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 confirm that you have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and am glad to inform you that this manuscript is now deemed ready for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Anastazia Banaszak, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
While the reviewers and I fully understand that conducting a new sampling campaign in another season is not feasible nor essential for this work, I believe it would be good if the authors can at least acknowledge the fact that sampling was conducted in a single season as a limitation of the study in the discussion.
The authors have commented on reviewer 2's concern about the reliability of the public sequences. However, did the authors follow their own suggestions in this work? For instance, were any of the hits recovered from multiple sources or from voucher specimens? Again, the authors are recommended to discuss this aspect in the discussion.
Requested review was met
Requested review was met
Requested review was met
Requested review was met
Your manuscript has been reviewed by three external reviewers. The reviewers think that your work is of potential interest; however, they also raised several concerns about your study.
In particular, multiple reviewers have concerns about (1) the sampling being conducted in two consecutive months of the same season, and (2) the need to include intra- and inter-specific K2P distance in the results. Please address these in your revised manuscript.
Comments on the attached file
Comments on the attached file
Comments on the attached file
The manuscript investigates the use of DNA barcoding and morphological characters to identify pre-flexion fish larvae in the western South Atlantic. It focuses on the challenges of taxonomic identification due to the high diversity and similarity among early developmental stages of closely related fish species. By sequencing the mitochondrial COI-5P fragment from 89 fish larvae and comparing these with reference databases, the study identifies several species, mainly within the Blenniiformes order. Additionally, it explores anatomical characters, particularly ventral pigmentation patterns, as diagnostic tools for species identification among early stage larvae. Scientifically, this study enhances the accuracy of ichthyoplankton identification, crucial for effective conservation and management of marine biodiversity.
Summarize, this manuscript requires minor revisions.
no comment
'no comment
The manuscript investigates the use of DNA barcoding and morphological characters to identify pre-flexion fish larvae in the western South Atlantic. It focuses on the challenges of taxonomic identification due to the high diversity and similarity among early developmental stages of closely related fish species. By sequencing the mitochondrial COI-5P fragment from 89 fish larvae and comparing these with reference databases, the study identifies several species, mainly within the Blenniiformes order. Additionally, it explores anatomical characters, particularly ventral pigmentation patterns, as diagnostic tools for species identification among early stage larvae. Scientifically, this study enhances the accuracy of ichthyoplankton identification, crucial for effective conservation and management of marine biodiversity.
Summarize, this manuscript requires minor revisions.
General comments:
line 129, Figure 1, line 213, figure 2, should the first letter be capitalized? Please maintain consistency throughout the text.
The sampling detailed in the manuscript occurred over two consecutive months, March and April 2022, which suggests that it was conducted within a single season. This might limit the study's ability to capture seasonal variations in species diversity or reproductive patterns. pls, give more explanation;
The author successfully identified fish larvae through DNA barcoding based on data from NCBI; moreover, how can the relevance of the sequences on NCBI to this species be ensured? In other words, how can it be confirmed that these sequences indeed originate from this species and are not mislabeled? This is a common issue with molecular identification, and I would like to see the author's response.
The paper is somewhat stiff in its linguistic expression, suggesting a need for language polishing; further inspection of the reference formatting is also recommended.
Very relevant work for the knowledge of marine ichthyofauna. He applied the molecular tool quite appropriately. Clear and well-written text. However, to be considered for publication, it needs some repairs.
All suggestions for corrections and changes are marked in the commented text in Word, which is attached.
Well-delineated methods, however, need to better explain some aspects.
It needs to detail some important points, mainly regarding sample collection and processing.
Very valid and necessary data. However, it needs to better describe and show what was actually identified with the molecular tool.
Well-delineated and well-written work. With a good theoretical foundation and well developed. But some adjustments are necessary for publication.
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.