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

Input:
Title: FIRST INSIGHT INTO THE VIRAL COMMUNITY OF THE CNIDARIAN MODEL METAORGANISM AIPTASIA USING RNA-SEQ DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this article, the authors make an effort to describe for the first time the viruses associated with the emerging sea anemone model, Aiptasia. Although using limited sequences from RNA-Seq data, the viral communities described make a first step into characterizing the virome within the anemone holobiont. The authors found that, although biased based on methodology, the majority of the viruses found were ssRNA(-) matching to many vertebrate and plant viruses. Additionally, most of the described viruses were stable throughout different symbiotic states.

Sufficient background and references were included, and figures and tables contained all pertinent information and were clear.

Although the study contained many drawbacks with the sequencing method, the authors do not adequately address them. For example, the viral read numbers are quite low (<100 in one case). Although I realize the published data set cannot be supplemented, it is necessary to acknowledge the insufficiencies of the study which are pointed out below.
Experimental design: This research does address a particularly relevant and meaningful question in holobiont research, and adequately describes the knowledge gap in the Aiptasia model. However, I have some reservations in methodologies that I'll elaborate on below.

It is unclear whether or not these sequences were ever assembled or if all analyses were done on the 180bp reads. Did all reads map to viruses present in the database? Or were only the reads that did analyzed? If they are just reads and not contigs, are they normalized in any way to the reference genome size when determining abundance?

The virus read pairs are quite low in abundance and may preclude you from being able to do adequate analyses on the viral community. The study cited in the article (Brüwer et al. (2017)) that utilizes this same method, assembled contigs (which was not done here) in addition to mapping reads to known viruses. The low number of reads may indicate a lack of coverage and therefore an inability to assemble contigs, however, this drawback needs to be discussed in the manuscript. This low coverage may also be a reason no phages were seen in this sample set, especially because of how much larger the genomes are for Herpes viruses and the other eukaryotic viruses are compared to phages.
Validity of the findings: Many of the findings are nicely described. The concerns on how the abundances are calculated and the lack of assemblies to infer diversity of the virome are described in the above experimental design section.

However, the identification of a "core" virome in Aiptasia is quite misleading because these animals are  all the same species and are all reared together in ASW in the lab. I would describe this as more of a stable virome across symbiotic states.
Additional comments: The Aiptasia model is a highly tractable and emerging model system in holobiont research, and characterizing the viral component is necessary. This article represents an initial study on the viral community in Aiptasia and the changes and stability in the structure over various symbiotic states. The authors have done as much as possible with the available data, however, it is very important to address the caveats of the study and methodologies which the authors largely failed to do. In particular, low number of reads, the lack of reported assemblies and the absence of bacteriophages within the viral is quite peculiar seeing as there are numerous bacterial reads and that phages are so dominant in Hydra, other corals and marine invertebrates. These may indeed be fault of the RNA-Seq method, but suggesting a future direction and necessity of verifying these findings through metagenomics would be nice to include in the Discussion or Conclusion.

A few suggested basic edits:
In the abstract (lines 28-29), the authors state that only few studies have "characterized viral diversity and the potential underlying functional importance to coral holobionts", and this is just not true. I would suggest rewording to emphasize the limited knowledge of the Aiptasia virome and the use for it as a model for coral research.

Line 61: and immune system? Clarify immune function or immunity
Line 295: Delete extra single parenthesis.
Line 354: "many animals and host" seems redundant
Line 355: coral holobionts are actually one of the most well studied seeing as studying these organisms was how the concept originated. Would be better to focus on anemones and other marine inverts.
Line 365: importance of viruses *within* the ....

Figure 2 and legend extends far beyond the margins.


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

Input:
Title: FIRST INSIGHT INTO THE VIRAL COMMUNITY OF THE CNIDARIAN MODEL METAORGANISM AIPTASIA USING RNA-SEQ DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: The shortcomings of the experimental design have now been well-explained in the revised test and the caveats have been presented in more detail, which was lacking in the original manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The revised manuscript now includes much more detailed explanation on the shortcomings in the original. The discussion now includes the limitations of the approach used and the subsequent data that was analysed.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: FIRST INSIGHT INTO THE VIRAL COMMUNITY OF THE CNIDARIAN MODEL METAORGANISM AIPTASIA USING RNA-SEQ DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised article reads much smoother and does a much better job representing the data. I only have a few comments.
1.	In the abstract, the authors comment on the limitations of the data set by only saying “Despite the limitations of the current approach, our study…” I feel this really leaves the reader hanging. I suggest expanding slightly so that the opening phrase lets readers know where and why the approach is limited. E.g., “Despite the non-random selection of viral genetic material due to the sequencing method used, our study…”
2.	I am not sure where viral ecology is in the progression from using “community” to “assemblage” as terms to describe limited snapshots of viral associations with hosts, but I would encourage the authors to consider the terms. I get the sense, only from personal conversations with our field, that things are moving towards “assemblage”.
3.	Line 137-139: is there a reference for this statement?
4.	Line 238: please be consistent – are they stars (see line 229) or pentagons?
5.	Link 289-290: “…NCLDV, also known as giant viruses, …” is an incorrect statement. They contain the giant viruses, but not all families in NCLDV are giant viruses.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I am still not overly convinced by the high abundance of herpes virus sequences, mostly b/c when we did a sequence recruitment to a herpes genome in the databases (SuHV1, NCBI genome NC_006151), a lot of the higher blast score reads were to repeat regions. (Wood-Charlson 2015, Figure 2).

If you explore this, and the reads recruit to annotated regions, then I would be convinced.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: FIRST INSIGHT INTO THE VIRAL COMMUNITY OF THE CNIDARIAN MODEL METAORGANISM AIPTASIA USING RNA-SEQ DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors use clear and unambiguous language throughout the text and have addressed my concerns. The insufficiencies of the study have been adequately addressed and references updated.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed my concerns on  the design of the study and have acknowledged its limitations thoroughly.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed my concerns in the description of their findings and it's caveats.
Additional comments: This paper will no doubt serve as a catalyst for more in depth studies investigating the role of viruses in developing model systems for host-microbe interactions.


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: GRAZING INFLUENCES STIPA BREVIFLORA SEED GERMINATION IN DESERT GRASSLANDS OF THE INNER MONGOLIA PLATEAU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This study is exploring the influencing factors and strategies of seed germination in desert grasslands under grazing treatment. It is very important to know the reproductive allocation, seed density, seed properties, and the corresponding seed germination rates of a dominant species for restoration of disturbed grassland. I think this study is well designed and paper is well written by authors whose English is the second language. I just have several small questions.
1: Please add full genus name for “S. breviflora” in abstract.
2: The size of each treatment?
3: There are too many figures. I think you can combine several figures. As for tables, it is the same problem.


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: GRAZING INFLUENCES STIPA BREVIFLORA SEED GERMINATION IN DESERT GRASSLANDS OF THE INNER MONGOLIA PLATEAU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript did a nice job of reviewing relevant literature in the introduction to give the context of the work.  The structure conforms to PeerJ standards, the figures are relevant and well described, and the raw data are supplied.

However, there are many places where the English language is unclear.  For instance, Lines 187-190, the meaning of this sentence is not clear to me as a reader, in order for the findings to be accessible to an international audience the language would need to be clarified here and elsewhere throughout the manuscript.
Experimental design: The experiments and observations represent original primary research within scope of the journal. However, the case could be stronger for how this fills a knowledge gap in the literature.

Within the methods, there were a few places where there was not enough justification for the chosen method, or not enough detail to replicate the measurements:

Line 125, is 14 days long enough to survey germination in this species?

Line 162, it's interesting that you're reporting the "weight exceeded by germinable seeds", do you mean this is the minimum weight of a seed that will germinate? This needs to be defined more clearly.

Line 166 - you state that you chose "close to ideal" seeds for the awn removal experiment, what characteristics did you use to identify those ideal seeds?

Aspects of the statistical analysis should also be made clearer. For instance: Line 170 "Additionally, based on the results of the two-factor ANOVA (Table 1), the germination rate of S. breviflora was affected by grazing treatment and awn-removal treatment." Looking at the Table, I see that both grazing treatment and awn removal are significant as main factors, but there is not a statistical interaction. To be clear on the findings, this should be stated in the results. Also, you should state how grazing treatment influenced germination rate, did grazing result in a decline in germination rate?
Validity of the findings: The Discussion is well structured around the primary findings and cites relevant literature to place the results in context. However, the Conclusions paragraph is confusing. For instance, lines 253-255, " Among individuals, desert steppe plants maintained a fixed proportion of
seeds for germination in the soil seed bank for the number of plant species by reducing the lower limit of seed germination potential." Since this experiment was focused on just one species, the "number of plant species" seems incorrect here. Also "reducing the lower limit of seed germination potential" is also unclear. I think this conclusion means that under grazing there are similar numbers of seeds in the seedbank per reproductive individual, but the seeds are smaller.

Minor:

Lines 182-184, these data should be presented in the Results section.
Additional comments: In summary, the manuscript is well written and carefully prepared. However, the English language requires revision to make all statements of findings clear. The introduction could also be improved to clarify why this study fills a knowledge gap.


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: GRAZING INFLUENCES STIPA BREVIFLORA SEED GERMINATION IN DESERT GRASSLANDS OF THE INNER MONGOLIA PLATEAU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) the language needs further improvement.
2) some background information of sub-experiment needs to be provide.
Experimental design: Some methods for parameter calculation, such as, weight ratio of productive branch,  need to supply.
Validity of the findings: Some conclusions are over speculated.
Additional comments: General Comments:
Liu et al. reported the results of the effects of grazing intensity on seed germination characteristics of Stipa breviflora by a field grazing experiment in a desert steppe of Inner Mongolian grassland. Also, they examined the impacts of awn presence or absence and the angles of seeds entering soil on the germination of the seeds of this species. They found that, the abundance of reproductive individuals as well as seed density and soil seed bank were higher under no grazing treatment than those under mediate and heavy grazing treatments. Awn removal enhanced the germination of the seeds and the angles of seeds entering the soil also exerted strong impacts on seed germination. They concluded that grazing negatively affected grassland vegetation and plants adopted different strategies under different intensities of grazing. This study provides some important information on our understanding of responses of native grassland species to grazing intensities. However, some issues constrain my recommendation for publishing on PeerJ.
First, the title is not appropriate in my opinion. Influencing factors and strategies are too broad. You should focus on your studied issues. More important, this study only examined the responses of one species, i.e., Stipa breviflora. Other species you did not addressed. But your title did not reflect this feature of your study.
Second, the reproduction process and the germination process are totally different stages though they are successively connected. The mechanisms for species’ responses to these processes may be totally different, therefore, I suggest that you’d better to separate this MS into two ones. One focuses on the reproductive features and the other on the germination of seeds.
Third, in the introduction section, you should present some background of your sub-experiment, for example, why you do the experiment of awn removal. For Stipa breviflora, awn is an important organ for seeds burying themselves as it usually helps the seeds entering the soil. It has been suggested that this organ will not depart from the seeds until the seeds reach the optimal depth. So why do you remove the awn in your experiment? Dose this have general scientific significance?
Finally, some conclusions are over explained. For instance, you stated that “grazing negatively affected grassland vegetation” in your abstract. However, you only examined the response of one species, it can not represent the vegetation response of your community. Intermediate disturbance hypothesis has suggested that ecosystem biodiversity is highest at mediate disturbance intensity and grazing optimization hypothesis suggests that productivity of grassland vegetation reaches a peak at moderate grazing intensity.

Minor Points:
In abstract section, you need not present all results of your experiment, Please focus on the very important findings and the major mechanisms for these findings.
Line 22: add the name of the species after population.
Lines 25-26: the meaning of the sentence ‘The highest … … then heavy grazing’ is unclear. Please replace it with “For seed density and seed bank in soil, the highest values were observed at no grazing treatment, followed by moderate and heavy grazing treatment”
Lines 26-27: the meaning of “The number of seed germination … … 1/4 of the number of seeds” is unclear. Please replace it with “Generally about one quarter seeds in the seed bank germinated during the growing season”.
Many sentences need rewrite for clarity.
Line 59: replace “protection” with “adaptation”.
Line 82: add “annual” before “sunshine”.
Line 88: the information about the community need to supply, as interactions among plant species may affect species reproduction.
Lines 158-159: delete “seed phenotypic characteristics”, this is the results please present the specific parameters you measured.
Line 199: the meaning of “ the perspective of the observations must be considered” is unclear.
Line 202: the meaning of “ the parameters of grazing must be analyzed” is unclear.
Line 230: please give a definition for “prudent germination strategy”.
Figure 4: Please describe the methods for calculating the parameters. For example, how do you estimate weight ratio of productive branch, and of foliage branch.
Figure 6: the unit “g” for seed weight and for awn weight is not appropriate, “mg” or “µg” may be more suitable. Similar issue exists in Figure 7.


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: GRAZING INFLUENCES STIPA BREVIFLORA SEED GERMINATION IN DESERT GRASSLANDS OF THE INNER MONGOLIA PLATEAU
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing is good. But some places is not professional.
Experimental design: The experimental design is reasonable. Authors provide enough details.
Validity of the findings: Well done.
Additional comments: The manuscript is edited very well after authors completed the first revision. I suggest acceptance if authors do some minor revision.

Title: Strategies of Stipa breviflora seed germination under grazing: a study of the desert grassland edificatory on the Inner Mongolia Plateau
In this study, I think you mainly explore whether or not seed germination was influenced by grazing. So I suggest you can change the title to “Grazing influences Stipa breviflora seed germination in desert grasslands of the Inner Mongolia Plateau”

Line 24 “reproductive individuals not subjected to grazing were significantly more abundant”, what does the “abundant” mean here?

Line 26-27 “Generally, approximately one-quarter of the seeds in the seed bank germinated during the growing season.” It does not sound like scientific writing.

Line 30-31 “Our research demonstrated that grazing negatively affected grassland vegetation.” Here authors just test one species, so the conclusion is not reasonable.

Line 29 change “dramatically” to significantly.

In discussion part:
In the first paragraph, if you write down clearly the most important findings of your study, it would be easier to understand your study for readers.
For each paragraph, what you mainly want to say, please write in the first sentence or the last sentence.


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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See comments to the authors.
Experimental design: Not assessed due to major limitation in the rationale.
Validity of the findings: Not assessed due to major limitation in the rationale.
Additional comments: Review of article 2017:10:21073:0:0: Bilateral asymmetry of crank torque and skin temperature on incremental cycling performance

General comments
This study intended to assess the relationship between bilateral asymmetries from skin temperature and crank torque in cycling. The issue is interesting but my query is if there is sufficient theoretical rationale for this comparison. Because we have so many muscles that could add up to the total crank torque, I would expect that this relationship would not build up, which seems to be the main finding.
The abstract is well organized but would benefit from some edits (see specific comments).
The introduction is well organized as well but I see two areas that need improvement:
1-	Overall rationale for assessing asymmetries in skin temperature: The argument provided by the authors is not sufficiently strong (no studies assessing this issue). My reason for questioning that is because we have resources today to measure pedal power for each leg. Therefore, no need to infer on asymmetries from skin temperature
2-	Elite cyclists: Always good to see studies on elite athletes, but what is the benefit of that in this particular case? Would be good if authors develop more on that.
3-	Use of the graded load test: This test has been used in the past because is valid for assessing endurance cycling performance but authors should provide a rationale why they opted for this rather than a time to exhaustion.
4-	Hypothesis: In my view, the hypothesis is not supported in the introduction or by prior research. Priego et al. 2015 observed only a moderate relationship between EMG and skin temperature. Obviously, the main interest is to predict muscle forces (either via EMG or skin temperature). I am just questioning whether skin temperature would be sufficient sensitive to detect that given subcutaneous tissue seems to play a major role on that (see Priego et al. 2015 and Priego et al. 2016 - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10973-016-5971-z).

Before we assess this study further, I believe the authors have to address the aforementioned issues.

Specific comments
Title: From the article title, it is very hard to assess what is the overall aim of this study. Please revise to provide more specific details on what is intended.

