Cockle as Second Intermediate Host of Trematode Parasites: Consequences for Sediment Bioturbation and Nutrient Fluxes across the Benthic Interface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please, check my review in the attachment and correct some mistakes

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The article: “Cockle as Second Intermediate Host of Trematode Parasites: Consequences for Sediment Bioturbation and Nutrient Fluxes across the Benthic Interface”

The work presented in this manuscript it is really very interesting as the authors used many-ways approach to estimate the effect of trematod infection to cockle. The data was hard-won. However I cannot agree with conclusions of authors due to one main reason. I only have some minor comments:

Line 72 – “…first intermediate host (a mollusk).” – It is not just “mollusk” but namely

Gastropods.

Response: For the Trematoda: Spirorchiidae family, there is an exception, the first intermediate host can be annelid. The term “generally” was added Line 72.

Lines 74-75 – “…the second intermediate host (an invertebrate or vertebrate),…” – It is very strange. Sole Bivalvia the second intermediate host for H. elongate.

Response: In this section, we described the general life-cycle of trematodes (see Line 68).

Line 269 – “…porosity of 0.332 ± 0.005.” – It would be better to point the units.

Response: According to Schulz & Zaben (2006) (Schulz, H. D., et M. Zabel, éd. 2006. Marine geochemistry, second edition. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg), there is no unit.

Consequently I may recommend to publish that ms.

Thank you for your comments and the review of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I really enjoyed reading this interesting paper. I think the experimental approach is well designed, the results are well discussed and the conclusions obtained are cautious and outline very well the continuity for future studies in this issue. 

Several specific suggestions are listed below trying to improve the manuscript:

Introduction: The introduction is very well written; it clearly establishes the context for the research and the reader achieve a clear idea of where the paper is leading and how it relates to previous work. I suggest to include the reference: "Thieltges, D.W. (2006) Parasite induced summer mortality in the cockle Cerastoderma edule by the trematode Gymnophallus choledochus. Hydrobiologia 559, 455-461" to further document the ideas in lines 80-82 of the manuscript and now supported by references 29 to 32.

Materials and methods: Probably due to my lack of experience in this type of research, I miss some details in the description of the experiment that would improve the understanding of the approach. A figure synthetizing the experimental design would be wonderful but, anyway, I suggest the following modifications:

Section 2.2. Experimental Infection: Line 129: "three periwinkles infected by the trematode Himasthla elongata were immediately introduced in each container".

Section 2.3. Experimental Procedure: The duration of the experiment (9 days) should be indicated in this section because, if not, this information is not indirectly available for the reader until section 2.5 or the Results.

The explanation provided in lines 146-150 is a bit confusing. It should be emphasized that they are 7 cockles in each of 12 experimental units corresponding to a total of 84 parasitized cockles and another 7 cockles in each of 12 experimental units corresponding to a total of 84 non-parasitized cockles.

Line 135: Data Analysis should be section 2.8. instead of 2.7.

Results: This section is well written. The figures are clear and easy to interpret.

Discussion and conclusions: Very well written. The research questions and hypothesis raised in the introduction are adequately addressed and critically discussed. Potential limitations of the study are listed and further research recommended.

References: I guess that is a standard defined by the editorial guidelines but, because all the words in each tittle start with capital letters, the species names are incorrect because both genera and species are with capital letters. This should be amended by showing the genera with capital letter and the species in lowercase.

Reference number 17 is wrong because it has more than one author and should be modified.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really enjoyed reading this interesting paper. I think the experimental approach is well designed, the results are well discussed and the conclusions obtained are cautious and outline very well the continuity for future studies in this issue. 

Several specific suggestions are listed below trying to improve the manuscript:

Introduction: The introduction is very well written; it clearly establishes the context for the research and the reader achieve a clear idea of where the paper is leading and how it relates to previous work. I suggest to include the reference: "Thieltges, D.W. (2006) Parasite induced summer mortality in the cockle Cerastoderma edule by the trematode Gymnophallus choledochus. Hydrobiologia 559, 455-461" to further document the ideas in lines 80-82 of the manuscript and now supported by references 29 to 32.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. This article has now been added in the citation and in the references.

Materials and methods: Probably due to my lack of experience in this type of research, I miss some details in the description of the experiment that would improve the understanding of the approach. A figure synthetizing the experimental design would be wonderful but, anyway, I suggest the following modifications:

Response: In order to limit the number of figures, we have chosen to follow the proposed modifications in the text, as suggested by referee.

Section 2.2. Experimental Infection: Line 129: "three periwinkles infected by the trematode Himasthla elongata were immediately introduced in each container".

Response: Ok, it has been modified as suggested.

Section 2.3. Experimental Procedure: The duration of the experiment (9 days) should be indicated in this section because, if not, this information is not indirectly available for the reader until section 2.5 or the Results.

Response: Ok, a sentence has been added at the end of the section 2.3 to clearly indicate the duration of the experiment (line 160-161).

The explanation provided in lines 146-150 is a bit confusing. It should be emphasized that they are 7 cockles in each of 12 experimental units corresponding to a total of 84 parasitized cockles and another 7 cockles in each of 12 experimental units corresponding to a total of 84 non-parasitized cockles.

Response: Ok, the sentence has been rephrased as suggested.

Line 135: Data Analysis should be section 2.8. instead of 2.7.

Response: Ok, it has been corrected.

Results: This section is well written. The figures are clear and easy to interpret.

Discussion and conclusions: Very well written. The research questions and hypothesis raised in the introduction are adequately addressed and critically discussed. Potential limitations of the study are listed and further research recommended.

References: I guess that is a standard defined by the editorial guidelines but, because all the words in each tittle start with capital letters, the species names are incorrect because both genera and species are with capital letters. This should be amended by showing the genera with capital letter and the species in lowercase.

Response: I am sorry for the mistakes in the references. The capital letters in the titles have been corrected.

Reference number 17 is wrong because it has more than one author and should be modified.

Response: Right, co-authors have been added for the reference number 17.

Thank you very much for your interest and your relevant comments that permit to improve our manuscript.