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: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS REVEALS POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR HIGH TOLERANCE TO SUBMERGENCE IN ARBOR WILLOWS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In the manuscript (64181-v0), Chen and his/her colleagues investigated the response to submergence at the genetic level using transcriptome analysis in arbor willows. The manuscript is useful for plant biologists aimed at breeding with improved tolerance to submergence stress. The purpose and the significance are sufficient. However, I think that this manuscript needs some revisions before publication.
Major:
1. The main shortcoming of the manuscript is that the writing skills of the manuscript are not very good. Some sentences are too long to get across. Overall, the manuscript is not well written. I suggest that the authors can turn to an English language editing company or a native English speaker.
2. The authors give three reasons for high tolerance of ‘SUliu 795’ to submergence. I think the conclusion is not valid and convincing, since physiological indicators were not determined.
3. GA metabolism and signaling is regulated by negative feedback regulation mechanism. As a result, the statement that reduced GA biosynthesis and signaling in tolerant variety under submergence is not appropriate.
4. The authors use actin as the reference gene to normalize gene expression in this work; however, the accuracy of the gene is not validated. Can you give some experimental data or some references to support this? It is recognized that selection of reference genes in specific condition is necessary.

Minor:
1. The title should be changed, approaches? reveals potential mechanisms for high tolerance to submergence in arbor willow?
2. Line 29: obtained is not appropriate here.
3. Line 112-113: the sentence should be rewritten.
4. Line 145: delete “has”
5. Line 149: change “in response to” to “exposed to”
6. Line 237-238: the sentence is too hard to get across.
7. Line 419: more upregulated?


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: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS REVEALS POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR HIGH TOLERANCE TO SUBMERGENCE IN ARBOR WILLOWS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors screened germplasm resources of arbor willows and discovered both submergence-tolerant and -sensitive varieties. Then, by performing RNA-seq, they compared the differences between the transcriptomes of two varieties and the different submergence treatment time points to identify the potential mechanisms of submergence in Salix and the unique approaches. Their findings provided valuable insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the high tolerance to submergence of arbor willows . But looking at the full text, the article still has some problems.
Experimental design: The screening of the material is only through the four phenotypic indicators, is it reliable? Is there a physiological indicator to assist?
Validity of the findings: The purpose of this study is to reveal the pathway and molecular mechanism of the high flooding tolerance of arbour willows. However, Figure 8 only describes the hypothetical model of "Suliu 795" gaining high flooding tolerance. The author needs to add a picture or improve this picture.
Additional comments: References are cited too frequently in the Introduction, can some statements extract overview? For example, it refers to flooding is the main threat to plant growth and survival, but there is no universal impact of water flooding on plants.
What is the difference between the heat maps and common thermostats present in Figure 4, and C is not as intuitive in conventional thermostats.
The conclusion part of the article only summarizes the results of the study, whether the author needs to join the author's future prospects of this study.
The article has screened germplasm resources of arbor willows and discovered both submergence-tolerant and -sensitive varieties., why not compare the difference of the two materials' response to flooding with a graph, so that it will be more intuitive.


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: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS REVEALS POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR HIGH TOLERANCE TO SUBMERGENCE IN ARBOR WILLOWS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have solved most of the issues I suggested.


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS REVEALS POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR HIGH TOLERANCE TO SUBMERGENCE IN ARBOR WILLOWS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: It is suggested to further verify the key genes found, which will significantly improve the paper in terms of verification function and interaction, so as to have a clearer understanding of the response mechanisms for high tolerance to submergence in arbor willows.


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: OVEREXPRESSION OF THE LCCUC2-LIKE GENE IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA ALTERS THE COTYLEDON MORPHOLOGY AND INCREASES ROSETTE LEAF NUMBER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: For Table_S3 (Number of rosette leaves), only the average and the standard deviation is provided. Please include all data.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Functional identification of the LcCUC2 gene from Liriodendron chinense in leaf development

The manuscript submitted by Wen et al. isolated and characterized the CUC2 gene from Liriodendron chinense. The authors showed that LcCUC2 promoter directs the expression of a reporter to cotyledons and roots in Arabidopsis. In line with the expression pattern, overexpression of LcCUC2 strongly affects cotyledon shape and vascular patterning, and the number and size of real leaves. Finally, they showed that the phenotypes observed in plants overexpressing LcCUC2 might be due to the differential regulation of auxin content and genes involved in auxin signaling and leaf shape.
The data presented in this MS contribute to the understanding of CUC2 role in leaf development in L. chinense. Overall the MS is well-written, and accompanied with high quality experiments. This manuscript would seem as a good candidate for publication in PeerJ after adequate revision of few issues outlined below.

Major concerns:
- The promoter region of LcCUC2 presents several auxin responsive elements. Is LcCUC2 expression regulated by auxin? Is there any feedback loop as shown for CUC2 and auxin in Arabodopsis?
- The analysis of plants overexpressing LcCUC2 seems to be done using one transgenic line. Do the authors see a similar phenotype for other lines? At least a second line should be included.
- Liriodendron chinense presents one deep lobe on each side of the leaf margin and CUC2 transcript levels are regulated by miR164 to control the extension of leaf serration. Can be LcCUC2 also recognized by miR164? How can be explained that leaves do not seem to have enhanced serration in LcCUC2 overexpression plants?
- In Fig. 3B, demonstration of vascular patterning should be improved. This could be done by using 5(6)-carboxyfluorescein diacetate (CFDA).

Other concerns:
- Line 56: Liriodendron. chinense should be Liriodendron chinense (without the dot).
- Line 95: Since all described phenotypes are from the literature, I would suggest to rephrase to “Taken together, these observations suggest that CUC2 participates in both growth and development in plants”.
- Line 198: Please state the organisms used to align the amino acid sequence of LcCUC2.
- Fig. 2A: If possible, change the color of the graph (Red/Green) as they cannot be distinguished by colorblind readers.
- Line 245: Meaning of SEM should be included.
- Line 258: The statement “expression of some genes” is too vague. 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: OVEREXPRESSION OF THE LCCUC2-LIKE GENE IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA ALTERS THE COTYLEDON MORPHOLOGY AND INCREASES ROSETTE LEAF NUMBER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: please see general comments for authors.
Experimental design: please see general comments for authors.
Validity of the findings: please see general comments for authors.
Additional comments: Wen et al. report the identification of CUC2 gene from Liriodendron chinense and investigation of its possible function using transgenic Arabidopsis plants. The LcCUC2 sequence was analyzed using some databases. Its promoter region was introduced in Arabidopsis plants for tissue expression study and the coding sequence for possible functional study, respectively.

Major comments
Figure1; Some CUC genes contain the target sequence of miR164 (line 83). Does LcCUC2 possess such sequence? Please indicate the color codes in the alignment.

Figure 2A; It must be better to present a bar graph with the statistical analysis of three biological replicates, rather than the heat map. The GUS-positive pattern of LcCUC2 was quite different from that of AtCUC2 (Nikovics et al. Line 482). Please carefully discuss a mechanism of the two different patterns. Please present number of transgenic lines analyzed (see also Figure 3).

Figure 3; Because a transgene is randomly introduced in a plant genome, more than two transgenic lines for 35S:LcCUC2 are preferred in the functional analysis. How many transgenic lines the authors obtained in total? Were they showing similar phenotype? It could be better to determine the transcripts of LcCUC2 in the established transgenic lines. The 35S:AtCUC1 (a homologue of CUC2) plant shows serrated cotyledons and leaves with some adventitious shoots in addition to complicated patterns of vasculature. Differentiation of its epidermal cells appear to be suppressed (Hibara, K., Takada, S., and Tasaka, M. (2003). CUC1 gene activates the expression of SAM-related genes to induce adventitious shoot formation. Plant J. 36: 687–696.) The authors can refer this article and must carefully describe the differences from two over-expressor plants of LcCUC2 and AtCUC1 and discuss a possible mechanism why the two genes act differently.

Fig3C might indicate images of tobacco cells. Preparation of methods, results and figures is confusing.

Figure 4; Please specify the biological numbers of the samples. The RT-PCR data might be cooked using a reference gene before preparation of the graphs.

Other comments
Because L. chinense is not common for many readers, it could be helpful if the authors present photographs of the leaf samples mentioned in this study.

Line 163; the templates might be genome DNA or total RNA being reverse-transcribed.

Line 184; Please specify biological or technical replicates.

Line 189; LcCUC2 gDNA sequence might be found in some databases. Because CUC genes shape a gene family, the reviewer would like to know how LcCUC2 were identified. Does the L. chinense genome have CUC1 and CUC3?


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: OVEREXPRESSION OF THE LCCUC2-LIKE GENE IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA ALTERS THE COTYLEDON MORPHOLOGY AND INCREASES ROSETTE LEAF NUMBER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my original concerns and comments, the manuscript is further improved, and I support publication. I have some minor comments that the authors should implement before publication.

