Feeding Strategies and Biological Traits of the Lessepsian Migrant Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) in the Messenian Gulf, SW Greece
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper, titled “Feeding strategies and biological traits of the lessepsian migrant Pterois miles (Bennett, 1828) in the Messenian Gulf, SW Greece” by Stefanos M. Koilakos et al. provides a preliminary assessment of the biological and ecological characteristics of P. miles in the southwestern Greek waters of the Mediterranean, which is of significant value for understanding the ecological role and potential impact of this invasive species. However, the manuscript needs major revisions before it can be accepted for publication.
Here are the review comments and suggestions:
Major Comments:
Comment 1: The introduction provides ample background information on the Mediterranean ecosystem and discusses the impact of biological invasions. Suggest the authors further elaborate on the specific impacts of Pterois miles on the Mediterranean ecosystem as documented in existing literature.
Comment 2: In the diet analysis, suggest providing more information on the ecological importance of prey species and their role in the local food web.
Comment 3: The discussion section provides an in-depth interpretation of the results and compares them with existing literature. Suggest the authors consider discussing the ecological and conservation implications of the results, as well as potential impacts on management strategies in the Mediterranean region.
Comment 4: The conclusion summarizes the main findings of the study and proposes management suggestions. Suggest the authors further discuss how these findings can be applied to practical invasive species management strategies.
Comment 5: Suggest the authors check that all figures and supplementary materials are clear, accurate, and consistent with the content of the text.
Comment 6: Overall, the manuscript is of high writing quality, but suggest the authors polish the language to ensure fluency and professionalism.
Minor Comments:
Comment 7: Line 111 - I don't quite understand what formaldehyde solution (37%) 8 % v/v means.
Comment 8: Line 163 - I'm not sure if the format of "year-1" is correct.
Comment 9: Lines 204-205 - The authors state that "Lionfish growth was found to be isometric (b=3,06)", while the b is not equal to 3.
Comment 10: Line 207 - F=0.062; P=0.806) is written as (F=0.062; P=0.806), and there is written as "There".
Comment 11: Lines 227-229 - The authors state that "The scale reading revealed four age groups ranging from 1 to 4 years, with the 3-year age group dominating the sample (33 individuals), followed by the 2-year age class (29 individuals). Only five years old individuals were found", I don't quite understand what "Only five years old individuals were found" means.
Comment 12: Lines 247-248 - The authors state that "Of the total stomachs (n=79) examined, 54 (72.15%) contained food while 22 (27.85%) were empty", while the number 54 should be 57.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
no
Author Response
Please see the attached PDF.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a study on the feeding habits of an invasive species in a Greek bay.
The paper is very well written and the context is nicely outlined in the Introduction.
The fish sounds like a generálist, opportunistic consumer. Can we really speak about "feeding strategies"? "Strategy" sounds more adequate for selective consumers. Maybe "diet" or "feeding habit" would be better?
Why is the Messenian Gulf an invasion hotspot? Why not Cyprus or Crete? Any idea on this?
IF the dietary differences between the 69 and 10 individuals caught in different season are not studied, it is not really relevant information that they were caught in these two seasons. Or was there any difference between the diet of these groups of individuals?
lines 48-51: are they mesopredators or they lack predators? these are vcontradicting. actually, in case of invasive species, their predators are at least as important as their prey.
line 174: "taxonomic" instead of "systematic"
line 252: it is only 57 given that 22 were empty, right?
line 260: marine algae may appear in the stomach but these fragments are probably not really part of the diet, just appear there as noise (see line 381). maybe this is not even something to discuss.
line 291: please manage this line being together with the text, not in between the figure and the caption
lines 408-410: I think it sould be extremely important to see the time series of these predators of damselfish, and whether competition is Strong or weak could be decided immediately. are there time series (Stock assessment, catch data) for these species?
Modelling (and especially predictive models) could be helpful for management. One example providing a system-level, holistic approach, suggesting multiple strategies:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130261
Finally, an almost philosophical question: if the temperature of the sea is increasing and thermophilic species invade, is this neccessarily a problem or can also be, to some extent, a solution to a problem? If the thermophilic invaders are better matching to the novel environmental conditions, they can just better maintain ecosystem functioning. You may comment on this.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe authors have revised the script well. This manuscript could be accepted for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno
Author Response
Thank you
