Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review for the paper submitted to “Journal of Marine Science and Engineering”.

Title: Community structure, health status and environmental drivers of coral reefs in Koh Seh Island of the Kep Archipelago, Cambodia

Authors: Sreyoun Ith, Amick Haissoune, Alex Reid, Ratha Sor

 

The authors focused on the investigation of coral reef diversity, structure, and health status in the Koh Seh Island area of the Kep archipelagos. The authors revealed that the predominant components of the reefs were live corals, primarily from the genera Porites and Tubinaria, followed by significant amounts of Zoanthids and sand/rubble. The authors’ study showed that coral communities in the region were categorized into three distinct zones: The authors observed an absence of dead corals and diseases in the coral reefs surrounding Koh Seh, indicating a relatively healthy ecosystem.

The study provides a foundational understanding of coral reef health and its association with specific environmental conditions, which could inform further conservation strategies. The findings affirm the effectiveness of current conservation efforts in the region, prompting the significance of continued enforcement and monitoring for sustainable marine management. In conclusion, this research serves as a pivotal baseline for ongoing studies of benthic reefs and coral communities across the Kep Archipelago and its surrounding marine areas to monitor changes and inform future conservation policies.

 

Suggestions for improving the paper:

 

Abstract

 

L 25. The authors should provide some details about the other two zones: South and West.

 

Introduction.

 

L 46. The authors noted that an average of 15 tons of fish can be harvested from a well-managed reef per square kilometer. They should report whether this figure is relevant to the reefs in Cambodia and, if so, provide data on the current fishery yield from Cambodian coral reefs for context.

 

L 47. The authors stated that coral reefs are vital for providing habitats and protection for marine species and shorelines. They should clarify how these ecosystem services specifically benefit coastal regions in Cambodia.

 

L 53. The authors stated that illegal fishing is one of the most immediate threats to Cambodia’s coral reefs. It would be useful to report the scale and nature of this illegal activity.

 

Materials and Methods.

 

L 83. The authors stated that their study was conducted following a desktop mapping process. The authors should clarify the specifics of this mapping method, including the tools and data sources used.

 

L 114. The authors stated that substrate types and health statuses were assigned via random point overlays on images. They should explain whether this method provides sufficient resolution for detecting fine-scale differences in benthic composition.

 

Results.

 

The authors should report the similarity rate for the three clusters and each pair.

 

They should also augment non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) with statistical tests (e.g., PERMANOVA) to quantitatively assess differences between groups.

 

Figure 4: It would be useful to provide a stress value for this ordination.

 

Table 2: It would be useful to update this analysis with pairwise comparisons between groups.

 

Additionally, it would be beneficial to update the text with an analysis of the impact of environmental factors on communities using a multivariate approach, such as redundancy analysis.

 

Discussion.

 

L 233. The authors found that hard corals dominate Cambodia's coral reef community, while soft corals are less abundant. They should hypothesize which underlying factors render inshore reefs inhospitable to soft corals (e.g., water quality, sedimentation, or human activities).

 

L 241. The authors found that Porites spp. dominates the hard coral community in Koh Seh and Koh Rong, with varying percentages between islands. They should explain what ecological or environmental factors may drive these differences in Porites spp. dominance across different locations.

 

L 298. The authors noted that areas with high sedimentation host stress-tolerant corals. They should clarify whether any shifts in coral dominance over time (from branching to stress-tolerant massive corals) were observed or documented in past studies of Koh Seh reefs.

 

Reference list.

 

The authors should follow the instructions for authors to properly format the references.

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our study’s contribution to understanding coral reef diversity and health in the Koh Seh reef system. In response to your suggestions, we have revised the abstract to include details about zones South and West, and expanded the introduction with contextual data on Cambodian fisheries, ecosystem services, and illegal fishing activities. We also clarified our desktop mapping method and the resolution of image-based substrate analysis using CPCe.

In the results and discussion sections, we incorporated statistical analyses including PERMANOVA and NMDS with environmental fitting, added the NMDS stress value, and updated Table 2 with pairwise comparisons. We addressed the reviewer’s comments on coral community patterns and environmental influences, including hypotheses on soft coral distribution and Porites dominance. We also discussed observed shifts in coral types due to sedimentation. Finally, we reformatted the reference list according to journal guidelines. These revisions have strengthened the manuscript and we are grateful for the reviewer’s valuable input.

Please find the point-by-point response to your comments in the attached, and we hope our responses meet your expectations.

Best regards,

Ratha Sor and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript written by Srey Oun Ith and collaborators provides a baseline ecological data on coral communities around Koh Seh Island in Cambodia’s Kep Archipelago—an area with very limited prior reef monitoring.

The topic is timely and relevant, especially considering the increasing attention on marginal/extreme reef systems and the push for many countries to extend their marine protected areas. 

However, the manuscript currently falls short in several key areas. There are significant issues with clarity of expression, structure, and overinterpretation of some of the findings. Some methods need clearer description, and several claims—especially regarding conservation effectiveness—are not fully supported by the data presented. However I still think that this study has merit and should be published.

I recommend major revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Please find hereafter a detailed review for the authors.

 

Major Comments

1. Language and Grammar (Throughout the Manuscript)

The manuscript would benefit from comprehensive English language editing. Sentence structure is often awkward, and grammar issues affect readability and clarity. Please note that I'm not an English speaker myself.

2. Mismatch between objective and overall results (Lines 70–71)

It's hard to see how the authors linked coral cover with environmental factors. I think a PERMANOVA could be a good follow-up analysis to specifically address this issue. 

3. Overinterpretation of Protection Effectiveness (Lines 30–34, 265–267, 321–322)

Coral health appears good (no observable disease, limited amount of dead coral, high coral cover) but without time-series or before/after comparisons, the statement about the effectiveness of the co-enforced protection by Marine Conservation Cambodia and the Fisheries Department is speculative and should be framed more cautiously. I think the authors could instead say that their data could constitute a good baseline to study future changes in Koh Seh Island.

4. Environmental Drivers Not Fully Explored (Lines 284–300)
The manuscript identifies statistically significant variation in environmental parameters across zones, yet the manuscript do not fully integrate these into multivariate analyses (maybe a PERMANOVA would be helpful). In addition, while indicated in the Material and Method, the nMDS is also not showing any ordination (environmental influence). 

5. Indicator Species Interpretation (Lines 207–209)
Even if statistically significant, the reported IndVal = 0.09 for Goniastrea is really low and should be treated with caution. Normally, only species with IndVal > 0.25 or that are clearly significant both statistically and ecologically are kept. If that is the case, the authors should give more context to support Goniastrea as an indicator species.  

6. Sampling Design Description Needs Clarification (Lines 83–84, 101–106, 126–128)
Some parts of the methodology are confusing or insufficiently explained. For instance:

1. 1. What is a desktop study? What resources did the authors used for mapping the island? Also, it seems that the authors used some field observations (hard substrate with presence of extensive coral communities vs sandy bottoms) to select their sites. This should be developed a little bit more L79-86 and later used for site selection in the first paragraph of 2.1.1.

   2. Clarify transect and quadrat layout. Is the quadrat 50 cm² or 50 cm × 50 cm (0.25cm²)? The figure 1 is beautiful but lots of information should figure into the figure's legend. The transect line and quadrat information is redundant in the first panel... unless transect and quadrat are different between West and South. The distance between transect line can be mentioned in the material and methods directly and could be removed from the figure.  

   3. Provide a table or a small sentence summarizing the sampling effort: #transects, #quadrats, #analyzed points (16 transect * 11quadrats * 50pts = showing the readers that the authors have lots of data). Also related to this, can the authors clarified why only 409 coral colonies were recorded? Does that mean that the colonies were relatively large on quadrats?

7. Discussion of Coral Morphology and Adaptation (Lines 251–300)
The link between massive growth forms (e.g., Porites, Favites, Goniastrea) and sediment tolerance is accurate and relevant. However, this point could be expanded to emphasize ecological filtering in turbid, shallow reef systems. Including more context from SE Asia would strengthen the discussion.

 

Minor Comments

I think most minor comments could be fixed with some kind of English editing. I recommend to not use AI to generate text, but some AI such as chatGPT could check the grammar and comprehension pretty well and make some nice suggestions. 

L25: Zonation and transect names could be a little bit confusing for the reader. 

L27: Do you mean environmental factor variation?

L29: dissolved oxygen?

L96–117: I would suggest stating that the survey focused on hard substrates (which are suitable for coral communities). This will naturally explain why the authors avoid sandy areas. 

L113: Parenthesis missing in CPCe reference.

L120: What are the replicates here? I think each transect is enough. 

L154: I think the authors could also mention relative abundance to solve the case of Goniastrea.