Minor changes:
- Regarding miR164, the revised version states that LcCUC2-like posses a conserved V-motif, which is targeted by miR164. However, CUC2-regulation by miR164 occurs at the transcript level, and Fig. 1B show a protein alignment. The authors should show a nucleotide alignment of the nucleotide sequence that might be targeted by miR164, and comment about LcCUC2-like being recognized by miR164 or not.
- Line 66-67: I would suggest to change “Ma proposed” for either “It has been proposed”, “The authors proposed” or “Ma et al. (2018) proposed”. Something similar should be done in line 343 (for Maugarny) and 347 (for Lui).
- Line 241: Please state whether IAA affects LcCUC2 expression negatively (represses) or positively (induces).


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: OVEREXPRESSION OF THE LCCUC2-LIKE GENE IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA ALTERS THE COTYLEDON MORPHOLOGY AND INCREASES ROSETTE LEAF NUMBER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present the results using transgenic plants with more than two lines and revise figures. The authors think that LcCUC2-like and AtCUC2 may have different functions, but detailed mechanisms of the difference are still unknown. Some experiments were conducted one or two biological replicates before analyzing data.

Major comments;
The response letter said ”LcCUC2-like and AtCUC2 may have different functions.” Please clearly indicate it in the main text and abstract.

Do the authors think one deep lobe (line 62) is regulated by LcCUC2-like? Please describe some ideas.

Line 66-68; LcKNOX6 induce leaf lobes and may be affect LcCUC2-like gene. In contrast, it seems likely that leaf margin development is independent on LcCUC2like gene. Please discuss the interaction with the leaf lobe, LcKNOX and LcCUC gene.

Line 307; The transcript level of AtCUC2 increased in LcCUC2-expressing plants compared to the WT A. thaliana plants (Fig. 4E). However, the leaves did not induce serrations. Please present the reason.

Do the authors find some cis-elements that confer differential expression patterns between the promoters of AtCUC2 and LcCUC2 (Table1) ?

Figure2bc legend indicates two biological replicates. Figure 4 presents only technical replicates. At least three biologically independent experiments are usually requested before analyzing data.

Minor comments;
Line 132; A real time PCR device always outputs some cycle numbers. How were the gene levels calculated?
Line 216; Please note that the V motif is composed of amino acids, while the miR164 recognition is based on the nucleotide sequence.
Line 377, AtCUC3 is also involved in the leaf margin development (Hasson et al., 2011).
Table 1; please specify the sequences of the individual motifs.
Experimental design: see above.
Validity of the findings: see above.
Additional comments: see above.


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 EFFECT OF INTERNET ADDICTION AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION ON SLEEP QUALITY AMONG TURKISH ADOLESCENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the hypothesis of the research is worths studying for adolescent health.
Experimental design: The design is well organised.
Validity of the findings: The findings are clear and valuable.
Additional comments: 1.	The English language needs a reduction in some sentences, such as in the introduction section because internet access becoming easier; the risk of excessive internet use has increased.’
2.	Methods section was well organized. However, it is not clear what kind of questions were filled to determine the perceived socioeconomic status.
3.	In statistical methods there is a need to write the form of logistic regression analysis.
4.	In the results section, the first sentence needs correction. In the beginning of the paragraph, we cannot use abbreviations. ‘SQ of 58.7% of the students was poor, 41.3% of them were good.’. And in the same paragraph, we cannot give the result of the p-value as p<0.05. And in the continuing results avoid using p-value as p<0.05. If you would like to emphasize that all results are statistically significant, just write it in words.
5.	In the results section the sentence ‘Factors affecting the poor SQ of the students were analyzed using the logistic regression model.’ Needs correction. Try to change it to a result sentence.
6.	Tables are well organized, except writing the method of logistic regression analysis.
7.	Studies that investigate IA and/or sleep quality in adolescents are limited in Turkey. I recommend utilizing the paper ‘Internet addiction, sleep and health-related life quality among obese individuals: a comparison study of the growing problems in adolescent health. Eliacik et al. Eating and Weight Disorders - Studies on Anorexia, Bulimia and Obesity volume 21, pages709–717 (2016)
8.	In the discussion section avoid comparing your results with the literature. In order to do that try to explain your results.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECT OF INTERNET ADDICTION AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION ON SLEEP QUALITY AMONG TURKISH ADOLESCENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Use of English language

To ensure that the international audience can clearly understand your text, I suggest that you consider improving the use of English language in the following aspects:

1. Avoid the repetition of terms/ideas in the same sentence or in close sentences. Some examples include lines 41-42, 42-43, 88-90, 98-99, 121-122, 130-132, 189-190, 201, 225-228.

2. In certain cases, you can put more appropriate terms for what you intend to say. Some examples include lines 78 (“[Many] studies…”), 98 (“declared by [each] student”), 212 (“In [other] studies…”), 240 (“There are [many] studies examining the relationship…”).

3. Improve the use of verb tenses. Some examples include lines 35 (“Data [was] collected…”) and 60 (“Internet access [is] becoming”).

I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service.

Introduction and background

1.	I emphasize the need that the contents cited in the Discussion (and debated with the results obtained), should also be mentioned in the Introduction. For example, in lines 188-189, the effect of sleep on the cardiovascular and hormonal systems appears for the first time, although it should also be mentioned in the Introduction.

2.	Be aware of situations where you give scientifically unproven opinions. Some places that need references are lines 78, 183-184, 218-219, 243.

3.	The investigation hypotheses were not clear to me. What are your study hypotheses? What do you expect to find in this study? This should be referred in the Introduction and based on scientific literature.

4.	The article should include sufficient introduction to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. In this sense, I consider that it is important to designate what smartphone addiction is, to refer studies that address the factors that influence SQ (gender, age, parental education, etc.) and to illustrate what are the conclusions of the studies about IA and SA in adolescents in Turkey.

5.	The elements of connection between paragraphs and phrases are important for the reader to understand a common thread of what is being said. I suggest you think about this in lines such as 65-66, 83-84, 234-235.

6.	In Abstract’s background (lines 32-34), I suggest that you try to make the reader understand why it is important to study the effect of internet addiction and smartphone addiction on the sleep quality of Turkish adolescents. Still in the Abstract, in conclusions, it would be important to highlight the main variables (i.e., internet addiction and smartphone addiction) instead of place them mixed with age, gender, perceived health status, and perceived economic status of the family.

7.	For a general understanding of the text that follows, I suggest you put brief introductory sentences on lines 57 and 153.

8.	Sometimes I see a need for more concrete data. For example, in line 68, what are the numerous benefits of smartphones?

Raw data supplied

The order of the tables is well placed, as is the position of the its titles. I suggest, however, the consideration of the following changes:

1. Improve the presentation of the results, because data mentioned in Results’ section does not correspond to what is presented on tables. Also, it would be important to complete the tables with more relevant information such as the value of test statistics.

2. Improve table 4, where correlations are referred. To have a better understanding of the data you can put, in "Notes:", asterisks that indicate when the relationship between variables was significant (i.e., *p<0.05) or very significant (i.e., **p<0.001). In this sense, I suggest that you remove from the table the lines referring to p. Please write in this table that the top horizontal line refers to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Still, I emphasize that it is normal to place, both horizontally and vertically, all the variables used. I suggest that you look at a table with correlations in a PeerJ article.

3. Review details that increase clarity and professionalism in scientific writing. For example, in table 3, remove the colons in “Good” and “Poor”, since it has parentheses after; in all tables, put p in italics; in the section of “Results”, describe the content of each table in more detail; write “Notes:”, before referring them below the tables; remove words that are unnecessary, such as "internet use", in table 2.
Experimental design: This article corresponds to the aims and scopes of the journal. It’s ethical procedures also seems adequate to me. Nevertheless, I suggest that you consider the following aspects:

1.	To better understand the importance of the present study, it would be important to reflect on the following question: Why is it important to study the effect of IA and SA on SQ in Turkish adolescents? I believe that the answer to this question can improve your research question. I also think that your research aims can be clearer and more congruent. Note that the Introduction prescribes that it is intended to study the effects of IA and SA on SQ in Turkish students, but it is stated in the Discussion that you also studied other factors that affect SQ.

2.	To better replicate your results, it would be important to mention whether the three high schools were public or private, as well as when the questionnaires were filled out by the participants (during or after school?). You should consider noting and justifying the creation of the two groups of adolescents (i.e., aged 15 or under and aged 16 or over).

3.	In the section Materials & Methods, you described each instrument, but you could also describe in more detail what each subscale means.

4.	In the last sentence of the section Introduction, you can write something like "This study aimed to address this gap.". In this way, the research question is better described and the repetition of what was mentioned in the previous sentence is avoided.
Validity of the findings: 1.	Correlation differs from a cause-and-effect relationship. That's why you can't put "may cause" (lines 224-225) if you then address an association between variables.

2.	In the Conclusions, to refer “older students” is ambiguous. I suggest that you affirm the age group. Still in Conclusions, it would be important to better clarify the issue that you want to address.
Additional comments: 1.	Pay attention to inconsistencies. If you don't put an acronym on the other instruments, don't put it on Smartphone Addiction Scale (SAS) – line 36.

2.	In the Discussion it may be important to recall the subscales of each scale, so that the readers can remember them easier.

I wish you a good work.


