The Predation of Pinna nobilis (Mollusca) Juveniles by the Spiny Sea Star Marthasterias glacialis (Echinodermata) in the Sea of Marmara

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article entitled “ The predation of Pinna nobilis (Mollusca) juveniles by the spiny sea star Marthasterias glacialis (Echinodermata) in the Sea of Marmara”, authors report two case of Pinna nobilis juvenile predation due to Marthasterias glacialis. In my opinion, as main concern, the manuscript does not bring enough novelty for a full length article. 

Generally, the etiopathogenesis of P. Nobilis MME is not well described. Please see “ Carella, F., Palić, D., Šarić, T., Župan, I., Gorgoglione, B., Prado, P., ... & Vico, G. D. (2023). Multipathogen infections and multifactorial pathogenesis involved in noble pen shell (Pinna nobilis) mass mortality events: Background and current pathologic approaches. Veterinary Pathology, 03009858231186737.”.
Moreover, methodology is poor, investigation is simply based on visual census and bibliography is not wide representative.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the article entitled “ The predation of Pinna nobilis (Mollusca) juveniles by the spiny sea star Marthasterias glacialis (Echinodermata) in the Sea of Marmara”, authors report two case of Pinna nobilis juvenile predation due to Marthasterias glacialis. In my opinion, as main concern, the manuscript does not bring enough novelty for a full length article. 

Generally, the etiopathogenesis of P. Nobilis MME is not well described. Please see “ Carella, F., Palić, D., Šarić, T., Župan, I., Gorgoglione, B., Prado, P., ... & Vico, G. D. (2023). Multipathogen infections and multifactorial pathogenesis involved in noble pen shell (Pinna nobilis) mass mortality events: Background and current pathologic approaches. Veterinary Pathology, 03009858231186737.”. 
Moreover, methodology is poor, investigation is simply based on visual census and bibliography is not wide representative.

Author Response

Added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

Your manuscript is good, but it requires many obligatory changes:

1- I remarks the absence of any kind of statistical analysis, you mentioned results, the kind of data have good projection, but you did not explain with descriptive statistics, also, if you sampled many sites you must apply any kind of statistical analysis such as one way ANOVA or the equivalent non-parametric (if the data have not normal distribution and variance homogeneity) test with their respective multiple comparison tests.

2- I suggest add more recent references in discussion.

Many success and blessings !!!

Author Response

Added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm very interesting in this topic and I think this MS is very precious considering that P. nobilis is currently assessed as Critically Endangered species. The MS is very well written but it lacks important details that can give value to the article. As written, it seems like a simple Note of what was observed but it is not the typical research article in which an hypothesis is supported by data.

The project to which the article refers deals with another topic. However, if we want to highlight a further critical issue for the species in the area, in my opinion, it is necessary to support the phenomenon itself with quantitative data. There is a lack of important details on the sampling method and results, the seasons, the number of surveys.

I think that it is really very important topic, but the MS needs to be integrated.

Below my specific comments:

Line 80. Were the cruises fixed in one or more month? How many cruises for each site, in which season? Please provide more detail on the sampling design followed (time, number of surveys, type of protocol to assess distribution/abundance, type of information collected, etc...).

Lines 99, 110, 115, 118, 122, 123. M. glacilis and P. noibilis should be reported in Italic.

Line 101. Why hasn't the density in the deeper layers been estimated? Is there an estimate for the other depths? better detail what you want to say, please. It could be very useful provide a table in which you detail number, density of two species (P. nobilis and M. glacialis) at least as well as an estimate of age or the measure of pen shells encountered, to better understand their ratio in terms of density as well as type of habitat/type of seabed...more details.

lines 149-153. I strongly suggest to provide information on number, density of pen shell for each station in order to better understand the differences any differences in the presence/abundance of the species in the different sites. The authors write too generically, giving more qualitative than quantitative data, not allowing a complete understanding of the phenomenon and, therefore, a complete evaluation of the star's ability to be a concrete threat for pen shell.

Author Response

Added

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the manuscript has the suggested changes.

Many blessings !!

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

Surely the MS is largely improved from the first review. More details were added about methodology and analysis, resulting more similar to an acceptable full-length article.

Just minor comments below

Figure 1: add a box for each locality (I-IV) in which the stations are clustered.

Line 148: How was the density of pen shell and/or spiny sea star calculated? (N individuals registered/400m2?) Or was it estimated?

 

Author Response

1. Figure 1 was changed according to the reviewer's comment.
2. Only abundances of the species were determined, not density.