Sustainability of Gulf of Mexico Coastal Estuaries and Lagoons: Interactions with Hydrocarbon Production—A Review with a Look to the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I’ve read your manuscript with great interest. Principally, it sheds light on the very important problem of the environmental impacts of hydrocarbon production on coastal ecosystems. The risen research question is valid, and the topic is suitable to “Sustainability”. This is a classical analysis, which I appreciate very much. However, I have three principal concerns outlined below together with the other recommendations.

1)      First principal concern: this manuscript does not look a regular research article, but as Review or Viewpoint. Please, try to think about re-labeling and consult with the journal’s representatives about the types of manuscripts acceptable to the journal. Moreover, you paper is indicated as a Review in the submission system.

2)      Second principal concern: the manuscript offers a historical vision, and the number of the fresh information is very limited. Try to think how to re-arrange your title, objective, and storytelling. Alternatively, you have to add newer data.

3)      Third principal concern: a general, international importance of your ideas must be articulated.

4)      Abstract: this should be totally re-written and focused on the direct findings and their interpretations.

5)      Introduction: the entire text from this section should be labeled as a section 2 “Study Area”. A new introduction should be written. There, you have to demonstrate the international importance of the work, its novelty, and state your objective.

6)      Figure 1: how novel is this figure? Please, indicate the year.

7)      Materials and Methods: this section is too short. You have to specify data and analytical techniques related to what is reported in “Results” and in the same order. NOTE; if your paper is a review, this section can be omitted.

8)      Results: This section is overfilled with the old (even outdated) information. Can you add something newer?

9)      Discussion: this section should also put your results in the context of the contemporary international research and specify some practical implications. I also encourage you to think about linking your results to the ideas of UN SDGs.

10)  Conclusions: this section should have a numbered list of the main findings and interpretations.

11)  The writing is ok. I only ask to not start sentences with []. Everywhere, only metric units (not miles etc.) should be used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing is ok. I only ask to not start sentences with []. Everywhere, only metric units (not miles etc.) should be used.

Author Response

• First principal concern: this manuscript does not look a regular research article, but as Review or Viewpoint. Please, try to think about re-labeling and consult with the journal’s representatives about the types of manuscripts acceptable to the journal. Moreover, you paper is indicated as a Review in the submission system.

Response: The paper was written as a review article. We will consult with the journal editors about clearly identifying the article as a review. We suggest a new title that this is a review with a look to the future

Comments 1: Dear Authors, I’ve read your manuscript with great interest. Principally, it sheds light on the very important problem of the environmental impacts of hydrocarbon production on coastal ecosystems. The risen research question is valid, and the topic is suitable to “Sustainability”. This is a classical analysis, which I appreciate very much. However, I have three principal concerns outlined below together with the other recommendations. 1)        First principal concern: this manuscript does not look a regular research article, but as Review or Viewpoint. Please, try to think about re-labeling and consult with the journal’s representatives about the types of manuscripts acceptable to the journal. Moreover, you paper is indicated as a Review in the submission system. Response: The paper was written as a review article. We will consult with the journal editors about clearly identifying the article as a review. We suggest a new title that this is a review with a look to the future 2)         Second principal concern: the manuscript offers a historical vision, and the number of the fresh information is very limited. Try to think how to re-arrange your title, objective, and storytelling. Alternatively, you have to add newer data. Response: Because this is a review, we did not gather new information ourselves. We use historical published data to show past impacts of petroleum related activities and develop a future vision about how these impacts can be addressed. We include references into the 2020s 3)        Third principal concern: a general, international importance of your ideas must be articulated. Response: We now generalize our findings to other coastal areas with petroleum industry impacts. 4)        Abstract: this should be totally re-written and focused on the direct findings and their interpretations. Response: The abstract has been rewritten. 5)        Introduction: the entire text from this section should be labeled as a section 2 “Study Area”. A new introduction should be written. There, you have to demonstrate the international importance of the work, its novelty, and state your objective Response. We have added a new introduction that has objectives, and we discuss the international importance of the work 6)        Figure 1: how novel is this figure? Please, indicate the year. Response. Figure 1 is from the 1980s but the lagoons are the same. The data show a relationship shown by many that coastal fisheries are related to river discharge and area of wetlands. We bring in later works that provide a deeper understanding of the reasons that lagoon-estuarine ecosystems, especially in the Gulf of Mexico have high fisheries

