The Status of Posidonia oceanica at Tremiti Islands Marine Protected Area (Adriatic Sea)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Authors tackle a very interesting and current topic, considering the importance of Posidonia oceanica among the Mediterranean coastal habitats. The main objectives of the paper are the study of the status of three P. oceanica sub meadows in Tremiti Island in relation to impacts derived from human activities.

The Authors addressed the issue analyzing the meadows in its functional and structural descriptors in relation to the known human induced pressure in the study area, in 2003, 2015 and 2020 sampling campaigns.

The paper is characterized by a fairly good organization and exposure of the research contents, the objectives of the work are clearly illustrated and material and methods are sufficiently explained.

The result chapter should be improved: fig. 2 the results on Absolute and relative density and LAI should be divided from the results obtained on rhizome age. This could facilitate the discussion related to the two sub-chapters 3.1, 3.2.

In Figure 3 should be converted in a table and should be checked the class name (e.g. DN instead ND…).

In line 192 there is a reference to a fig. 5 that is wrong.

In the whole result chapter there are some statements that more properly should be moved to the discussion chapter:  lines 167-169; lines 188-189.

From line 193 to line 204 the lepidocrhonological issues are reported and partially discussed. The results are not clear and don’t seem in line with the statistical analysis reported in table 2.

In sub chapter 3.3 there are reported the % of reduction or increasing of the meadows in the 5 year period analyzed, the Authors say that the sub meadow 1 has increased + 5.6%, the sub meadow 2 6.2% (5.6+6.2=11.8%) but the sub meadow 3 has decreased -33.1%.... the overall decrease is 33.1-11.8=21.3% and not 16.5%. Also in this sub chapter there are some elements that should be moved to discussion chapter (e.g lines 223-226; 230-241).

Table 4 is not readable should be modified.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Posidonia oceanica topic is of great importance for the Mediterranean Sea wellness, fits with the SI aims and so of interest to the journal readership. Anyway, the manuscript suffers several major concerns that should be addressed before considering its possible publication. All sections are deeply affected as the manuscript sounds is confusing in some traits both in the study design and results. The relative proceeding has been already published and part of the results here presented (e.g.,Table S1, in the main text as figure 2) have been already published, some sentences of the present manuscript sound like a dejà vu  (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9611572?casa_token=5EyRmqih9ikAAAAA:AfmMFytEaQwkc4S-swvD6eD09QuczXGYuGh5d9oex3-hHMbakgUYIHGLW97oZWfXmV4hCv9Irg)

