Understanding Cassiopea andromeda (Scyphozoa) Invasiveness in Different Habitats: A Multiple Biomarker Comparison

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript provides new information about the trophic ecology of Cassiopea andromeda, a jellyfish capable of feeding heterotrophically but who can also rely substantially on symbiotic dinoflagellates. The research was carried out in two different coastal environments in Brasil, ie. mangroves and shrimp farms during the dry and rainy seasons. Specifically the authors used organic biomarkers and stable isotope analyses to compare the quality of jellyfish tissues in the two contrasting conditions. All those data were combined with environmental parameters at the various locations and seasons, with the jellyfish biometric features.

 

The results showed that in the waters of the shrimp farms C. andromeda accumulated more lipids in their gonads with respect to the mangroves, while carbohidrates did not show significant differences. C. andromeda specimens in the shrimp farms were also significantly bigger than in the mangroves and were also present in both seasons, while the salinity changes and turbidity of the mangroves during the rainy season were deleterious for C. andromeda's survival. The stable isotope analysis revealed that the jellyfish tissues from the shrimp farms contained more Carbon, while Nitrogen did not differ substantially. The authors hypotesized that the difference in the available food sources in the shrimp farms was responsible for the overall better conditions and success of C. andromeda.

The introduction of the manuscript is clear and illustrates well the topic. The materials and methods seem to be appropriate, but the addition of a reference pond with controlled conditions which would have allowed a survival of C. andromeda during both seasons would have been very useful. The results are overall well presented, and there are some minor issues that will be underlined in the specific comments.

The discussion arguments and explains adequately the obtained results. Instead of having a merged discussion and conclusions, I think it would be better to separate them.

Specific remarks:

Line 50 „display frequent population outbreaks“ should be: displays frequent population outbreaks.

Lines 55 56 and 57 „This mutualistic relationship gives Cassiopea the possibility to rely on energy inputs shifting from autotrophy to heterotrophy and  vice versa, allowing physiological adjustment and tolerance to variable environmental  constraints.“

The authors should be careful because C. andromeda is an animal, and a heterotrophic one which does not feed directly autotrophically. A reformulation of the sentence is required.

Line 69: Why are fatty acids written in capital letters?

Line 94-95 The data can be moved in Table 1.

Line 97: Semester does not seem to be the appropriate term. I think it would be better to write first half of the year.

Line 104: You can use the short name C. andromeda.

Lines 108 and 109: After total nitrogen and total phosphorus you should add in brackets (TN) and (TP).

In table 1 the units for TN and TP are missing.

Line 120: Use the abbreviation of the name as before.

Line 129: Please unify the way you write units. In some parts you add a space in other you do not.

Line 130: The appropriate name is agate mortar. Please justify why you chose this type of mortar.

In Table 2 name of species should be written in italic

Line 139. Please use annotations of units consistently.

Line 141. I think you should write 5 hours.

Line 144. I think you should write „sampling period „ instead of „collection period“.

Line 152: You should write sample analysis instead of measurements

Line 155. The subtitle is in italic while the previous one are not.

Line 160: You have already introduced DW earlier, why not use it here?

Line 163: „Measurements were read“ would sound better if you used Samples were analysed with…

Line 174. It is not necessary to write dry weight and DW…use just DW.

Line 179. Please use chemical annotation instead of helium.

Line 180. Please use ratios in a consistent way or always with the negative exponent.

Line 186: N2 should be written with the subscript as N₂

Line 187. Instead of per thousand use „permille“

Caption of Table 3 „two different locations“ seems superflous.

Caption of figure 2. Please shorten the name.

Lines 239 240. The sentence is not very clear, please reformulate.

Figure 4. Why are the values on the y axis negative?

Caption of figure 4. Please shorten the name.

Line 253. Please unify the annotations of numbers with SD.

Line 263. Shorten the name.

Line 264. the location names have been already presented in materials and methods.

Line 290: Sometimes you use canals, sometimes channels

Line 301 TN and TP.

Line 309 Please shorten (particulate organic matter)

Line 332 permilles is missing.

Line 346. i think that it would be more appropriate to say a better quality rather than a higher quality.

Overall I think the results are interesting especially in the context of invasive species. I would recommend the publication after a major revision of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

We thank you for giving us these comments and corrections helping with the manuscript improvement. We have followed your suggestions and our detailed answers are attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The title of the manuscript is remarkable. English language has good quality. Figures need some changes Tables are good in quality. Results and discussion have written good. There are some modifications that need to be exerted in the citations.

 

1. Please mention about various biological features of Cassiopea andromedae in the section "Introduction" in one paragraph

 

2. Line 55-58 in page 2 needs proper reference

 

3. All multiple and middle sentence references in all over the manuscript should be reformed

 

4. Line 262-265 in page 9

This part contains extra information and should be omitted.

 

5. Why you have not written about "Conclusions" in the manuscript?

 

6. Figure 3 and figure 4 are in the same page but the note is that both of them should be in the same size. Figure 4 is a big figure and it is a little disturbing graphically.

 

 

7. Have other researchers published a manuscript similar to your work? If yes, please make some comparisons between the results of your work and the findings of them in a separate part in the section "Discussion"

 

8. Please check and adjust the "Reference list" based on the regulations of reference list of journal. (Titles, doi, the name of journal and ... )

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

thank you for your opinion on the manuscript. We have followed your suggestions and specific comment are reported below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript had been improved and restructured according to the suggestions and therefore I see no further obstacles for its publication.