Habitat Provision and Erosion Are Influenced by Seagrass Meadow Complexity: A Seascape Perspective
, Adriana Vergés 1,3, Alistair G. B. Poore 1,3, Tim M. Glasby 1,4 and Kingsley J. Griffin 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, authors used a seascape approach to clarify how the habitat complexity of seagrass meadows of Posidonia australis can affect the fish and epifauna communities, the fish predation and the erosion rate.
This is a very interesting study and very well written despite its complexity. I have just some minor comments that can be addressed very quickly. Because I think most of my remarks can be addressed by an appropriate discussion, I think this ms will be acceptable after minor revision.
Minor comments:
1. I would like to see an example of the GTRS fragmentation and site selection and this can be included (superimposed) in one of the estuary images in Figure 1;
2. Increase the size of the points in Fig.3, 4 and 5 and increase all the text
3. To discuss the results in paragraph "4.2 Use of seagrass habitats by invertebrate epifauna", you could take into consideration also "Costa et al 2021 Small-scale patches of detritus as habitat for invertebrates within a Zostera noltei meadow".
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript describes interaction complexity within the seagrass meadow. This is not an innovative approach, being rather descriptive. However, the manuscript is based on very solid methods and provides very valuable information. I found the manuscript well-written and interesting. The manuscript is well structured with plain language. The lack of a summary chapter doesn't bother me because the future perspective chapter sums up the manuscript well.
In short, I think the manuscript is a piece of good ecological work and suggest to accept it in present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Review for the paper "Habitat provision and erosion are influenced by seagrass meadow complexity: a seascape perspective by Giulia Ferretto, Adriana Vergés, Alistair G.B. Poore, Tim M. Glasby and Kingsley J. Griffin submitted to "Diversity".
General comment.
A primary concern of ecology is to determine why different areas support different communities. Theoretically, complex environments could support a diverse array of communities because they would contain many resources capable of sustaining large numbers of species. The seagrass habitat, which is widespread throughout tropical and temperate latitudes, and exhibits varying degrees of complexity in relatively small areas, is a convenient system for investigating habitat heterogeneity in the marine environment. The authors discussed the relationships between Posidonia australis structural complexity and fish and epifauna communities, predation and sediment erosion in six estuaries in eastern Australia using the Generalized Random Tessellation Structures approach. The topic sounds interesting and could have contributed to a better understanding of the significance of the modern global changes in the oceans (warming, acidification) and relatively small-scale alterations associated with boat moorings, dredging and construction, on the seafloor and fish communities. The authors found that reduced erosion rates were associated with a higher density of Posidonia australis. Fish diversity and abundance of epifauna also demonstrated different relationships with seagrass density. The data were statistically processed and presented in a clear way using relevant Tables and Figures.
However, I think that the possible role of oceanographic regimes in shaping local communities should also be considered in the ms.
Specific remarks.
Abstract. There is a confusing statement. The authors declared that they found "more fish species in vegetated areas" (L. 24-25) but "fish species richness was higher in areas with LOWER seagrass density" (L. 25-26). According to the Results, "Fish richness declined with increasing seagrass density" (L 275). Please, clarify.
L 38. Consider replacing “small scale” with “small-scale”
L 77. Consider replacing “invertebrate” with “invertebrates”
L 78. Consider replacing “small scale” with “small-scale”
L 96. Consider replacing “slow growing” with “slow-growing”
Section 2.1. Please, provide the depth range you sampled at each site.
Your sampling sites are located at a considerable distance one from another. Do you think your sampling locations are similar in the oceanographic regime? Oceanographic data will be useful to evaluate the role of other factors.
L 124. Consider replacing “High resolution” with “High-resolution”
L 156. Consider replacing “superceded” with “superseded”
Sections 3.1 and 3.2. Why did you not compare the community composition among different sites? Whether your results may have been affected by predator-prey interactions or differences in the local oceanography?
L 279. Please, provide variations for relative fish abundance as you did for mobile epifauna (L 261-262) and fish richness (L 274-275).
L 317-328. Can you speculate about the impact of other factors both biotic and abiotic on the structure of fish and invertebrate communities?
L 354. Consider replacing “influence” with “influenced”
L 374. Consider replacing “is often greater” with “are often greater”
L 411. Consider replacing “associated to” with “associated with”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have revised the paper according to my comments.
