Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a very valuable long-term ecological study about marine macrophytes in Crimea - from an area which is poorly studied in this regard, which makes this paper even more topical.  The approach seems sound - but I would like to be convinced by an improvement of the description of the Methods:

At present, the text says nothing how the macrophytes were identified. Which keys / literature were used? Were maybe also molecular methods (DNA barcoding) used? Were herbarium voucher specimens kept? This would seem important, especially given taxonomic uncertainties of some of the genera and species covered (e.g. Ectocarpus).

Also, line 202: "using light diving equipment" - what is that? Scuba? Snorkelling equipment?

Overall, the paper is well written and the quality of the figures is very good.

The only other potential issue that I have is that this paper is from an institute based in the presently Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, in violation of international law. The affiliation / address of the authors avoids this issue - but is this appropriate? I would like to leave this question to the editors to decide. Of course the paper is completely non-political (which is good and appropriate) and should be judged on its scientific merit.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Overall, this is a very valuable long-term ecological study about marine macrophytes in Crimea - from an area which is poorly studied in this regard, which makes this paper even more topical.  The approach seems sound - but I would like to be convinced by an improvement of the description of the Methods.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it. Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made corrections  of the scientific article.

 

Comments 2: At present, the text says nothing how the macrophytes were identified. Which keys / literature were used? Were maybe also molecular methods (DNA barcoding) used? Were herbarium voucher specimens kept? This would seem important, especially given taxonomic uncertainties of some of the genera and species covered (e.g. Ectocarpus).

Response 2: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made in lines 205-226.

 

Comments 3: Also, line 202: "using light diving equipment" - what is that? Scuba? Snorkelling equipment?

Response 3: Scubadiving was used in the study. Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

 

 

Comments 4: Overall, the paper is well written and the quality of the figures is very good.

Response 4: Thank you so much for appreciating our research.

 

 

Comments 5: The only other potential issue that I have is that this paper is from an institute based in the presently Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, in violation of international law. The affiliation / address of the authors avoids this issue - but is this appropriate? I would like to leave this question to the editors to decide. Of course, the paper is completely non-political (which is good and appropriate) and should be judged on its scientific merit.

Response 5: Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced feedback. We especially appreciate that you have focused on the scientific aspects of your work in your analysis. We strive to bring knowledge about the unique ecosystem of the Black Sea and the algae communities that live there to the global scientific community. Moreover, this information is extremely scarce in the world scientific literature. This and the scientific component are the main purpose of our research.

 

Comments 6: This section might benefit from discussing a large-scale re-oligotrophication in the nearby Mediterranean: Tsiamis K, Panayiotidis P, Salomidi M, Pavlidou A, Kleinteich J, Balanika K, Küpper FC, 2013: Macroalgal community response to re-oligotrophication: a case study from Saronikos Gulf (Eastern Mediterranean, Greece).- Marine Ecology Progress Series 472, 73-85. DOI: 10.3354/meps10060

 

Response 6: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made in lines 481-498

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on phycology-4155245 entitled “Long-term dynamics of phytobenthos in the Black Sea coastal zone”

The study is devoted to a comparative analysis of the spatiotemporal changes in the composition and quantitative characteristics of macrophytobenthos along the western Crimean coast of the Black Sea from 1964 to 2020.

It is known that global ecological and climatic shifts, coupled with marine eutrophication and intensifying anthropogenic pressure on coastal zones worldwide, including the Black Sea, have been identified as a major driver of widespread alteration in nearshore waters, leading to adverse transformations in benthic vegetation. Considering that information on the species composition and spatial distribution of bottom vegetation on the western Crimean coast was scarce, the study of long-term dynamics of phytobenthos in the Black Sea coastal zone is actual.

The results are interesting and have been carried out using standard hydrobotanical methods, analysis of climatic data, and statistics.

But I have some minor remarks dealing with this manuscript.

1) Lines 88, 89, 389, 474, etc. The authors who described genera and species should be listed at the first mention, species names should be written in italics. For example, “Fucus vesiculosus” should be corrected to “Fucus vesiculosus L.”; “Ulva intestinalis” should be corrected to “Ulva intestinalis L.”, etc.

2) Line 189. The caption to Figure 1 should be edited. It's unclear why the authors provide two maps of the location of hydrobotanical profiles. Perhaps the right map alone is sufficient.

3) Lines 207-208. The authors write “Macroalgae were identified using standard taxonomic keys [59], with nomenclature updated according to current standards [60]”. However, in reference [60], they cite the date of access to the electronic database as 2020. Updated data should be provided.

4) Figure 3. The legend is duplicated and should be corrected. The schematic images of macroalgae, as well as the axis labels in the figure, are very small and difficult to see and should be enlarged.

5) Table 2. “Ericaria crinita и Gongolaria barbata” should be corrected to “Ericaria crinita and Gongolaria barbata”.

6) Figure 4. The legend on the figure should be improved as it is difficult to read.

  Therefore, I believe that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

Author Response

Comments 0: Comments on phycology-4155245 entitled “Long-term dynamics of phytobenthos in the Black Sea coastal zone”. The study is devoted to a comparative analysis of the spatiotemporal changes in the composition and quantitative characteristics of macrophytobenthos along the western Crimean coast of the Black Sea from 1964 to 2020. It is known that global ecological and climatic shifts, coupled with marine eutrophication and intensifying anthropogenic pressure on coastal zones worldwide, including the Black Sea, have been identified as a major driver of widespread alteration in nearshore waters, leading to adverse transformations in benthic vegetation. Considering that information on the species composition and spatial distribution of bottom vegetation on the western Crimean coast was scarce, the study of long-term dynamics of phytobenthos in the Black Sea coastal zone is actual. The results are interesting and have been carried out using standard hydrobotanical methods, analysis of climatic data, and statistics. But I have some minor remarks dealing with this manuscript.

Response 0: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it. Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made corrections  of the scientific article.

 

Comments 1) Lines 88, 89, 389, 474, etc. The authors who described genera and species should be listed at the first mention, species names should be written in italics. For example, “Fucus vesiculosus” should be corrected to “Fucus vesiculosus L.”; “Ulva intestinalis” should be corrected to “Ulva intestinalis L.”, etc.

Response 1: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

 

Comments 2) Line 189. The caption to Figure 1 should be edited. It's unclear why the authors provide two maps of the location of hydrobotanical profiles. Perhaps the right map alone is sufficient.

Response 2: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

 

Comments 3) Lines 207-208. The authors write “Macroalgae were identified using standard taxonomic keys [59], with nomenclature updated according to current standards [60]”. However, in reference [60], they cite the date of access to the electronic database as 2020. Updated data should be provided.

Response 3: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made in lines 205-226

 

Comments 4) Figure 3. The legend is duplicated and should be corrected. The schematic images of macroalgae, as well as the axis labels in the figure, are very small and difficult to see and should be enlarged.

Response 4: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

 

Comments 5) Table 2. “Ericaria crinita и Gongolaria barbata” should be corrected to “Ericaria crinita and Gongolaria barbata”.

Response 5: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

 

Comments 6) Figure 4. The legend on the figure should be improved as it is difficult to read.

Response 6: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had previously reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript. The paper is now significantly improved, but still requires some modest revisions before it becomes acceptable. 

I have made numerous comments on the manuscript file itself (attached).

One important point, which I had asked before: were any voucher specimens (herbarium specimens on paper or microscope slides) preserved, together with fixed samples (in silicagel or ethanol) for DNA extraction? And, if yes, where are they kept / deposited? This should be mentioned.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: I had previously reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript. The paper is now significantly improved, but still requires some modest revisions before it becomes acceptable. 

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it. Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made corrections of the scientific article.

 

Comments 2: I have made numerous comments on the manuscript file itself (attached).

Response 2: Corrections to the text of the manuscript were made.

 

Comments 3: One important point, which I had asked before: were any voucher specimens (herbarium specimens on paper or microscope slides) preserved, together with fixed samples (in silicagel or ethanol) for DNA extraction? And, if yes, where are they kept / deposited? This should be mentioned.

Response 3: The Macrophyte Stock Herbarium is located in the institution where the authors of the article currently work. The herbarium has about 30,000 specimens and about 800 species. The herbarium of macrophytes of the «World Ocean IBSS» is officially registered in the Index Herbariorum under the acronym SIBS and is available for work by specialists from various scientific institutions.