Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 21st, 2017 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 9th, 2017.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 19th, 2017 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 27th, 2017.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Nice paper! I think it will be widely read and cited.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

All three reviewers recommended that your paper be accepted, and two had specific recommendations for changes or clarifications. These should be easy to incorporate in a final copy.

·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Comments for the author

In this paper, Lau and Jacobs report morphological and genetic data that clearly separate the northern Gulf of California sister species, Colpichthys regis and C. hubbsi, and provide evidence for introgressive hybridization between the two distinct species in the Delta region. The paper was very well written and easy to follow. Analyses and presentation of both morphological and genetic data were appropriate and quite thorough, and supported the authors' main conclusions. I only have a couple of comments that I feel the authors might want to address. Although seemingly trivial, the name "Scripps Institute of Oceanography" is not correct; "Institute" should be changed "Institution" in both the text and supplementary material.
The second comment regards the bimodal distribution of the mismatch distribution of C. hubbsi (Fig. 4C). Although the SSD and raggedness statistics were not significant, and the sudden expansion model could not be rejected for either species, these metrics are known to have low statistical power. The mismatch plot of C. hubbsi would suggest a stable population. It might be worthwhile emphasizing this a bit more (e.g. line 313), especially since the side-by-side plots of C. hubbsi and C. regis clearly show two distinct patterns, which are consistent with the two distinct haplotype networks.

·

Basic reporting

One relevant reference could be cited: Hastings, P. A. & L. T. Findley. 2006. Marine Fishes of the Biosphere Reserve, Northern Gulf of California. Pp. 364-382. In: Felger, R. & W. Broyles (eds). Dryborders: Great Natural Areas of the Gran Desierto and Upper Gulf of California. Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Otherwise, no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Comments for the author

This manuscript is well-written and data are thoroughly analyzed and conclusions are for the most part fully justified. It represents an important contribution with relevance not only the system under study but also to similar estuarine systems around the world.
The attached pdf has a number of questions, mostly of clarification, suggested rewording, or request for supporting references.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

Meets all standards.

Experimental design

Meets all standards.

Validity of the findings

Meets all standards. Impact and novelty is well assessed.

Comments for the author

This is a well conceived, written, and executed paper on an extremely important topic (the loss of estuarine habitat due to human water usage). It should be published as is (except a minor misspelling of Colpichthys in the abstract)

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.