Marine Bryozoans from the Northern Pacific Coast of Costa Rica

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' research is devoted to a very interesting issue. Although the authors have done a lot of work, the study needs some refinement.

I recommend that the authors finalize the introduction. The section concerning earlier studies of bryozoans raises questions. In particular, it is not clear what methods were used to study the diversity of these organisms during a particular study period. Since when did the methods of molecular genetic identification begin to be introduced? What markers were used for this? Was it always a COI, or was part of the research conducted using the 18S rRNA gene? In the opinion of the authors, how full is the database of taxonomic markers used?

Is it necessary to provide the geographical coordinates of the selection site in section 2.1 Study site? Have any physical and chemical environmental factors been measured during the sampling period?

Was sampling carried out according to some generally accepted methodology? If yes, then you need to add a reference.

A number of questions are raised by the tree of Fig. A2. If the authors are conducting a phylogenetic analysis, it is necessary to specify statistical supports in the nodes in order to assess the level of clustering. Clustering is considered reliable at least 70%. Also, reference samples should be present in the tree, that is, sequences whose species status is beyond doubt. The authors have a tree built exclusively from their samples, and some, for example, MZUCR- 00038 is missing from the tree.

 

Author Response

Changes were made in the document below. With emphasis on Fig S1 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reports on a small collection of bryozoan species, some non-native, not previously reported for the area. Thus the paper is a useful contribution, enhanced by barcoding and some good illustrations. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have corrected the English, suggesting improvements in a number of places. The manuscript could benefit from further judicious editing.

Author Response

Most of the corrections were accepted. I provided the reviewed document in the file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made major changes. Meanwhile, there are a few minor remarks.

Fractional values are separated by a dot or a comma. It is necessary that the manuscript be uniform in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

It is not clear from table 1 which defect and why the authors use to identify organisms to a genus or to a species. It is necessary to state this clearly in the text.

Fig A2. It remains unclear what the values of the node supports are and how reliable the clustering is.

 

Author Response

In the attached file you will find the following changes:

Fractional values are separated by a dot, as established by the journal

We added a short explanation in table 1, encouraging the reader to view the discussion section where a more thorough explanation on the decisions for species change were made.

We added a second figure to A2 with bootstrap values and an outer group (Phoronid). No hypothesis were made based on either of these figures

Author Response File: Author Response.docx