Over, Under, Sideways and Down: Patterns of Marine Species Richness in Nearshore Habitats off Santa Catalina Island, California
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work provide an updated baseline of species richness from Catalina Island based on historical data and new data collected from 7 reef sites of Santa Catalina Island in Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA.
The ms is well written and documented and as such can be published in DIVERSITY after minor corrections.
In the methodology under Field Surveys it reads: Timed, roving visual surveys were conducted by scuba divers between May 2015 and September 2016 and from May to September 2022. Do they mean Sep 2021?
In Results
please clarify which is the additional phylogenetic group considered in this work (18) vs 17 reported by Looby and Ginsburg (2021).
In Discussion
line 230......which represents a 43% increase.... - no 325 additional taxa make a 42% increase.
lines 257-261 reads
In particular, the total number of nearshore species reported from Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA represents approximately 85% and 45% of the documented macroalgae and plants, 41% and 25% invertebrates and 62% and 20% of fishes from Catalina Island (Engle 1978) and the SCB (Murray and Bray 1993, Cross and Allen 1993), respectively.
Are Murray & Bray 1993 and Cross & Allen 1993 works referring only to nearshore biota? please clarify
lines 295-298 read
Several invasive invertebrate species reported from Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA 295 such as the bryozoans Bugula neretina, Watersipora subatra, W. subtorquata, the colonial as- 296 cidian Diplosoma listerianum and the sea anemone Bunodeopsis sp. also are cause for con- 297 cern given their ability to quickly settle and encrust hard substrates (Fofonoff et al. 2018,
Bugula neritina, W. subtorquata, and Diplosoma listerianum are cryptogenic species, not alien (non-indigenous). But indeed they are invasive everywhere. I suggest to move them under unit 4.3. Survivors, Visitors….
References
line 413: please give the journal in Trends Ecol Evol in full
suppl file
a) which are the additional species not provided in Looby and Ginsburg 2021?
b) why sp and spp are different taxonomic units if at least one species of the genus is present?
c)Systematic position of the species should be rechecked. For example
Chthamalus spp, Chthamalus dalli, Chthamalus fissus, Megabalanus californicus, Megabalanus tintinnabulum do not belong to Arthropoda: Hexanauplia.They are Thecostraca, Cirripedia
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript "Over, Under, Sideways and Down: Patterns of Marine Species Richness in Nearshore Habitats Off Santa Catalina Island, California".
Outlined below are responses to each of your comments/suggestions. Please refer to the updated manuscript draft for current page numbers and corrections/edits.
Best regards, David Ginsburg and Andrew Huang
METHODS
Reviewer Comment : In the methodology under Field Surveys it reads: Timed, roving visual surveys were conducted by scuba divers between May 2015 and September 2016 and from May to September 2022. Do they mean Sep 2021?
Author's Response: This was indeed a mistake on our part. We have corrected year accordingly (see Line 174)
RESULTS
Reviewer Comment: please clarify which is the additional phylogenetic group considered in this work (18) vs 17 reported by Looby and Ginsburg (2021).
Author's Response: In addressing this comment, we recounted each of the phylogenetic groups evaluated by Looby & Ginsburg, and those recorded in the current study. As it turns out, Looby & Ginsburg documented 16 phyla (accounted for in the supplemental data, but stated, incorrectly, as "17 phyla" in the main text). In the current study, 18 is the correct number of phyla recorded.
See Lines 258-260 for specific clarification in which we compare the number of phyla in the current (18) and previous study (16), as well as state the names of the "new" phyla observed (Nemertea and Platyhelminthes).
DISCUSSION
Reviewer Comment: line 230......which represents a 43% increase.... - no 325 additional taxa make a 42% increase.
Author's Response: We have corrected this statement to read "an ~43% increase". The value (42.6%) is based on an increase of 326 total species observed in the current study from total species reported by Looby & Ginsburg.
See Lines 16 and 430 for specific corrections.
Reviewer Comment: In particular, the total number of nearshore species reported from Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA represents approximately 85% and 45% of the documented macroalgae and plants, 41% and 25% invertebrates and 62% and 20% of fishes from Catalina Island (Engle 1978) and the SCB (Murray and Bray 1993, Cross and Allen 1993), respectively.
...Are Murray & Bray 1993 and Cross & Allen 1993 works referring only to nearshore biota? please clarify
Author's Response: Both Murray & Bray and Cross & Allen are referring to the Southern California Bight (SCB), which includes both nearshore and offshore waters (although, the focus of all 4 authors, is by and large, nearshore/subtidal habitats). Nonetheless, your point is well-taken, thus we have deleted the word "nearshore" to better clarify the stated finding.
See Lines 18-20 and 459-462 for specific correction.
Reviewer Comment: Several invasive invertebrate species reported from Blue Cavern Onshore SMCA 295 such as the bryozoans Bugula neretina, Watersipora subatra, W. subtorquata, the colonial as- 296 cidian Diplosoma listerianum and the sea anemone Bunodeopsis sp. also are cause for con- 297 cern given their ability to quickly settle and encrust hard substrates (Fofonoff et al. 2018,
...Bugula neritina, W. subtorquata, and Diplosoma listerianum are cryptogenic species, not alien (non-indigenous). But indeed they are invasive everywhere. I suggest to move them under unit 4.3. Survivors, Visitors….
