Medusae (Cnidaria) of Reunion Island (South West Indian Ocean): Diversity, Abundance and Distribution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting research. It will give a good insight for the fauna of jellyfishes in Western Indian-Sea.

 

The one major concern is the using of previous classification of medusae.

After reading, I felt it is not necessary to use Automedusae and Hydroidomedusae, and it is more clear to use newest classification. I was confused that several species like Liriope which was moved to Limnomedusae were treated which groups when I was reading.

 

And more, aren't there really any siphonophorae medusae?

The pelagic ones will be too abundant to ignore...

 

The minor comments are in PDF file.

Again, the study is interesting of the fauna research, so please solve several confusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important manuscript presenting data on the planktonic stages of hydromedusae that have been studied mainly from the benthic perspective at Reunion, thus far. The holoplanktonic medusae that were the more abundant (yet less diverse) of the species identified were clearly missed in the benthic studies, emphasizing the value of this study. I found the manuscript long and suggest that in a revision, the authors consider combining data to reduce the number of tables and figures, and where possible, move material to the Supplementary section. In addition, I suggest the authors reduce the number of sections used to describe the findings. Although the authors express a desire to improve the sampling design (only 1 pooled sample was taken at coastal sites and only 1 sample was taken at offshore sites), the statistical options have not been considered and I suggest they consider performing a repeated measures analysis since their study had no replication. Although samples were taken in 2005/6, the paper is being submitted now and there is no discussion of any verification of morphology-based taxonomy using molecular methods - authors are requested to address this. The number of samples taken at different locations was not the same, and it is good that this was acknowledged and pointed out - what do the authors suggest to address this? Several patterns were pointed out regarding the data - e.g. inverse relationships between biomass and biodiversity, or similarity in terms of patterns of abundances and biodiversity among the automedusae and the hydromedusae, which are very different groups... however, the authors do not provide ecological insights as to the meanings and implications of these observations. 

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I added minor comments for your supplementary file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

As suggested, I have corrected lines 180 and 376, and the WoRMS reference 34.

As requested, I added a vertical axis to Figures 2-6, marked each month on the horizontal axis of Figure 6, and wrote the species name in full, including the entire genus name, in the legend of Figure 6.

Two legends of Supplementary Tables are completed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf