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: INTOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY AND CONDITIONED PLACE PREFERENCE IN OPIOID ADDICTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Concerning the basic reporting, the paper is well-written, well documented (i.e., solid list of references) ; the structure and the editing appear to be conform to PeerJ standards as I understand them. Figures were helpful to « visualize » the characteristics of the CPP task. Finally raw data was supplied. My main concern lies with the background to show context of the current study. The text from line 42 to line97 is quite disconnected for the goal of the study, the findings reported elsewhere and the theoretical aspects do not nicely revolve around the goal of the current study that is clearly stated from line 98 to line 125. I suggest that the authors reorganize the text before that with the goal in mind to set up a better context for their study.
Experimental design: The quality of both experimental design and the tested ideas are good and they dovetail nicely with the scope of the journal. The research question that consists in looking at how people with a drug addiction behave in a CPP preparation to understand their sensitivity to reward distribution has of some merits though the study has some limitations. But those limitations are clearly presented in the text and they do not preclude later publication.  My major concern is that the authors predict both scenarios for the results if I am not mistaken. To paraphrase them : « Second, it was also hypothesized that if patients have reduced reward sensitivity to non-drug reward, they would show reduced preference for the context associated with reward relative to controls. However, IU may also modulate preference given its prior association with decreased reward sensitivity in individuals with depression (Nelson, Shankman & Proudfit, 2014) but increased tendency to return to a previously-rewarded context in healthy young adults (Radell et al., 2016). » Say differently on a formal plan with two alternative A and B, they seem to predict A but also B. I found this approach questionable because one may think that more « thinking » would have be necessary to make a specific prediction. This needs more elaboration to understand the reason of this choice. At the present moment, the set of hypotheses require bilateral tests. As a friendly reminder, the reject of the hypothesis is decided whether the test value is significantly different, even it is inferior (link reject area) or superior (right reject area). The test is said unilateral when the null hypothesis checks if a value is superior or equal to the test value (link unilateral) or inferior or equal to this value (right unilateral). When the null hypothesis consists in testing the equality of the test value with a given value, the test is bilateral.
Validity of the findings: Validity of the findings is good. Especially because both methods and statistical analyses seem robust. My only concern here is that some size effects are missing (e.g., Chi square tests).
Additional comments: "no comment'


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

Input:
Title: INTOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY AND CONDITIONED PLACE PREFERENCE IN OPIOID ADDICTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors has addressed all concerns.  Thank you for the detailed explanations and for the considered revisions.


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: INTOLERANCE OF UNCERTAINTY AND CONDITIONED PLACE PREFERENCE IN OPIOID ADDICTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Good
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Good
Additional comments: The implemented changes greatly contributed to improving the final version of the paper.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM FERTILISATION ON AGGREGATES AND DYNAMICS OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON IN A SEMI-ARID AGRO-ECOSYSTEM IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Author’s understanding about organic fertilizer is not correct.
When there are N and P from the application of urea and superphosphate, respectively, I do not think that author can write these under organic fertilizer. It is a mix of organic and mineral fertilizers. Check: http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/organic-fertilizer.
Experimental design: Well-presented experimental design section.
Lines #19-20: Missing- why author is testing nine fertilizer treatments? A complete sentence is required. PS: this is a part of your abstract.
Author is encouraged to include an information about weather for the whole study period and show its relation to aggregate distribution and SOC content under Discussion section.
Line #108: Have you tested the major nutrient constituents of farm-yard manure derived from sheep? If yes, report it.
Validity of the findings: Few suggestion-
Besides table 4 and table 5- can you add a figure which can represent aggregate size distribution based on your nine different treatments?
Fig.3: Hard to read- choice of color for ‘year’ is not ideal. This needs to revise.
Additional comments: Lines #57-58: better to mention what was/ were the organic fertilizer in those study
Lines #104-105: 14 sq. m is total area or size of an individual plot? It’s clear on Fig. 1 but you have to make clear here also.
Line #118: 1998-2012 is 14 years, not a 15 (you are mentioning 15 years in Line #83)
Line #152: [suggestion] is there any simplified form to show regression?
Line #194: correction ‘was the lowest’
Line #219: ‘U’, let’s write uncorrelated residue too


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM FERTILISATION ON AGGREGATES AND DYNAMICS OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON IN A SEMI-ARID AGRO-ECOSYSTEM IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic is not interesting because the role of fertilisation, special organic material, in improving soil aggregation and SOC is accepted.
The article is written using poor English . There are many unscientific expression.
Experimental design: The experimental design is very common. For example, the M treatment is 7500 kg/ha organic manure, N treatment with 211.95 kg N/ ha. There is different amount of N between M and N treatments. So the improve in SOC or aggregate shoud not only attribute to organic manure.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion is widely accepted result.
Additional comments: The data of long-term experiment is valuable. If possible, you'd better sum up these data and suggest that long-term fertilization is more meaningful to agriculture or the agricultural economy.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM FERTILISATION ON AGGREGATES AND DYNAMICS OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON IN A SEMI-ARID AGRO-ECOSYSTEM IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: It is significant to study the effect of Long-term fertilization on aggregates and dynamics of soil organic carbon in semi-arid agro-ecosystem. The structure of the article is reasonable and the chart is clear.
But the "Introduction" part should sum up the related studies in the arid and semi-arid area, and compare the differences in the results of arid/semi-arid areas and other regions.
Experimental design: The experimental design is reasonable and the result is reliable.
Validity of the findings: A lot of research in this field, the article should highlight its characteristics in semi-arid region, other results can be classified as a tropical region, temperate humid region and arid and semi-arid region, and then compare the results of this study, in order to highlight the characteristics of this paper.
Additional comments: It is suggested that the theme of the article highlight the characteristics of the semi-arid area.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM FERTILISATION ON AGGREGATES AND DYNAMICS OF SOIL ORGANIC CARBON IN A SEMI-ARID AGRO-ECOSYSTEM IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Your paper is in good shape- it will provide valuable information to the scientific communities. English editing will make your paper more strong and easy to follow by readers.


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

Input:
Title: LIVING UPSIDE DOWN: PATTERNS OF RED CORAL SETTLEMENT IN A CAVE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Costantini et al. present the results of an experimental study conducted on the field, examining the recruitment patterns of red coral Corallium rubrum on settlement tiles deployed in a Mediterranean submarine cave, using genetic approaches, to investigate the relatedness and genetic structuring within and among cohorts in order to provide additional information on early life characteristics and population dynamics in this species. This is a very interesting study that was surely not that easy to set up, and it provides results that are new in this field for this species (relatedness among recruits) Overall the manuscript is well written, (though I have made small comments and corrections on the annotated pdf), data analysis are sounded, though there are missing information which needs to be added (mostly in Material and Method section, see below). Two figures (1 and 2) need improvement (both in terms of quality and mission information). See general comments for details. There are several issues (described hereafter) in the manuscript that I think the authors can easily address.
Experimental design: The submission does not really define a research question. There are no statements regarding how the study contributes to filling a possible gap. I suggest the authors to rewrite the end of their discussion by adding why their study is important in the context of what we know and what we do not know in this species and more generally in sessile marine invertebrates. In other term: why did the authors specifically investigated the recruitment patterns and genetic relationships among red coral recruits within a marine cave? What were the specific questions to answer when setting up this their experimental design?

My second point is that information regarding the experimental design and material and method are partially missing to fully understand what has been done exactly. The first missing information concerns the adult population within the cave (Line 109 and after): what were the adult population densities within this cave? on the ceiling versus on the walls? The second missing information concerns the cave itself: The description and figure of the cave is not clear enough: if it stands between 29 and 39meters, it means that the opening of the cave is 10 meters, but how wide is the opening? how deep is the cave (from the opening to the end?) It seems that figure 1 provides a view of the cave from the opening. I strongly suggest the authors to provide as well a complete profile of the cave (example: on the left the opening with the ceiling at 29m depth and the bottom at 39m depth, and one the extreme right the end (final wall) of the cave. Also, the authors should not forget the scales on their maps and drawing. And the third and final missing information that is probably the most important one, is how exactly the tiles were placed inside the cave: how were the tiles fixed compared to adult colonies? in between? how far from the adult colonies? How were they placed from each other: randomly placed? or placed regularly following a strait transect? or differently? It is written line 215 that tiles were 20cm distant but if a tile is 20x20cm, and the distance between 2 tiles is 20cm, it means that this distance represent the distance between the edges of the tiles, not the distance between the center of each square... this should be clarified somewhere: how exactly were placed the tiles? And how far were they fixed from the opening of the cave? 1 meter after the opening, further deeper in the cave? were they differences in light between the tiles? please provide all this missing information.

