A Synthesis of Provision and Impact in Seagrass Ecosystem Services in the Brazilian Southwest Atlantic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Title: A synthesis of provision and impact in seagrass ecosystem services in the Brazilian southwest Atlantic. 

General Comments. The manuscript aimed to provide a state-of-art of the research regarding the recognition and the associated impacts to the provision of ecosystem services provided by seagrasses along the Brazilian Coast. The topic covered by the manuscript is certainly an interesting one and it is carried out with good quality.The study is based on a review of the literature, which is carried out by approriate means, albeit it does seem to have more steps than what was needed. Although the method is appropriate, it seems sometimes a little difficult to follow, because the research seem to tackle some specific points which are not stated in the objectives. Thus, there is a need to better delineate the objectives and relate them to methods and results. The result itself is well explained, although the graphical representation may benefit from an improved representation. The discussion does provide a relevant comparison with other similar review, but I miss a little more regional contextualization. Additionaly, the implications or the reasons for the results could be better defined. Aside from these points, the manuscript tackles a very important issue and the content prove that the authors are very well-versed in the topic. Thus, I do not have doubts regarding the quality and the potential contribution, but I would suggest a review to fine tune some points that require a little more attention. I attached a pdf. with comments and suggestions. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The manuscript is well-written but I was able to spot a few issues with the language, especially in the choice of some words and the use of punctutation. However, those were minor issues that, although require a review, does not hamper the understanding of the manuscript. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their in depth review and have carefully considered all of the suggestions nearly all of which we agree with and have modified the manuscript accordingly as follows:

1. Modified the abstract in three places;

Introduction

2. Removed most of the second and third paragraph of the introduction;
3. Included reference on climate adaptation;
4. The information about area of seagrass in Brazil (line 117) is in the discussion;
5. Expanded the aims at the end of the Introduction to include: “...ecosystem services provided by seagrass meadows along the Brazilian coast in terms of their temporal variation, types of services, relative frequency, variation between seagrasses genera and the drivers, activities, pressures and state environmental changes that impact SESs”;

Methods

6. Included the fact it was a literature review;
7. We have removed mistaken reference to other countries;
8. We prefer to leave the flowchart in the supplementary material as we wish the readers to focus their attention on the results regarding the services rather than how we got to the documents;
9. Explained why the analysis (=”as another method of assessing the important SESs”;
10. We have included the categories as the new supplementary material Table S3;
11. Clarified the last sentence in the methods to “It was assumed here that the frequencies of mention of key words in titles, SESs, and drivers, activities, pressures in the documents was a faithful quantitative indicator of their relative importance”;

Results

12. Figure 3 – we feel that it is important to maintain the generic words as to relativize the other words;
13. Figure 6 – we prefer to maintain this figure separate because Figure 7 already has an awful lot of information;
14. Regarding the analysis of genus we have included “SESs are known to vary by genus (= seagrass size, form and life history)” in the Introduction and in the Methods included “we proceeded to examine, categorize and tabulate each document based on the following criteria: 1) SESs which were referred to by the author(s) in the text, typically in the introduction or in the discussion, but not explicitly demonstrated or proven in the study (termed “Expected”); 2) SESs which were actually demonstrated or proven in the study/document (termed “Observed”); 3) the seagrass genera to which expected or observed services were associated 4) impacts on SESs”;
15. Included total ns in Figure 7;
16. Figure 9 caption – as it states at the end of the caption the numbers are absolute (mean) values;
17. Marine food provisioning is a driver category in the classification we used – see the point 10 above;

Discussion

18. We prefer to maintain the wording in second paragraph;
19. (line 364) SES was defined as Seagrass Ecosystem Services so it is clear they studied seagrasses;
20. Changed to “……which may indicate its lesser importance or that we have a regional knowledge gap, so further study is needed.
21. Figure 10 – I think the blurry was in the pdf transformation – I suspect the editor will fix this;
22. Regarding “Research” we followed the wording of Nordlund et al and we think we should mention that there were different methodological approaches exactly to avoid the reader jumping to the conclusion that differences were real (and not methodological) – the reviewer him/herself mentioned this earlier on in the discussion!;
23. We have qualified the mention of early ecosystem services;
24. We prefer to leave the discussion in lines 448-452;
25. We have better contextualized the juxtaposition of seagrass and urban development.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this is a very well written review, I can see the utility of the information presented, since ecosistemic services are so important these type of studies are very important. I liked the structure of the manuscript and found it very easy to read and to understand, I appreciate figures and photographs presented, all do in the pdf copy I downloaded some of the letters of the figures are not that clear, but I do not see any problem with that.

