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 comments from both reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Richard Schuster, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
After reviewing the new version of the manuscript titled "Genetic Diversity and genetic structure of the red squat lobster (Grimothea monodon) in the Humboldt Current Ecosystem using SNP markers.", I consider that all my comments have been addressed. Therefore, I consider the article accepted for publication.
Your manuscript was reviewed by two experts who acknowledged the scientific value of your findings. However, they also identified several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication.
Please revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, particularly their questions regarding the methods and interpretation of the results. Additionally, I kindly ask that you acknowledge the reviewers’ valuable contributions in the Acknowledgments section.
I will be happy to reconsider your paper for publication once these revisions have been made.
Best regards,
Guilherme Corte
see attached paper.
English is mainly clear but some inconsistencies in expression and unusual sentences.
T
see attached comments
see attacjed comments
see attached comments.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The article entitled “Diversity and genetic structure of the red squat lobster (Grimothea monodon) in the Humbolt Current Ecosystem using SNP markes” presents a population genetic analysis of a commercially important lobster species distributed along the eastern South Pacific coast. The region is characterized by a biogeographic break that, for many marine species, also represents a genetic divergence between populations. For the species studied, previous research using only COI as a molecular marker suggested an absence of genetic structure. The present study employed nuclear markers (SNPs), which offer higher resolution in detecting population differentiation by exploring multiple loci across the genome. The results supported the same conclusion as earlier work, reinforcing the lack of population genetic structure across a geographic region marked by a biogeographic break. Additionally, the study confirms that differences between morphotypes reflect intraspecific variation rather than interspecific divergence, likely driven by the pronounced oceanographic differences among localities.
The paper is well-written, the molecular marker and analyses are appropriate for the objectives, and the conclusions align with the results. Thus, I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.
Specific Comments
- Lines 116 and 119: Spell out the species name (Grimothea monodon) at the beginning of the sentence.
- Lines 169–170: Replace “09” with “9”.
- Lines 171–172: Replace “replicates” with “individuals” and remove “n=” (keep only the number).
- Line 185: Provide the reference for R (replace “R reference”).
- Line 197: Clarify the abbreviation “LEA analysis” (define its meaning).
- Line 206: Consider estimating gene flow using MIGRATE, which could also reveal directional gene flow (e.g., north-to-south or vice versa).
- Lines 205–206: Standardize “Fst” to “F<sub>ST</sub>” (check throughout the text).
- Lines 210–214: Remove all instances of “n=” (verify globally).
- Line 214: Add table numbering (“Table X”).
- Line 247: Replace “vs.” with “×” (check globally).
- Lines 279–284: The phrasing is unclear. It mentions high heterozygosity for this species but later notes low heterozygosity in some populations. Additionally, high genetic diversity does not universally correlate with greater fitness. Consider reframing this in terms of adaptive potential to future changes.
- Line 325: Replace “water body” with “water column”.
- Line 334: Italicize “Munida”.
- Line 362: Add “G.”.
Figures
- Figure 1: Include locality names on the map (e.g., numbers on the map with names in the legend) to aid readers unfamiliar with Chilean geography.
- Figure 4: While intuitive, clarify in the legend that “Dgen = genetic distance” and “Dgeo = geographic distance”. Specify if the x-axis is in meters (convert to km and remove exponential notation). Enlarge circle sizes for better color visibility and explain in the legend that paired comparisons are color-coded.
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.