Roving Diver Survey as a Rapid and Cost-Effective Methodology to Register Species Richness in Sub-Antarctic Kelp Forests
, Julieta Kaminsky 3,*,†, MarÃa Bagur 3,*,†, Cecilia Paula Alonso 4, Mariano RodrÃguez 4, Cintia Fraysse 3, Gustavo Lovrich 3 and Gregorio Bigatti 1,2,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The application of non-destructive roving diver survey method in relation to more conventional ones and the use of open platform (such as iNaturalist) for image analysis, in my opinion, is an extremely interesting scientific objective, which could be used in many other coastal ecosystems. The idea to share images among the scientific community for the help with identification is also very welcome, since on one hand it helps the study itself, while on the other hand the data is shared with the community.
The paper is very well written, easy to read and follow. While the result section is relatively simple, it is understandable that the main goal of the study was an inventory of species, which I feel is completely fulfilled. The discussion is to the point and informative. Overall impression is very positive.
The only remark I can provide is for Figure 3, where Latin names should be written in Italic.
Author Response
We really appreciate your comments and was nice to read that your enjoy our work. Thanks for reviewing our work.
We changed al the scientific names of the figure 3 to italic.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors report on a great study and reveal an approach that can be widely applied to understudied and undersampled places around the world. The approach is straightforward and well described, the results emerge from the methods, and the comparison to more formal studies nicely demonstrates the value of roving diver techniques combined with careful image collections. This is highly suitable for publication in Diversity.
My one major comment/suggestion for the authors is to briefly describe and cite a few studies that illustrate use of data from roving diver/citizen science projects elsewhere, and how such data can be used to inform conservation. This could be inserted into the introduction or the end of the discussion and lead readers to see how much further the approach described here could go. Two citations of work I have been part of are here, although by no means the only papers the authors might cite:
Auster, P. J., Semmens, B. X., & Barber, K. (2005). Pattern in the co-occurrence of fishes inhabiting the coral reefs of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 74, 187-194.
Semmens, B. X., Auster, P. J., & Paddack, M. J. (2010). Using ecological null models to assess the potential for marine protected area networks to protect biodiversity. PloS one, 5(1), e8895.
Also, here are a few minor issues that could be addressed in a final edit:
Line 51. Marine mammals, such as pinnipeds, in kelp forest habitat too?
Line 66. … serve as a baseline of biodiversity …
Lines 174-176. Awkward sentence structure.
Line 202. “complement” is not the correct term. Perhaps the authors intend to say that iNaturalist facilitates the survey approach used here? In any case the sentence is awkward as is.
Line 355. Delete indent?
Author Response
It was very nice to read your words about our work, we greatly appreciate your feedback. We take into account all your suggestions and you can see them in the new version of the document. Below you will find the answers point by point.
Point 1: My one major comment/suggestion for the authors is to briefly describe and cite a few studies that illustrate use of data from roving diver/citizen science projects elsewhere, and how such data can be used to inform conservation. This could be inserted into the introduction or the end of the discussion and lead readers to see how much further the approach described here could go. Two citations of work I have been part of are here, although by no means the only papers the authors might cite:
Auster, P. J., Semmens, B. X., & Barber, K. (2005). Pattern in the co-occurrence of fishes inhabiting the coral reefs of Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 74, 187-194.
Semmens, B. X., Auster, P. J., & Paddack, M. J. (2010). Using ecological null models to assess the potential for marine protected area networks to protect biodiversity. PloS one, 5(1), e8895.
Response 1: We added a few sentences at the end of the discussion with references. Line 379 to 384
Point 2: Also, here are a few minor issues that could be addressed in a final edit:
Line 51. Marine mammals, such as pinnipeds, in kelp forest habitat too?
Response: yes , we added mammals and seabirds in the sentence (together with references), since some dolphins and seagulls commonly forage in southern kelp forest. Thank you for this comment.
Line 66. … serve as a baseline of biodiversity …
Response: Changed
Lines 174-176. Awkward sentence structure.
Response: Changed.
Line 202. “complement” is not the correct term. Perhaps the authors intend to say that iNaturalist facilitates the survey approach used here? In any case the sentence is awkward as is.
Response: We change the sentence for:
“We stored the photos with geographic positions on iNaturalist platform.”
Line 355. Delete indent?
Response :Done
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a methodological work that explains the advantages and disadvantages of using the of the ROV for monitoring marine biodiversity. The authors are well aware that ROVs have become routine exploration and monitoring tools for at least 20 years. The advantages of this tool have been described in hundreds of scientific papers. From this point of view, therefore, the work brings very little or no new data.
Apart from this point, the biodiversity data obtained, which are highlighted in the list of species, are interesting and add knowledge to a little explored region.
Although the data are only partially interesting, the manuscript seems to me to be well written and I have no particular corrections to make. I think it's up to the editor's judgment to decide whether a work like this can be adequately published in a special diversity issue
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript and we appreciate your comments.
Point 1: This is a methodological work that explains the advantages and disadvantages of using the of the ROV for monitoring marine biodiversity. The authors are well aware that ROVs have become routine exploration and monitoring tools for at least 20 years. The advantages of this tool have been described in hundreds of scientific papers. From this point of view, therefore, the work brings very little or no new data.
Response 1: There seems to be a misinterpretation of language here. The reviewer was confused with the word “roving”, and interpreted it as an adjective for the action of conducting a ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle). However, this was by no means our intention. We use the word “roving” as the action of travelling, constantly moving from one place to another, synonym of “wandering”, as the roving diver survey involves divers meandering and active searching for species, without a previously established trajectory. The term has been previously used in other papers (e.g. Rassweiler et al. 2020, Schmitt et al. 2002) and we believe is clear enough. No Remote Operated Vehicles were used in this paper, nor their advantages and disadvantages discussed. In contrast, we propose the use of the “roving diver survey” in kelp forests, a rapid and cost-effective methodology to register species richness by means of scuba diving.
