Posidonia oceanica Cartography and Evolution of the Balearic Sea (Western Mediterranean)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 I appreciate the opportunity to review the article titled Posidonia oceanica Cartography and Evolution of the Balearic Sea (Western Mediterranean).  After careful reading, I'd say the article has a number of flaws which need to be fixed. Having said that, I have recommendations that I believe the authors will find useful and that, if implemented, would make this research suitable for publication in the journal.

 #Title

The title of the article is somewhat unclear please consider changing the title and making it more explicit for the global readers to be able to comprehend the research theme.

 # Abstract

 The given abstract requires a bit of modification. I did not find any indication of results in the abstract. Too much of a generic statement and implications of the study should be concise.

 

# Introduction

 The introduction is written poorly without proper background and discussion of previous related studies and most importantly the research gap which helped to formulate this particular research. I do not see the idea of the article has been established properly. Without Scientific referencing and detailed analysis of those approaches, the conclusion and the argument do not sound appropriate.  

In another way I would say in the Introduction, it is necessary to reconstruct the storyline of this manuscript. The introduction is the opening part of the scientific story to attract an audience and suggest the direction of your research. For this reason, you need to identify the problem that drives the research and introduce the key characters. If then, using the key characters, it is required to intertwine the scientific story concisely, systematically, and logically. Please rearrange the keywords so that the background of the study sounds appropriate.

 

Please provide more citations throughout the introduction section. For example, see the first paragraph of the introduction there is no citation for those statements!! Also, check the keywords whether they are sufficient or not!

 # Study Area

Provide a rationale for why this area was selected for the study, please change the study area map with the proper index map and other relevant map elements

 

 # Materials and method

 The entire methodology section is poor and vague which makes the research unclear in terms of methodological design. It is hard to understand the direction of this research. It is necessary to reorganize the hierarchy of Materials and Methods such, as an overview of the method, Data Collection, and Data Analysis, validation, etc. Please include a brief flowchart to help readers who are unfamiliar with this topic comprehend the study methodology. I do not see any flowchart for this study, please provide a brief but robust flowchart so that the reader can benefit from the study. Please make a lucrative chart using relevant graphics and symbols. Writing is not scientifically appropriate in this section. Please get some ideas from similar articles online.

 # Result and discussion

 Result sections could be improved in their present form it is hard to understand the findings of the study. As per as the discussion section is concerned I found it too much narration, please provide a detailed discussion on the key finding with proper cross-referencing. If possible please elaborate limitations, future direction, and policy implications of this study

 # Conclusion

 Should be revised, limitations and future implications should be in the discussion section not in the conclusion. Please reorganize the brief of the results of this study here. Please revise the conclusion according. A supplementary document is highly desirable otherwise the reader would not benefit.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Gràcies per la teva ressenya i pels comentaris atents que ens han ajudat a millorar el document. Ens comprometem a abordar les inquietuds que vau plantejar per millorar la qualitat general de la nostra investigació. Agraïm els vostres comentaris constructius sobre diverses seccions de l'article i ens comprometem a fer les revisions necessàries (vegeu el document adjunt).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The purpose of the study is to provide quantitative criteria for P. oceanica area. But the study needs to point out the levels of measures for conservation aspects. Conclusion needs to be improvise with respect to the objectives of the study. Sample aerial photographs, sbl images can be included in the manuscript. Posidonia oceanica can be mentioned in short form "P. oceanica" after the first mention in the MS. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language must be improved. Some of the statements are not clear enough. For example;

1. "Based on the photointerpretation of aerial photographs between 0 and 5 meters deep" in abstract part

2. 'Decree N° 25/2018' in abstract part

Likewise, the entire manuscript needs to rechecked for sentence rephrasing and grammatical corrections.

Author Response

Gràcies pels teus valuosos comentaris sobre el nostre estudi. Agraïm els vostres comentaris constructius i els tindrem en compte per millorar el nostre manuscrit.

Entenem la importància d'alinear la conclusió amb els objectius de l'estudi de manera més eficaç. En la conclusió revisada, garantirem una connexió més clara entre els nostres resultats i els objectius inicials, millorant la coherència global del manuscrit.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors present a detailed mapping of the distribution of Posidonia oceanica around the Balearic Islands from 0 to -35 meters, obtained through a combination of photo-interpretation of aerial photographs, side-scan-sonar campaigns, processing of available information and targeted sampling with ROV.

In general, the paper is well organized but needs some improvements, especially in the discussion section where some parts are confusing and need to be clarified.

I attach a .pdf file with specific comments and suggestions (since the paper has no line numbers!).

I suggest merging some figures (e.g., Figs. 2 through 5) into one, such as Figs. 10 through 13. Also, in Fig. 7, the position of the box in the upright corner should be indicated.

There are no examples of side-scan sonar images of the seabed showing the presence of Posidonia oceanica, nor are there any ROV images. I propose presenting some of them to show the reader how you mapped the phanerogam. Moreover, no sampling methods were described in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs to be thoroughly revised in English.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive review and for the thoughtful comments that helped us to improve the paper. Below we explain the changes in detail, following their recommendations and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I'm happy with the revisions 

Author Response

Thank you for your agreement on the corrections. I'm glad to hear that the adjustments align with your feedback and enhance the clarity of the paper. Your insights were instrumental in refining the content, and I appreciate your thorough review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors for their sincere effort made in the paper for improvisation. There are few corrections needs to carried out before accepting for publications.

1. Line 17. Decree N^o - Please check once.

2. Line 205 (Check for the character spaces)

3. Line 208. Numerical values can be formatted and aligned to right indent, also the punctuation marks can be used as 22,465 instead of 2,2465 (For example).

4. Fig 5-8, Missing coordinate tic marks on the axis frame. Pls check.

Author Response

I appreciate the authors for their sincere effort made in the paper for improvisation. There are few corrections needs to carried out before accepting for publications.

Thank you so much for your thorough and thoughtful reviews in the second round. Your feedback is invaluable, and I appreciate the time and effort you've dedicated to this process. It's incredibly helpful in refining and improving the paper.

1. Line 17. Decree No - Please check once.

Done

2. Line 205 (Check for the character spaces)

Done

3. Line 208. Numerical values can be formatted and aligned to right indent, also the punctuation marks can be used as 22,465 instead of 2,2465 (For example).

Done

4. Fig 5-8, Missing coordinate tic marks on the axis frame. Pls check.

I appreciate your feedback on figures 5-8. You've rightly pointed out that placing the north indicator at the left top of the pictures makes the coordinate mark unnecessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf