Immersion Time Determines Performance of Artificial Habitats in Commercial Harbours by Changing Biodiversity of Colonising Invertebrate Assemblages
, Laura E. Richardson 3,4,*,†, Andrew N. Radford 5, Francesca Rossi 1,6, Gilles Lecaillon 2, Anaïs Gudefin 2, Lucas Bérenger 7, Etienne Abadie 2, Pierre Boissery 8, Philippe Lenfant 9 and Stephen D. Simpson 3,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Immersion time determines performance of artificial habitats in commercial harbours by changing biodiversity of colonising invertebrate assemblages” deals with effect of time on biodiversity of artificial marine habitats placed in harbours. The whole manuscript is nice and interesting to read. I have found only several minor issues that can be easily fixed prior the acceptance.
1) I did not understand a placement of the Biohuts. There is written that the cages were connected vertically (l. 93), but it doesn’t look so in the Figure 1. Also in this figure there is a picture of the Biohuts placed right next to each other (Fig 1b), but there is stated that: “…..separated by at least 20 m” (l. 100). Please explain or clarify. Also note that you refer twice to subfigure (a) in the title of the Figure 1 (l. 97).
2) Finfish are not macroinvertebrates as stated at l. 245, please correct.
3) The word “provided” should be probably replaced by “providing” (l. 256).
4) There is a redundant underscore behind Lysmata seticauda at Table 2.
5) I didn’t find a Supplement for this manuscript, nor at he link at l. 303, but there is reference to Tables S1-S5. Maybe it is my fault, and I didn’t find them in the editorial system.
Author Response
Please see attachement
Dear Reviewers,
Please find the revised version of the manuscript “Immersion time determines performance of artificial habitats in commercial harbours by changing biodiversity of colonising invertebrate assemblages” following referees’ comments. We would like to thank them for the constructive comments and suggestions they made on our manuscript. We carefully followed their suggestions, and we hope that now the manuscript is ready for publication. Please find attached our responses to the referees’ comments and the changes we made in the manuscript accordingly.
Yours Sincerely
Alix VARENNE on the behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Specific remarks:
Line 90. Please, put a period at the end of the sentence of Table 1.
Line 98. Please, put a period at the end of the sentence of Figure 1.
Line 117. Please, replace “Palaemon spp.” with “Palaemon spp.“
Line 162. Please, put a period at the end of the sentence of Figure 2.
Line 166. Please, put a period at the end of the sentence of Figure 3.
Line 178. In Table 2., please put point after abbreviation ”spp” of species name
Line 185. Please, replace “Palaemon spp” with “Palaemon spp.“
Line 187. Please, replace “Carcinus spp” with “Carcinu spp.“
Line 189. Please, replace „Periclimenes spp.“ with „Periclimenes spp.“
Line 195. Please, put a period at the end of the sentence of Figure 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Dear reviewers,
Please find the revised version of the manuscript “Immersion time determines performance of artificial habitats in commercial harbours by changing biodiversity of colonising invertebrate assemblages” following referees’ comments. We would like to thank them for the constructive comments and suggestions they made on our manuscript. We carefully followed their suggestions, and we hope that now the manuscript is ready for publication. Please find attached our responses to the referees’ comments and the changes we made in the manuscript accordingly.
Yours Sincerely
Alix VARENNE on the behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of: “Immersion time determines performance of artificial habitats in commercial harbours by changing biodiversity of colonising invertebrate assemblages”
Overall, methods and analyses are sound and discussion addresses main findings of the study in the context of the wider field. I think results from this study will contribute nicely to the wider eco-engineering field. Just two main points/clarifications:
The authors use ‘artificial structures’ in reference to the habitat enhancements. This is a little confusing because traditionally, ‘artificial structures’ has been used to describe man-made infrastructure such as seawalls, groynes, jetties, marinas, wharfs, etc. and we know that in many areas, these structures support reduced species diversity compared to equivalent natural habitat. Perhaps the authors could change the phrasing of their use of ‘artificial structures’ to make it clear that they are referring to the habitat enhancements.
It is unclear if the authors conducted statistical analyses on all invertebrates or just mobile inverts, as sometimes authors say mobile inverts and sometimes say just inverts. I do see, however, that bivalves are included in figures. Please clarify if the observations and analyses captures all inverts (sessile and mobile) and if analyses were conducted separately for mobile vs sessile. Also, can you address why macro algae were not recorded?
Line by line comments:
Line 52 – “providing ecological stepping stones”. Just a note to consider - Often this is seen as a negative because stepping stones facilitated non-native species spread.
Line 61 – “…anticipated that artificial habitat restoration can facilitate…”. Perhaps a better word than ‘restoration’ would be ‘enhancement’, as you would not restore an artificial habitat, but rather enhance it to function more like natural habitat.
Line 73 – “…habitats of the Year 1, and of the Year 2…” A clearer way to say this might be: “…of the Years 1 and 2…”
Line 86 – “We extracted this subset…”. I think you are referring to a subset of data, so perhaps say: “We extracted this subset of data…”
Line 101 – why was there a different number of samples in Year 1 (n = 30) and 2 (n = 16)?
Methods and results – can you please clarify analysis of mobile invertebrate assemblages vs sessile invert assemblages? i.e. line 103 mentions invertebrate assemblage whereas line 108 mentions mobile inverts. Also, why were macroalgae not recorded and analysed?
Line 200 – this sentence, as structured, makes it sound like fish species were assessed in the current study.
Line 211/212 – ‘colonisation’ is used but earlier ‘colonization’ is used. Please stay consistent throughout. Same with colonise vs colonize.
Paragraph starting on line 224. This section nicely describes possible explanations for variation in communities among locations, but leaves out the concept of current species pool. For instance, perhaps the suit of species available for colonisation in each harbour are different, which will affect what settles on the structures.
Line 280 – but the study didn’t analyse productively, so perhaps remove.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Dear reviewers,
Please find the revised version of the manuscript “Immersion time determines performance of artificial habitats in commercial harbours by changing biodiversity of colonising invertebrate assemblages” following referees’ comments. We would like to thank them for the constructive comments and suggestions they made on our manuscript. We carefully followed their suggestions, and we hope that now the manuscript is ready for publication. Please find attached our responses to the referees’ comments and the changes we made in the manuscript accordingly.
Yours Sincerely
Alix VARENNE on the behalf of all co-authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
