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: MODERATION EFFECTS OF FOOD INTAKE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URINARY MICROBIOTA AND URINARY INTERLEUKIN-8 IN FEMALE TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is generally well written and conforms to the norm expected for a peer-review journal article.

Minor comments to improve:
First paragraph of introduction - DM; are the authors referring to T1DM or T2DM in the opening paragraph? This distinction should be clear.

Lines 77-83 - it would be helpful to clarify that this data being referred to is urinary microbiome data.
Experimental design: It meets the definition of original primary research.

The research question could be better defined - how does it advance the finding of the previous 2017 paper. What is the new research question that the current manuscript aims to answer (that the previous one did not)?

The investigation is building on the previous publication by the group and appears to interpolate dietary assessment onto the previous findings to explain the observations of urinary microbiome variations and IL-8. The technical and ethical standards appear appropriate for the research.

Methods
1. The methods state that and matched healthy control group (HC) were recruited but no data is available in Table 1 on the healthy control group characteristics. It is impossible to judge how well matched the groups were in fact without this data. This data should be added and appropriate statistical group comparisons presented.

2. Why was the first urine of the day sampled (presumably the overnight urine) which likely acts as more of a reservoir for endogenous microbes. How much does this urine sample differ from subsequent urine samples (microbiologically) and does it reflect more closely the faecal / perineal microbiome?

3. Can the authors provide some evidence of accuracy and bias associated with their method of measuring food intake? Have the authors independently validated this tool to accurately quantify habitual fibre and vitamin intake?
Validity of the findings: Many of the conclusions drawn are somewhat circumstantial and not fully supported by the available evidence (presented here and from elsewhere). For example, the discussion around ruminococcus acting as a probiotic through SCFA mediated regulation is plausible in the intestine and has been demonstrated to down-regulate LPS mediated IL-8 secretion. Here however the authors state that "...increase in urinary IL-8 concentration in the bladder may be associated with a higher relative abundance of Ruminococcus". How does this equate to a probiotic effect? Is this not in fact the opposite in that the bacterium promotes IL-8 secretion? The link between urinary microbiota and SCFA is highly speculative in this study as urinary SCFA were not even measured. The primary site of SCFA production is the large intestine and very limited quantities are normally excreted in urine. Without a direct measurement it is not clear how relevant SCFA are in this context and their inclusion to the discussion is rather counter-intuitive given the evidence on SCFA and IL-8. Would a simpler explanation for the ruminococcus data be fecal / perineal microbiome infection of the urinary stream as ruminococcus is associated with fibre (resistant starch) fermentation in the large intestine? What data do the authors have to rule this in or out as an explanation of the findings?

Is the data on the effect of water not more simply explained as a simple dilution effect since urinary IL-8 concentration is measured. It does not appear that the measurement was correct for total urine volume output nor other surrogate marker e.g. creatinine. If the data is expressed relative to a marker of urinary output, do these relationships still stand. This is fairly critical to the interpretation of the findings.

Much is made of the relationships between certain nutrients and their inter-relationship with the urinary microbiome and IL-8. However, the    nutrient intake data presented in Table 2 raises some issues as to the quality of the data and therefore the strength of the conclusions. How does the energy and nutrient intake data compare with reference data for this population? Energy intake in particular seems low, particularly for the T2DM group. Is this reporter bias or assessment bias and therefore how does affect the accuracy of the nutrient intake assessment? I don't accept that you can conclude "there may have been some bias regarding the food intake assessments, for example, due to recall issues." without quantifying that bias and you have data that may provide insight into this.
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: MODERATION EFFECTS OF FOOD INTAKE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URINARY MICROBIOTA AND URINARY INTERLEUKIN-8 IN FEMALE TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well written paper which shows a very good understanding of the field. Extensive literature searches have been done and there is good use of these to back up the work undertaken. Good evidence of experimental work is evidenced in well presented tables and figures. The paper is well structured and provides clear answers to the hypotheses.

I have no suggestions for improvement to the paper, I feel it meets the standards of the paper.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and good explanations are given as to the background to the experimental work.

The experimental work has been done to a high standard and ethical approvals were obtained ahead of the research.

Methods are well explained and are clear to understand.

There is no need for improvement as I feel the paper meets the standards required.
Validity of the findings: The results are well presented and provide robust evidence with good statistical analysis.
Discussion of the results are clear and provide good explanations backed up with reference to other publications where needed.
Conclusions are clear and relate to the research question and definitely raise some interesting points that would be interesting to pursue in the future.

No need for improvements as feel the paper meets the standards.
Additional comments: This is a very interesting paper which is well written and shows good experimental design and analysis of the data. It definitely shows some interesting links with diet, bacterial species and IL-8 and expands the understanding of the interactions between the urinary microbiome and the bodies response to UTI.


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: MODERATION EFFECTS OF FOOD INTAKE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URINARY MICROBIOTA AND URINARY INTERLEUKIN-8 IN FEMALE TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Needs some major grammatical improvements through the manuscript.

The authors did not provide enough field background. More literature references should be reviewed in the introduction to support the hypotheses.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Line 265, the authors claim that “…help us to recognize the onset of bladder infection in T2DM patients…”.  Is it possible to track the occurrence of UTI in these cases in the following period of time?

Line 258, To add the quantitative results of SCFAs is recommended to support the findings in this article. The same problem also exists in the following paragraphs.
Additional comments: In Fig S1 S2 S4， the data showed the high sequences proportion of Lactobacillus and Prevotella. These two genera are the common bacterium in female genital tract. Is it contaminant or is it true in the bladder? What controls were in place for this?

The table S2 was missing.

To explain the co-effect of these genera which were referred in the discussion.

Inappropriate literature citation. The time interval between the references,   Tian et al., 2016 (Line273) and Scholes et al., 2000; Beetz, 2003(Line 275), is too long to be compared.


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: MODERATION EFFECTS OF FOOD INTAKE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URINARY MICROBIOTA AND URINARY INTERLEUKIN-8 IN FEMALE TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript by Liu et al is much improved and is well structured and clear.
Experimental design: The experimental design builds on previous work by this group and the methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: Thank you for adding the additional data on the HC group. However, there are some perplexing data here. The anthropometric / demographic data for the groups are identical across many of the parameters - that is somewhat surprising but may indicate that the team matched their cohorts extremely well. It should be clear in the methods how these cohorts were recruited and any selection bias - they seem too well matched than is usually possible in such human studies.

I am still perplexed by the energy intake data. The HC had a significantly higher energy intake but not statistically different BMI. Exercise appeared to be identical between the groups which leaves an "energy gap" that needs explaining. Either the T2DM group  expended less energy (not captured by the data) or they under-reported their dietary intake which might be a cautionary note on interpretation of the dietary intake data. I don't doubt the validity of their intake data in the study period - just how representative it may be of habitual intake. Would this be expected to impact on the interpretation of the study? Would a change in diet - sometimes seen when participants partake in dietary intake research - impact on the urinary microbiome and inflammatory markers?
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: MODERATION EFFECTS OF FOOD INTAKE ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URINARY MICROBIOTA AND URINARY INTERLEUKIN-8 IN FEMALE TYPE 2 DIABETIC PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The new information presented is sufficient to support the findings and the conclusions.
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: CRYPSIS AND CONVERGENCE: INTEGRATIVE TAXONOMIC REVISION OF THE GEHYRA AUSTRALIS GROUP (SQUAMATA: GEKKONIDAE) FROM NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written, follows up on previously published work, and sets up the argument as to why these new species should be recognized (even if it might be somewhat controversial to do so). While I may not entirely agree with argument supporting recognizing these as species, I am perfectly happy to let the community as a whole decide whether they choose to accept these taxonomic decisions.
Experimental design: Well designed. I recognize no flaws.
Validity of the findings: The authors build a solid argument for supporting their conclusions. The taxonomic decisions are as thorough and well supported as they can be (given the lack of morphological differentiation). This will provide a solid basis for future work should others wish to critique their taxonomic decisions.
Additional comments: Excellent article. Well done to all involved.


