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 agree with the reviewer that all points raised were addressed and the current version is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have ansered all points suggested in my first review.
The new version has improved and it could be acceptable for me.
It is adequate
They are valid
No additional comments
Kindly address all the comments/suggestions by all the reviewers, thank you.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
The study analyzes several morphometric and bioenergetic parameters in an important commercial species of squat lobster along a latitudinal gradient. The topic is interesting, since these latitudinal variations can influence the biology of the species. In general, the article is well documented, although perhaps the text is somewhat extensive and in both the Introduction and the Discussion it would be desirable to be more direct. The readers will appreciate.
As indicated at the end of the abstract, the authors recommend that these data be considered in fishing exploitation models. However, they do not indicate which models they refer to or how they should be incorporated. This recommendation has already been made in previous articles (e.g. Guzman-Rivas et al. 2021), and its usefulness should be better explained.
Discussion: the authors repeat the results found in various paragraphs. Perhaps they could modify the text and focus on the discussion of such data.
Line 172. You collect your data in February. However, bioenergetic parameters can vary throughout the year. Could you clarify this point?
The parameters studied in this species have already been analyzed in previous articles (e.g. Guzman-Rivas et al. 2021 and others cited in the Reference list), although on a different geographical scale. It would be interesting if the authors clearly highlighted in the Introduction what the differences are among all articles.
Line 87. Low or high latitudes?
Line 101. Please indicate which fishery models are being used. Include references.
Lines 111-113. Explain why your data can reflect more accurately the health status of a exploited population. The status of an exploited population does not have to be related to its bioenergetic characteristics but rather to its population characteristics and its degree of exploitation.
Line 132. The quote from Gubiani et al 2020 is about a bibliographic review, it will be more interesting to cite an article that directly relates condition and survival (e.g. Karametsidis et al. 2023. Marine Env. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105844).
Line 142. Which fishery models of decapods? The authors must explain carefully how they will include their data in the models and how they will improve them.
Line 144. This reference is on freshwater fishes. There are no models here.
The article includes sufficient introduction to demostrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced. Nevertheless, English should be revised by a fluent speaker.
Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. Methods described with sufficient detail and information to replicate the study by other expert.
The study is not redundant, and have enough Impact and novelty. Conclusions are regular stated, linked to original research question, but should be limited to supporting results
Including more information about feeding habits of G. monodon, and mainly about food availability variations, could contribute to improve the study.
This study presented in this manuscript determined the variations in the bioenergetic condition at the level of morphometric, sexual and biochemical traits of adult red squat lobster (Grimothea monodon), which present in two morphotypes [small pelagic (SP) and large-benthic (LB)] considering a spatial scale of their populations distribution along a latitudinal gradient (from 9°S to 36°S) in the Southeastern Paciûc Ocean (SEPO). The manuscript is readable, and the presentation is clear and unambiguous. Though few typos are noticed, the English language used is professional overall. The context of the study and gap areas was explained with the support of relevant Literature.
This part was appropriate, But I can not see the data on a sample size for any biochemical assay.
Other than sex status, the information on locality-wise sex ratio and their fluctuation, if any, according to the latitudinal gradient and environmental factors may also be appropriate.
Since the study was carried out in two morphotypes of adult Grimothea monodon, what about the sex ratio of small pelagic and large benthic forms at different localities? If any significant difference is noticed in the sex ratio according to the latitudinal gradients. If so, what are the possible factors influencing this?
Though all included figures are appropriate, issue (mismatch with the figure and text data) was noticed.
Please clear the following .
Line 180. Cephalothorax length was presented in the materials and Methods and Figure 3, abbreviated as CL, but in the subsequent part, this represented LC.
Page 13; Line 305: ANOVA F value (F191,1298 = 3.1164, p < 0.05) is different compared to its respective figure ((Fig. 4).
Line 314: minimum values were 314 reached in high latitude localities (Chimbote-Huacho; 9S-11S).
Both locations are at low latitudes. Right?
Page 16: Line 427: Considered as selective pressures (“as” required)
Page 35, 36, 37: Figure 3, 4, 5: Letters indicate significant differences- Clear explanation of the letters which are significantly different and non-significant will give more clarity
Page 41-52: Table 1-5: Most of the tables have “--" What does that indicate? If it is an absence of values, the last table shows nothing for the absence.
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.