1. The title doesn’t reflect the contents of the manuscript. Indeed, to assess a cause/effect relationship it is necessary to have a blank/negative control. In this case, a meadow where all human activities are forbidden. Otherwise, all of the Posidonia meadows fall into the area having fewer restrictions (the same for all the studied area). So, the claimed regression has been related to anthropic pressure by speculation based on the present know-how on this item but not proved here.
2. Overrating and conflicting information. Summary vs abstract. The Summary claims for a “20-years monitoring” while the abstract at L27 “was monitored during 2003, 2015, and 2020”. Eighteen years are covered by sampling and only three punctiform not equidistant campaigns have been performed. Only a few data are available for all the three years considered, the most relevant consider 2015-2020 only (e.g., Tab 3,4; Fig 4 and 5). The last work published on Posidonia meadows of the Alicante coast fits best with the concept of long-term monitoring  (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/3/274). Moreover, the aim of the study has not been declared, the method or better the parameter measured quickly reported (L27-28 “habitat mapping, meadow physiognomy (e.g., rhizomes density, lower limit conditions), as well as phenological and lepidochronological analysis”). Four lines (the abstract has ten and a half) are considerations.
3. Keywords_ Posidonia oceanica and Tremiti Islands are already indexed because part of the title and so should be removed from keywords. Habitat and conservation are too generic because is not specified the context. Similarly, anthropogenic impacts because is not specified if it affects air, soil or water…Mediterranean Sea it could be useful if contextualized… MPA is not a meaningful acronym. The scope of keywords is to amplify the finding of your work during database search. If the keywords are too generic your paper is lost in an ocean of outputs even far from your field of expertise. Here are some suggestions: Seagass/meadows protection; Mediterranean Sea meadows, marine phanerogam conservation, seagrass monitoring, marine protected area management, infralittoral habitat, seagrass long-term dynamics/monitoring, etc …you have 10 to improve your article indexing. Use them all, do not waste them.
4. Introduction. This section should be improved giving a clear and exhaustive overview of the importance of Posidonia even as bioindicator, on standardized monitoring protocols, etc. not limitedly to the Italian context. Vitality indexes and linked analyses should be better illustrated as the study design can become understandable. Basic information on bathymetric, rock or sand bottom, water should be given. The aim of the study and the importance of the expected results should be illustrated even in short.
5. Methods. Generally, three depts measures are taken per site. Explain the ratio of sampling and balisage (Table 1). A synopsis of the experiment/analysis performed in form of a table per year and sites should be given. In this way, it could be improved the readers’ understanding (i.e., I do this to achieve that) and help the authors in a linear report of the experiment. Some information referred to indexes and analyses should be moved to the introduction as the description of the methods is more linear. Even methods of classification (categorize, Figure 3) should be mentioned as being used for results interpretation. Respect this item the authors should give mention to methods used to classify the meadow state https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1631069115001225?token=AC3E5914DB515721C8A680B67115B624E5AAAA94B6C3E0CB50DCC2009905AC0D0FE0B00BB66C167490D41AC12E35B656&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20220320135337
6.  Result. In this section, no comments should be reported. No results should be reported or discussed if not previously introduced. Figure 3 could be meaningful but has not been mentioned before (see above). Table 4 is unreadable.  Figures 5 miss explanation, why it is important to report these pics, please explain. Fig 6 is not relevant. L189 M4 and M5 are not stressors so is not clear what the authors want to underline. L190 in presence of positive actions (M3),…what are the positive actions? These two sentences are like a rabbit jumping out of a hat…no mention before on stressor (that could be the same in the whole area = zone C) or positive actions applied.
7. Discussions are affected by the same concerns as above and miss perspective. 

Minor notes

References in the text should be reported before a punctuation mark. Please revise this item along with the text.

L72-74should be moved to description site

L94-96 “a conspicuous habitat diversity and a remarkable aesthetic value”; beyond the aesthetic value it could be useful to know basic information characterizing the meadow and its surroundings.

Figures should be considered standalone material that should contain with the relative caption all information necessary to evaluation. As consequence, Figure 1 should report the explanation of the different protection areas A, B, and C. Zone A is not reported in the figure but have mention in the text. Confidently Zone A has no Posidonia but the authors should say.

L141 the balisage is known to the expert in the field, but the manuscript should be understandable to all people approaching even for the first time to this topic. For this reason, this technique as well as the results expected should be illustrated even in short. (See introduction notes)

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Some changes had been performed by the authors, but the result achieved doesn’t fit with the basic requirements for the publication in a Q1 IF 5.079 Journal. The authors repeatedly did not applied/replied to the requested changes /concerns raised. Sometimes the changes are cosmetic, I mean they did not lead to a real improvement.

As before, the title does not reflect the manuscript contents. No Posidonia meadows fall into no entry/no-take or highly protected area, nor the human activities (e.g. nr of boats, anchoring etc) had been measured in the three sub-meadows, so there is no way to scientifically assess a “relation” as claimed in the title. A simple mention of generic anthropogenic stressors is not enough to prove a relation. Please don’t overlook this concern once more.

Keywords. The fact that some words are used in web browsers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a kw. As a matter of fact to be effective the keywords should be “properly” used and chosen as well. This goes beyond personal preferences; it is also the interest of the journal increase visibility and appreciation of some topics, to attract other potential contributors to that item. Web browsers, for example, do not discriminate capital characters, and the acronym that you prefer to maintain can be confused with mega Pascal (MPa) or used elsewhere as for MedroxyProgesterone Acetate, Modal Pushover Analysis etc. If you don’t believe me, please try googling it. Otherwise, if you use Mediterranean MPA, the search is more effective because, in this case, the acronym has been contextualized. The same should be done for the Mediterranean Sea and meadows. So, I renew my previous suggestion to authors: please contextualize your keywords making them effective.

Introduction. The improvements performed by the authors can be visualized in two sentences. What about the overview not limited to the Italian context requested? What about the vitality indexes? If you don’t tell that the phenological characters of Posidonia make an account of the vitality of these species and the quality of its environment (as a sort of remote sensing), how can you think that the reader (even the beginner) can understand/ be aware to the descriptions that follow?

More, the authors, in responses agreed that the present study cannot be considered long-term monitoring, but they did not change the text (L91). “This study is focused on the long-term monitoring” this sentence has no sense.

L69 the trawling has been banned many years ago (references are 1984,1995), so the present verbal tense/the sentence should be modified.

L125-138 if the authors considered three sub-meadows (Fig 1) how can you explain the distribution of sampling/balisage sites? You overcome this point previously raised; the table is not enough.

Table 1 should be reworked because partially respond to requests. Indeed, I asked for a resuming table where it was easy to understand “I do this to achieve that”. I mean, you did balisage to check the border of meadows. The table instead is “I do this using that”. The column Analysis performed should be wasted. The year's columns should be on the right side and the header in landscape mode.

Results the result section should not contain comments. Moreover, as before, the result and the discussion sections should not contain elements not introduced before.  Below are some examples:

 L235 “On the contrary, LAI improved in presence of positive actions”

L244 … highlighted by the presence of young rhizomes

L253 related to anthropogenic stressors, please remove from the header. As raised previously, the anthropogenic stressors weren’t documented nor analysed so are speculations.

L261 In this meadow area, several anchor scars

L268 mooring buoy field

 

Figures. Fig1. The caption should be exhaustive and synthetic, so “The map also reports the zonation of the Marine Protected Area” should be removed. Figure 5 capture should be reduced. As before, images should report relevant data. As the caption reports from B2 to B5 regression, please cut after B3. Figure 6, as before, is not relevant and should be removed.    

Discussion. It should be less speculative and more proactive in proposing solutions to the problems recorded.

Author Response

As before, the title does not reflect the manuscript contents. No Posidonia meadows fall into no entry/no-take or highly protected area, nor the human activities (e.g. nr of boats, anchoring etc) had been measured in the three sub-meadows, so there is no way to scientifically assess a “relation” as claimed in the title. A simple mention of generic anthropogenic stressors is not enough to prove a relation. Please don’t overlook this concern once more.

Reply: Done. The title has been changed accordingly, avoiding mentioning a relation with anthropogenic impacts.

 

Keywords. The fact that some words are used in web browsers is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a kw. As a matter of fact to be effective the keywords should be “properly” used and chosen as well. This goes beyond personal preferences; it is also the interest of the journal increase visibility and appreciation of some topics, to attract other potential contributors to that item. Web browsers, for example, do not discriminate capital characters, and the acronym that you prefer to maintain can be confused with mega Pascal (MPa) or used elsewhere as for MedroxyProgesterone Acetate, Modal Pushover Analysis etc. If you don’t believe me, please try googling it. Otherwise, if you use Mediterranean MPA, the search is more effective because, in this case, the acronym has been contextualized. The same should be done for the Mediterranean Sea and meadows. So, I renew my previous suggestion to authors: please contextualize your keywords making them effective.

Reply: Done. We used the keywords suggested.

 

Introduction. The improvements performed by the authors can be visualized in two sentences. What about the overview not limited to the Italian context requested? What about the vitality indexes? If you don’t tell that the phenological characters of Posidonia make an account of the vitality of these species and the quality of its environment (as a sort of remote sensing), how can you think that the reader (even the beginner) can understand/ be aware to the descriptions that follow?

Reply: We agree, although our choice was driven by the tentative of keeping the introduction short. However, the information requested has been now included in the introduction with relative references, including the main indices used and their recent application in some Mediterranean areas.

 

More, the authors, in responses agreed that the present study cannot be considered long-term monitoring, but they did not change the text (L91). “This study is focused on the long-term monitoring” this sentence has no sense.

Reply: Our monitoring is a long-term monitoring carried out discontinuously (2003, 2015 and 2020). We agreed that it could be confusing with respect of long-term annual monitorings, so we deleted the word “long-term”.

 

L69 the trawling has been banned many years ago (references are 1984,1995), so the present verbal tense/the sentence should be modified.

Reply: we modified with “bottom contact fishing gears” to be more comprehensive. Although banned, trawling might occur illegally in areas characterized by Posidonia or legally in nearby areas, still with obvious negative effects on the meadows.

 

L125-138 if the authors considered three sub-meadows (Fig 1) how can you explain the distribution of sampling/balisage sites? You overcome this point previously raised; the table is not enough.

Reply: Besides the requested table, we highlighted that “Sampling stations were selected considering, when possible, the lower limit, the upper limit and a middle zone at 15 m depth, according to national protocol by the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research (ISPRA, available at www.isprambiente.gov.it). In detail, in the sub-meadow 1 it was considered the lower limit (M1, 19 m depth) and the upper limit (M2, 15 m depth), the latter coinciding with the depth of -15 m. The sub-meadow 2 was only studied in one central site (M3, 8 m depth) due to the lack of a clear upper/lower limit and the high rarefaction of the sub-meadow. Sub-meadow 3 was monitored at its lower limit (M4, 21 m depth), at the middle (M5, 15 m depth), and at the upper limit (M6, 8 m depth)”. "Five balisage systems (B1–B5; Fig. 1; Tab. 1) were put in place during July 2015 to monitor the progression or the regression of the lower limits of the meadow in presence of a uniform limit (i.e., not patchy). Sub-meadow 2 was not monitored due to the lack of clear limits". This is in accordance with the standard national protocol, widely accepted, which has also been mentioned.

 

Table 1 should be reworked because partially respond to requests. Indeed, I asked for a resuming table where it was easy to understand “I do this to achieve that”. I mean, you did balisage to check the border of meadows. The table instead is “I do this using that”. The column Analysis performed should be wasted. The year's columns should be on the right side and the header in landscape mode.

Reply: We think that the Reviewer is referring to table 2. To be comprehensive, the table briefly reports what has been done and with which aim. In the example provided by the Reviewer, for the balisage it is reported as “Measurement of distances between pickets and meadow limits over time to assess any progression or regression of the meadow”.

 

Results the result section should not contain comments. Moreover, as before, the result and the discussion sections should not contain elements not introduced before.  Below are some examples:

 L235 “On the contrary, LAI improved in presence of positive actions”

Reply: We do not agree, this is not a comment but an evidence that in that area positive actions were performed. These actions were already mentioned above as “particularly in presence of mooring buoys and reduced mechanical impacts”

 

L244 … highlighted by the presence of young rhizomes

Reply: the presence of young rhizomes is a result of the lepidochronological analysis, and this sentence is in the paragraph “phenological and lepidochronological analysis”

 

L253 related to anthropogenic stressors, please remove from the header. As raised previously, the anthropogenic stressors weren’t documented nor analysed so are speculations.

Reply: We modified it as “expansion/regression of P. oceanica and anthropogenic stressors”

 

L261 In this meadow area, several anchor scars

Reply: We think that this is a result, i.e., the occurrence of several anchor scars (up to 2 scars m-2) and some lost anchors attesting the presence of unquantified anchoring impacts in correspondence with the balisage monitored site. Although not quantitatively assessed, the qualitative occurrence of remarkable stressors is important to mention in the results.

 

L268 mooring buoy field

Reply: it is also important to report the occurrence of positive actions and when these have been put in place. We re-phrased it to not be confused with a discussion.

 

Figures. Fig1. The caption should be exhaustive and synthetic, so “The map also reports the zonation of the Marine Protected Area” should be removed.

Reply: Done.

 

Figure 5 capture should be reduced. As before, images should report relevant data. As the caption reports from B2 to B5 regression, please cut after B3. Figure 6, as before, is not relevant and should be removed.

Reply: We do not agree. The purpose of Figure 5 is to show the situation at every balisage site. Concerning Figure 6, as already said, we prefer to keep it because it shows the impacts present on the meadows and can increase the understanding of the ms by readers which are not familiar with this topic.

 

Discussion. It should be less speculative and more proactive in proposing solutions to the problems recorded.

Reply: We do not understand where our discussion is speculative. It discusses the results obtained on the basis on the local situation, and it highlights those solutions which are effective, also explaining why others are not.