PeerJ Reviewer Match - Anchialine shrimp abundance

Javascript is disabled in your browser. Please enable Javascript to view PeerJ.

Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp species' presence driven by geology, physical, and chemical properties of groundwater

Abstract

Anchialine habitats are land-locked brackish pools with subsurface aquatic connections and are at risk from sea level rise and groundwater pollution. These threatened habitats house unique organisms, including endemic Hawaiian shrimp, ʻōpaeʻula, - small, red-colored decapods that occupy hypogeal and epigeal niches. In this study, we characterized the Makalawena anchialine pool complex in Kona, Hawaiʻi, and investigated drivers of ʻōpaeʻula abundance in 3 regions. We hypothesized that distinct lava flows are hydrological barriers that isolate pools. Our data indicate that the pool complex is partitioned into two sectors: a North region characterized as polyhaline and mesotrophic, and a Mid/South region characterized as oligohaline and eutrophic. In the Mid/South region, ʻōpaeʻula abundance positively correlated with phosphate and total dissolved phosphorus. Nitrate/Nitrite and total dissolved nitrogen negatively correlated with ‘ōpaeʻula abundance in North and South regions, yet positively correlated in the Mid region. The pools in the Mid region did not have ʻōpaeʻula predators; therefore, we surmised that negative correlations with ʻōpaeʻula abundance and nutrients in the other pools were attributable to predator presence. Since ʻōpaeʻula live much of their lives underground, identifying these geological, chemical, and physical properties as ideal drivers has implications for conservation and management of anchialine pools and ʻōpaeʻula.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].