My third point concerns the distinction made between recruits and juveniles cohorts. It is written line 132-135: “Based on the literature on red coral early life stages (Bramanti et al., 2005) the age of each individual was estimated on the basis of its height: individuals with an encrusting button shape were assigned to the cohort 2011 (hereafter recruits); individuals that developed in height forming a small branch were assigned to the cohort 2010 (hereafter juveniles).” In this cited article, Baramanti and coauthors identified cohorts “based on the identification provided by 4 year's worth of transparencies”, underwater pictures were taken every year and then compared to the tile once removed after four years. They also indicated “As measurements of settler height were extremely difficult due to their small size, only cohorts 2, 3 and 4 were examined for this parameter”.
As recognized by the authors, line 340-342, “individuals settling on tiles showed a considerable variability in diameter and height, suggesting that growth rate in early red coral stages may be extremely variable and possibly much higher than the growth rates estimated in adult colonies (Bramanti et al. 2005; but see Table S2 in Cerrano et al. (2013)).“. Indeed, in this present manuscript, from all measurements presented in the different figures, we can see that diameter and number of polyps are overlapping between recruits and juveniles: Therefore, how was exactly made the distinction between the two cohorts? what is the accuracy in height estimates for the juveniles? in other term, what is the confidence interval around each height estimate? how can you be sure that a 0.5 mm height individual is not a fast growing recruit rather than a slow growing juvenile? could you not just use a gap in a height distribution among all 372 individuals? or such gap does not exist?
Therefore, it seems to me that some additional information is missing here: was there a threshold in height between recruits and juveniles? were all colonies of height close to 0 considered recruits while juveniles had a minimum height of 0.5mm (based on figure 5e)? when mixing several measures (height, diameter, nb of polyps, max width), were each individuals attributed to one of the other cohorts? i.e. were the individual points organised in two clouds?
Validity of the findings: One of the most important issue I see in this manuscript is that the conclusions drawn from the results are overstated (Line 32-33 and line 367 and after). The authors show in their study high relatedness among individuals located on the same tiles (i.e. at very small spatial scale), suggesting that most larvae recruiting nearby are sibs and that their parental colonies are in their close vicinity (though this is not checked). Then the authors conclude that the cave population is likely closed and self-recruiting (“The results suggest that in the cave the C. rubrum population is closed and self-recruiting and that a small proportion of individuals contribute to the recruitment” in the resume and in the conclusion: “The Colombara cave seems to host a closed and self-recruiting population”). But showing high relatedness at very small spatial scales does not necessarily mean that the population is closed and self-recruiting. Indeed, one can imagine that this could be the result of a cloud of larvae, possibly coming from outside the cave, that have settle all together within the cave. I do not really believe in such hypothesis, but no one can reject it. If the authors want to demonstrate that the red coral population within the cave is closed and mostly self recruiting, they need to conduct parentage analysis between recruits and adult colonies to show that adults from the cave are actually the parents and only parents of the recruits. There may be indeed high self-recruitment rate within the cave, but the data presented here do not provide evidence for this. Even if it is true that the individuals analysed in the cave likely belong to a single homogeneous population (since you did not find genetic structuration among you individuals in the cave; see line 368) it does not necessarily imply a closed population restricted to the cave, unless the authors compared recruits and juveniles to other surrounding populations and found significant differences among them. Therefore I suggest strongly suggest the authors to rewritte their main conclusion based on what they results truly show and avoid over speculating.
Additional comments: Here are additional remarks for manuscript improvement:

Line 25 : provide name and location of the cave

Line 28: indicate the purpose of genotyping with microsatellite

Line 61: it is the first time that settlement tiles are cited, how can they be "also used"? remove also and adjust the sentence: example: "Settlement tiles are commonly used in coral populations to provide reliable measures of recruitment rates and variability, as well as individual growth rates...

Line 86-91: awkward sentence, please revise and divide in two: the red coral is one of the most abundant species (reference). then provides indication regarding its distribution (with references).

line 118-120: “Ten PVC tiles were also fixed in a vertical wall outside the cave and at the same depth (Faro Point) where the red coral population has an adult density of 425 ± 100 colonies x m2 (Bavestrello et al., 2015). In summer 2011 the tiles were removed a no a single recruit was found.”
This sentence is a little bit confusing as I think it is not well placed. Indeed, because it is written here that the tiles (without saying which ones) were removed in summer 2011 and that no recruits were found, it is confusing since here you are talking about the tiles located on the outside of the cave, not the one inside (as it stands, it is not clear).  I therefore suggest placing these two sentences after the main experiment explanations because it is more of a note to the reader, therefore line 136, and rewrite it as: “it should be noted that 10 additional PVC tiles were fixed outside of the cave at the same time that the one inside the cave, on a vertical wall X meters away from the mouth of the cave where red population densities reach 425 colonies per m2, but that no recruits were found when checking the tiles during summer 2011.”

Line 122: if you remove the two previous sentences as suggested, you can then start this sentence with "In February 2012, after two reproductive events (summer 2010 and summer 2011), the tiles were removed (n=14 as 2 located on one vertical wall were lost, Fig. 1)".

Line 199: “the number of genetic clusters, K, was estimated…” estimated from what? Within each cohort or within the entire sample, i.e. recruits + juveniles?

Line 215, as mentioned previously (remark of line 116), the indication of how the tiles are placed is missing: every 20cm along a transect? if yes, you do not need to say that the distance between two tiles is 20cm, because this is only true for the closest tiles. You can though indicate that the distance between two tiles is estimated based on the center of each tile (and not the gap between two tiles)
This said, if a tile is 20x20cm, and the distance between 2 tiles is 20cm, it means that this distance represent the distance between the edges of the tiles, not the distance between the center of each square... this should be clarified somewhere: how exactly were placed the tiles?

Line 229 – 233: invert the two sentences: precise first how many individuals were found per categories, then where they were found

Line 237-239: can this not be checked genetically? If several planula merged into a recruit/colony, they should host several DNA: maybe the authors should provide the information on whether they have encountered or not multipic profiles for some individuals indicative of mixed DNA origins?

Line 246: See also my remark for line 132-135: this seems very very tiny... does it mean that all recruits had height smaller than 0.5mm? was there a height threshold to separate recruits from juveniles? 0.5? or all recruits were 0 in height?

Line 248-250: what is C.I? confidence interval? Pearson's correlation are rather given by giving Pearson's R value (or R2), and its associated p-value.

Line 249: “ a weak correlation”, replace by “a weak but significant correlation”

Line 253: why not all 372 individuals? it was by choice or because of technical failures? Please indicate.

Line 261-267: this is an important finding which deserve to be discussed: several identical MLG were found among the recruits and juveniles (i.e. likely clones considering the rather small chance of sharing the same MLG by chance: 1.5 10-4). The fact that they were mostly found on the exact same tile is an indication that it is not just by chance. Could you provide some possible explanations for this? Does anyone ever test for clones among colonies, and ever reported a similar finding? Could there be polyp bail-out?

Line 270: how did you estimate allelic richness? it is not indicated in the material and methods. Was the richness estimated for a common sample size? Please indicate

Line 343-351 : yes indeed but these references report estimates within natural populations, not within cohorts. Therefore you cannot directly compare your results to the results cited therein.
Indeed, an alternative hypothesis is that not all adults participate to the reproduction events, explaining why genetic diversity within cohorts is smaller than the overall population genetic diversity.

Figure 1 need improvement of the quality (but see also my remark regarding the scheme of the figure which needs to be more detailed: most importantly scales are missing)

Figure 2: scales are missing on each photograph


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: LIVING UPSIDE DOWN: PATTERNS OF RED CORAL SETTLEMENT IN A CAVE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is clear, well written and organised. The references and scientific background are maybe limited (see attachment);
Experimental design: The results are original and the methods are adequate. The positioning of the study and the results in a more general context is less clear.
Validity of the findings: The data are robust and well analysed. The discussion is a little bit short and sometimes lacks precision.
Additional comments: see attached file


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: LIVING UPSIDE DOWN: PATTERNS OF RED CORAL SETTLEMENT IN A CAVE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: There are two main issues with the manuscript, valid for each section:

1)	There is a general lack of obvious logical links between ideas, sentences and paragraphs. The reader spends more time trying to follow the authors’ train of thought than actually reading the manuscript. The authors really need to improve the fluidity of the text using linking markers.

2)	The general scientific context is not clear. What scientific gap is filling this study? What are the important or main scientific questions answered by this study? The reader has the impression that a lot of work has been done, and well done, but the story is missing: what links all this work?

Specific comments
Line 38 – This statement is extremely general and needs bibliographic reference and examples. In addition, “sessile benthic organisms” would be more accurate.

Line38-49 – I would re-organize this paragraph to match the order of the first sentence, i.e. factors affecting dispersal, then factors settlement and then factors affecting recruitment. It would clarify the ideas and unify the paragraph. In addition, even though the authors cite pertinent examples, they don’t cite reviews on these topics and they do not present these examples as such.

