Variation in the Physiological Condition of Common Coral Trout (Plectropomus leopardus) Unrelated to Coral Cover on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
, Ciemon F. Caballes 1,2, Jean-Paul A. Hobbs 1, Joseph D. DiBattista 3, Brock Bergseth 4, Peter Waldie 5, Curtis Champion 6, Samuel P. Mc Cormack 7 and Andrew S. Hoey 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
as attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Intensive to moderate english editing is needed
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I completed my evaluation of the manuscript 2587326 „Variation in Physiological Condition of Common Coral Trout 2 (Plectropomus leopardus) Unrelated to Coral Cover on Great 3 Barrier Reef, Australia “ submitted to Fishes MDPI. This study addresses an important topic the effect of climate change and related habitat degradation on a group of fish species sharing an ecological niche. The text structure is clear, data are properly analysed and correctly interpreted. The authors are honest admitting the results are not revolutionary. Based on my experience, writing an article about such results is more difficult compared to “great results” and therefore, I congratulate the authors for the nice text. I am not happy with the low number of fish analysed, I think, this is the most significant limitation of the study. On the other hand, the authors used very invasive sampling. I recommend adding more information in the discussion section about other less invasive sampling methods and also some more information about coral reef threats can be added to the introduction. Below are some minor issues, to be clarified.
L23: The list of condition factors is different from the list in lines 86-87. Please, unify.
L36, 41, 66, 73, 76, 150, 170, 244, 262, 275, 285: Please, delete “e.g.” references are always subsamples.
L73: I recommend adding information about other threats having effects on coral reef degradation such as chemical pollution or trash in water.
L92: Delete space between 2021 and dot.
L93: The abbreviation Australia’s Great Barrier Reef = GBR was introduced at line 76. The abbreviation should be used here too.
L175: Please, specify in the Methods section what does it mean “the best model”. What were the selection criteria? Moreover, in L176 Akaike information criterion is mentioned, but is it not mentioned in methods nor in Tabel 1. If the authors used stepwise selection, it should be appropriately described.
L184: Please, describe the boxplots in more detail. What do the box and whiskers demonstrate?
L197, 201, 213: What does the yellow area around the regression line demonstrate? Maybe some confidence interval?
L270: The very low number of samples is the weakest point of the study. I recommend adding more “future improvements” to the current research, such as less invasive sampling. Is it always necessary to kill the fish to get relevant data?
Author Response
All required changes now been made, including
i) uploading highest-quality versions of individual figures (eps)
ii) modifications to references cited to reduce overall rate of self-citations
iii) addition of "Key Contribution" section
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the article has improved alot however the resolution of the figures needs to be increase. So i recommends its minor revision
The article needs increase in figures resolution where ever necessary . So before it can be accepted for publication these correction to be made by the authors. I recommend its minor revision.
Author Response
Revised manuscript with high resolution figires has been uploaded. We thank the reviewer for endorsing the revisions that were made previously
