In the introduction, it is stated that multigenerational rearing at each temperature was undertaken for this study (line 84). This is not really discussed in the manuscript, and seems as though it is an important aspect of the study from the perspective of more accurately representing a natural population. Moreover, it is one aspect of this study that has not been undertaken by other temperature-based susceptibility studies, at least to my knowledge. More emphasis could be placed on this aspect of the study in the discussion, and should be explained in the methods.


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: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No additional comments. The authors made the suggested changes.
Experimental design: Fine. Additional information on temperature exposure was provided.
Validity of the findings: These results confirm 2 other papers that failed to replicate an earler study showing the effect of elevated temperature on susceptibility to infection. The solid experimental design, sample sizes, analysis of results, and discussion establish the validity of the paper.
Additional comments: “Schistosoma” is mis-spelled in the title.
Line 30. Possessive form of a species name could be misleading, especially since "'s" is italicized. I suggest “susceptibility of Guadeloupian B. glabrata” at the end of the sentence.
Line 53. An abbreviation (Sm) is previously given for the parasite on line 44, but not for the snail.
Line 168. Should “[6]” be “[9]? A cursory reading of [6] does not reveal any study of subtle temperature changes (although I may have missed it, since the paper is quite dense), whereas [9] reports on susceptibility of adult BS-90 snails held at 20 or 33 C for 1 or 2 weeks prior to challenge. If [9], then 1-2 week or short term would be more accurate than subtle, since these are relatively extreme temperatures.
Line 171. Change many to may.
Just to close the circle, the authors may wish to add in the Discussion the statement that "the results support our hypothesis that..."


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: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: All my remarks have been taken into account.So, i have no additionnal 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: NEITHER HEAT PULSE, NOR MULTIGENERATIONAL EXPOSURE TO A MODEST INCREASE IN WATER TEMPERATURE, ALTERS THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF GUADELOUPEAN BIOMPHALARIA GLABRATA TO SCHISTOSOMA MANSONI INFECTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

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