Abstract:
Line 26: ‘Muscle effort’ is too broad. Please be more specific.
Lines 28-30: Graded exercise testing involve a combination of fatigue and incremented load. Please reword your aims to take this combined effect into account.
Line 30: If they are elite, please remove the word ‘competitive’.
Lines 34-35: Please state clearly what do you mean by ‘interaction’. Do you mean crank torques increased?
Lines 35-36: Similar to previous comment.

Introduction:
Lines 50-54: Please add reference to recent systematic review in this topic: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2017.1361894
Line 62: Please add the following to your statement:
http://hrcak.srce.hr/168650?lang=en
https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/download/427/366
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1551927120?pq-origsite=gscholar
Line 63: Please revise given Priego et al found a moderate inverse relationship.
Lines 78-81: This is true, if we did not have easier and cheap access to power meters that provide measures of bilateral power. Please provide a stronger argument on why this assessment is critical.
Lines 83-84: I understand that this type of protocol has been used before and is reliable to assess endurance cycling performance. However, you have to develop more on why you selected this particular protocol. Keep in mind that you are dealing with a combined effect of workload and fatigue.
No comments are provided given limitations in the study rationale.


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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract:
Line 31: ‘limbs’ – thigh or shank or leg.
Line 78: ‘kinetic variable’ -> kinetics/kinematics and skin temperature..

Introduction
Line 63: ‘recently it has been found’ -> Recently a relationship….. has been found.
Line 78: ‘kinetic variable’ -> kinetics/kinematics and skin temperature..

Discussion:
Line 231-237: please reword to clarify.  Did Arfaoui use exactly the same 11 masters athletes?  This is implied but needs to be specified.  Were these masters athletes also experienced highly trained athletes?
Line 238: ‘former and latter’ -> Bertuccie et al. (2012) and Arfaoui et al. (2014)
Line 251: remove the ‘However’
Line 254-9: It is worth…. -> please reword to clarify.  It is just a little convoluted to read at the moment and could be stated more simply.
Line 262: ‘point of you’ -> point of VIEW
Experimental design: Line 106 – does this include moisturiser and sunscreen, soap residue?  Is it easier to say ‘was cleaned with an alcohol wipe’? if that is what happened?
Line 137: was the cyclist required to remain seated?
Validity of the findings: Should include a discussion:
-	the apparent greater inter-athlete variation in temperature than force production.
-	Final exhaustion AIT is negative and AIK is positive.
Additional comments: This is a good paper that presents useful novel research.  The main comments relate to expression.


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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript presents an investigation on the relationship between bilateral
kinetic and skin temperature variables during a fatiguing cycling exercise.
The manuscript is mostly well written, the authors show deep knowledge in the related area and the results support the claims.
However I have some suggestions to improve the publication:
- At the abstract, refrain from using personal pronouns such as "our results...", you can simple write "the obtained results...", it is more elegant.
- Add the keyword: skin temperature
- when you present thermal asymmetry at the introduction you are missing some relevant literature such as:
Zaproudina, N., Varmavuo, V., Airaksinen, O., & Närhi, M. (2008). Reproducibility of infrared thermography measurements in healthy individuals. Physiological measurement, 29(4), 515.
Vardasca, R., Ring, E. F. J., Plassmann, P., & Jones, C. D. (2012). Thermal symmetry of the upper and lower extremities in healthy subjects. Thermology international, 22(2), 53-60.
- At methodology, nothing is referred about subject preparation in terms of intaking an heavy meal, alcohol, drugs, coffee or tea before exercise, and these factor are known for influencing skin temperature measurements.
- When the authors describe the infrared camera used, they mention thermal resolution but the value refers to NETD (Non-Equivalent Temperature Difference), which is a totally different parameter and they do not specify the traceability of the instrument.
Experimental design: In terms of methodology the sample is small to make strong conclusions, however a more refined subject preparation protocol is advised, please attend what is suggested in:
Ring, E. F. J., & Ammer, K. (2000). The technique of infrared imaging in medicine. Thermology international, 10(1), 7-14.
Ammer, K., & Ring, E. F. J. (2006). Standard procedures for infrared imaging in medicine. Biomedical Engineering Handbook, CRC Press, 1.
Ammer, K. (2008). The Glamorgan Protocol for recording and evaluation of thermal images of the human body. Thermology international, 18(4), 125-144.
Validity of the findings: The findings are in line with the presented literature background.
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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments.
Experimental design: See general comments.
Validity of the findings: See general comments.
Additional comments: Review of article 2017:10:21073:0:0: Bilateral asymmetry of crank torque and skin temperature on incremental cycling performance

General comments
Authors provided a revised version a reply letter to my comments. Although skin temperature is a growing area in research and in sports monitoring, to me, upcoming studies (like this one) seem to be over interpreting finding from previous studies. I had the opportunity to be part of two studies using thermal infrared and we showed that this measure is not strongly related to performance or muscle activation during cycling. This leaves the question of whether skin temperature should be used as it has been in the field. This aim of this study is valid only if authors state very clearly that there is no prior expectation that asymmetries in skin temperature should be related to asymmetries in crank torque. If this is not stated clearly, the findings from this study will be over interpreted and practitioners will start using thermography to predict muscular asymmetries, which is not appropriate practice.
Therefore, my rebuttal to authors’ response leaves authors with the mission to revise their article (from top to bottom) and assume the aforementioned principles before we go through the article specifics. If authors are not willing to move this way, I cannot endorse the content of this study.

Rebuttal to author’s response
Authors provided some arguments in regards to my comments from the prior version of this study. I will pinpoint them and provide my view/comments on that:
1-	Authors acknowledged that the large number of muscles in the lower limbs constrains the potential for skin thermography to accurately track asymmetries during cycling. However, they went backwards by referring to previous studies in this issue (i.e. Arfaoui et al., 2014) which does not mean that this method is reliable. In my view, authors would have a rationale in their study if they agree that asymmetries in skin temperature should not be associated with asymmetries in crank torque. This does not seem the case from what is being presented in their article. Authors should keep in mind that Priego et al. 2015 only found a moderate association between skin temperature and activation of vastus lateralis and latter a moderate association with peak power (Priego et al. 2016). This is insufficient to ascertain that skin temperature is accurate to measure muscle effort or to assess bilateral asymmetries.
2-	Lack of rationale for the study: Authors moved to the absence of studies on elite athletes without providing a clear explanation on why this is important. In additional, they did not discuss the option of measuring pedal power which is more closely associated with muscle effort then skin temperature. This option should be brought clearly as the gold standard measure of asymmetries in cycling to date. In addition, the option of using musculoskeletal modeling should be discussed as an option to assess muscle asymemtries. They also escaped from the central part of the discussion by stating that their aim was to assess asymmetries in skin temperature. However, my question is what practitioners and clinicians gain in measuring skin temperature if this is not a reliable measure of muscle effort. The studies cited by authors do not add up on the story that authors are trying to tell (i.e. asymmetries in skin temperature are important). At the moment, there is no physiological background to start considering asymmetries in skin temperature as an important measure because this is not related to muscle effort. Prior publication or the lack of should not endorse future studies but only a solid rationale based on sound physiological mechanisms should be the anchor point for new studies.
3-	Incomplete hypothesis: Authors again did not provide solid evidence (only reference from an opinion based article). If the aim of the authors was to assess the relationship between asymmetries in skin temperature and crank torque, a solid physiological background is needed, which in my view could only be as follows: Asymmetries in skin temperature should not be associated with crank torque because these measures do not reflect muscle effort.

No comments are provided given limitations in the study rationale.


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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This now reads much better.  The figures are clear and support the prose.
Experimental design: Minutiae have now been clarified.  This is well expressed/
Validity of the findings: No further comment.
Additional comments: This is novel research and is now well expressed.  It would be interesting to see in a novice group - maybe those transitioning from one form of cycling to another, or even triathletes, where there is less training effect and asymmetry may be greater.  Good luck with further endeavours.


