A Perspective for Best Governance of the Bari Canyon Deep-Sea Ecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

I have reviewed manuscript water-1237276 by Angeletti et al. This paper summarizes results of surveys of the Bari Canyon by remotely operated vehicles and benthic landers to determine the kinds of organisms that inhabit the canyon and to document anthropogenic impacts. The authors conclude that human impacts are small because the canyon is not frequented by fishing boats. Human impacts seem to be mostly in the form of debris, and there is not a lot of that. The organisms identified via the surveys suggest that the canyon should probably be provided with some formal protection. Biodiversity is high, and several vulnerable organisms and ecosystems (sponges and cold-water corals) are found there.

My only criticism of this manuscript is that the English could be improved, but the manuscript is certainly understandable.

A native speaking colleague from the University of Malta, edited English.

As long as the subject of this manuscript falls within the scope of Water, I see no problem. I suppose one could argue that it might be better suited for a journal specifically concerned with marine conservation, but the manuscript itself seems fine to me.

We thank reviewer 1 for their positive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript argues that the Bari Canyon is a diverse and unique area experiencing human pressures and merits protection and conservation. Multiple potential management strategies are discussed.  Due to grammar issues, it is difficult to thoroughly assess the appropriateness of the methods and, therefore, the conclusions. The topic this manuscript addresses is valuable and timely, but issues with grammar and not defining method-specific terms prevent the message from getting across. I sincerely hope the authors clean up the grammar so this important work can be shared.   General comments:   Small but frequent errors in grammar and number agreement occur across the entire manuscript. Improving the grammar in this manuscript is essential.   The methods are difficult to follow. This is due to grammar and using method-specific language without defining it and its relevance. Though references are usually provided, the meaning is unclear. For example, Lines 138-139: it is unclear what is meant by 'navigation' and why it is important to filter for it. Lines 140-141: does this sentence mean " Vessels active for 1.46+/-... and 5.17 +/-... were removed as these timeframes are too short for fishing activities to occur."?? L 55 &56 I am unfamiliar with the significance of GSA18 (FAO-GFMC) and 'units'; please provide a brief description unless it is likely the audience will be familiar with these abbreviations.   Sentences are often poorly connected to the previous sentence in the same paragraph and read as unique, as opposed to connected ideas or themes.   The authors could make the management options and recommendations easier to stand out if they would enumerate them in the text, either by literally writing numbers ( 1. Management option, 2. Management option), using subheaders, or stating something along the lines of "We identify three management and conservation tools that can be applied to the Bari Canyon. First.... etc."

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript argues that the Bari Canyon is a diverse and unique area experiencing human pressures and merits protection and conservation. Multiple potential management strategies are discussed.  Due to grammar issues, it is difficult to thoroughly assess the appropriateness of the methods and, therefore, the conclusions.

The topic this manuscript addresses is valuable and timely, but issues with grammar and not defining method-specific terms prevent the message from getting across. I sincerely hope the authors clean up the grammar so this important work can be shared.

We thank reviewer 2 for their positive comments. We follow its suggestion to edit English. A native speaking colleague from the University of Malta, edited English. Changes are highlighted with 'track changes'.

General comments:

Small but frequent errors in grammar and number agreement occur across the entire manuscript. Improving the grammar in this manuscript is essential. The methods are difficult to follow. This is due to grammar and using method-specific language without defining it and its relevance. Though references are usually provided, the meaning is unclear.

English has been edited throughout the manuscript. Methods has been improved giving more information on technical aspects.

For example,

Lines 138-139: it is unclear what is meant by 'navigation' and why it is important to filter for it. Lines 140-141: does this sentence mean " Vessels active for 1.46+/-... and 5.17 +/-... were removed as these timeframes are too short for fishing activities to occur."?? L 55 &56 I am unfamiliar with the significance of GSA18 (FAO-GFMC) and 'units'; please provide a brief description unless it is likely the audience will be familiar with these abbreviations.   Sentences are often poorly connected to the previous sentence in the same paragraph and read as unique, as opposed to connected ideas or themes.  

All these issues has been amended and text has been modified.

The authors could make the management options and recommendations easier to stand out if they would enumerate them in the text, either by literally writing numbers ( 1. Management option, 2. Management option), using subheaders, or stating something along the lines of "We identify three management and conservation tools that can be applied to the Bari Canyon. First.... etc.

All these issues has been amended and text has been modified.