Crustacean Decapod Assemblage Associated with Seagrass (Zostera marina) Beds in Southern Waters of Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript diversity-688389 titled Crustacean decapod assemblage associated with seagrass (Zostera marina) beds in southern waters of Korea, talk about the decapods assemblages associated with Zostera marina beds located in two sites with different opening to ocean circulation as well as the effects of the neighbour habitats and seasons afecting the assemblages composition.
The main problem of this manuscript is the conceptual design. Two sites with different “habitat types” and each of these habitats are only present in each of the two sites sampled, so habitat replication is not present.
I don’t understand why the authors separated Zostera marina beds in different habitats in function to its proximity to different bottoms. Zostera marina grows on soft bottoms and obviously the surrounding habitats have an influence on the decapods assemblages compositions but this is something to talk on discussion section.
Summarizing, Z. Marina beds studied in the present manuscript are the same habitat and only unvegeted bottoms is a different habitat. I recommend change the analysis design, with the factors (Z. Marina beds vs unvegeted bottoms), Site (2levels), Seasons (4levels) and diel samplint times (day vs night). Focus the manuscript story in relation to the effect of the substrate types (correlated with the hydrodynamic circulation of each site, Dongdae Bay as a close bay and Aenggang Bay as an open Bay), the effects of seasons and surrounding habitats on decapods compositions.
Additionally, a new introduction with a best structuring is necessary.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction needs a thorough review. I miss a clear story line, which present the current information as well as gaps of knowledge about the topic. References are poor.
An idea to write a good introduction is start the paragraph with the information know until the present time and finish them talking about the gaps about this topic.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data analyses
Did you check the variance heterogeneity of your data and the residual normality prior to ANOVA analysis?
Line 114. Eliminated the phrase “ The Shannon-Weiner index was the response variable”, because is the same that “diversity”.
Line 114: Indicate each of the habitat type used as level of the factor Habitat type.
Line 99: 2.2 Sampling, Add the number of samples taken.
Line 125: (The A metric multidimensional... ) delate “A”
RESULTS
Line 149: (per 100m-2)
Line 155: “Mean species richness, abundance, and diversity varied by factors of habitat type, season, and diel patterns”. This phrase is not correct, because ANOVA results not sustain that diversity varied by these factors.
Line 162: P<0.05 not P≤0.05
Line 165: Statistical analyses are required to confirm that abundance is significant higher in Aenggang Bay.
Line 175-177. Rewrite this phrase, is confusing.
Line 178-180: “Pairwise comparisons of habitat and season showed significant differences in decapods assemblage structures between Dongdae and Aenggang bays during spring, summer and autumn (Table 4) “ Site is not a factor in your analyses, why do you make this affirmation? There are not statistical analyses that supported. The same conflict in the phrase of the lines 182-182 and 192-194. In your statistical design, sites is not a factor, you cannot make affirmation about sites because you don’t have habitat replications, for example seagrass bed adjacent rocky shore is only at Dongdae Bay.
Linea 204-213: Is difficult to follow, you talk about sites, when your factors are habitat types and seasons. Your factor site is nested in the factor habitat, so you loss this information. You can talk about habitat types or sites, but not about both fadctors.
DISCUSION
Line 233-244. This paragraph will change when compared Z. marina vs unvegated with the new analysis design that I propose you.
Line 265-286. Rewrite it in function of the new analysis design that I propose you
Line 302-315. I think that some species probably present a diel pattern. Is suggest you analysis the diel patterns of the most abundant species.
Some references about the effects of surrounding habitats on invertebrate assemblages compositions.
Mateo‐Ramírez Á and García Raso E. (2012) Temporal changes in the structure of the crustacean decapod assemblages associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows from the Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00496.x
Mateo‐Ramírez Á, Urra J, Marina P, Rueda JL, García Raso JE (2016) Crustacean decapod assemblages associated with fragmented Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea): composition, temporal dynamics and influence of meadow structure. Marine Ecology 37(2):344-358
Mateo-Ramírez Á, Urra J, Rueda JL, Marina P, Raso JG (2018). Decapod assemblages associated with shallow macroalgal communities in the northwestern Alboran Sea: Microhabitat use and temporal variability. Journal of Sea Research 135:84-94.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
General comments
The manuscript diversity-688389 titled Crustacean decapod assemblage associated with seagrass (Zostera marina) beds in southern waters of Korea, talk about the decapods assemblages associated with Zostera marina beds located in two sites with different opening to ocean circulation as well as the effects of the neighbour habitats and seasons affecting the assemblages composition.
Point 1: The main problem of this manuscript is the conceptual design. Two sites with different “habitat types” and each of these habitats are only present in each of the two sites sampled, so habitat replication is not present.
