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.
I am satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript and am recommending that it be accepted for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Two expert reviewers have evaluated your manuscript and their comments can be seen below and in their attached PDFs. As you can see the evaluations are positive, however, both reviewers have a number of comments and suggestions that should be taken into account in a resubmission of your manuscript.
See edited Word version for comments/revisions using "track changes." (Editing/commenting/revising is much easier in Word than in a PDF, but could not attach Word version to the submission form, so will try to send it to editor separately.)
See edited Word version for comments/revisions using "track changes." (Editing/commenting/revising is much easier in Word than in a PDF, but could not attach Word version to the submission form, so will try to send it to editor separately.)
See edited Word version for comments/revisions using "track changes." (Editing/commenting/revising is much easier in Word than in a PDF, but could not attach Word version to the submission form, so will try to send it to editor separately.)
Made my comments/revisions in the Word version of the text. Use "track changes" to see them. (Editing/commenting/revising is much easier in Word than in a PDF, but could not attach Word version to the submission form, so will try to send it to editor separately.)
No major revisions, but one comment I had at the end of the paper is repeated here:
"Good paper! But there’s one thing that needs to be addressed or discussed: might there be a difference, or is there any evidence of a difference (citations?), in growth, colony complexity, age, etc. between colonies inhabiting artificial reefs and those found on natural hard bottoms? I think this is a big gap here. But also, addressing this could lead to all kinds of habitat conservation questions, if one of these habitats is shown to be “better” than the other for the corals. (As you know, these corals are starting to get a lot of attention from both fishers and resource managers.)
Do some digging around and see if this is the case. It’s worth discussing and even speculating about, even if there isn’t a lot of evidence one way or the other out there.
Don’t’ confine your answer to only this species, and don’t necessarily confine it to the exact parameters you studied.
That’s why I was a stickler about adding the word “artificial” when talking about your study sites."
This manuscript describes colony complexity, age and growth of four shallow-water populations of Leptogorgia virgulata, an octocoral (sea whip) common in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Eastern of North America). The ms is well written and organized. Literature is appropriate. Figures are relevant, but I made comments on the map, which should be improved. Other figures are clear and objective. Figure captions need some adjustments. Raw data was supplied, but I suggest that the authors revise names for the excel spreadsheets (not always clear), and a few other details mentioned in the pdf review. Make sure units and variable names are clear in the spreadsheet alone, without the paper.
The ms is a primary research study within the aims and scope of PeerJ. The research question is well defined, and considering the potential impact of the studied populations to anthropogenic activities, it is relevant as baseline data on the biology of the studied objects (corals). Methods are well described and detailed. I have specific comments on the pdf copy.
This study adds new information on growth rates and longevity of a common species, which is vulnerable to anthropogenic activities, including fisheries, common in the area. It also contributes to an understanding of basic morphology for the species, which is useful from an ecological and taxonomic point of views. The results are also interesting for comparison with results on the same species in other regions, which was discussed by the authors.
I have included detailed comments in the pdf copy of the manuscript . I have made a few comments that I would like to see addressed. Hence, I'm asking for major revisions to have an opportunity to revise your response. But overall, I think this was a well done project and that your manuscript is worth publication.
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.