7)        Materials and Methods: this section is too short. You have to specify data and analytical techniques related to what is reported in “Results” and in the same order. NOTE; if your paper is a review, this section can be omitted. Response: We now make clear that this is a review paper, therefore, there are no methods and results sections 8)        Results: This section is overfilled with the old (even outdated) information. Can you add something newer? Response: As noted in point 7, there is no longer a results section because this is a review.  Because it is a review, we looked at relevant information over the past decades. We have looked carefully at the literature cited and eliminated some references that were outdated. 9)        Discussion: this section should also put your results in the context of the contemporary international research and specify some practical implications. I also encourage you to think about linking your results to the ideas of UN SDGs. Response. Since this is a review, strictly speaking there is not specific discussion section. We now call this Conclusions and Future Directions   10)      Conclusions: this section should have a numbered list of the main findings and interpretations Response. Done 11)      The writing is ok. I only ask to not start sentences with []. Everywhere, only metric units (not miles etc.) should be used. Response. Done 12)      Comments on the Quality of English Language. The writing is ok. I only ask to not start sentences with []. Everywhere, only metric units (not miles etc.) should be used. Response. Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried to highlight the restoration and management approach to address ecological disruptions caused by petroleum activity.

1. It would be better if some data year-wise is added meaning how much effect from past years and in which area is more affected and why?

2. It would be better if provide some data for ranking different parts of America based on petroleum activity and few data for worldwide also.

3. It would be beneficial to discuss some examples of successful restoration projects or management practices and governmental policies to provide a clearer picture of potential solutions

4. References should not be old (better to have afterwards 2000 year number)

Author Response

Sustainability of Gulf of Mexico Coastal Estuaries and Lagoons: Interactions with Hydrocarbon Production – A Review with a Look to the Future

 

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments It would be better if some data year-wise is added meaning how much effect from past years and in which area is more affected and why? Response: This review was made because there are not current studies for the southern Gulf of Mexico’s impact on coastal and marine ecosystems nor resources. Data found for the northern Gulf is updated and tracking down these effects on coastal estuaries and lagoons, but this is not the case for the Mexican part. Appendix A shows the number of oil spills that have happened in the Campeche Sound since the Ixtoc I and in the past years these spills have been occurring more often. However, we could not find available literature nor data for Veracruz, Tabasco, nor Campeche. It would be better if provide some data for ranking different parts of America based on petroleum activity and few data for worldwide also. Response: Thank you very much for your kind suggestion, we will consider this for another review paper. It would be beneficial to discuss some examples of successful restoration projects or management practices and governmental policies to provide a clearer picture of potential solutions Response: We provide a section at the end of the article on Future Directions on this problem References should not be old (better to have afterwards 2000 year number) Response: Since the largest oil spill was on 1979, and it resulted in a number of researches on the impacts caused on the coastal and marine ecosystems and resources, both in Mexico and the U.S., we consider important to include old baseline literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Decision on the manuscript with ID (sustainability-3161369-peer-review-v1) is “Minor Revisions”. The manuscript fits the scope of the journal and provides new data. Several revisions are needed before the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

§  Reference style and citations should follow the journal guidelines according to MDPI style. All references should be revised to numerical one.

§  Lines 577, 581, and 612: You should not start with the numerical references.

§  Table 1 and table 2. All citations should be inserted inside the table.

§  All figures should be presented clearly inside the text.

§  You should insert citations inside Appendix A.

 

§  Line 882: Washington Post (2023). Add citation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

For research article.   Sustainability of Gulf of Mexico Coastal Estuaries and Lagoons: Interactions with Hydrocarbon Production – A Review with a Look to the Future

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Decision on the manuscript with ID (sustainability-3161369-peer-review-v1) is “Minor Revisions”. The manuscript fits the scope of the journal and provides new data. Several revisions are needed before the manuscript considered for publication in Sustainability Journal.

 

Reference style and citations should follow the journal guidelines according to MDPI style. All references should be revised to numerical one.

• Lines 577, 581, and 612: You should not start with the numerical references.

Response: Done

• Table 1 and table 2. All citations should be inserted inside the table.

Response: Done

• All figures should be presented clearly inside the text.

Response: Done

• You should insert citations inside Appendix A.

Response: Done

• Line 882: Washington Post (2023). Add citation.

Response: Done

• Comments on the Quality of English Language. Moderate editing of English language required.

Response: Done

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thanks for responses and revisions! Your manuscript looks perfect now. I only ask you to check it carefully and, for example, to avoid Spanish expressions (this can be done together with the proof check).

Author Response

Comments 1: thanks for responses and revisions! Your manuscript looks perfect now. I only ask you to check it carefully and, for example, to avoid Spanish expressions (this can be done together with the proof check).

Response 1: Thank you for your kind review. We have checked our manuscript carefully and the only Spanish words we used were to name -for example- oil coming out from the bottom of the sea (chapopoteras), but we can avoid these expressions during the proof check.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx