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: CHARACTERIZATION OF BACTERIOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES AND QUANTIFICATION OF ORGANIC CARBON POOLS OFF THE GALAPAGOS ARCHIPELAGO UNDER CONTRASTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Review Guevara Campoverde et al.

Reference. 28742

Characterization of bacterioplankton communities and quantification of organic carbon pools off the Galapagos Archipelago under contrasting environmental conditions

Summary

The manuscript “Characterization of bacterioplankton communities and quantification of organic carbon pools off the Galapagos Archipelago under contrasting environmental conditions” has improved significantly since the last review process and is now ready for publication with minute comments.
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: General comments

The microbial community composition on aggregates was subject of some studies recently and has been subject of reserach for years, as shown in Bizic-Ionescu et al., 2015; Thiele et al., 2015, and earlier Simon, Grossart, and others. It would be interesting to compare the results in this study to previous studies.

Detailed comments
Material and Methods

Line 159 ff: How did you measure the aggregate sizes? Opening the tank and measuring them according to Iversens methods would have been to invasive to make a claim on size development afterwards.
Discussion

Line 394: Change he to the.

Line 573-577: Rephrase the sentences


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: CHARACTERIZATION OF BACTERIOPLANKTON COMMUNITIES AND QUANTIFICATION OF ORGANIC CARBON POOLS OFF THE GALAPAGOS ARCHIPELAGO UNDER CONTRASTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: The authors have well addressed the different points raised by the other reviewer and I. The manuscript now reads very well, I enjoyed reading this new version. I only have some minor comments:

1. In the earlier version of the manuscript, I commented on why the authors reduced their dataset before the RDA (now line 233). Their 4 reasons make sense but this may not be so common so it could help if these reasons were stated in the manuscript.

2. SI figure 4
The authors may mention somewhere in the mansucript the % chloroplasts/ coverage expected with the V34 primers.

3. Also, please make sure the sequences on ENA are available for publication.

4. Specific comments:
L224: Would this read better?: “The relationship *between* alpha diversity *and* temperature and pH”
L298: There is typing mistake: “ex*lc*uding”
L394: There is typing mistake: “**he El Niño »
L429: There is typing mistake: “due to *i*n increased release of TEP”
L520-521: Please rephrase.


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 PROPORTION OF CORE SPECIES IN A COMMUNITY VARIES WITH SPATIAL SCALE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HETEROGENEITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This paper examines the role of spatial scale and environmental heterogeneity on the proportion of core and transient species in bird communities by using an extensive dataset on bird surveys for North America combined with climatic data. The main findings show that the proportion of core species increases with the spatial scale while transient species tend to decrease. In addition, they found that this relationship is affected by habitat heterogeneity, in which the proportion of core species at a given scale is lower in sites with high heterogeneity than in sites with low heterogeneity. The authors discuss the results in terms of the potential implications that the variable proportion of core and transient species has on the inferences of ecological processes.

The manuscript is well written and I found the topic interesting and appealing to a broad scientific audience; the methods are clear, the analyses well performed and the figures relevant. My only concern relays on the interpretation of the results and the role of ecological processes inferred: (1) It has been already stated that patterns of phylogenetic distribution in natural communities are a weak approach for inferring competition or filtering processes. So, I found the discussion to be somehow misleading in this respect (lines 258-259). I believe the authors can address this comment by rephrasing these sentences (2) Authors discuss how the differences in proportions of core and transient species influence the inference of ecological processes. However, they mostly focus on competition. I wonder if they have any thoughts regarding the role of immigration. Immigration rates are dependent on the spatial scale, being dominant in large areas and at the same time, immigration should be more important for transient than for core species.


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 PROPORTION OF CORE SPECIES IN A COMMUNITY VARIES WITH SPATIAL SCALE AND ENVIRONMENTAL HETEROGENEITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting of the manuscript is generally clear and professional; the authors comply with the requirements of PeerJ. Nonetheless, some issues remain. For instance, specific measurements, especially in the methods could be explained in more detail and more intuitively (less technically and explaining the implications of, e.g., metrics, see methods section). The authors come up, from time to time, with concepts or definitions not previously introduced; this may prove confusing to the readership (please see comments in the PDF). The structure and background are sufficient, and the core message is relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: While the authors describe in detail the data and the scales (except few details, please see comments in the PDF), several sections in the analysis need further elaboration for the paper to be reproducible (please see comments in PDF). There is no acknowledgment of the possibility and implications of overlapping of species or repeated occurrences (because of, e.g., migration or possibly overlapping of sampling areas) when pooling together, e.g., the BBS routes.
Validity of the findings: Regardless of the importance of the subject for the understanding of ecological processes, the authors need to deepen the explanation of their analysis and discuss the several particularities of their system of study. Whether the authors wish to generalize their findings or not the fact remains that they are working with birds which have a particular behavior, they are mobile, and they migrate. Furthermore, the results seem to be interpreted subjectively without rigorous tests supporting what the authors indicate, thus making interpretation subjective. In my opinion that is the most pressing issue I have encountered in the manuscript (please see my comments in the PDF). Finally, the application and importance of the results to current ecological theory do not seem apparent from the discussion.
Additional comments: The authors describe the variation of the proportion of core and transient species in bird communities along different spatial scales. They also assess the effect of environmental heterogeneity on this scaling relationship.
Abstract: the authors sustain that scale influences the proportion of core species. It is clear that there is an effect of both scale and environmental heterogeneity, but it is tough to discern to which degree the proportion of core species is a result of area size alone, size and heterogeneity combined or heterogeneity alone (this is mentioned in the discussion without real support from the results).
In the introduction the authors document and justify well the core-transient distinction, providing enough context for their work. Although, they raise very high expectations by encouraging the development of general principles concerning factors influencing the proportion of core species. The implication that their work may lead to this is counterintuitive because although the analysis does cover a considerable spatial extension, it focuses on a particular system (birds). Birds are mobile and migrate; these are particularities have not been mentioned nor discussed. Also, the implication that this work may be applied in a general context is not supported in the discussion. If this was the intention of the authors, they could have come up with recommendations on how to apply their analysis or findings to other systems. Also, the authors could compare theirs to findings from different systems.
The authors do not discuss their findings thoroughly. Instead, the discussion also contains some more arguments about the validity of differentiating core and transient species. E.g., How can the influence of scale and environmental heterogeneity in the proportion of core species help dissolve discrepancies in these ecological studies? Examples or suggestions of the sort are missing in the discussion.
The figures (5 and 6) could include a very brief description of the metrics.


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: BETWEEN EXTREME SIMPLIFICATION AND IDEAL OPTIMIZATION: ANTENNAL SENSILLA MORPHOLOGY OF MINIATURIZED MEGAPHRAGMA WASPS (HYMENOPTERA: TRICHOGRAMMATIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: pdf attached
Experimental design: pdf attached
Validity of the findings: pdf attached
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: BETWEEN EXTREME SIMPLIFICATION AND IDEAL OPTIMIZATION: ANTENNAL SENSILLA MORPHOLOGY OF MINIATURIZED MEGAPHRAGMA WASPS (HYMENOPTERA: TRICHOGRAMMATIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The paper is written in a good English, although I’m not a native English speaker. The structure of the paper is good and meets the Journal criteria and needs. References are not accurate either in terms of year of citation or journal. I noticed two mistakes (see attached pdf), there could be more but I’m not going to check all the references, this has to be carefully done by the authors. Legend of figures are very scarce and not informative at all, they should describe what’s in the plates and schemes much more in details, especially when the pictures show an extensive lettering (i.e. fig3). I found Fig 3 rather confused hard to read, I suggest to split it into 2 plates of the same size incorporating more data on the reported structures (details of sockets, structures on males). The authors reported data of three Megaphragma species, in two species of both sexes. I suggest the authors to add SEM data of males as well, Fig2 is just not enough to pick the differences and drawings are not true data.
I would like to see more pictures of the multiporous tip of the basiconic sensillum, it is not clear to me on the basis of the picture in Fig.3.
I’m also rather convinced that PS is an olfactory placoid sensillum, please provide pictures clearly showing the absence of pores (130.000 x is not needed).
Comments and suggestions are reported on the attached PDF.


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 SINGLE SPANISH VERSION OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL POSTNATAL ATTACHMENT SCALES: VALIDATION AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The Authors present a Spanish validation of a new version of the Maternal and Paternal Postnatal Attachment Scales, usable both with mothers and fathers.
The manuscript covers a relevant topic within the aim and the scope of PeerJ-Section Brain and Cognition – Psychology.
The language, specifically the grammar, is of good quality. Nevertheless, some inaccuracies should be corrected:
line 26 I think that “evidence” is more appropriate than “evidences”
line 40 “a” should be “A”
line 57 no full stop after “introduction”
line 84-line 86-line 87 “problems” should be replaced by more accurate words
line 127 I think that comma is preferable to “and” before “affection”
line 152 no full stop after “Materials & Methods”
line 155 “were” should be “was”
line 164 I think that “cognitive” is not the appropriate term
line 266 no comma after “Sierra”
line 269 colons are preferable to comma
line 280 no full stop after “results”
line 323 I think that Figure is preferable to “figure”
line 353 no full stop after “Discussion”
line 374 I think that “its” is preferable to “their”
line 442 no full stop after “Conclusions”
Table 1 – note- “Standard Deviation”, not “Standard Desviation”
The structure of the paper is correct, figures and tables are accurate, and raw data are available.
The topic is well addressed and the authors’ quotations are relevant. The Authors provide a sufficient literature review about the construct of parental bonding, while they could provide more details about the findings from previous studies using MPAS and PPAS both in nonclinical and in clinical groups.
Experimental design: The manuscript covers a relevant topic within the aim and the scope of PeerJ-Section Brain and Cognition – Psychology.
The research question is well defined and relevant, the authors clearly state how their research fills an identified knowledge gap. The methods and the procedure are accurate and well described, statistical methods are valid.
Line 48 and line 348 -  r=.41 and r=.30 are interpreted as moderate-high correlations; according to Guilford (1956) they are moderate correlations, not high.
The work has been conducted in conformity with the ethical standards of the field. Identifiable info has been removed from all files.
Validity of the findings: Data is statistically sound and controlled.
The Authors discuss adequately the research questions and conclusions are strongly supported by data. In the limitations section the authors could emphasize how much a self-report about parental bonding may be susceptible to social desirability and how much future studies are needed in both clinical and non-clinical samples. Moreover, the authors do not take into account  that a parent's awareness of his normal, albeit low and controlled, feelings of hostility towards the child may actually be an indicator of a healthy parental bond while the failure to recognize normal feelings of hostility towards the child or high pleasure self-reported in interaction with the child can hide anger or hostility that can not be recognized due to intolerable feelings of guilt and shame.
Lastly, the Authors might add the self-report as an appendix.
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 SINGLE SPANISH VERSION OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL POSTNATAL ATTACHMENT SCALES: VALIDATION AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some sections of the paper should be reviewed by a native english speaking colleague (ex. in the abstract, lines 25 -27 allude to the negative impact of postnatal bond in parents mental health and development of the child).  Being the first lines and more important ones, it should be written in a more clear and unambiguous way.
The authors present good background based on relevant references in this area of knowledge, methodological option are supported. The work is pertinent, contributing to measurement validation to Spanish of an instrument used in attachment studies worldwide. It also points out the urge to discuss important theoretical issues, namely the distinction between bonding and attachment.
The structure follows standards and APA style. Tables and figures are well presented. However figure 1 has no caption.
Methods chosen are adequate (inter-rated consensus and confirmatory factor analysis - CFA). Authors should consider reviewing their reliability analysis. Cronbach’ Alpha values for both MPAS and PPAS sub-scales.
Experimental design: 1. The current work complies to ethical standards, and an adequate analysis was carried out. Authors present sufficient information about methods, procedures and data analysis used to replicate the study.
Fathers and mothers groups are not equal numbered.
Recommendation: Although not essential  for main purpose of the study, it should be added to the studies´ limitations. Authors present a satisfactory sample size. Nevertheless, dropouts rate should be indicated (line 213) and discussed further in the limitations section. The inclusion of 25 participants with other nationalities should also be justified (table 1).

2. Using the Delphi inter-rater method was a good option to increase validity of the back translation process.  MPAS e PPAS global scale Cronbach’s alpha values are good. Although sub-scales values are very low andCronbach’s alpha is considered by some authors (see McDonald,1999; Maroco, 2006) to be conservator when applied to multi factor structure measures. inferior to usual standards (<.6). Cronbach’s alpha is considered by some authors (see McDonald,1999; Maroco, 2006) to be conservator when applied to multi factor structure measures.
Recommendation: Variance analysis could help to solve this out, since it´s more appropriate to study multiple factor reliability. In alternative, a single factor structure should be use, as suggested in the conclusion section. In a previous Portuguese study, 6 common items to MPASS e PPAS were used in CFA, including only the ones with higher eigenvalues to conducted a structural equation model (consider Brites, Pires, Nunes, Hipólito  & Vasconcelos, 2016).

3. In both PPAS and MPAS, item 03 presents high kurtosis and skewness values (tables 2 and 3). Authors should clarified item 3 inclusion and the inclusion of items with lower factor loadings (e.g.: MPAS 3, 4,14, 19, 9, 2; PPAS 4 in figures 2 and 3).
Validity of the findings: Findings are robust and useful for the discussion on parents’ bonding vs attachment to the baby concept. It also contributes to the discussion regarding psychometric properties of Condon’s attachment measures MPAS e PPAS in a multicultural perspective, and it´s vulnerabilities. Since the final Spanish version uses 15 unaltered items of the original scales, it becomes difficult to figure out why the name was modified to  “Postnatal Bonding Scale” (line 223).  Changing only the name does not bring any added value per itself to the theoretical discussion of attachment vs bonding.
Recommendations: Discussion should emphasize more the second objective of the study (line 151): how does theses findings contribute to the concept discussion relating to previous studies presented in the background section. Authors should mantain original scale name (the title of the article is “A single Spanish version of Maternal and Paternal 1 Postnatal Attachment Scales: validation and conceptual analysis”).

References

Brites R., Pires M., Nunes O., Hipólito J., Vasconcelos M.L. (2016). Health Care Climate, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mothers and Fathers’ Attachment to their Babies . In EADP (Ed.). Proceedings 17th European Conference on Development Psychology (pp.179-184). Bologna, IT: MEDIMOND s.r.l. ISBN 978-88-7587-733- 0
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Marôco, J. & Garcia-Marques (2006). Qual a fiabilidade do alpha de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas?. Laboratório de psicologia, 4(1), 65-90.
Additional comments: The article is well written and the research performed is incremental. Nevertheless some parts of the paper should be reviewed by an English native colleague. Moreover, the content of some sections should be better justified. In order to support the quality  improvement of this paper, I've included some recommendations of changes.


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 SINGLE SPANISH VERSION OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL POSTNATAL ATTACHMENT SCALES: VALIDATION AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is, as far as I can judge, written in a clear English language. Regarding the introduction, it gives a good picture of the literature and research, framing the study. The paper appears to conform to the standards of the journal, the authors use Conclusion instead of Discussion in the Abstract, it is however not required according to the guidelines. I do consider the figures relevant for the article, adequately described and labeled. Tables 2 and 3 have less margins than recommended. All data sets used in the study are available.
Experimental design: The research presented in the paper is within the scope of the journal. Research questions implicit described on lines 149-151, relevant and meaningful. The study is performed according with technical and ethical standard. Methods well described admitting replication.
Validity of the findings: The impact and novelty with this study, i.e. a common measure for both mothers and fathers, is highlighted in the Discussion and Conclusions. Whetehr the data presented is robust and statistically sound depends on considerations regarding respones rate and that the data is not normally distributed.
Additional comments: I have some comments or questions that may be rather specific than general. What was the rationale for applying confirmatory factor analyses instead of exploratory factor analyses?
The authors do not mention anything about the participation rate that is presented in Figure 1. The response rate on the questionnaire seems to be quite low, 38.5% for women and 28.5% for men. Could this have a bearing on the results? Do the non-respondents differ from the respondents regarding socio-demographic characteristics? It appears as possible to look at this according to the supplied data files.
Characteristics of the sample are included in Table 1 and my question is if they could be related to the scales? Although it appears on the response pattern as the sample is quite homogenous, could it have some variation in relation to sociodemographic characteristics?
Could the sentence on the lines 236-237 be elaborated, how was the results consistent with the literature?
Concerning the lines 282-287 and Tables 2-3, the authors mention a kurtosis index of 2, what is this index based on? Any reference? How about an index regarding skewness? Is it possible to clarify what the values 1-5 in Tables 2-3 means? It is also unclear what DT stands for, could it be SD? Likewise would it be helpful with a clarification of Cu, is it kurtosis? Did the authors consider to exclude any items based on the descriptive analysis? If the values for skewness and kurtosis was critical as it appears to be for MPAS03 for example.
On line 334 does not the values for standardized coefficients for items 9 and 19 correspond to the values presented in Figure 2.
Is it possible to develop or clarify the theoretical reasons for a common measure for bonding on the lines 376-386? I have difficulties to follow the logic in the first two reasons in relation to a common measure.
Regarding limitations the authors mention self-administered questionnaires, is it possible to measure bonding in other ways that could be suggested for future research? Should the low participation rate be discussed as a limitation?


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 SINGLE SPANISH VERSION OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL POSTNATAL ATTACHMENT SCALES: VALIDATION AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The Authors present the revised version of a study about a Spanish validation of a new version of the Maternal and Paternal Postnatal Attachment Scales, usable both with mothers and fathers.
The language is now of good quality, the authors corrected all the previous inaccuracies.
The structure of the paper is correct, figures and tables are accurate, and raw data are available.
The topic is well addressed and the authors’ quotations are relevant. According to the suggestion,  the Authors improved the introduction, by citing more pertinent and relevant previous studies.
Experimental design: The manuscript covers a relevant topic within the aim and the scope of PeerJ-Section Brain and Cognition – Psychology.
The research question is well defined and relevant, the authors clearly state how their research fills an identified knowledge gap. The methods and the procedure are accurate and well described, statistical methods are valid. The Authors corrected the inaccuracies found in the earlier version.
Validity of the findings: Data is statistically sound and controlled.
The Authors discuss adequately the research questions and conclusions are strongly supported by data.
They significantly improved the limitations section according to the recommendations.
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 SINGLE SPANISH VERSION OF MATERNAL AND PATERNAL POSTNATAL ATTACHMENT SCALES: VALIDATION AND CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: The authors has reinforced the reliability of the insturment.
Validity of the findings: I consider that the authors have corresponded to the comments given from the reviewers.
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: ANTI-PREDATOR DEFENCES OF A BOMBARDIER BEETLE: IS BOMBING ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL ESCAPE FROM FROGS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall:
This paper entitled: "Anti-predator defences of a bombardier beetle: is bombing essential for successful escape from frogs?" attempts to determine, in a sense, that spraying is a secondary defensive strategy, and infers a primary defence is some recognition chemical on the surface of the beetles. This chemical is used by the frogs to detect if the beetle is acceptable to eat or not. I very much enjoyed this topic and I can see much potential for the topic area. However I feel the paper has a number of issues that need to be addressed before it can be accepted. I provide comments addressing specific reviewing criteria for PeerJ here. Further amendments and issues are provided on the PDF itself best viewed using acrobat.

A. Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout:
The article was well written and read well. So thanks to the reviewer for putting in the effort to have it checked.

B. Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided:
The introduction had some good content. I felt the discussion is missing a line or two on the presumed cost of using sprays. As such it misses the opportunity to better support a hypotheses that may not be obvious to the readers (i.e. bombardier beetles spray when grabbed so many might expect the beetles use this as a primary defence). If spraying is costly then you might expect that an animal that uses sprays may have a primary defence that is not using the spray. This has not been investigated in a predator-prey context.

C. Professional article structure, figs, tables. Raw data shared.
Figure 1 seems reasonable; Figure 2 and 3 are indeed cool but not necessary as the supplementary material has video which has the same info but in action. The captions of the tables need more information such as sample numbers, units, the z statistic used to calculate the P value (i.e. I'm assuming it's a Wald Z) and the P value cut off. Raw data has been shared as requested in figshare.

D. Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses
Yes it adheres
Experimental design: A. Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Yep

B. Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap
The research question is clear and straight forward. I felt it could have been a slightly bigger question though by thinking a bit more about the costs related to spraying to put the paper in a more generalised theoretical context so it is tackling a question that is applicable to all sprayers and not just bombardier beetles. Also I think a bit more on the concept that prey have both primary and secondary defences. Despite that the article is relatively clear.

C. Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Fairly straight-forward experiment design with straight-forward data collection via video. For the most part this was done well and the videos were fabulous.

D. Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Yes but some sections I feel would be better placed in the introduction rather than being results. On another note: I felt the paper missed an opportunity by not including the frogs that did not attack. I feel they should have been part of the experimental design. It would have been ideal to let them interact and if they did not attack after a certain time then offer them a carabidae they would eat. If they attack it then you would know if the frogs are visually recognising the bombardier and choosing not to attack, if they do not attack actual food then you would know for sure if they are simply not hungry. This would have made the text in the discussion about visual warning signals relevant.
Validity of the findings: A. Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
a)	The description of the results suggests there is a relationship between the size of the frog and the size of the beetle and the likelihood of the beetle being eaten. This intuitively makes sense but the stats do not back this up. The current coding of the variables requires an interaction to ascertain if this exists. Otherwise it could simply be smaller beetles are eaten irrespective of frog size. And big frogs are more likely to eat a beetle irrespective of the beetle size. If an interaction cannot be fitted due to insufficient data then some plot looking at the relationship between the two is required. An alternative approach to modelling this could be to just calculate the difference in size between frog and beetle and so it is then just one variable that indicates the difference in size so an interaction is not required. A good approach if the power from the number of replicates is not enough. Note though this provides an indication of the relative difference. If there is a reason for a frog of a certain size should not eat the beetles then your currently modelling procedure will provide that information with the interaction providing the relative component.
b)	Need to state Wald Z statistics were used to estimate P-value. Given the marginal significance it is pertinent to use a log-likelihood ratio test to gain an estimate of the significance of each variable to the model. This is slightly more conservative and more reliable than Wald Z. This is just to check the marginal effects are indeed real or it's a type error caused by the method of estimation. If you are unaware of how to do this just google it but it involves comparing the significance of the model with and without the variable of interest.
c)	The trend in figure 1 is not stated: I realise the stats are not significant but there is a definite trend in the figure that is interesting. Proportionally more live beetles were spat out and less were swallowed. This may imply a difference in the virulence of the 'chemical surface' or chemical bombing.
d)	How the author has used the reference to underdispersion is a bit odd. Firstly, for binomial models the dispersion parameter is forced to be 1. However if indeed there is an issue with underdispersal this means it is harder to obtained a significant result i.e. your standard errors maybe wider than is actual the case. If this is a concern then the model has to modelled using something other than binomial so something like a quasi-binomial. In the end though the stating of the dispersal parameters mean nothing biologically they instead inform the type of modelling structure to best estimate parameters.
e)	Having looked at the raw data it occurred to me that the frog and beetles are expressed in different units. Were the models specified using grams for both frog and beetle or the different units? This can influence the results as there is a big magnitude difference and also may contribute to the dispersal issues
f)	An alternative approach to modelling this data could be to use a hazard model or even an ordinal model. Both approaches you would not then need to have two models one for grabbing and the beetles and one for swallowing. This is not a massive issue but from a theoretical point of view modelling the data as separate does not reflect reality as swallowing the carabidae cannot happen with first putting it in its mouth.

B. Conclusion are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Discussion: is underdone:
1.	Parts of the discussion were results and should be placed there.
2.	It does not make much of the frogs responses to the dead bombardiers. A greater proportion of them were eaten. I realise it might not be significant but the trend is there. This is quite interesting as it does suggest the spray is important for preventing consumption and hence the use of it escalates with increased threat of digestion. Likewise it could be due to the 'detection chemical' breaking down after death and this has been the case for other toxic or distasteful products.
3.	In terms of body size well it has been shown recently that with an increase in the size of the predator relative to the prey, the prey has to maintain a higher level of 'distasteful agent' so animals of larger size may have a greater capacity to withstand distasteful substances.
4.	The use of the tongue by frogs to taste things and thus reject is known but I feel the discussion does not provide references that discuss this satisfactorily.
5.	Again no reference to why the prey would use some form of surface recognition effective against frogs and waits to use the spray at a particular point of the subjugation stage. Some good points to raise there.
Additional comments: As stated above more comments, questions and recommendations are found on the PDF itself and can be viewed using acrobat or preview.


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: ANTI-PREDATOR DEFENCES OF A BOMBARDIER BEETLE: IS BOMBING ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL ESCAPE FROM FROGS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This study presents a simple experiment in which frogs were presented with dead or live bombardier beetles. The results indicate that dead insects are rejected at the same frequency as live ones, suggesting that deterrents other than active bombing exist.
The paper was clearly written and the experimental design and analyses generally adequate and appropriate. The still images from the video trials are a very useful indicator of how the behaviours were scored.

The results essentially comprise a single comparison of live vs dead beetles. The separate analyses of swallowing vs digesting success appear to differ by only a single observation. Potential reasons why dead beetles are rejected are discussed but further manipulations to clarify the mechanism (e.g. cleaning the surface of dead beetles, coating palatable prey with bombing chemicals) were not performed. Perhaps these and other manipulations should be mentioned as fruitful directions for future study.

Nor control trials were conducted to document rejection rates of non-noxious prey. Implicit in the interpretation of the study is that 'normal' prey are rarely rejected or spit out. Perhaps these frogs regularly refuse or spit out any prey under artificial conditions. Although it seems unlikely, it is conceivable that neither live nor dead bombardier beetles are rejected any more frequently than any other prey under these conditions. This possibility at least needs to be addressed, preferably with data.

Some specific comments-

L124. How long were frogs in captivity before they were used in feeding trials?
Were all frogs eating normally in captivity before trials? It would be useful to include data on rejection rates of non-bombardier beetle prey.

L159. Does 'contact' exclusively refer to the frogs touching the beetle with their tongue? Or did they sometimes touch it with another part of their body?

L196. How many frogs successfully digested dead beetles? 3?

L247. It would be useful to include the number of frogs that did not try to attack the beetle when it was outside the cage. This would give an indication of how many may have been deterred by visual cues

I suggest adding information on the total number of successes into the headings of Tables 1 (4 out of 46?) and 2  ( 3 out of 46?). Is the only difference between the analyses presented in Table 1 and 2 the status of a single observation (i.e. the one individual that vomited up a beetle after swallowing it)?


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

Input:
Title: ANTI-PREDATOR DEFENCES OF A BOMBARDIER BEETLE: IS BOMBING ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL ESCAPE FROM FROGS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: - The English is clear throughout
- background should be broadened to include information on similar species that use these kinds of defenses
- hypothesis/es not clearly articulated
Experimental design: Difficult to judge the appropriateness of the experimental design because the hypothesis is unclear.
Validity of the findings: results seem valid, but the hypothesis being tested is unlcear and obscured.
Additional comments: This data set is very valuable to the field of predator prey interactions, but I find the manuscript difficult to interpret. I think it’s primarily because the hypothesis is not articulated clearly and as such the aim of the experiment is obscured and it is difficult to tell whether the methods are appropriate. The reactions of frogs to bombardier beetles is interesting as is the fact that the beetles seem to be defended by previously sprayed chemical defenses, and also that the beetles were not induced to spray despite prior to the frog attacks. Unfortunately, it is unclear exactly what has been tested in this experiment. I strongly encourage rewriting of the ms for the eventual publication of these data. The author(s) might be interested in framing the frog behaviour in the predation sequence framework described by Endler (1991) Interactions between predators and prey in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. P. 169-202. The emerging literature on deimatic displays may also be of interest.

Abstract

Information about the attacks in which the beetles sprayed the frogs is needed here.

Introduction

More background on the occurrence of this type of defence in nature would be of interest to broaden the introduction.

68-69: could also suggest that frogs and toads do not attempt to eat bombardier beetles.

84: the hypothesis being tested is not clear and needs to be expressed precisely.

Methods

101: provide a sample size, the number of beetles collected.

115: provide a sample size, the number of frogs collected.

137: explain what constituted “attacking behaviour”

142: provide how long you observed the frogs to see whether they vomited

134 – 144: great! Please provide earlier in the methods.

156-161: clarify whether this part of the method refers to both experiments (live and dead beetles?) or just the experiment with the dead beetles

184: clarify if the 65.4% is of the 92.3% that rejected or out of the total 26 frogs

191-192: measurement of repeat attacks were not mentioned I the methods, clarify.

198-199: ambiguous, clarify: “continued with predatory behaviour soon afterwards”. Were frogs provided with multiple attempts to attack beetles? If so, this needs to be part of the experimental design and described in the methods.

Results

Whole numbers rather than percentages would be more transparent.

209-210: this is very interesting!

Discussion

229 – 230: the choice of the beetle to bomb or not is an important variable to include in the analyses depending on your hypothesis! Especially because you are using swallowing as a response measure.

257 – 258: large body size would be attractive to a predator!

278 – 279: ah, here is the hypothesis, bring it up to the end of the introduction. The in-the-mouth bombing provides an interaction that makes it important that you highlight whether it is the surface chemicals question you are answering.

Figure 1.
The proportion of beetles that bombed should be represented in this figure for all stages of predation.


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: ANTI-PREDATOR DEFENCES OF A BOMBARDIER BEETLE: IS BOMBING ESSENTIAL FOR SUCCESSFUL ESCAPE FROM FROGS?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I found the clarity of the manuscript has improved considerably after incorporation of my and other reviewer comments. I have a few minor suggestions to further improve clarity.

L197. specify what time frame constitutes 'soon'. i.e. within 60min?
L287. Do frogs need to take food into their mouth to assess its size? Is it possible that they could assess prey size using just the tongue?
L290. 'please' is not necessary here.
L291. It was not clear to me what potential reflex you referring to here. The first sentence says 'contact' but the context of the rest of the paragraph sounds like the reflex to release the beetle, not to contact it.


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

Input:
Title: FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE ENIGMATIC PECCARIES MYLOHYUS ELMOREI AND PROSTHENNOPS SERUS FROM THE APPALACHIANS: LATEST HEMPHILLIAN TO EARLY BLANCAN OF GRAY FOSSIL SITE, TENNESSEE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the paper is well written, the identifications of the two species appear to be correct, the descriptions are good if perhaps a little too detailed, and the specimen images and tables are adequate. There are a few grammatical and formatting errors.
Experimental design: The weakest part of the paper is the paleoecology section that runs from the bottom of page 26 to the top part of page 28.  The abstract states that “The preservation of these two species from GFS suggests tayassuid niche partitioning in this ancient forested ecosystem.”  The authors do not provide any direct evidence of niche partitioning between the two GFS peccaries (e.g., microwear or stable C isotope analysis of paleodiet; biomechanical analysis of jaw mechanics, etc.). Basically, it is just the two species are both present at the site, therefore niche partitioning. Furthermore, the authors have not presented evidence that the two species actually co-occur in the same beds or levels from the GFS, meaning that they might not be truly sympatric in the ecological sense. Recent papers by Yann and DeSantis (2014) and Bedham et al. (2018) that do these types of studies are not cited. I would recommend that this section either be enhanced by further analysis of the paleoecology of the two species at the GFS and expand this section, or delete it altogether.
Validity of the findings: other than the point made in #2, the findings and and analyses are valid
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: FIRST OCCURRENCE OF THE ENIGMATIC PECCARIES MYLOHYUS ELMOREI AND PROSTHENNOPS SERUS FROM THE APPALACHIANS: LATEST HEMPHILLIAN TO EARLY BLANCAN OF GRAY FOSSIL SITE, TENNESSEE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the Introduction section the abbreviated GFS should be placed first as Gray Fossil Site, then subsequently as GFS.

In Figure 1, if you choose to follow the taxonomy suggested by Parisi Dutra 2017, use Protherohyus instead of Catagonus.