Author's Response: Again, this is an excellent point (and one that I had not considered) regarding the cryptogenic species mentioned. The wording (as per your suggestions) in the main text has been modified accordingly.
See Lines 750-754 for correction.
REFERENCES
Reviewer Comment: line 413: please give the journal in Trends Ecol Evol in full
Author's Response: We have edited and re-organized all references within the manuscript. Three references cite the journal Trends Ecol. Evol. We believe that we have corrected this issue.
See Lines 1305, 1309 and 1329 for corrections
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Reviewer Comment: a) which are the additional species not provided in Looby and Ginsburg 2021?
Author's Response: We have edited the Appendix to reflect all "newly added" species to the checklist. Specifically, all newly added species are labeled with a superscripted letter to indicate their status (as stated in the edited caption; i.e., "New taxon added to checklist").
See Appendix caption and data for corrections
Reviewer Comment: b) why sp and spp are different taxonomic units if at least one species of the genus is present?
Author's Response: This is a good question, and frankly, one that is not easily answered. Given the nature of this study, we had to rely on an assortment of primary and gray literature publications, reports, etc. Sometimes, these authors would label a species with the open nomenclature abbreviations Sp. or Spp. indicating that an individual or group of species within a genus were either unidentified or not yet described. Presumably, the unidentified or undescribed taxon/taxa represent the presence of a species not yet documented in Blue Cavern SMCA...and not a species that is simply difficult to identify (or unknown to the person conducting the survey). Nonetheless, as per your suggestion, we have included text clarifying the total species count includes both "valid" and "undocumented" species. This is perhaps a more liberal approach than warranted, however, this is also one of our justifications for publishing an 8-page supplemental appendix of all species (valid and undescribed) reported (i.e., we state that our list contains 1,091 species...but then leave the reader to decide whether this is overstated, or not).
See Lines 233, 235, 254, 465, and Supplementary Appendix caption for corrections.
Reviewer Comment: c)Systematic position of the species should be rechecked. For example
Chthamalus spp, Chthamalus dalli, Chthamalus fissus, Megabalanus californicus, Megabalanus tintinnabulum do not belong to Arthropoda: Hexanauplia.They are Thecostraca, Cirripedia
Author's Response: This was an oversight on our part. As per your comments, we have edit the Appendix data accordingly.
See Appendix, page 4, 4th column near bottom
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
158-174 lines: I strongly recommend give more information about Data Analysis.
162 line: Lobby and Ginsburg 2021 must be include in the list of the references.
170 line: Castro et al. 2006 must be include in the list of the references.
In Figure 2: Must be using "Number of species documented" on the y-axis instead "Number of species".
In Figure 3: Must be using "Species presence" instead "Species Present".
361-370 lines: I strongly recommend these lines will include for discussion.
370-375 lines: I strongly recommend these lines will in conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript "Over, Under, Sideways and Down: Patterns of Marine Species Richness in Nearshore Habitats Off Santa Catalina Island, California".
Outlined below are responses to each of your comments/suggestions. Please refer to the updated manuscript draft for current page numbers and corrections/edits.
Best regards, David Ginsburg and Andrew Huang
METHODS
Reviewer Comments: 158-174 lines: I strongly recommend give more information about Data Analysis.
Author's Response: We have carefully edited/clarified the manuscript as per the suggestions provided by Reviewer 1 and yourself. In this case, however, is there a specific component of the Data Analysis section you would like us to clarify or expand upon? From our perspective, this section is complete. We're happy to comply, please advise.
See Lines 239-251 for current corrections
RESULTS
Reviewer Comments: In Figure 2: Must be using "Number of species documented" on the y-axis instead "Number of species".
Author's Response: Thank you for noting this change. We have clarified the Y-axis label accordingly.
See Fig 2
Reviewer Comments: In Figure 3: Must be using "Species presence" instead "Species Present".
Author's Response: We have clarified this figure as per your suggestions. Instead of "species presence" however, we felt that "species recorded" is a more appropriate label.
See Fig 3
DISCUSSION
Reviewer Comments: 361-370 lines: I strongly recommend these lines will include for discussion....AND 370-375 lines: I strongly recommend these lines will in conclusions.
Author's Response: This is an excellent suggestion. We have rearranged and modified this text in the Discussion and Conclusions accordingly.
See Lines 456-466 and 1074-1079
REFERENCES
Reviewer Comments: 162 line: Lobby and Ginsburg 2021 must be include in the list of the references.
Author's Response: We have edited and re-organized all references within the manuscript. We believe that we have corrected this issue.
See Line 1224 for correction
Reviewer Comments: 170 line: Castro et al. 2006 must be include in the list of the references.
Author's Response: As mentioned above, we edited and re-organized all references within the manuscript. This particular reference was removed.