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 EFFECT OF INTERNET ADDICTION AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION ON SLEEP QUALITY AMONG TURKISH ADOLESCENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English is used throughout.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECT OF INTERNET ADDICTION AND SMARTPHONE ADDICTION ON SLEEP QUALITY AMONG TURKISH ADOLESCENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the abstract, I suggest the following, to becomes clearer:
-	In the introduction, start the sentence with "Compared to participants with normal internet addiction scores, sleep quality was..."(lines 48-51).
-	In the results part, it is not necessary to write "total subscale scores of" and "the total score of.". Just put "...were positively correlated with smartphone addiction and internet addiction” (line 52-54).
-	When you’re presenting the conclusions, write "older adolescents" instead of “older age” (line 56)
To demonstrate a professional writing, avoid writing something like "15-24". For example, in line 68, put "aged between 15 and 24 years old".

I suggest you improve the definition of internet addiction. Problems in life and in psychological domains are part of the definition (line 73-75). I consider that you can also develop a little more about the internet addiction, smartphone addiction and sleep quality, instead of just describing the components of them. This will support the importance of your study.

I noticed that some connecting words are missing. I highlight the following examples: “associated [with] poor sleep quality” (line 55), “education, [and] entertainment”, “daily life of [its] users.” (line 84).
“Being an environment” is not the right term. Maybe you wanted to say, “being a means for socialization” (line 80).

Between lines 86 and 87, it is necessary to place some connecting element. It needs to be clear why are you starting to talk about the sleep quality. What is the relationship with what you talked about above? It’s also necessary to place a connecting element between lines 95 and 96.

I suggest that you build better the sentence of line 93. It must become explicit why you chose to talk about (and study) sociodemographic determinants and not others. And what is the conclusion of the author about the sociodemographic determinants of SQ?

I suggest that you better clarify the gap in the scientific literature. To do that you can explain, in line 110, the problem is not just the few studies, but also the fact that many of them have limitations. You can also clarify why it’s important to study this theme in Turkish adolescents (line 120; you can highlight the fact that this population has high rates of internet and smartphone use; you can also mention how this study can benefit them).

I suggest that you better clarify the relationship between your hypotheses and the scientific literature. Why do you want to study adolescent’s sociodemographic and family characteristics?

Discussion is not very fluid. I suggest that you invest in connecting elements between paragraphs.

In the discussion, in lines 272-273 it remains to put a reference.

In the discussion, I suggest that you write “we identified”, instead of determined (line 303). This will improve your professional writing.
Experimental design: When you refer your instruments, don’t forget to cite their authors (e.g., lines 142-144, 160,169, 191).

In line 146 it’s more correct to put “Informed consent”.

When you say that it was evaluated socioeconomic and health-related characteristics, it is important to mention that you evaluated perceptions. Also, don’t forget to mention how do you evaluated perceived health status and, to achieve a professional writing, improve line 150 by referencing the Likert scale used.

Lines 151 and 152 mention an important topic to be addressed in the introduction. Also, to better understand your division into two groups of adolescents, you should mention in the introduction between what ages is adolescence considered.

Don't forget to put the Likert scale of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (lines 190-203).
The presentation of results needs more detail. For example, when you say, "some subcomponents", you should mention which ones (line 240). Also, it is important to note that, as shown in Table 1, gender, age, paternal education level, perceived health status and perceived economic status of family are significantly associated with sleep quality (See, for example, the following PeerJ article, which used chi-square test: Saraswathi I, Saikarthik J, Senthil Kumar K, Madhan Srinivasan K, Ardhanaari M, Gunapriya R. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on the mental health status of undergraduate medical students in a COVID-19 treating medical college: a prospective longitudinal study. PeerJ 8:e10164 DOI 10.7717/peerj.10164).

In the perceived economic situation description, you indicate that there are five possible answers, but in the presentation of the results (including the tables), there were only three. I suggest that you clarify why you made the decision to talk about "very bad-bad" and "very good -good".
Validity of the findings: Don’t forget to mention, in the abstract's results, that one of the subcomponents of sleep quality (habitual sleep efficiency) was not positively related to smartphone addiction and internet addiction (lines 52-54). Also, in the abstract, clarify in the conclusions that poor health and economic status of the family are perceptions (line 56-57).

In the Discussion and in the Conclusions, it’s not clear that you studied Turkish adolescents.
I suggest that you mention your hypotheses in the Discussion. Which were confirmed and which weren’t?

In line 266, it should contain the correct percentage.

In the paragraph corresponding to lines 306 to 310, what does the scientific literature say about this?
In the Discussion, you should discuss the unexpected results. For example, why you didn't find a significant relationship between smartphone and internet addiction with habitual sleep efficiency? What is shown in the scientific literature?

I suggest that you think about a solution for your first limitation (line 361-362).

In the discussion, I notice that some cited results are not in the literature review. Don’t forget that the content of the articles presented in the discussion should be mentioned in the introduction. In the discussion part, you relate your results with the literature review that you wrote in the introduction.
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: HAMMERHEAD FLATWORMS (PLATYHELMINTHES, GEOPLANIDAE, BIPALIINAE): MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES AND DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES FROM FRANCE, ITALY, AND MAYOTTE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Fine
Experimental design: Fine
Validity of the findings: Fine
Additional comments: The article "Hammerhead flatworms (Platyhelminthes, Geoplanidae, Bipaliinae): mitochondrial genomes and description of two new species from France, Italy and Mayotte" is an interesting contribution to the taxonomy of terrestrial planarians of the bipaliinae group. Two new species are described and complete (or nearly complete) mitogenomes are provided for several species in the group. The article is robust and well thought out, however, some aspects of the methods could be improved to achieve more accurate results. The figures are of good quality, although some are not necessary for the main text. The quality of the aesthetics of phylogenetic trees can be improved. I have to say that the integration of the molecular part in the description of the species seems very successful to me and for this, I congratulate the authors.
In summary, I consider that the article can be accepted for publication in PeerJ with some minor changes. Below I comment in more detail on some aspects that I think should be improved.

Introduction
-Line 95: “Complete mitogenomes provide far more data for molecular identification and phylogeny than, for example, the usual molecular markers such as the short and long subunits of the nuclear ribosomal RNA genes (SSU and LSU, respectively).”  I disagree with this affirmation. It depends on the level of the phylogeny you want to solve. Sometimes mitochondrial genomes don’t give information enough to point out relationships at higher taxonomic levels (not species).

Material and methods
-Line 153: Why neighbor-joining? It is known that the accuracy of phylogenies using this method is questionable. Although probably the result would be the same, I encourage the authors to use another inference method for this analysis (as they have done in other sections). To maintain the consistency of the analyses across the article it makes sense to use the same strategy for all the phylogenetic inferences (unless there is a particular reason for using a different method here, that if is the case, needs to be justified).
-Line 159: Why the authors chose this k-mer? Did they use any software to estimate the best k-mer?
-Line160: How did the authors assess which contigs corresponded to mitogenome? Did they apply any filter to detect possible contamination? They talk about contamination later in the results and discussion, but nothing is noticed in the material and methods section. It should be explained here.
-Line 176: How was the model chosen? Based on what? Please, add this information to the text.

Results
-Do the authors of the species correspond to the same authors in the article? That is not always the case, and if so, it must be stated in the description of the species for further citations.
-As I already said before, I like the molecular section added to the description of the new species, but maybe it lacks some explanation of how to identify this species using molecular methods (like inferring a phylogeny or calculating genetic distances). This is only a suggestion, but I really think it would improve the quality of the descriptions (in general) if molecular information is added to the diagnosis of the new species.
-Line 480: It is confusing, there is a sexual specimen? Why is it not described here? If the case is that it is not sexually mature, it might be stated here, and a more accurate description of the external morphology is needed to classify the species within the Bipaliinae.
-Line 489: Was D. multilineatum mitogenome reads of lower quality? Why this is not complete? Was the circularization not possible? Maybe using Novoplasty or another software it is possible to get a better assembly.
-Line 495: How were the tRNA searched? What software did the authors use? It is not correctly explained in the M&M section. If so, it means that the authors only used MITOS for the annotation. There are specific programmes used for the tRNA search (such as tRNAscan, for instance). Applying these, maybe the authors can assemble it completely.
-Line 499: Information about the genes (length in comparison with other species, direction, start and stop codons, etc) is missing, as well as some remarks about the control region and intergenic sequences. Then in the discussion, some of these characteristics are mentioned, but this information needs to be described in the results section before.
-Line 519: When trying to solve the 16S problem, why not comparing to other terrestrial planarians? Schmidtea mediterranea is very divergent in terms of the mitochondrial genome, and maybe not the best to compare to (even being verified by RNAseq). An alignment with other species of Tricladida is another option to find out the best annotation for the 16S. Again, there are other programmes that can be used for annotation. Moreover, the 16S gene is one of the most frequently used for metabarcoding analyses, so there are complete databases that can be used for blast and find out the best annotation for the species studied here. Also, the secondary structure of the ribosomal gene can be used. There are plenty of possibilities.
-Line 544: Have the authors thought about using other inference methods to try to solve this polytomy?
-Line 548: Maybe a concatenated tree (including the two ribosomal genes and the mitogenomes) could solve all the nodes. It is worth trying.
-Line 575: Only using megablast is not accurate enough to have a complete picture of the diet of the species. Applying a pipeline based on phylogeny would be more accurate and give more information (see Cuevas-Caballé et al. 2019 for an example). Also, these contaminations make less trustable the validity of the flatworms mitogenomes. How can the authors be sure that the mitogenomes correspond to flatworm 100% and are not chimeras? As I asked before, were the raw data filtered and searched for contamination? This is not explained in the M&M section. If not, I wonder if that would be one of the reasons for the poor annotation of the 16S or the tRNAs.

Discussion
-Line 696: This part corresponds to the description of the results and not to the discussion.

Figures and tables
-Figures with pictures of the animals are impressive. Very good quality.
- The figures with images of the histological sections are not all necessary in the main text. Since a reconstruction of the copulatory apparatus is already presented, only a few photographs representing the most important anatomical and key characters can be left in the main text. The others can go to supplementary material.
-Table 1 can go to supplementary material. It lacks the information of the authors of the new species.
-Table 3 could have more information, for instance, which are the alternative start and stop codons (in addition to mentioning in which genes they are found).
-I suggest that Table 6 could be converted to a distribution map, which would give more visual information.


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: HAMMERHEAD FLATWORMS (PLATYHELMINTHES, GEOPLANIDAE, BIPALIINAE): MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES AND DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES FROM FRANCE, ITALY, AND MAYOTTE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors of the paper “Hammerhead flatworms (Platyhelminthes, Geoplanidae, Bipaliinae): mitochondrial genomes and description of two new species from France, Italy and Mayotte” describe the first Bipaliinae species in about 15 years, and among them the first Humbertium species in 35 years. Furthermore, the authors also provide 6 new mitochondrial genomes of 5 different species, giving much valuable new information to the study of this subfamily of land planarians.

Overall, the paper is well-written and well-organized. Literature references are sufficient.
Experimental design: Research is relevant, clearly filling knowledge gaps in the study of land planarians.

Some aspects of the material & methods can be better explained. On the other hand, some extra analyses could be carried out to improve this paper. Please see "Additional comments" for suggestions.
Validity of the findings: Please see "Additional comments" section.
Additional comments: The paper is interesting and I look forward to its publication. However, I would like to suggest some improvements and make some comments that might be helpful:

1-	Line 50:
Here it is said that “Complete mitochondrial genomes provide a powerful tool for delineating…species of Bipaliinae when the reproductive structure cannot be studied.”. However, it seems not to be a conclusion that can be easily drawn from the presented results. The species studied in this paper do not represent a problematic case of externally similar species, but on the contrary they present very distinctive external appearances (colourations and patterns) which allow their rapid identification with the naked eye. On the other hand, in the present paper no molecular species delimitation analyses have been carried out.

I suggest a couple of possible conclusions:
1) The results seem to reinforce the idea of a very successful group of land planarians in colonizing areas beyond their native geographical range, not only in extension (e.g., Bipalium kewense being a Cosmopolitan species) but also in the diversity of species. Most known genera of Bipaliinae are found in Europe (i.e., Bipalium, Diversibipalium and Humbertium).
2) The phylogenetic position of Diversibipalium mayottensis suggesting a new Bipaliinae genera could be also included in the conclusions, pointing to more genera of this group to be described.

Obviously, different conclusions can be drawn by the authors.

2-	Line 66-68:
It seems that the order of the two last sentences should be changed.

3-	Line 90:
Although it is certainly true that complete mitogenomes provide lots of valuable data, I do not agree with the sentence: “Complete mitogenomes provide far more data than…nuclear ribosomal RNA genes”. Both types of markers provide valuable data, and both will likely fail in providing accurate phylogenies if analysed alone. For example, in the phylogenetic tree obtained using the mitochondrial protein-coding genes (Figure 39 of the present paper), Dugesia ryukyuensis is shown to be sister species to Dugesia japonica plus Girardia sp. with full support. In the case the authors decide to keep the original sentence, please add references.

4-	Line 99:
“…for the first time the mitochondrial genomes of three species…”. However, the mitochondrial genomes of five species are presented for the first time in this paper. Is this sentence correct?

5-	Line 141:
The obtaining of Cox1 and 28S is here explained, but nothing is said about the obtaining of 18S (nor in any Material & Methods section). On the other hand, somewhere else in the manuscript it is said that some 18S and 28S were obtained using NGS (e.g., line 205). Please include the information of the obtaining of the genes in this section comprehensively.

6-	Line 141-146:
To help the reader, first time mentioning 18S and 28S please add (SSU) and (LSU) respectively as both ways of naming these genes are used along the manuscript.

7-	Line 148:
Please specify in the text the amount of tissue that was sent. It was a single specimen? A piece? Multiple specimens?

8-	Line 157:
It would be interesting to include a phylogenetic tree obtained from a concatenated dataset using 18S, 28S and Cox1 (the most widely used mitochondrial gene in phylogenies). The combination of these genes may provide a more robust phylogeny in comparison with the phylogenetic trees already presented in the paper. The concatenated dataset may include the species described in the present paper plus others from GenBank (e.g. Novibipalium venosum and Bipalium nobile). Both maximum likelihood (e.g. RaxML) and Bayesian Inference (e.g. MrBayes) should be used.

9-	Line 159:
Please include a table listing all the specimens used in the different phylogenies/datasets on the first column, and the genes used in the first row, filling the boxes with the corresponding accession numbers.

10-	Line 165:
Please consider carrying out Bayesian Inference analyses (e.g., using MrBayes) to provide a much complete phylogenetic approach. Only one topology per dataset is necessary to be shown in the paper but including both supports (Posterior Probability/Boostrap) on the corresponding nodes.

11-	Line 167:
GTR-I-G was chosen as evolution model. Please explain in the text whether it was chosen after running jModelTest or a similar program.

12-	Line 194:
If possible, it would be useful to include an “Habitat and distribution” section for this species explaining when and where in the garden it was found. For instance: was it found crawling on the ground? In plant pots? During the day?

13-	Line 196-198:
It is said that microslides of two specimens of the new Humbertium species are available (MNHN JL351B and MNHN JL351A). However, only one reconstruction is presented in the article (MNHN JL351B; Figure 17). Was a sketch of the other specimen (MNHN JL451A) made? If this is the case, it would be interesting to include it in the paper.

It would be helpful to show the intraspecific variability of the new species in figures. For instance, as it is said in the text the oviduct turning dorsal seems to be different in the two specimens. Photos showing these differences could be also used as an alternative to a full copulatory apparatus reconstruction drawing.

14-	Line 196:
Was any of the specimens used for inner anatomy inspection also sequenced (i.e., MNHN JL351B and MNHN JL351A)? For instance, by cutting off a small tail or pre-pharyngeal piece for DNA before sectioning. If this is the case, please explain in the manuscript. If this was not done, I would like to suggest doing so in future studies. In this way, we can be 100% certain of the assignation of the inner anatomy to the molecular data.

15-	Line 198:
I would like to ask whether “retained whole” means that the specimen has not been either sectioned or sequenced. This is confusing to me because specimen MNH JL351C is listed in this line as “retained whole” but photos of MNH JL351C sections are provided in Figures 19-21 (see figure descriptions). On the other hand, the number of microslides obtained for MNH JL351C is not provided. Furthermore, MNH JL351A is reported in line 197 as sectioned, but no photo or reconstruction is provided.

16-	Line 198:
I would also like to ask to the authors what is the difference between “…MNH JL351C-4 retained whole…” and the following “…9 other specimens retained whole.”? Why do the latter not have voucher numbers? If necessary, please explain in the manuscript.

17-	Line 200:
MNHN JL090 specimens do not have a specific voucher number (e.g., A to F) but sequences were obtained from them instead. Please see next comment.

18-	Line 204-207:
According to line 200, MNHN JL090 is constituted by 6 specimens. It is not explained whether the Cox1, partial 28S, partial 18S and the complete mitogenome were obtained from the same or from different individuals. It would be necessary to assign each sequence to its original specimen.

I suggest including a table listing all the individuals assigned to the new Humbertium species, also indicating which genes and/or mitogenome (with Accession Number) per specimen were obtained, and whether inner anatomy has been inspected (i.e., microslides available). Other information like the locality could also be added.

19-	Line 208:
Similarly to the comment above, MNHN JL351 specimen is not specified (A, B, C), and different genes are listed. Please clarify.

20-	Line 212:
I would like to suggest finding a different species name, keeping the homage to the victims of the pandemic.

21-	Line 217:
Here specimens that are not listed in the previous section are mentioned: MNHN JL351H, J, K, L, M. This could be clarified in the table I suggest preparing in comment 18.

22-	Line 231-232:
The anatomy of the pharynx is included in the diagnosis of the new Humbertium species. Has any difference been observed between the pharynx of this species and that of other Bipaliinae? In the discussion, the pharynx is only compared with that of Humbertium ravenalae and it appears to share the same structure. In case the pharynx has not been found to be significant to identify the new Humbertium species, I suggest removing this sentence from the diagnosis section.

23-	Line 236-237:
It would be convenient to briefly explain here what the differences of the “two parts” of the female genital canal are.

