Eight Years of Monitoring Reveal the Disruption of Reproductive Synchrony in Acropora palmata in Cozumel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title

Collapse of Reproductive Synchrony in Acropora palmata in Cozumel: Eight Years of Monitoring Reveal Isolated Spawning Events

Authors

Johanna Calle-Triviño, Germán Méndez, Ariadna León-Asúnsolo, Diana Ángel, Miguel Angel Plata, Colleen Flanigan, Adrián Andrés Morales-Guadarrama, Jesús Ernesto Arias-González

Comments and Suggestions for the Authors:

Fig. 1: Is a colour figure necessary? Colour graph partly obscures indication symbols of monitoring and reference sites, the scale bar is only half visible and the scale legend missing; Upsize the writing of locations and symbols.

M&M section,

line 74: how many colonies were monitored per site? What's the size range of colonies? (>30 cm up to?)

line 76: monitoring "during" was... "daily"? how often?

line 87 ff: delete blank; As later colony densities are discussed to be crucial for reproductive success: Can you provide estimates, proxies or values of colony densities, also as compared to the mainland reference sites? 

And: as later ALAN are discussed to be crucial at the investigation sites: Can you provide a description, estimates, proxies or other values to compare ALAN at Cozumel sites and also as compared to the mainland reference sites? 

Results and Discussion section:

Data reported in the result section only cover SSTs and sea level measurements given in a table with numbers, difficult to read... Consider translating into graphs comparing Cozumel and Mainland locations during 2018-2025 (on x-axis), indicating ## of colonies (1/2) observed spawning with symbols.

lines 104-106 and 107-110 are repetitive and fragmentary style.

Fig. 2: The explanatory sketch summarizes some details and the setup of study, yet not many new information after the text, left and right tracks are not congruent: Mainland: locations given, Cozumel: "no info"; Mainland "High density" vs. Cozumel: "no info"; descriptors, like colony sizes, age estimates of restored colonies on mainland etc. not given.

Fig. 3: Probably AI-generated graph of hypothesized context of diverse local stressors, but partly repetitive with Fig. 2, and content incomplete. "Elevated temperature": of water? of air? What is meant by "Escuated" temperature? No mention of ALAN…

Caption Fig. 3, line 129: What is the data basis of this "conceptual illustration", except for "chronic stressors observed" at study site... Data?

line 131: what "thermal anomalies” are described here?

line 132: Fishing from shore: Perhaps use semi-quantitative scale, like: few – occasionally - regularly observed – daily – massively crowded impact everywhere? – Can you give estimate descriptors of fishing – and trampling intensities as well as the other effects? 

line 134/5: gives "seven years of ... monitoring (2018-2024)", while the title and rest of paper give eight (2018-2025).

line 142: ...add a full stop after the bracket: ).

line 199: give geo-reference of reef location (Cuevones Reef). And possibly include geo-positions of mainland reference reefs in M&M section.

Beginning at approx. line 142, the text gets more and more hypothetical, lacking reference to sound data basement of arguments, both, from the monitoring and reference sites. Data from the mainland sites are not provided, except as reference to "pers. communication" (line 52). Apparently, (lines 64-66) the study only draws on observations from Cozumel. While Figs. 4AB resume the data presented in Tab. 1, the data baseline for fig. 5 is neither given nor explained, the respective caption is missing and the graph writing too small the decipher the details. From the text, it appears to draw on observations from another location in the Indo-Pacific region (Palau).

Line 165 ff: Despite the mention of ALAN as a “key driver … to delay gametogenesis and hinder synchronization of gamete release”, the parameter has no consideration in the first part of the paper. Why? Description of this parameter from the monitoring and reference sites appear missing.

And line 195: Colony density suspected to potentially “undermine fertilization success” is not given consideration or analysis in the core data of the study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English language is fluent and adequately written in a readable style. However, the limited presentation of background data and congruence of information given from the monitoring and reference sites obscures the foundation of the data analysis (with paragraphs missing), rather expresses hypothetic reasoning and lacks transparency of the overall results conclusive interpretation of the study.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback, which have helped us significantly improve the clarity and depth of our manuscript.

Following the Editor’s suggestion, we modified the title to make it more concise and equally informative. The revised title is now:
“Eight Years of Monitoring Reveal the Disruption of Reproductive Synchrony in Acropora palmata in Cozumel.”

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment.
Reviewer comments are shown in black, and our responses are in red.

Comments and Suggestions for the Authors:

Fig. 1: Is a colour figure necessary? Colour graph partly obscures indication symbols of monitoring and reference sites, the scale bar is only half visible and the scale legend missing; Upsize the writing of locations and symbols.

Thank you, Figure 1 was revised to improve scale bar, symbols, and legibility.

M&M section,

line 74: how many colonies were monitored per site? What's the size range of colonies? (>30 cm up to?)

Added details: La Caletita (10), Playa Corona (14), Tikila (9), size range 30 cm – 2 m. (Lines 82–85)

line 76: monitoring "during" was... "daily"? how often?

Clarified that surveys were conducted nightly during spawning windows. (Line 86)

line 87 ff: delete blank; As later colony densities are discussed to be crucial for reproductive success: Can you provide estimates, proxies or values of colony densities, also as compared to the mainland reference sites? 

Added estimates contrasting Cozumel vs. mainland; (Lines 103–117)

And: as later ALAN are discussed to be crucial at the investigation sites: Can you provide a description, estimates, proxies or other values to compare ALAN at Cozumel sites and also as compared to the mainland reference sites? 

Thank you, improved section, included description of artificial light sources.(Lines 103–117)

 

Results and Discussion section:

Data reported in the result section only cover SSTs and sea level measurements given in a table with numbers, difficult to read... Consider translating into graphs comparing Cozumel and Mainland locations during 2018-2025 (on x-axis), indicating ## of colonies (1/2) observed spawning with symbols.

Thank you, Table was replaced with a time series graph (new Figure 2).

lines 104-106 and 107-110 are repetitive and fragmentary style.

Changed and clarify

Fig. 2: The explanatory sketch summarizes some details and the setup of study, yet not many new information after the text, left and right tracks are not congruent: Mainland: locations given, Cozumel: "no info"; Mainland "High density" vs. Cozumel: "no info"; descriptors, like colony sizes, age estimates of restored colonies on mainland etc. not given.

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We have revised Figure 2 to provide comparable and more detailed information for both regions. The revised figure now specifies the mainland sites as Cuevones Reef and Punta Venado, and the Cozumel sites as La Caletita, Tikila, and Playa Corona. For each, we include descriptors of colony density, size, and condition. For the mainland, we indicate the presence of restored F1 colonies at Cuevones Reef (Mendoza-Quiroz et al. 2023), with larger size (>1 m) and higher density. For Cozumel, we show the predominance of smaller remnant colonies (30–50 cm), very low density, and the influence of chronic local stressors (artificial light at night, trampling, fishing gear). These changes make the two panels congruent and add new information beyond the text.

Fig. 3: Probably AI-generated graph of hypothesized context of diverse local stressors, but partly repetitive with Fig. 2, and content incomplete. "Elevated temperature": of water? of air? What is meant by "Escuated" temperature? No mention of ALAN…

Removed as suggested. 

Caption Fig. 3, line 129: What is the data basis of this "conceptual illustration", except for "chronic stressors observed" at study site... Data?

Removed

line 131: what "thermal anomalies” are described here?

Added descriptors and semi-quantitative estimates. (Lines 119–126)

line 132: Fishing from shore: Perhaps use semi-quantitative scale, like: few – occasionally - regularly observed – daily – massively crowded impact everywhere? – Can you give estimate descriptors of fishing – and trampling intensities as well as the other effects? 

Added descriptors and semi-quantitative estimates. (Lines 119–126)

line 134/5: gives "seven years of ... monitoring (2018-2024)", while the title and rest of paper give eight (2018-2025).

Corrected to consistently state 2018–2025 throughout. (Lines 54, 129)

line 142: ...add a full stop after the bracket: ).

Done

line 199: give geo-reference of reef location (Cuevones Reef). And possibly include geo-positions of mainland reference reefs in M&M section.

Geo-reference of Cuevones Reef and mainland coordinates added. (Lines 70–72)

Beginning at approx. line 142, the text gets more and more hypothetical, lacking reference to sound data basement of arguments, both, from the monitoring and reference sites. Data from the mainland sites are not provided, except as reference to "pers. communication" (line 52). Apparently, (lines 64-66) the study only draws on observations from Cozumel. While Figs. 4AB resume the data presented in Tab. 1, the data baseline for fig. 5 is neither given nor explained, the respective caption is missing and the graph writing too small the decipher the details. From the text, it appears to draw on observations from another location in the Indo-Pacific region (Palau).

Caption improved, with explicit note that it is conceptual based on literature, not our data. (Lines 212–218)

Line 165 ff: Despite the mention of ALAN as a “key driver … to delay gametogenesis and hinder synchronization of gamete release”, the parameter has no consideration in the first part of the paper. Why? Description of this parameter from the monitoring and reference sites appear missing.

Removed

And line 195: Colony density suspected to potentially “undermine fertilization success” is not given consideration or analysis in the core data of the study.

Removed

Overall, the English language is fluent and adequately written in a readable style. However, the limited presentation of background data and congruence of information given from the monitoring and reference sites obscures the foundation of the data analysis (with paragraphs missing), rather expresses hypothetic reasoning and lacks transparency of the overall results conclusive interpretation of the study.

Removed

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper, describing yet another disturbing aspect of modern reefs. The methods are good (as far as they go!) and I like some of the cartoons. Au have tried to do far too much with their data, however, and have overlooked some key factors.
1. the "meat" of the paper is that palmata colonies on the island don't spawn, whereas ones on the mainland do. Put that out there, don't speculate. As in-Fig 5 and the hypothetical discussion around it-remove this.
2. I urge au to read May et al, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0278695 This paper describes sediment toxicity in Biscayne Bay that completely shuts down any coral repro. activity. Au fly off into flights of fancy about this or that stress-and completely ignore the #1 issue in restoration efforts: water quality. That is the simple reason for the mainland-island differences, and au have missed it.
I therefore suggest taking out speculation, adding at least some mention of WQ, and resubmitting.

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough evaluation and constructive feedback, which have helped us significantly improve the clarity and depth of our manuscript.

Following the Editor’s suggestion, we modified the title to make it more concise and equally informative. The revised title is now:
“Eight Years of Monitoring Reveal the Disruption of Reproductive Synchrony in Acropora palmata in Cozumel.”

Below, we provide our detailed responses to each comment.
Reviewer comments are shown in black, and our responses are in red.

Reviewer 2

This is a well-written paper, describing yet another disturbing aspect of modern reefs. The methods are good (as far as they go!) and I like some of the cartoons. Au have tried to do far too much with their data, however, and have overlooked some key factors.

We appreciate the time taken to review our manuscript. Abstract, Introduction, and Results restructured to emphasize  these factors, such as water quality, as the main finding. (Lines 32-40, 140-145).

1. the "meat" of the paper is that palmata colonies on the island don't spawn, whereas ones on the mainland do. Put that out there, don't speculate. As in-Fig 5 and the hypothetical discussion around it-remove this.

Thank you for your helpful feedback. This is a hypothesis, not speculation. Though we have not conducted these studies, we want to propose this conceptual framework based on genetic expression studies. Figure 5 is a conceptual hypothesis derived from transcriptomic studies, not direct evidence. (Lines 210-218).

2. I urge au to read May et al, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0278695 This paper describes sediment toxicity in Biscayne Bay that completely shuts down any coral repro. activity. Au fly off into flights of fancy about this or that stress-and completely ignore the #1 issue in restoration efforts: water quality. That is the simple reason for the mainland-island differences, and au have missed it.

I therefore suggest taking out speculation, adding at least some mention of WQ, and resubmitting.

Added explicit recognition of water quality (including sediment and pollution stress) as a key unmeasured but plausible driver, abstract line 25. We cite May et al. (2022) and frame this as a hypothesis for future work. (Lines 245–247, Discussion and Conclusion 286-289).  We thank the reviewer for their constructive critique and time assessing our submission. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Further minor changes and recommended changes to Ms. diversity-3874694

Line 55-58:     This important statement is not underpinned by data, thus a distinct reference would improve the argument in the intro.

Line 83:            I suggest to add “…spawning events. “During 2018-2025, surveys were conducted nightly during the predicted…”

Line 102:          “A. palmata” in italics

Line 112:          delete blank behind “colonies”

Fig. 3:                still, information given to compare mainland and test sites are not congruent/equivalent, thus difficult to compare. Can you provide comparable data/estimates from Cozumel sites?:

Fig. 5: The Legibility of graph texts in this graph is not satisfactory and has not been edited after the first review – there would be sufficient space for larger lettering, if needed. So, if you chose to present this hypothetic graph from a nother source in the SE-Pacific, it should be self-explaining about the significance of it’s main information and messages in this paper and clearly be connected with your study. As no earlier, or further mention or reference to fig. 5 is made in the following text and discussion, except for just presenting the graph with caption, I’d recommend deleting it, as it is no original result from the present study, and the authors do not give further explanations from it as to their study. They leave it to the reader drawing conclusions from it.

Georeferences: Other than stated in the author’s comments as “Geo-reference of Cuevones Reef and mainland coordinates added. (Lines 70–72)” … these positions are not given in text, only on Cozumel side.

The reference section was not checked in detail by me.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of the paper.
Below, we provide our detailed responses to each point raised.
Reviewer comments are shown in black, and our responses are provided in red.

Line 55-58: This important statement is not underpinned by data, thus a distinct reference would improve the argument in the intro.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have now added supporting references to strengthen this statement. Specifically, we cite studies demonstrating that pollutants, sediment resuspension, and eutrophication can disrupt coral gametogenesis and spawning synchrony in Caribbean and tropical reefs (Szmant, 1991; Fabricius, 2005; May et al., 2022).

Line 83:        I suggest to add “…spawning events. “During 2018-2025, surveys were conducted nightly during the predicted…”

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The recommended phrase has been incorporated to improve the flow and clarity of the methods section.

Line 102:      “A. palmata” in italics

Thank you

Line 112:      delete blank behind “colonies”

Done, thank you 

Fig. 3:            still, information given to compare mainland and test sites are not congruent/equivalent, thus difficult to compare. Can you provide comparable data/estimates from Cozumel sites?:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. To enhance comparability between sites, we clarified descriptive metrics in both the text (Lines 150–160) and the caption of Figure 3.

Fig. 5: The Legibility of graph texts in this graph is not satisfactory and has not been edited after the first review – there would be sufficient space for larger lettering, if needed. So, if you chose to present this hypothetic graph from a nother source in the SE-Pacific, it should be self-explaining about the significance of it’s main information and messages in this paper and clearly be connected with your study. As no earlier, or further mention or reference to fig. 5 is made in the following text and discussion, except for just presenting the graph with caption, I’d recommend deleting it, as it is no original result from the present study, and the authors do not give further explanations from it as to their study. They leave it to the reader drawing conclusions from it.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We have removed Figure 5 from the revised version to maintain focus on the original results and improve overall clarity. The section has been rewritten to include a concise synthesis of published transcriptomic studies, providing context on potential physiological mechanisms without relying on an external figure. This change strengthens the connection between our findings and the proposed stress-related pathways underlying the observed reproductive collapse in Cozumel.

Georeferences: Other than stated in the author’s comments as “Geo-reference of Cuevones Reef and mainland coordinates added. (Lines 70–72)” … these positions are not given in text, only on Cozumel side.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the revised version, we have added the geographic coordinates of Cuevones Reef and Punta Venado in the Study Site section (Lines 73–74), ensuring that both island and mainland reference locations are clearly stated in the text as well as in Figure 1.

The reference section was not checked in detail by me.

We appreciate the reviewer’s note. The reference list has been carefully reviewed and formatted according to Diversity journal guidelines to ensure accuracy and consistency in the revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is OK to go now.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation and for the constructive feedback provided throughout the review process.