Native or Overlooked Translocation? Comment on Antognazza et al. Current and Historical Genetic Variability of Native Brown Trout Populations in a Southern Alpine Ecosystem: Implications for Future Management. Fishes 2023, 8, 411

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

     There is some degree of controversy regarding which populations of brown trout are native, introduced, or introgressed. Antognazzi et al. recently published a paper in Fishes making certain interpretations, which Righi et al. critique on methodological and interpretive grounds in this manuscript. I find their arguments persuasive, and further, I find it appropriate to publish their manuscript in the same journal, especially if Antognazzi et al. have the opportunity to rebut Righi et al. This is just the sort of exchange that advances science. I find the Righi et al. manuscript generally defensible, though I will offer comments on the marked manuscript to polish the prose, and I have one substantive comment for the Discussion below.       

     At line 90, does “the authors” refer to Splendiani et al.? It’s not entirely clear, so Righi et al. should insert the authors’ name.

     Similarly, at line 97, does “the authors” refer to Antognazzi et al.?   

     At line 152, Snoj et al. (2002) should be cited with a number in square brackets.

     Towards the end of the manuscript, the authors should call for a study using nuclear DNA markers, perhaps a collection of SNPS, to gain insight beyond what is possible using mitochondrial DNA sequences.

     In Figure 1, could we have a larger-scale map showing where the study area is located in northern Italy?

     References. – I marked departures from journal citation stylistics. Especially common was the need to italicize Salmo trutta.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

While generally clear, I offer comments on the marked manuscript to polish the prose.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their time and effort in evaluating our work. We greatly appreciate the thoughtful comments and insights provided, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Generally, all reviewer's suggested comments to polish the prose the manuscript have been implemented, except for a few specific cases detailed below. All changes are tracked in word upload file.

Comment 1: At line 90, does “the authors” refer to Splendiani et al.? It’s not entirely clear, so Righi et al. should insert the authors’ name.

Similarly, at line 97, does “the authors” refer to Antognazzi et al.?

Response 1: We specified name of authors in both cases was Antognazza et al.,.

Comment 2: At line 152, Snoj et al. (2002) should be cited with a number in square brackets.

Response 2: Added to reference list and modified as number in the text.

Comment 3: Towards the end of the manuscript, the authors should call for a study using nuclear DNA markers, perhaps a collection of SNPS, to gain insight beyond what is possible using mitochondrial DNA sequences.

Response 3: At line 168 we have added a citation to contextualize nuclear and genome-wide analyses. No more text has been added to ensure continuity in the flow of text into subsequent sentences.

Comment 4: In Figure 1, could we have a larger-scale map showing where the study area is located in northern Italy?

Response 4: Map has been modified as suggested, we include a wide map to show where the area is located.

Comment 5: References. – I marked departures from journal citation stylistics. Especially common was the need to italicize Salmo trutta.

Response 5: Reference list has been modified and updated follow reviewer correction and journal setting

minor corrections:

Line 15-16: The citation format has been updated from “2023 (Current and Historical Genetic Variability of Native Brown Trout Populations in a Southern Alpine Ecosystem: Implications for Future Management. Fishes 8, 411)” to “(Current and Historical Genetic Variability of Native Brown Trout Populations in a Southern Alpine Ecosystem: Implications for Future Management. Fishes 2023, 8, 411).”

Line 76-78: Revised for clarity as follows: “The underestimation of potential sequencing errors might result in an overestimation of diversity and its consequent interpretation: great discrepancy can be observed in numbers of haplotypes detected in Zaccara et al. [11] compared to Berrebi et al. [4], and Splendiani et al. [12] for the same locations in Sardinia (see also [13]).

Line 116: reviewer suggest changing the term “allele” with “allozyme”.

Modified from “the influence of trout introduction is evident through the high percentage of non-native Atlantic haplotypes (90%) and the allele LDH-C1* 90 (98%).” to “the influence of trout introduction is evident through the high percentage of non-native Atlantic haplotypes (90%) and the PCR-RFLP allele LDH-C1* 90 (98%).” This change clarifies that the used term is referred to restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) analysis of DNA sequences (McMeel 2001, as referenced in the paper of Antognazza et al.) and not to allozyme analysis, as the reviewer suggested. For this reason, the term “allele” has been retained also in line 152.