 Line 47-49 – I would weaken or modify the authors statement. Indeed, the authors present low dispersal and local recruitment as a threat to species survival. However, there is a large body of literature underlining that local recruitment could enhance populations survival through local adaptation (see Sandford and Kelly (2011) Local Adaptation in Marine Invertebrates. Annual Review of Marine Sciences 3: 509-535).

Line 52-56 – There is an incredibly large body of literature in these topics, especially marine invertebrates’ population genetics: the authors should include more references here, or at least reviews on these subjects.

Line 64 – This is badly worded: how would you differentiate local from external recruitment within a cohort without knowing the genetic structure of the populations in the study area? As C. rubrum larvae are planktonic, even if all individuals from a cohort are related doesn’t imply that they were produced locally: they could come from another population. Please consider rewording and developing that sentence and provide relevant bibliographic references.

Line 84-85 – The protection plans of the Italian government, even though important, is no use for this publication. Please delete the last part of this sentence or put it in the Acknowledgment section.

Line 86-92 – These sentences are quite confusing and are repeating themselves. How come the red coral is one of the most abundant species in shallow Mediterranean underwater caves if it has been harvested for hundreds of years? I would separate the ideas: one sentence describing the ecological niche of that species, and one sentence describing its current distribution and abundance.

Line 102-104 – There is clearly a room for improvement here as the point and objectives of this study seem unclear. Why using this species in particular? What are the problematic and hypotheses? What are the objectives? You could even include the expected outcomes.

Line 183-190 – The objective of this analysis is confusing. What is the reference tile of an individual?

Line 187 – There is a typo “…migrants among tiles._Red coral…”

Line 225 – Do not start a sentence with an abbreviated Latin name.

Line 245 – Please reword “…number of 9.23 ± 4.6. 9.7% of the…”, the succession of numbers is difficult to read.

Line 248 – Please replace “and” after the parenthesis by “, nor between”

Line 281-286 – As in the methods, the objective of this analysis is unclear and needs to be explained.

Figure 1 – Please increase the resolution of the figure. It is difficult to understand in which region of northern Italy this study was conduct. Please include a scale in order to appreciation the size of the cave.

Figure 2 – Please include a scale on each photo.

Figure 3 – The x-axis legend seems to be written with several text policies, please homogenize. Avoid the unnecessary use of abbreviation, unless they are clearly in the legend: either wright “N: number of settlers” at the end of your legend or wright the y-axis legend in whole letters.

Figure 4 – As for Figure 3, avoid unnecessary abbreviations or explained them.

Figure 5 – Same comment as before. Please considere re-ordering the figure such as A and B are on the same row, C and D on the same row etc.

Table 1 – Please cite “Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) Controlling the False Discovery Rate - a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology, 57, 289-300.” in the manuscript and in bibliographic references.
Experimental design: The methods used in this study, even though lacking some precisions, are pretty well founded and well explained, which would make them easy to replicate. All sampling and research permits are given by the authors, assuring high ethical standards. However, as stated before, it is not totally clear yet what knowledge gap is filled by the study: a clear statement of problematic, objectives and hypotheses are a requirement.

Specific comments
Line 112-114 – Valid sampling and research permit are extremely important but consider including them in the Acknowledgments section of the publication.

Line 116 – Why did the author use PVC tiles rather than clay or glass? Was there a technical reason or was it to compare the results with previous studies? A recent publication proved PVC to be an excellent recruitment substrat (Kennedy EV, Ordoñez A, Lewis BE, Diaz-Pulido G (2017) Comparison of recruitment tile materials for monitoring coralline algae responses to a changing climate. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 569:129-144.), but a rational of this choice could be a valid addition to the methods section.

Line 120-121 – Please precise (1) which tiles were removed and (2) how, were and when recruitment was estimated.

Line 126 – If relevant, please precise the version of the software.

Line 137-138 – Please precise which software was used to conduct the statistical analyses.

Line 152-153 – Did you use the same PCR protocol as in the references cited? Please precise.

Line 154 – Did you estimated the amount of linkage disequilibrium? Please correct accordingly.

Line 186-187 – Can red coral reproduce one year after settlement? What mechanism could explain first year migrants? Please develop on the reproductive biology of this species in the introduction to justify this analysis.

Line 191 – Why the authors didn’t use a method based in linkage disequilibrium (as Waples, and Do. 2008. LDNe: a program for estimating effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Mol. Ecol. Res. 8:753–756.). It has been proven to be one of the most reliable Ne estimation methods in a wide variety of scenarios (Gilbert and Whitlock (2015) Evaluating methods for estimating local effective population size with and without migration. Evolution, 69, 2154-2166).

Line 197 – How many replicates did you use? Only one sub-dataset of randomly selected individuals will not give you reliable results.

Line 208 – Assignment analysis using Structure assume no linkage disequilibrium and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium within populations, which is not the case here. Please study the clustering of the population using DAPC, which relies on less assumptions (Jombart T., Devillard S., Balloux F. 2010. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC genetics 11:94.).

Line 236 – The authors only give one number here; what trend is decreasing? The wording is confusing, and a graph representing number of recruits according to size might be a valid addition here.

Line 253 – The authors said 372 individuals were sampled, but only 290 were genotyped. What happened to the missing individuals?
Validity of the findings: The conclusions of this study are all based on the results, and the authors did not make spurious conclusions and assumptions. However, the last step is often missing: how are the results included in a more general context? For example, the high mortality post settlement: how is that important for the species survival and conservation? Is it only a gorgonian trait or is it common in Cnidarians? The authors need to develop their discussion, notably by comparing their results with other species or organisms, which would increase the scope of their study.

Specific comments
Line 303-321 – The authors separate their conclusions and explanations from relevant bibliographic references supporting them, e.g. line 312“…related to larval behavior (Martínez-Quintana et al., 2014)…” and line 316“…they probably remain trapped in the ceiling due to their active upward swimming behavior…”. I would reorganize the paragraph in such a way that logical blocks are not separated (do not separate results explanations from bibliographic references supporting them) as it is done in the paragraph from line 322 to line 336

Line 352-359 – Other factors could explain the high consanguinity of this population: asynchrony of reproduction events, gametes behavior, uneven sex ratio, clonality…. Please develop this part of the discussion.

Line 359-360 – As stated in the introduction, local reproduction and recruitment can enhance local adaptation and speciation. Please develop this section to explain why, in this case, high inbreeding is a problem.

Line 375-376 – This sentence, notably “…that the two reproductive events interested individuals belong to the same genetic pool.” is difficult to understand. What are interested individuals?

Line 380-383 – Reading this sentence, it is unclear what brick was added to the wall. Indeed, this study does not clearly describe the effect of environmental factors (even though the effect of tile positions in the cave was tested), but rather the final outcome of all environmental factors and biological processes on the genetic diversity and structure of C. rubrum cohorts. Please rephrase this final conclusion to clarify what was found in this study and why is it relevant/important in the general context of the study of C. rubrum ecology.
Additional comments: In short, this study, which well designed and conducted, is lacking a clear general context. It is hidden at the moment: its proper statement, as the specific objectives of the study, will greatly improve the manuscript. The authors need to work on the fluidity of the text: all the parts for a good publication are there, they just need to be put together.


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: LIVING UPSIDE DOWN: PATTERNS OF RED CORAL SETTLEMENT IN A CAVE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made a good job at correcting this article and the introduction is now more clear. The objectives are well defined and the article is well written, even if some mistakes are present in the modified parts. The figures are clear, and the figure of the cave is really useful.
Experimental design: The research question is now well defined and most methods are well described (see my comments below for some specific points)
Validity of the findings: The findings are robuts to the data and most conclusions are well stated. Nevertheless there are some cases of incorrect use of previous publications (see below) leading to speculations.
Additional comments: Abstract :
- likely to « be » sibs
- « most larvae originated from adult colonies surrounding the tiles » do the results demonstrate this ? See the previous comments by other reviewers as well

Introduction :
line 48 : larval dispersal and recruitment do not always lead to chaotic genetic patchiness, rephrase
line 53 : why « nevertheless » ?
line 66 : estimates of what ? I don’t see how SGS could estimate recruitment rate
lines 67-68 : do you have references supporting the mention of strong SGS in corals apart from your model species ? And the references on Corallium do not demonstrate a philopatric behaviour.
Line 80 : rephrase : if a species lives outside a cave, this can’t act as a refugia ?
Lines 91-92 : as all species, this species is affected by stressors along its entire geographical area, but I guess none of the cited studies specifically tested the impact of a given stressor on the whole range ?
Lines 95-96 :what reference supports this statement ?
Line 99 : Padron & Guizien 2015 is not in the bibliography. And does it refer to a loss of expected heterozygosity (Hexp) or to a departure from panmixia (Hexp vs Hobs) ?