At line 355, change "peg like" to "pig-like"
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: no comments
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: ASSESSING DISTINCT PATTERNS OF COGNITIVE AGING USING TISSUE-SPECIFIC BRAIN AGE PREDICTION BASED ON DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING AND BRAIN MORPHOMETRY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Some very minor points and recommendations
Abstract
A number of studies documented remarkably accurate age prediction, but the differential age trajectories and the cognitive sensitivity of distinct brain tissue classes ‘have to a lesser extent been
characterized’
Suggest change phrase to ‘...have yet to be adequately characterized’ to highlight the importance of this study

Introduction
Line 71 ..that individuals with an over-estimated brain age would show lower cognitive performance
Would this be true for the younger cohort?

Methods
MRI Acquisition
Line 144 following parameters:

To standardize the reporting of methods for both datasets and use the specified abbreviations after the first time, eg FOV for field of view

Discussion

350 combining different modalities lead to a better estimation the age of individuals

better estimation ‘of’ the age


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: ASSESSING DISTINCT PATTERNS OF COGNITIVE AGING USING TISSUE-SPECIFIC BRAIN AGE PREDICTION BASED ON DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING AND BRAIN MORPHOMETRY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The submitted paper is generally well conducted and asks an interesting question. More details are needed for some aspects though, such as how data was deemed to be of poor quality. Moreover, since CamCAN is a publicly available dataset, it would appreciated to appreciated if the authors could share which specific participant IDs were included/excluded--this is critical in being able to conduct follow-up research.
Experimental design: I was impressed with the experimental design and approach. This paper provides a good model of the advantages of using multiple datasets, and open data more generally. The researchers may want to comment on how their work aligns with the recommendations made in Madan (2017, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience), such as data harmonization and available metadata (e.g., since the same cognitive assessments were not available from the CamCAN dataset).
Validity of the findings: The findings appear to be well supported.
Additional comments: I was a bit disappointed to see that MRI data for the StrokeMRI study was not made available.


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: ASSESSING DISTINCT PATTERNS OF COGNITIVE AGING USING TISSUE-SPECIFIC BRAIN AGE PREDICTION BASED ON DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING AND BRAIN MORPHOMETRY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written, has a good English style and uses appropriate citations. The external data sources have been sufficiently described. At the end of the introduction section (line 60) the main hypothesis is stated.
Experimental design: The experimental design is following state-of-the-art guidelines including repeated cross-validation as well as a second validation sample. However, in my opinion, the various methodological procedures and deep complexety is sometimes not described in sufficient detail to allow the general readership to gain a full picture. I would recommend to add a flow chart figure to illustrate the processes. For instance, to me it is unclear which methods have been applied before the main analysis (removing the sample differences), and which methods have been applied to obtain the final correlation/(beta?) values;and which sample has been used for the presented numbers. Additionally, the concept of generalized additive models should be briefly described to give the reader an intuition how they compare/extend linear regression models.
Validity of the findings: The authors present sound findings in predicting age from neuroimaging data, as previously described in other studies. A second aspect covered is the contribution of neurodegeneration/brain aging to predict the cognitive performance/scores. Interestingly, this is the first study to my knowledge that combines DTI and Freesurfer-derived cortical thickness for these purposes.
Additional comments: As stated above, the manuscript is well-written. However, it sometimes suffers from the large amount of information that is being presented, such that it appears a bit unfocused to me.

To refocus it a bit, I would suggest to decribe the clustering between cognitive scores (lines 282 ff) already in the methods section and to move Figure 3 to the supplementary material, as the covariance between cognitive scores does not relate to the main results presented.

Figure 1 is a bit ambigious as it is a bit unclear to me if the CAMTAN numbers are only the dark ones or if their counts start from 0. I would suggest to use two separate bars for both samples. Also, the histogram might be regenerated using 5-year intervals of age.

Fig. 2c is a bit unclear to me, as it is not described, how the composite score/correlation was derived. Further, I don't think the "on average best general predictor" is of interest as the individual scores are very heterogeneous.

Please also provide the explanation of abbreviations in the figure/table legends.

Table 1: please also report if both samples differ significantly with respect to age and gender distributions (e.g. as footnote).


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: ASSESSING DISTINCT PATTERNS OF COGNITIVE AGING USING TISSUE-SPECIFIC BRAIN AGE PREDICTION BASED ON DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING AND BRAIN MORPHOMETRY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: The authors substantially revised the manuscript and adequately addressed all issues identified by the other reviewers and myself. The manuscript substantially improved soundness, comprehensibility, and readability, and from my perspective could now 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: ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF META BOURNETI (ARANEAE: TETRAGNATHIDAE) FROM MONTE ALBO (SARDINIA, ITALY)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author investigated the auto-ecological requirements and the seasonal and spatial dynamics of the cave-dwelling spider Meta bourneti, using a few subterranean habitats as model sites. Overall, I found the study interesting and useful in providing novel ecological informations about this widespread mediterranean species.

I enclosed below a list of suggestions for improvements, which can be quickly addressed. I think that the referenced papers concerning the biology of Meta spiders are in a few places slightly incomplete or ambiguous. I have therefore provided several suggestions in this sense.

As I am not mother tongue, I have not evaluated the English.

>>>> Line comments:

--- Lines 16-17 (abstract): I suggest rephrasing to "[...] most common cave predators occurring in the Mediterranean basin". In continental and alpine European areas, the species is actually very rare, if not absent at all.

--- Line 17: change "orb web" to "orb-weaver"

--- Line 17 (abstract): after this first mention of the model species name, could be useful to add order and family, i.e. "Meta bourneti (Araneae: Tetragnathidae)." Also in the introduction.

--- Lines 54-58: please add a reference(s) for the cave zonation.

--- Lines 61-63: I slightly disagree. The "degree of adaptation to cave life" is mostly referred to as 'troglomorphism' (after Christiansen 1962). Conversely, the references herein cited (Pavan, Novak et al. and Sket) are about the ecological classification of subterranean organisms based on the preferential habitat in which these species perform their life cycle. Accordingly, I suggest to change the wording to: "A species’ degree of association to subterranean conditions represents the base of the general ecological classification used in distinguishing between different groups of cave-dwelling species . . . " or something similar.

Christiansen K (1962) Proposition pour la classification des animaux cavernicoles. Spelunca 2: 76–78.

--- Line 72: indeed, the classification is very limited and debated. An interesting recent paper dealing with this topic is also:

Trajano E, Carvalho MR (2017) Towards a biologically meaningful classification of subterranean organisms: a critical analysis of the Schiner-Racovitza system from a historical perspective, difficulties of its application and implications for conservation. Subterranean Biology 22: 1-26.

--- Lines 76-77: I agree. Nevertheless, I guess that it is not informative and entirely correct to cite a  sample of random studies focused on very specific organisms (crickets: Studier et al., 1986; woodlouse: Fernandes, Batalha & Bichuette, 2016; salamanders:  Lunghi et al., 2018e) or subterranean systems (show caves: de Freitas, 2010) when referring to ". . . the undeniable increase of interest in underground ecological spaces and related biodiversity which has occurred in the last decades . . . ". This is because local studies, by definition, fail in showing that there has been an increased interest in subterranean biology as a discipline; hey just represent very specific cases. Possibly it would be more appropriate to cite a sample of important books and review papers, as these are usually more ample in their scope and deal with a large number of subterranean systems/organisms/studies and often consider an historical perspective. Among others, Culver & Pipan (2009), Culver & Pipan (2014, Already cited), Juan et al. (2010), Gibert and Deharveng (2002), Chamaco (1992) would be appropriate references.

Camacho, A. I. (1992). The natural history of biospeleology. Monographs of the National Museum of Natural Sciences.

Culver, D. C., & Pipan, T. (2009). The biology of caves and other subter- ranean habitats. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Gibert, J., & Dehrveng, L. (2002). Subterranean ecosystems: A truncated functional biodiversity. BioScience, 52, 473–481.

Juan C, Guzik MT, Jaume D, Cooper SJB (2010) Evolution in caves: Darwin’s ‘wrecks of ancient life’ in the molecular era. Molecular Ecology 19: 3865–3880.

--- Lines 82-85: The life cycle of Meta menardi was firstly studied by Peter Smithers in two independent experiments, which should be mentioned here.
Later on, Chiavazzo et al. (already cited) and Ficetola et al (2012) provided evidences about the mechanisms enhancing the migration of the spiderlings form the cave and a potential clue used by the spiderling to colonize new caves, respectively.

Conversely, although being a very interesting study, as far as I remember Manenti et al. (2015) focused onh the microhabitat and trophic preference of M. menardi, rather than on the life cycle. Thus I would remove this reference in this particular place (but I may be wrong).

For a schematic representation of the life cycle, you may also refer to Figure 6 in Mammola & Isaia 2014.

Ficetola F.G., Pennati R. & Manenti R., 2012 - Do cave salamanders occur randomly in cavities? An analysis with Hydromantes strinatii. Amphibia-Reptilia, 33: 251-259

Smithers P., 2005 - The early life history and dispersal of the cave spider Meta menardi (Latreille, 1804) (Araneae: Tetragnathidae). - Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 13(6): 213-216.

Smithers P. & Smith F.M., 1998 - Observations on the behaviour of second instars of the cave spider Meta menardi (Latreille, 1804). Newsletter of the British Arachnological Society, 81: 4-5.

--- Lines 88: As far as I know, none of the authors cited, but Smithers 2005, made direct observations on the hunting strategy of Meta menardi. I guess that Tearcafs (1972) was the first authors to speak about this peculiar mode of hunting.

Tercafs, R., 1972. Biométrie spatiale dans l’écosystème souterraine: repartition du Meta menardi Latr. (Argiopidae). Int. J. Speleol. 4, 351e355.

--- Line 89: You may also cite Pastorelli and Laghi here.

--- Line 93: Concerning the overview on biological studies focused on Meta menardi, you may also include this seminal paper:

Ecker R. & Moritz M., 1992 - Meta menardi (Latr.) and Meta merianae (Scop.): On the biology and habitat of the commonest spiders in caves of the Harz, the Kyffhauser, Thuringa and the Zittau mountains. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum Berlin, 68 (2): 345-350.

as well as a recent paper focused on the histology:

Lipovšek, S., Leitinger, G., Novak, T., Janžekovič, F., Gorgoń, S., Kamińska, K., & Rost-Roszkowska, M. (2018). Changes in the midgut cells in the European cave spider, Meta menardi, during starvation in spring and autumn. Histochemistry and cell biology,149(3), 245-260.

--- Lines 102-105: You may also specify that this study is the first of his kind set in an area where only Meta bourneti is present. Thus, by design of the study, you controlled for the effect of interspecific competition with M. menardi. You mentioned this later at
Lines 116-118, but it may be useful to mention this earlier in order to focus the reader' attention on one of the most important novelties of this study.

--- Line 125: "M. bourneti" instead of "Meta bourneti"

--- Line 211: First time you mention the fact that you recorded the presence of cocoons. Perhaps add it in the methods at line 125.

--- Line 264: "There" is repeated twice in the sentence.

--- Line 270: Hijmans et al. provided climatic rasters for the whole globe. Citing this paper like this is imprecise. I would rephrased as such: ".... because the two study areas are characterized by different climatic conditions (data derived from Hijmans et al., 2005).

--- Lines 279-280: "far from the surface" instead of "far from the connection to the surface"?

--- Line 304 (and elsewhere): the term "subterranean" is in general more adequate than “underground”.

--- Line 328 ". . . the shallowest part of the caves . . ." Can you provide the spatial interval, e.g. 1–5 m from the entrance?
Experimental design: >>> Scope and relevance

This research appears to be within the scope of PeerJ, and contribute to fill a knowledge gap in the biology of Meta bourneti. However, the aims of the study are not clearly given in the last paragraph of the introduction and are therefore slightly vague ("provide first information related to the ecology and life history"). I think the questions addressed here are:
1) the abiotic and biotic factors affecting spatial and temporal distribution of the spiders within the caves;
2) to see whether there are difference in these patterns depending on the stage of the spider (juveniles vs adults)
3) to gather and summarize informations about the life history of the species (e.g. the observations made on cocoons).
Can you please recast this paragraph to provide a list of specific aims or working hypotheses? It would be really helpful to give more structure to the paper and support your findings.

>>> Sampling methodology

The paper is based on a dataset with information on Meta bourneti and inhabited caves from the Monte Albo (north-east Sardinia, Italy), which is currently unpublished (Lunghi et al., unpublished). Unless the dataset will be published prior to this paper, more informations about this dataset must be included in the method section. Useful information to report would be:

- name, cadaster, coordinates and general informations about the sampled caves (e.g. one table providing informations about the sites?)
- minimum and maximum cross distance between caves
- number of sampling sectors/cave (I guess it was variable depending on the planimetric development of the specific site)
If convenient, you may also consider making a map of the study area.

--- You gathered several abiotic parameters within the cave: maximum height and width, wall heterogeneity, average temperature (°C), humidity (%) and illuminance (lux). Which probes and methods did you used for acquiring these data?

>>> Statistics

The data are well analyzed using relevant statistical techniques. The statistical methods are in general well described, but I have a few doubts/comments/suggestions:

--- I have doubts about the detection probability analysis and relative results, which should be clarified upon acceptance. [Disclosure: I am not expert in detection probability analyses, and I have never performed similar analyses myself. So, take my comments as observations made by a non-expert]

In my experience, Meta spiders are very easily detected in caves. Unlike other cave-dwelling spiders, especially Linyphiidae, Leptonetidae and Nesticidae, they:
- are very big;
- mostly occur in the superficial and illuminated cave sectors;
- rarely dwell in deep, unaccessible crevices (This is mainly because they need a lot of 3-dimensional space for web spinning).

Accordingly, I thought that the detection probability of Meta spiders would be in general very high, i.e. close to 1. Indeed, in a similar study by Manenti et al. (2015), detection probability of M. menardi was found to be as high as 97%.

Therefore, I found it very strange that in this study, you had an overall detection probability of 0.2.  Are you sure of this result? Isn't it that the species just occurs at very low density within the study area (Lines 320-322)?
Most importantly, with such a low detection probability, can you trust the other analyses? If this result is correct (which I personally doubt), you are severely underestimating the abundance and presence/absence of these spiders in your sampling sectors, thus making inferences based on a biased dataset.
Surprisingly, this result is not further addressed in the paper, and should be at least commented in the discussion.

--- Concerning the covariates influencing the detection probability:
Why not considering also the developmental stage of the spiders (juveniles versus adults)? I think that, in general, larger spider should be more easily detected. I also think that wall heterogeneity should be included, as the presence of wall irregularities may offer micro-niches which may hide some individuals, thus preventing their detection at a superficial and quick inspection.

--- Lines 137-138. It would be useful to provide the reference of each individual R package just after its mention, and not as a list at the end of the sentence.

--- Line 157. What was the proportion of zeros and ones in the binomial dataset. Was it balanced? Please specify.

--- Line 178. Why adding a random factor was not possible? Please specify.

--- Lines 223-224. Please reconsider. In the model concerning juveniles, you have a delta AIC of less than 2 among the three models. Therefore, you cannot tell apart which one is best (see, e.g., Zuur et al. 2009).

--- Line 257: please specify the reference category.

--- Table 2. replace B with the greek letter Beta.

--- Figure 1. This figure is very blurry in the pdf, please try uploading one at higher resolution.
Validity of the findings: Although local in scale, the study is certainly useful to "[...] better comprehend the ecology of these widespread cave-dwelling spiders" (Lines 42-43). This is because very little ecological information is available regarding this poorly studied, yet widespread, species. In this sense, this research will certainly make a useful contribution.

I only have a major doubt about the detection probability analysis. I would like to see it discussed in more details before acceptance.
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: ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF META BOURNETI (ARANEAE: TETRAGNATHIDAE) FROM MONTE ALBO (SARDINIA, ITALY)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This ms provides a survey concerning ecology and life history of Meta bourneti a troglophile spiders from the caves of Monte Albo (Italy). The paper is good in content, with good drawings and photos and is recommended for publishing. My remarks and recommendation are pointed mainly to, technical omissions, marked in the text (by track change).
I can not check the quality of the English language, because I am not native speaking.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My remarks and recommendation are pointed mainly to, technical omissions, marked in the text (by track change).


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: ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF META BOURNETI (ARANEAE: TETRAGNATHIDAE) FROM MONTE ALBO (SARDINIA, ITALY)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The majority of the article was very well written but there were several errors in the choice of English words or phrases.  I made note of these small errors directly on the PDF version of the manuscript. Two general comments I would make are that 1) the first use of the species name in the manuscript should be Meta bourneti Simon, 1922.  After the first use of the full species name use only M. bourneti later in the manuscript. 2) Using the word model after GLM and GLMM is redundant because the word “model” is part of the acronyms for Generalized Linear Models and Generalized Linear Mixed Models.
	I felt that the introduction did a good job of providing a sufficient background for the reader to understand the importance of the subject matter and how the current study can provide useful information to fill a gap in the current level of understanding about organisms in underground ecosystems.
	I am concerned about the reliance on unpublished data throughout the manuscript.  I am slightly confused by this because there is a large amount of raw data provided in the supplemental information and therefore it should not be cited as “unpublished data”.  I would recommend that the author simply make all of the necessary data available in this current study and therefore there is no issue with relying on unpublished data.  In addition to the raw data, it would be helpful to have summary tables of the supplementary information.  These tables are cited in the text of the manuscript but I only saw Table S3; for Table S1 and Table S2 there was only raw data provided.  In the PDF document I made specific comments about the figures. I feel that Figure 1 should be changed to simple black/gray colorations and that the title and legend should be removed because this information is already included in the figure description. The figure description should also be placed underneath the figure. I am not sure if Figure 2 is necessary because it focuses on the observations of only two cocoons that were found during the study and I do not feel as though this provides sufficient data and it does not appear to be important for the overall objective of the study.  I feel that Figure 3 is also unnecessary because it only focuses on the non-significant differences between spider age classes for the distance from the cave entrance and the height above the cave floor.  These results are stated clearly in the results of the manuscript and I do not feel it is necessary to provide a figure for these results.  The author stated that there was significant differences between seasons but this was not shown in the figure.  I would recommend changing the figure to include the factor of season.  In the new figure the description should be placed under the figure and it should contain the statistical test information and results.
	In the PDF I made a couple comments about the relevance for two components of the results, in which I don’t feel were relevant to the main objective of the study. 1) I feel that the observations on the two cocoons found is not sufficient enough information to be included in the study and is not necessarily relevant to the main objective of the study. 2) Another aspect of the results I feel should be better explained is the correlation between spider presence with the presence of Oxychilus oppressus. It was mentioned that it could be related to predator-prey interactions but I am not sure how this snail species is relevant to the food-web interactions of M. bourneti.
Experimental design: This study represents original primary research that meets the aims and scope of the journal. The research question was well defined, relevant and meaningful.  The introduction did a good job of stating how the study fills an identified knowledge gap about underground ecosystems.  I feel that the data used in this study was the result of a rigorous investigation on underground ecosystems around Monte Albo in Sardinia, Italy and that it was conducted to a high technical and ethical standard.  I feel that the majority of the methods were described with sufficient detail and clarity to be replicated.  However, as I stated earlier, I have concerns about how the analyses are based off of the “unpublished data”.  This could be easily fixed by providing all of the necessary information as supplementary data, which could have been done here, but it is somewhat difficult to tell in the way that the raw data was organized in excel files; with no summary tables for the supplementary data.
Validity of the findings: The data used in this study appears to be sufficiently robust and was analyzed in a statistically sound and controlled manner. I will just reemphasize that I feel the author should address the issue of using unpublished data as the basis for the study.  Also, the supplementary data should be provided in a manner that is easier to review by including summary tables that focus on the data used for the analyses in the manuscript.  The majority of the conclusions are well stated and are limited to supporting results; the only exceptions to this would be the author’s conclusions about the observations on the cacoon observations, the importance of trophic interactions with Oxychilus oppressus and the correlation with height distributions and predator avoidance (I included comments on these points in the PDF).  I feel that it would be beneficial to provide more supportive evidence and/or explanation on these three aspects included in the conclusions section of the study.
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: ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF META BOURNETI (ARANEAE: TETRAGNATHIDAE) FROM MONTE ALBO (SARDINIA, ITALY)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I've read the rebuttal letter and the revised ms. I'm overall satisfied by the way in which my comments and suggestions were handled. I also thank the author for the detailed clarifications on the detection probability phylosophy and relative analyses.

Find below a few final minor remarks, and congratulation for this nice contribution.

L19: perhaps remove "full"

L30-31: please add taxonomical authority and (class:order) for Hydromantes flavus and Oxichilus oppressus

L106: add a comma before "and": i.e. ... occur, and iv ...

L138: also here, please give authorities for new species herein introduced for the first time

L139-140: I agree for most of the species listed here. However,  probably adult Tegenaria does not interact with Meta in that sense...

L232 and 235: "null model" instead of "model without covariates"?

L276: Spell "Meta" in full at the beginning of the discussion
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
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: ECOLOGY AND LIFE HISTORY OF META BOURNETI (ARANEAE: TETRAGNATHIDAE) FROM MONTE ALBO (SARDINIA, ITALY)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the manuscript, “Ecology and life history of Meta bourneti (Araneae: Tetragnathidae) from Monte Albo (Sardinia, Italy)”, the author describes the abundance and ecological parameters of M. bourneti spiders that are commonly found in cave systems in the Mediterranean region.
I believe the manuscript provides interesting new information on rarely studied cave ecosystems and a species of spider that could be important to the food web interactions in these systems.  I can see that the author put substantial effort into making changes according to the previous comments made by reviewers, but I believe there are still considerable amount of changes that need to be made before it is ready for publication.
One of the major concerns I have is that I believe it needs to be edited closely by a native English speaker due to some consistent errors in the grammar and sentence structure.  I have gone through the manuscript and made changes and offered comments on the PDF version of the manuscript to help correct these commonly found errors but some of the sentence structure made it difficult to read at times (e.g., Lines 123-127 and Lines 337-338).
I appreciate the author providing the raw data in the supplementary information (raw-daa-table_S2 and Table_S1_dataset) but when I open the Excel (CSV) file, it is difficult to review the data because it is not organized in a way that can be easily understood. I am not sure if this is due to the process of uploading the data to the PeerJ review system but I believe it is because it was copy and pasted as a .txt file directly into Excel and therefore the data is not organized into individual columns for each of the measured variables. All tables should have similar formatting, including the tables in the supplementary materials.  The tables in the supplementary materials are also missing descriptions.  I have made some changes and comments to Tables 1 and 2 in the PDF of the manuscript and I would suggest that the tables in the supplementary materials be edited to fit the changes made to Tables 1 and 2.
I made some minor edits and comments to Figure 2 and 3. I think the addition of the map in Figure 1 could be beneficial but the resolution of the image is very poor and it will need to be improved if the author wants to include it.
Experimental design: I feel that the author made the necessary changes in describing the methods used in this study in the revised version of the manuscript and I do not have any more comments for this section
Validity of the findings: As I mentioned previously, I feel that the raw data provided in the supplementary information could be provided in a way that is easier to review in the excel file format. But apart from this, I feel the author put sufficient effort in providing the necessary data that was listed as "unpublished data" in the first version of the manuscript.
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: MOLECULAR SEROTYPING OF HAEMOPHILUS PARASUIS ISOLATED FROM DISEASED PIGS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEROVARS AND PATHOLOGICAL PATTERNS IN TAIWAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript describes pathology and serotyping of Glassers Disease in Taiwan. The text can be confusing and needs clarification especially when talking about diagnosis, identification and serotyping.  (L 32)
Histopathology is mentioned but lesions are not described.
Diagnosis of other diseases section should be reduced to a few lines as it isn't a focus of the paper. The discussion states many animals were co-infected with PRRSV but there is little discussion in results. what is the significance of this co-infection?
L 169 Here and in other areas of the text where you present case, isolate, lesion, or serotype data the numbers often don't agree with subsequent paragraphs or tables/figures. Please clarify these sections and insure the data agree with tables and figures.
L85-190  The information in lines 185-190 is very confusing
L219-220 Was this in a multiplex reaction? Was the amplicon generated in the polysaccharide operon.
Early in the manuscript you say 5/12 was not typeable using molecular testing but later show it as the most common serotype found. Need to clarify how it was typed.
L241  refers to a table and a figure but the data don't seem to agree. suggest you use one or the other but not both and make sure the numbers match
L 248-251 number of infected herds vary. They should be the same.
L310 was the study a pig infection model?  Clearly identify your work from others-it gets a bit confusing which work is being referred to in this section.
Experimental design: Aims and scope are identified
Research question is relevant to understanding the epidemiology of Glasser's disease and the methods used for serotyping

The aims state a desire to correlate pathology with serotype but pathology is limited to gross examination and H&E stains. Special stains for demonstrating bacteria could complement this effort.  pathology examination was only used to identify lesions in tissue

I didn't see any use of known serotypes for generation of amplicons or gel-diffusion assays. Positive controls would be a good addition to the data.
Validity of the findings: Results of molecular serotyping were found to differ from the original descriptions of the assays.  Differences in amplicon size were noted and resolved by sequencing.
Nontypeable organisms were identified using PCR and were subsequently typed using sequencing in some instances but in others they remained un-typeable. It was unclear if any other serotyping methods were used with these organisms. Also, the significance of finding nontypeable isolates by PCR but typeable by sequencing and how this might impact vaccine strategies was not discussed.
Additional comments: This manuscript has a lot of data in it and the way it is presented can be confusing in some of the sections. Try not to put to much data in one sentence or paragraph. Use tables to show data relationships and perhaps reduce the text by referring to the table/figure.


