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.
Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments in your revision. I have checked the changes myself and am happy with the revised version, so am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Both reviewers liked your manuscript but each made a few points that need addressing in a revision, please.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
Generally well-written and proper use of the appropriate literature; figures are clear and unambiguous.
Line 172- The term “carapace” is often misused as a being synonymous with “exoskeleton” or “cuticle”, as it is here. The carapace refers only to the back shell of the crab- one would have to dissect the crab to write on the “underside” of the carapace (one conceivably could write on the very narrow subhepatic region, but it wouldn’t be visible from below due to the claws). Say they were marked “dorsally and “ventrally” or on the “carapace and sternum”.
No comment
Line 293- “The pavers accumulated crabs during the 60 min laboratory trials, especially in air,..” does not seem to match what figure 6 shows and is in direct contrast to what is said in line 233. In water pavers had consistently higher mean proportions of crabs in shelter, with the possible exception of the double cross treatment where they are about equal (albeit with more variability in the submerged paver)
The data provided in the Excel spreadsheet for the laboratory experiment is clearly in error- according to it, no crabs utilized any of the shelters (column H, “#underpaver” is always 0 and #Outsidepaver always 8).
It would be interesting to compare the sex ratio of the crabs that “recruit” to the pavers to that of the background population, since the data for this was collected. For example, in some crab species males tend to range further afield during feeding thus having a greater likelihood of discovering new habitat patches.
The manuscript is clear and well-written. The strengths of the research include the length of field experiment, the sample size, and application of the electivity index. The weakness is the lab experiment since, as the authors point out, 60 minutes isn’t likely enough time for to establish equilibrium.
The Introduction is supported by relevant literature (though I am a little surprised that, overall, more use wasn’t made of Lohrer and Whitlatch (2002)). The figures are fine; I have only two minor questions:
• Fig. 2: are the densities per large paver, or per under paver space not occupied by river stones?
• Fig. 3: “Dashed lines indicate mean population density” = mean density under the pavers?
The research is relevant to the broader world of marine ecology (i.e., what constitutes good habitat?)
Why not standardize completely, and use bricks or smaller pavers instead of river rocks?
The conclusions derived from the experimental work are supported by the data.
I’ve done mark and recapture with Hemi. They were recaptured up to 50 m from the release point after 24 h. So, clearly, no site fidelity
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.