Methods :
Line 147 : « colonies with » height equal to zero...
Line 161 : indicate if the ANOVA test is based on permutations
Line 187 : if the N=54 refers to the threshold for rarefaction, this should come at the end of the sentence and be specified
Line 197 : are you sure of the rxy values ? See for example the manual of Identix : http://www.genetix.univ-montp2.fr/identix_ms.pdf
Lines 222-223 : explain the meaning of this resampling : is it to test differentiation with similar sample sizes between recruits and juveniles ? I guess that the number of replicates is simply too low to evaluate this effect. And the procedure implemented in GENEPOP should partly take this into account ?
Line 256 : delete « overall »
Line 262 : the number of significant digits seems too high
Line 274 : « correlation between these two variables »
Lines 279-282 : a correlation coefficient is not a test of correlation. Did you perform a test ?
Line 285 : « due to technical failure »
Lines 301-302 : was this probability PID identical for the different cases of repeated MLGs ?
Lines 308-309 : what do you compare with the t-test (i.e. what is your null hypothesis) ?
Lines 310-311 : give the p-values for the two tests, only one p-value is given here
Line 318 : « estimated in... » : this seems incorrect, rephrase
Line 328 : for the DAPC give in Supplementary Material the graph of the BIC according to the number of clusters
Lines 325-328 : is there a difference in cluster membership between the different classes of individuals ?
Line 358 : what is the information in the reference Cau et al. 2016 ?
Lines 379-382 : for the same notation for the units (and for years it’s a)
Lines 388-389 : when considering the number of alleles and the expected heterozygosities this is not really convincing. This species does not seem to display such low genetic diversity.
Lines 390-391 : give some numbers for comparison
Line 395 : a related explanation could be that other studies estimated diversity based on samples comprising different cohorts. Whereas considering only one or two cohorts might give lower diversities.
Line 405 : what larval behaviour ? Is there a demonstration of the impact of this behaviour on FIS ?
Line 416 : « or progenitors » ?
Lines 421-423 : the article of Bramanti et al. (2009) does not test inbreeding depression : remove this sentence or find an adequate reference (see comment on the previous version as well)
Line 426 : « the loss of fitness » ? and « reduction of fitness » would be more adequate


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: LIVING UPSIDE DOWN: PATTERNS OF RED CORAL SETTLEMENT IN A CAVE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This new version of “Living upside down: patterns of red coral settlement in a cave” is a giant leap forward, improving all previous flaws. The text is way more fluid (with just a few typos indicated in the attached pdf), easy to read, follow and understand. In addition, a huge work has been done on improving the bibliographic review, integrating relevant and pertinent references and giving this study a general context that was previously unclear. A similar attention has been given to figures: more precise, better organized and with clear legends. All the results given by the authors are relevant to fill the gap of knowledge they identified and stated in the introduction.
On a small downside, a last work on logical links between paragraphs of the introduction could be performed, but the manuscript is totally understandable as it is right now.
Experimental design: As I said in my first review, the analyses performed were almost all well explained and relevant. The authors improve their explanations when needed and included supplemental analyses when asked for (analyses that supported their results), with the same attention to details so that anyone could replicate the study. The only small detail that I would include is the Bayesian Information Criterion graph from the DAPC analyse as a supplementary figure: that would not change the results and there is no imperial need to comment it, but it is important.
Validity of the findings: Again, the authors made an incredible improvement on the discussion part. Their discussion is fluid, with good summarizations of their results and comparisons to relevant literature, but also identifying speculations and future possible work. Their data is easily usable and can be transferred to other formats quite easily. The lack of knowledge they identified in the introduction is not totally filled, but the authors are aware of this fact and this paper is good step to do so. Finally, the authors managed to introduce their research in a general context, a major flaw of the previous version of the manuscript.
Additional comments: The amount of work produced by the authors is impressive, and it pays. This manuscript is fluid, with clear hypotheses and conclusions. The re-organization of several paragraphs, in addition to the  bibliographic work in the introduction and discussion section, makes also a huge difference.


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: I UNDERSTAND YOU FEEL THAT WAY, BUT I FEEL THIS WAY: THE BENEFITS OF I-LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATING PERSPECTIVE DURING CONFLICT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper aims to analyse the impact that the use of the I/You language and the self/other perspective may have on the perception of the degree of aggressiveness of the sentences they are part of. The experiment design is based on the subjects rating the likelihood of a “defensive response” to statements containing different combination of the two independent variables. The eight possible statements  resulting from the combinations of I/You language and self/other perspective are introduced in relation to hypothetical scenarios in which the relationship and the specific conflict between the two parties are described. The sentences submitted for rating are presented as hypothetical opening statements of an hypothetical subsequent discussion.

The paper is well organised and clearly written. I think it may be an interesting contribution to the study of communication strategies that may help in preventing and managing conflict in interpersonal communication.
In what follows, I offer several suggestions as to how the manuscript might be improved, and I hope the authors can make use of them in some way.

1	Although proposing a well organised review of the literature in the three introductory sections, I think that the definition of the two main concepts (indipendent variables) - I/you language and  self/other perspective - should be clarified and better introduced in relation to the previous literature. In particular, the definition of “communicating perspective” at lines 61- 64 may be misleading; the author defines it as including the communication of one’s own perspective and the understanding of the other’s perspective, but in Kellas et al. work, that the authors cite, “communicated perspective taking correspond to behaviours that communicate that one has put him/herself in the other’s shoes” (p. 327). I suggest the authors  to discuss this definition and to better explain their choice to operationalize the communication of perspective-taking through the use of “self-oriented versus other-oriented communicated perspective” (see lines 129-130).

2	Between lines 75 and 87, the authors introduce other communicative and relational dimensions, such as “perceived understanding” , “feeling understood”, the matter of the communicative modality (oversimplified in verbal VS non-verbal) via which to communicate perspective, which all seem not to be relevant for the development of the paper. I suggest to eliminate all these brief hints to scarcely relevant dimensions, although addressed in previous studies.

3	Between lines 89 and 92, the authors mention assertiveness as linked to the self-oriented communicated perspective (see Kubany et al. on this point).  Although in the literature assertiveness is associated to mitigation of aggressiveness (as Kubany et al. state at p. 337, assertiveness is the expression of opinions… in ways that respect the others…), at lines 90-92, the authors mainly associate it to anxiety and uncertainty, which are two more variables they introduce and abandon immediately. I think that at this point it would be more appropriate to elaborate on the relation between assertiveness and aggression.

5	At lines 101-103: the introduction of the I/you language variable and the examples the authors propose remind Kubany et al. distinction between “assertive I – messages” and “accusatory You-statements” (p. 339). Indeed, looking at the statements in table 1, some of them are clearly accusatory (i.e.“It is unfair that I have to do all the cleaning”), but the action –level (what type of action does a statement accomplish) is not taken into consideration. I think the authors should explain this lack, also in relation to Kubany et al. work.

6	I think that the authors risk to conceive and to use the I/you language category in a rather oversimplified way. Indeed, by isolating it from the larger discursive context within which it occurs, they seem to oversimplify its function and to predict its effect in an overly deterministic way.
I think that the communicative function that the I/you language component may have should be evaluated in relation to the type of discursive actions within which it occurs. In the statements that constitute the experimental material, the I/you language component and the self/other perspective component as well, are part and contribute to the realization of different actions such as giving accounts, allocating blame, criticizing or requesting to do. For this reason, I think that the relationship between the two components and the type of action they are part of should be better controlled in the experimental material and be taken into account in the analysis.
Experimental design: I illustrate below some aspects of the experimental design that I find problematic.

1	As I already said in the previous comments, one of the weaknesses of the experimental design is not taking into consideration the type of action accomplished by the sentences. This is true for the preparation of the materials and for the analysis as well, and I think this is even more problematic as the subjects are asked to rate which action (more or less defensive) is most likely to be produced in response to the sentences they are evaluating. In the experimental design, the response is evoked in terms of a more or less defensive responsive action, where “defensive” refers precisely to the action level.

2	The definition of what is a defensive response in terms of “reacting negatively or in a standoffish manner” (see the instruction at the end of each scenario) seems to me too vague.
I think that two alternatives would have been possible: to ask the subjects to directly  rate de degree of aggressiveness and/or hostility of the sentences or to ask them to choose a response in a list of possible responses with different defensiveness degrees. I would like the authors discuss their experimental choice in the light of possible alternatives.

3	I am wondering if the presentation of the eight alternatives may affect the subjects’ rating in comparative terms. Could the authors discuss this point?

 4	In the instruction, the reference to the defensive character of the hypothetical response may affect  the subjects’ interpretation of the sentences by inducing an interpretative bias which could be paraphrased as “searching for aggressiveness/hostility”.  I would like the authors discuss this point.