24-	Line 228 & 252
When looking at the live Humbertium photos (Figures 2-10) the dorsal colouration seems rather dark brown or perhaps deeply black-brown instead of “pure” black. The ventral side seems paler or grayish brown in colouration instead of grey. Perhaps this might be explained by colour differences between the preserved and the live specimens. In the case the authors agree, please discuss in the text.

I would also like to say that the Humbertium photos are magnificent. It is wonderful that in some of them the creeping sole in action can be clearly seen (Figures 3 and 8, hardly in figure 7).

25-	Line 257
If possible, it would be interesting to explain whether differences considering rhabdoids and secretions were observed between the head and the rest of the body.

26-	Line 329-331
It seems that the outer penial epithelium underlying circular muscles depicted in figure 17 are not mentioned here. These circular muscles seem to be continuous with that “…inner strong sheath of circular muscles…” mentioned in the previous paragraph.

27-	Line 354
Please add the corresponding paratype voucher number in parentheses.

28-	Line 354
If possible, it would be interesting to show the “…ovovitelline ducts turn dorsally…(…in the Paratype they turn dorsally at the posterior lip of the gonopore),…” either in a reconstruction of its copulatory apparatus or in different sections photos, as I already suggested in a previous comment.

29-	Line 391:
Perhaps a photo of the nematode might be helpful in the future to a specialist to narrow down its assignment. Could it be provided in the paper?

30-	Line 420:
As I already suggested for the new Humbertium species, it would be good to include an “Habitat and distribution” section also for Diversibipalium mayottensis.

31-	Lines 420-435:
The specimen from which the mitogenome was obtained seems not to be listed. According to figure 30 legend, the specimen was JL381. Perhaps it is a “typo” and it should be JL281. Nonetheless, there are 3 specimens from this locality (JL281A, B, C). Please indicate in the text and in a table (as suggested below) which is the corresponding one.

32-	Lines 420-435:
According to the phylogenetic trees, 18S and 28S were obtained for D. mayottensis. However, only Cox1 sequences are mentioned in this section. As suggested for the other new species, please include a table listing all the specimens assigned to this new species, also indicating which genes and/or mitogenome (with Accession Number) per specimen have been obtained.

33-	Line 460:
The mitochondrial gene ATP8 is not mentioned in the manuscript. Although it is true that it was widely said that this gene was not present in the Platyhelminthes mitochondrial genomes, Ross et al., 2016 (paper already cited here) and Egger et al., 2017* pointed otherwise. Ross and collaborators found an ATP8 candidate in different species of freshwater Triclads, including Dugesiidae (closely related to Geoplanidae). I suggest to carry out an active search of this gene in the mitochondrial genomes included here by aligning with other triclads’ ATP8 candidates and looking for further ORFs. Either successful or not, please explain the results in the manuscript.

*Bernhard Egger, Lutz Bachmann, Bastian Fromm, 2017. Atp8 is in the ground pattern of flatworm mitochondrial genomes. BMC Genomics, 18:414.

34-	Line 469:
Here it is said that “…it was impossible to find tRNA-Thr for both specimens…”. I suggest trying programs other than MITOS, like ARWEN, tRNAscan-SE and/or DOGMA to find the missing tRNA and double-check the others.

35-	Line 514-516:
In this sentence it is said that “This clade (i.e., H. covidum+B. vagum) was, in contrast strongly discriminated…”. However, supports for H. covidum+B.vagum and its sister group are low (44 and 68 respectively). Please explain whether “strongly discriminated” means something different.

36-	Line 522-527:
Second and third sentences of this paragraph seem repetitive with the first one. Please combine them.

37-	Line 563:
Please name the “…three species are uncertain as the OVD-1 character is not clearly shown in figures or text” in parentheses.

38-	Line 563:
Please list the four “fully described” species in parentheses.

39-	Lines 565-572:
The inner anatomy of the new Humbertium species is compared with the type species of the genus, but nothing is said about the external appearance. Please compare in the manuscript.

40-	Lines 573-579:
It seems that this paragraph is misplaced and should be placed before the previous one.

41-	Lines 580-581:
Here it is written: “…readily differentiated externally from the only other described plain black species, H. ferrugineoideum (Sabussowa, 1925) from Madagascar…”. Please explain in the text:

1) Which characteristics are readily differentiated.
2) Whether “Plain black species” refers to both dorsal and ventral sides.

Note also that Humbertium ferrugineoideum may not be considered plain black as it presents a white line along the head margin. On the other hand, please consider that H. ferrugineoideum is described as black both dorsal and ventrally while the new Humbertium species seems to be “black” (or dark brown or deeply black-brown as in comment 24) only on its dorsal side.

42-	Line 582-583:
Please detail in the manuscript the “...substantial differences in the anatomy of the copulatory organs…”.

43-	Lines 584-589:
I suggest a couple of other black/dark Diversibipalium species to be compared with:
- Diversibipalium kirckpatricki (Von Graff, 1899) – Deeply black-brown dorsal and ventral colour, with a lighter brown creeping sole. This might be the most similar known species to the new Humbertium species.
- Diversibipalium piceum (Von Graff, 1899) – Uniform black dorsal colour (but slightly blue).
Perhaps other dark brown species like Diversibipalium richtersi (Von Graff, 1899) could also be considered for comparison.

44-	Line 627-628:
“…it is well known that bipaliines originate from Asia;…”: I would like to ask whether the authors are writing about the new Humbertium species or about the Bipaliinae subfamily in general. In the latter case, references are needed here. Species of Bipaliinae are also present in Madagascar and I think it is yet unknown which is the geographical origin of the subfamily.

45-	Line 711-712:
Same than comment 1.

46-	Lines 716-719:
This part seems not to fit well in the “Acknowledgements” section.

47-	Figures 17-23:
Please indicate in the figure legends where “anterior” is (to the left?).

48-	Figure 30:
Figure legend: Is it JL281 instead of JL381?

49-	Figure 38:
DQ665957 and HM346595 are written twice.


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: HAMMERHEAD FLATWORMS (PLATYHELMINTHES, GEOPLANIDAE, BIPALIINAE): MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES AND DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES FROM FRANCE, ITALY, AND MAYOTTE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written, understandable, and has good scientific English. The structure is correct and conforms to PeerJ standards.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have made necessary changes, as indicated in the review, considerably improving the quality of the article. I agree with most of the answers to my comments and those of reviewer 2. I consider that now the article is ready to be published.


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: HAMMERHEAD FLATWORMS (PLATYHELMINTHES, GEOPLANIDAE, BIPALIINAE): MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES AND DESCRIPTION OF TWO NEW SPECIES FROM FRANCE, ITALY, AND MAYOTTE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Ok
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: Ok
Additional comments: I appreciate the great effort by the authors in order to improve the article. I would like to congratulate them about that.

Just few minor points:

- Results of Bayesian Inference (Posterior Probability (PP)) are not percentages (%). Please correct along the text (e.g. Phylogeny section). I suggest showing the results in the manuscript in the following way: 68 BS/1.0 PP. Being BS = Bootstrap and PP = Posterior Probability.

- In the Taxonomy section of the two newly described species the authorship of each rank is written twice (e.g. Order Tricladida Lang, 1884 (Lang, 1884)). Is this correct?

- Line 43. It seems that there is an extra “-“ after “The type-…”.

- Line 83. Please name the “one species”.

- In Line 218 it is said that “The single genes and concatenated sequences were aligned using MAFFT7”. This is confusing to me. Were the genes first concatenated and then aligned or the other way around? Please note that the latter would be the correct procedure.

- Line 668. “The four phylogenetic trees displayed some variations in their topologies, impacted by the fact that the sampling of species was not identical for each of the phylogenies conducted.” Please also take into account that different genes may give different topologies even if the specimens are exactly the same for all of them.