L171: Favia is an Atlantic coral genus. It must be replaced by Dipsastraea.

L179–188: Back to the zonation names... the way those transects are clustering show a relative continuity in the benthic communities. To avoid confusion for the readers I think I would rename the transect T1, T2, etc (irrespective of their geographic location), later show how transect cluster by geographic origin (East, West and South), and mention the heterogeneity within location (N3 different from N1 and 2; E5 being closer to S1,2,3).

L204–209: I think readers will want to assess IndVal results. Supplementary maybe? Similarly, the authors might need to show their Kruskal-Wallis results even if not significant. 

L224: Yes, I think a PERMANOVA could help to really link benthos and environmental conditions. 

L232–233: The word "significantly" should be removed and only kept for what is statistically tested. I have an issue with the word "varied" too, I think it should be something like "composition can vary among island" or "fluctuation in composition". Finally it should be "soft corals are less abundant" or "soft corals have lower diversity and abundance".

L234–235: I think there are quite a few references that could give the authors a better hint about why soft corals are not so abundant and diverse in turbid, super shallow waters, where hard corals are far more competitive.

L235–236: The beginning of this sentence is grammatically incorrect. Please revise.

L237–238: I think this sentence about the dominance of Porites in Cambodia should be supported by references. 

L242–244: Statistical test not shown. 

L242–246: I would disagree here... the data is also showing some variation among communities (cf. the Northern sites which cluster in East and West and are being dissimilar). Also I think references are missing here to support most of the authors statements. Also I do not understand this last statement about historical colonization. Please clarify.

L248–251: While the first part of this paragraph says no differences, here we have differences. It is confusing. Please clarify.

L251–253: I think what the authors meant here is that Goniastrea and Favites were found to be dominant in shallow and turbid waters (references) which is similar to their findings. 

L255–259: Do the authors take into account that dead coral debris could possibly be find deeper because of the hydrodynamic? It's usually hard to find lots of rubble in very shallow reefs, especially when current and slope combined naturally push them at greater depths. 

L266–268: I do not understand where the degradation pattern mentioned here is from. This was never mentioned in the manuscript. Which data is supporting this?

L273–281: First there are lots of small grammatical issues. Them the last sentence is repeated twice.

L282–300: I really think that correlations between environmental parameters and benthos are weakly investigated here. Significant differences were found between sites, but how those differences in environmental conditions are driving the differences between diversity, abundance, etc. 

L285: I would agree with the importance of depth as a driver of the coral communities... but in this study depth is comprised between 1 and 2.5m. Some other parameters are not discussed effectively. 
For instance, even if there is no statistical differences for salinity, salinity in the south has huge variation (and this could explain the absence of statistical differences by the way). Can such a huge variation in salinity be explained by some freshwater input? A river? This should be verified by the authors as it could explain the parameter numbers for the South zone. 

L289: “Water currents and fishing activities underground…” – unclear phrasing. Revise for clarity.

L290–291: Grammar issue here. Same in the following sentences where the authors are repeating "our study" and "in our study".

L296–297: There are lots of missing references to explain how sedimentation can filter coral communities. Same goes for the next sentence to explain that some coral species are more stress-tolerant to environmental factor extreme.

L304: To be very honest, this study relies on a good dataset! I would rather talk about snapshot study (1 time sampling) and that a time-series or comparison with different locations would be necessary to assess degradation pattern or protected area effectiveness. 

L305–306: I think the authors mean that coral reefs are heterogeneous and that coverage can have seasonal and inter-annual fluctuation.

L310–325: I think the conclusion would change after all the changes are made. Especially L316–320 and L321–323.

Figure Captions: Add more detail to figures.

References: Lots of small inconsistencies spotted. I don't know about the journal policy for references but the format should be the same for all. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As previously mentioned in my comments, there are quite a few issues with English language but I'm pretty sure a simple grammatical check by a professional editor or a good friend could do the job! 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

First of all, we sincerely thank you for the detailed and constructive feedback, which has greatly helped improve the clarity, structure, and scientific rigor of our manuscript. In response to major comments, we revised the manuscript for language and grammar, clarified the sampling design and methodology (including quadrat size and layout), and provided a summary of sampling effort. We conducted additional statistical analyses, including PERMANOVA and NMDS with environmental fitting, to better explore the relationship between coral communities and environmental drivers. We also corrected the interpretation of indicator species and updated relevant figures and tables accordingly.

