Intertidal Gleaning Exclusion as a Trigger for Seagrass Species and Fauna Recovery and Passive Seagrass Rehabilitation
, Maria Perpétua Scarlet 1 and Salomão Olinda Bandeira 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors aim to evaluate the effectiveness of gleaning exclusion as an approach for seagrass and invertebrate restoration.
The aim of the manuscript is well explained but the manuscript is not acceptable in this form. It should be completely revised.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of the English language is required
Author Response
Attached is the file addressing all the comments provided by the Reviewer 1
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for the paper “Intertidal gleaning exclusion as a trigger for seagrass species and fauna recovery and passive seagrass rehabilitation” by Tsiarsanto Fanoro, Maria Perpétua Scarlett and Salomão O. Bandeira submitted to "Diversity".
General comment.
It is commonly believed that seagrass beds provide an essential "nursery ground" for a variety of species in coastal waters. Seagrass species are among the most productive plants known. They often support animal densities many times greater than those found on nearby unvegetated substrates. The large amount of food potentially available to juveniles, usually assumed to be in the form of seagrass detritus and epiphytic algae, is commonly reported in textbooks and review articles. Seagrass meadows support numerous charismatic faunal species such as dugongs, turtles and seahorses, play an important role in fisheries productivity, and provide a wide range of ecosystem services. They are also an important cultural asset for coastal communities whose livelihoods are inextricably linked to the provision of food, recreation and spiritual fulfillment from seagrasses. In the western Indian Ocean, seagrass beds are a source of food security for many communities, and the harvest of shellfish in the intertidal is a major source of protein for rural coastal populations. Although intertidal harvesting is common in tropical and subtropical countries, information on harvesting is not often quantified and is rarely included in fisheries statistics. The authors carried out an experimental study to assess the possible effects associated with a reduction in the gleaning activity on the seagrass meadow communities. The authors observed an increase in overall seagrass cover and invertebrate density over the study period and concluded that a ban or restriction on harvesting seagrass organisms is beneficial to local communities. This topic is of great interest, but the study has some important experimental concerns. Specifically, the authors compared diversity and density within unaffected sites, whereas such studies require comparison with control (affected) sites.
Major concerns.
The term "gleaning exclusion" seems inappropriate in the context of this study.
1. Introduction (L 42-48 and L 52-58). These sections are identical in content. The authors should revise them and delete redundant text.
2. Materials and Methods. The formula for the Shannon index should be provided by the authors. The methods used for data analysis should be described in more detail. For example, they used a parametric t-test, but there was no mention of normality and heterogeneity of the data. They should also describe the correlation analysis and how the necessary assumptions were tested.
The authors' data set did not include a control site. They showed an increase in plant density and cover over time within the exclusion plots, but not outside. Was growth reduced at the exploited sites? To what extent? The authors should provide additional data on the development of plants and invertebrates outside the experimental plots and compare them to the data obtained for the experimental sites.
The authors used the terms "abundance" and "density" for invertebrates, but these terms appear to be the same. For example, the caption for Table 4 reads "Table showing species density and abundance along the months in Bairro dos Pescadores", but the authors referred only to "density".
The authors should provide information on environmental conditions in the year studied and discuss the role of environmental factors in the recovery of the community.
3. Results. The authors should revise the order of figures. L 158. Figure 1 should be Figure 3. The authors should statistically compare the mean densities between months to support the idea of a positive trend in this value over the study period.
Section 3.4.3. Without statistical comparisons and p-values, it is difficult to assess whether there were truly significant changes in the diversity indices. I think the authors should also present variations in the number of species in each month.
Section 3.5. The authors should indicate which species are edible and which are not. For example, they could include this information in Table 4.
4. Discussion. The authors should discuss the possible role of applying alternative harvesting practices to reduce the current level of disturbance.
5. Conclusion. This section should be shortened. The authors should focus on the main findings and suggest a vector for further research.
Specific remarks.
L 122. Consider replacing " gleaners communities" with "gleaner communities".
L 136. Consider replacing " has been used" with " were used".
L 181. Consider replacing " Data was compared " with " Data were compared ".
L 220. Consider deleting " Table showing "
L 233. Consider replacing " with higher density registered " with " with the highest density registered ".
L 278. Consider replacing " the non-achievement of “Excellent” level in the result " with "why the Excellent” level has not been achieved".
L 333. Consider replacing " related with " with " related to".
English revisions are required throughout the text.
Author Response
Thanks for your valuable comments. Please see attached our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all the changes suggested in my previous review.
The English language was improved compared to the last version of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
We appreciate your comments specially by acknowledging that "The authors addressed all the changes suggested..."
Reviewer 2 Report
Second review.
Some revisions are still required.
L 43. Consider replacing " during spring tide period" with " during the spring tide period".
L 50. Consider replacing "of its practice" with "in this activity".
The authors state that they have corrected the deficiency regarding "density" and "abundance" estimates as similar values, but this has not been corrected in Table 1 (L 131), where both definitions are still present.
L 136. Consider replacing " using the equations as follow" with " using the following equation".
The authors should change “log” to “log2”
L 227, 235, 247, 312, 320, 321, 323. The authors should insert the number for tables.
L 233. Consider replacing " does not show" with " did not show".
L 260. Consider replacing " Dominant species being" with " Dominant species were".
L 279-297. The authors should check this section and delete duplicated text and figures.
L 300. Consider replacing " have the higher density" with " had the highest density".
I must reiterate my concern about shortening the conclusion section. The current conclusion is too long.
Latin names should be checked and italicized throughout the text and figures.
Some revisions are required.
Author Response
Attached are the response to the Reviewer comments (Round 2)
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