5	 As also the authors state in the “Limitations” section, the experimental design is scarcely interactive. One of the alternatives proposed in 2 (asking the subjects to rate possible responsive actions) could be a partial, although I think still weak, solution to this problem. Previous studies addressing similar research questions, that the authors mention (see Bippus & Young and Kubany et al.), use much more interactive experimental designs. Could the authors better explain their experimental choice, discussing its advantages and disadvantages?

6 	I find problematic the definition of the last sentence in the list as “No perspective….”.
Indeed “Lucy, I think you should help with the cleaning….” clearly conveys the speaker’s perspective. I would say that this is a request without the I/you language elements that, in the other sentences, contextualize the request, but I don’t think this is a case of “no communication of perspective”. I would ask the authors to clarify this point.
Validity of the findings: Generally speaking, the discussion and conclusion could be improved by making them more coherent  with the previous theoretical and methodological sections of the paper. Indeed, in these last sections, while describing and discussing the results, the authors introduce some new analytical dimensions which were not introduced, nor discussed previously. This lack of consistency makes the description and discussion of the findings rather weak. I offer some suggestions in order to improve these last sections of the paper.

Section “Discussion”

1	Line 195, the “perceived impact”:  I suggest to be more precise here. Indeed, the perceived impact is assessed only indirectly, through the rating of the likelihood of a defensive reaction.

2	Between lines 201 and 207, the authors introduce a new dimension: simple VS complex statements. As this variable was not introduced, nor used to describe the experimental material , I suggest the authors to be more consistent in the use of the analytical categories.
I think that the category “simple VS complex” could be related to the matter of degree of contextualization of the I/you language dimension, which I addressed in my comment 6  in “Basic reportings”.

3	At line 220 “the perspective of the self and other is the best strategy for opening a conflict discussion”. The statements listed in Table 1 are introduced as “statements that A could use to begin a conversation with B to resolve the issue” (see the instruction s that precede the list  of statements). The statements to rate are described in two different manners: in the description of the scenario, the statement opens a conversation, while in the discussion of the results the authors refer to the statements as opening a conflict discussion. Whereas the conflict could or could not develop, according to the interlocutor’s interpretation of the previous statement, I find it problematic the use of the expression “conflict discussion”.

Section Conclusions

4	Line 264 “forms of language”: this is too generic. I suggest the authors to use a more appropriate definition. What follows is just a suggestion, which could be verified according to the literature: the I/you language and the communication of perspectives may be defined linguistic device (the first), communicative strategies (the second).

5	line 272: “communicative acts”. This seems very problematic. The authors never used, nor mentioned  the speech act theory, nor they have addressed or analysed the sentences in terms of actions’ accomplishment (see my previous comments on this point). I suggest to clarify at what level and which linguistic-discursive dimension the I/You language and the perspective communication belong.

6	At lines 265-271 “Specifically the study demonstrates how I-language becomes more beneficial for minimising hostility when one also communicates perspective compared to simple requests where no perspective is communicated”. I suggest the authors to elaborate on this point and try to make some hypothesis to explain it.
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: I UNDERSTAND YOU FEEL THAT WAY, BUT I FEEL THIS WAY: THE BENEFITS OF I-LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATING PERSPECTIVE DURING CONFLICT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The present paper presents a rather straightforward study. The authors present it in a concise but sufficiently detailed manner. The raw data are shared as raw_data_SPSS.sav, which is a property format of SPSS. In order to grant access from a larger audience, I would have recommended the use of another format (e.g. .csv)
Experimental design: The experimental design is well reported. The paper does not state whether the sample size of this study was determined a priori, or whether any stopping rules during data collection were used. Please report any information that might help the reader to assess how the sample size was determined.
Validity of the findings: Results are statistically sound and reported with sufficient clarity.
Conclusions are well connected to the original hypotheses and the reviewed literature. Limitations and future extensions are also taken into account.
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: FITNESS CONSEQUENCES OF FISH CIRCADIAN BEHAVIOURAL VARIATION IN EXPLOITED MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is clearly written and easy to follow. The structure conforms to PeerJ standards. The introduction and background are a bit long, so I suggest the authors to shorten the first two paragraphs to get faster to the point: the existence in fish of behavioral syndromes and chronotypes that are linked to fitness processes and thus are subject to selection by fishing. The objectives of the study are clearly stated. The literature is relevant and well referenced. Figures are comprehensive and helpful to understand the properties of the model (Fig. 2) and its performance (Fig. 1),  as well as to visualize its predictions (Fig. 3). The included table is also helpful.

The authors provided the code of the model, which was written in R. The script is well structured and annotated (parameters defined and source of their values indicated, commands used to perform the different processes of the model  step by step explained). Hence, the code can be reviewed, results checked out and the model could be re-implemented in a different programming platform.
Experimental design: The model and experiment set-up (simulation scenarios) were detailed enough in Methods to be replicated. However, I suggest the authors to organize the Methods in a more standard way (at least within the ecological modeling field): 1) model description, 2) parameterization (this could be included in the previous section), 3) simulation scenarios, 4) model outputs and analysis (e.g., R score, selection gradients, etc). Right now, everything is somehow mixed up, so it is necessary to read the different sections when looking up for specific information. I suggest the authors to use the ODD protocol (Grimm et al. 2006, 2010) to describe the model; it is the most widely used protocol to describe IBMs because it was designed to make descriptions of IBMs easier to read (readers know which section of the ODD they must read to get specific info) and facilitate replication (in case they cannot read the programming language in which the model was written). At any case, those are just recommendations to improve the clarity of the Methods section.

Regarding the model assumptions:

1) If I understood it well, time series of the state of fishers (searching vs. fishing) are randomly defined for the entire simulation, independently of the movement of the fish. Fishers change their state following probability rules that have nothing to do with the movement of the fish. So fishers do not automatically change to fishing state when a fish is close to them (and so it is not harvested). Fishing just happens by chance as there is not a real interaction between agents, they do not show any adaptive behavior. Perhaps these rules are not easy to implement in R? In this case, I suggest the authors to use in the future (not for this study, of course) programming platforms specifically developed to  design IBMs, such as NetLogo.

Regarding the simulation scenarios:

2) I am not sure whether the second scenario (all fish with more or less the same circadian rhythms – i.e. no chronotypes) is the best approach to confirm that selection gradients in circadian behavioral traits were caused by chronotypes. From my point of view, this scenario rather confirms that fishing selects on the other two behavioral traits (home range size and exploration rate) irrespective of the existence of chronotypes. For me it is totally clear that fishing is selecting on chronotypes, but if the authors want to confirm that selection gradients in circadian behavioral traits are caused by chronotypes, they should run the model with chronotypes but without implementing any individual variability in the other behavioral traits (to get rid of their potential confounding effect). In this way, they could be sure that fishing selects against early-risers independently of their spatial behavior.

3) The authors have shown that increasing fishing effort increases the strength of selection on behavioral traits, including circadian traits. The authors also indicate that the timing associated to the fleet activity highly influences the strength of selection induced by fishing, but this is not tested. It would be interesting to assess how the strength of selection on circadian traits change with changes in arrival and leaving timing of the fleet to the fishery. Again, just a suggestion.
Validity of the findings: The results are reasonable given the model assumptions and simulation experiments performed (though see comment 2 in previous section). The modeling framework used is certainly the most fitted approach to answer the questions posed by the authors and opens a promising way to push the science on this field forward. The model is parameterized with extensive field data (both in the ecological and social systems modeled) and the model is able to reproduce observed empirical patterns so I feel model predictions are robust.
Additional comments: Definitely a very interesting study. In a previous work, the authors discovered for the first time the existence of chronotypes in fish, and here they show how human activities –recreational fishing- can select against certain chronotypes by using an individual-based approach within an innovative social-ecological system framework. The authors also discuss on the research needs to better understand the selective pressures of human activities on fish behavioral traits.

I provide below some minor comments:

INTRO:

L41-42: positive size-selective fishing not always select for faster life-histories (see Enberg et al.2012)
L49: not ONLY life-history traits
L51: INTEREST instead of "interested"
L53: "On the one hand,..." instead of "In one hand,..."
L56: "On the other hand," instead of "In the other hand,..."
L59: Alós et al. 2016b? No Alós et al. 2016a has been cited previously.
L64: "In consequence," instead of "Because this reason,".
L64-66: please, rephrase the whole sentence.
L65: what do the authors mean with "resident" here? That the fish move only a short distance during the day?
L74: "led" instead of "leaded".
L87: in L82 the authors included the scientific name of the species within brackets, please use only one way of indicating the scientific name, for consistency.
L89-92: this sentence is difficult to understand, please rephrase it.
L93: indicate some examples of fitness processes linked to chronotypes.
L97: selection ON
L97: maybe "leading to impacts on fitness"?
L98-99: what's the impact on fitness caused by earlier activity here?
L98: highlighting THAT urban...
L101: "enhanced encounters"? I assume the authors mean that the number of encounters between fish and fishers are higher just because fish start moving earlier.
L103: based ON relatively... The same in L104 (change" in" to "on").
L109: consequences for? Fitness consequences?