I do not have more comments.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive review.

Reviewer 3 Report

The work has a great importance and cover a wide number of different researches on SESs.

It is well exposed and well developed, although the difficulties of this kind or research.

Here some minor revisions: 

- line 237:  "expected" is written two times, is it a mistake? If not, the sentence resulted unclear, try to adjust it please. 

- line 301: I think you better use "were" instead of "was";

-line "302": I'm not sure that "lesser" is the appropriate word;

-line 308: the graphs inspired me this consideration: I suggest to add the information of the average extension (if possible, just from literature) of each species meadow along the Brazilian coasts, and the comparison of tis extension with the data of figure 8;

-line 457: "Seagrass meadows are often most abundant in estuaries and bays where ports and cities are found" seems in contrast with the previous sentence; please check it.

-I suggest to create a paragraph "conclusion", starting from the line 494, that need to offer a concise summery of the goals richer with the study conducted and well explained in the present article. In fact it results a bit confusing at the end.

Author Response

We have revised the ms according to the suggestions of the reviewer as follows:

The work has a great importance and cover a wide number of different researches on SESs.

It is well exposed and well developed, although the difficulties of this kind or research.

Thank you!

Here some minor revisions: 

- line 237:  "expected" is written two times, is it a mistake? If not, the sentence resulted unclear, try to adjust it please. 

OK, corrected

- line 301: I think you better use "were" instead of "was";

OK, corrected

-line "302": I'm not sure that "lesser" is the appropriate word;

OK, changed to lower

-line 308: the graphs inspired me this consideration: I suggest to add the information of the average extension (if possible, just from literature) of each species meadow along the Brazilian coasts, and the comparison of tis extension with the data of figure 8;

We this is beyond the scope of the present study but we are working on a new map for Brazil

-line 457: "Seagrass meadows are often most abundant in estuaries and bays where ports and cities are found" seems in contrast with the previous sentence; please check it.

OK, we have changed this to “This is particularly relevant as seagrass meadows are most usually found in estuaries and bays where ports and cities are also found”.

-I suggest to create a paragraph "conclusion", starting from the line 494, that need to offer a concise summery of the goals richer with the study conducted and well explained in the present article. In fact it results a bit confusing at the end.

We have reorganized the last paragraph into a conclusions paragraph.

Reviewer 4 Report

Sustainability

Manuscript ID: sustainability-2568387

Manuscript Type: Systematic Review

General comments

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "A synthesis of provision and impact in seagrass ecosystem services in the Brazilian southwest Atlantic," wherein the authors present a comprehensive analysis of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the specified region.

The study employs a systematic approach, including rigorous data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The results shed light on the distribution, importance, and human impacts of SESs in the southwest Atlantic. The article is well-structured and concise, with clear objectives guiding the research and a coherent presentation of the findings.

I believe that this manuscript makes a significant contribution to advancing knowledge about the roles and implications of seagrass ecosystems in the region. However, I have identified some areas where improvements could further enhance the manuscript's quality and impact. These comments are outlined below.

Detailed comments

Title: None

Abstract:

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's focus, objectives, methods, results, and implications.

Specific comments

Line 1: Consider rephrasing "raises concerns about impact" to "raises concerns about the impacts" for better coherence

Keywords: None

Introduction:

The introduction sets the stage well by explaining the significance of studying SESs in the context of seagrass ecosystems. However, certain sentences could be refined for greater coherence and conciseness. The authors also could consider providing a more detailed current map of this intermittent spatial distribution of seagrass in the southwest Atlantic region (specific region under study; "across ~9000 km of the Brazilian coast and latitudinal range between 4° N and 35° S"). This addition could enhance the readers' understanding and offer a valuable visual representation, especially considering that the cited literature (18-25) offers maps with broader coverage. For instance, the reference [25], Copertino et al., 2016 presents a general map with points of seagrass occurrence in Brazil, while the reference [18] Hatje et al., 2023 offers a map of vegetated coastal ecosystems.