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 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF EUROPEAN FISHING SPIDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic Reporting
•	The English in this manuscript is good, but not perfect. I made some suggestions for improvements here:
o	Lines 30-32: I’m not sure why the statement about habitat requirements is put together here with the statement about detecting nursery webs. It seems like these two things are not related. The first half of this sentence basically states that habitat requirements are narrower for one species than another. Shouldn’t the second half (after the semicolon) then talk about those habitat requirements? Instead, it discusses how detection of webs is affected by the weather. It mostly seems like the second half of this sentence is more related to the next sentence.
o	Lines 46-47: “not only were wetland protection and restoration goals not reached, but”
o	Lines 51-53: This last sentence of your introductory paragraph is confusing. What do you mean by “imperfect detection”? Detection of invertebrates? Perhaps you need another sentence before this one that links poor conservation work on invertebrates to their inability to be noticed or seen or detected.
o	Line 58: “close to or high above the”
o	Lines 67-68: “an important indicator of quality Dolomedes habitat since it has led to its reproductive success and survival.”
o	Line 110: I’m not sure what you mean by “at the site scale.” Perhaps use “recorded species of Dolomedes while collecting site scale data.”?
o	Line 116: Ensure that there is a space after 12 and before your hyphen.
o	Lines 120-121: “cover the area, though short enough”
o	Line 122: “nursery webs”
o	Lines 127-128: “females in nursery webs, in nearby vegetation, or on the water.”
o	Line 132: use a lowercase “a” in beginning your parenthetical phrase.
o	Line 134: “but no spider at a site, we”
o	Line 135: “from that of Dolomedes.”
o	Line 136: “vegetation type, land use, and surroundings at the site scale (Table 1).”
o	Lines 168-170: “only D. fimbriatus, only D. plantarius, both species, or neither species were detected” same for line 172.
o	Line 180: “vegetation structure, and sampling related”
o	Lines 191-192: I do not understand this sentence: “From variables humidity at ground level…we kept humidity at ground level.” Are you saying that you discarded one of those variables and kept the other like vegetation height in the next sentence? Is this because you dropped highly correlated variables as you mention previously? If so, you should state these variables in or right after that sentence. For example, “…we dropped highly correlated variables: humidity at 20cm above ground level was dropped for humidity at ground level and maximum vegetation height was dropped for average vegetation height.” Or, if you decide to make it multiple sentences, keep them together. Currently you have a statement about variable interaction (Line 190-191: “We did not consider interactions due to the low sample size.”) between these two related sentences and it makes it confusing.
o	Line 207: explained that percent of the variation, right? If so, say that.
o	Line 210: do you mean well defined rather than “well discriminated”?
o	Line 211: do you mean D. plantarius-only sites?
o	Line 213: “sites with both species
o	Line 221: “of the presence of”
o	Line 233: “is more of a habitat-generalist”
o	Line 237: “tolerant” implies that it is fine with it there but doesn’t particularly enjoy its presence. Perhaps you mean “favored” as in “D. fimbriatus favored forested areas”?
o	Paragraph between 249-262: I agree with your assessment here. You should also reference Figure 3 here as it clearly shows that the habitats where co-occurrence happens fully overlaps (within 95% CI) the habitats of D. plantarius but not D. fimbriatus, thereby giving a greater number of habitat variables for the latter compared to the former.
o	Line 305: “presence of the species is also important.”
o	Line 307: “the existence of nursery webs was”
o	Line 318: “due to the lack of dispersal”
o	Line 318-321: This last sentence here is confusing. Perhaps, “Preserving shorelines with abundant crossing structures and continuously wet habitats are essential to managing and conserving populations of D. plantarius.”?
o	Line 324: “more of a habitat-generalist”
o	Line 325: “can occupy sites with a lower pH, indicated”
o	Line 359 and 370: why did you just say “others” for the authors on these manuscripts when you included all of the authors for the Cardoso paper, which has more?
•	The authors provide sufficient references, but I wish their introduction included more information relevant to their conclusions:
o	Specifically, they should include information on the role of pH in wetlands in Fennoscandia, specifically low pH, and its relation to vegetation (what species are present) and spiders.
o	Lines 74-75: Does D. plantarius have less plasticity? Is this evidenced in Smith, 2000? It seems that Smith, 2000 only discusses this species and does not compare it to D. fibriatus.
•	Article structure is sufficient, but I could not access some of their raw data. Specifically, Nursery_data.csv is not a .csv file as it states and is instead “nursery_data(1).gz” and I was not able to open it. Moreover, some figures and tables are problematic in that they have vague captioning, unclear terminology, and errors. I have included the specifics here.
o	Figure 1: Your study site colors in the caption do not match the colors in the figure. Your caption state pink, red, green, blue, and light green. In the figure, I see pink, red, light blue, dark blue, and yellow (which, admittedly, may be light green). Also, for your caption, you should call them “detailed maps” rather than “detail maps.” Lastly, it seems like you’re missing a few periods in the last part of the caption.
o	Figure 2: This figure is not the easiest to understand. It helped when I realized that the top middle plot was enlarged in the bottom right, but that took a while to determine. Second, when you say “aquatic plot” it seems that part of these plots border land? For example, looking at the top right plot, it’s half in the water and half on the land but it’s labeled “w” as an aquatic plot. Was the land part of that circle not sampled?
o	Figure 3: The “both species” variable is “red, circle” not “red, square”.
o	Figure 4: The figure by itself seems fine but it is confusing that the numbers in the figure do not correspond or correlate to the figures given in the sentence in the text where this figure is cited. In the text, you cite “selection frequency” values and in the figure you cite “importance (%)” on the y-axis. These are clearly not the same and the values do not match because of this. Could you use the same values for both text and figure to improve clarity? You also define the first variable in the caption: “distanceWater” as distance to water. Then you define the second variable “rCarex” but that’s not listed as a variable in the figure. “Sedges” is – is this the same thing? I’m also assuming that “rCrossingStr” is Crossing Structure? These need to be clearly linked.
o	Figure 5: The caption needs to do a better job at explaining this figure. What does the red line represent? Why is figure 5D a line while all the others are discrete points?
o	Table 1: Do you use “landscape scale” and “site scale” to mean the same thing? If so, please use one or the other.
o	Table 2: This table is confusing. Use “Percent plant coverage” instead of “percentage.” Explain in the capture which plants are considered as you did in the text. Why are there periods between “Number of occurrences” instead of spaces? It looks like you also collected occurrence data for these plants, though you don’t say so in the text. I’m assuming this is number of plots that it occurred in? It’s unclear, though. What do you mean by “arbitrary”?
o	Table 3: Do you use “microhabitat scale” and “nursery scale” to mean the same thing? If so, please use one or the other. Your first variable lists “spider/nursery web/no” as your levels. However, you explain on lines 133-136 that if you ever saw just a nursery web, you would discard the data “as the nursery web of Pisaurina mirabilis cannot safely be distinguished from the web of Dolomedes.” Therefore, none of your data should have “nursery web” as a variable unless it also includes spider as well, right? I’m assuming this also applies to all of the nursery web data at the bottom of this table? You have distance to water as 0m, 0.7m, 2m, and 7m. Where in the text do you describe the 0.7m plot? Why aren’t you including the 12m plot that you described in the text? There are many variables here, but many are vague with no description in the text. For example, what constituted “large leaves”? How was horizontal cover measured? How was humidity measured? None of these things are described in the figure caption or text.
•	The article is self-contained and all results are relevant to their hypotheses.
Experimental design: Experimental Design
•	The research is original primary research and does fit within the Aims and Scope of PeerJ.
•	The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful, and it is state how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
•	The investigation has limitations, though the authors admit these limitations in their discussion. Specifically, they admit that their sample size is small and that their sampling was limited, preventing them from making some more advanced conclusions.
•	The methods need some work. It is vague at times and missing relevant and important information. I have included my comments here:
o	Methods: I can tell by your Supplemental Table 1 that you collected data daily over a month and a half period, but I don’t see where you say that in the text. Nor do you say that you sampled largely in July and August.
o	Lines 97-100: When you say, “based on information from the literature”, you are referring to the next paragraph where you state the habitats that van Helsdingen and Duffey reference? If so, I would make this entire section one paragraph and start the “We chose water bodies” sentence with, “Specifically, we chose water bodies…”
o	Lines 104: We need more information for D. fimbriatus habitat other than “the visual impression we had of the wetland during a visit.” What specific habitat features were you looking for? How did these features differ from the D. plantarius habitat? Why were you looking for those features? Specifically, which articles reference those features for D. fimbriatus?
o	Line 113: I think it would help if you first stated what “Site scale data” are before you got into the specifics of how collection was done. Same for “Plot scale data”, which you call “microhabitat data.”
o	It’s confusing that you have so many terms for your data. For example, at some points you use “site scale data”, “systematic data”, “microhabitat data”, “plot-scale data”, “percent cover data”, and “nursery data.” Do any of these overlap? Is it possible to maybe group some of these or use the same terms so that it’s less confusing as to which data you’re referring to? This goes for scale as well. Oftentimes you use “level” and “scale” interchangeably. Use just one of these two to reduce confusion.
o	Line 144: You say that sometimes transects were started at random. How was randomness decided – through a random number generator? Was this truly random or haphazardly chosen?
o	Lines 148-150: Terrestrial plots were located at 2, 7, and 12 meters from the water edge but Fig. 2 doesn’t show this? Fig. 2 shows that 7m is the farthest distance. Why the discrepancy?
Validity of the findings: Validity of the Findings
•	Findings are novel and add to our knowledge of Dolomedes habitat preferences within Fennoscandia. Conclusions are related back to the conservation status of one of the two species studied.
•	Data have been provided. The data I could access seem sound.
•	Results and conclusions are well stated but get confusing in some areas, especially when referring to the different variable that had effects on the habitat estimations. Some specific examples are here:
o	Lines 227-229: You cite Figure 3 here, but I thought you explained Figure 3 earlier – in the first paragraph - as being largely influenced by water type, surrounding forest, and water speed. So, why are you now citing this figure and talking about different variables (higher air temperature, fewer clouds, etc.)?
o	Line 235: One of your main discussion points and conclusion points is that a low pH helped discriminate sites. However, you never mention pH until the discussion. Include some background about pH, plants that thrive in low pH, and habitats with low pH in your introduction. You may also want to mention the association between those wetland plants and pH in your methods and results (e.g., “We collected percent cover data for five of the most relevant plant species according to the literature (Carex spp., Juncus…etc.) on the Braun-Blanquet scale. Many of these species, including X, Y, and Z, thrive in low pH habitats, so this variable also correlates to the microhabitat feature of low pH.” In fact, the information in this paragraph about Duffey’s hypotheses and how coniferous forests are dominant in Fennoscandia may better be placed in the introduction as features that may restrict Dolomedes ranges.
Additional comments: General comments
•	Authors also provide interesting observations of temporal segregation, especially when combined with their microhabitat data.


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

Input:
Title: CHARACTERIZATION OF HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF EUROPEAN FISHING SPIDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: A few careless mistakes were found in the way scientific names were written.
For example,
L 87 The genus name should be italicized
L156 spp. should not be italicized.
There are no other major problems. English writing, logical structure, and references are not a problem.
Experimental design: Site Scale Data: As the authors are working at a large spatial scale, it was felt necessary to take latitude (or climatic factors) into account in the analysis. In fact, it might be difficult to take them into account because of the small sample size, but it would have been better to mention their influence.

Regarding the microhabitat survey, I wonder what was the basis for determining the number of plots, the spacing between plots, the radius of the circle (1.5 m). If there is a rationale for the survey designs, this information should also be presented.

The significance of the micro-habitat scale analysis was somewhat confusing for me. Shouldn't these be analyzed separately for each species?
Validity of the findings: Information on their ecology is useful for the conservation of two spider species. And this approach can also be used as a reference in many different systems, as habitat differences between closely related species are common to many organisms, not just spiders.
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: CHARACTERIZATION OF HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF EUROPEAN FISHING SPIDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study is relevant to better understand the environmental requirements of arthropods in endangered freshwater ecosystems, particularly concerning the physical (e.g., water type and speed) and architectural requirements of semi-aquatic spiders. It also contributes to understand why some species are rare, while other species, even when taxonomically close, are abundant.

The knowledge of Dolomedes populations in Europe has been fragmentary, with much anecdotal information about why two closely related species, as D. fimbriatus and D. plantarius, have such distinct distributions and relative abundances. The fact these two species, due to their morphological similarity, are frequently mistaken by each other also contributes to the lack of understanding about their respective population occurrences and how the same is related to habitat/environmental change.  Therefore, a systematic study involving populations of both species unequivocally (what the authors accomplished by including the data of only adult individuals identified by the genitalia) and their respective habitats and micro-habitats was really necessary. Furthermore, the authors did a good job by sampling 31 sites and surveying many potential habitat/microhabitat traits which could potentially affect the presence of Dolomedes, which bought more precise information about the only two Dolomedes species of Europe.

However, I think the authors should also take into consideration, at least in the interpretation and discussion of their results, the importance of prey availability together with other environmental traits, even so, because many physical traits (such as environment heterogeneity/architecture/structure) tend to be positively correlated to prey abundance (e.g., Denno et al. 2005, Halaj et al. 2000). Therefore, the effect of physical variables could be confounded with the ones from prey availability. For instance, Dabrowska-Prot et al. (1968) and Luczak (1970) showed dependence between the movement and placement of Dolomedes fimbriatus individuals and prey density in a controlled field experiment. If D. fimbriatus individuals tend to displace toward locations with higher prey density, habitats with higher prey density will also tend to show high Dolomedes density. Therefore, it is possible that prey abundance could, together with architectural traits, play role in Dolomedes abundance distribution.
Differences in dispersal ability between D. fimbriatus and D. plantarius can also be taken into consideration when discussing the results. As suggested by Duffey (2012), D. fimbriatus seems a better candidate for successful terrestrial dispersal than D. plantarius, which is expected to be more dependent on water for dispersal. So, a smaller dispersal range combined with narrow habitat requirements may help to explain the more restricted distribution of D. plantarius.

The authors used elegant and flexible approaches to analyze their data (e.g., GAM, machine learning, Flexible Discriminant Analysis), which is one of the high points of this paper. This allowed to model the relationship between spider abundance and habitat traits more realistically, beyond a linear relationship. For instance, the FDA has been successful in concentrating around 91% of the total data variability in the two first axes, which makes it easy to see which environmental variables are the most related to the presence/absence of D. fimbriatus and D. plantarius.

However, I think the results should be better presented. Regarding Flexible Discriminant Analysis (FDA), I have the following doubts:
(1) Does the Flexible Discriminant Analysis deal well with non-continuous, discrete predictors or with non-ordinal/pure categorical ones, such as forest type?
(2) It has been a time since I last run a discriminant analysis (and it was a Linear instead of the Flexible). However, I remember that, unlike many ordination methods (such as PCA, RDA, CA), which are mainly exploratory, discriminant analyses are used in hypothesis testing in order to state how reliable are the group separation. Where are the results of the FDA's formal hypothesis test?
(3) I think a biplot (i.e., with the scores from both spider occurrence and habitat traits) of the FDA's two first axes would be more informative, so it will be possible to graphically visualize the patterns relating the species presence/absence with specific levels of the environmental variables.
(4) I also missed, in the main text, more information about the direction of the patterns. For instance, from lines 208 to 213 (in Results), it is just stated that water type and surrounded forest best discriminates the groups at the first axis. However, water type has four levels (creek, lave, rives, other) and surrounding forest has seven (deciduous, fields, infrastructure, pine, pine deciduous, spruce, other) and there is no straightforward information (in the main text) about what of these specific levels are positively (or negatively) related to the presence of D. fimbriatus and/or D. plantarius. This makes the reader go back and forth between Figure 3 and Table 4 to assess the patterns of the main results.
(5) The lack of the FDA biplot and clear information (in the main text) about the correlation direction between the presence/absence of D. fimbriatus/D. plantarius and the levels of each environmental variable in Results turn the same somewhat disconnected with the Discussion. For instance, the data/results patterns in the first paragraph of the Discussion (lines 233-248) are not clearly presented in the Results.
(6) I think basic descriptive results should also be added. Simple, quantitative information about the frequency of each species among habitat types would help the reader to assess the results of the formal hypotheses tests. For instance, at lines 241-242 in the Discussion “… We found D. plantarius most often at sites with slow-flowing rivers, and we found D. fimbriatus most often in bogs …”, this statement along with the FDA results, would be better supported with a basic description of species frequency among the categories of water types and speed.

References:
Dabrowska-Prot E, Luczak J, Tarwid K. 1968. Prey and predator density and their reactions in the process of mosquito reduction by spiders in field experiments. Ekologia polska 16(40): 773-819.
Denno RF, Finke DL, Langellotto GA. 2005. Direct and indirect effects of vegetation structure and habitat complexity on predator-prey and predator-predator interactions. In Barbosa P, Castellanos I, ed. Ecology of predator-prey interactions. New York: Oxford University Press, 211-239.
Halaj J, Ross DW, Moldenke AR. 2000. Importance of habitat structure to the arthropod food‐web in Douglas‐fir canopies. Oikos 90(1): 139-152.
Luczak J. 1970. Behaviour of spider populations in the presence of mosquitoes. Ekologia polska 18(31): 625-634.
Experimental design: I would like to know whether differences in reproductive periods and life cycles between D. plantarius and D. fimbriatus would interfere with the final results. This is because the authors based the data majorly on adult reproductive females. So, the presence/absence of a given species in the author’s dataset will also depend on whether both species reproduce simultaneously. If, for instance, D. plantarius tends to reproduce earlier (or later) in relation to D. fimbriatus this would ultimately lead to a bias in filed counting. According to data provided by Spider Recording Scheme and the British Arachnological Society, in Britain, adults of D. plantarius are found from late spring to late summer (~ May to August) while the ones of D. fimbriatus are found throughout spring and in early summer (~ March to June). According to Smith (2000), most of D. plantarius nursey webs are built in late July and early August; Arnqvist (1992) collected adult males and females of D. fimbriatus in June; Lecigne (2016) reported an abundance peak of D. plantarius adults in June/July and suggested that the co-existence of D. fimbriatus and D. plantarius in the same site is possible due to niche partitioning. A significant overlap of reproductive periods and phenology between the two species is necessary to compare the abundance of the two adult populations assessed simultaneously. I couldn’t find in the text information about when the authors collected the data. Additionally, have the authors included adult males in the data set? If no, why?

The authors certainly did an amazing job by sampling 31 different sites. However, I am worried about the possibility of some degree of dependence among sites, as closer water bodies tend to be similar to each other. How have the authors dealt with the possibility of spatial dependence among sites?
At lines 176-178 in Materials & Methods “… In addition, we used a single-season occupancy model (MacKenzie et al., 2002) within the unmarked package (Fiske & Chandler, 2011) to predict the nursery detection probability pooled for both species …”; why was the data of D. fimbriatus and D. plantarius pooled together, as it is possible that each species has different micro-habitat preferences for the construction of the nursery-web?

References:
Arnqvist G. 1992. Courtship behavior and sexual cannibalism in the semi-aquatic fishing spider, Dolomedes fimbriatus (Clerck) (Araneae: Pisauridae). Journal of Arachnology 20(3): 222-226.
Lecigne S. 2016. Redécouverte de Dolomedes plantarius (Clerck, 1758) (Araneae, Pisauridae) en région Nord-Pas-de-Calais (France), actualisation de sa distribution en France et aperçu de la situation en Europe. Revue arachnologique 2(3): 28-41.
Smith H. 2000. The status and conservation of the fen raft spider (Dolomedes plantarius) at Redgrave and Lopham Fen National Nature Reserve, England. Biological Conservation 95(2): 153-164.
Validity of the findings: The paper’s findings are valid to better understand the species-specific requirements of semi-aquatic spiders in freshwater environments, mainly concerning physical aspects of the habitat, such as architectural plant traits and water features (e.g., type, pH, speed, clearness).
Spiders’ populations are affected by biotic factors, such and prey abundance, dispersal rate, and predator pressure; and, as I said above, these factors should be pondered when interpreting this study's findings.

However, the populations of semiaquatic spiders are particularly affected by abiotic factors due to their dependence on water bodies. So, understanding how factors such as water pH, speed of water flow, humidity, the physical arrangement of the branches (i.e., architecture) from riparian vegetation, and water quality, in general, affect the presence of such spiders is of major relevance to restore and conserve their populations.

The paper also points out how fragmented observations of previous studies on natural history, such as the relative scarcity and apparent narrower habitat preferences of D. plantarius could be applied to broader questions in conservation.
Additional comments: At lines 30-32 of the abstract, the clauses “… We found that habitat requirements were narrower for D. plantarius compared to D. fimbriatus …” and “… the detection of nursery webs can be affected by weather conditions …” seem disjointed within the same sentence.

At lines 44-45 in Introduction, “… the first world’s scientists warning to humanity …”; I think to use of the term “first world” (as opposed to third world), if that is what the authors mean, may be outdated and inappropriate, as “first, second and third world” were terms coined in a Cold War context and they don’t reflect the relative importance of the opinions of scientists coming from these countries.

At lines 74-75 in the Introduction “… Habitat loss might have more severe consequences for D. plantarius, which has less plasticity …”.  The term plasticity should be used more carefully, as it doesn’t necessarily a species with broad ecological requirements is “more plastic” than a species that requires more strict environmental conditions. For instance, a more generalist species could have their broad requirements genetically fixed through many generations of selective pressures for less habitat specificity, but it doesn’t mean it is more “plastic” in the sense that a given genotype could yield reaction norms. In order to prove plasticity, a set of specific experiments must be carried out in order to demonstrate a determined genotype can generate different phenotypes of a trait according to stimuli variation.

At lines 111-112 in Materials & Methods “… see transect description below …”; the authors should refer to Figure 2.
At lines 122-123 in Materials & Methods “… Further, we detected spiders and nursery during the systematic data collection on transects, increasing the duration of the effective search …”. Does the time the authors spent collecting the data (and consequently recorded additional spider individuals and nursery webs) was similar for each site, as the longer the time the higher the chance of recording more individuals/nursery webs? In order to keep the locations comparable, the sampling effort should be approximately the same for each site.

At lines 179-181 in Materials & Methods, “… We considered weather, microclimatic variables (wind, cloudiness, rain, shade), vegetation structure and sampling related variables as potentially influencing detectability …”; list what specifically were the variables related to weather, vegetation structure and sampling; cite the table with their respective details.

To better understand Figure 2, I depended too much on the main text (lines 141-155 of Materials & Methods). So, I think Figure 2 caption needs more development in order to be more self-explanatory and informative. Furthermore, Figure 2 pictures only the case with open water, while the authors carried out two more transect arrangements (no open water with gradient and no opens water without gradient); and the terrestrial plot located at 12m from the water is missing in the figure.

In Table 2: (1) complement the name of the first column with “Percentage of Cover” instead of just “Percentage”; (2) at the second column name “Number.of.occurrences”, replace the dots with spaces; (3) at the third column, the categories “2m”, “2a”, and “2b” were not originally from Braun-Blanquet (1928, 1932, 1964) but indeed subcategories implemented by Barkman et al. (1964) to more refinement; (4) again, I feel the Table 2 caption could be more informative, so the reader can be more independent of the main text to understand the table.

In Table 3: (1) At the third line (Aquatic vegetation) replace the name Braun-Blanquet with the acronym “BB” which is already established in table’s caption; (2) Why at the lines 148-149 of materials & methods “… Terrestrial plots were located at two, seven and twelve meters from the water edge …” the authors inform the variable plot distance from water had four levels (2, 7 and 12 meters from the water edge, plus the plot on the edge) and at the fourth line of the table (Distance to water) the level 12m is missing?; (3) At the sixth line (Dominant plant group), what were the criteria to define the groups (taxonomical, functional, architectural, …) and whether a group was dominant or not in each plot? I couldn’t find this information on the main text; (4) At the seventh line (Horizontal cover), how was this measure taken? I couldn’t find this information on the main text; (5) From lines 15th to 20th (Carex spp., Juncus spp., Typha spp., Phragmites spp., Sphagnum spp., and Deciduous plants), the authors expressed the Braun-Blanquet scale as abundance, what I understand as the number of plant individuals; whereas in Table 2 the Braun-Blanquet scale was defined as a combination of abundance and percentage of cover. In their book chapter, Westhoff & Van Der Maarel (1978) named the estimation as “cover-abundance”. Because some plant individuals can be broad and others thin, cover and abundance are not always equivalent. Furthermore, the abbreviation “spp.” should not be italicized.

In Table 4, it would be more interesting to list the variable levels in descending order according to their load values. This would allow the reader an easier assessment of the variables which most contribute to group discrimination.

In Figure 3, it seems the shape that represents sites with both species (observed) is circle and not square, as stated in the caption. I also think the captions need some rewritten for more clarity. For instance, at first glance, it seems triangle AND green define sites with only D. fimbriatus, and the information that shape defines actual observation and colour expected observations only appear at the bottom. Maybe a better it could appear like this: “Plot of the results from the flexible discriminant analysis (FDA), where colours represent observed occurrences of the species, shapes predicted occurrences, and ellipses indicate uncertainty of predicted species occurrences (95% confidence intervals). Presence of both species (observed: red, actual: circle), only D. fimbriatus (observed: green, actual: triangle) …”. Furthermore, I wonder whether a biplot (with both scores, for sites and the environmental variables) would be a more interesting option, as it would also show how the sites are grouped around some of the predictors. A biplot would also work better with Table 4.

At lines 218-219 in Results “… humidity at ground level (selection frequency = 0.02) and the intercept (selection frequency = 0.01) …”, the selection frequency of the intercept is not consistent with Figure 4, as in the latter intercept is showed as the second most important, just behind “Distance water”. Additionally, I think some explanation about what “intercept” means, in this case, would help.

In Figure 4, the caption writing does not match the plot. For instance, the plot variables “Distance water”, “Sedges”, “Crossing structure”, “Site ID”, and “Humidity ground” are captioned as “distanceWater”, “rCarex”, “rCrossingStr”, “siteID”, and “humidityGround.sc”, respectively. Furthermore, an explanation of "intercept" (in the plot) is also missing in the caption.
In Figure 5 plot A, the labels of the categories “no Water” and “other” are overlaid. Furthermore, the meaning of the category “other” should be explained in the caption.

At lines 252-253 “… This observation is validated for one of the sympatric sites sampled (Fig. 1) …” and “… we found two sympatric populations on the vegetation at the shore of a lake (Finjasjön lake, Fig. 1) …” in the Discussion, the citation of Figure 1 would be justified if this specific fen and the Finjasjön lake were identified on the map.

References:
Barkman JJ, Doing H, Segal S. 1964. Kritische bemerkungen und vorschläge zur quantitativen vegetationsanalyse. Acta botanica neerlandica 13(3): 394-419.
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1928. Pflanzensoziologie: grundzüge der vegetationskunde. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 37-52, 197.
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 30-39, 53.
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1964. Pflanzensoziologie_ Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. Wien: Springer-Verlag, pp. 32-41, 52-53.
Westhoff V, Van Der Maarel E. 1978. The braun-blanquet approach. In: Classification of plant communities. Springer, 287–399.


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 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF EUROPEAN FISHING SPIDERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is clear, professional, and easy-to-understand. The authors have now addressed all of my concerns with their revisions.
I did catch one very small error. On the caption for figure 5, there should be a comma before "(E)", not a period.
The authors provide more introductory background now with their revision, as requested. The figures look better now that they have conducted their revisions. Results are relevant to their study and their hypotheses.
Experimental design: The research is original primary research and does fit within the Aims and Scope of PeerJ.
The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful, and it is state how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The investigation has limitations, though the authors admit these limitations in their discussion. Specifically, they admit that their sample size is small and that their sampling was limited, preventing them from making some more advanced conclusions.
The revisions that were completed improved the clarity of the methods.
Validity of the findings: Findings are novel and add to our knowledge of Dolomedes habitat preferences within Fennoscandia. Conclusions are related back to the conservation status of one of the two species studied.
Data have been provided and seem sound.
Results and conclusions are well stated, especially after the revisions.
Additional comments: Great work!


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 HABITAT REQUIREMENTS OF EUROPEAN FISHING SPIDERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I thought the English expression and logic could have been further improved by revisions in response to several reviewers' comments.
Experimental design: What I did not understand about the survey design was resolved by the author's comments.
Validity of the findings: As with the previous comments, I think this study has provided valuable insights into the conservation of wetland organisms.
Additional comments: None in particular.