METHODS:

L169: from the base package in R?
L179: add that the values are generated from a normal distribution
L191-193: I guess the authors mean that they combined the two ecological scenarios with six different scenarios of fishing effort.
L203: to a movement MODEL based
L208: type OF animal
L209: delete “recent”, and name the package
L234: something is missing here, perhaps: to the centroid of the AREA WHERE other boats were fishing?
L236: turning angle drawn FROM
L251: in iii), do the authors mean that the fish has not been harvested before by another fisher? Otherwise, if an active fish has had an encounter with a fisher but this wasn’t a fishing state (not harvested then), is then considered not vulnerable to fishing? How long?
L254: SURVIVING individuals
L256: in the two circadian and spatial TRAITS
L264: of the BOOT R-package, provide citation then

RESULTS:

L267-273: I understand these results are to evaluate the model performance, to show how well the model reproduces the patterns observed in the field, with which the model was in fact parameterized. If the model were unable to reproduce such patterns, then model predictions wouldn’t be reliable. Shouldn’t it be described in methods?

DISCUSSION:

L304: in two different ECOLOGICAL SIMULATION SCENARIOS UNDER a wide range of fishing pressure scenarios
L325-326: THROUGH artificial LIGHTING
L327: by artificial LIGHTING
L335: fast EXPLORATION rates
L339-341:
L342: according to the MORTALITY pressure
L353: that OUR results
L355-356: the IBM presented here is not a population dynamics model. It is a specific model designed to test the selective consequences of fishing on chronotypes. So how could these elements help improve the current model?
L356: should be integrated TO ESTIMATE the
L362-364: Has this pattern been observed in fish? I mean, this pattern has been observed in birds, is it applicable to other taxa?
L366: delete “of the populations”
L371: need to DELVE INTO the causes

CONCLUSIONS:

L376-378: difficult to understand what is meant. Please, rephrase.
L376-378: So the simplest management action would be to forbid fishing during the first hours after awakening  to avoid the harvest of early-risers?
L386-387: just if a population dynamics model is built…
L393-394: move “are” to the end of the 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: FITNESS CONSEQUENCES OF FISH CIRCADIAN BEHAVIOURAL VARIATION IN EXPLOITED MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the overall structure of the manuscript is great, and it generally provides sufficient background and context. However the manuscript contains some poor grammar. The English will need to be improved to ensure this study is comprehensible to an international audience. The abstract is well written, and I expect this has had editing for English where the rest of the manuscript has not. I have edited the first two paragraphs on the attached pdf to highlight these instances, but the remainder requires similar attention.
Experimental design: I liked your approach to testing the role of fishing on chronotype selection. The structure of the IBM looks robust. The question is clear and important, and this study is within the scope of the journal.

One issue I have is that one of your scenarios doesn't seem all that useful. You test two simulations: 1) the chronotype scenario (where individuals show repeatability in behaviour), and 2) the 'no chronotype' scenario (line 172). I don't agree that the second simulation has no chronotypes - all individuals share the same chronotype (they show perfect diurnality) - so it seems like a 'single chronotype' scenario. You state that you use 2) to demonstrate that the selection patterns you saw in 1) are due to the presence of chronotypes, but I think this is a) not really necessary, b) complicated by differences in the exploitation rates of the two scenarios (67% vs 84%). Scenario 2) couldn't possibly show selection for awakening or onset times (Fig 3), so seems more of an internal test to ensure your model shows expected behaviour. To me, a more interesting test would be to vary the strength of the repeatability of the chronotypes in 1) (keeping the same mean inter-individual variation) and plot selection strength versus repeatibility. This would seem relevant as repeatability may be hard to know accurately. If you wish to keep the analyses the way they are, consider labelling 2) a 'single chronotype' scenario, and state that significant selection for scenario 2 in Fig 3) for awakening and onset times was not possible.

Line 105,122 - More info needed on type of fishery (recreational baited hook-and-line)

Line 167 - what were the limits of awakening and onset times you sampled from (using 'sample') - I don't think this info would take up much room, and would save someone having to consult your previous paper.

Line 177 - You call the 'active' and 'resting' chain of states a Markov chain, but I don't see what makes it a Markov chain. It seems the states at each time step is determined for the whole day using a single set of random values - a Markov chain would need random input at each time step? Possibly this stems from a misunderstanding of what is going on here. I assume there are no rest periods during the daytime awakening and onset times? Maybe a little more info here please.

Line 179 - related to the above comment - what is the "one value"? One value for each of the mean and sd?

Line 258 - I would appreciate more info on how S (selection) was calculated. The reference to Matsumura et al. 2012 seems insufficient for some readers to relate variable mortality of chronotypes to the 'S' value in Fig 3. Likewise expand on which "results" (line 264) where bootstrapped.

Line 319 - "the selection gradient in awakening time was not significant" - I think this was unavoidable (see first comment).

In the caption to Figure 2, you mention and map habitat types, and also a visual census of boats. This is the only time they are mentioned and they should be introduced briefly in the methods.
Validity of the findings: Your findings looked generally robust. However, I think you generalise your findings too much ["Therefore, we feel our results are representative of many other fisheries around the globe" (line 307)], without proper acknowledgement (in multiple places) of how species and fishery traits may alter the susceptibility of specific chronotypes to harvest. I think your results are actually due to some quite specific characteristics, and might change considerably given some reasonable real-world conditions: fish can be caught while 'at rest'; different gear types will have different catchabilities for various chronotypes (compare baited hooks with bottom trawls); numerous species show crepuscular and schooling behaviour; different types of habitats can be exposed to different patterns of fisher behaviour (e.g. some reefs are consistently targeted, and small home range individuals may be more vulnerable, instead of large home range individuals as you showed). These are just some characteristics that may alter the strength and direction of selection on chronotypes. This is not to say that what you've done is insufficient, but you need to report clearly that your results are from a specific set of circumstances, and further exploration is needed to identify how this selection acts across a diversity of real species and fishery traits. Some carefully selected words should be added to the abstract and end of the introduction to address this; discussed as caveats in your discussion, and presented as opportunities for further work in your conclusion.

I also think you need to discuss your fishing mortality rate. It seems very high (67.5% in 15 days with 11 boats, or ~12% for 2 boats). I don't believe real-world fishing mortality would ever be this high, and this would surely influence the strength of your selection; you should state that this is much higher than would be expected in reality (unless you find an approximation of fishing mortality F for your model species that supports this). You may have sped up selection greatly in your study with such mortality. If chronotypes are somewhat plastic, then fishing mortality at realistic rates (30% per year?) might show much less impact on chronotypes. You should reword "even in low fishing pressure scenarios" (line 315) with this in mind. You also need to add a caveat to "and its strength could be stronger than other more classical considered traits" (line 345) - this requires validation of realistic fishing mortality rates.

This is optional, but what I think might add addition scope to your findings would be a discussion of why fishing mortality should show different selection pressure on chronotypes than predation mortality. Chronotypes are probably highly selected for by visual (diurnal) natural predators too, so why is fishing different? And might exploiting predators (like sharks) have an equal 'release' of chronotypes in wild systems? Might fishing and predation interact in some ways?
Additional comments: I really like the application of models like this to biological processes, and this seems a perfect application on an IBM. I think it's a great study, and more acknowledgement of species and fishery traits that might influence selection would help promote a productive research area.

Some minor comments:
Line 100 - I think you should change "hypothezied" to "assumed" - there are too many unknows about how species and fishery traits might alter the susceptibility of early riser fish, but using "assumed" shows that those unknowns do not affect the validity of your theoretical study
Line 342 - "morality" should be "mortality"
Line 353 - "ore" should be "our"
Line 386 - what kind of "experiments"? just a few extra words.
Figure 2 - I don't think the blue tracks how up very well - change to white? Consider increasing the size of the red start and end dots.


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: FITNESS CONSEQUENCES OF FISH CIRCADIAN BEHAVIOURAL VARIATION IN EXPLOITED MARINE ENVIRONMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscripts uses a theoretical but empirically-based approach to predict the evolutionary effects of fishing on fish diel activity. The manuscript idea is novel and important, and in general the manuscript follows a fluent logic, with however, some room for improvement too. The English writing suffers from abundant grammar errors and needs to be proof-read by a native English speaker before the manuscript can be published. The manuscript introduces the relevant literature very well and clearly introduces to the consequences and mechanisms of fishing-induced evolution. All the unclear points are of minor nature and I find the study well conducted and highly interesting, and as such worth publishing with minor edits.
Experimental design: The used IBM is of such technical nature that it is not easy for a random biologist to repeat the work, but given that the model code is provided as well as supplementary material, I find the methods very transparent and according to my competence very well constructed and justified. The main weakness of the IBM is that it is very specific to the model system, and the oceanic currents, for example, appear to represent just a single time period in year 2016. While this adds realism, it also reduces generality. However, I do not see a need to change this as the currents most likely are also in general pretty much like in 2016.

The hypotheses mentioned many times but not specified should be repeated in the methods. Apparently, also a good hypothesis has a yes or no answer, and in your case it might be better to talk about quantitative aims rather than simply answering yes or no whether there is fishing-induced selection on chronotypes. The apparent answer is yes.
Validity of the findings: I find all the presented results valid and having a high impact. The only think I am missing is the answer to your promise to compare your selection gradients to other quantified selection gradients. I expect some comparision to other studies between lines 333 and 346. Please compare your results to other selection gradients caused by fishing (and preferably rod fishing) on any behavioural or life-history traits.

In conclusions I think you should take into account the response of intelligent fishers. If less and less fish are becoming morning-active, more and more fishers will likely start targeting the evening-active fish. Only in special cases should the fishers stick to some tradition and not change their behaviour according to the behavioural change in fish.
Additional comments: I really like the work in general as it touches a novel topic with an interesting model that opens up avenues for many further studies on the topic. However, I think you need to improve the writing (and in few cases the content itself) still a bit.

Here I provide some minor comments that could improve the final version of the manuscript by line numbers:

52: What are these two facts? Please elaborate more the two cited studies.

55: Rather than leading, these differences define the behavioural types

76: Add: temporally consistent

78: It is not very well know if fish sleep. Please introduce the fish sleep theme with a few citations.

101: I would start a new paragraph here with the aims.

114: Please repeat your hypothesis here, it is not entirely here which hypothesis you mean here

118: This is actually a strong assumption and there is studies showing the opposite (see the Monk et al. carp study for example). Make the assumption explicit.

135: Km appears odd why not km?

142: HR = home range I suppose?

165: It would help to repeat the hypothesis here too.

209: Recent is apparently recent, no need to repeat

268: Remind reader that the R scores represent repeatability estimates

282: It would be helpful to call this "second scenario" as control or baseline scenario and introduce its purpose accordingly.

286: Unclear what you mean with "we discarded significant S for the circadian behavioural traits". If the S is significant, you should not discard it. To me it seems the S was practically 0 which indicates what you also conclude: S on chronotypes needs intrinsic variation in them.

292: Instead of starting with a second introduction I would rather start with your main result and achievements in the paper.

298: Nothing is known is wrong as after your results section much is already known already.

302: If this is a classic example, please cite some examples. I am not entirely sure what this sentence means.

309: Please comment how changing daylength in higher latitudes would affect your model interpretation. In many countries, there are also fishers that often fish in evenings or nights, and your morning fishers are globally a special case

342: morality?

398: There is most likely no selection against circadian behavioural traits per se, but selection for or against certain trait values.


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

Input:
Title: A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO DETERMINE THE TAXONOMIC IDENTITY AND ONTOGENY OF THE PYCNODONTIFORM FISH PYCNODUS (NEOPTERYGII, ACTINOPTERYGII) FROM THE EOCENE OF BOLCA LAGERSTÄTTE, ITALY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Sound
Experimental design: Sound
Validity of the findings: Sound
Additional comments: This paper combines a thorough and careful evaluation of the morphometrics of pycnodonts from Bolca with a review of the fossil record of Pycnodus. The subject matter, approach and conclusions are all appropriate. The text is well written and I have no substantive problems with the paper. I do however have a number of suggestions.
L=line
L33 I would break up the two long sentences to improve clarity. The first is a bit repetitive, the second could perhaps be three sentences.
L68 Here and elsewhere there are too many references. Three will suffice. Indeed this point has already been included in numerous reviews.
L87 variation is ?
L98 This paper seeks to determine if the nominal species are morphologically distinct. Surely the first step would be to evaluate the characters used to distinguish the species. Then consider them in a cladistic framework to see of any of the proposed characters and their respective states can reasonably be considered synapomorphies (or autapomorphies depending on the level). Finally, one can consider the overall shape and ontogeny as a possible explanation for observed variation. I cannot see how you can look just at shape and conclude that these are not different species, especially if you predominantly measure characters that were not originally identified as being diagnostic. You may have included all of these diagnostic features (I suspect you did), but it would help to explicitly indicate that you critically examined all features that have been used to separate these nominal species. Currently you have a phenetic evaluation of the shape of individuals. This is not a strong basis for rejecting the various species. They may share 99% of the shape features. All it takes is one small synapomorphic feature and you have a solid rational justification for recognizing a species. I would recommend looking at steps 1,2 and 3 above to provide a more solid justification for your conclusions. NB I think your findings are correct – it is just that this 1,2,3 process would make the final conclusion more water tight.
L201 ‘corroborating definitively’ I suggest you ‘strongly support’
L208 again ‘support’ rather than ‘confirm’
L222 – excessive references
L230 – excessive references
L247 You reject the interpretation of Goatley et al. However, we merely said that “large eyes may suggest that some pycnodont species were nocturnal”. Your data and analyses do not refute this statement. Furthermore, in suggesting that we only looked at juveniles you misinterpret our analyses. We compared eye size residuals in pycnodonts compared to a wide range of actinopterygians. Thus we demonstrated that the eyes of the multiple pycnodont species, and genera, that we examined were relatively large compared to other actinopterygians – given their size. Our analyses specifically allowed for the ontogenetic variation that you are describing. It is axiomatic that smaller fishes have larger eyes. Your data does not offer a basis for rejecting the rather vague conclusions we drew from our data.
It may be better to say that: large eyes in pycnodonts have been related to behavioural flexibility and the possibility of nocturnal behavior (Goatley). This may also apply to the Bolca Pycnodus although the individuals with the largest eyes (juveniles) are not believed to be more likely to be nocturnal as this is a natural consequence of ontogeny; small fishes have larger eyes.
L250 I suspect you overemphasize the extent of coral growth in the Bolca region. In my review of the evolution of coral reefs (Bellwood et al 2017 Biol Rev) I emphasized the low complexity nature of Eocene reefs. I am not certain that there were enough corals for fish to swim between the cracks. In the past we did a study of the early life history of lethrinids (GG Wilson 1998 Rec Aust. Mus.). They predominantly lived in seagrass beds feeding diurnally on the benthos, as adults they rove over the sand around the margins of the reef (feeding both diurnally and nocturnally). I see lethrinids as the ecological (if not morphological) analogs of pycnodonts. So I suspect the small pycnodontids were as you say in a different location – for my money most likely in the widespread seagrass beds; while adults were roving more widely. The in corals vs out of corals scenario has all sorts of problems for me (availability of corals, maneuverability, body shape, feeding mode etc). NB sparids have similar dentition and may be analogs of pycnodontids in the Mediterranean (or in the Caribbean) but they do not play a comparable role in Indo-Pacific reef systems.
L262 again too many refs
L315 gap missing
L354 dentition
L360 ‘supports’ rather than ‘confirms’
L367 I would say “sheltering among cover and adults being better adapted to a roaming lifestyle swimming over the benthos to feed”
Any questions happy to explain, David Bellwood


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

Input:
Title: A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO DETERMINE THE TAXONOMIC IDENTITY AND ONTOGENY OF THE PYCNODONTIFORM FISH PYCNODUS (NEOPTERYGII, ACTINOPTERYGII) FROM THE EOCENE OF BOLCA LAGERSTÄTTE, ITALY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Good paper, original and relevant, well structured. No comments
Experimental design: High quality and relevant.
Validity of the findings: Data robust, statistically well supported, conclusions well stated. Good way and example of how to tackle the problem of splitting of species because of new names given to growth stages.
Additional comments: Nice and original paper. Indeed Gyrodus would be a good one to tackle the same way.
typo line 118: "points and were selected" ; should be "points were selected"

typo in two words in the references of Geinitz (line 542): Gesellschaft; Isis

Maybe add two additional papers concerning Pycnodus in India:

P. bicresta is first described in:
Kumar, K., and Loyal, R. S. 1987. Eocene ichthyofauna from the Subathu Formation, northwestern Himalaya, India. J. Palaeontological Society of India, 32:60–84.

Furthermore there are some pycnodont teeth described in:
Prasad, G.V.R. & Sahni, A. (1987)
Coastal-plain microvertebrate assemblage from the terminal Cretaceous of Asifabad, Peninsular India. Journal of the Palaeontological Society of India, 32: 5–19


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

Input:
Title: A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO DETERMINE THE TAXONOMIC IDENTITY AND ONTOGENY OF THE PYCNODONTIFORM FISH PYCNODUS (NEOPTERYGII, ACTINOPTERYGII) FROM THE EOCENE OF BOLCA LAGERSTÄTTE, ITALY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Intro & background are fine. The literature is up to date, but I did not have time to control if they are all well referenced, if all citations are listed or if all listed references are cited.

The structure is fine. I only suggest moving the section "The taxonomic history of Pycnodus", which is very informative and interesting, thus worth being part of this future paper, but beyond the scope of this work. Therefore, I suggest you move it directly after the introduction.

The figures are all relevant, but too small in the pdf version of the manuscript and of low quality when directly downloaded.

The legend to figure 4 "PLS analysis showing a correlation of morphology with ontogeny" should be corrected. The analysis shows the correlation between the morphometric variation and the size of the specimens, which you interpret as ontogeny. Thus, please replace 'morphology' with 'morphometric variatoin' and 'ontogeny' with 'the size of the specimens' or simply 'size'.

Correct figure 5 according to my comments below to incorporate the complete ranges of variation. Alternatively, clearly explain if you are simplifying this variation using intervals and, if so, provide the values for the intervals. This is especially important in your case because such intervals are apparently hiding the actual variation shown by your data, which does not necessarily follow a normal distribution (see below).

To ensure accessibility, the raw data should be please provided in a standard form. The meristic characters are provided with the Table 5, but I do not have the software PAST and have not been able to open the supplementary file with the morphometric data. Even when PAST is a freeware software, not everybody wants to install it or need it to do statistics.
Experimental design: The experimental design is partially problematic. A general problem with the manuscript concerns equaling morphometrics with morphology and morphotype with species. Morphometrics is just one aspect of morphology and morphometrically cryptic species might be well distinguishable on the bases of qualitative morphological features. Therefore, homogeneity in morphometric traits does not necessarily imply that the authors are dealing with a single species. Consequently, I suggest restricting the research question to the analysis of the morphometric spectrum occupied by the sample, which is what the only morphological aspect represented by the data and analyses.

When nominal species have been defined on the bases of morphometric traits only, it is logically correct to put the nominal taxa in synonymy, but one might still hope to complete a more detailed morphological analysis including qualitative features. In the case of this study, according to the authors, Heckel (1856) erected P. gibbus and distinguished it from P. platessus on the bases of two characters: the relative length of the first caudal vertebral apophyses and the proportion between the body depth and the body length. The second character is included in the analyses presented with the manuscript, but the first of these characters is not discussed and, thus, the alleged invalidity of P. gibbus remains questionable.

The results of the morphometric analyses are reasonable and the accompanying figures show a clear overlapping of the morphospaces of the groups delimited a priori according to the labels referring to the nominal species.

GPA and PCA analyses require complete data sets and are not per se able to deal with missing data. It is necessary to replace the missing values in order to operate and different methods have been proposed for that purposes. In the methods section, you should clearly explain which of these methods is being used in the analyses because this decision might affect the results.

Unfortunately, I have some serious concerns about the analyses of the meristic characters. I hope the authors will satisfactorily answer my inquiries.

Table two is said to include "Measurements as percentage of SL …", but counts are not measurements. Also, which is the meaning of those proportions (density) for taxonomic purposes? For example, unless the number of rays in a certain fin increases during ontogeny, which is usually not the case, the proportion will be different between small juveniles and large adults. Please explain the utility and meaning of these ratios.

I noticed more variation in your meristic data than the one represented in the histograms in your figure 5, so I gave a closer look and fast analysis of your counts in your Table 5. Unfortunately, my results are not as uniform as shown in your histograms and I cannot accept your statement about the normal distribution of these characters, which would be a rather rough approximation for some of them.
For example, the distribution of the number of pectoral and dorsal fin rays could equally be part of incomplete Gaussian or bimodal/trimodal distributions. Rather than any of these, the distribution of your data indicates that a lot of information is missing and more sampling is necessary. It should be possible to run at least some normality test with the PAST, isn't it?

Furthermore, your Table 5 includes enormous ranges of variation (even larger than the ones given in your Table 3):
	VER	RIB	SCL	DFR	AFR	PEC	PEL	DFP	AFP	CFR
Max	31	14	12	66	52	47	16	65	58	43
Min	20	6	6	17	7	7	2	29	26	15

Such ranges of variation in these counts would be exceptional! How do you explain this? Could this be due to incomplete preservation (not all fin rays or pterygiophores ossified in juveniles or simply not preserved)? If so, why is it reasonable to use these characters? What do they mean? Alternatively, despite the overlapping of the morphospaces, are these ranges rather suggesting interspecific variation?
Fast and simple correlations between these counts and the standard length of the specimens (calculated with Excel) are not significant.

Even after accepting all of the results presented in the manuscriupt, the final statement of the Biometric analyses "Neither morphometric nor meristic characters are therefore useful in determining two or more different morphologically identifiable morphotypes within Pycnodus, corroborating definitively Blot's (1987) hypothesis that only one species (P. apodus; see also below) is present in the Bolca Lagerstätte" (lines 200-202) is problematic and implies some serious misconceptions. First of all, the normal distribution of each variable (meristic or morphometric) and the positive linear regression of the individual morphometric characters respect to the total or standard lengths do not necessarily imply that the multivariate distribution will be homogeneous. Second, as explained above, the morphometric homogeneity of the data does not necessarily imply the presence of a single species and the morphometric analysis alone is not enough to solve the taxonomic question (qualitative characters have not been analyzed, including a diagnostic feature given by Heckel for P. gibbus).

Please note that even when the statement is wrong, you might be right in your taxonomic conclusions, but you still need to demonstrate that with a more complete and thorough study.
Validity of the findings: The authors carried out morphometric and meristic analyses of numerous specimens referred to three nominal species from the Eocene of Monte Bolca within the genus Pycnodus. This is a very interesting approach to taxonomy and it is certainly significant to decide on the validity of nominal taxa that are defined on the bases of morphometric and/or meristic characters exclusively, but this is not the case of the nominal species included in the analysis. Still, it is valid to propose the potential synonymy of these species, pending a morphological analysis of qualitative traits.

Also, outliers are mentioned, but not discussed. How are those outlying specimens related to the type specimens on which the nominal species are based and how good do they fit the putative diagnostic features of these nominal taxa? A discussion of the outliers is necessary and would represent a valuable contribution to the manuscript.

Despite the criticisms concerning the potentially misleading taxonomic conclusions, the morphometric study is valuable beyond the taxonomic purposes, which is shown by the very interesting conclusions about different ecological preferences between juveniles and adult specimens.
Additional comments: To summarize the main concerns I have with your manuscript, I strongly recommend more caution in your taxonomic conclusions, you should complete the methodological information, please provide the raw morphometric data in a standard form and thoroughly discuss the meaning of the meristic variation represented by the data, which is very high and, contrary to your conclusions, more luckily suggests inter- rather than intraspecific variation. After addressing these main questions, and the other minor revisions I indicated above and directly in the manuscript, I strongly recommend publication of this manuscript, which will then represent a valuable contribution to our knowledge of pycnodont fishes, the Eocene fossil association of the Monte Bolca, and will of course represent a good example for morphometric studies in general.
I'm looking forward for the future studies announced at the end of this manuscript, but please be aware of the conceptual differences behind the terms 'morphology', 'morphometrics', 'morphotype' and 'species'!


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION OF EPILEPSY AND ASTHMA: A POPULATION-BASED RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In lines 83 and 97 the authors use the phrase “causal relationship” in discussing the relationship between asthma and epilepsy. I would suggest rewording these two sentences since it is unclear if an association exists between the disorders and causation cannot be determined based on an epidemiologic study.
Experimental design: Did you consider additional analyses looking at epilepsy incidence in individuals with low vs. high asthma severity, or in those with uncontrolled vs. controlled asthma? This would be interesting to consider or to discuss as possible future directions.
Validity of the findings: 1.	Lines 181-184 of the results note that there was a nonsignificantly higher relative risk estimate in females vs. males; however, the confidence intervals for the estimates in females and males do not overlap, suggesting a statistically significant difference. Please clarify this and specify in the manuscript how significance was tested for the interaction with gender.
2.	In lines 219-220, the statement that “patients with epilepsy did not have a significant risk of asthma” is unclear. This would be clearer as “patients with epilepsy did not have a significant increase in risk of asthma compared to patients without epilepsy” or “risk of asthma was not significantly different in patients with epilepsy vs. those without epilepsy”. The same comment applies to line 260 of the discussion and the first sentence of the conclusion in lines 365-367. In the conclusion, “high risk” and “low risk” are used without specifying the referent group.
3.	Please add a footnote to Tables 1 and 3 to indicate what the p-values represent and how they were calculated.
4.	Clarify footnote a in tables 2 and 4 to indicate that the incidence is per 1000 person-years
5.	There were highly significant differences in income between your cases and non-cases in both analyses, but you did not control for income. Was income determined to not be a confounding variable? The assessment of confounding and determination of confounding variables should be discussed in the manuscript.
6.	In the discussion or conclusion please discuss impact of these results.
Additional comments: Interesting analysis and well-written paper