Creating a National Coral-Focused Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Fiji to Prevent Coral Species Extinction in the Face of Rapid Climate Change: Applying the UNESCO-Endorsed “Reefs of Hope” Ocean Decade Action

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

Strengths.

1. The manuscript addresses the urgent threat of coral reef collapse due to climate change and proposes actionable strategies to mitigate coral species extinction.
2. The Reefs of Hope approach is well-articulated and grounded in field experience, offering a compelling alternative to conventional restoration paradigms.
3. The plan is designed to complement existing conservation efforts, including MPAs, LMMAs, and community-based management.
4. The emphasis on Indigenous communities, NGOs, academic institutions, and the tourism sector fosters a collaborative and inclusive approach.
5. The operational strategies, nursing designs, and regeneration patch construction are described in detail, providing a clear blueprint for implementation.
6. The successful establishment of the Bula Nursery and coral survival during recent bleaching events offers compelling evidence of feasibility.

Areas for improvement:

1. Some claims would benefit from clearer differentiation between anecdotal observations and peer-reviewed evidence. More quantitative data from pilot sites would strengthen the manuscript.
2. Terms such as “hot pocket reefs” and “regeneration patches” should be defined for clarity.
3. A more balanced discussion of potential risks (such as disease transmission, genetic bottlenecs) would enhance credibility.
4. Further details on how the plan could be integrated into national policy frameworks would be helpful.
5. The budget section is useful but could benefit from more discussion of funding-sources and cost effectiveness.

Specific feedback:

1. The manuscript contains several subjective and grandiose claims that are not substantiated by evidence. For example, the statement that tourism has lifted nations to “formerly undreamt of levels” (line 48) is speculative and should be removed or revised. The authors cannot reasonably assess the historical aspirations of nations, and the claim overstates tourism’s economic impact in many Global South contexts. Removing hyperbole here and throughout will make the suggestions and findings in the manuscript more trustworthy.
2. Misrepresentation of Citation 11 (Mulà et al. 2025): The manuscript misuses this citation to suggest that no conservation efforts, including MPAs, have been effective in preventing coral reef collapse post-bleaching. This is a controversial claim and not supported by the cited work, which focuses on restoration scalability. The authors should revise this statement and clarify what they mean by “collapse” as the term is used ambiguously throughout the manuscript.
3. Lines 55-60 imply that all reefs are bleaching and dying, which is misleading. Coral reefs globally are responding to heat stress in diverse ways, and even some “pristine” reefs have shown surprising resilience. These lines should be tempered to reflect the variability in coral responses.
4. Lines 63-65 and elsewhere use “collapse” without definition. Please clarify whether this refers to ecological function, biodiversity loss, or coral cover decline, and avoid implying total mortality where shifts in community composition are more accurate.
5. Lines 74-80 reference the views of coral reef scientists but lack citations and may not represent the scientific consensus. Please either cite supporting literature or clearly indicate that this is anecdotal.
6. The sentence beginning in line 122 appears to conflate global reef statistics with those specific to Fiji. Please clarify whether the 84% figure refers to global reefs or Fiji’s reefs
7. The paragraph beginning in line 137 suggests that this is the first plan to actively intervene to conserve declining coral species, which is inaccurate; subsequent lines in the manuscript, for example, discuss efforts to kill COTS and prevent outbreaks, which itself contradicts this sentence. Plans like the Reimaanlok Framework in the Marshall Islands have long considered coral resilience. The authors should revise this to reflect the broader context of Pacific conservation efforts and avoid claiming to be the first.
8. Lines 172-178 are opinion based and do not contribute to the framework or justifying its existence. I recommend removing this section.
9. Figure 4 title: “Bleaching frequency vs. intensity” is misleading. DHWs indicate potential for bleaching but do not measure bleaching intensity directly. The authors also need to explain what the Y axis represents and revise the title to reflect that DHWs are a proxy, not a measure of bleaching.
10. Please add attributions to the photos and maps. Are these the author’s personal photos? Where do the maps or satellite images come from?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Strengths.

1. The manuscript addresses the urgent threat of coral reef collapse due to climate change and proposes actionable strategies to mitigate coral species extinction.
2. The Reefs of Hope approach is well-articulated and grounded in field experience, offering a compelling alternative to conventional restoration paradigms.
3. The plan is designed to complement existing conservation efforts, including MPAs, LMMAs, and community-based management.
4. The emphasis on Indigenous communities, NGOs, academic institutions, and the tourism sector fosters a collaborative and inclusive approach.
5. The operational strategies, nursery designs, and regeneration patch construction are described in detail, providing a clear blueprint for implementation.
6. The successful establishment of the Bula Nursery and coral survival during recent bleaching events offers compelling evidence of feasibility.

Areas for improvement:

1. Some claims would benefit from clearer differentiation between anecdotal observations and peer reviewed evidence. More quantitative data from pilot sites would strengthen the manuscript. NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS POINT
2. Terms such as “hot pocket reefs” and “regeneration patches” should be defined for clarity. DONE
3. A more balanced discussion of potential risks (such as disease transmission, genetic bottlenecks) would enhance credibility. DONE ADDED A PARAGRAPH

Reefs of Hope strategies were assessed by a select group of coral reef ecologists in a recent CORDAP sponsored workshop; “Managing the Ecological Risks of Coral Reef Interventions” [87], which included evaluating disease transmission and genetic bottlenecks, Reefs of Hope restoration strategies were singled out as being “promising interventions with potentially lower inherent ecological risks”, with specific reference to the interventions being nature-based, “leveraging assisted natural recovery using heat resistant local corals”, concluding that Reefs of Hope  “may be particularly well suited to regions with lower intervention infrastructure” (i.e. communities and developing world nations).

4. Further details on how the plan could be integrated into national policy frameworks would be helpful. DONE
5. The budget section is useful but could benefit from more discussion of funding-sources and cost effectiveness. DONE

Specific feedback:

1. The manuscript contains several subjective and grandiose claims that are not substantiated by evidence. For example, the statement that tourism has lifted nations to “formerly undreamt of levels” (line 48) is speculative and should be removed or revised. DONE The authors cannot reasonably assess the historical aspirations of nations, and the claim overstates tourism’s economic impact in many Global South contexts. Removing hyperbole here and throughout will make the suggestions and findings in the manuscript more trustworthy.
2. Misrepresentation of Citation 11 (Mulà et al. 2025): The manuscript misuses this citation to suggest that no conservation efforts, including MPAs, have been effective in preventing coral reef collapse post-bleaching. This is a controversial claim and not supported by the cited work, which focuses on restoration scalability. The authors should revise this statement and clarify what they mean by “collapse” as the term is used ambiguously throughout the manuscript. Good point, and DONE
3. Lines 55-60 imply that all reefs are bleaching and dying, which is misleading. Coral reefs globally are responding to heat stress in diverse ways, and even some “pristine” reefs have shown surprising resilience. These lines should be tempered to reflect the variability in coral responses. DONE
4. Lines 63-65 and elsewhere use “collapse” without definition. Please clarify whether this refers to ecological function, biodiversity loss, or coral cover decline, and avoid implying total mortality where shifts in community composition are more accurate. DONE
5. Lines 74-80 reference the views of coral reef scientists but lack citations and may not represent the scientific consensus. Please either cite supporting literature or clearly indicate that this is anecdotal. DONE
6. The sentence beginning in line 122 appears to conflate global reef statistics with those specific to Fiji. Please clarify whether the 84% figure refers to global reefs or Fiji’s reefs DONE
7. The paragraph beginning in line 137 suggests that this is the first plan to actively intervene to conserve declining coral species, which is inaccurate; subsequent lines in the manuscript, for example, discuss efforts to kill COTS and prevent outbreaks, which itself contradicts this sentence. Plans like the Reimaanlok Framework in the Marshall Islands have long considered coral resilience. The authors should revise this to reflect the broader context of Pacific conservation efforts and avoid claiming to be the first. DONE
8. Lines 172-178 are opinion based and do not contribute to the framework or justifying its existence. I recommend removing this section. DONE, PERHAPS MOVED TO DISCUSSION
9. Figure 4 title: “Bleaching frequency vs. intensity” is misleading. DHWs indicate potential for bleaching but do not measure bleaching intensity directly. The authors also need to explain what the Y axis represents and revise the title to reflect that DHWs are a proxy, not a measure of bleaching. DONE
10. Please add attributions to the photos and maps. Are these the author’s personal photos? Where do the maps or satellite images come from? DONE

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is arguably one of the most meaningful I have reviewed in recent years. Its relevance is unquestionable, and it fully merits publication. Given the scope and magnitude of the research, the length of the manuscript is understandable. However, there are some repeated concepts that should be streamlined to improve the overall flow and readability of the text. Aside from this, only minor comments need to be addressed prior to acceptance.

 

Line 33-35 – Suggestion: “Over the eons, coral reefs have grown to form extensive geographical structures in tropical oceans, developing into vast barrier reefs, fringing reefs, and atoll systems [1], often rising hundreds of meters from the ocean depths.”.

Line 114-117 – Suggestion: "However, just to the south in the Caribbean, such rescue measures were not possible in country after country. The intense heatwaves of 2023 and 2024 caused mass mortality events and local-scale extinctions of coral species, with Acropora species being particularly devastated [30–33]."

Line 173-176 – This analogy may be unnecessary. The preceding sentence effectively introduces the intended idea, and the subsequent sentence — originally beginning with 'Likewise' — could be slightly modified to begin with 'Thus' to better complement the flow while maintaining scientific accuracy.

Line 184 – COTS. The acronym is used without explanation, which may render its meaning unclear to readers who are less familiar with the subject (Crown-of-Thorns Starfish).

Figure 5 consists of two images, but the legend refers only to the second one. Additionally, the legend reads more like an explanation than a description of the images. A revision of the legend to clearly describe both images is recommended.

Line 288-389 - The sentence is incomplete. It reads like a dependent clause that needs a main clause to complete the thought.

Line 431 – Acropora in italic

Line 434 – Pocillopora in italic

Line 470 – Up to this point in the manuscript, the author has repeated the same concept multiple times, resulting in unnecessary repetition. Section 1.9 serves as a clear example of this. Given the overall length of the manuscript, reducing redundancy would improve clarity and conciseness.

Figure 6 – Same comment as in Figure 5. Figure 6 consists of two images, but the legend refers only to the second one.

Figure 7 – Same comment as previous.

Line 665-671 – These are considerations that do not fit in a Material & Methods section.

Figure 9 - 32-33ºC

Line 762 – To improve scientific correctness, and since mentioned for the first time in the text a clearer explanation on the fish species is required. Commonly, when referring to blue Chromis, this is the common name of the species Azurina cyanea, family Pomacentridae, indigenous from the Western Atlantic  Ocean, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, not from the Pacific Ocean. Please provide the scientific name to improve accuracy. As for the black and white banded Dascyllus, also known as the humbug damselfish, please add the scientific name: Dascyllus aruanus.

Line 781 – Suggestion: End the sentence at: “however it may not be possible to verify or quantify these impacts.” as the remaining part “…, so we trust that nature will put the larvae to good use.” lacks scientific meaning.

Figure 16 – The font size and colour (yellow) diminish the readability in the upper photo. Please consider increasing the font size and eventually its colour.

Line 886 and 890 – Acropora in italic.

Line 908 – Figure 15, not 18.

Line 919-921 – Is the sentence actually intended to end with an exclamation point? While the result is interesting, the presentation is somewhat colloquial and should be made more formal.

Line 958 - 4. DEVELOPING A FIJI NATIONAL CORAL REEF ADAPTATION PLAN

Regardless of the relevance of what is described here, which is not in question, is this actually a result of the study? As it stands, it reads more like a description of local and international stakeholders engaged in coral protection and conservation. Therefore, this content would be more appropriately placed in the Discussion section rather than in the Results.

Line 1023 - 4.1. Phases of a Fiji-wide National Coral Reef Adaptation Plan

This section presents a designed protocol for future actions focused on coral protection and conservation. It is primarily an output of the current study and should be introduced as such, emphasizing its relevance as a key result derived from the research findings.

Line 1091 – Italicize Pocillopora.

Line 1222 – Italicize Tridacna.

Line 1398 – Discussion section. This study does not follow the structure of a conventional scientific investigation; rather, it adopts a more holistic approach, with results that are predominantly qualitative. As a result, and in contrast to the rest of the manuscript, the Discussion section is notably brief. The results are not thoroughly discussed here, nor is there a comparison with previous or similar studies. This appears to be because some level of discussion has already been incorporated into the Results section. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to merge the Results and Discussion into a single, integrated Results & Discussion section to enhance coherence and avoid redundancy.

Line 1403 – for

Author Response

This study is arguably one of the most meaningful I have reviewed in recent years. Its relevance is unquestionable, and it fully merits publication. Given the scope and magnitude of the research, the length of the manuscript is understandable. However, there are some repeated concepts that should be streamlined to improve the overall flow and readability of the text. Aside from this, only minor comments need to be addressed prior to acceptance.

Line 33-35 – Suggestion: “Over the eons, coral reefs have grown to form extensive geographical structures in tropical oceans, developing into vast barrier reefs, fringing reefs, and atoll systems [1], often rising hundreds of meters from the ocean depths.”.  DONE

Line 114-117 – Suggestion: "However, just to the south in the Caribbean, such rescue measures were not possible in country after country. The intense heatwaves of 2023 and 2024 caused mass mortality events and local-scale extinctions of coral species, with Acropora species being particularly devastated [30–33]." DONE

Line 173-176 – This analogy may be unnecessary. The preceding sentence effectively introduces the intended idea, and the subsequent sentence — originally beginning with 'Likewise' — could be slightly modified to begin with 'Thus' to better complement the flow while maintaining scientific accuracy. DONE

Line 184 – COTS. The acronym is used without explanation, which may render its meaning unclear to readers who are less familiar with the subject (Crown-of-Thorns Starfish). DONE

Figure 5 consists of two images, but the legend refers only to the second one. Additionally, the legend reads more like an explanation than a description of the images. A revision of the legend to clearly describe both images is recommended. DONE

Line 288-389 - The sentence is incomplete. It reads like a dependent clause that needs a main clause to complete the thought. DONE

Line 431 – Acropora in italic DONE

Line 434 – Pocillopora in italic DONE

Line 470 – Up to this point in the manuscript, the author has repeated the same concept multiple times, resulting in unnecessary repetition. Section 1.9 serves as a clear example of this. Given the overall length of the manuscript, reducing redundancy would improve clarity and conciseness.  DONE

Figure 6 – Same comment as in Figure 5. Figure 6 consists of two images, but the legend refers only to the second one. DONE

Figure 7 – Same comment as previous. DONE

Line 665-671 – These are considerations that do not fit in a Material & Methods section. MOVED to 458-464 (Marked in red letters)

Figure 9 - 32-33ºC DONE

Line 762 – To improve scientific correctness, and since mentioned for the first time in the text a clearer explanation on the fish species is required. Commonly, when referring to blue Chromis, this is the common name of the species Azurina cyanea, family Pomacentridae, indigenous from the Western Atlantic  Ocean, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, not from the Pacific Ocean. Please provide the scientific name to improve accuracy. As for the black and white banded Dascyllus, also known as the humbug damselfish, please add the scientific name: Dascyllus aruanus.  DONE

Line 781 – Suggestion: End the sentence at: “however it may not be possible to verify or quantify these impacts.” as the remaining part “…, so we trust that nature will put the larvae to good use.” lacks scientific meaning. DONE

Figure 16 – The font size and colour (yellow) diminish the readability in the upper photo. Please consider increasing the font size and eventually its colour.  DONE

Line 886 and 890 – Acropora in italic. DONE

Line 908 – Figure 15, not 18. DONE

Line 919-921 – Is the sentence actually intended to end with an exclamation point? While the result is interesting, the presentation is somewhat colloquial and should be made more formal.  DONE

Line 958 - 4. DEVELOPING A FIJI NATIONAL CORAL REEF ADAPTATION PLAN

Regardless of the relevance of what is described here, which is not in question, is this actually a result of the study? As it stands, it reads more like a description of local and international stakeholders engaged in coral protection and conservation. Therefore, this content would be more appropriately placed in the Discussion section rather than in the Results.  ADDRESSED

Line 1023 - 4.1. Phases of a Fiji-wide National Coral Reef Adaptation Plan

This section presents a designed protocol for future actions focused on coral protection and conservation. It is primarily an output of the current study and should be introduced as such, emphasizing its relevance as a key result derived from the research findings. DONE

Line 1091 – Italicize Pocillopora. DONE

Line 1222 – Italicize Tridacna. DONE

Line 1398 – Discussion section. This study does not follow the structure of a conventional scientific investigation; rather, it adopts a more holistic approach, with results that are predominantly qualitative. As a result, and in contrast to the rest of the manuscript, the Discussion section is notably brief. The results are not thoroughly discussed here, nor is there a comparison with previous or similar studies. This appears to be because some level of discussion has already been incorporated into the Results section. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to merge the Results and Discussion into a single, integrated Results & Discussion section to enhance coherence and avoid redundancy.  I HAVE TRIED MY BEST TO DO THIS

Line 1403 – for DONE

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. I commend the authors for their thoughtful and thorough revisions, which have addressed the key concerns raised in the initial review.

• The manuscript now clearly distinguishes between anecdotal observations and peer-reviewed evidence, and while additional quantitative data from pilot sites is not currently available, the authors have acknowledged this limitation appropriately.
• Terminology such as “hot pocket reefs” and “regeneration patches” has been defined, improving clarity.
• The discussion of ecological risks has been significantly strengthened, particularly with the inclusion of insights from the recent CORDAP workshop.
• Integration with national policy frameworks and funding considerations has been expanded, enhancing the manuscript’s practical relevance.
• Subjective and speculative claims have been revised or removed, improving the manuscript’s tone and credibility.
• Misrepresentations and ambiguities in citations and terminology (e.g., “collapse,” bleaching impacts, reef statistics) have been corrected.
• Visual elements, including figures and photos, have been clarified and properly attributed.

Overall, the authors have been responsive to feedback and have made substantial improvements. I support the publication of this manuscript in Sustainability and believe it will make a valuable contribution to the field.