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: CRYPSIS AND CONVERGENCE: INTEGRATIVE TAXONOMIC REVISION OF THE GEHYRA AUSTRALIS GROUP (SQUAMATA: GEKKONIDAE) FROM NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well structured and mostly clear in its exposition.  In a few places (noted below) there are some redundancies and minor grammatical lapses or text flaws, but these will be easily remedied.
Experimental design: This is a well-conceived piece of work, building explicitly on recent preliminary studies of the species-level diversity of a group of lizards that have been notoriously difficult to pin down. The MS reports on the introduction of new methods (new both for this group and for such studies in general) that take earlier, tentative conclusions regarding the possibility of cryptic species and thoroughly validate them with much new analysis and a formal taxonomic treatment. The Discussion provides a useful review of the modern integrative approach to studies of cryptic speciation. It is a very valuable addition to the literature, a how-to for workers trying to unravel morphologically confusing species complexes.
Validity of the findings: I found no systemic failures in the MS.  The work provides all the necessary background information to assure the it is based on solid data, carefully and appropriately interpreted.
Additional comments: Two general comments:

1. Use of the word “complex” implies relatedness of the complex members, but in this MS, the morphologically aberrant G. chimera is excluded from the G. koira complex, even though this exclusion renders the G. koira complex paraphyletic.  Far better if it were included, as this would preserve the idea of its close relationship with the other G. koira complex members, and reinforce its convergent similarity to the G. australis complex.  By all means mention that its appearance is deceptive, but do not set it apart from its close genetic relatives.

2. A distant background to this study was King’s initial work on karyotypic variation in Gehyra – how many of these cryptic species were sampled in King’s surveys?  Did Moritz get any additional sampling?  As this paper mentions chromosomal evolution in the group, it would be interesting to note in the discussion or in the descriptions, if known, cases where the new species share the same karyotype, and if any showed karyotypic differences.


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: CRYPSIS AND CONVERGENCE: INTEGRATIVE TAXONOMIC REVISION OF THE GEHYRA AUSTRALIS GROUP (SQUAMATA: GEKKONIDAE) FROM NORTHERN AUSTRALIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I have had the pleasure of reading the manuscript ‘Convergence and crypsis: Integrative taxonomic revision of the Gehyra australis group (Squamata: Gekkonidae) from northern Australia’ by Oliver et al. This article is sensibly organized and methodologically sound. I do not hesitate to accept this MS with minor revision. There are some minor issues with organization and grammar.
Experimental design: I would also urge authors to consider running and additional analysis to test for actual migration like g-Phocs and/or EMS. I say this because there is extensive talk about reproductive isolation based of a population assignment method. Some explicit test of the magnitude of migration is needed here. Other than that, I think that the methods are fine.
Validity of the findings: Given the quantity and quality of the data collected here, I see no issue with these descriptions.
Additional comments: Line 24: ‘have been revealing’ to ‘have revealed’
Line 38: reword sentence
Line 73: Describe what you mean by ‘derive features’
Line 91: ‘Here’ to ‘Here,’
Line 106: reword this sentence
Line 131: Do you mean genotyped?
Line 174: ‘Contaminations’ to ‘contaminants’
Line 277: Describe differentiation in more detail
Line 286: Describe ancestry proportions from conStruct in more detail
Line 319: You need more detail here. What explained most of the variance between groups?
Line 805: ‘yield’ to ‘yielded’
Line 1294: dataset?
Line 1332: surrounding areas?
Line 1336: ‘However perhaps’ to ‘However,’
Line 1345: switch instances to of ‘low dispersal’ to ‘low vagility’
Line 1350: Clarify sentence
Line 1352: ‘underestimate substantially’ to ‘substantially underestimates’
Figure 2: This figure legend needs more detail. Like that the bottom right one is a biome map, etc. Also, I don’t see an arrow.


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: INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON MAMMALIAN CO-OCCURRENCE ALONG THE WEST COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The paper shows interesting co-occurrence patterns on how meso-carnivores have an impact on small ungulate interactions under three management scenarios. The paper has important conservation value and management implications for the wildlife species exposed to high livestock pressure. This study is all the more important because wild mammal interactions have been rarely documented in Fynbos biomes, a unique habitat of the Western Cape. The manuscript is written relatively well and analysed with the help of right methods and analytical tools. However, the manuscript lacks some essential information needed to set the basis. The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision. Some of my concerns are highlighted below:
The variables used in the occupancy analysis are important and relevant to the objectives of the study and the fact that the study site is subject to high anthropogenic pressure, however authors must provide justification for each variable and apriori hypothetical expectations on responses of mammalian species at least at the group/community level to covariates in a table which will help readers to understand much better. The study hasn’t accounted seasonal effect on species co-occurrence and distribution as this can play a major role in shaping the species interaction. Authors should highlight about this issue how this seasonal effect will be taken into account as their sampling duration stretches across six months.
Abstract
Line 1 – 12 should be condensed into two simple lines which should explain effect of different level of managements on species distribution and co-occurrence. So that, it will compose entire story of the manuscript in two sentences with wider understanding. Currently, it is written like a popular article. The research question is not well explained that should be stated explicitly in details.   I don’t see much results presented in the abstract, authors should highlight and show important results with values.
Not required so delete – “Data were analysed in R, using the unmarked and overlap packages to assess occurrence and temporal activity respectively”.
Delete - “Our inability to detect clear cause and effect has negative implications for adaptive management”.

Introduction
Introduction should explain how management effectiveness can be evaluated on basis of what…………. and How other studies evaluated and its importance.
Authors should highlight in the introduction that past studies done relevant to various land management practices and top predator effect on distribution and co-cooccurrence patterns of various prey species and competitive interaction between herbivore species. What are the research gaps authors have identified from literatures should be mentioned explicitly?
Line 75: “Land use” ? – mention what type of land use/practices.
Line 117: Remove “.”
At the end of the introduction, authors should state how the study is going to benefit the management of the wildlife species as an outcome of the expected results.

Methods
Are you able to measure the height of the vegetation using measure tape?. How was that done and what was the maximum height of the vegetation.
Are there any livelihood dependence pattern of local and their dependence on the park? If yes, then authors could give details of its possible effect better in the park.

Result
The result section requires summary of some additional descriptive information about no. of species recorded across management units, what is the average naïve occupancy range and its difference from the predicted occupancy.
Line 312-313: Add citation for which goodness of fit test was used.
The lines 385-395 must be given a sub-heading “Abundance”
Lines 397-418 must be given a sub-heading “Detection rates”
Authors could also explain about model fit to their data set.
Line 352-353: “This resulted in 1150, 1159 and 1213 trap nights for the Postberg, Langebaan and the farm respectively” should move to the result section.

Line 179-180: Remove – “using an asymptotic test in the cvequality package in R (Marwick & Krishnamoorthy 2018)”.

Discussion
I agree the discussion is written well but evidence-based support from other studies/literature needed for the lines: 463-471. Similar situation might have explained from other studies.
Line 491: Cite the Supplementary Material appropriately
I would strongly suggest authors to provide detailed action-based management suggestions at end of the discussion which would help in improving the Park Management/decision making of the Park Managers.

Figure 1
Camera legend is missing in the map.


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: INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON MAMMALIAN CO-OCCURRENCE ALONG THE WEST COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: The study investigates species interactions across different management systems in protected areas of South Africa. Authors have applied the most appropriate analytical methods to their data, however the small sample size was a major issue in the study because of which clear conclusions could not be drawn for caracal and ungulate interactions. I also felt that the short duration and sampling effort was relatively low and probably a long-term study and larger sampling coverage could have strengthened their findings.
Validity of the findings: Findings have been stated clearly, however the recommendations lacked more details on how park/habitat management can be improved in these Protected Areas especially for those ungulates with low detections/occupancy. More details on this are needed in the recommendations section.
Additional comments: Overall the study was well executed with valid hypothesis and their objectives were also well framed with appropriate study design. The abstract lacks the statistical outputs/values for the conclusions made. You will see my comments in the annotated pdf attached. Many units are missing in the results section. There is absolute clarity throughout the manuscript and with minor revisions the paper can be accepted for publication.


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

Input:
Title: INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ON MAMMALIAN CO-OCCURRENCE ALONG THE WEST COAST OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written and seems to cover the literature and background adequately (although I am not very familiar with the literature). Raw data files are shared.
Experimental design: Design is explicitly stated, repeatable and scientifically valid - with three different "treatments" (farm and two reserves), adequate replication with camera traps, equal effort between treatments, and correction of occupancy response variables (of different ungulate groups) for probability of detection.
Validity of the findings: The statistical approach using occupancy models seems to be sound. The study does not seem to have a clear conclusive finding to explain reduced occurrence of small antelopes in the Postberg Reserve. The authors seem to come up with several possible non-exclusive conclusions for this, e.g. predation pressure (some temporal non-overlap with caracals but not conclusive since caracal diet in the area mostly comprises rodents), habitat features such as vegetation height (for duikers), or competition with managed ungulates (also apparently inconclusive since managed ungulates move more between water and food sources while small antelopes are more territorial). The authors acknowledge the caveats and limitations of their approach and suggest a future study using GPS tracking.
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY ON INTERFERENCE CONTROL: AGE AFFECTS REACTIVE CONTROL BUT NOT PROACTIVE CONTROL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In the current work the authors administered a WM updating task (modeled after the well-known n-back task) to adults and older adults and distinguished the two components of proactive interference control and reactive interference control. The authors found that only reactive interference control is impaired through aging.
I found the ms interesting and the topic addressed timely and not yet widely investigated. Hovewer I have some issues that could be addressed to improve the ms.

The focus of the ms -that is the difference and theoretical importance of proactice/reactive interference control in updating- is not adequately addressed. The authors should anticipate explanation of these two constructs through introduction and not only define them in the discussion section (see lines 235-239). In addition, they should discuss more thoroughly the work already cited on updating, and add further work that could help to enlarge the focus of the relationship between updating, interference and aging, such as Artuso & Palladino, 2016 (CP); Hartman et al., 2001 (ANC); Oberauer & Vockenberg, 2009, (QJEP).

Please double check English throughout all the ms by a native English speaker.
Experimental design: As the authors state that the MMSE was administered, they should report mean scores and sds for the groups of older

How the authors decided the age ranges, and labels? I found the labels sometimes odds and confusing, such as old-young adults or young-young adults. Consider for example Belacchi & Artuso (2018) P&A, for more convincing labels, e.g. young adults, adults, middle-aged adults, young old and old old.
In addition, I wonder whether it is possible to have two groups of older, i.e., young old (60-75) and old old (> 75) in order to observe possible differences, e.g. a more pronounced impairment in the old old or no differences.

In Table 1, change the label “Values” to “Mean age values”

Please modify some typos, e.g., line 70 “Carretti” instead of “Grretti” or line 168 “below” instead of “blow” and many others.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated and robust.
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: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY ON INTERFERENCE CONTROL: AGE AFFECTS REACTIVE CONTROL BUT NOT PROACTIVE CONTROL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: This is a study on a relevant topic using generally sound experimental methods. The pattern of results fits the suggested idea that reactive interference starts to decline earlier during the lifespan than the switch costs associated with updating contents of working memory. This main motivation of the study – of exploring age-related changes in between the age ranges typically investigated in age-comparative experimental cognitive aging studies – is challenged by severe limitations of the study design, however. Just as much as I agree that charting the whole lifespan trajectories of cognitive functions is important, I am also convinced that this can only be achieved with longitudinal cohort-sequential studies (or approximated using really large and representative cross-sectional samples, if one is willing and able to make assumptions about cohort differences). The kind of small-sample age-group comparison employed in the present study has its value in identifying certain effects that generally differentiate younger from older adults – to be then further investigated with more elaborate study designs. Trying to get at non-linear trajectories across adulthood or identifying points during the lifespan when certain declines begin or accelerate, this approach is clearly limited, particularly if selection effects and differential representativeness of the different samples cannot be ruled out. Given the small size of the four age groups and the lack of information on education and other socio-economic variables, the validity of conclusions like “WMU degradation begins in middle age and becomes steeper in old age” is not ensured. As the young-middle-old age comparison is the main contribution of the paper, I regret that I cannot support its acceptance.
Validity of the findings: see above
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: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY ON INTERFERENCE CONTROL: AGE AFFECTS REACTIVE CONTROL BUT NOT PROACTIVE CONTROL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is original and sufficient background is provided. However, there are still many editing typos that were already raised in the previous revision and were not addressed.
Experimental design: Clear, and original design
Validity of the findings: Novel and original
Additional comments: The authors adequately addressed all the points raised. I have no further comments.
However, there are many typos/editing issues (see APA style). Some of them are listed below; all the manuscript should be carefully checked for other similar typos that denote inaccurate writing.

line 55:  “new bindings(K Oberauer, 2009)” should be “new bindings (Oberauer, 2009)”

line 65:  “Borella and Garretti (2008)” should be “Borella and Carretti (2008)”

line 79: “(Y Kessler & Meiran, 2008; Yoav Kessler & Meiran, 2006)” should be “ (Kessler & Meiran, 2006; 2008)

line 80: “ (Rac-Lubashevsky & Kessler, 2016b)(Artuso & Palladino, 2011)” should be “(Artuso & Palladino, 2011; Rac-Lubashevsky & Kessler, 2016b)”

line 221: “(Phillips, Bull et al. 2011).” should be written in the same font of the manuscript

Artuso & Palladino (2018) reference is missing

Borella & Carretti (2008) reference is missing


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SILVER-GRAPHENE OXIDE ON SEED GERMINATION AND EARLY GROWTH OF CROP SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This study is very clear and the professional English is used throughout. But literature references are not sufficient about Ag NPs phytotoxicological:
Yang Jie, Jiang Fuping, Ma Chuanxin, et al., 2018. Alteration of Crop Yield and Quality of Wheat upon Exposure to Silver Nanoparticles in a Life Cycle Study. JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY, 66(11): 2589-2597.
Rui Mengmeng, Ma Chuanxin, Tang Xinlian, et al., 2017. Phytotoxicity of Silver Nanoparticles to Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.): Physiological Responses and Food Safety. ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING, 5(8): 6557-6567.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful. Methods described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: This study is very novel and interesting, especially for three different plants.
Additional comments: It is a good and novle research. I think I don't think it's necessary to set up so many concentrations, especially 1.6 mg/ml, which is too high.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SILVER-GRAPHENE OXIDE ON SEED GERMINATION AND EARLY GROWTH OF CROP SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made an attempt to study the effect of Ag GO on the growth of three different plant species in right earnest. The observed results appear to be convincing and original.
Experimental design: The number of seeds taken for germinability testing is small (10 seeds per plate x 4). Generally for this type of study a larger number seeds, at least 50 seeds per plate, would have been a better proposition to study the germination.

The authors have not mentioned if they have used freshly harvested seeds or the ones stored after harvesting.
Validity of the findings: There are several reports on the effect of Ag NPs on seed germination and growth of plants however the effect of Ag+GO on the growth parameters of alfalfa, radish and cucumber has been a novel attempt. The results obtained in this study are valid and new to the understanding of plant growth.
Additional comments: In the present study it has been found that alfalfa accumulates relatively higher quantity of Ag when compared to other two species. The chosen plant species such as alfalfa, radish and cucumber are eaten as vegetables.Wouldn't be toxic to human cells? Have the authors made any effort to evaluate the toxicity of Ag, GO and Ag+GO?
The authors have concluded that the size of the seeds plays role in the growth which is affected by Ag+GO. Are there any evidence to prove this fact?
Have the authors determined the accumulation of Ag GO just after imbibition? may be after 5-6 hours?


