Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• I noticed some inconsistency in the use of terms like photon fluence rate, intensity, and irradiance throughout the text. Since these terms have distinct physical meanings, I suggest standardizing the terminology to the one most relevant to your methodology for clarity and accuracy (in your case photon fluence rate).
• Did you measure the temperature precisely at the time of sample collection? Additionally, could you clarify why only three temperature points were chosen for this study?
• Why were measurements for biochemical stress markers, such as antioxidant enzyme activities, or lipid peroxidation levels, not included in the study?
• I recommend including a small map to illustrate the sample collection location. This can be added as supplementary material for better clarity and context.
• I recommend including figures for the kelps.
• In lines 81 and 83, please correct the formatting of the temperature units, as there appears to be an unnecessary dash under the degree symbol.
• In line 92, please correct the formatting of the photon fluence rate unit.
• I’m not entirely convinced that your conclusion, 'light availability plays a key role in shaping vertical zonation,' is fully supported by the results presented. Could you provide further justification or clarification?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not a native speaker, but I feel it could be improved. It might be a good idea to have it proofread by a native speaker.

Author Response

Photon fluence rate and temperature effects on temperate Atlantic kelp species

Tomás F. Pinheiro , Sílvia Chemello , Isabel Sousa-Pinto , Tânia R. Pereira

 

We thank the reviewers for their insightful feedback, constructive comments and the time they dedicated to reviewing our work, which have helped us refine the manuscript and improve its clarity and quality.

 

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:I noticed some inconsistency in the use of terms like photon fluence rate, intensity, and irradiance throughout the text. Since these terms have distinct physical meanings, I suggest standardizing the terminology to the one most relevant to your methodology for clarity and accuracy (in your case photon fluence rate).

Response 1: Agreed. We made changes throughout the text accordingly.

 

Comments 2: Did you measure the temperature precisely at the time of sample collection? Additionally, could you clarify why only three temperature points were chosen for this study?

Response 2: We didn’t measure at the time of collection, our decision for control temperature was based on the average temperature in this region. During the study, temperature was measured continuously. We didn’t do temperature ramps, so we had to decide what temperatures to use. The number of points in this variable was chosen mostly for logistic reasons.

 

Comments 3: Why were measurements for biochemical stress markers, such as antioxidant enzyme activities, or lipid peroxidation levels, not included in the study?

Response 3: We focused on whole-organism functional responses—respiration, NPP, and Fv/Fm—which directly reflect ecological performance and have been widely used in similar studies. Our short-term exposures (2.5 hours) were not expected to induce substantial biochemical stress responses (e.g., oxidative damage or HSP induction). Measuring these markers would have significantly expanded the study’s scope, requiring specialized laboratory work and additional budget and personnel beyond our project’s capacity. We therefore prioritized integrative physiological responses to best address our study objectives within available resources.

 

Comment 4: I recommend including a small map to illustrate the sample collection location. This can be added as supplementary material for better clarity and context.

Response 4: The map was included in the manuscript.

 

Comment 5: I recommend including figures for the kelps.

Response 5: Unfortunately, we did not take illustrative photographs of the kelp species. However, since these species are quite straightforward to identify, we do not believe this omission affects the clarity of our results. If the editor deems this necessary, we are happy to collect a few individuals for documentation

 

Comment 6: In lines 81 and 83, please correct the formatting of the temperature units, as there appears to be an unnecessary dash under the degree symbol.

Response 6: Thank you for spotting it. Corrected.

 

Comment 7: In line 92, please correct the formatting of the photon fluence rate unit.

Response 7: Corrected.

 

Comment 8: I’m not entirely convinced that your conclusion, 'light availability plays a key role in shaping vertical zonation,' is fully supported by the results presented. Could you provide further justification or clarification?

Response 8: Thank you for raising this point. Our conclusion is based on observed species-specific differences in light compensation under thermal stress. While Laminaria ochroleuca and Saccorhiza polyschides required higher light levels to balance increased respiration at elevated temperatures, Phyllariopsis brevipes could not compensate even under high light. These patterns suggest that light availability could influence vertical zonation in a climate warming scenario. We changed the text slightly so this point is clearer

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled "Photon fluence rate and temperature effects on temperate Atlantic kelp species" addresses a relevant and appropriate topic for this journal.
The manuscript is well written and well supported.

I will now point out a few corrections that should be made.

Corrections needed.

line 91 - increasing light intensities (30 min under dark conditions and 20 min at 15, 45, 70, 90,

line 191 - polyschides and C) Phyllariopsis brevipes to 2.5 h’ exposure increasing irradiance every 20 min at 

line 352 - References - Authors must review all bibliographic references that have algae names in their title, which should be written in italics and not in normal letters.

Author Response

Photon fluence rate and temperature effects on temperate Atlantic kelp species

Tomás F. Pinheiro , Sílvia Chemello , Isabel Sousa-Pinto , Tânia R. Pereira

We thank the reviewers for their insightful feedback, constructive comments and the time they dedicated to reviewing our work, which have helped us refine the manuscript and improve its clarity and quality.

Reviewer 2

The manuscript entitled "Photon fluence rate and temperature effects on temperate Atlantic kelp species" addresses a relevant and appropriate topic for this journal.
The manuscript is well written and well supported.

I will now point out a few corrections that should be made.

Corrections needed.

Comment 9: line 91 - increasing light intensities (30 min under dark conditions and 20 min at 15, 45, 70, 90,

Response 9: We’re not sure what the reviewers means. We decided to change the phrase to make it clearer, but are unsure this is what was meant.

 

Comment 10: line 191 - polyschides and C) Phyllariopsis brevipes to 2.5 h’ exposure increasing irradiance every 20 min at 

Response 10: Correction done.

 

Comment 11: line 352 - References - Authors must review all bibliographic references that have algae names in their title, which should be written in italics and not in normal letters.

Response 11: Correction done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf