All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Congratulations. Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Toonen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised manuscript is fine except for very minor typographical errors.
the revised ms is fine except for very minor typographical errors.
no comment
Findings are interestings and now well-presented.
I found very few minor typographical errors, which should be corrected before publication (see attached file). The ms has been considerably improved by the revision. Congratulations,
Ulrich
The ms reports interesting data on the effect of climate change on an isolated group of common frog population at the edge of their distribution range. Please address the suggested changes and resubmit.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
In this article, Montori and Amat investigated the impact of climate change on spawn period of common frogs (Rana temporaria) in Montseny massif on three levels - 1) is there an advance of onset of spawn period due to warming temperature? 2) the influence of climatic variables. And 3) prediction of population dynamics. Basically, I think the logic of this paper is clear, and the authors have made important contribution to this research field, which would help understand the impact of climate change on the life history of animals, especially for amphibians. However, the English writing of this paper needs to be substantially improved. There are still a lot of grammar mistakes and typos.
I think the research meets the Aims and Scope of the journal well, which was well defined and provided information on how climate change affects the life history of amphibians.The technical & ethical standards are enough. Methods described with sufficient details.
The data have been provided, which are robust and statistically sound. Conclusion are well stated.
Please note that the Figure 10 and Figure 11 are actually tables, which should be corrected. I think the Figure 2, 4, 8 and 9 do not provide enough information, so that I suggest to move them to supplementary materials.
The ms reports interesting data on the effect of climate change on an isolated group of common frog population at the edge of their distribution range. Unfortunately, the English wording of the ms must be improved considerably (I provide some suggestions in the commented ms, but a fluent speaker should go over the whole ms), there are many phrases, which are hardly understandable. Moreover, the ms is not concise enough, the reader is often lost in details, which are not really neccessary to report.
References are well chosen (but with some errors in the list, see commented pdf) and the article structure is adequate. Conclusion follow from the data reported.
This is not an experimental study. Data are observational. Analyses are adequate, but there are some which could be excluded without loss of information (see commented pdf).. The research presented falls into the scope of the journal.
This is another proof for the impact of global warning on the reproduction of amphibian. While evidence is increasing and available for several species, this study adds clearly to the knowledge because the prediction of effects until the end of this century demonstrate that common frogs from Montseny are prone to extinction.
My recommendations and suggestions are written in detail in the attached commented ms pdf.
The use of English language needs to be substantially improved. Below are some examples, but the entire manuscript needs to be carefully read through for many instances of language correction:
line 23: change to "this species"
line 25-26: this is difficult to understand - is this meant to be something like "more than the 0,1ºC indicated by estimates for the second half of previous century"
line 67: change to "finding"
line 74: change to "shift of their ranges"
line 74: change to "Changes of geographic". Throughout the manuscript please look for more instances where "on" is used but its meant to be "of".
line 83: change "your" to "their".
line 86: correct decimal point here.
line 113: change to "in recent years". on the next line, change to "faces".
Some details of the manuscript were difficult to follow due to the need for language improvements, so some more changes needed to aspects such as experimental design and validity of findings may surface after the editing for language. Reading through this version, the main comment I had was about the need for some more details in the methods. Specifically, around line 134, please could you provide some more details about the methods for recording the day of the onset of the breeding period. Was this only recorded at one location or area? Is it known that all the locations have breeding onset at the same day? What observation was made to confirm the breeding period had begun? I guess daily monitoring effort must have been made leading up to the day of breeding onset, if so please describe this, including if and how the monitoring was standardised or done in some systematic way.
no comment
line 443-464: possibly this conclusion section is not needed? Lines 439-441 discuss the possibility of future research, which might be a good point to end on. Definitely, lines 460-464 are an almost verbatim repeat of the lines 436-441, which should not be done. Please either delete the conclusions or re-write it to summarize better the results in ways that have not already been done elsewhere in the manuscript.
line 252: change this to "Figure 7".
line 287: change the citation here to have normal formatting.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.