Specific comments

Line 59: "how impacts on marine systems will affect humankind" could be changed as ""how impacts on marine systems will affect human well-being" for clarity.

Line 64: "…a wide range of provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services" can be adjusted as "…a wide array of provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services" for more descriptive form.

Line 101: Change "Seagrass leaves also provide raw material for cultural artifacts and fertilizers, offer educational, recreational and tourism opportunities and spiritual and religious value for coastal populations" to "Seagrass leaves also serve as raw materials for cultural artifacts and fertilizers, providing opportunities for education, recreation, tourism, and spiritual and religious value for coastal populations" for enhanced clarity and coherence.

Line 142: Revise "…in intertidal to shallow subtidal areas" to "…in intertidal to shallow subtidal zones" for consistency.

Material and Methods:

The "Materials and Methods" section is well-structured, providing a comprehensive overview of the study's approach to systematic review, data collection, and analysis. However, while the section is comprehensive, some additional context could be provided detailing the results of your preliminary investigation comparing search yields from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (a sentence or a supplementary graphic) and also, regarding potential challenges faced during the data extraction and categorization processes.

Specific comments

Line 199: " …implicitly proven in the study)" could be changed as "…implicitly demonstrated in the study)" for consistency.

Line 219: Replace "considered the context described by the authors when possible" to "considered the context as described by the authors when feasible" for better clarity.

Results:

The Results section is well-structured, with clear and concise presentation of findings supported by relevant figures and tables. 

Specific comments

Line 236: insert a comma after SESs: "observed SESs, as observed..."

Discussion:

The section provides a comprehensive analysis of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the southwest Atlantic, while also highlighting discrepancies and novel insights. Based on this analysis, the authors could be include a table or box within this section, demonstrating key recommendations for future research and management strategies. Minor modifications to sentence structures could enhance the section's coherence and clarity.

Specific comments

Line 344: Consider changing "according to the documents" to "based on the available documents" for better clarity.

Line 348: Consider adding for better flow: "However, the observations revealed that supporting..." 

Line 352: Consider rephrasing with a transition for better coherence: "In contrast to our findings..."

General Evaluation

In conclusion, the manuscript comprehensively explores and analyzes various aspects of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the southwest Atlantic region, shedding light on their importance, distribution, and human impacts. However, minor revisions are needed to improve clarity and strengthen the scientific impact. Rephrasing certain sentences would enhance the overall readability of the study, and including additional information, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the knowledge of SESs.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments which have improved ou ms and have acted on all the suggestions as follows:

General comments

I have reviewed the manuscript titled "A synthesis of provision and impact in seagrass ecosystem services in the Brazilian southwest Atlantic," wherein the authors present a comprehensive analysis of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the specified region.

The study employs a systematic approach, including rigorous data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The results shed light on the distribution, importance, and human impacts of SESs in the southwest Atlantic. The article is well-structured and concise, with clear objectives guiding the research and a coherent presentation of the findings.

I believe that this manuscript makes a significant contribution to advancing knowledge about the roles and implications of seagrass ecosystems in the region. However, I have identified some areas where improvements could further enhance the manuscript's quality and impact. These comments are outlined below.

Detailed comments

Title: None

Abstract:

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's focus, objectives, methods, results, and implications.

Specific comments

Line 1: Consider rephrasing "raises concerns about impact" to "raises concerns about the impacts" for better coherence

OK, changed

Keywords: None

Introduction:

The introduction sets the stage well by explaining the significance of studying SESs in the context of seagrass ecosystems. However, certain sentences could be refined for greater coherence and conciseness. The authors also could consider providing a more detailed current map of this intermittent spatial distribution of seagrass in the southwest Atlantic region (specific region under study; "across ~9000 km of the Brazilian coast and latitudinal range between 4° N and 35° S"). This addition could enhance the readers' understanding and offer a valuable visual representation, especially considering that the cited literature (18-25) offers maps with broader coverage. For instance, the reference [25], Copertino et al., 2016 presents a general map with points of seagrass occurrence in Brazil, while the reference [18] Hatje et al., 2023 offers a map of vegetated coastal ecosystems.

OK, we have included a map as “Figure 1. A map of the known distribution of seagrasses in Brazil, showing locations mentioned in the text” and renumbered the following figures accordingly

Specific comments

Line 59: "how impacts on marine systems will affect humankind" could be changed as ""how impacts on marine systems will affect human well-being" for clarity.

OK, changed

Line 64: "…a wide range of provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services" can be adjusted as "…a wide array of provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services" for more descriptive form.

OK, changed

Line 101: Change "Seagrass leaves also provide raw material for cultural artifacts and fertilizers, offer educational, recreational and tourism opportunities and spiritual and religious value for coastal populations" to "Seagrass leaves also serve as raw materials for cultural artifacts and fertilizers, providing opportunities for education, recreation, tourism, and spiritual and religious value for coastal populations" for enhanced clarity and coherence.

OK, changed

Line 142: Revise "…in intertidal to shallow subtidal areas" to "…in intertidal to shallow subtidal zones" for consistency.

OK, changed

Material and Methods:

The "Materials and Methods" section is well-structured, providing a comprehensive overview of the study's approach to systematic review, data collection, and analysis. However, while the section is comprehensive, some additional context could be provided detailing the results of your preliminary investigation comparing search yields from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (a sentence or a supplementary graphic) and also, regarding potential challenges faced during the data extraction and categorization processes.

We have included the sentence “....as well as much national gray literature which Scopus and Web of Science missed” for clarification. We have also included the sentence “As Google Scholar gives far more returns than Scopus or Web of Science and multiple searches generate far more repeated documents, the quantity of returns was a challenge.”

Specific comments

Line 199: " …implicitly proven in the study)" could be changed as "…implicitly demonstrated in the study)" for consistency.

OK, changed

Line 219: Replace "considered the context described by the authors when possible" to "considered the context as described by the authors when feasible" for better clarity.

OK, changed

Results:

The Results section is well-structured, with clear and concise presentation of findings supported by relevant figures and tables. 

Specific comments

Line 236: insert a comma after SESs: "observed SESs, as observed..."

OK, changed

Discussion:

The section provides a comprehensive analysis of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the southwest Atlantic, while also highlighting discrepancies and novel insights. Based on this analysis, the authors could be include a table or box within this section, demonstrating key recommendations for future research and management strategies. Minor modifications to sentence structures could enhance the section's coherence and clarity.

We have included a Table 1: Eight key recommendations for future research and management strategies for seagrasses in the southwest Atlantic

Specific comments

Line 344: Consider changing "according to the documents" to "based on the available documents" for better clarity.

OK, changed

Line 348: Consider adding for better flow: "However, the observations revealed that supporting..." 

OK, changed

Line 352: Consider rephrasing with a transition for better coherence: "In contrast to our findings..."

OK, changed

General Evaluation

In conclusion, the manuscript comprehensively explores and analyzes various aspects of seagrass ecosystem services (SESs) in the southwest Atlantic region, shedding light on their importance, distribution, and human impacts. However, minor revisions are needed to improve clarity and strengthen the scientific impact. Rephrasing certain sentences would enhance the overall readability of the study, and including additional information, the manuscript has the potential to make a significant contribution to the knowledge of SESs.

We have included the information suggested and thank the reviewer for their useful suggestions!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments. I have completed the review of the manuscript. I commend the authors for carrying out a suitable and careful review to address most of the issues from the previous version. After considering the changes, I feel the manuscript is in an improved state. The introduction was shortened, which improved readability, and the objectives bring more specific points to aid the reader understanding the results. The questions raised in the results and discussion were overall well explained and justified. The inclusion of Table 1 is a welcome addition that brings the implications of the results into light. Granted, not all points raised in the previous review were changed (such as the fact that Google Scholar does support Boolean Operators or the choice to keep the flowchart that summarizes the methods in the supplementary material), but I believe most of these instances are not points worth pressing, as they do not damage the understanding, the scientific integrity, and neither the quality of the work. Given that the review was properly carried out and the manuscript does a good job at addressing a very important topic, with its quality being already recognized in the previous version, I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

There was an improvement in the language in this revised version. I am still able to spot some minor issues, but I believe those can be addressed at the editorial phase.