Diet Diversity of Two Sculpin Species (Cottidae) in Midwestern USA Trout Streams: Patterns Across Nine Years After Severe Summer Flooding
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript evaluates the diet diversity of two sculpin species from southeastern Minnesota. The authors should clearly articulate the significance of this study. What are the ecological or conservation implications of understanding the diet diversity of these species? How does this contribute to existing knowledge or management practices in the region?
Major comments
1. Provide a map of the sampling location.
2. The diversity of the diet was identified through what methods? By human identification, microscopy, or other methods? This is important because some of the food might have been digested in the stomach.
3. Why are there no error bars in the data for Fig 2, Fig 4, Fig. 5, and Fig 6?
4. The method of ANOVA used in data analysis is not suitable; the manuscript needs to check if the data adhere to normal distribution and homogeneity of variances.
5. The discussion section lacks logical coherence.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSmall, no more than 15 cm, fish of the Cottidae family are widely distributed in fresh waters of North American with clean water saturated with oxygen. They are of great ecological importance because they feed mainly on the larvae of aquatic insects, but also eat small crustaceans and fish, fish eggs and some aquatic plants. In turn, their larvae and young individuals are included in the food supply of valuable commercial fish, in particular trout. Therefore, the relevance of the article is obvious.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn methods section a map with the sampling sites allows a greater spatial understanding of the study
Line 96 indicate what season of the year the sampling was carried out for each site (only in march of each year).
In point 2.4 data analysis It must be verified that the data meets the assumptions of normality
Why was temporality not considered as a factor that explains the variability in diets?
In table 1, include the sampling years, or show that there are no differences between the years to assume the comparison only between streams.
Keep the same name of streams in tables, figures and text
For figure 2 indicate that % is based on number of prey. Remove the title above the figure.
It is suggested to eliminate figure 3, considering that it is equivalent to figure 3 in detail.
A multifactorial Anova would allow identifying the factors that would explain variability between rivers, years, total lenght, or K factor. The fish length would be a factor that explain differences in diet.
Is there any relationship observed between dietary variety and K?
Remove the title above the figure 4
In figure 5 ar the numbers average? consider using box plot; remove title above each graph, and the same for figure 6.
In discussion section comment about other factors that would explain variability in diets (environment for example)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript with ID (diversity-3184916-peer-review-v2) assessed the diet diversity of slimy and mottled sculpin in Midwestern USA trout streams for a 9-year period post-flood period and found that slimy sculpin in two streams displayed modest shifts in diets as benthic prey communities recovered, whereas slimy and mottled sculpin in other streams displayed little to no changes in diets. The study fits the scope of the journal and merits publication. However, some minor changes should be carried out before the manuscript considered for publication in Diversity Journal.
The main question is why the author used sculpins to study their diet diversity post-flood? You should add details in the introduction section.
In addition, how you collect Slimy sculpin from Garvin Brook, Gilmore Creek, and Trout Run, and mottled sculpin from the Middle Fork?
Line 108: Are 15–25 fish are considered as representative samples for your study?
Line 110: Add an appropriate reference for the dosage used to induce euthanasia. Moreover, company, city, country of MS-222 used should be added. Did you use buffered solution or not? Information is required.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Line 75: Sculpin were collected from single sites on each of four designated trout streams in southeastern Minnesota, USA. It would be helpful to explain the rationale for selecting these four streams for this study. Additionally, please provide a brief description of the key characteristics of each stream.
2. Line 101: Sculpin collections were not made in 2010. Could you briefly explain the main reason? Was there negative effect on this study due to discontinue data?
3. Line 124: What statistical software was used for data analysis in this study? It is important to clearly explain this.
4. Line 162: In Table 1, 144 slimy sculpins were collected from Gilmore Creek, while 228 were collected from Trout Run during the same period. This notable difference is worth exploring in more detail. Could you provide a more thorough explanation?
5. Line 188: It is interesting that Garvin Brook had the highest incidence of empty stomachs, with three or more sculpin having empty stomachs on half of the sampling dates. It is crucial to provide a detailed explanation of this unique characteristic.
6. Line 381: Garvin Brook and Trout Run, along with the Middle Fork Whitewater River, were impacted more severely by the August 2007 flood. Based on this valuable research, could you offer suggestions or recommendations for stream restoration following severe flooding in the future?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Author Response
Because this reviewer offered no comments or suggestions, I addressed the suggestions of the other reviewers. I hope these changes are satisfactory to this reviewer.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn section 2.2 please include the justification for carrying out the sampling only once a year (and not for each season of the year) and in a single month, and why this is in March and not another month.
In figure 6 It is convenient for the reader that the axes indicate the units and that they are average values, remember that the figures should be self-explanatory.
In section 2.4 to demonstrate normality of the data and apply parametric statistics, a statement is not enough, but rather including a test such as Shapiro Wilk for example.
In the new comments under discussion lines 422 to 432, include literature that supports your observations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