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SILVER-GRAPHENE OXIDE ON SEED GERMINATION AND EARLY GROWTH OF CROP SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I appreciate the authors for the attempt to elucidate the Ag-GO induced phytotoxicity in differed xylem structured plant species.
Experimental design: Nanotoxicity assessment of the plants is a significant and serious environmental and agriculture concern over the present epoch of the nano revolution. With that similar memorandum, the toxicity studies to the plants should be thoroughly executed with well-designed experiments. However, most of the phytotoxicity studies to nanomaterials determined by the higher concentration of nanomaterials treated. And I feel this manuscript is a similar one. It is not acceptable limits to the testing of phytotoxicity because there is a lot of experimental evidence already proved that induced phytotoxicity by higher concentrations of nanomaterials which is the real characteristic feature of nanomaterials and it must do toxicity to various organisms treated.
Validity of the findings: My expectation towards the manuscript was failed because this manuscript somewhat failed to prove the scientific innovations and merits and found no valid analytical with quantitative experiments executed regarding the phytotoxicity of treated seedlings.
Additional comments: This research study performed like another regular study, hence I believed, this manuscript is not very suitable for PeerJ readers.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SILVER-GRAPHENE OXIDE ON SEED GERMINATION AND EARLY GROWTH OF CROP SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: GOOD
Experimental design: GOOD
Validity of the findings: GOOD
Additional comments: Authors have addressed all my comments.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF SILVER-GRAPHENE OXIDE ON SEED GERMINATION AND EARLY GROWTH OF CROP SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript does not fulfill my expectations to address the basic and quantitative reporting of using nanomaterials in the biological content. Moreover, authors justified the reviewer comments not in the accepted level.
Experimental design: It doesn't meet the standard analytical methods as much as concern about biological content. I suggest to refer some of the literature which authors can find some useful information in the analytical tool that can be applied in their research data.

1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878535216301666

2) https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100610
Validity of the findings: The novelty of this findings is less conclusive.
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: RESECTION VS. ABLATION FOR LESIONS CHARACTERIZED AS RESECTABLE-ABLATIVE WITHIN THE COLORECTAL LIVER OLIGOMETASTASES CRITERIA: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English may need some small correction. Background, article structure and reported data are well written.
Figures are very explicative
Experimental design: Authors reported and interesting propensity score matching analysis on patients affected by liver oligometastases from colorectal cancer treated with surgery, or MWA and RFA.
The subject of the article is of primary importance since the oligometastatic disease is showing increasing interest in the scientific community and exploring the role of more conservative treatment is of primary importance.
The aim of the study is well presented and the statistical analysis was correctly performed
Patients and treatment characteristics are well presented.
Validity of the findings: Results of the study are very interesting and confirms what was derived from retrospective series. The most interesting analysis regards smaller lesions, for which local and more tolerable treatments provided the same local control. )To be noted 2 deaths occurred in the surgery group)
Conclusions are well stated
Additional comments: No specific 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: RESECTION VS. ABLATION FOR LESIONS CHARACTERIZED AS RESECTABLE-ABLATIVE WITHIN THE COLORECTAL LIVER OLIGOMETASTASES CRITERIA: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors compared a retrospective serie of patients treated either by surgical resection or focal destruction using radiofrequency for colorectal liver metastasis. To limit the inconvenience of retrospective analysis and to avoid bias, they used a propensity score matching. So that, 145 patients were included in each group.
Experimental design: The main result was that when liver metastases were up to 3 cm or in case of high CRS, surgical resection obtained better survival than ablative treatment. Otherwise, when metastases were < 3cm, treatments efficacies were similar.
Validity of the findings: This is an interesting article that try answering an unsolve problem. Authors used a propensity score to increased comparability of the two groups.
I have few minor comments to do :
- authors did not differenciate radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for microwave ablation (MWA) while a study from Takahashi et al. published in HPB in 2018 showed that there is 10% of local recurrence after MWA and 20% after RF (p=0.02).
- this study has been performed because "there has been no prospective or retrospective study reporting the comparison between surgery and ablation". That is right but... the LAVA study is currently being included and it could be interesting to add a reference about this trial : Liver resection surgery versus thermal ablation for colorectal LiVer MetAstases (LAVA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Gurusamy and al. Trials 2018.
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: RESECTION VS. ABLATION FOR LESIONS CHARACTERIZED AS RESECTABLE-ABLATIVE WITHIN THE COLORECTAL LIVER OLIGOMETASTASES CRITERIA: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is genrally well written, and sufficient data, tables and figures were included.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: Novelty is limited, although conclusions are valid.
Additional comments: - I recomment to minimalize the use of abbreviations, which impair the readability of the paper.
- Provide the numbers at riks in the Kaplan-Meier figures.
- Clearly sate in the methods section how an event van defined (recurrence and death?)
- Provide percentages in the tables and not only numbers of patients (e.g. table 1)


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

Input:
Title: RESECTION VS. ABLATION FOR LESIONS CHARACTERIZED AS RESECTABLE-ABLATIVE WITHIN THE COLORECTAL LIVER OLIGOMETASTASES CRITERIA: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors reviewed paper properly
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: Article report an important analysis of alternative treatment option for liver metastases and useful predictive factors for treatment personalization
Additional comments: Author answer properly to reviewer 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: RESECTION VS. ABLATION FOR LESIONS CHARACTERIZED AS RESECTABLE-ABLATIVE WITHIN THE COLORECTAL LIVER OLIGOMETASTASES CRITERIA: A PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING FROM RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have correctly addressed my comments.
Experimental design: No new comments on this topic.
Validity of the findings: Analysis are appropriate, and comclusions adhere to the results.
Additional comments: Authors have adressed the comments. No further comments.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF IGF1 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS WITH MYOPIA IN CHINESE CHILDREN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English clear, introduction not described well, current literature not cited.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: Cheng et al., found an association between IGF-1 and myopia in Chinese children.The authors showed association of myopia and SNP rs2162679 (G). The G allele of this mutation confers protection against myopia in chinese children.

1.	Author should take into account sampling locations in china. Are these samples collected from single place or multiple place? If they are collected from different place, are there any difference?
2.	Introduction should be elaborated with more citation. What is the role of IGF-1?
3.	 The authors checked LD between SNPs. It is earlier reported that rs2162679 plays a role in cancer, did authors check the correlation between cancer and myopia?
4.	If the protective allele (G) is present, is that means that individual is protected from myopia? Or it is chances of getting myopia is less?
5.	Additionally, if an individual born with allele G, but in later life it becomes A, does that mean that individual is at risk?
6.	Method/Results section should be elaborated, not very clear.
7.	Authors should provide human chromosomal location of IGF-1.
8.	Did authors also check the ancestral form of SNP? Whether it is present in great apes, archaic genome?


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF IGF1 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS WITH MYOPIA IN CHINESE CHILDREN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The manuscript is mostly well-formatted according to the journal's guidelines. There are, however, minor errors: a) text is full width justify instead of left margin justify, b) In the reference section, some references do not have the full name of the journal, only the abbreviation.
2. The most significant results were obtained for SNP rs2162679. I think that in the discussion section it is worth to add information about its location in IGF-1 (intron/exon) and assessment of possible effects on the gene.
3. Line 153: In my opinion a nucleotide change (rs2162679) with such a high frequency (MAF = 0.374) cannot be called a mutation.
4. Line 29: I think that to describe this age group, the word "children" or "pupils" would be better than "students".
5. In line 59 there should be "locus on chromosome" insdead of  "locus of the chromosome".
Experimental design: 1. In my opinion, the description of some fragments of research methods is too general and does not allow a full assessment of the correctness of the used techniques. For example no reaction conditions and reagents for ligation detection reaction method were given.
2. The power of the sample size is not given.
3. The methods section stated that 5% of the samples were used in duplication. However, the results section is missing information on this topic.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: A well and clearly written manuscript. However,  I find missing in the discussion clearly emphasize why these results are relevant.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF IGF1 SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS WITH MYOPIA IN CHINESE CHILDREN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised version of manuscript has clear and understandable english.
Experimental design: Primary aim of the study is within the scope of the journal. Methods are described sufficiently in the revised manuscript.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, which is linked to the original reach question.
Additional comments: Thank you authors for reviewing 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: THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF UBE2T IN INTRAHEPATIC CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	In “Abstract” section, the description of results should be more clear.
2.    The part of “Discussion” is recommended to add some description and literature references about the progress of biomarker of ICC.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate. However, according to WHO classification, LGIN should be described as BilIN-1 and -2. HGIN should be replaced as BilIN-3. Due to few cases included and similar biological behaviors, BilIN-1 and -2 can be combined as one group, but diagnosis name must be corrected.
Validity of the findings: 1.	In Table 1-3, the TNM staging of ICC patients should be showed in paper.
2.	In Supplementary Table 1, the P value of comparison of IHBD, BilIN-1/2, and BilIN-3 should be provided.
3.	In Figure 4, the number of risks should be revealed in the Figure of Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Additional comments: This is an interesting paper evaluating UBE2T expression as a diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for ICC which is targeting to give a better direction to clinicians once they need to take a decision concerning personalized therapy. The study is well designed and data is reliable. However, some issues should be addressed.


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

Input:
Title: THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF UBE2T IN INTRAHEPATIC CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study investigated the UBE2T protein expression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) by tissue microarray (TMA) and concluded that overexpression of UBE2T in ICC is associated with poor outcome including early time to recurrence (TTR) and short overall survival (OS).The study is well-designed and well-analyzed. The conclusion appears to be well-founded and recommend to be accepted for publication. However, minor issues still need to be addressed.
Experimental design: 1.	Large respective series study of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (401 cases)
2.	Well-defined inclusion criteria with well-documented post-surgical follow up with ultrasound or radiography (CT)
3.	Immunostains on TMA were digitally scanned for H-score and results were reviewed by two expert pathologists
4.	In recognizing the shortfalls of the TCGA database, authors increased the sample size with optimal cut-point for data selection and analysis
Validity of the findings: The study of UBE2T expression in ICC appears to be well-conducted with appropriate controls and data analysis. The conclusion that UBE2T potentially a important prognostic factor is acceptable.
Additional comments: 1.	Was UBE2T protein expression homogenous on immunostain? If not, did authors compare the UBE2T expression on TMA with whole slide?
2.	~20% ICC showed multiple tumors, however, authors did not discuss whether they were true multifocality or vascular invasion or intrahepatic metastasis, and although sometime it’s very difficult to separate them.
3.	Figure 2 showed increased protein expression of UBE2T from low grade dysplasia to invasive ICC, however, Figure 3 A showed similar level of expression of UBE2T from nondysplastic epithelium to high grade dysplasia (HGIN), please explain.
4.	Since it appears that UBE2T primarily expressed in ICC, the suggestion of UBE2T can be used as a marker for early detection will be doubtful (see line 211)
5.	Margin status of surgical resection will have huge impact on the tumor recurrence and overall survival, the authors did not mention it in the paper
6.	Although the paper is overall well-composed, there’s much room to improve in English


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

Input:
Title: THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF UBE2T IN INTRAHEPATIC CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: After revision, the manuscript has been improved significantly and comprehensively including clear English description, professional article structure and detailed description of figs and results, all of whih are in line with the standards of PeerJ.
Experimental design: Experimental design is well-done and rigorous investigation was performed, the results are solid and convincing.
Validity of the findings: These findings are convincing.
Additional comments: All the comments have been addressed by you. Thanks. The revised manuscript can be considered for acceptance.


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

Input:
Title: THE DIAGNOSTIC AND PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF UBE2T IN INTRAHEPATIC CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Based on prior suggestions from reviewers, the authors have made necessary changes and answered practically all the questions point-by point. Minor mistakes including nomenclature in biliary dysplasia and grading has been corrected. Some issues associated study design and methodology still exist, but overall it does affect the conclusion of this study. The title of the manuscript has been revised for easy understanding and the English of the entire manuscript has been significantly polished.

Overall, the authors reply satisfies reviewers' critique and the manuscript is ready to be accepted.
Experimental design: as stated before, the study is overall well-designed.
Validity of the findings: the study included large case series with good follow up. The immunohistochemical data from TMA also well-analysed.
Additional comments: thanks for the great effort from the authors. The overall writing has been significantly improved and minor mistakes has been corrected or answered. Additional data on resection margins and tumor stages have been provided.


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

Input:
Title: THE COMPLETE GENOME OF BANANA STREAK GF VIRUS YUNNAN ISOLATE INFECTING CAVENDISH MUSA AAA GROUP IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript the authors report a BSGFV Goldfinger strain (BSGFV-YN) infecting Cavendish banana. This virus was isolated from a previously reported infected banana with other badnavirus (BSv-Acum), a very interesting finding in my point of view, since this result supports the hypothesis that coinfection with badnaviruses is more frequent than we would expect, as suggested by some recent publications (e.g. Development of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Assays for Rapid and Sensitive Detection of Two Badnavirus Species in Sugarcane). The authors sequenced the new strain and developed phylogenetic and genetic analysis showing a new intergenic region between ORFIII and ORFI, suggesting that this region could be related to host selection.

The structure of the manuscript conforms to PeerJ standars, however, figures have very low quality and is necessary to improve them for a better understanding of the manuscript.

Sequencing raw data are not supplied and I think that must be apported to validate the results.  E.g. quality histograms are crucial to confirm the results obtained and subsequent phylogenies studies.

Authors must justify why they decided to analyze this Banana sample again, looking for new viruses and more specifically BSGFV. Did any phenotype that suggest a more complex infection on that?
Experimental design: I have some comments about the cloning and sequencing of viral genome. Badnaviruses are RNA viruses. As mayority of them, they have a high mutation rate and is was demonstrated that viral population holds significant haplotype diversity and primers must be designed taken in account this. Authors should indicate the criteria of primers design. Another point I disagree is the use of a routine taq polymerase to amplify the segments of the virus. I think this kind of experiment need to be performed with a high fidelity polymerase to avoid amplification errors. I observe that some amplicons are not overlapping, at this point could be interesting that authors provide the raw data to see the quality in the beginning of sequencing to be sure that there is no possibility of error in these regions.
phylogenetic studies were carried out correctly, taking into account different approaches in the phylogenetic studies of badnaviruses
Validity of the findings: As I understand, authors suggest different hosts target due to the intergenic region between ORFIII and ORFI. However, I think that this conclusion needs further experiments to be addressed. Can BSGFV Goldfinger infects Cavendish banana or BSGFV-YN infects Goldfinger banana? If one of these strain of BSGFV is able to infect those two cultivars invalidates that hypothesis. I think this point is important to know if the findings support the discovery of a new strain or an isolate in a new host.

L245- With the results shown in the manuscript it is very risky to say that BSGFV-YN is a new species of BSV. Since, from my point of view, as a result of the data provided, BSGFV-YN could be no more than an isolate of BSGFV Goldfinger in a new host.
Additional comments: Some minor comments
L28-29 The last classification report of International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) is 2018b release.

L191- This result is not surprising for me. In fact, at least five species of BSV including BSV-Acum are closer to KTSV than BSGFV-YN as authors show in the fig.4. Also, there are previous reports about similar results like Rumbou A et al. (2018) A novel badnavirus discovered from Betula sp. affected by birch leaf-roll disease. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193888. That showed similar result in phylogenetic analysis.


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

Input:
Title: THE COMPLETE GENOME OF BANANA STREAK GF VIRUS YUNNAN ISOLATE INFECTING CAVENDISH MUSA AAA GROUP IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript needs substantial revision for English language owing to lack of flow and presence of many grammatical errors, few of which are listed below for example:
1. Line 58: "At present, BSV widely distributed in the main planting area" should be "At present, BSV is widely distributed in the main planting area".
2. Line 58-59: "banana industry in Southeast Asia and Africa, which has seriously affecting the yield and quality of bananas and causing huge economic losses" should be  "banana industry in Southeast Asia and Africa, and had seriously affected the yield and quality of bananas resulted in huge economic losses".
3. Line 63: "BSV possess" should be "BSV possesses".
4. Line 64: "and its genome encapsidated" should be  "and its genome is encapsidated".
5. Line 68: "polyprotein which hydrolysis by proteases" should be "polyprotein which is hydrolyzed by proteases".
The errors are too many to list here.
The literature references are fine and cited in appropriate context. The manuscript has an acceptable format with good sectioning structure and is self-contained as well.
Experimental design: The manuscript falls under the Aims and Scope of PeerJ. The concept of the study is fine, however, investigation is not rigorous. The study presented only a single genome of Banana streak GF virus Yunnan isolate from a sample previously used  to sequence another BSAcYNV isolate. There is not retaliation presented why author suspected that this sample may also have  BSGFV Yunnan isolate (sequenced in this study) and why other species of BSV were not tested? It is not tested whether this isolate is episomal or integrated in the host genome?The methods are described in sufficient details for reproduction.
Validity of the findings: Currently, the manuscript is limited to sequencing of an isolate, however, no work is presented for its prevalence in the area; whether and to which extant is it present in the region? Is it present only in association with BSAcYNV or alone? Is it episomal or present as integrated in the field? The authors are encouraged to determine the presence of this isolates in the area using specific primers/PCR assay and sequence the genome of few more isolates.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE COMPLETE GENOME OF BANANA STREAK GF VIRUS YUNNAN ISOLATE INFECTING CAVENDISH MUSA AAA GROUP IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English has been substantially improved. I consider that the references are suitable for the context of the manuscript and the results are interesting and open a new way of study to deepen the variability and distribution of viruses that infect Cavendish Musa AAA group.
It would be interesting to continue with this line in order to answer important questions such as the possible distribution of this new virus strain and its intrapopulation variability.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE COMPLETE GENOME OF BANANA STREAK GF VIRUS YUNNAN ISOLATE INFECTING CAVENDISH MUSA AAA GROUP IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been updated for English language however, few sentences needs to be changed:
1.	Line 35-36: " The result showed that Banana streak GF virus Yunnan isolate (BSGFV-YN) infecting Cavendish Musa AAA group was determined " should be " The result showed that Banana streak GF virus Yunnan isolate (BSGFV-YN) infecting Cavendish Musa AAA group was co-infecting this sample ".
2.	Line 46: " In summary, a BSGFV-YN different from BSV-Acum was identified from the one sample " should be " In summary, a BSGFV-YN different from BSV-Acum was identified from the same plant ".
3.	Line 118: " bio-sanger sequencing at Invitrogen (Guangzhou, China).  " should be " Sanger sequencing at Invitrogen (Guangzhou, China).  ".
4.	Line 151: " each fragment was high similar to the BSGFV " should be " each fragment was highly similar to the BSGFV ".
5.	Line 210: " DISCUSS" should be " DISCUSSION".
6.	Line 215 to 217: “The badnaviruses have been concerned by people recently owing to they could cause significant agricultural economy loss.” Should be rephrased for more clarity.
Experimental design: The manuscript falls under the Aims and Scope of PeerJ. The concept and experimental design of the study is fine.
Validity of the findings: In my previous review report, I have commented as “Currently, the manuscript is limited to sequencing of an isolate, however, no work is presented for its prevalence in the area; whether and to which extant is it present in the region? Is it present only in association with BSAcYNV or alone? Is it episomal or present as integrated in the field? The authors are encouraged to determine the presence of this isolates in the area using specific primers/PCR assay and sequence the genome of few more isolates”. Though the authors have not added any data for these aspects, however, their reply is logical.
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: EVALUATION OF THREE WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) CULTIVARS AS SENSITIVE CD BIOMARKERS DURING THE SEEDLING STAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: With the aggravation of industrialization and urbanization, Cd pollutant has become a crucial abiotic stress. The MS (41895), using wheat seedlings as Cd biomarkers, evaluated the sensitivity of three wheat cultivars to Cd stress, and found that DF showed a higher tolerance, while LZ was a sensitive cultivar. These are of great importance for understanding the mechanism of Cd tolerance.
Experimental design: 1.Which method was applied to compare the tested index in ANOVA? Ducan test, SNK test, or other.
2.The determination method of carotenoids was not presented in METHODS. Please check it.
Validity of the findings: 1.Soluble sugar not only osmolyte and energy resource, but also reactive oxygen species scavenger, the latter should be discussed in DISCUSSION.
2.The growth performance (total length, volume, longest length, etc.) and physiological (CAT, soluble sugar, TTC, etc.) were inconsistent with the tolerance of wheat cultivars to Cd, which should be explained in DISCUSSION.
Additional comments: 1.Language should be carefully revised, such as chlorophyll β, may be chlorophyll b.


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION OF THREE WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) CULTIVARS AS SENSITIVE CD BIOMARKERS DURING THE SEEDLING STAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of three wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars as sensitive Cd biomarkers during the seedling stage" showed us the different manifestation in growth performance and physiological response to Cd exposure in wheat and assess the potential biomarker for Cd exposure. The contents fit the scope of the journal.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled: "Evaluation of three wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars as sensitive Cd biomarkers during the seedling stage" showed us the different manifestation in growth performance and physiological response to Cd exposure in wheat and assess the potential biomarker for Cd exposure. The contents fit the scope of the journal. However, there are some open questions to need addressing.
Major comments
1.	More research background and research purpose should be presented in Introduction.
2.	Results should be more concise and accurate. The key data patterns should be highlighted.
3.	The discussion should be more structured and focused on the reason of responsing Cd stress in wheat.
4.	Conclusion should be carefully drawn. In this paper, only three cultivars of wheat were used to evaluate, however, some sentences in conclusion were not completely express this meaning.
Minor comments
Line 99-104 Theses sentences are not accurate. Please rewrite and present the clear treatment.
Line 119-120 this sentence is not clear. What dose mean “about 30% more significant growth”?
Line 146-147 what is objectives of comparison?
Line 177-178 It is hard to understand the presentation of sugar content.
Line 199-200 I can’t find root weight and leaf weight description in Figure 2B.
In table section, some indexes have no unit. Is the content of chlorophyll calculated based on dry weight or fresh weight? In table 2, the unit of root activity is “µ”rather than “u”.
In reference section, some journals abbreviation was not accurate, please check the format.


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION OF THREE WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) CULTIVARS AS SENSITIVE CD BIOMARKERS DURING THE SEEDLING STAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written well.
Experimental design: Experimental design is correct.
Validity of the findings: the data is enough to support conclusions.
Additional comments: This paper describes a research about the responses of three wheat cultivars when exposed to Cd. The problem could be important, and currently worth to be considered. The manuscript has to improve in results and discussion chapter. So, I think this manuscript should be published in peer J after major revised.
1. Why do author select three wheat cultivars from province Gansu?  Are they typical？
2. The  abstract is no clear, please revise it.
3. Please explain why author select eighteen parameters of wheat during the seedling stage?
4. Please revise tables.
5. Please forecast practical significance of the results.
6. How reliable are the results of wheat seedlings as Cd biomarkers?


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION OF THREE WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) CULTIVARS AS SENSITIVE CD BIOMARKERS DURING THE SEEDLING STAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: IT IS OK.
Experimental design: IT IS OK.
Validity of the findings: IT IS OK.
Additional comments: Accept.


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: VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASIAN ELEPHANT (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) POPULATION IN THE ENDAU ROMPIN LANDSCAPE, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is clear and logical with good references.

Some additional information is needed to support the claim that the authors worked in close collaboration with policy makers (see my comments to the authors). Some literature cold be updated (see comments)
Experimental design: No particular concern on this.
Validity of the findings: the major finding that translocation could have harmful effects on the viability of the elephant population is very important to stress out. Data are quite robust although poaching seems to have been underestimated as a cause of extinction by the authors. It would be important to give more details about what should be the priority actions to be undertaken to save this population from extinction.
Additional comments: The authors bring some very interesting information about the elephant poulation living in Endau Rompin landscape. The point made by the authors to stop translocation is very important to make, and I applaud the authors of this study to bring this element to the knowledge of land deciders and wildlife managers in West Malaysia. This conclusion may have very serious consequences for managing elephant populations, not only in Malaysia but across Asia. This fact is crucial to be published and to be brought to the general knowledge.

I have made few minor comment below.

Introduction L59-64: the statistics given by the authors are from 2005 and 2011. More recent statistics are available and should be used instead.
L64-67: needs for a reference
L 82-89: I’m surprised that only two elephants have been monitored with satellite tracking over the years. Is there any reason why not more elephants were monitored using this technology?
L108-110: the fact that there is no size estimate for this population should be highligted by the authors as one of the reasons for their study.
L 116-119: what is the "question of immediate relevance to conservation in Malaysia” that the authors want to adress in their paper? It needs to be clearly stated.
L 275-290: I don’t discuss the importance for conservationists to work more closely with field practitioners and land deciders in order to inform startegies for land uses, land management and else. So I fully agree with what the authors write in this section. However, the authors should be more precise and they should detail what they did to justify their statement “this study provides an example of scientists working with policy makers…. (L 285-290)". Indeed, the authors don’t show anywhere that they engaged with policy makers or field practitioners during their study. Have they organized workshops, or discussions or consultation of any kind? Have they identified the research question following meetings with relevant authorities? And so on. The authors mush bring the evidence that indeed, they collaborated with different stakeholders during their study.
L302-304: I agree that the lower density may result from emigration. Although I imagine that the number of transocated elephants from this population is well known (and in this case, it would be very interesting to give the figure and the time frame), it is most probably more difficult to know the details about killing. However, killing could be even more of a problem knowing that many elephants in this population are shot for their ivory or during HECs. Although the Vortex includes some level of killing, the authors should emphasise (if this is the case) that killing is a real threat to the long-term viability of this population and that everything needs to be done to stop this. Both transocation and killing are part of the same problem: excessive emigration from the source population, as the authors write in section 410-421. It could be explained earlier than in this later section that killing and translocation have the same impact on a population viability.
L 408-421: it would be interesting for the authors to give more information about the level of hunting witnessed by this population.


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: VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASIAN ELEPHANT (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) POPULATION IN THE ENDAU ROMPIN LANDSCAPE, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: General comments

Overall, the manuscript is very well written, with clear and unambiguous English used throughout.

Seems that the manuscript was written years ago:
Lines 62-63: ‘with about 28% of the peninsula projected to be under these crops by the end of 2015’. I recommend rewording this sentence and if possible using actual data on the crops area coverage.

The article is generally well structured. Below are some comments by section:

Introduction
Introduce the Central Forest Spine (CFS) master plan in the introduction. The CFS is presented in the discussion but I think it is highly relevant and it would be better to introduce it earlier on.
In Methods (line 194) it is mentioned that the population in Endau-Rompin Landscape (ERL) is a closed population. That is very important information, I recommend mentioning it in the introduction. In the discussion, I recommend discussing the implications of lack of connectivity in the context of CFS and the Managed Elephant Range. Although there is a brief mention in lines 311-314, it would be good to provide more details on how challenging would be to reestablish connectivity with other populations.

Methods
Study Area
I recommend to add a bit more of detail on the study area, specifically on the land use and vegetation types. This is important to understand the potential elephant densities. Sukumar (2003)’s suggestion of 0.1/sq-km refers to old-growth continuous forest. If the forest is highly fragmented, has been selectively logged, or includes crops like paddy fields, this would have implications for potential elephant densities.

Also, in line 223 it is mentioned that some dung piles were destroyed by construction work within the study area. Can you please mention in the Study Area section what kind landscape changes were taking place at the time of the study?

Population Viability Analysis
Can you provide any real data on the number of elephants translocated from ERL. Also, can you please indicate where they are translocated to? As far as I know, in the past few years elephants from the State of Johor were released within ERL but in line 303 it is mentioned that some elephants were translocated out of ERL. Some more details would be helpful.

Discussion
Need for research on elephant movements => some work has been done on elephant movements in this landscape. The authors can contact me (ahimsa.camposarceiz@nottingham.edu.my) to discuss potential collaborations regarding elephant movement data. Actually, the study proposed in lines 391-395 already exists and is currently under review (I’ll be happy to share the manuscript with the authors if they are interested).
Experimental design: The methods are appropriate for the purpose of the study
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid and relevant for conservation
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: VIABILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASIAN ELEPHANT (ELEPHAS MAXIMUS) POPULATION IN THE ENDAU ROMPIN LANDSCAPE, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is very well written, structured and supported by the appropriate literature. A very enjoyable and easy read. Obviously this paper has undergone a few reviews. However, I did find one little annoying language issue; the excessive and incorrect use of semi-colons and colons. I have highlighted in the attached: examples of where they are used incorrectly. In most cases a comma could be used or perhaps a new sentence. Finally, the abstract needs a little work. The third sentence is a little long and fragmented. The other issue is the excessive number of tables and figures.

One area that needs improvement are the figures and tables.

Figures 3 to 14 could be condensed into figure panels or included in supplementary. Also, it would be good to include a letter i.e. (a), (b) etc. and describe what each plot means. The captions are also a little bit hard to read. They have strange formatting with a carriage return in the caption. My suggestion would be to put all the sensitivity analysis figures in the supplementary. This paper really about the PVA itself and the modelling methods and they barely get a mention in the text; so I don't think they need to be in the actual manuscript.

The tables also are excessive -  too many. And obviously they are not an important part of the story as they are rarely mentioned in the text. Again I think they could be moved to the supplementary.

I think the authors have to figure out some way to summarise some the data in the figures and tables into a plot or table. Perhaps only plot the PE and have different curves for different  paramaterisations.
Experimental design: no comment.
Validity of the findings: The findings appear valid to me.
Additional comments: In general this was a well executed study. The research fills a very important research gap. The application of PVAs in Southeast Asia (and the global south in general) is rare, even though there are such pressing biodiversity issues which can be addressed with PVAs. In general I am happy with how the analysis has been presented and the application is rigorous and of high technical standard.


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is basically a review of the occurrence and function of hastisetae in dermestid beetles.
Experimental design: there is really no study design since no new information is added, just a survey of past information. Full citation of the articles discussed is provided.
Validity of the findings: the topic is interesting and if anything points out new areas of research that can be organized with dermestid beetles.
Additional comments: The authors should make it clear that hastisetae are also produced by members of the subfamily Anthreninae, as well as by members of the subfamily Megatominae.

In figure 1, the genus and species of the example of the Megatominae larva should be provided. It certainly reminds me of a species of Anthrenus, which belongs to that subfamily.

Can Figures 1B and 1C be made with a bit more contrast? Especially Figure 1B.


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The review is written well with clear English and a clear goal for the reader. The context is important and has applications in both the stored product pest discipline and medical discipline (allergens). The literature surveyed was exhaustive and their search criteria seem reasonable. The review is broad enough to be of interest to several groups of people, and the authors offer some interesting follow-up experiments that would be of particular interest in bio-control. It seems like the review cites several semi-recent articles that describe different functions of the setae but there are no recent reviews. The introduction is lacking a bit of background information. I would suggest including more information on the reason studying these setae matter, as mentioned in the abstract. The authors mention that the hastiseate can be “a serious threat to public health” but don’t provide any more details than that. I’m not convinced that statement is as powerful as they want it to be without further evidence. Although the authors do go into more detail on this subject within the review, so possibly mentioning that it will be explored further is important.
Experimental design: I think the phylogeny portion and the description of the structure and function are done well and with sufficient detail. The survey methodology is sufficient to find appropriate literature on their subject and they present their findings in an organized manner. Source information is presented well and it seems like they found a variety of sources from evolutionary to pest control. Subsections are organized logically and easy to follow. I might follow-up each section with a short sentence or two on what possible experiments could be done to expand the knowledge of this section and why would expanding what we know be important. It seems like the authors just present the information and, although the provide some conclusions, could provide more context as to why this review matters as the manuscript moves along.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are presented well and provides unresolved questions and gaps that can be answered by future research. I think the thing that is missing for me is the well-developed and supported argument that meets the Introduction goals. I don’t think the introduction sets up how important these species are and how important understanding the evolution and physiology of these hastisetae are for public health and stored product protection. There is nothing that says understanding these three factors (phylogeny, health, and structure) will provide us with information on how to protect people from certain things in the future. How will this help in pest control? How will this help in preventing allergic attacks? Figures are very nice and provide a nice look at the structure and phylogenetic context of the hastisetae. They are much needed and appreciated for understanding this review.
Additional comments: Overall, I don’t have any specific comments besides to make sure you make the “Why” of the review very clear and to emphasize at the end of each subsection of the results why these results are interesting and how they can be applied to future directions. I think you have provided a nice look at the current state of knowledge but the future and why this matters is so important.


