Does Sand Beach Nourishment Enhance the Dispersion of Non-Indigenous Species?—The Case of the Common Moon Crab, Matuta victor (Fabricius, 1781), in the Southeastern Mediterranean

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper 
is not a research paper with Methods and Results (data). It is essentially a review/rebuttal to a previous publication in 2017 by Innocenti et al. Those authors concluded that beach nourishment contributed to the introduction of a non-indigenous crab species and the present paper argues that conclusion is unwarranted and not supported by sufficient rigorous scientific research. As such, it is of interest and value to managers and researchers involved in beach nourishment projects who should consider before and after studies of the area to determine any negative effects. The authors further argue that anyone evaluating such projects should communicate with those responsible to obtain data which may have been collected but are not readily available on the internet.

The paper is well-written and easily understood. I have made a number of minor edits and a couple requests for some rewording for clarification (attached file) but otherwise I have no substantive comments or suggestions for revision. The 73 references are adequate and appropriate. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #1 for his helpful comments.

Reviewer #1 - This paper is not a research paper with Methods and Results (data). It is essentially a review/rebuttal to a previous publication in 2017 by Innocenti et al.:

Response - Following this important comment, we decided to change the manuscript type form article (i.e. research paper) to a review.

Reviewer #1 - I have made a number of minor edits and a couple requests for some rewording for clarification (attached file):

Response - We accepted all the notes and the suggestions in the Reviewer #1 attached file, and corrected the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in track changes format as required.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper Does sand beach nourishment enhance the dispersion of Non-indigenous species? – The case of the Common moon crab, Matuta victor (Fabricius, 1781), in the southeastern Mediterranean by Zviely et al. deal with a very interesting and little explored issue.

Authors have submitted this paper as an article however, they do not provide new information. This article only criticises a previous study by Innocenti el at. (2007) who reported increasing numbers and densities of the invader Matuta victor, suggesting the potential role of beach nourishment. In the paper submitted to Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, authors considered that Innocenti et al (2007) do not have scientific evidences to establish the role of nourishment in promoting the establishment and dispersal of NIS. The problem is that authors do not provide new data to refuse observations by Innocenti et al (2007) to support scientifically their concerns. In this way, I think that the manuscript should be rejected to be published as an article in Journal of Marine Science and Engineering.

Authors could rewrite this manuscript to be published for instance, as a review. However, they should improve references because many studies deal with beach nourishment such as Journal of Applied Ecology 2014, 51, 1304–1313 are not included. Moreover, authors include many “grey literature” that usually is not the best option in a scientific paper.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #2 for his helpful comments. Our responses on the relevant changes follow:

Reviewer #2 - Authors could rewrite this manuscript to be published for instance, as a review. However, they should improve references because many studies deal with beach nourishment such as Journal of Applied Ecology 2014, 51, 1304–1313 are not included.

Response - Following this important comment, we decided to change the manuscript type form article (i.e. research paper) to a review and we added the suggested reference and many more: 6, 9-12, 14, 76-77.  The changes are shown in track changes format as required.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is interesting and the topic it covers has great potential. However, the article is not structured correctly, it looks more like an essay than a research paper. It lacks a clearly stated goal or hypothesis. Research methods are also not presented. Literature is scarcely cited, practically not at all in some places. It could be a valuable review paper after a thorough revision and the addition of extensive literature. However, in my opinion, it is not suitable for publication in its current form. I put minor comments directly in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #3 for his helpful comments. Our responses on the relevant changes follow:

Reviewer #3 - The manuscript is interesting and the topic it covers has great potential. However, the article is not structured correctly, it looks more like an essay than a research paper. It lacks a clearly stated goal or hypothesis. Research methods are also not presented. Literature is scarcely cited, practically not at all in some places. It could be a valuable review paper after a thorough revision and the addition of extensive literature. However, in my opinion, it is not suitable for publication in its current form. I put minor comments directly in the text.

Response - Following this important comment, we decided to change the manuscript type form article (i.e. research paper) to a review and we accepted all the notes and the suggestions in the Reviewer #3 attached file, and corrected the manuscript accordingly. The changes are shown in track changes format as required.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have changed their article from “article” to “review” taking in consideration my major criticism to the previous article.