Comment on Shashar et al. Artificial Reef Deployment Reduces Diving Pressure from Natural Reefs—The Case of Introductory Dives in Eilat, Red Sea. Oceans 2024, 5, 71–80
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have provided a discussion that strengthens the argument of the published paper in an appropriate manner. The comment, together with the existing published paper, provides important implications for artificial reef research.
Author Response
Comment: The authors have provided a discussion that strengthens the argument of the published paper in an appropriate manner. The comment, together with the existing published paper, provides important implications for artificial reef research.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation across multiple categories. Our intention in this comment to Shashar et al.’s paper is to highlight that there may be other ways to interpret the data and not all lead to the same conclusions.
No specific comments have been made that require a response.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsLine 20. “The study offers unequivocal conclusions” but “the evidence is largely circumstantial and inconclusive”, so which is it “unequivocal conclusions” or “inconclusive evidence”?
Line 22. “The two periods examined in the paper 2006 and 2018, leave a lot of time in between…”. Yet the study did not examined the years 2006 and 2018; in October 2006 the artificial reef was deployed, but the study is based on interviews of 22 dive instructors some of which had experience prior to the deployment of the artificial reef, other had experiences before and after the deployment of the artificial reefs and others only after the deployment. So, in a way, there is no gap between the years because it is contained on the testimonies of the divers that lived through such periods.
Line 25. “Since 2011…. regular briefings with marine rangers”. Yes, this instructions could have helped, but they were given after the deployment of the artificial reef and again their effect or lack of effect depends on the criteria of the divers that were interviewed. It is great that the dive guides openly sympathize with conservation (line 35,36) but, would they have been as receptive without the presence of the artificial reef? I don’t know, but the fact is that the new diving routes all include a visit to the artificial reef, so they must consider it an important location for their introductory dives.
Line 47-48: “The AR is too small to become a focal point of diving by itself”. As a diver myself I must agree, a small AR is not a very challenging dive, yet for introductory divers it is probably enough as they are centered on their diving skills and this might be their first dive on ocean waters.
“Locations to be visited during introductory dives are commonly determined by the dive guides” This is a direct result of the authors interviews that state “…specific dive guides exhibit their own preferences regarding the route they chose…” on the first lines of their results.
What Zvuloni and Skaked, state, that the advertising of the dive sites influence the diving location, might be true for more experienced divers and not for beginners.
Line 58. “n=1”. I agree, repetitions are needed in order to test for statistical significance. But if the authors read the paper, they will notice that there are no statistical tests performed and no hypothesis tested. So this is not a quantitative study but a descriptive research of a case study of this particular area. I believe this is clear on Shashar et al. "conclusions and future directions and open questions "sections and in general over all the paper because, as stated before, no hypothesis were tested.
L 64. The study of Shashar et al. did not considered coral cover or diversity as factors influencing the decision of the divers to choose the diving routes for introductory dives. Even with a damaged reef, the tridimensional structure of the reef might be more appealing than an artificial reef, but again these factors are probably more important for more experienced divers and not, as in this case, people that are learning to dive and just moved from a swimming pool to open ocean.
I agree with Zvuloni and Skaked that deploying artificial reefs is not enough for coral reefs conservation, but I don’t think that is the message given by Shashar et al. that only describe a case where, for introductory dives only, the artificial reef became part of the diving routes instead of visiting parts of the natural fringing reef. The case is interesting because beginner divers are probably a higher risk for the reef as they don´t fully control their bouyancy and kicks and this can be an example for other protected areas that can restrict this kind of divers to areas like artificial reefs.
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 20. “The study offers unequivocal conclusions” but “the evidence is largely circumstantial and inconclusive”, so which is it “unequivocal conclusions” or “inconclusive evidence”?
Response 1: This is precisely why we wrote our commentary. As clarified in our manuscript, the paper by Shashar et al. (2024) offers clear conclusions based on circumstantial, inconclusive evidence.
Comment 2: Line 22. “The two periods examined in the paper 2006 and 2018, leave a lot of time in between…”. Yet the study did not examined the years 2006 and 2018; in October 2006 the artificial reef was deployed, but the study is based on interviews of 22 dive instructors some of which had experience prior to the deployment of the artificial reef, other had experiences before and after the deployment of the artificial reefs and others only after the deployment. So, in a way, there is no gap between the years because it is contained on the testimonies of the divers that lived through such periods.
Response 2: First, there is an inconsistency or possible error in the paper by Shashar et al. (2024): the artificial reef was deployed in 2006 (as stated in the methodology), not in 2016 as mentioned later under "Data Collection". Furthermore, based on Figure 3, it appears that there are no data from 2006 to 2018. It is likely that multiple factors (e.g., floods, extreme tides, storms) influenced diving routes during this period. Additionally, INPA’s educational efforts for divers took place during these years. We do not dispute the difference between the periods, but we believe a comprehensive consideration of contributing factors is essential to assert that the deployment of the AR caused the observed change.
Comment 3: : Line 25. “Since 2011…. regular briefings with marine rangers”. Yes, this instructions could have helped, but they were given after the deployment of the artificial reef and again their effect or lack of effect depends on the criteria of the divers that were interviewed. It is great that the dive guides openly sympathize with conservation (line 35,36) but, would they have been as receptive without the presence of the artificial reef? I don’t know, but the fact is that the new diving routes all include a visit to the artificial reef, so they must consider it an important location for their introductory dives.
Response 3: While it may be challenging to isolate the specific impact of these briefings alone, isolating factors is necessary to conclude that the AR deployment caused the change. We do not claim that divers do not visit the AR, but rather that the title's assertion, “Artificial Reef Deployment Reduces Diving Pressure from Natural Reefs,” may be an overstatement in this case if additional factors contributed to this shift.
Comment 4: Line 47-48: “The AR is too small to become a focal point of diving by itself”. As a diver myself I must agree, a small AR is not a very challenging dive, yet for introductory divers it is probably enough as they are centered on their diving skills and this might be their first dive on ocean waters.
Response 4: We agree with this comment and have modified the text (line 46) to make our point clearer: We know introductory dives visit the AR, but it seems that dives only stay next it for a few minutes and then move on. Thus, if the lure of this AR is enough to attract new divers, the result may be that the overall diving pressure to the vicinity has increased. This may contradict the title and the claim made in the paper. The point made by the Shashar et al. that the AR is too small to become a focal point of diving by itself and thus does not increase overall pressure should be supported by data on diver numbers before and after the AR deployment.
Comment 5: “Locations to be visited during introductory dives are commonly determined by the dive guides” This is a direct result of the authors interviews that state “…specific dive guides exhibit their own preferences regarding the route they chose…” on the first lines of their results.
Response 5: Here, again we agree with this comment. Our point is (line 57) that once divers arrive at this location, the guide indeed determines the route taken. But, since divers may choose other locations (i.e. beaches) to dive from – local advertised attractions, such as the “Tamar Reef” AR, perhaps serves to draw more divers to this spot. If the overall number of dives increases, it cannot be confidently determined that diving pressure on the natural reef has decreased due to the AR deployment.
Comment 6: What Zvuloni and Shaked state, that the advertising of dive sites influences diving locations, might be true for more experienced divers and not for beginners.
Response 6: Please see responses 4 and 5.
Comment 7: Line 58. “n=1”. I agree, repetitions are needed in order to test for statistical significance. But if the authors read the paper, they will notice that there are no statistical tests performed and no hypothesis tested. So this is not a quantitative study but a descriptive research of a case study of this particular area. I believe this is clear on Shashar et al. "conclusions and future directions and open questions "sections and in general over all the paper because, as stated before, no hypothesis were tested.
Response 7: We have amended the sentence (line 60) and are, of course, aware that repetitions are not always possible in the real world. But in such cases, one should be careful in drawing broad general conclusions from a single case study. Shashar et al. put forth clear and unequivocal conclusions, but these are not fully supported by relevant data. We feel the need to point this out exactly because the strong statement presented, though not well supported, may influence decisions about placing artificial reefs near or within nature reserves.
Comment 8: L 64. The study of Shashar et al. did not consider coral cover or diversity as factors influencing the decision of the divers to choose the diving routes for introductory dives. Even with a damaged reef, the tridimensional structure of the reef might be more appealing than an artificial reef, but again these factors are probably more important for more experienced divers and not, as in this case, people that are learning to dive and just moved from a swimming pool to open ocean.
Response 8: Actually, we don't see a good enough basis to argue about it. Based on my (AZ) experience as a dive instructor in Eilat, guides typically prefer to take introductory divers to the most beautiful reef areas. It seems unlikely that reef condition does not influence route selection.
Comment 9 I agree with Zvuloni and Skaked that deploying artificial reefs is not enough for coral reefs conservation, but I don’t think that is the message given by Shashar et al. that only describe a case where, for introductory dives only, the artificial reef became part of the diving routes instead of visiting parts of the natural fringing reef. The case is interesting because beginner divers are probably a higher risk for the reef as they don´t fully control their bouyancy and kicks and this can be an example for other protected areas that can restrict this kind of divers to areas like artificial reefs.
Response 9: Our commentary addresses the conclusion of Shashar et al. (2024). We do not claim that the AR deployment did not change dive routes (although other factors could have contributed to this), but even if it did, that does not necessarily reduce diving pressures on the natural reef. We believe that the data presented in the paper do not lead to the conclusions drawn.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe commentary evaluates "Shashar et al. Artificial Reef Deployment Reduces Diving Pressure from Natural Reefs-The Case of Introductory Dives in Eilat, Red Sea. Oceans 2024, 5, 71–80." in an objective and well-supported manner. Both the authors of the commentary and Shashar et al. discuss the impact of artificial reef deployment on reducing diving pressure from natural reefs, providing different analytical perspectives that are thought-provoking for readers.
Author Response
Comment: The commentary evaluates "Shashar et al. Artificial Reef Deployment Reduces Diving Pressure from Natural Reefs-The Case of Introductory Dives in Eilat, Red Sea. Oceans 2024, 5, 71–80." in an objective and well-supported manner. Both the authors of the commentary and Shashar et al. discuss the impact of artificial reef deployment on reducing diving pressure from natural reefs, providing different analytical perspectives that are thought-provoking for readers.
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We have written our comment because we felt that the data presented in Shashar et al.’s paper does not support the conclusions that are drawn.
No specific comments have been made that require a response.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis critical note makes sense and is justified. I have no issues.
Author Response
Comment: This critical note makes sense and is justified. I have no issues.
Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation.
No specific comments have been made that require a response.
