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.
Dear authors, I congratulate you on the acceptance of this manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Basic reporting is good.
Experimental design is good.
Findings are valid.
The authors made changes based on reviewer comments and addressed all reviewer concerns.
Dear authors, please make the necessary changes. I hope that the reviewers will then approve the publication of this article as soon as possible.
The authors present a well-written manuscript with appropriate background provided. Figures and tables are appropriate. Data is shared.
The research question was clearly defined and the methods and analysis described were appropriate for the questions. Methods are described in sufficient detail to be repeatable.
I did have questions regarding the field data - were plant shoot density and shoot height recorded during collections? If yes, it might be useful to include.
I also had a concern regarding using wooden dowels in the structural control experiment. Many studies use plastic mimics rather than wood because plastic is inert and less chemically reactive, and less likely to pick up chemical cues. I don't see a problem with using wood dowels if they were only used once (i.e., all trials and treatment combinations were run at the same time). If the wood was used in repeated trials, some justification would be beneficial.
The data have been provided. The results are clear, and the conclusions are sound based on the results. The authors don't try to overinterpret the data.
Klinges et al. demonstrate that the marsh periwinkle uses at least four different plant species as habitats, though at various densities. Based on preference studies, snails show clear preference for S. alterniflora and dead tissue.
This is a good ecological study in the northern Gulf of Mexico on a dominant marsh snail. The research contributes to our understanding of the snail’s niche within the marsh. Below are comments to improve the manuscript.
The manuscript is clearly written, appropriately cited, and well-reasoned. See my comments below for suggested improvements.
Design is adequate, but see my comments below for questions to be addressed.
Findings are valid. Conclusions are clear and supported by the results.
Abstract
Round densities to whole numbers
Line 43: remove ‘highly’
Line 44: ‘nails’ should ‘snails’
Introduction
Lines 92-102: You could delete this paragraph and end the previous paragraph with a line like, “However, L. irrorata are associated with other saltmarsh plant species (citations).”
Line 106: ‘Should be Failon’
Methods
Lines 148-151: Were the plant species tested separately or together? For example, was a snail offered S. alterniflora vs. control in one container and S. patens vs. control in another or all 4 species with the control in one container?
Line 167: You can say plastic wrap if you want to avoid a brand name.
Line 177: The video is fantastic.
Line 179: What is the justification for counting a snail as choosing a habitat based on its location on the aquarium wall? What about on the floor of the aquarium? What about when a snail was in between the habitats? From the set-up, it appears that there is space for the snails to be in between. (Referencing the supplementary video would help here).
Discussion
An excellent discussion
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.