Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Whereas the topic is important, the work presented here was not novel and despite statements regarding the lack of existing information and knowledge regarding fish assemblages in seagrass and seaweed environments, the authors did not impress me with outstanding findings that merit a full-length article. The major argument, regarding the need to conserve seagrasses and seaweeds was not sufficiently tested or supported in the absence of a comparison to a denuded system, bare of macrophytes using the same BRUV system. Considering that only 42% of the BRUV deployments were successful, and the large error bars around mean values presented, many of the figures were uninformative and could be summarized verbally in the text. Although the data show differences in fish populations between kelp and seagrasses, the statistical significance of these findings is not totally clear. The bias of BRUV toward carnivores raises concerns regarding how indicative it is as a measure of fish assemblages. All in all, it seems that the findings and discussion could be presented more succinctly and warrant a short note rather than a full length research article. There is need for a few grammatical corrections, but overall the writing is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I think that your paper is worth to be published afert minor changes.

I only have small changes and a comment to suggest you.

All the best.

Line 18: remove the “r” from the word “canicular”.

Line 38: “…and success [14]”.

Line 42: maybe there is and additional space between “making” and “conservation”.

Line 88: insert “,” after “(Scomber scombrus)”.

Line 163: change “with significantly more pollock in kelp forests” with “and were significantly more abundant in kelp forest”.

Table 2: put the species name in italic.

Table 4: correct “Specie” in “Species” and use the scientific name of the fish species.

Line 208–2010: Is there evidence that G. flavescens was found in the stomach content of the Atlantic cod and/or Atlantic pollock? It could be interesting to cite at least a paper, otherwise you should rewrite the sentence in a more critical way.

It could be nice to insert some screen (2–4, preferably a composed figure) with significant images recorded with the baited camera.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to issues raised in the review and I feel that this paper is now acceptable.