Response 1: We agree that there was some problem in conceptual design for statistical analyses. According to reviewer’s comments, we are re-setting the design with two study locations (Dongdae vs. Aenggang), two habitat types (seagrass vs. unvegetated) being nested within study location (two habitat types nested only at Aenggang Bay), four seasons and two levels of day/night samples. We performed all analyses using re-designed data set, but only univariate analysis (i.e. ANOVA) designed study location-habitat type as combined factor (i.e. seagrass bed in Dondae bay, seagrass bed in Aenggang Bay and unvegetated habitat in Aenggang Bay) due to difficulty of nested design as well as analyzing interactions among factors.
Point 2: I don’t understand why the authors separated Zostera marina beds in different habitats in function to its proximity to different bottoms. Zostera marina grows on soft bottoms and obviously the surrounding habitats have an influence on the decapods assemblages compositions but this is something to talk on discussion section.
Response 2: We aggregated two seagrass beds in Dongae Bay for further analyses accordingly.
Point 3: Summarizing, Z. Marina beds studied in the present manuscript are the same habitat and only unvegeted bottoms is a different habitat. I recommend change the analysis design, with the factors (Z. Marina beds vs unvegeted bottoms), Site (2levels), Seasons (4levels) and diel sampling times (day vs night). Focus the manuscript story in relation to the effect of the substrate types (correlated with the hydrodynamic circulation of each site, Dongdae Bay as a close bay and Aenggang Bay as an open Bay), the effects of seasons and surrounding habitats on decapods compositions.
Response 3: We modified multivariate analyses design suggested by reviewer, with factor location (fixed two levels), habitat (seagrass vs unvetgeted, nested within region, two random levels), season (fixed four levels) and day/night (fixed two levels).
Point 4: Additionally, a new introduction with a best structuring is necessary.
Response 4: A new revised introduction has been provided.
INTRODUCTION
Point 5: Introduction needs a thorough review. I miss a clear story line, which present the current information as well as gaps of knowledge about the topic. References are poor.
An idea to write a good introduction is start the paragraph with the information know until the present time and finish them talking about the gaps about this topic.
Response 5: The introduction was reconstructed according reviewer’s comments. The first paragraphs give a thorough account of the state of research on the ecological importance of seagrass beds and structuring faunal assemblages. The latter paragraphs point to gaps in the current research and sets the stage for this study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data analyses
Point 6: Did you check the variance heterogeneity of your data and the residual normality prior to ANOVA analysis?
Response 6: We tested variance homogeneity for community variables using Levene’s test, and then used ANOVA test because equality of variances of our data was accepted.
Point 7: Line 114. Eliminated the phrase “ The Shannon-Weiner index was the response variable”, because is the same that “diversity”.
Response 7: Removed this phrase accordingly
Point 8: Line 114: Indicate each of the habitat type used as level of the factor Habitat type.
Response 8: We newly set factors for ANOVA, i.e. station (study location across seagrass vegetation), season, day/night. Three stations were seagrass bed at Dongdat Bay, seagrass bed and unvegetated at Aenggang Bay.
Point 9: Line 99: 2.2 Sampling, Add the number of samples taken.
Response 9: We added sampling number taken in current study (see line 119)
Point 10: Line 125: (The A metric multidimensional... ) delate “A”
Response 10: Removed accordingly
RESULTS
Point 11: Line 149: (per 100m-2)
Response 11: Revised accordingly
Point 12: Line 155: “Mean species richness, abundance, and diversity varied by factors of habitat type, season, and diel patterns”. This phrase is not correct, because ANOVA results not sustain that diversity varied by these factors.
Response 12: We revised this sentence into “Mean species richness and abundance varied by factors of habitat type, season, and diel patterns, but not diversity.”
Point 13: Line 162: P<0.05 not P≤0.05
Response 13: Revised accordingly
Point 14: Line 165: Statistical analyses are required to confirm that abundance is significant higher in Aenggang Bay.
Response 14: Turkey’s post-hoc tests revealed mean species richness and abundance were significantly higher in seagrass bed than unvegetated at Aenggang Bay (see Figure 2).
Point 15: Line 175-177. Rewrite this phrase, is confusing.
Response 15: We rewrote the sentence implying more clear results. The COV value is indicative which factors are stronger or the strongest determining variation of decapod assemblage structure.
Point 16: Line 178-180: “Pairwise comparisons of habitat and season showed significant differences in decapods assemblage structures between Dongdae and Aenggang bays during spring, summer and autumn (Table 4) “Site is not a factor in your analyses, why do you make this affirmation? There are not statistical analyses that supported. The same conflict in the phrase of the lines 182-182 and 192-194. In your statistical design, sites is not a factor, you cannot make affirmation about sites because you don’t have habitat replications, for example seagrass bed adjacent rocky shore is only at Dongdae Bay.
