Differences in Bacterial Growth and Mortality between Seagrass Meadows and Adjacent Unvegetated Areas
, Ruei-Feng Shiu 1,2, Vladimir Mukhanov 3,4 and An-Yi Tsai 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The fate and cycling of organic matter in our study region may be impacted by this shift in organic matter fate and cycling. 25
This sentence makes no sense so leave it out
If you found a difference between inside and outside a bed, you should clearly state that in the abstract.
In 70 this study, we hypothesized that exposition to seagrass-derived DOC would result in 71 higher bacterial growth and mortality rates than phytoplankton in unvegetated mead- 72 ows adjacent. 73
You mean exposure not exposition, and you don’t mean Phytoplankton
In June 2023, two established stations located in Kenting collected surface samples 76 from the southern part of the Taiwan coastal area (Fig. 1). The seagrass meadow (Station 77 S) was compared against the control (Station C) at each site at a depth of about 1 m (Fig. 7
The stations didn’t collect the samples. The samples were collected at 1 m at each site not compared.
The currents move water across the seagrass meadow so where you took the sample over the meadow will affect how much effect the meadow has had on the DOC content in the water. The photo shows a dense meadow, and the shoot density will have an effect on the DOC content too right? The “adjacent water could be water that has flowed across the meadow and has been influenced by it. The reader may assume you don’t know this.
You need to explain how the water flowing by station C was not water that had been in contact with seagrass beds and how much contact the water at 77s had with the meadow.
And one sample on one day of the year? no replicates, no replicate sites, The up- current water masses were different? The same?
After diluting the samples, incubate them for 10 126
This is an example of the need for an English grammar editor. There are too many errors
As far as I know, the modified dilution method is the only 195 method available that will allow the simultaneous measurement of bacteria growth and 196
As far as we know
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes a study of bacterial growth and mortality between sea grass beds and nearby unvegetated areas using the dilution technique. The writing in general was very good and the English was very good. The only corrections needed required in the writing occurs in lines 147 and 148 where the exponents should have been 105 and 106 respectively.
The results and conclusions were appropriate for the experimental design. It was especially important that the data collected in sea grass beds did not show whether bacteria are carbon sinks or carbon links. It is agreed that further study is needed to clarify carbon and energy fluxes through heterotrophic microorganisms and the role bacteria play in the trophic dynamics in marine ecosystems.
Author Response
The only corrections needed required in the writing occurs in lines 147 and 148 where the exponents should have been 105 and 106 respectively.
Response:
I would like to apologize for our mistake. Thank you for taking the time to review our paper carefully.
Following the reviewer's comments, we made necessary adjustments and reworded these parts in the revised version (please see the page 4).
Reviewer 3 Report
The research was well conducted and reported, and I have only minor suggestions.
I would like to see some explanations in the text, why some areas are covered by vegetation and others not covered. Is it because of the difference between a rocky and a sandy substrate?
I have a minor correction: Line 195 – correct ‘I’ to ‘we’.
none
Author Response
I would like to see some explanations in the text, why some areas are covered by vegetation and others not covered. Is it because of the difference between a rocky and a sandy substrate?
Response:
Thank you for your careful consideration of our paper.
Following the reviewer's comments, we made necessary adjustments on page 6.
I have a minor correction: Line 195 – correct ‘I’ to ‘we’.
Response:
Thank you for your careful consideration of our paper.
Following the reviewer's comments, we made necessary adjustments on page 6.