We addressed concerns about overinterpretation of conservation effectiveness by reframing our findings as baseline data for future monitoring. The discussion was expanded to include ecological filtering in turbid reef systems, supported by regional references. Minor comments regarding terminology, figure captions, and reference formatting were also incorporated. The manuscript has undergone thorough English editing using both AI tools and review by a native-speaking co-author. We are grateful for your insightful suggestions, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript.

Please find the point-by-point response to your comments in the attached file, and we hope our responses meet your expectations.

Best regards,

Ratha Sor and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their hard work. I think the manuscript has greatly improved!

I can still see room for improvements. The manuscript is solid in content but not yet polished in presentation. I will try to make a list of all the small changes and suggestions I think should improve that: 

 

• L21 “Coral reef data was collected…” → were collected
• L23 “covers largely comprised live corals” → “reef cover was largely comprised of live corals”
• L25–26 “A higher coral diversity was found in zone East, although it was not significant.” → “Coral diversity was slightly higher in the East zone, though not statistically significant.” Please make it consistent throughout the manuscript and Figure 3: East, West, and South zones. Consistency in naming zones → always “East zone” rather than “zone East.”

• L27–28 “were characteristics of zones East and South” → “were characteristic of the East and South zones.”
• L29–33 “making it the indicator taxa” → “making it the indicator taxon.”
• L34–36 “This outcome may be attributed to the effective joint protection efforts by Marine Conservation Cambodia…” → “This may reflect the effectiveness of joint protection efforts by Marine Conservation Cambodia…”. I am okay with this statement in the abstract, but I would expect the authors to have 1 or 2 lines in their discussion mentioning other alternatives (such as presence/absence of major disturbances).

• L44–45 “provide foraging and refuge habitats to a very dense and diverse array of marine species” → “provide foraging and refuge habitats for a highly diverse array of marine species.”
• L52 “costal protection” → coastal protection
• L52–53 “ecosystem services, e.g. fisheries and food security, costal protection, biodiversity and habitat, etc.” → “ecosystem services such as fisheries, food security, coastal protection, biodiversity, and habitat provision.”
• L58–59 “by-catching comprise up 80%” → “bycatch comprises up to 80%.”
• L64–65 “creation of Marine Fisheries Management Areas (MFMA) and its thorough management are key” → “the creation of Marine Fisheries Management Areas (MFMAs) and their effective management is key.”
• L72–76 “the local drivers other than existing anthropogenic threats including fishing and coastal development, which mainly influence the health and distribution of corals” → “local drivers—beyond anthropogenic threats such as fishing and coastal development—that influence coral health and distribution.”
• L79–83 “we i) investigated coral reef diversity and community structure… ii) determined… iii) identified…” → Consider rephrasing for smoothness: “we (i) investigated coral reef diversity and community structure (richness, abundance, Shannon diversity), (ii) assessed coral health status, and (iii) identified environmental drivers shaping community composition.”
• L86 “Koh Seh reef is one of the many reefs that fringe a small island…” → “Koh Seh reef fringes a small island in the archipelago…”
• L90–92 “map the reef using ArcGIS version 3.4.0 and design the sampling method, including the number of transects and the breaks between them.” → “…map the reef using ArcGIS (v3.4.0) and design the sampling strategy, including transect numbers and spacing.”
• L94–95 “ensuring these breaks were not shorter, but could be larger, than those elsewhere” → “…ensuring that breaks were not shorter than elsewhere, though they could be larger (Figure 1).” Remove “The selected sites are illustrated in Figure 1.” By the way, amazing job on Figure 1, just add distance between Q1 and Q2 .

• L104 “Data collection was conducted from June 25 to September 25, 2019” → “Data were collected between June 25 and September 25, 2019.”
• L114–115 “a single photograph capturing the entirety of quadrat area, including all four corners, was captured” → “…a single photograph covering the entire quadrat was taken.”
• L148 “Survey data was analyzed” → “Survey data were analyzed.”
• L175 “Data was analyzed using R” → “Data were analyzed using R.”
• L178–179 “Average substrate cover on the Koh Seh reef was dominated by live hard coral (64%)” → “Average substrate cover was 64%, dominated by live hard corals.”
• L182–183 “there were 409 hard live coral colonies recorded” → “409 live hard coral colonies were recorded.”
• L191: I’m just figuring out that the genera on the figure must be in italics.
• L195–197 “the sixteen sites were grouped into three clusters, referred to as zones” → “the 16 sites grouped into three clusters, hereafter referred to as zones.”
• L223–224 “not found to be significantly different based on richness, abundance and diversity H, and nor the reef covers” → “were not significantly different in richness, abundance, diversity H, or reef cover…”
• Tables 1 and 2: I tried to make sense of the median values, which are very different from the mean values… only because of the very large variation! To avoid confusing the readers I would suggest removing the median values.

 Discussion (I have a few more comments for improving the discussion sharpness – please note that I will not include any references in my suggestions but I encourage the authors to add their references or any other reference they think could support their statement)

L251–252: “Cambodia’s coral reef community is dominated by hard corals, and their composition can vary among islands, and soft corals have lower diversity and abundance.”

Problem: Run-on, descriptive.

Suggestion: “In Cambodia, coral reef communities are typically dominated by hard corals, with soft corals generally showing lower diversity and abundance. This pattern, observed at Koh Seh, aligns with previous surveys in nearby archipelagos.”

L253–254: “There may be some underlying factors rendering the inshore reef inhospitable for soft coral, including high sediment [20], temperature fluctuations and water quality [21], which requires more investigation [22].”

Problem: Lists possible drivers but doesn’t elaborate.

Suggestion: Briefly explain mechanism: “High sedimentation, temperature fluctuations, and variable water quality may reduce light availability and increase physiological stress, making inshore reefs less favorable for soft corals. Further targeted studies are needed to confirm these drivers.”

L255–259: “Our finding that Koh Seh supports a high percentage of live hard corals and a low proportion of soft corals is consistent with the results from the surveys conducted in the Koh Rong [9] and Koh Sdach archipelagos [22]. In addition, Cambodia’s coral reefs appear to be dominated by Porites species [9,22]. In Koh Seh and Koh Rong, Porites species respectively comprised 56% and 36% of all hard corals [23], while they comprise 21% on Koh Sdach [22].”

Suggestion: Instead of just listing numbers, explain ecological significance: “The dominance of Porites at Koh Seh, as well as in Koh Rong and Koh Sdach, suggests that massive growth forms are particularly successful in turbid, nearshore environments. Their tolerance to sedimentation and fluctuating conditions may explain why they consistently dominate Cambodian reefs.”

L260–262: “Similarly, the research in Karimunjawa islands, Indonesia, also found a large proportion of the massive growth forms of Porites species [24].”

Problem: Very short, underdeveloped comparison.

Suggestion: “Comparable dominance of massive Porites has also been reported in Indonesia’s Karimunjawa Islands [24], reinforcing the idea that Porites are well adapted to marginal reef environments across the Indo-Pacific.”

263–268: “Here we found that coral cover and diversity, by means of richness, abundance, and diversity H, were not significantly different from one to another zone of Koh Seh. This can happen especially when the island is small and has less variation in physical-chemical characteristics, and when the observed coral species have been established around the island over time [8]. The research of van Bochove [25] also found that coral communities are relatively similar across the same reef in the Koh Rong and Koh Sdach Archipelagos.”

Problem: Reads as descriptive repetition.

Suggestion: Frame as a meaningful insight: “Despite environmental heterogeneity among zones, overall diversity metrics did not differ significantly. This homogeneity may reflect the small spatial scale of Koh Seh and the long-term establishment of resilient coral taxa across the reef, as also noted in Koh Rong and Koh Sdach [25].”

269–274: “However, by means of indicators, the shallow water of Koh Seh supports distinct coral community composition among the three zones, especially zone East was represented by two indicators, namely Favites and Goniastrea, and by one indicator (also Goniastrea) for zone South. Regarding the Goniastrea species and Favites species, they were found to be dominant in shallow and turbid waters [3], which is similar to the finding in our present study.”

Problem: Too result-like; weak interpretation.

Suggestion: “Indicator species analysis revealed distinct assemblages, particularly in the East zone where Favites and Goniastrea dominated. These genera are known to tolerate shallow, turbid conditions [3], supporting the view that community composition is structured by local environmental filtering rather than broad-scale diversity differences.”

275–280: “In this research, we found that there were low percentages of disease, bleaching and dead coral during data collection. Based on these indicators (low signs of disease, bleaching, dead coral cover), coral reefs in the Koh Seh archipelago appear to be relatively healthy. Most hard corals are massive in growth form and are the most resistant group in the Southeast Asia ocean, where tropical oceans can shape reef structure [9].”

Problem: Repeats results; vague on “why healthy.”

Suggestion: “The very low incidence of disease, bleaching, and mortality indicates that Koh Seh reefs are currently in good condition. This resilience is likely linked to the dominance of massive, stress-tolerant taxa (e.g., Porites, Favites, Goniastrea), which are known to withstand environmental fluctuations better than branching forms [9].”

Please note that this is also another alternative to management success used in the abstract…

281–284: “Other research from neighboring islands such as the Koh Rong and Koh Sdach archipelagos revealed that most of hard corals are also massive form [22] and similar to the findings of the present study (Table 3). This may also indicate the positive impact of marine protected areas, suggesting that the coral reefs around the Koh Seh archipelago would benefit from the on-going and continued monitoring.”

Problem: Connection to MPAs is weak; could be expanded.

Suggestion: “Similar dominance of massive forms in Koh Rong and Koh Sdach suggests a regional pattern of resilience in marginal reefs. The relatively healthy condition at Koh Seh may also reflect effective protection under the MFMA, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring and enforcement.”

285–287: “Such efforts may help mitigate stressors in zone East, where coral communities are frequently impacted by human activities such as illegal fishing and transportation [8].”

Problem: Good point, but short.

Suggestion: “Targeted protection is especially relevant in the East zone, where reefs are exposed to high sedimentation, strong currents, and human pressures such as fishing and boat traffic. Sustained enforcement could help mitigate these stressors and maintain resilience.”

294–298: “For instance, an experimental study on three coral species, including Pocillopora damicornis, Acropora millepora and Platygyra sinensis, found that the growth, survival, and photosynthesis of these corals were impacted by temperature, turbidity and salinity [27]. Another experiment on coral Acropora yongei indicated that the species is sensitive to bleaching when the level of dissolved oxygen is reduced [26].”

Problem: Reads like a literature list; not connected to your findings.

Suggestion: Tie directly: “Experimental studies confirm that coral physiology is sensitive to temperature, turbidity, salinity, and dissolved oxygen [26,27]. The significant variation of these parameters among Koh Seh zones may therefore explain the observed shifts in community composition.”

299–321: Long paragraph about sediment → very descriptive.

Problem: You restate results rather than interpret.

Suggestion: Condense: “Sediment loads were highest in the East zone, likely reflecting strong currents, fishing activity, and coastal development [8]. Such conditions typically disadvantage branching taxa like Acropora but favor massive, sediment-tolerant corals such as Favites and Goniastrea [30–33]. This pattern mirrors findings from other turbid reef systems (e.g., Thailand, Malaysia, Puerto Rico), emphasizing that sedimentation is a primary driver of community composition in marginal reefs.”

328–336: Discussion on salinity and Porites/Goniopora.

Problem: Reads fine, but could be sharpened.

Suggestion: “Salinity was lowest in the West zone, where Porites and Goniopora were more common. This may reflect their greater tolerance to salinity fluctuations [37], with Goniopora potentially benefiting from cooler, deeper water conditions.”

338–344: “To warrant our finding… additional survey and sampling sites have to be considered…”

Problem: Reads defensive.

Suggestion: “While our study provides an important baseline, further surveys across larger spatial and temporal scales are needed to capture rare taxa, recruitment events, and interannual variability, which would strengthen assessments of reef health and resilience.”

L349–350 “All hard corals around Koh Seh can be grouped into three zones” → “All hard corals around Koh Seh were grouped into three zones.”

L351–352 “Zone East had higher coral diversity, though not significantly” → “The East zone showed higher coral diversity, though not significantly.”

L358–360 “which may suggest that the collaborative management efforts… are contributing positively” → “…suggesting that collaborative management efforts… are contributing positively.”

 

I think with this, the manuscript will read really well!

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the improvements made and your helpful suggestions for further refinement. In response to your the revised manuscript, we have made the following:

• Corrected grammar and improved sentence clarity throughout the manuscript based on your comments and suggestions
• Standardized zone naming and italicized genus names.
• Updated Figure 1 and removed median values from Tables 1 and 2.
• Strengthened the discussion with clearer interpretations according to your suggestion, and added supporting references.

We believe these revisions have enhanced both the clarity and scientific rigor of the manuscript. All addition changes in the version are in track change. Please find the point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions below. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Best regards,
Ratha Sor
On behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf