From Plates to Baits: Using a Remote Video Foraging System to Study the Impact of Foraging on Fouling Non-Indigenous Species

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study proposes a combined approach to document fish foraging behavior on fouling assemblages with a case study in a Mediterranean marina. The text is well written with clear logic. Overall, I think it is a good contribution. I only have some minor comments listed below. Some editorial comments are listed at the very end.

Line 176: Please specify when the experiment was carried out. For example, all in the afternoon or in the morning? Are these trials conducted in one day across multiple places, or in one single location across several days? S. cretense are territorial, and fixing the location may bias the result. Something to look out for in the design of the experiment.

Figure 4: Explain what the blue lines and the circle mean here. Also, show the composition of the first two principal components.

lines 301-304. Have any of the NIS identified in this study been documented as toxic to either fish or humans? More specific discussion is needed on the identified NIS, since "fouling non-indigenous species" is the main topic of this study. Is there any potential or documented harm based on the experiment results?

line 305-308. Finish this sentence. It is not complete.

line 324: What are other major fouling consumers in the area based on literature?

line 341: What is a bulldozing effect? I don't think it is a common term.

line 344: It is not clear to me how the previous sentence implies this one. Please clarify.

Editorial comments:
page 2 line 56: invasive species are not biological traits.
line 143: Remote. Also, check other places.
Figure 2: Add the degree symbol for the latitudes and longitudes just like in the text on lines 148-149.
line 211, 212: Add the words represented by the acronyms on the first appearance.
line 243: Remove.
Table 2: The top bar is missing. It is more common to use ** to denote significance.
line 339: noticeable to the foraging fish.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• information on the composition of the fish fauna in the area where the underwater experiments (exposure of plates as bait for fish) were carried out should be added
• information should be added about the time of day and water temperature when underwater experiments were performed with plates exposure as baits for fish
• abbreviation PVC should be explained when it noted in first time (line 91) but not later (line 151)
• Figure 1: in the caption for this figure it is necessary to explain what the words “Arborescent”, “Encrusting” and “Massive” mean
• Tables 1, 2 and 3: the meaning of nearly all abbreviations and words should be explained – df, MS, Pseudo-F, P(perm), Treatment. Trials, Residuals, Time. In the Table 1 the “Tr” is explained but not used in the table. These tables are quite difficult to understand for those who have not used these statistical criteria before. Authors should consider how this task can be facilitated for those who will read the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no comments

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Your work is interesting.

In Line 48 the numbering of references is incomplete. Numbers 7 and 8 are missing. Please insert them and renumber all in the text.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf