All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
As reported by the two reviewers the authors have improved all the points raised by the referees so the paper can be accepted for publication. Referee 2 just reported a typo error in the discussion section that can be easily revised.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Toonen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
After a carefull re-rewieving of the manuscript, I found it improved. The authors replied and addressed to all comments. I think that the MS is suitable for publication on PeerJ.
I would like to congratulate the authors for the good job!
Nothing to add.
Nothing to add.
Nothing to add.
The manuscript has been improved, addressing the concerns I expressed in the revision of a previous version. I do not have any further comment, except that in the discussion there is a typo ("Syllis brasiliensis" instead of "Sphaerosyllis brasiliensis") and I endorse the publication of the manuscript in the current version.
no comment.
no comment.
no comment.
Both the referees underlined the high quality and originality of the manuscript. However, they raised some issues that need your attention (especially referee 2).
Therefore, please consider their comments and suggestions when you will resubmit the new version of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The paper by Nogueira et al. evaluates the structural and functional patterns of polychaete assemblages of three Mussismilia species with different coral morphology. An in depth analysis of taxonomical and fucntionl diversity of polychates inhabiting different species of corals has been conducted to assess the effect of environemntal heterogeneity on benthic communities.
Overall, the topic of the paper and the approach used is in line with the scope of the journal. Authors performed a comprehensive study of the epifaunal polychaetes associated with Mussismilia spp. The English is quite clear, literaure and references sufficient, figures and tables provided offer a clear support to the main MS. Results are well structured and they support initial hypotheses.
The experimental design performed is rigorous and well defined to assess the initial research questions. Methods are described with details and clear to the reader. The authors tried to use a multiple approach considering both taxonomical and functional diversity. This gives strenght to the reported results and main findings.
Main findings are clearly reported. I would suggest some minor changes in the Result section. Please find detailed comments in the attached PDF. Statistical analysis is robust enough to support the results and initial questions. The approach used by the authors, considering both taxonomical and functional diversity is not totaly new, however the study is a good contribution to improve our knowledge in the field of functional diversity and functional traits to understand the ecosystem functioning.
Overall I found the MS well presented and it deserved to be published n PerrJ after minor revisions. Please, find the pdf in the attachment with comments and suggested revisions to follow before the MS being suitable for publication. Main
The manuscript by Nogueira and co-authors is mostly clear, sound and well-organised. The English expression is overall acceptable, but it can be improved (in particular, some sentences are rather convoluted and their meaning is not really clear).
The research question is well defined and the experimental design is correct.
Findings are mostly sound and interesting, especially in the context of the comparison in the resolution provided by taxonomic vs functional diversity.
The manuscript by Nogueira and co-authors represents a really interesting study about the influence of habitat structure (and specifically, of the tridimensional structure of corals) on the taxonomic and functional diversity of benthic polychaetes. The sampling design is clear and correct, and results are rather linear, showing that branched corals are characterised by a higher species diversity than massive corals, but this does not translate into an evident difference in the functional diversity. The manuscript is clear, sound and well-organised, and I endorse its publication in PeerJ. However, there are some points that in my opinion are worth of a revision.
The first point refers to the use of "habitat structure", starting from the first line of the abstract ("habitat structure shows positive effects..."). In some cases "habitat structure" just means "habitat structure" (and, as such, it is just a property of natural systems that has an effect on living assemblages, but the effect might be positive or negative), while in other cases I would expect that it means "the increase of habitat structure" or "increasing habitat complexity" (as in the case study, comparing congeneric corals with different tridimensional development). I suggest to carefully check all the points referring to habitat structure, because if they do not refer to the general property, but to a specific condition of it, I think it should be changed into something more suitable.
A second, general point is represented by the conclusions the Authors are getting from their study. Troughout the discussion, the Authors seem to consider the polychaete component as representative of the functional diversity of the whole macrozoobenthic assemblage. However, some apparently under-represented or directly missing functional traits (e.g., traits associated to feeding or space exploitation) might be covered by other organisms, and that their absence in the analysed polychaete assemblage is due to over-competition, rather than to an actual unsuitability of those traits. Since polychaetes are not isolated from the other components of the assemblage, I think that the Authors should discuss the possibility of the influence of competitive interactions in shaping the distribution of functional traits. I think that having an estimate of the relative abundance of polychaetes with respect to the other macrozoobenthic groups would be useful.
Line 97: what do the Authors mean by "archaic species"? This term makes me think about extinct ancestors of currently living species, but it is clearly not the meaning it has in this case. I suggest to clarify this point.
Lines 122-123: I suggest to delete the reference to the sampling permit, as it is already in the Acknowledgements section (however, if it is mandatory for any reason that it is also in the Material and Methods section, it can stay).
Line 212: "brood their young inside the body" - do the Authors mean "viviparous"?
Line 214: It is not clear what the Authors mean by "both of them", as "both" implies a comparison between two things (variables in this case), while lines 212-213 list four groups of polychaetes classified according to their reproductive mode. I suggest to rephrase all this sentence, because it is very heavy (also check "those direct developers in benthic environments", I am sure there is a more direct way to put this concept).
Line 229: "the species abundance that was found in higher numbers" - this is rather obscure; do the Authors mean "the species with the highest abundances" or "the highest species abundances [found in the study]"?
Line 231: I do not agree on the idea that syllids have a generalist feeding strategy. In fact, the incredible species diversity this family shows in hard-bottom assemblages would suggest a very limited overlapping in resource exploitation even between congeneric species, but even avoiding to take into account my (admittedly, rather flimsy) hypothesis, the study by Giangrande et al. (2000: Cahiers de Biologie Marine 41: 55-65) would rather suggest a trophic niche separation between different species. I think that the idea of generalistic feeders comes mostly from the scarcity of studies and from the objective difficulty of studying gut contents in such small polychaetes.
Lines 237-238: Syllis gracilis is not a cosmopolitan species. Alvarez-Campos et al. (2017: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 109: 138-150) demonstrated that it includes several cryptic and pseudo-cryptic lineages, the majority of which are limited to a rather narrow distributional range, and later Langeneck et al. (2020: Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 58: 66-78) demonstrated that in the Mediterranean Sea (type area) there are at least four species, two of which co-occurring in the same environments. Unfortunately none of these studies included Brazilian individuals, but it is likely that they do not correspond to the actual Syllis gracilis.
Lastly, the order of the three coral species in the graphs is not always consistent. To ease the reading of the paper, I recommend to have the three species in the same order in all graphs.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.