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: BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF SKIN TEMPERATURE IS NOT RELATED TO BILATERAL ASYMMETRY OF CRANK TORQUE DURING AN INCREMENTAL CYCLING EXERCISE TO EXHAUSTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I am happy with the authors responses and addressing to the reviewers comments.
Experimental design: I am happy with the authors responses and addressing to the reviewers comments.
Validity of the findings: I am happy with the authors responses and addressing to the reviewers comments.
Additional comments: I am happy with the authors responses and addressing to the reviewers 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: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION OF E-HEALTH TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY OF NIGERIAN HOSPITALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors used clear and easy to understand English
Background of the study
•	Review of literature on study’s background is scanty and does not present a clear picture the said topic. A more rigorous literature relating to the acceptance of e-Health by care providers would be needed
Problem statement
•	The authors state from line 6 … there exist a wide gap… does this gap relate to adoption by care providers?
•	On line 11 the authors have to be precise regarding the population of Nigeria (delete “about”
•	Reference is needed at the end of line 15.
•	I am not sure about the clarity of the problem statement – Seems to be motivation for the adoption of e-Health by healthcare organizations – acceptance at organizational level – Relate problem statement to individual acceptance of e-Health
Experimental design: Study Objectives
•	Research question “e”  could have been answered by formulating and testing hypotheses relating to various constructs in the model  to verify any association between the identified factors and the dependent/outcome variable
Theoretical background
•	I am not sure what theory underpins this research. On the one hand the authors state theory but did not make reference to any particular theory. Instead the authors chose to talk about TAM under research model. TAM, could have been placed under theory instead of research model
Research model
•	On line 15 the authors introduce “patients…?
•	On line 21 are human capacity and organizational factors. But these factors/constructs are not present in figure 1.
Sampling of participants
•	On line 21 are “non-medical staff… But these participants are clearly not healthcare professionals/providers!
•	Regarding the cover letter and the questionnaire – Did the authors assumed every healthcare provider or staff of healthcare facilities in Nigeria already know what e-health is?
Validity of the findings: Analysis
•	The authors state they have introduced three constructs (Human resource, …) to make up for the deficient TAM model. The authors do not state how those constructs were measured? Lots of missteps
Discussion
•	I'm afraid all the proposed questions have not been fully answered.
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: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION OF E-HEALTH TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY OF NIGERIAN HOSPITALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This interesting piece of work aims to investigate, identify and analyse the underlying factors that affect healthcare professionals decision to adopt and use e-health technology applications in developing countries, with particular reference to hospitals in Nigeria. That's well run and written and deserves consideration for publication. However, I have some minor comments authors may wish to address.
Experimental design: That's a cross sectional survey. Classical limitations should be considered.
Validity of the findings: That's a cross sectional survey. Classical limitations should be considered.
Additional comments: That's a cross sectional survey. Classical limitations should be considered. Please use for example http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2276?variant=full-text&hwshib2=authn%3A1513021746%3A20171210%253Ac207388f-8e7f-4a58-afe9-4041e6889f8c%3A0%3A0%3A0%3AIlFK0SLMhD6Ywi7DihLqJQ%3D%3D for limitations and https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf for reporting issues.
Also, I feel some wider International comparisons should be made using for example https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/478904 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107907


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: FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABLE ADOPTION OF E-HEALTH TECHNOLOGY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AN EXPLORATORY SURVEY OF NIGERIAN HOSPITALS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Acceptable
Experimental design: Acceptable
Validity of the findings: I feel a wider use of the International literature in terms of comparisons and alternative explanations is still needed.
Additional comments: I feel a wider use of the International literature in terms of comparisons and alternative explanations is still needed.


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

Input:
Title: INVESTIGATING THE MOLECULAR BASIS FOR HETEROPHYLLY IN THE AQUATIC PLANT POTAMOGETON OCTANDRUS (POTAMOGETONACEAE) WITH COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper entitled “Comparative transcriptomic analysis of heterophylly of the aquatic plant Potamogeton octandrus (Potamogetonaceae).” describes initial result of transcriptopme analysis to reveal the underlying mechanism of the heterophylly.

English is clear and professional enough. Background information and the aim of the research are well described.
Experimental design: The design of the research is reasonable and the experiments and analyses are carefully performed.

1) From line 246, the author mention Go enrichment analysis, but I do not find the data. Please show the results.
Validity of the findings: 1) In this paper, authors identified DEGs by comparing each developmental stages, not by comparing between floating and submerged leaves. Thus, it is not clear whether these DEGs are involved in regulating the heterophylly. Some conclusion and discussion might be too speculative and misleading. If they want to discuss the mechanism of the heterophylly in this paper, author should conduct the comparison between floating and submerged leaves. Or authors can mention the 22 transcription factors in cluster G3 in figure 6, because their expression are clearly different between JFl and AFL.

2) Definition of “unigene” and unigene sequence is unclear. I think that unigene is same as “gene” output from Trinity in this paper. Gene defined by Trinity includes one or more transcript sequences. But one unigene sequence was used for annotation. If gene has 2 or more transcript isoform sequences, What does unigene sequence mean?
Additional comments: some minor comments,

1) through out the text, some gene names are not italicized
2) Line130: Agarose gel isn’t used for Bioanalyzer. Is either agarose electrophoresis or Bioanalyzer assay or both used?
3) Line 133 CDNA>cDNA
4) Line134: I can’t find cDNA Synthesis Kit (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) to make RNAseq library. Is this product name correct?
5) Line 154 (NCBI...............   >   (NCBI............... )
6)Line186:Did you use the library kit for NGS library kit to make cDNA for qPCR?
7) From Additional file 6.xlsx, "#NAME?" should be removed.
8) I suggest showing sample name (shoot, JFL) rather than library ID in figure.


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

Input:
Title: INVESTIGATING THE MOLECULAR BASIS FOR HETEROPHYLLY IN THE AQUATIC PLANT POTAMOGETON OCTANDRUS (POTAMOGETONACEAE) WITH COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in clear, understandable language.
The introduction is for the most part relevant, but is missing important details about the study system. Is anything known about the development of these different leaf types? Is this a novel innovation or found throughout the genus? What is the ploidy of this species? The authors also choose to describe the specific form of heterophylly in this species in the methods. This seems to be more appropriate material for the introduction. I think that the specific form of heterophylly is important to interpret the results (as is the biological function of these leaf types) but the authors treat heterophylly as a general process.
The structure of the manuscript is appropriate to the journal and the raw data is submitted to an appropriate database.
The figures are generally understandable, with some exceptions. The replicate naming in figure 3,4 , and 5 should be changed to be consistent with the tissue naming using in the manuscript. The right axes in figure 4 and 5 have several labels at each tick without explanation. I can guess what is meant by this, but it is non-standard and probably could be better represented by a table. The left axis shows % of genes, but it is unclear if this is % of DE genes or % of category that is DE. Figure 6 has several unlabeled components (see the numbers on the right, which I assume are # of genes but I am not sure). What are the values here? Means of clusters? Overall I did not find figure 3-5 and figure 7 especially useful to understand the manuscript. These figures simply report gene counts of various kinds that are perhaps better reported in tables.
Experimental design: The experimental question that the authors pose is relevant and meaningful, however the authors do not set the system up well to resolve this question. I am not convinced that there results tell us much about the development of different leaf types. Most of the sampling is done far after developmental specification is likely to have completed, however this is unknown to the review because the authors present no analysis of developmental timing, nor do the reference previous studies that have investigated this. An essential first step in developmental analysis is a clear understanding of the timing of particular events. Additionally, they do not deal with the fact that some samples are confounded with underwater sampling, which undoubtedly modifies the transcriptome considerably.
The description of bioinformatics analysis is overall incomplete, often not fully describing pipelines, software version numbers, and parameters. For example, Bowtie2, a sequence alignment program, is described as being used “to quantify transcript abundance”.  This is followed by a “likelihood ratio test… to calculate gene expression levels and comparisons of the gene fragments per kb per million”. This is difficult to understand, and certainly incomplete with regards to what was actually done.
The assembly of the transcriptome is described slightly better, but I do not see any clear validation of its completeness.
Validity of the findings: I think that the production of a transcriptome is an important first step in the study of this species, but I find the manuscript’s focus on differentially expressed genes much less convincing. I do not think that there sampling clearly identifies relevant developmental time points that would allow them to identify important genes regulating development. As such I think the developmental framing of this manuscript is inappropriate. However, I do NOT think that this means that the comparisons are meaningless from a physiological standpoint, and perhaps the authors could re-envision the manuscript along those lines. Much of the manuscript is dedicated to describing potentially interesting, but cherry-picked genes from very large gene lists. Given potential complications with accurate annotations in this understudied system,
Additional brief, though not minor comments:
Why at the G clusters not consistent with the dendogram shown in the same figure?
Juvenile and adult are not appropriate terminology for a developing organ. Usually developmental stages are defined and then sampling is done based on those defined stages.
Terminology for id of DE genes is confusing here. I am not sure which threshold (or perhaps all thresholds were used ie pval threshold or fold change differences). Why do the authors report two fold change and log2 fold change great then one separately?
I am not sure what this sentence means “being annotated to 3,711 (8.73%) proteins of Elaeis”
Completeness of the transcriptome does not seem to have been tested.
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: INVESTIGATING THE MOLECULAR BASIS FOR HETEROPHYLLY IN THE AQUATIC PLANT POTAMOGETON OCTANDRUS (POTAMOGETONACEAE) WITH COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMICS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: I do not still see the data for the GO enrichment analysis. Figs. 4 and 5 show only the result of GO functional categorization.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Authors should use sample names throughout the article,  instead of using library ID.


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

Input:
Title: INVESTIGATING THE MOLECULAR BASIS FOR HETEROPHYLLY IN THE AQUATIC PLANT POTAMOGETON OCTANDRUS (POTAMOGETONACEAE) WITH COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOMICS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made an effort to satisfy my request for increased background information.
The authors have submitted their raw data to SRA, but this data has not been identified by sample appropriately. This study can not be replicated unless the specific samples are clearly described in the database.
Though the authors claim to have modified the figures (especially 3-5) I do not see these changes.
Experimental design: The experiment does not test for the transcriptional changes related to heterophyllus morphological change. I pointed this out in my previous review, but the authors chose to continue this focus. I think that the characterization of a new transcriptome is worthy of publication, but I remain unconvinced that the posed question is addressed. The authors could simply remove the developmental emphasis, point out that the transcriptome is a useful tool for gene identification, and that the species is interesting from a developmental standpoint. Besides the latter two points, I don't see how this study informs us about leaf morphological development.
If one wishes to understand the relationship between gene expression and morphological specification, then one has to compare gene expression patterns at stages where morphology is being specified.  A focused description of the developmental process is necessary to accomplish this. The authors do not show that they have collected relevant time points, nor do they cite literature that indicates that their collection times are appropriate.
Alternatively the authors could focus on whatever developmental processes that are still ongoing at their collection times. These would have to be delineated.
The author's claim that tissue limitations make it impossible to study appropriate stages only means that they cannot address the stated question with this approach.
As I also stated in my previous review, the terms juvenile and adult are inappropriate to describe leaf development here. The authors may redefine these terms, but they are in conflict with already established terminology used throughout developmental studies. I strongly recommend that they use appropriate terminology, or simply identify leaves based on size.
Validity of the findings: See above.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: SIMILAR ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FROM EFFORT AND DURATION MATCHED LEG PRESS AND RECUMBENT CYCLING TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors mentioned that " The adaptations in cardiorespiratory fitness typically thought to occur as a result of modalities of exercise such as cycling also have been reported to occur as a result of resistance training assuming intensity of effort is sufficiently 96  high (i.e. to momentary failure; Steele et al., 2012) irrespective of the manipulation of other variables (i.e. load, set volume, rest periods, and frequency; Ozaki et al., 2013a).” However, it is quite tendencious since there are several studies which showed that cardiorespiratory adaptations are minimal following resistance training, specially when compared to endurance training.

The authors also mentioned that " Conversely, the adaptations in strength and hypertrophy thought typically to occur from resistance training modalities of exercise have been found to occur as a result of aerobic modalities (Konopka and Harber, 2014), particularly if performed with a high effort (i.e. combined with 100  blood flow restriction, or with close proximity to failure; de Oliviera et al., 2016; Lundberg et al., 2013; Ozaki et al., 2015; Ozaki et al., 2013b). However, increases in maximal strength and muscle mass have been shown only following specific endurance modalities, such as rowing, cycling and, sprint running. Therefore, the authors’ statement is an oversimplification of the information.

Again, the authors mentioned that " it is thought that, similarly to ‘cardio’ modalities, resistance training to a high intensity of effort results in maximal aerobic and anaerobic metabolism, and as such local working muscle oxygen utilisation (VO2 ) and lactate production (Steele et  al., 2012).” Ok. there is a study. But, how about the others several studies showing a quite low oxygen uptake during resistance training? The authors should also mention the opposite results in order to bring the state of the art of the subject.

In general, the “Introduction" section is very confuse and the research problem is not sound. It is not clear why the authors are comparing something that have been extensively compared in the literature and induces quite different adaptations following a training period.

The mention of the Henneman’s size principle and its association with the resistance training performed at high or low loads performed to a near maximal effort is quite confuse and speculative.
Experimental design: Methods
The sample size in very small.

The Experimental design does not support the authors' conclusion.
Validity of the findings: Discussion and conclusion

The authors discussed and concluded that the “physiological responses” were similar, but actually, if we take a look on the results, there are quite different values in some variables that probably were not statistically different because of the insufficient sample size. In addition, the Henneman’s size principle is equivocally mentioned in the Discussion section.
The statement "It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that both may offer a similar stimulus to produce chronic physiological adaptations in outcomes such as cardiorespiratory fitness, strength, and hypertrophy.” is absolutely not supported by the results. What were the parameters investigated that could suggest that strength and hypertrophy are similarly stimulated following endurance and strength training? I did not find anyone to state such strong affirmation.
Additional comments: The purpose of this study was "to examine the effects of training utilising traditional resistance training (leg press)or ‘cardio’ exercise  (recumbent cycle ergometry) modalities whilst attempting to approximately control for effort and duration within ecologically valid protocols, upon acute physiological responses (VO2 , respiratory exchange ratio [RER], blood lactate, energy expenditure, muscle swelling, and electromyography). Along with the absence of originality, there are several concerns regarding the theory presented in the “Introduction” section to support the research problem; insufficient sample size to assess such parameters, specially electromyography; dissimilar physiological responses between conditions, although non-significant different (probably due to the sample size), in some important parameters, that are discussed as similar; among others. Please find below the specific comments.


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

Input:
Title: SIMILAR ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FROM EFFORT AND DURATION MATCHED LEG PRESS AND RECUMBENT CYCLING TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The present study aimed to examine the effects of training utilising traditional resistance training (leg press) or ‘cardio’ exercise (recumbent cycle ergometry) modalities whilst attempting to approximately control for effort and duration within ecologically valid protocols, upon acute physiological responses. This manuscript is well written. Congratulations. Future study should really focus on examining other acute responses, during and for longer periods after the exercise bouts.


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: SIMILAR ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FROM EFFORT AND DURATION MATCHED LEG PRESS AND RECUMBENT CYCLING TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Title: Similar acute physiological responses from effort and duration matched leg press and recumbent cycling tasks

Steele et al measured the effects of exercise utilising traditional resistance training (leg press) or ‘cardio’ 32 exercise (recumbent cycle ergometry) modalities upon acute physiological responses.

Nine healthy males underwent 33 a within session randomised crossover design. Conditions were approximately matched for effort and duration (leg press: 4 x 12RM, recumbent cycle ergometer: 4 x 60 second sprints). Measurements included VO2, respiratory exchange ratio (RER), 36 blood lactate, energy expenditure, muscle swelling, and electromyography. Perceived effort was similar between 37 conditions and thus both were well matched with respect to effort. The present study shows that, when both effort and duration are matched, resistance training and ‘cardio’ exercise produce largely similar physiological responses.
Experimental design: Minor concerns
INTRODUCTION:
-Line 64 use of capital letter (non-necessary)
-Line 66 (Lee et al, 2011) Are there some reference more updated?
-Line 75 There is no reference to this paragraph.
-Line 79….Whe authors says “high effort”,..can the authors explain about what effort? I mean high 1RMs…or looking for fatigue of muscles into a specific time usin resistant training?
-resistant training can include these abvreviations (RT)
-The authors could include some other similar effects of RT than HIT…over body composition: “Álvarez, C., Ramírez-Campillo, R., Ramírez-Vélez, R., & Izquierdo, M. (2017). Effects and prevalence of nonresponders after 12 weeks of high-intensity interval or resistance training in women with insulin resistance: a randomized trial. Journal of Applied Physiology, 122(4), 985-996”. This in order to compare than RT can be similar than HIT..or other exercise modalities at body composition….including performance.
-Line 181…Says Stature..can be changed by “Height”.
Validity of the findings: The literature is appropriate, and please to this section comments to review my general main and minor comments.
Additional comments: Main concerns.
-How can the author extrapolate or equally 12RM to 60 seconds? I sure that readers can be more clear if the author can explain a bit more about this.