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR SEROTYPING OF HAEMOPHILUS PARASUIS ISOLATED FROM DISEASED PIGS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEROVARS AND PATHOLOGICAL PATTERNS IN TAIWAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout, with some typos.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: Clear and answer all the hypothesis of the study.
Validity of the findings: Conclusion are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: This study was well designed and answered all the questions the authors interested. Good plan of study.


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: MOLECULAR SEROTYPING OF HAEMOPHILUS PARASUIS ISOLATED FROM DISEASED PIGS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEROVARS AND PATHOLOGICAL PATTERNS IN TAIWAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript describes molecular serotyping of “Haemophilus parasuis isolated from diseased pigs and the relationship between serovars and pathological patterns in Taiwan”. This research work also focus on rectify the PCR amplicons by Howell (2015), “Development of a multiplex PCR assay for rapid molecular serotyping of Haemophilus parasuis”.  This work will help other researchers to identify the PCR amplicon more accurately.  In general, the studies are informative and provide new knowledge to the readers.  However, the discussion portion is a bit weak and few essential issues need to be further addressed.
Experimental design: The experiment is well design and good.
Validity of the findings: The author need to emphasis the important to differentiate the PCR amplicon, and how the new findings will be useful for researchers for the multiplex PCR work.
The relationship between serovars and the pathological patterns were not strong.
Additional comments: This manuscript describes molecular serotyping of “Haemophilus parasuis isolated from diseased pigs and the relationship between serovars and pathological patterns in Taiwan”. This research work also focus on rectify the PCR amplicons by Howell (2015), “Development of a multiplex PCR assay for rapid molecular serotyping of Haemophilus parasuis”.  This work will help other researchers to identify the PCR amplicon more accurately.  In general, the studies are informative and provide new knowledge to the readers.  However, the discussion portion is a bit weak and few essential issues need to be further addressed.
Introduction
Line 90 – Please input a statement about prevalence rate of H. parasusi and its estimation economic value in Taiwan

Materials and Methods
Line 100 – Please explain what are the synovial cavities refer to? Joints?

Result
Line 182 – Please use percentage for Pasteurella multocida also (all the diseases were in percentage expect this)
Line 183 – the Salmonellosis was referring to systemic disease or diarrhea episode? Please specific
Line 207-209 – Please input few statements to justify why it is important to differentiate the PCR amplicon, and how the new findings will be useful for researchers?  For example, PCR amplicons for Serovar 4 (350 bp) and Serovar 6 (360 bp) were too close and easily confuse. PCR amplicons for Serovar 5 (<500 bp) and Serovar 7 (500 bp) can’t be differentiate.
Line 210 – Base on the supplementary figure 5, the reviewer disagree with this statement “The product size of serovar 9 serovar-specific primers, predicted at 710 bp, was smaller than the
700 bp ladder marker”. Please remove or rephrase it.

Discussion
Line 285 -  “CSNT and CSCR isolates have recently been serotyped using molecular serotyping in the UK (Howell et al. 2015)”. This sentence is redundant, please remove it.

Line 286 -  “However, even though 7 mPCR serotyping has reduced the incidence (percentage) of CSNT and CSCR H. parasuis isolate, some isolates still yielded ambiguous PCR results”.  Please rephrase the sentence as a sentence can’t start with both “however” and “even though”.

Line 288 –Please remove “As a result”
Line 294 – “Gaps in the molecular serotyping assay may be the result of insufficient or incomplete sequence data for H. parasuis from Asia”. This sentence is incomplete, please rephrase it.

Line 300 – Please remove “detectable using a gel”
Line 302 – “most agarose gels cannot detect with accuracy”, please rephrase this sentence

The result for relationship between serovars and the pathological patterns were not strong.


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: MOLECULAR SEROTYPING OF HAEMOPHILUS PARASUIS ISOLATED FROM DISEASED PIGS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SEROVARS AND PATHOLOGICAL PATTERNS IN TAIWAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is much improved and language is generally quite clear. However there are two sentences needing rewording for clarity. In both the pre- abstract and abstract lines 30-31 the manuscript says types 5/12 are not typeable when what you mean is they are not distinguishable by molecular typing.  Please consider making this change

I indicated some omission suggestions to improve the manuscript. See first line of results in the abstract (remove "that") and line 5 of  abstract results (remove "Futhermore")
Line 2 of Discussion there is a space between i and solates -close to make "isolates"
Line 308 "underestimated"
Line 322 remove "have" and "an"
Experimental design: Experimental design is much better defined, methods are detailed and supported
Validity of the findings: Multiple strains of H. parasuis are identified and some previously shown to be nonpathogentic are now associated with disease. This is an important finding and suggests serotype or molecular type may not correlate well with pathogenicity. Good job on identifying new disease associations.
Additional comments: Finally, related to vaccine production, you identified types 5/12, 13, 4 and 7 as the dominant types causing disease in pigs in Thailand. Since the vaccine is a killed vaccine and capsule is easily stripped from bacteria could a multivalent capsular vaccine be made with capsule from these molecular types? Or maybe a multivalent vaccine of 2-3 Molecular types could be generated specifically for piglets, or more mature pigs or herds. Just a thought you may want to consider in your discussion.


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: DECLINE IN CORAL COVER AND FLATTENING OF THE REEFS AROUND MAURITIUS (1998–2010)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting is sufficient.  There is redundancy in the text and the use of references (e.g., clumps of references that travel together across sections), which is stylistically distracting and not as precise as possible.

Structurally, there are a number of hypotheses that seem ambitious and wide-ranging.
Experimental design: The core of this report is to present data of the benthic structure from a ~12-year monitoring program. The data themselves are valuable and interesting to explore. The hypotheses, as noted above, are wide-ranging and extend a bit beyond the statistical power within the data. With 11 sites that vary in habitat (though the map has 15 sites[?]), there is limited statistical power to address correlational patterns. This is especially true given the high variability implicit to such observational data.

So while the data are valuable, the hypotheses are exploratory and perhaps too broad for the data presented.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions regarding the observed patterns in the benthic composition are robust. The tests of candidate hypotheses are prone to Type I error (i.e., spurious relationships due to high variability, poor fit to model assumptions, and multiple comparisons). For example, a jack knife analysis would be interesting -- try omitting data from one site and see if the statistical fits remain consistently.

So what are presented as tests of hypotheses may be better placed into the realm of 'speculation' and exploratory analysis.
Additional comments: The manuscript is long and redundant. There are many hypotheses introduced that extend well beyond the strength of the data (e.g., attributions of cause-and-effect). Further, it is unclear what the statistical power of the benthic assessments are at their foundation. How many points were used in the line-point-intercept analysis? Such information on site-specific sampling effort is critical in order to interpret observed patterns. Of course, a sincere strength of this study is the time-series element, where statistical strength is included through application of a pseudo-regression based approach (connecting data across sampling intervals and assessing temporal trends).

The introduction and analyses are something of a 'kitchen-sink', where the study is introduced with a broad spectrum of putative environmental relationships and the analyses force the data to explore each hypotheses. I believe that the data are being stretched further than they can perform here, and the study would be better suited as a presentation of (really strong!) temporal trends with more targeted analyses and interpretations.