Spatial Difference in the Marine Algal Community of Yeongil Bay Inner and Outer Areas on the East Coast of Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
in this study, the authors reported the species composition, biomass, and the important value (IV) index of macroalgae collected at 13 intertidal sites in the inner and outer areas of Yeongil Bay, East Coast of Korea, during four seasonal periods from August 2021 to July 2022. The data is valuable for understanding the ecological status of this bay. However, this manuscript is not prepared and organized and have not reached the publication level.
In Introduction, the scientific question is not clear. The authors declared “no previous study has assessed the algal community structure in Yeongil Bay”, it is not enough to carry out this study.
The results just showed the environmental factors of temperature and salinity; but in discussion they presented the nutrients levels and analyzed their relation to the biomass of macroalgae. Why do not show the nutrients in the results?
Table 1, the mean value has no sense, remove it.
Figure 2, why not use the same style of these two panels?
The description in Results needs to be largely improved.
The present conclusions cannot be derived from the findings of this study.
The language needs to be largely improved.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Modified and supplemented contents are indicated in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the seasonal and spatial changes in the marine algal community
structure in the outer and inner areas of the intertidal zone of Yeongil Bay was studied. This study provides a good scientific basis for the structure of macroalgal communities as affected by the environment and for the protection of the nearshore environment. Moreover, the paper has some problems. I would suggest major revision before acceptance.
1. 2.1. Sample collection and marine algal community section, when is sampling done in each season? Is it during high tidal floods? What is the number of sample plots per site? Please ask the authors to add the above information.
2. 2.1. 2.1. Sample collection and marine algal community section, substrate plays an important role in the attachment of macroalgae, and the type of substrate at each sampling site inside and outside of the harbor in this study needs to be added.
3. Table 1 needs further refinement.
4. the description of the results on page 4 is repeated, and the authors are requested to check it further.
5. environmental factors should be added to the existing survey to analyze the nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrients, etc. in seawater, whether these have been tested simultaneously, if so, please add a description.
6. in the conclusion part, the author mentioned non-destructive sampling methods, remote sensing, etc., which is inconsistent with the previous text, please check this part, whether it is the same study.
7. It is recommended that line numbers be added to the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Modified and supplemented contents are indicated in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Congratulations on an interesting field study and analysis of the algal community in Yeongil Bay. Some minor comments on wording, points to clarify etc can be found within the text.
However, I was very much surprised when I reached the Conclusions at the end and read that apparently this study was a comparison between two different methods, as this was in no way mentioned before. Was this an error? Should it perhaps be in another study? If this is indeed on purpose, and the study is a comparison between destructive and non-destructive sampling, then the whole paper needs to be totally re-written and you should withdraw this submission.
The data you present is interesting, but it needs to be better put into a scientific context. I lack a clear narrative throughout the paper, where one or two problems/questions should be presented in the introduction, then followed through methods and results, and finally the results be discussed in the light of these questions. The discussion you present feels very weak, repeating parts of introduction and basic facts regarding algae, but lacking in scientific relevance. The main question raised in introduction (eutrophication) is not discussed first, nor is all relevant data (nitrogen) presented in the Results section. This must be seen to. There are several analyses and indices presented, but these are not put into any context of eutrophication in the discussion. Potential discussion can be what factors influences certain indices, for example, and thus what the index says about the situation from a eutrophication monitoring perspective, since this is mentioned at the end.
The paragraph on restoration is well written, and would be an interesting view on your data, but this has not been mentioned at all before in the paper. The data could be used from this perspective as well, since it goes together with eutrophication, but then you need to address this already in introduction and also more in detail in the discussion.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The language is fine, with some minor mistakes in choice of words. I suggest you refrain from excessive use of "therefore" and similar words, as the text runs smoothly without them and it makes for some confusion if they are used incorrectly.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Modified and supplemented contents are indicated in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors re-work on this manuscript.
I think there is still a lack of the relevant explanations about the findings, such as the higher species richness in winter. I prefer to know the reason that causes such a difference. Without such the scientific explanation, this paper seems to be a survey report on the comparisons of two areas in a bay, not a scientific paper.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful review. It has been corrected and supplemented by reflecting the reviewer's opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript.
There is now one minor issue that needs to be revised by the author. Longitude and latitude need to be marked in Figure 1. How are the survey stations in the figure determined?
It is recommended that the manuscript be published after revision.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful review. It has been corrected and supplemented by reflecting the reviewer's opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors.
Thank you for re-working your manuscript.
There is, however, still a lack of scientifically relevant discussion as to what drives the differences in the macroalgal flora in the inner and outer part of the bay. However, if you are not marine phycologists, then I understand why no such discussion is possible for you. But without it, there is little scientific interest in the paper apart from a survey and comparison of two areas in a bay. I do agree that such studies are of importance for future restoration, should such be necessary. Some differences, such as a higher species richness in winter, is interesting but is not explained. I would very much like to see some more ecologically relevant context to your data if possible.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I have a few comments on some parts, see attached pdf, mostly the kind of misunderstandings that comes from not having English as a first language. It is very understandable. If you have used an online translation app, it might sometimes be that the grammar is still in Korean even though the words are in English and thus the wording makes no sense to an English reader. If you have the opportunity, I do recommend that someone who is more proficient in English go through your text and corrects some grammatical mistakes. Some of them I commented on the first time and they still remain.
Author Response
Thank you for your thoughtful review. It has been corrected and supplemented by reflecting the reviewer's opinion.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