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The goal of this paper, which meets all criteria for a scientific review, is to summarize all data available on the ecological and medical aspects of certain cuticular structures (hastisetae) of the dermatid species Megatominae.
The article is well structured, follows a clear ductus and highlights the function of hastisetae  for the defence of these slow moving insects which are feeding on nutritients with low water content.
The authors provide a comprehensive list of references.
However, the reader would expect one or two more figures (e.g., life cycle, adult stage).
Please, add scale to image of larva.
The language is highly professional. Only the meaning of the sentence starting with "Based om amber fossils,..." (see. Results 170 - 172) is not clear to the reviewer.
Experimental design: Classical review, authors make methodology of literature research clear to the reader.
The information given is very good as long as it meets enthomological aspects of the issue.
Unfortunately, the (possible) importance of Megatominae larvae for mankind and human health is not elaborated in the same precise manner.
Some phrases are too "catchy", e.g., "serious threat for public health", "it is now widely recognized that these hairs have important and unpleasant effects on humans".
Most of the medical references presented by the authors had been published before 2000, some report only on single cases.
The authors should find arguments why there is not more interest on this issue in the medical literature.
"Public health" means hazard to the community. Who are the persons at risk; is it / might it become a potential occupational disease, etc.
The imbalance between the excellent enthomological part of the paper and the medical section is obvious. The medical part is significantly less than a page whereas the enthomology stretches over almost four pages.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The reviewer would like to encourage the authors to revise the medical part and present more details on possible pathogenetic mechanisms. Do hastisetae penetrate mucous membranes or skin? They are so different from true setae of Lepidopt. which have an arrow-like appearance that it is difficult to imagine that hastisetae really penetrate the skin barrier. What are the hints for toxic ingredients located withinthe cuticular structure?


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: The revision meets my approval.


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Much improved manuscript. I think the authors have enhanced their review substantially adding significant amounts of literature and developing their arguments fully. Basic reporting as categorized is done well.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: The arguments are much better defined and supported by the literature. You have made the importance of studying and understanding the hastisetae much more clear. The conclusion nicely wraps up all of your previous arguments and makes a case for further research.
Additional comments: Just a few general comments and edits:
Line 30: Change old literature to past or something similar.
Line 33: Remove "of the art" so it is just "the state of knowledge"
Line 45: Structure and function are well studied
Lines 62-67: These sentences seem to be mostly just fragments. Consider combining them or just give a definition without the "While" or "whereas" phrases.
Line 82: Do not allow what?
Line 103: Edit for punctuation
Line 127: "Apex blunt" is an odd phrase. Are you missing a word?
Line 163: "defensive strategy Dermestinae" are you missing a word here?
Line 169: Feed off of
Line 172: Phrasing of "are usually present gin-traps" is odd
Line 198: Punctuation. "aggressive, non-escaping"
Lines 205-210 are redundant to information presented above. Consider moving above or deleting
Line 216: Odd phrasing. Consider revising


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: OCCURRENCE, ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND MEDICAL IMPORTANCE OF DERMESTID BEETLE HASTISETAE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Due to the revision paper has now gained the required quality level for publication in PeerJ.
Entholmological section and medical section are now well balanced in length and scientific content.
However, there are some issues which should be clarified before definite publication.
Experimental design: No further comment
Validity of the findings: What does authors make think that there is a toxic content in the cavity of setae? Own experience? Literature?

The authors should be aware that in the section Hastisatae and human health they write about "allergic" phenomenons. Toxic means everybody will be affected, allergic means it is bad luck that someone responds to an allergen.

Section Hastisatae and human health

Do the authors really mean "...prolonged inhalation...."  or "repeated inhalation/exposure over a longer period"?

"...can determine the insurgence of asthma..."  is a very uncommon "medical" formulation. Better: "may cause asthma"

Authors should make clear that in every manifestation with suspected allergic background prevention is the most important step. Allergic symptoms as well as treatment are all the same independet of causal pathogenesis.

An image depicting life cycle of the insect is still missing.
Additional comments: Quality of paper has increased significantly. If you add the few issues mentioned above the paper will be an excellent contribution to PeerJ.


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

Input:
Title: GROWTH RATE AND LOCOMOTOR PERFORMANCE TRADEOFF IS NOT UNIVERSAL IN BIRDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: Some of the models may have issues with collinearity, as body mass, linear wing dimensions, and flight muscle mass are highly related. For example, body mass and wing area will be highly collinear, as larger species generally have bigger absolute wing spans than smaller species. This type of analysis may lead to multicollinearity, and efforts to account for multicollinearity should be used. One way around this may be to combine these variables. For example, wing loading (mass per unit wing area) would be a natural choice for analysis of wing area and growth rates, as wing loading is important in aerodynamic theory. You may also want to see Vásági et al. (2016; Evol Biol 43:48-59) for other ways to take into account scaling of morphological traits with body size.

Some of the conclusions drawn by the manuscript are a bit strong, and may be more speculative. The language around these Conclusion section (line 200-208) should reflect this as such. For example, the authors conclude that fast growing birds, because of their smaller wings, are not as maneuverable as species with larger wings. However, the maneuverability is inferred based on morphological data, rather than quantifying maneuverability in some fashion. Thus, the final and main conclusion (Lines 200-208) is at best speculation. I would suggest that these conclusions be tempered, as there is very little comparative information regarding maneuverability in birds, except for hummingbirds (Dakin et al. 2018, Science).
Additional comments: This paper compares growth rates and morphological variation in bird species, and whether there are compromises in the relative size of the wings and the supporting musculature with increasing growth rates. The authors assembled a comprehensive database from the literature, including wing morphology, latitude, muscle mass, growth rates, and nesting characteristics. Their models suggest that faster growing birds tend to have smaller wings and bigger muscles than slower growing species. The effort of assembling this database is large and I commend the authors on getting the data on such a large number of species together. The research question is well defined, and that data collected would provide some insights into the question. However, I do have some concerns regarding the statistical models that were initially chosen, and whether other variables should be taken into account. I have outlined my concerns below:

One aspect of this study that needs to be closely considered is the ecology of the birds, and whether different habitat types (eg. forest versus savannah versus aquatic) or migratory tendency (nonmigratory, short-distance, long-distance migrant) also played an important role in wing morphological variation. For example, Norberg and Rayner 1987 (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. vol. 316 issue 1179) have noted differences in wing morphology in bats, with bats in “cluttered” environments tending to have shorter wings compared to species that tend to fly in open environments. This suggests that flight environment plays an important role in determining relative wing proportions, but also suggests that shorter wings may provide more maneuverability compared to longer wings. Migration is another consideration for morphological variation, as it is predicted that migrants have wings that permit fast and efficient flight (Lindhe Norberg 2002, J Morph 252(1): 52-81). Migrants also tend to breed at higher latitudes, but not all high latitude birds are migrants. Thus, migratory patterns within species should be considered Vásági et al. (2016; Evol Biol 43:48-59) may be a good resource that links morphology to migratory distance. I recommend including habitat type and migration distance (either as a continuous variable, or as discrete “non-migratory versus migratory”) in the models.

The way predation pressure was modeled is a bit peculiar as it is subsumed in the "nest type" category. For example, seabirds such as albatrosses, tend to nest on relatively isolated islands with lower predation pressure compared to mainland species, but are classified as cup type which is considered high predation risk. Thus, while the cup versus enclosed analysis may apply to some bird species that nest on the mainland where predation pressure is high, it may be more difficult to apply to species with relatively lower predation pressure, such as very large bird species or birds that nest on isolated islands. I would recommend that predation pressure be quantified in some other way, besides nest type.

Different flight styles (eg. flapping versus soaring) are also not incorporated into the analysis. Soaring and gliding flight styles are associated with a range of morphological adaptations such as long and thin wings that maximize glide ratio for extended distances. Thus, inclusion of birds adapted for soaring with birds relying primarily on flapping flight may confound some of the analyses. I would recommend splitting the analysis into flapping flight and soaring flight, for example, or only including birds that use flapping flight.

This also brings into question whether birds that rely on soaring flight have relatively smaller muscles than birds that rely on flapping flight, and the scaling relationship between muscle mass and body size in soaring versus flapping birds. This is a "bonus" question that should be addressed in your manuscript, and I believe you have enough data to do so.