Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Madeleine J. H. van Oppen 1,2,*,
  • Talisa Doering 2 and
  • Luanny Martins Fernandes 2

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anahas Perianaika Matharasi Antonyraj

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review “Can bacterial manipulation deliver reef-scale thermal enhancement of corals?” is dedicated to describing the possible use of bacteria to help corals survive changes due to global warming. Corals are an important part of the marine ecosystem, and the problem of their bleaching and death is known worldwide. Therefore, a review of scientific articles suggesting one of the ways to help save corals is actual.

This review covers many aspects of using bacteria to enhance coral heat resistance. It would be interesting to know how inoculate corals with bacterial strains in the natural reef environment, unfortunately, there is no such information in the review. Significant questions also remain economic feasibility and scalability of this method for entire reef systems. Despite these questions, ongoing experiments are vital, and a review summarizing the current data is an important contribution to the field.

Comments

Table 1 needs to be reworked to improve readability.

  1. The vertical position of the text in the first line is inconvenient for the reader.
  2. The second and third columns currently share an identical title, but contain different data.
  3. The title of the 5th column is not fully included, which is why the meaning is not clear.
  4. “j Eight strains were tested individually.” However, the number in this cell is 1. It's not clear.
  5. “26 delevated temperature” correct to 26 d elevated….

Line 104-112 Bacterial taxa should be italicized.

Figure 2. The caption is too long. In my opinion, it would be more readable as a separate paragraph in the main text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With great interest, I read the manuscript named as "Can bacterial manipulation deliver reef-scale thermal enhancement of corals?". I am pleased to note that van Oppen et al. have carried out a praiseworthy review on the thermal enhancement of corals through the inoculation with beneficial bacterial manipulation. This review had made much efforts in describing the current state of research, identifying existing problems and looking towards the future forward. It has also provided effective recommendations regarding candidate bacterial selection, mechanistic understanding, and field practices. The overall manuscript wrote quite well, and I recommend it to be accepted. But some minor revisions will be required before acceptance as followings: 

  1. For Table 1, the column titles should be redesign . They were excessivelylong to convey the meaning clearly. The second and ninth rows, “Studies aiming to enhance coral thermal resilience via inoculation with bacteria” and “Studies examining effect of bacterial inoculant or its temporal stability at ambient temperature”, could be marked as superscripts in the references and  classified into two types as a and b. Tables are intended for summarizing and generalizing. The detailed descriptions in the table notes should be either removed or placed in the attachments to enhance the continuity and readability of the manuscript.
  2. The analysis of the mechanism of action presented in the footnote of Figure 2 is a crucial part of the article and should be incorporated into the main text, with the process being appropriated named. Simply label the corresponding names on the diagram. 
  3. The authors have presented comprehensive descriptions of the isolated strains and mechanisms of action in the bacterial agents that enhance coral thermal Could you assess and forecast which strains have the greater development potential based on the two most important indicators, namely the persistence of the effect and ecological safety, to further enhance the scientific rigor of the article and its practical guiding significance?
  4. In the concluding remarks, the significantconclusions presented in the former sections ought to be organized and articulated, rather that simply emphasizing the necessity and urgency of the research.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Comments

  1. The review addresses a highly timely and important topic, given the accelerating impacts of climate warming on coral reef ecosystems worldwide.
  2. The title is engaging and thought-provoking; however, the authors may consider clarifying whether the focus is primarily on experimental feasibility or reef-scale application.
  3. The introduction effectively sets the global context of coral reef decline but could benefit from briefly quantifying the rate of reef loss to emphasize urgency.
  4. The rationale for focusing on bacterial manipulation, rather than algal symbionts or genetic approaches, is well articulated and clearly justified.
  5. The manuscript provides a balanced overview of optimism and limitation, which strengthens its credibility as a critical review.
  6. The authors correctly note that current studies rely on a limited set of bacterial traits; however, a summary table of traits used to date would improve clarity.
  7. Greater distinction between short-term thermal tolerance and long-term resilience would help refine the interpretation of existing studies.
  8. The review highlights the lack of evidence for stable bacterial integration, but could further discuss what constitutes “stable integration” in ecological terms.
  9. The manuscript would benefit from clearer differentiation between laboratory, mesocosm, and field-based studies.
  10. The authors appropriately critique the inability of current studies to attribute host benefits to specific bacterial taxa, a key limitation in the field.
  11. Discussion of functional redundancy within coral microbiomes could be expanded, as it has implications for bacterial selection strategies.
  12. The review would be strengthened by including examples of failed or neutral bacterial inoculation outcomes, if available.
  13. The section on experimental design is particularly strong; however, more concrete methodological recommendations (e.g., duration, replication) would add value.
  14. Consideration of host genotype variability and its influence on bacterial colonization deserves greater attention.
  15. The manuscript could benefit from a brief discussion on microbiome resilience versus plasticity under repeated thermal stress.
  16. The ecological risks of large-scale bacterial manipulation are briefly mentioned but warrant deeper consideration.
  17. Regulatory, ethical, and governance challenges associated with reef-scale microbial interventions could be expanded.
  18. The authors may consider addressing whether bacterial manipulation should be viewed as a standalone intervention or part of a multi-strategy approach.
  19. The review does an excellent job of identifying knowledge gaps but could prioritize them into short-term versus long-term research needs.
  20. The concept of “reef-scale thermal enhancement” is compelling; however, clearer criteria for evaluating success at this scale would be helpful.
  21. The manuscript could benefit from integrating insights from microbiome engineering in terrestrial or human systems as comparative frameworks.
  22. The authors should clarify whether inoculated bacteria are expected to persist, cycle, or require repeated application.
  23. The review might discuss potential interactions between bacterial inoculants and Symbiodiniaceae dynamics.
  24. The conclusions are appropriately cautious and avoid overstatement, which is commendable.
  25. The writing is clear and accessible, but minor language refinements could improve flow in the middle sections.
  26. Figures or conceptual diagrams illustrating proposed experimental pipelines would enhance reader engagement.
  27. The manuscript effectively communicates that current evidence is insufficient for reef-scale application, which is an important message.
  28. The review would benefit from a short section on metrics and biomarkers suitable for assessing microbial-mediated thermal tolerance.
  29. The recommendations section is valuable; however, explicitly identifying standardized protocols could further accelerate progress in the field.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have carefully revised the manuscript by addressing the reviewers’ comments and strengthening the overall presentation of the study. The methodology and data interpretation are now clearer, and the discussion better reflects the significance of the findings in the context of existing literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language quality of the manuscript has been substantially improved in the revised version. The text is now clear, coherent, and grammatically sound, with appropriate scientific tone and terminology throughout. Minor stylistic edits, if any, can be addressed during final copyediting.