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.
The authors have addressed all my comments that took into consideration Referee 3 comments. This referee was invited to revise the new version but did not accepted the challenge. I'm happy with this new version of the document. The manuscript seems ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xavier Pochon, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Even though I recognize that you made changes to the text, it does not seem to me that they managed to meet what referee 3 had recommended and that I considered necessary.
Please see the annotated PDF file with comments and suggestions. As you will see I continue to find some problems with the use of the English language that prevents the manuscript to be clear and easy to understand. However English is not my primary language. Therefore I recommend you seek English proof writing expertise to revise the text.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
I agree with the three reviewers that the English language used prevents a good and clear understanding of the contents. Therefore, I recommend the rewrite of the manuscript in order to have a clear and concise account of the work done with clear hypotheses and conclusions. I agree with reviewer 3 that the abstract is too long and, as well as, the data used is limited. Therefore, I recommend you follow the suggestion of this reviewer and produce a shorter manuscript. The discussion should be revised as well. Moreover, suggestions from all reviewers should be considered when preparing the new version of the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
1. I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed work. If there is a weakness, it is in the English language.
The English language is highly recommended to be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand the text. The author should pay more attention to the articles, which are mostly omitted, and the usage of prepositions throughout the whole text. Grammar tenses are also required to be revised - some examples where the language could be improved include lines 25, 80, 304. Punctuation also deserves more attention. Some editing has been suggested.
2. The introduction is clearly shown and full background information is given within the framework of this research topic
3. Literature well referenced and relevant. Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm
4. Figures are relevant, well described, but not all of them are of high quality. In figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 please make the figures on x and y axes more legible.
5. Raw data supplied.
1. Original primary research within Scope of
the journal.
2. Research question well defined, relevant
and meaningful.
3. Methods described with sufficient detail and
information to replicate.
1. All underlying data have been provided;
they are robust, statistically sound, and
controlled.
2. Conclusions are well stated, linked to
original research question and limited to
supporting results
I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed work. Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful. Methods described with sufficient detail and information to replicate. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question.
If there is a weakness, it is in the English language. The English language is highly recommended to be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand the text. The author should pay more attention to the articles, which are mostly omitted, and the usage of prepositions throughout the whole text. Grammar tenses are also required to be revised - some examples where the language could be improved include lines 25, 80, 304. Punctuation also deserves more attention. Some editing has been suggested.
At the same time, please adjust the captions in the scales in the figures so that with a higher resolution in the article they would be readable. Figures are relevant, well described, but not all of them are of high quality. In figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 please make the figures on x and y axes more legible.
1. BASIC REPORTING
The paper has discussed invasive ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi massive blooms in the northern Adriatic Sea in August - October 2021, including the variability of egg production of blooming populations and the role of environmental factors in governing their potential variability. Authors analyzed biometry, chemical composition, and fecundity of M. leidyi, sampled at different locations in the Gulf of Trieste.
The subject is important taking into account aggressive invasions of ctenophore, M. leidyi, which has not been studied in details in the Adriatic Sea.
In addition, authors studied the contribution of massive occurrence of this gelatinous invasive species as source of organic matter (OM) and nutrients for the impacted ecosystem, which attracted insufficient attention in gelatinous species investigations.
2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
Authors are examining the factors, affecting the chemical composition and egg production of M. leidyi individuals at different locations in the Gulf of Trieste during bloom season in August - October 2021.
They also contribute to understanding of the microbes-gelatinous-OM interactions of M. leidyi, which are crucial for accurate integration of gelatinous component into oceanic biogeochemical budgets.
However, I would recommend that authors compare their findings with published relevant data on M. leidyi development in other recipient areas and to stress impact of different parameters of ecosystem, which will help them to provide a deeper insight in dynamics of M. leidyi development and better assess its seasonal dynamics and possibility of further spreading in the Adriatic Sea.
3. VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS
The results of field observations and experimental work are clearly described. All underlying data have been provided. Results are robust, statistically sound, and controlled. Conclusions reflect obtained results.
Comparison with the published data is provided. However, I recommend including detailed analysis of recent publications on the subject (see below).
Literature review is presented and relevant. However, some references cited in Table 2 are not included in the list of references.
English language is ok.
Discussion.
Authors argue the following main findings:
Variations in ambient seawater environmental parameters are not reflected in the chemical composition of blooming ctenophore population.
This is important conclusion.
However, in future I recommend authors to look at completing bloom of gelatinous zooplankton, particularly by the end of reproduction time, which can represent large impulse of organic matter (OM), rich in proteins and characterized by low carbon to nitrogen ratio. It can disrupt quality and quantity of the ambient organic matter in water body, provoke harmful algae blooms and change microbial loop (see Shiganova et al., 2019; Shiganova et al., 2023)
Egg production is highly variable within population.
This statement is well argued.
I also recommend to study longer time span of seasonal reproduction to identify maximal and minimal temperature for spawning in condition of the Adriatic Sea (see also Shiganova T.A., Alekseenko E., Kazmin A.S., 2019; Shiganova, 2020).
Reviewer’s conclusion: Article may be published after above mentioned minor corrections.
Also, there are a few typos (e.g., line 213 M. leidyi written incorrectly, etc.). Please proofread the text carefully.
Please check references in Table 2 since not all of them are included in the list of References.
I suggest some useful publications for including in literature review:
Shiganova T.A., A.S. Mikaelyan, S. Moncheva, K. Stefanova, V.K. Chasovnikov, S.A. Mosharova, I.N. Mosharova, N. Slabakova, R. Mavrodieva, E. Stefanova, D.N. Zasko, B. Dzhurova. Effect of invasive ctenophores Mnemiopsis leidyi and Beroe ovata on low trophic webs of the Black Sea ecosystem Marine Pollution Bulletin. 2019. T.141. 434-447
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.02.049
Shiganova Tamara A. Adaptive strategies of Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz 1865 in different environments of the Eurasian Seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 161.111737 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111737
Shiganova T.A., Alekseenko E., Kazmin A.S. Predicting range expansion of invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz 1865 under current environmental conditions and future climate change scenarios // Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 2019. Vol. 227. 106347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106347
The paper by Renik et al. is presenting data on the Chemical composition and egg production capacity throughout bloom development of ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi in the northern Adratic Sea. Mnemiopsis is one of the top invasive species and appeared in the Mediterranean Sea over several decades. The paper is suffering from several flaws. The most obvious is the writing, which looks more like a report than a scientific paper. The authors should refrain from using “we”, avoid repetition and overall need to improve the writing. The abstract is way too long. The findings have very limiting interest and confirm data already reported for this species. I encourage the author to may be compact the information and seek publication of a short note.
The experimental design is correct, although collecting 30 individuals per sampling day will have been more robust in terms of statistics.
They could have shortened the number of steps in the preparation of the samples. Consecutive freezing of the samples might lead to loss of compounds
The findings do concur with what is already known for this species, but nothing knew is brought by this study
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.