For the second review one reviewer and the academic editor reviewed the paper for any changes that need to be made.

Reviewer 1:
This reviewer was also one of the reviewers from the first review.  This time around the reviewer didn't have much changes to suggest to the author.  They mostly just stated how well written the paper now was, and how well the figures were presented.  They also stated how happy they were that the author made the changes they had mentioned in the first review. 

Academic Editor:
Overall the editor that the paper was well written.  However, there was one change they wanted the author to consider.  They wanted Elizabeth Sherman to consider the first line of the conclusion (which was "Sea urchins will likely encounter stressful temperatures in the next 100 years due to global climate change").  They did not believe that this statement was supported by the data that was collected and presented in the paper.  Therefore, the editor wanted the author to change this sentence to something that was actually supported by the data collected.

The author was asked to make minor changes before the paper would be accepted. 

Information credit:Sherman E.  2015.  Can sea urchins beat the heat? Sea urchins, thermal tolerance, and climate change.  [Cited November 16, 2015].  PeerJ 3:e1006  Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1006

Photo credit: Violet sea urchins.  2015.  AnimalsBase.com.  [Cited November 16, 2015].  Available from: http://www.animalsbase.com/violet-sea-urchins/