How Trophic Conditions Affect Development of Fire Salamander (Salamandra salamandra) Larvae: Two Extreme Cases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of the manuscript “ How trophic conditions affect development of fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) larvae: two extreme cases” by Cogliati, Barzaghi, Melotto, Ficetola and Manenti.

General comments

This manuscript investigates how food availability influences the larval growth and the development time in the fire salamander Salamandra salamandra. Therefore, a comparison between a high trophic availability (HTA) and a low trophic availability (LTA) rearing experiments was planned and executed. The initial sample size was adequate, as 75 larvae were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments, summing to a total of 150 experimental individuals. The statistical analyses were made using LMMs and again seem adequate to obtain informative results. In addition, the Authors report some field observations on two natural sites that were resampled several times (Lab site) or only sporadically (site G14).

The results obtained from the planned experiment were straight-ford, confirming previous papers on similar topics. Larvae in the HTA treatment showed a faster development and reached metamorphosis at a smaller length, while those in the LTA treatment showed an opposite pattern.

The scope of the manuscript is clear, and the Authors achieve their initial goal that was to describe differences in growth patterns arising from very different food treatments. However, the English is poor and sometime confusing and I suggest an overall revision by an English native speaker. In addition, the data obtained from field observations are too anecdotical (e.g., in one site the fate of a group of larvae originating from a single female is reported, in the other site only four samplings were made during more than one year) and add very little to the final discussion. The Authors should better consider the usefulness of these sparse data. Finally, I have concerns about Fig. 1, in which “deads” are graphed rather than mortality or survival rates, which are the standard parameters in population biology. In addition, Fig. 1 is really chaotic: labels of both axes are missing and there are strange symbols on the x-axis. In my opinion this figure should be completely redesigned, with “Mortality (%)” and “Dates” on the Y and X axis, respectively.

I made several comments on the pdf version of the manuscript, trying to ameliorate the text language (but I am not English native speaker).

Overall, my personal opinion is that this manuscript should be considered for publication after a full revision.

I have always signed my reports as reviewer, therefore there is no need to remain anonymous.

Genova, 18^nd May 2022

Sebastiano Salvidio

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors,

thank you for the possibility to revise the manuscript. We performed all the changes suggested by the reviewers.

Please find here below a detailed rebuttal letter with specified where and how we modified the text according to reviewers comments.

ì

Reviewer 1 comments

This manuscript investigates how food availability influences the larval growth and the development time in the fire salamander Salamandra salamandra. Therefore, a comparison between a high trophic availability (HTA) and a low trophic availability (LTA) rearing experiments was planned and executed. The initial sample size was adequate, as 75 larvae were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments, summing to a total of 150 experimental individuals. The statistical analyses were made using LMMs and again seem adequate to obtain informative results. In addition, the Authors report some field observations on two natural sites that were resampled several times (Lab site) or only sporadically (site G14).

The results obtained from the planned experiment were straight-ford, confirming previous papers on similar topics. Larvae in the HTA treatment showed a faster development and reached metamorphosis at a smaller length, while those in the LTA treatment showed an opposite pattern.

The scope of the manuscript is clear, and the Authors achieve their initial goal that was to describe differences in growth patterns arising from very different food treatments. However, the English is poor and sometime confusing and I suggest an overall revision by an English native speaker. In addition, the data obtained from field observations are too anecdotical (e.g., in one site the fate of a group of larvae originating from a single female is reported, in the other site only four samplings were made during more than one year) and add very little to the final discussion. The Authors should better consider the usefulness of these sparse data. Finally, I have concerns about Fig. 1, in which “deads” are graphed rather than mortality or survival rates, which are the standard parameters in population biology. In addition, Fig. 1 is really chaotic: labels of both axes are missing and there are strange symbols on the x-axis. In my opinion this figure should be completely redesigned, with “Mortality (%)” and “Dates” on the Y and X axis, respectively.

Following the suggestion, we carefully revised the English text after having performed the suggested changes.

We better discussed the usefulness of the field observations. The reviewer is right that on the general pattern they add few, but they represent a confirmation that facts observed in laboratory artificial conditions may correspond to situations observed in the field.

We modified the figure 1 according to reviewer suggestion.

I made several comments on the pdf version of the manuscript, trying to ameliorate the text language (but I am not English native speaker).

We are very grateful to the reviewer for the precious suggestions.

Overall, my personal opinion is that this manuscript should be considered for publication after a full revision.

 I have always signed my reports as reviewer, therefore there is no need to remain anonymous.

 Genova, 18^nd May 2022

Sebastiano Salvidio

We are grateful for the positive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented manuscript is interesting and provides valuable data, about the nutrition in Salamandra salamandra during metamorphosis, which is still not yet fully well understood. I don't have any major remarks, my only suggestion is to spell-check the text once again for typographical and technical errors. I marked few I noticed in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The presented manuscript is interesting and provides valuable data, about the nutrition in Salamandra salamandra during metamorphosis, which is still not yet fully well understood. I don't have any major remarks, my only suggestion is to spell-check the text once again for typographical and technical errors. I marked few I noticed in the file.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions; we modified the text according to them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor,

the Authors did a good job in revising the manuscript and correcting the English presentation. Therefore, in this form this manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Sebastiano Salvidio