Response 16: Again, according to reviewer’s suggestion, we re-designed statistical analyses with factor location (fixed two levels), habitat (seagrass vs unvetgeted, nested within region, two random levels), season (fixed four levels) and day/night (fixed two levels). As a result of PERMANOVA, location, habitat, season and interaction of location-season have significant influence structing decapod assemblage. Therefore, pairwise comparations conducted for the factors of location-season interactions. The sentences were also changed accordingly.
Point 17: Linea 204-213: Is difficult to follow, you talk about sites, when your factors are habitat types and seasons. Your factor site is nested in the factor habitat, so you loss this information. You can talk about habitat types or sites, but not about both factors.
Response 17: Again, we used now analytical design for the PERMANOVA and CAP analyses. The re-drawing CAP plot performs using location-season interaction because PERMANOVA showed significant interaction between those factors. In CAP plot, distinct separation among samples and contributions of common species to this separation, but the trend of current CAP plot is similar with previous results.
DISCUSION
Point 18: Line 233-244. This paragraph will change when compared Z. marina vs unvegetated with the new analysis design that I propose you.
Response 18: We revised this paragraphs according to the results from new analysis design.
Point 19: Line 265-286. Rewrite it in function of the new analysis design that I propose you
Response 19: Again, we revised this paragraphs according to the results from new multivariate analysis design.
Point 20: Line 302-315. I think that some species probably present a diel pattern. Is suggest you analysis the diel patterns of the most abundant species.
Response 20: According to reviewer’s suggestion, we created bar graphs and performed statistical analyses for the abundance of common decapod species with respect to diel changes. As a result, all common decapod species did not show any diel differences in abundance, although slightly higher abundances for most common species during night. The high mean abundance for decapod assemblage during night likely contribute together all decapod species. Thus, we did not conduct further analyses of diel effect for the decapod assemblage.
Point 21: Some references about the effects of surrounding habitats on invertebrate assemblages compositions.
Response 21: We included following references for describing introduction in the revision.
Mateo‐Ramírez Á and García Raso E. (2012) Temporal changes in the structure of the crustacean decapod assemblages associated with Cymodocea nodosa meadows from the Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00496.x
Mateo‐Ramírez Á, Urra J, Marina P, Rueda JL, García Raso JE (2016) Crustacean decapod assemblages associated with fragmented Posidonia oceanica meadows in the Alboran Sea (Western Mediterranean Sea): composition, temporal dynamics and influence of meadow structure. Marine Ecology 37(2):344-358
Mateo-Ramírez Á, Urra J, Rueda JL, Marina P, Raso JG (2018). Decapod assemblages associated with shallow macroalgal communities in the northwestern Alboran Sea: Microhabitat use and temporal variability. Journal of Sea Research 135:84-94.
Reviewer 2 Report
This study on seagrass assemblages is well done, well presented and analyzed, and will be an excellent contribution to a the literature on the subject. I have done a bit of minor editing (insertion of the article "the" here and there, correction of a few typographical errors) using track changes in the Word copy. I have also made a few comments,suggestions on the manuscript that will help in improving a fine manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This study on seagrass assemblages is well done, well presented and analyzed, and will be an excellent contribution to a the literature on the subject. I have done a bit of minor editing (insertion of the article "the" here and there, correction of a few typographical errors) using track changes in the Word copy. I have also made a few comments, suggestions on the manuscript that will help in improving a fine manuscript.
Response 1: All scientific names for decapods were checked from WoRMS.
Point 2: Seagrass cover, biomass less in the summer due to higher temperatures, lower salinity? Please say why summer species richness and abundance lower in the summer.
Response 1: Definitely the low species richness and abundance of decapod during summer are probably due to high temperature and low salinity.
Point 3: The Bauer reference cited was primarily a field (collections) based study with some laboratory observations.
Response 1: We included field and laboratory observations for Bauer’s results accordingly.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1) I appreciate all the changes done. I only have two more suggestions: 1) Homogenize the factor "location", sometimes you talk about this factor as station, other as location or region. Please unifique criteria and use only one of them.
2) Correct P≤0.05 and put P<0.05
Author Response
Point 1: Homogenize the factor "location", sometimes you talk about this factor as station, other as location or region. Please unifique criteria and use only one of them.
Response 1: Factor name of “region” was changed into “Location”, but “station” was not changed because “station” is combined factor of location (Dondae bay and Aenggang Bay) and habitat (seagrass and unvegetated).
Point 2: Correct P≤0.05 and put P<0.05.
Response 2: All inequality signs were changed accordingly.
In addition, we changed station name as Dongdae Bay as follows’
DT → DS(t), DR → DS(r)