-Although I can understand as scientific the methodology, I have appreciate that the CONCLUSION is to much strong in this “, when both effort and duration are matched, resistance training and ‘cardio’ exercise produce largely similar physiological responses”, where I recommend to be more specific/or to add some comment about in what physiological terms are these similar physiological terms.

-The author could include in the conclusion section at what specific physiological concern (VO2, RER, blood lactate, ee, muscle swelling, or electromyography)…are these equal physiological responses.

-Line 88. To reconsider re-organize into the others paragraph this last.

-I strongly recommend to reduce the INTRODUCTION section.


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: SIMILAR ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES FROM EFFORT AND DURATION MATCHED LEG PRESS AND RECUMBENT CYCLING TASKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I found improved this section after my first comments.
Experimental design: I found improved this section after my first comments.
Validity of the findings: I found improved this section after my first comments.
Additional comments: I found improved this section after my first 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: PRECOPULATORY BEHAVIOR AND SEXUAL CONFLICT IN THE DESERT LOCUST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout..
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Validity of the findings: Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled. Conclusion are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: Although the Desert locust is serious pest, their sexual behaviors have not been extensively examined. The present study provided fundamental information of sexual behaviors by generating ethogram based on detailed observation and showed sexual conflict. Experiments were systematically conducted and all figures, tables and illustrations were clear. Especially, they have clearly demonstrated “mating partner choice” in females by modifying female behavior with simple experimental technique. They also revealed how males copulate with females on her back. This manuscript has been well written and appropriately covered most important references. I think this is the first report demonstrating sexual conflict in locusts based on qualitative and quantitative data. The authors categorized various behaviors, so it will help to unify terminology. Publication from open journal such as PeerJ is highly valuable for scientists. I believe this manuscript will be cited by many researchers. This manuscript has been already acceptable. I will give a few minor comments.

Comment 1
L225 insert “hind” before leg

Comment 2
L375 & Fig. 6
The authors concluded that female sexual behavior was not clear. I agreed with this conclusion, but I am interested in how negative female’s behaviors (walking away or jumping away) influenced on the rate of kicking behaviors when males tried to mount on her. The authors observed courtship behavior of a couple within a container for 3 h, so some males might try to mount on evading females which jumped or walked away from the male. According to my experience, some gregarious females tended to accept male’s mating trial without rejecting behaviors when gregarious females approached to males and physically contacted with males by their antennae (less than 20 %). I guess females which displayed negative behavior at S3 (walking away or jumping away) tended to reject male’s mating trial. It is interesting to compare the rate of rejection between females displayed negative S3 and positive S3.

Comment 3
Tables
The authors used “”pre-mounting”, but they used “pre mounting” (without “-”) in table

Comment 4
L89 & L441 Please insert “Ould” before Ely.

I am looking forward to seeing future publications comparing solitarious and gregarious locusts by using this publication.


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

Input:
Title: PRECOPULATORY BEHAVIOR AND SEXUAL CONFLICT IN THE DESERT LOCUST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I suggest to make some small improvements:
- To note somewhere taxonomic position of the species (family, subfamily) and its author(s)
line 42 - to add Orthoptera, Acrididae
line 60 analyses-the > analyses -- the
line 86 Acridids > acridids
line 131 my guess is that electrical power of lamps per se (25W) is not very important, data concerning illuminations are essential!
line 213 Figure 1 denote > Figure 1 denotes
line 218 antenna > antennae
line 234 an antagonistic nature > antagonistic nature
line 238 a Markov process > the Markov process
line 378 comprisedpalp > comprised palp
line 382 intermitetenthigh > intermittent high
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: GENDER-ASSOCIATED FACTORS FOR FRAILTY AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors for this very interesting and good quality paper investigating the gender-associated risk factors for geriatric frailty and their impact on hospitalization and mortality among community-dwelling older adults. For the most part this paper is well written and well structured. The background to the research question and aims are quite well described and the manuscript progresses well with clearly described results and a thoughtful discussion. There is good logical development throughout the manuscript with   careful interpretation of the results and the implications of the findings. The research aims could be emphasised by the inclusion of additional information in the introduction which I describe in more detail in the General Comments below . There are also some grammatical issues which I have listed in the General Comments below.
Experimental design: The primary research question and aims fall within the scope of this journal. The research questions are well defined, relevant & meaningful. The paper clearly addresses a knowledge gap in relation to identifying the gender differences that exist when it comes to risk factors for frailty. Indeed the importance of gender differences in relation to disease risk is a very current and important topic of interest in clinical and epidemiological research
The study design is appropriate and robust enough to address the research question and the statistical methodology applied is also valid and appropriate.
The study uses a well described dataset from the highly reputable NHANES study from the USA. The study population, outcomes of interest and risk factors investigated are well described and defined with sufficient detail and information to replicate the analyses.
Validity of the findings: A stated above the study, design, data and statistical approach of this study are robust sound, & controlled. However, there are small number of participants within the deceased/mortality groups categorised by frailty. Therefore I would encourage the authors to acknowledge this in the Limitations of the Discussion section and indicate the replication of the findings in relation to cause of death in other studies
The conclusion are well stated, are a logical implication of the study results and link directly to the original research question.
The authors are thoughtful in their discussion and conclusion and do not to over-speculate, which is to be commended.
Additional comments: Major Issues
Introduction
1.	The authors provide a good background to the importance of frailty and how it is measured. Examining gender differences in risk factors for frailty is the main aim of this paper. However, what is known/unknown about gender differences for frailty and frailty risk factors is not addressed. A short paragraph describing what is known/unknown about gender differences for frailty and frailty risk factors would improve the introduction and would highlight why their research question and aim of the study is important. Some of the introduction describing the different frailty measurements could be sacrificed to include information on what is known/unknown about gender differences in frailty and risk factors for frailty.
Patients and Methods
1.	Lines 100-102: Please could the authors refer to the NHANES website and clarify that ethical approval and participant written informed consent was obtained prior to data collection by the NHANES study. Therefore, no further ethical approval and informed consent was required to perform the secondary analyses undertaken in this manuscript.
2.	Line 105: Please provide the mean age with age range, also percentage female in the study population of the community-dwelling geriatric subjects.
3.	Line 115-116: According to the Morley FRAIL scale, pre-frail individuals are classified as exhibiting 1-2 of the five FRAIL criteria specifically, not “individuals at risk for frailty who fulfil some, but not all, frailty criteria”. The authors should briefly clarify that the FRAIL scale scores of 0, 1-2, or 3-5 classify individuals as robust, pre-frail and frail respectively.
4.	Lines 119-121: When describing the mortality data, please indicate how long the follow-up period was for the mortality data in years, or what was the cut-off date for the mortality data.
5.	Lines 126: “disease associations” does not seem like an appropriate group title, perhaps “health and medical conditions” would be a better way to describe the variables (self-reported osteoporosis, fracture, prednisone or cortisone use, mental health consultation). Also hormone replacement therapy is more appropriately included with the “health and medical conditions” variables rather than lifestyle factors. This how these variables are described and grouped in Lines 206-208 of the Patients and Methods.
6.	Lines 219-222: In the Statistical Analysis section the authors apply the correct statistical tests and provide the commands from the SAS statistical software package. It would be useful if they included the actual name of the statistical test they applied. For example, Weighted linear regression analyses (PROC SURVEYREG) were used to test differences in continuous characteristics between participants clustered according to health status levels of robust, pre-frail, and frail. This should be done for PROC SURVEYFREQ and PROC SURVEYLOG also.
Results
1.	It would be helpful if the authors could provide a table comparing some of the characteristics of the study group (n=1953) and the group of participants with missing data (n=1126). This would allow some understanding of whether the missing participants are missing at random, or due to some other effect e.g. Are the missing participant group older, more male, in poorer health etc. Or are there no real differences between the study group and the missing data group.
2.	Lines 223-236: for the males, please indicate the direction of effect in the text for each variable significantly higher/lower in the pre-frail and frail.
For example: “However compared to robust, pre-frail and frail males were significantly older, more likely to be widowed/divorced, had lower family poverty income ratios, had lower levels of educational attainment, etc.
3.	241-244: Same for females, please include the direction of effect in the text for each variable significantly higher/lower in the pre-frail and frail.
4.	Lines 247-255: Please state that although the numbers are small (n=11), the leading cause of death among frail males was Y condition. Also please state the same for the frail females (n=7).
5.	Lines 264-267: Please do not list the Odds Ratios and p-values in one sentence. Please put the Odds Ratios and p-values beside the corresponding variables in lines 261-263. This was done correctly for the females in lines 273-280.
Table 1
1.	Please include frailty cluster and gender in the title of the Table 1, as you have done for Table 2.
“Subjects’ demographic and anthropometric characteristics and personal/family medical history by gender and frailty cluster”
2.	The p-value is missing for Family income/poverty ratio by frailty category among females.
Table 2.
1.	Please include frailty cluster in the title of the Table 2
“Subjects’ dietary intake, laboratory data and behavioral factors by gender and frailty cluster!
Table 3.
1.	Please include gender and frailty cluster in the title of the Table 3
“Causes of death by gender and frailty cluster”
Discussion
1.	Lines 286-289 Please also indicate the leading cause of death among frail males and frail females, but also stating that the number were very low.
2.	Lines 300-303: The point the authors are making here is important and correct. However, this sentence is too long and difficult to fully understand. Please rewrite as 2 or 3 shorter sentences. This will improve understanding and emphasise the point the authors are making about the etiology of frailty.
3.	Line 304: Please rephrase for clarity “frailty phenotype model and the frailty index, the FRAIL scale (Morley et al. 2012) used in this study incorporates aspects of both but discriminates frailty at a lower prevalence level.
4.	Lines 306-308: Please remove the first part of this sentence “Prediction of frailty is possible u Using the 5-item self-reported questionnaire (FRAIL scale) (Morley et al. 2012), has been shown to estimate frailty prevalence accurately in community-dwelling older adults (Yamada & Arai 2015)”
5.	There are a small number of participants within the deceased/mortality groups categorised by frailty cluster. Therefore I would encourage the authors to acknowledge this in the Limitations of the Discussion section, and indicate that replication of the findings in relation to cause of death in other studies is warrented.
Minor Issues
7.	Short running title: Please include a reference to gender as it is gender differences that are fundamental to this paper e.g. gender-related risks for geriatric frailty
8.	Keywords: Please include gender, as gender differences are fundamental to this paper.
9.	Key messages: it may be worth mentioning that there are differences in the gender-related risk factors as well as the commonalities that they highlight. I find the commonalities (chronic lower respiratory diseases) and differences in the leading cause of death causes of death interesting also, though not directly linked to frailty.
10.	Line 67: Please replace “At the same time as…” with “While…. “ or with  “Concomitantly frailty in older adults is associated with increased symptoms, complex diagnoses, and diminishing tolerance for medical interventions”.
11.	Line 83: Please replace “Managing geriatric patients must be able to diagnose frailty…” with “Managing geriatric patients requires the ability to diagnose frailty….”
12.	Line 85: Include a space between the end of the sentence and the reference. and death (Miller et al. 2017).
13.	Lines 95-96: Please replace “of USA” with “in the USA”.
14.	Line 106: (Morley et al 2012) is an incorrect reference, should this be Miller et al 2017 reference?
15.	Lines 119: The authors provided mortality data for all participants in the Results and Table 3, not just the frail. Please remove the word frail from this line.
16.	Line 132: Please replace “collected” with “analysed”, the data was not collected for males and females separately but was analysed by the authors separate


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: GENDER-ASSOCIATED FACTORS FOR FRAILTY AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is of significant interest but English needs significant improvement, The references are relevant, as the article structure. I am not sure about the hypothesis is good and supported by the results. There is nothing in your results that suggest anything about the help to clinicians to assess frailty and reduce health outcomes. You have to rethink this part of your study. The results are, however, of some interest (see my general/specific comments below) so I don;t want to repeat here.
Experimental design: Research question is not well defined (as I also said about the hypothesis) but still I think it can be rewritten as the results are of some interest.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions should be worked out - for now  they are purely speculative but this can be improved. You have your finding and just have to think how to summarize them in one-two sentences conclusion.
Additional comments: In the manuscript, you analyzed the associations between many different health-related factors with frailty operationalized using the FRAIL scale.  I am not sure that you can call them the risk factors for frailty (I am not also sure about the term “geriatric frailty” is good, frailty is predominantly applied for geriatric populations. The manuscript is well written (in some parts) but needs significant rewording in the other parts. Even the first sentence in the introductions needs some work. The other example is in lines 300, you might say “frailty is the biological phenomenon” not “biological framework”. The other example is in lines 339-341. The list of such places can be extended. I suggest to show your manuscript to a native English speaker- it would help.

Discussion in the abstract is too short, looks more like conclusion, although to be considered as conclusion it must be more substantial. I completely disagree with what is in Conclusion now- this is too speculative and it might fit for discussion not for conclusions.
The term “robust” is not a good, John Morley (the author of the FRAIL scale) called this category as “healthy” – I would suggest just “non-frail”- as it is not clear how healthy or robust they are.

Statistical analysis section. It is not clear for me how the sex-differences were assessed: by categories of frailty or overall? Reference to the SAS PROC (as any subroutine) is not needed. Sufficient to say that SAS was used for the analyses.

In Tables 1 & 2, just a few variables showed statistically significant difference between the categories of frailty by sex but not all results are intuitively clear. For example, the vitamin D insufficiency is found significance while Iron deficiency was not despite it looks otherwise from the numbers (that impression might be wrong) that is why is important to have more details in the methods section.

Table 3 shows that the death rate increased by the category of severity in both sexes.

Table 4 shows generally known significant relationships of frailty with some factors such as age, obesity, income, and some macronutrient intake or vitamin D insufficiency, physical inactivity and sleeplessness.

I suggest to put the Strength and Limitations section before conclusions- Conclusions means the final words. We have also to keep in mind that the results are obtained for the FRAIL scale, the other scale might not necessarily to give the same results. It could be said in this (limitations) section or could be provided some evidence that the other scales also identify these factors to be associated with frailty. The latter would be more interesting and important. If that is the case, it indicates that frailty as a phenomena is robust (here we can use this word) and however defined has the same associated factors (e.g., age, obesity, low exercise, etc.).

Figure 1 would be better to have the same order in both panels or perhaps alternatively to order them from the highest to lowest.


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: GENDER-ASSOCIATED FACTORS FOR FRAILTY AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is much improves following major revision and re-submission.
It now meets the criteria for basic reporting, although I would recommend one final review by a native English speaker to correct any minor grammatical issues.
Experimental design: The experimental design is valid and additional work on the aims of the study and the methods and analyses have improved the quality and clarity of the study.
Validity of the findings: The study, design, data and statistical approach of this study are robust sound, & controlled. The conclusion are well stated, are a logical implication of the study results and link directly to the original research question.
The authors are thoughtful in their discussion and conclusion and do not to over-speculate, which is to be commended.
Additional comments: I believe the authors have made every effort and have addressed sufficiently the issues raised by the reviewers.
I might just recommend one final review by a native English speaker to address any final minor grammatical issues.


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: GENDER-ASSOCIATED FACTORS FOR FRAILTY AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors responded to my questions/ comments and generally I am satisfied with their revised version of the manuscript. The manuscript satisfy the requirements to meet with the standards in terms of the background, the structure and the results.
Experimental design: Methods were described in sufficient details that are quite appropriate in the field.The results contribute to the area of frailty and aging.
Validity of the findings: Validity of the finding are not in any doubt. The results are not unexpected but still contribute to the body of knowledge in the research on aging and frailty.
Additional comments: The authors responded to my questions and made corrections according to my suggestions/ comment, One minor thing. The word "benchmark" in respect to the NHANES (see line 348) is not the best. I would suggest to change it to, for example "a well known" or "often used", or something like that..


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

Input:
Title: GENDER-ASSOCIATED FACTORS FOR FRAILTY AND THEIR IMPACT ON HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL POPULATION-BASED STUDY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no problems with the manuscript as the authors accounted to my comments/ concerns
Experimental design: There is no changes from the previous review- I have no problem with what called here experimental design
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid
Additional comments: The authors responded well to my questions/ concerns


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

Input:
Title: HIGH VARIABILITY OF DUNG BEETLE DIVERSITY PATTERNS AT FOUR MOUNTAINS OF THE TRANS-MEXICAN VOLCANIC BELT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some language polishing could improve the manuscript. Some of the lines where English could be improved are presented with structure (manuscript line: language item -> improvement suggestion):
Line 100: template -> temperate
Line 139: “more” than which other forest?
In general a more scientific style could improve the quality of the manuscript.

The manuscript is generally sufficiently referenced. However some references could be added to improve the contextualization (mainly in the introduction):
Line 117: The authors claim that their work is the first study on diversity patterns at high altitudes. However, there is a paper on dung beetles from 0 to 4000m. See Herzog et al. 2013. However, Herzog et al. study database material, it is not a field study. Moreover it focuses in Phanaenini, not including Aphodiinae neither Geotrupidae.
Surprisingly in the first paragraph of the discussion (line 255) they cite several references that report diversity patterns at similar altitudes.

Data is shared as supplementary material.

Reference:
Herzog S.K., Hamel-Leigue A.C., Larsen T.H., Mann D.J., Soria-Auza R.W., Gill B.D., Edmonds W., & Spector S. (2013) Elevational distribution and conservation biogeography of Phanaeine dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in Bolivia. PLoS One, 8, n
Experimental design: The manuscript lacks specific aims. Accordingly, hypothesis are missing and could be included to have a more aim-oriented manuscript. This results in doubts about the interest of the study.

Such a lack of focus and/or apparent interest stands out in the experimental design, which is my main concern of this work. Sampling sites seem loosely placed, which leads to a high variability of habitats in which they sample, forcing analysis to be over complicated for the main aim of the study.

However, methods used (beta, PCoA and TukeyHSD) seem appropriately chosen, explained and implemented.
Validity of the findings: Data is controlled, well replicated and robust, although a high proportion of traps did not yield any capture, which is understandable at such altitudes. Moreover, sampling completeness and coverage was adequately estimated (however, using the new method described in Hsieh et al. 2016 is recommended in the future).

Results are discussed in a generally speculative manner, not very linked to the reported results. I would encourage the authors to explain the patterns observed in a more contemporary scenario, rather than a broad geographical scale (South America mentioned several times) and a geological time scale (thousands and millions of years argued).
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: HIGH VARIABILITY OF DUNG BEETLE DIVERSITY PATTERNS AT FOUR MOUNTAINS OF THE TRANS-MEXICAN VOLCANIC BELT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript offer the results of dung beetle surveys carried out in four Mexican mountains of the Trans Mexican Volcanic Belts (TMVB). These results are interesting because the available information about these assemblages is scarce and these surveys provide faunistic information in mountains not previously surveyed. However, the authors need to offer more exhaustive information about former published studies carried out in the TMVB with dung beetles, clearly discriminating the novelty of their results within the context of the results and explanations provided by these former studies. Please consider that some of the authors of this manuscript also participate as co-authors in these former studies. Similarly, I consider that the manuscript need to offer clear objectives rooted in the available knowledge about temporal segregation or the meaning of the difference in the “dispersal patterns” of species. The authors state that “We aimed to describe diversity patterns within and between mountains and to explain the origin of these patterns, focusing on biogeographical (e.g. vertical and horizontal colonization, and speciation), as well as ecological variables (e.g. elevation, exposure, forest mosaics)”. In the discussion authors interpret the obtained results so that the main purpose of the study is not only descriptive. Authors should indicate what the implications are if richness and compositional patterns between mountain chains are similar or different, and also what is the purpose/implications of a variation (or lack of it) in the dispersal pattern.
•	Abstract. “our results indicate that species richness at high mountains”. Probably it is better to indicate that “our results indicate that both species richness and composition at high mountains”
•	The last sentence in the abstract is in my opinion not directly linked with the results of the manuscript and could be removed.
•	Line 52. The concepts of vertical and horizontal colonization are not standard in the literature and should be described in the introduction.
•	Line 77. “The mountains in the MTZ neither were glacial refuge…”. This statement is relatively contradictory with the own results provided by the authors and the existence of endemic species in these mountains belonging to Holarctic genera.
•	Line 99. “Whereas Scarabaeinae are most diverse and abundant in the tropics, the two latter groups are more diverse in northern template regions”. This statement should be supported by a reference.
•	In the introduction there are some unnecessary new paragraphs (line 81, line 112) which explain questions related with former paragraphs.
•	Lines 112-115. Please add some references supporting these affirmations
•	Line 116. “we present the first study of diversity patterns of dung beetles carried out at altitudes between 2700 and 3400 MASL”. There are other elevational studies using dung beetles in the Neotropical mountains at similar altitudes, some of them in Mexico, and the authors need to acknowledge and reference these studies.
•	Line 121. Change “origin” by “probable origin”
•	Consider to change directions by slopes
•	Fig. 3. According to the legend, values inside squares represent similarity among traps. However, if only a trap is located in each sampling occasion this in fact represent temporal or seasonal variation.
•	Line 229. All these compositional comparisons lack statistical support and the permutational test shows that there are not differences. The same happens in the case of “dispersion patterns” (dispersion or dispersal?; see Systematic Biology 26: 210-211)
•	Line 260. In the paper of Lobo & Halffter (2000) there are 13 species cited above 300 MSl, not three.
•	Line 254. Cofre de Perote can be considered not well sampled?
Experimental design: •	Line 120. If the study of temporal dynamics constitutes an objective of this study, authors need to incorporate in the introduction the status of the available knowledge about this question.
•	Methods. I suggest including topography in the map locating each one of the four sampled mountains.
•	Please define clearly what is the used sampling unit in subsequent analyses (e.g. all the specimens collected in the pitfall traps of an altitude and slope independently of the month)
•	Line 164. Please specify the sampling months.
•	Line 170. Please explain why direct observations about the dung beetles inhabiting gopher nest are important, and also why these results are not included in the analysis.
•	Methods. It is necessary to provide additional information about the followed nomenclature as well as how these specimens have been taxonomically determined. The identification of Aphodiinae species is not easy and the lack of comparative material seriously difficult this task. Please also indicate where voucher specimens are located.
•	Line 183. Please specify how beta diversity is calculated. If you have two altitudes and two slopes, is beta diversity reflecting the variability promoted by these two factors (slope and altitude)?
•	Analysis. The iNEXT online package (http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/inext-online/) can be used to estimate the probable number of species of each assemblage and the degree of completeness of collected inventories. In my opinion, authors need to demonstrate that the compared inventories are all submitted to similar sampling efforts, and iNEXT allow us to calculate the “coverage” reached for each assemblage because comparisons need to be carried out when estimated diversities have a common sample completeness” (see Ecological Monographs, 84, 45–67).
•	Table 1 must show “real” absolute number and not relative abundance values. Furthermore, authors should show the number of individuals collected for each species and site according with slope of each mountain.
•	Line 208. This is the first indication about sampling completeness. This question should be explained in the methods and the use of iNEXT may guarantee that comparisons are reliable. If completeness values oscillate from 78% to 96% the species richness comparisons may be erroneous because undetected species are not considered.
•	Line 210. These analyses need to be described in methods.
•	From Line 215. Such comparisons should consider undetected species to be valid (see Chao et al. 2017. Ecology in press, and Good Turing test at http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/good_turing/)
•	Line 241. If the authors aim to examine temporal variation in each site will be necessary to demonstrate that the inventories obtained in each period are comparable and exhaustive. Please consider that you have only one pitfall trap by month, altitude and slope.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no more comments