Exotic Polychaetes of a Sewage Pollution Influenced Lagoon (Çardak Lagoon, Turkish Straits)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript provides original data on exotic polychaetes of a sewage pollution influenced Lagoon (Çardak Lagoon, Turkish Straits). The MS is generally well written with appropriate data analyses and an interesting discussion.  Nevertheless, it has a number of shortcomings which should be addressed by the authors in order to improve understanding of the ms.

-Page 12, Figure 6. should be corrected, (specially 3. Figure ).

 Some sentences started with a reference number, These sentences were first written by the author's name and then the reference number.

- [60] reported the maximum abundance of…..

-[10] reported that P. cornuta (7030 individuals)….

- [63] reported that P. cornuta was one of…..

- Recently, [33] conducted a study on the distribution…..

- [65] stated that P. cornuta was found to be the most abundant…..

 -[33] stated that P. cornuta has more……

Author Response

All the corrections that you indicated on the MS have been done. Thanks for your interest.

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: OK

Abstract: The first sentence should be reorganised

Key words: There must be something about pollution or sewage..

Introduction: OK

Material and method: Must be detailed

Results: OK

Conclusion: OK

Author Response

All the corrections that you indicated on the MS have been done. Thanks for your interest.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Exotic Polychaetes of a Sewage Pollution Influenced Lagoon (Çardak Lagoon, Turkish Straits)”, by Ertan DAĞLI, A. Suat ATEŞ, Seçil ACAR, Yeşim BÜYÜKATEŞ, Alper DOĞAN and A. Kerem BAKIR, submitted to Sustainability, attempts to describe the status of three invasive species in a coastal Mediterranean lagoon, in Turkey. While there are some m  erits in the manuscript, namely the assessment of the correlation between the species densities and some environmental variables, the paper suffers from several important flaws that the authors must address before I can recommend its publication. First, the manuscript lacks focus: It includes long sections describing the species, which does not contribute to the overall objective of the study. While the illustrations have good quality, the context is inadequate. The methods, particularly in the sampling technique, lacks detail (it must be stated if the samples were scraped, or if it was used a corer device, etc). In Figure 5, the use of bevel and “3D” effects on the bars is not advisable in a scientific paper. Another thing that the authors must correct, for the sake of easy reading, is the references such as in line 354 “As reported by [17],(…)”: the proper way to present this kind of citation is as “As reported by Bastida-Zavala et al [17], (…)”. This should be corrected throughout the text. On the discussion, the authors have chosen to make a bibliographic revision of the species, instead of discussing the results. Finally, language must be improved, and the text should be carefully reviewed to became clear.  

 

Therefore, I cannot recommend the publication of this paper as it is.

 Finally, language must be improved, and the text should be carefully reviewed to became clear.  

Author Response

Responses to 3rd referee's comments

1. First, the manuscript lacks focus: It includes long sections describing the species, which does not contribute to the overall objective of the study.

We disagree with the comment that it contains long chapters describing species that do not contribute to the overall purpose of the study. Due to the nature of the study, we think that such details should be given in the publication.

2. While the illustrations have good quality, the context is inadequate.

Thank you for the comment on the quality of the illustration. However, we do not agree with the opinion that the content of the manuscript is inadequate.

3. The methods, particularly in the sampling technique, lacks detail (it must be stated if the samples were scraped, or if it was used a corer device, etc).

Details about the sampling technique were added to the text.

4. In Figure 5, the use of bevel and “3D” effects on the bars is not advisable in a scientific paper.

Bevel used in Figure 5 was changed

5. Another thing that the authors must correct, for the sake of easy reading, is the references such as in line 354 “As reported by [17],(…)”: the proper way to present this kind of citation is as “As reported byBastida-Zavala et al [17], (…)”. This should be corrected throughout the text. 

They have all been corrected on the manuscript.

6. On the discussion, the authors have chosen to make a bibliographic revision of the species, instead of discussing the results.

We disagree on this comment. Results have been discussed within the frame of relevant literature.

7. Finally, language must be improved, and the text should be carefully reviewed to became clear.  

Language of the manuscript has been improoved by an English language expert

Thanks for your interest and valuable comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the manuscript. There are a few minor typos that should be addressed (e.g. line 355, "Bastida-Zavala et al., 2002)", or  page 16, there is a reference Link et al., (2209)).

Author Response

All the corrections that you indicated on the MS have been done. Thank you very much for your cooperation, interest and contributions.