Challenges and Strategies for Sustainable Mangrove Management in Indonesia: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides an in-depth review of the challenges and opportunities that Indonesia faces in developing a sustainable management strategy for the conservation of mangrove ecosystems. The co-authors have carried out an analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) to help identify progress and gaps of knowledge in management policy, research and restoration approaches further proposing lines of action to succeed in the goal of protecting this vulnerable ecosystem. Overall this is a valuable contribution that can help guide future actions in research, practice and policy making to improve our efforts to preserve mangrove ecosystems in Indonesia and the tropical coasts of the world.

There are however, some shortcomings that should be addressed:

1) The English language is quite deficient and this reviewer and the co-authors are strongly recommended to send their manuscript to a professional editor before resubmitting. An example of the problems identified is the use of the countable noun “mangrove” without an article, making it seem as a personal pronoun, where personal pronouns are exclusively applied for people. Countable nouns need an article, if singular:

(L50) “The mangrove is a unique ecosystem”- or “Mangroves are unique ecosystems”, but not “Mangrove is a unique ecosystem”.

(L57) “The mangrove forest is also” or “Mangrove forests are also…” (note plural in “forests”) instead of “Mangrove forest ecosystem is also”

….

and so on all along the document.

2) The manuscript is presented with the format of an “original research” contribution rather than a “review” contribution. Where the methods for the SWOT analysis is insufficiently described and the results are  represented by a single lengthy and difficult to read table. Where as the “discussion” contains the major elements of the review.

The paper would benefit from structuring as a review piece where one of the subheadings (at the end of the manuscript) presents the SWOT analysis and discussion of the major highlights of their results (simplify the table), could complement the full results on supplementary material.

3) While it is understood that the review is focussed on Indonesian mangroves, the lessons learned from other countries could greatly benefit the approach and suggestions towards management, policy and conservation of mangroves in Indonesia… for example, including in the review critical research and restoration approaches related to hydrological rehabilitation (with successful examples from southeast Mexico Zaldivar et al. 2010), understanding the phenology and synchrony between pioneer species and hydrology  (Balke et al. multiple publications) or the interdependence between microbiota (bacteria, in addition to AM) and mangrove performance (relevant works on this topic by researchers such as Yoav Bashan, Gina Holguin, or Inoue Tomomi). The association between bacteria and mangroves is very relevant to this topic and remains a major gap of knowledge that can contribute to ecosystem diagnostics. As rightly pointed by the co-authors, mangroves are characterized by nutrient deficiencies in their sediments and mutualistic interactions between mangroves and bacterial functional groups can inform on developmental stages, ecosystem health and restoration trajectories, but these interactions unfortunately, remain little understood.

Correct typing mistakes in Fig. 1

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article provides a macro view on the sustainable management of mangrove and it is of great significance to the conservation of aquatic ecosystem. The manuscript also displays the strategic plan of the government and relevant administrations for ecosystem restoration. The article is generally well-written. However, there are still several problems to be solved. The most important problem in the manuscript, in my opinion, is the long complexed sentences. Several sentences are too long for the readers to grasb the core information. The authors need to make the sentences more concise. Detailed comments are as follows:

1. line 72-73, leads to the degradation
2. line 82, replace "had" with "has"
3. line 98, delete "main"
4. line 101, replace "between" with "among"
5. line 116, related to the sustainable mangrove management
6. line 180, replace "In spite of" with "Despite that", and delete "that"
7. line 182, replace "are" with "have been"
8. line 183, due to the poor law enforcement
9. line 189, replace "that" with "and"
10. line 196-199, the sentence is too long, rephrase it
11. line 206, replace "having" with "with"
12. line 207, delete "various" and "often"
13. line 210, replace "due to" with "relevant with"
14. line 231-239, this paragraph is huge however involved with repeated information. Please refine it
15. line 244, what is "the urgency of mangrove forests"
16. line 262, replce "enjoyed" with "gained"
17. line 300, proposed
18. line 420-422, the sentence is too long and not influent. Revise it
19. line 467, know the high germination rates?
20.  Fig. 2 is in low resolution. The authors should provide a high-quality figure 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx