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.
I am satisfied with the modifications that have been made to the manuscript and in my opinion it is ready for publication in PeerJ. Felices fiestas!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have received evaluations of your manuscript from two expert reviewers and their comments can be seen below and in an annotated document that is attached. Both reviewers agree that this manuscript has important information, but have also suggested some corrections and modifications that should be made to the document. I agree with their evaluations and suggest that you revise your manuscript ensuring that you follow the reviewers´ suggestions. Please ensure you include a detailed response to reviewers that clearly shows what changes have been made and where these changes can be found.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
With regards to basic reporting, the article meets the requirements of PeerJ.
The design of the experiment is okay, however I think the findings would be stronger/more useful if this study had been performed with clutches from more than 10 adult snails. There is insufficient information to determine if all clutches came from 1 or maybe 2 adults as this species is hermaphroditic, or if there were multiple mating pairs from which clutches were taken. That information would be useful in interpreting results. Fortunately, the data are very consistent, but authors should still include that information as well as origin of the snails- were they field collected? Taken from laboratory colonies?
The authors were thorough in providing data and description of the analyses performed. The conclusions are clear based on data presented.
This study was performed with clutches from a small cohort, presumably at one time of year, however I wonder if these data would be different from clutches laid at different times of the year (this only really applies if adults were field collected).
The authors state that snails become reproductively viable at approximately 200 days of life, however no offpsring production was noted in this study. Were snails kept separate for the duration of the study? Did reproduction occur and did it have impacts on longevity of adults?
Lines 435-437 The authors mention another paper where the authors suggest the need to reconsider the use of growth models, but provide no logic for this statement. The sentence after ("In addition to the need to implement new models") is confusing- was that supposed to be part of the sentence before it or a partially completed thought?
Lines 471-471: This study did not describe population patterns. This was a straightforward life history study under simulated conditions. If you paired it with quantitative data from a field population, then you could likely use your data & analyses to explain those data.
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.